Richard Dawkins Vs Bill O'reilly

[RezaMikhaeil]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g[/url]

[Guest T-Bone]

This video shows more of what Dawkins believes:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-jjDLKMswM&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-jjDLKMswM&NR=1[/url]

to paraphrase: Religion is bad because it tells people not to sin.

[Didymus]

"I saw Apollo, man, I saw him down there, and he's not lookin too good."

[farglefeezlebut]

O'Reilly is not a skilled apologist, but both parties were surprisingly polite.

Mr Dawkins said: "This is the only life you're going to get. IT's a precious life. It's a beautiful life. It's something that we should live to the full, to the end of our days."

Judging by that, he has converted to Catholicism and is vigourously upholding teaching on the sanctity of life.

Edited May 4, 2007 by farglefeezlebut

[Aloysius]

Dawkins, like most moderns, has as his principal motivation deep inside not so much a search for the truth but a desire to justify his behavior.

When I meet an atheist who has arrived at his position principally because of a sincere search of the truth, I usually slip on the ice of hell in time to see the sky filled with flying pigs.

If I had a trillion dollars for every atheist I met who didn't believe in anti-religious atheism principally because it helped him to justify this or that behavior, I'd still be a poor college student who can't afford the education I'm buying.

haha... just read the book "Decadent Moderns" to see how this applies to all the founders of most schools of modern thought.

don't get me wrong: there are some respectable agnostics who believe thusly because of an honest search of the truth. I've just never met an atheist like that; and most agnostics I've ever met aren't like that either (they're a sizable minority among agnostics)

[Katholikos]

I tried to be an atheist, but eventually I was overcome by common sense.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1264553' date='May 4 2007, 04:41 PM']I tried to be an atheist, but eventually I was overcome by common sense.

Likos[/quote]

We should have a debate, Mr. Dawkins VS Katholikos! I'd sponsor that if I had the money!

[dairygirl4u2c]

Dawkins talks about how we don't believe in Zeus etc. That is true but, as far as Jesus, as OReilly was saying, Jesus is a personal God. In terms of God as a notion, an intelligence at the minimum, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monsters are not analogous. The analogy does make a point, that we can't be sure of the intelligence exists, but it's not an analogy that is full proof. (no analogy is) That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random.

That's not to say belief is warranted though. It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been) THe CC teaches taht even if it were a series of infinite things, God would still be the cause a fortieori. Something caused teh infinite chain. But, that's not warranted, necessarily. And again teh bike analogy here doesn't work as well other than to make the genearl point.
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

Looking at the world itself, belief or disbelief is unjustified. If the world is complex, does it make sense to say that something even more complex made it? Where'd that complexity come from?? If God can just be, the world can just be. In fact, Ockam's razor might say the simplest solution is the most probable.

But More philosophically, we have every second of every day not being probable. That tomarrow is going to happen is more justified by God than by chance, I would think. And evolution just boom out of nowhere for humans. The evidence is there for evolution I think, but that it happened so fast etc isn't very probable that I can see. But of course, I fall back into my original argument that if God can just be, the unprobable tomarrow can just be too, and God may not be the best answer bc not simple. but this is a notable argument.

But Ultimately, belief is more rational than unbelief given certain signals from life. Miracles primarily. We have people who are healed etc with no proof. An atheist would say probability means that people will be healed, and sometimes that will align with a healing service etc and be just a coincidence. I say, if that's true, isn't the burden of proof on the atheist to show an atheist or something that's had a miracle, unexplainable phenonmen? It could be they don't say anything about it so we don't know, but I've yet to see it.
I do suppose I could fall back on that it's something that we simply don't know about, a power we have, without God. The probability that that'd be the case is low, but God is perhaps lower.

But Ultimately ultimately. Then we also have experiences of people. apparitions. near death expereiences. these could be of the mind, but taht's starting to get grasping at straws.... given the scientific evidence of near death experiences and people who are often in apparitions etc.
To fall back on God is not the simplest answer does not fly here because they are pointing at God, or something bigger at any rate.

Edited May 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus if ya got down to the specifics of Jesus, there's actually good evidence for him. whereas there's not for zeus.

if dawkins beleives in the idea of something bigger and not necessarily "god" as we call, then maybe i shouldn't diss him exactly. depends on what he means by God. I keep a close eye on him, seen him on south park, oreilly, colbert, good morning america etc, but they are all not very well prepared, so I never see Dawkins when he's truly challenged.

Edited May 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

what Dawkins doesn't recognize is the immense difference between Monotheism and Polytheism; he needs to get schooled in the Greek Philosophers before he starts spouting this spaghetti monster Zeus stuff. They recognized Polytheism as erroneous, but reasoned out a one God by nothing other than reason.

When there is a monotheistic revolution in society; and I mean a real one, not just that the number of gods comes down to one but that the idea about what God is changes into this transcendent other-than-the-world reality, then we have a whole new view of religion. I'm not entirely convinced all the monotheistic religions of the world have had this, for my thoughts on whether Islam had it find my subject Islam as Pagan Monotheism? on the Debate Board. Anyway, this is where the crux of the focus should be: looking at the fundamental differences between how gods of old were treated and how the one God in true monotheism is thought of; He becomes this philosophical force, this basis of existence, the foundation of reality... such that ultimately, the first question that should be approached when saying "do you believe in God" comes down to "do you believe in Existence"? And then we define what Existence is; and all our Theology about God is merely how we describe the attributes of Existence itself.

Every sane and rational person should believe in Existence, that which causes everything to exist. That I believe that Existence is a Trinity of persons and Mr. Dawkins believes that Existence is just a fact should be the first stepping stone in a discussion. Since "existence" causes time to exist, I reason that it must be outside of time. Since existence causes matter and limitations, it itself must be infinite. Since "existence" by nature causes something to exist; I reason that outside of time it causes something else which is eternal and infinite to exist (and the Father begets the Son before all ages). And I reason that that act of causing something to exist is itself infinite and eternal outside of time by all the same reasons (the Holy Ghost); and it seems to me only these three things become necessary to note about Existence itself as an idea; because that makes it consistent within itself and no more progressions are necessary to its nature. There's all sorts of things I think would be fruitful from a real study of what "Existence" is.

I think a lot of the anti-philosophical nature of fundamentalism and other types of non-historical protestantism gives rise to the easier analogy between our God and pagan gods of old: because basically, they begin to treat our God as if he were just like those gods; anthropomorphizing Him into something guided by His own temperaments; one god in number only but not as this transcendent principal force distinct from the world. god is in hurricane Katrina and all sorts of other arbitrary things; god doesn't like the scientists who try to say we came from monkeys; god wants us to do this or do that and not ask any questions about it. it comes down to what pagan gods of old were, except this time it's only one in number.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes, as a caution though, if we start saying existance, or being too vague, we start getting into territory that's not really very meaningful. if our only perceptions of god is an essense, or existance, that thing that caused time to be etc, then it's not of much help, i would think. not that it's not worthwhile to speculate. we have to start getting into things like intelligence etc.

[Aloysius]

yes, but I'd like to illustrate that in Judeo-Christian monotheism God is no longer some conjecture like Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God becomes the all-in-all definition of what Existence is: all made clear in His response to Moses about His Name: His name: "I am"

it's not just this random personality in the sky; it's the end-all definition of what all personality is, of what Existence is. it's not even Plato's one-god who lives in the ideal world; He is the all-encompassing definition of the Ideal World. judeo-Christians are no longer playing anthropomorphic dress-up; though Christians believe God "anthropomorphized" Himself into one part of history, and that God theomorphized man from the very beginning in His image and is in the process of theomorphizing us; haha, okay, so making up words is fun

I mean, after that's settled we can debate till we're blue in the face what the nature of it is, whether there is intelligence in it, whether there is personality in it; but to say Christians (read: Catholics, because some Christians are monotheistic in number only) have conjectured up a flying spaghetti monster or something on parallel with Zeus is ridiculous.