02 Jan 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat film was a clip from the BBC T.V. show "Root of all evil", and Dawkins was talking about the delusions of the religious reinforcing each other, as opposed to the lonely delusion that somebody has when they think they're Napoleon. The clip was shot in Lourdes, France, not at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The people walking behind him were Catholics, not Jews. The supposed quote (that you never actually hear Dawkins say) does not appear in the November 2007 Time Magazine interview with Dawkins. A Google search for the quote revealed no hits. Pretty strange, huh? You'd figure if Richard Dawkins called the Holocaust "a myth" in Time Magazine, there would be a record of it somewhere on the internet. This is such an obvious hack job that it is literally incredible that you could fall for it. Interesting, though, that you would be prepared to believe that a prominent atheist would deny the Holocaust. Did you even search for countervailing evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpZaKj7-zEU
Wow.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by bbarrOuch. Yeah, you're right. 😳 Once bitten, twice shy, I guess.
That film was a clip from the BBC T.V. show "Root of all evil", and Dawkins was talking about the delusions of the religious reinforcing each other, as opposed to the lonely delusion that somebody has when they think they're Napoleon. The clip was shot in Lourdes, France, not at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The people walking behind him were Catholics, not Jews. The ...[text shortened]... minent atheist would deny the Holocaust. Did you even search for countervailing evidence?
02 Jan 08
It is interesting how he frames the gathering of Catholics as having a shared delusion. Dawkins states positively that God does not exist. But how can he prove this? His confidence strikes me as irrational in this respect. At least Christians develop a rational belief in God based on the testimony of scripture. But methodological naturalism's bounds are habitually overstepped for the purpose of making broad declarations about ultimate reality. Thoughts?
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasMethodological naturalism does not preclude a priori arguments of the sort Dawkins presents in his recent screed. Of course, Dawkins is not particularly sophisticated about arguing a priori, and philosophers generally recognize that his arguments aren't very good. If by "prove" you mean "show with certainty", then he cannot prove that God does not exist. If by "prove" you mean "provide reasons sufficient to justify belief", then he certainly could prove that God does not exist. Or, rather, a more philosophically sophisticated author could, like Mackie in his book "The Miracle of Theism".
It is interesting how he frames the gathering of Catholics as having a shared delusion. Dawkins states positively that God does not exist. But how can he prove this? His confidence strikes me as irrational in this respect. At least Christians develop a rational belief in God based on the testimony of scripture. But methodological naturalism's bounds ...[text shortened]... lly overstepped for the purpose of making broad declarations about ultimate reality. Thoughts?
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasDawkins does not "state positively that God does not exist." What he does say is that it is that it is almost certain that God does not exist. Almost. He is fully aware of the fact that God's non-existence cannot be proven.
It is interesting how he frames the gathering of Catholics as having a shared delusion. Dawkins states positively that God does not exist. But how can he prove this? His confidence strikes me as irrational in this respect. At least Christians develop a rational belief in God based on the testimony of scripture. But methodological naturalism's bounds ...[text shortened]... lly overstepped for the purpose of making broad declarations about ultimate reality. Thoughts?
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don't have the brainpower of Bbar or DoctorScribbles and I approach this stuff from a different perspective. Let me ask you this: From a "congruence perspective", who would you rather buy a car from? Richard Dawkins or say John Hagee? How about Richard Dawkins or Creflo Dollar? Benny Hinn or Richard Dawkins? Richard Roberts or Richard Dawkins?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpZaKj7-zEU
Wow.