Richard Dawkins vs Conall and Donall

[MoreCoffee]

He can be condescending, but he never says things like "you just need to be as educated as me and you'll understand". The character in this video is much more condescending than richard dawkins actually is.

I reckon Conall and Donall got it right

 

[HammerOfThor]

I reckon Conall and Donall got it right

Why?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why?

Because religion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why?

Because dismissing evidence because it is "religious" is as absurd as dismissing it because it is "secular".

And it was a very amusing video clip, so it must be true

 

[HitchSlap]

Because dismissing evidence because it is "religious" is as absurd as dismissing it because it is "secular".

And it was a very amusing video clip, so it must be true

Evidence is independently objective, and not anecdotal. Surely you understand the difference?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Evidence is independently objective, and not anecdotal. Surely you understand the difference?

No, I must be ignorant like Donall

I reckon your post is a little like the Richard Dawkins character in the video clip - kind of condescending.

 

[dms1972]

I seriously hate atheists being thought of in terms of Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is not atheist Jesus people, I didn't even know who he was until I joined this site. And I do not agree with his graceless methods.

I do too, I've seen some (old school) atheists be quite rational and actually interested in Truth and therefore prepared to change their position, and often polite and courteous. I don't really have a difficulty with them nor to I go looking for them to convert them.

I dislike the whole atheist vs theist debate, we are all very much in the same position when it comes to knowledge of truth, we should be humble enough to recognise that Truth is a gift. If we knew so much Edison would have hit on the incandesent bulb much quicker. All credit to him for keeping going through about 6000 types of 'wire' till he hit on a bamboo filament that lasted 1200 hours!

Dawkins is fortunate however to have some ballast in his life and great christians at times to debate with, which keeps him from flying completely of the planet. Sadly some writters don't give thought to how what they write will affect others who are not so able to disentangle their thought after reading his book.

I thought both the Conall and Donall characters where not representative and neither was Mr Dawkins.

Dawkins debates Plato would be one I would like to see.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, I must be ignorant like Donall

I reckon your post is a little like the Richard Dawkins character in the video clip - kind of condescending.

I reckon you're choosing to ignore the bit about evidence being objective and independently verifiable.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon you're choosing to ignore the bit about evidence being objective and independently verifiable.

It looks objective to me.

 

[HitchSlap]

It looks objective to me.

I understand.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I understand.

History is like that. The evidence is in the stories in writing and in the artefacts left behind. The resurrection left many artefacts like churches in the holy land. The resurrection left many stories behind too, in books like the four canonical gospels and the letters of saint Paul.

Conall and Donall got it right without being condescending.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Because dismissing evidence because it is "religious" is as absurd as dismissing it because it is "secular".

But Richard Dawkins doesn't do that, he dismisses any claims made without sufficient evidence. The video makes it seem like he dismisses it because it's religious.

The actual Richard Dawkins would say something like "where is the evidence for the resurrection?" not "the resurrection never happened because it's religious" or "the resurrection never happened because no one else has been resurrected"

 

[HitchSlap]

History is like that. The evidence is in the stories in writing and in the artefacts left behind. The resurrection left many artefacts like churches in the holy land. The resurrection left many stories behind too, in books like the four canonical gospels and the letters of saint Paul.

Conall and Donall got it right without being condescending.

Churches exist, therefore religions are right?

Stories exist, so they must be true?

The Gospels are all myths, copied from each other, with John being completely different than the other three.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Churches do exist and the gospels also exist; these are evidences. Dismiss them and they will still be there.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Because dismissing evidence because it is "religious" is as absurd as dismissing it because it is "secular".

And it was a very amusing video clip, so it must be true

See this is why I said it'd be funny to a few people. Because they don't understand why it's not funny.

 

[rockytopva]

Churches exist, therefore religions are right?

Stories exist, so they must be true?

The Gospels are all myths, copied from each other, with John being completely different than the other three.

When I was young I lived in Michigan. I remember being in the arctic cold, smoking a cigarette, wondering how on earth there could be a God.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. - Matthew 11:27

All of that changed when the Holy Spirit revealed unto me the E/c2 (energies and light) that are of the Father. Especially of spiritual varieties...

E (Energy) - Warmth, love, motivation
c2 (Light) - Faith, hope, charity, gentleness, goodness, joy, etc...

All of these energies are present at a birth of a baby. But the child becomes corrupted by contact with earthly things and therefore needs purification before he can shine out in his original clarity. All these things are possible through the power of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnV5eq2MiOA

 

[GrimKingGrim]

When I was young I lived in Michigan. I remember being in the arctic cold, smoking a cigarette, wondering how on earth there could be a God.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. - Matthew 11:27

All of that changed when the Holy Spirit revealed unto me the E/c2 (energies and light) that are of the Father. Especially of spiritual varieties...

E (Energy) - Warmth, love, motivation
c2 (Light) - Faith, hope, charity, gentleness, goodness, joy, etc...

All of these energies are present at a birth of a baby. But the child becomes corrupted by contact with earthly things and therefore needs purification before he can shine out in his original clarity. All these things are possible through the power of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnV5eq2MiOA

People like me describe this as tripe. Others call it anecdotal. And very minute few call it hard evidence.

 

[MoreCoffee]

See this is why I said it'd be funny to a few people. Because they don't understand why it's not funny.

Yes, we are obviously too stupid to understand; like the cartoon Richard Dawkins says.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Churches do exist and the gospels also exist; these are evidences. Dismiss them and they will still be there.

How are those evidences? Scientology meetings aren't evidence for scientology, and neither is L. Ron Hubbard's book.