It really is fascinating to me that atheists and other non-believers spend SO much time thinking about God and thinking about how people with faith feel, putting forward the suggestion that we're scared of death or need an emotional crutch or maybe we're under-educated (not like non-believers obviously because they're all super-intelligent). It's the non-believers who write the longest posts about faith and belief. Why is that? I don't spend any time at all thinking about people without faith or trying to disprove their theories.

Most inquiring minds spend a lot of time thinking, it's not unusual.
Everything is fascinating to me personally, If it's unacceptable to believe blind faith a rather silly concept then I'm guilty.
That's not to say I don't have faith, I just don't have A faith, there's a universe of difference.

I wasn't referring to you Kizzy, as strange a concept as that might be, I really don't read that much of what you write. Your second line makes no sense to me anyway, so I'll leave it there.

Livia

surely it is better to look at the evidence and make a judgement using the evidence. not many religious people are doing that, which is why it appears atheists care so much more.

I didn't say you were referring to me, and it makes perfect sense to me so I'm happy with that, I don't look for approval.

Because if the believers spent too long thinking or writing about it, they probably wouldn't be believers any more? :shrug:

Or was that a rhetorical question...

Fair point, I also think that faith from a religious perspective can be almost considered as fickle as fashion... as they are moulded to conform to the social norms of the day.

Your lucky we do

Someone has to if we are to progress as a species

Here's a long post Liv from a believer in God:

Outside his own field of expertise, Dawkins is - transparently - nothing more than a STUPID secular bigot.

In this totally embarrassing 'interview', presenter Evan Davies could not have been any less probing and more obsequious, yet Dawkins failed to capitalise on the 'easy ride', and - as he does in his over-hyped book The God Delusion - thoroughly exposed his intellectual limitations and his penchant for logical fallacies, deceit, and self-contradiction.

Don't take my word for it, but instead, let's take Dorkins' advice and "think for ourselves" and "look at the evidence":

Dorkins states in the 'interview': "You should be allowed to believe anything you like... But that you shouldn't impose your beliefs on other people".

And:

"Any creed that thinks it has the right to say; 'Not only do we believe this, but you've got to believe it too'; that is a very serious violation of everything that democracy stands for."

This is nothing but hypocrisy and self-contradiction from a 'cretin on a mission' who has created his own foundation, built websites and uses the media and social media for the express purpose of IMPOSING his warped BELIEFS upon other people:

"THE RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION

A) --"Founded in 2006 by Richard Dawkins, the foundation’s mission is to realize Richard’s vision to remove the influence of religion in science education and public policy, and eliminate the stigma that surrounds atheism and non-belief."

Do the aims of this 'vision' reflect Dorkins statement to Evans that; "You should be allowed to believe anything you like... But that you shouldn't impose your beliefs on other people"?

B) -- "The Richard Dawkins Foundation sees its job as nothing less than changing America’s future."

Dorkins ego, fanaticism, and megalomania knows no limits, and in the above, the moron makes no secret of his belief that he can convert to his extreme closed-minded form of Atheism, an entire country such as America, where over 80% of the population are religious.

C)-- "We believe people should be free to be open about non-belief without risking their job, business, personal and family relationships or standing in the community."

The statement above is totally preposterous and hypocritical given Dorkins persistent employment of 'Ad baculum' (thinly disguised threat) tactics in arguments against other scientists who disagree with his ludicrous fanatical views on Evolution and Religion.

He has a long history of arrogantly arguing that such scientists should be censured and ignored by the 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' majority, and once famously contended that no one who agrees with Mother Teresa about the sanctity of life should “be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize”.

Dorkins himself admits in this very interview that he once stated in The New York Times that "anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane." (more below) and the obvious offensiveness of such crassness is magnified when one is made aware that over 800 eminent scientists have (courageously) 'come out of the closet' and signed 'The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism' statement which reads: "We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Dr. John G. West, associate director of 'Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture' said:

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 (then) scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory." Dr West added ominously: "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

A documentary by Ben Stein; "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed " exposes the degree of intimidation which scientists who openly oppose Dorkins and his Evolutionist cronies are subjected to, including those who have lost funding and even their jobs just for questioning Darwinism.

But back to this interview:

Dorkins maintains that he is not in favour of a 'Burqua Ban' because "it seems" to him "to be a violation of personal liberty" and later states that a Burqua Ban is "a matter of opinion" and "society has no right to impose on other people".

I think that this highly educated man should invest a little time in researching the definitions of the word; 'Society':

"Society: people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values".

In my opinion, where the conduct of an individual or group within an existing and long-established society becomes a potential threat to the security and safety of that society, then that society has the right to express its concerns, address the cause of that concern, and impose its collective will upon the individual or group responsible for the potential security risk. This includes, the wearing of Burquas.

In addition - and also in my opinion - 'Personal Liberty' is an alien concept for the majority of Burqua wearers back in their native countries (or those of their parents and grandparents) and if such a 'personal freedom' has to be sacrificed in the democracy in which they are now living in order to ensure the continuation of such democracy, then that is one of the collateral effects of the terrorism which seeks to destroy that very democracy - terrorism which is actually being perpetrated by members of the very same religion and ethnicities as those wearing the burquas.

Contrary to Dorkins opinion, given the escalating terrorism from Islamic extremists, the banning of burquas by France (or any other Western Democratic country) is NOT "a matter of opinion" but a logical and very necessary temporary security measure.

Though Dorkins admits that the sight of a woman in a full burqua "offends" him, he evades supporting a ban and sideshifts that it; "does not matter" what he feels ... It's "irrelevant" what he feels and "nobody else should abide by what" he "feels".

This is yet more self-contradiction and hypocrisy when one considers how persistent are his attempts to impose on others his feelings and opinions on Religion and Evolution, and how utterly intolerant he is seen to be of anyone who resists or opposes those views and 'feelings'.

When the subject of self-funded 'Religious Schools' which - obviously - do not subscribe to Dorkins views on education - is raised by Evans, and the question is posed of whether that is a "Freedom of Speech thing; to be able to teach what they want"? Dorkins responds with; "That's very difficult, because there we're trespassing on the tussle between the the 'Freedom of Speech of Parents to impose their views on children and the freedom of children to be educated without having erroneous views - and we now know that in some cases that it definitely is erroneous it's not a matter of opinion - imposed upon them."

Not only is this idiot confusing 'Freedom of Speech' with 'Parental Rights and Responsibilities' but he is once again arrogantly contending that some (strangely and deliberately undefined) views of the parents should not be 'imposed' by them onto their children because they are incontrovertibly "erroneous".

We are not told just what these erroneous 'views' are, or why they are incontrovertibly 'erroneous', nor, therefore, are we provided with any substantiating evidence to back up Dorkins assertions.

If he is referring to Creationism and Religion - and I believe that he is - then he is deliberately dishonest in his assertion that such views are incontrovertibly 'erroneous' because neither can be PROVED to be incontrovertibly 'erroneous' - no more than Evolution or Atheism can be proved to be incontrovertible TRUTHS.

Dorkins then goes on to agree with the teaching of History and Literature in schools, and even (falsely)condones teaching ABOUT Religion but without indoctrination which - he maintains - would "go against the spirit of critical thinking".

We know already that he also fervently encourages the teaching of Evolution and Darwinism in schools, and here Dorkins predictably has no concerns regarding indoctrination.

So let's just examine some of the History still being taught in some schools as 'FACT and TRUTH' with the aid of certain TEXT BOOKS which still contain such 'FACTS and TRUTHS':

HISTORY

'In 1870 at Hisarlikf, northwestern Turkey, German Heinrich Schliemann discovered the mythical city of Troy, and King Priam's treasure'.

Documentaries proclaim it, the text books state it, and the teachers teach it, so our children are right to believe it Mr Dorkins, correct?

WRONG.

Schlieman actually excavated way below the layers of Priam's Troy and actually destroyed Homer's fabled city, and what's more, Schlieman 'planted' 'Priam's treasure, which wasn't really Priam's treasure at all because it belonged to an era one thousand years older than Priam's Troy.

I will address the EVOLUTION and DARWINISM taught as FACT and TRUTH in our Schools, Colleges and Universities later in the next post because it is such a lengthy and complex subject.

For now, back to the 'interview':

Dorkins displays the same lack of moral fibre which saw him refrain from supporting the 'Ban on Burquas' when he continues by saying that "Religious Fanatics are apt to take the law into their own hands on occasions ...threaten people and use physical violence".

This is the 'Truth that dare not speak its name' - or ISLAM.

Dorkins MEANS Islamic fanatics but lacks the courage to state as much.

For those who disagree with my contention, then read on:

When queried by Evans about his (odd) statement that more Nobel Prizes have been won by members of Trinity College Cambridge than the "entire Muslim population of the world" , Dorkins explains that he was astonished to learn from Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks that; "20 to 25% of all Nobel prizes have been won by Jews".

(There are less than 14 million Jews in the world. as opposed to nearly 2 billion Muslims and 7.4 billion people in total so Dorkins is right to be astonished even though I wasn't.)

Dorkins wanted to use this learned fact concerning the incredibly disproportionate numbers of Jewish Nobel Prize winners to highlight the fact that, in contrast, Islam has "stagnated in the scientific field since the middle ages", yet - once again - he 'chickens out' of doing so because he; "Can't do that" because that would really upset people because of Palestine" and he's very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people in Israel.

(Just how 'Palestine' is relevant here, Dorkins fails to explain?)

Anyway, this lack of moral fibre is the reason why "at the last minute" Dorkins "struck out Jews and inserted Trinity College Cambridge"

Yet this incident does more than just reiterate that Dorkins lacks the courage of his convictions when it comes to all things 'Islamic', it also reinforces the fact that he repeatedly and stupidly contradicts himself - as can be attested by the next statement he makes in response to Evans suggestion that there are more "gentlemanly ways" to make the intellectual point that Islam has not been a great success:

He responds: "It's just a fact". Whether or not it upsets people is less important to me than the dramatic nature of the fact which ought to be looked at somebody ought to be saying 'Why?"

So here we have an idiot who confesses to substituting "Trinity College Cambridge" for "Jews" BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT TO UPSET PEOPLE, then not 60 seconds later IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME SUBJECT declares: "It's just a fact". WHETHER OR NOT IT UPSETS PEOPLE IS LESS IMPORTANT TO ME etc."

Further proof that an academic can be a buffoon is provided when Dorkins makes a pathetic attempt to mitigate the fact that he wrote In the New York Times "that anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane.":

He explains to Evans; "Now that sounds like an extreme Point of View, it's actually a FACTUAL Point of View because the word IGNORANT is not a disparaging word..."

Oh... OK then Richard, what about Stupid or Insane?

No? No explanation for those descriptors?

Dorkins maintains that his role is to try to persuade people to think for themselves and look at evidence, and dare I suggest that such is excellent advice - starting with this B.S. interview?

Instead of blindly believing that he is a genius and that therefore we should accept his views as Gospel and applaud them, perhaps it would be more prudent to actually LISTEN to what he is REALLY saying, then analyse it.

Perhaps then, we will see that he is a devotee of Strawman tactics, that he constantly and stupidly contradicts himself, that he lacks the courage of his convictions, that he passes off theory and deliberate lies as facts, and that he often speaks utter drivel.

For those not convinced (or those self-blind to the truth of what I write) then here's a few gems from this intellectual 'tour de force':

DORKISM 1) “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” ― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.

The above issues from the mouth of the most fanatical decrier of 'Creationism' and 'Intelligent design -- "BLINDLY PROGRAMMED'!!!!

A quick dictionary definition:

programme ˈprəʊɡram/verb
past tense: programmed; past participle: programmed

1. provide (a computer or other machine) with coded instructions for the automatic performance of a task.

2. cause (a person or animal) to behave in a predetermined way.

Programmed by WHO Richard?

Now look at these other contradictions from the Master Buffoon:

DORKISM 2) “Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence.” ― Richard Dawkins.

DORKISM 3) Evolutionists Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. --Richard Dawkins.

Which one is it Richard? 2) Intelligent life working out A REASON for its own existence? Or 3) LIFE HAS NO PURPOSE... NOTHING BUT BLIND INDIFFERENCE and therefore NO REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE?

Now work this one out:

DORKISM 4) "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig" -- Richard Dorkins Tweet

I rest my case - for now.

Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves?
Thomas Jefferson

I liked his point about the word ignorance. calling someone ignorant is not some sort of low class insult, people are ignorant, all of us are in various ways. we need to stop treating words like "ignorant" or "bigot" as if they are offensive terms, they are not. they are not insults. they have real meaning and they apply to everyone in one way or another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone's ignorance or bigotry.

I agree, it's as misinterpreted as 'offensive' things can only be offensive if the intention was to offend.

Thinking of the current situation in the UK the neo liberal ethos that we are all governed by, if you compartmentalise the actions and the ideology how do they measure in comparison to Christian or religious teachings...
Could we hand on heart say that judging by the actions that as a country our government currently exhibits a Christian ethos?

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists -


?

Totally agree Kirk........and if you study the so called Theory of Evolution there are gaps, vast gaps that cannot be bridged where the theory cannot account for the changes from one species to another.

The "missing link" is probably the most famous ie how did we get here from apes ? why are there still apes ? But the jump from ape to Cro Magnon man is not explained by the Theory of evolution.

Don't get me wrong I do believe the theory helps us understand how we have come about but I still think the final blueprint when known will have some major differences from this theory.

How arrogant of Mr Dawkins to claim it is 100% proof........rubbish, it is still only a theory and as stated has many holes in it.

:facepalm:

There's a gap.....quick! put god in it!

:hehe:

::hmph::hmph

Sorry Nedusa :hehe:I should have added


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

That's all right L.T...........thanks for the narrative...interesting.

:joker: This video is bull LT.

There is no debate, just a series of sound bites - mainly - Dorkins spouting - mainly - juvenile drivel.

The video has been produced to favour Dorkins so without seeing the full 'debates' we cannot appraise how effective Dorkins was in his arguments or who 'won', but based on what we do see, I could have readily dismantled his weak propositions and left him looking foolish - and I am no intellectual.

:nono:

This is a fave of mine with Howard at Revelation TV (which I am a bit addicted too and have been for years :hehe:)

Dawkings has the patience of a fictitious saint