Atheism's poster boy admits there may be a god

1. 61

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   Yep.
   
   "In a debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, atheism poster boy Richard Dawkins admitted there's a god. Well, a chance of one. A very small chance..."
   
   http://now.msn.com/living/0224-dawkins- … liams.aspx

   replyreport
   1. 61

      pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Is this suppose to be new?
      
      This is the kind of propaganda religious people feed to the masses, that article is pure sensationalism.
      
      Here you go:
      
      "Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later,[4] he has suggested he might be '6.9'."
      
      As seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o … robability
      
      The episode aired on April 11 2008, so those "news" are very late.
      
      You can watch the interview here:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fUYUvvJiW0
      
      And next headline "Richard Dawkins admits there may be fairies!"

      replyreport
   2. 78

      kenneth averyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      a CHANCE? I may look and sound like a fool and that is fine by me...but let me live and die as a fool if for KNOWING that MY GOD lives is a foolish notion. I need not say more.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         A god cannot live.  For a god to live they must also be capable of dying.  Mortality and all that.
         
         
                                                

         replyreport
         1. 66

            aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If (a) God cannot live because He cannot die, then He is NO GOD.
            
            A mortal being does not fit the role of god, by definition!

            replyreport
            1. 59

               A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Then, Jesus was never mortal if he fit the role of a god, by your own definition. The obvious conclusion from that is the fact Jesus could not have died if he was never mortal.
               
               So much for the main tenet of Christianity, you just showed it to be false.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I created/admitted no such "loophole" (falsehood).
                  
                  Jesus was/is both 100% human and 100% divine.
                  Not that hard to understand, really.
                  
                  By His (humanity, &) death, He can relate to you (a mere mortal)
                  and by His Resurrection (divinity), YOU can relate to God, (YOUR immortality).
                  
                  But, you already knew all that. You know everything! You are far superior in intellect to us mere deluded fools.
                  Why do I even bother telling you all this, anyway?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     It is not hard to believe from the perspective of someone who is indoctrinated, but it certainly is not something to be understood, by any stretch. There is zero evidence for divinity of any kind, hence your argument is entirely a false premise.
                     
                     
                     
                     Pure baloney. You set up a false premise and support it with a logical fallacy. Hilarious.
                     
                     
                     
                     Lying for Jesus, of course.

                     replyreport
               2. 59

                  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Exactly! No bad=no good.  No life=no death. No dark=no light.  No life=no death. etc. 
                  
                  
                                               

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, ignorance is, indeed, a bless.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting article I like the question at the end "does it matter to you what Richard Dawkins thinks?" Nope!

      replyreport
   4. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It must really stick in the craw of believers to see that Dawkins is actually honest.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Richard Dawkins said "that the machine codes of the genes is uncannily computer-like"  River out of Eden, page 10, 1995.
         If you think about that for a minute you will realize that computers run on software programs that are produced by intelligent engineers.
               Of course ricky dawkins jumped on the bandwagon of the distelogoly of the eye and said its a poor design which is proven to be a unique design with some technological give and takes, but still efficiently does its job.
              Ricky again, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In my hub i show that there is such fine tuning that the odds against this statement are impossibly low.
            I watched, for the most part, a certain video by dawkins and he said, "I PREFER to believe there is no God." After a statement like that one cannot help but come to bias conclusions.
         
         Yes, he is honest alright

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I have seen many software created by those who are not so intelligent nor are engineers. So what? His reference had nothing to do with that.
            
                 
            
            It would be a "poor design" if it were indeed designed. Who said it's proven? You?
            
                 
            
            Your hub is sorely misinformed.
            
               
            
            Yes, he is being honest, unlike many believers here.

            replyreport
   5. 60

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I saw this on a link inside CNN, very Interesting. It seems he is comming to the same conclusions as Pascal is a much more anchient time than now?  Makes you wounder about both sides?

      replyreport
   6. 82

      oceansnsunsetsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well good for him.  I totally respect an honest person that doesn't mind stating what he thinks, despite possible criticism.  Good for him.
      
      Now why anyone would criticize him is a whole different story, and it a phenomenon all itself.  I just know what I see.

      replyreport
2. 61

   Cassie Smithposted 12 years ago

   Heck, he just plain out said he was an agnostic, not an atheist.  That was too funny!

   replyreport