Richard Dawkins on the Big Debate 6 of 6
Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Dimbleby on the Big Debate BBC
January 29, 2008
Jonathan Dimbleby and a panel of experts come together to debate the controversial subject of religion in Britain’s schools.
The role of religion in education is a subject rarely out of the headlines. Despite Britain’s multi-faith society, schools are still required to include a collective act of worship of a Christian nature, while faith schools and religious academies have raised fears about community cohesion and covert selection.
Claims by some religious educationalists that faith is the best way to teach moral values is challenged by others in schools who believe religious morality to be outdated and dangerous.
Dimbleby is joined by Professor Richard Dawkins, Schools Select Committee chairman Barry Sheerman MP, and a multi-faith studio audience.
Full video can be found here: http://www.richarddawkins.net/
Duration : 0:7:36
[youtube ndXYip6pdco]
@1tabligh We don’t. …
@1tabligh We don’t. Antithesis is Marxist not atheist. Both are not related in any way except that Stalin was both but he did not intertwine both in his ideals. His ideals and actions were purely based on power of the proletariat class. Atheism is not one solid black and white ideal, Atheism is not even a religion. Therefore, to categorized all atheists into one category is not valid. Their ONLY common beliefs is simply to embrace uncertainty just like agnostics.
@Medievalpacman …
@Medievalpacman Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do Atheists and Marxists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
Check out the host …
Check out the host at 3:45. LOL.
He’s scrambling to change the subject.
This series was a waste of time, because the host did his very best to prevent Dawkins from debtating.
@1tabligh And as …
@1tabligh And as for matter is of motion and change, matter does not change, it only rearrange itself, it always stay constant. People’s belief in the conscience of God, however, does change, and therefore, is not constant, and is not eternal, but is needed, because humanity can only connect to God through conscience. That is why I find nobody to be right in a religious argument, because ultimately, we are all ruled by one God, no matter how we define it.
@1tabligh Well, …
@1tabligh Well, take it your way, the only way people can connect with God is if they believe God to have a conscience, I agree with that. There is no other way, and this is for good of humankind. But do know, this conscience is different in every person; some view God as benevolent while others, strictly disciplinary. As for matter, it always stay constant. This God is all-knowing and wise because it is the thing that we ourselves, do not know much about and will always try to find. Find God.
Moreover, matter is …
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
but believers in …
but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being. ….
This means that the …
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, …
@Medievalpacman …
@Medievalpacman Furthermore, the “causeless cause” is matter, because mass cannot be created nor can it be destroyed,
_____
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they (atheists) can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. …
@1tabligh …
@1tabligh Furthermore, the “causeless cause” is matter, because mass cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, it is a causeless cause. It did not come into existence out of noexistence, the big bang is still matter, and before that… there are still more research to be done!
@1tabligh Ah, but …
@1tabligh Ah, but you see, when you question the characteristic of this Creator, the only way that that could happen is if the Creator is the particles itself. Needless to say, that does not mean the Creator is mindless, just emotionless, without that of the biased human conscience. Its hard to see it this way, but the question to whom whence created the creator cannot be answered unless the characteristic of the Creator is not organic. God is greater, more powerful, if God had no conscience.
From a scientific …
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
The Creator of the …
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. …
@Medievalpacman …
@Medievalpacman God must be created by nonliving matter
______
The Manifestations of God in Nature.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. …
@1tabligh If you …
@1tabligh If you think about it, the only way God can be omnipresent is if God is a matter within each and everyone of us and the universe. Now think, is that matter living or nonliving? The universe is 99.99999999999999999% made out of nonliving matter. We, are made out of nonliving matter. If God is living, then God is made out of nonliving matter. If God is made out of nonliving matter, then God must be created by nonliving matter, thus, nonliving matter IS God, IS the creator. Non-biased.
At the same time it …
At the same time it is also certain that prominent and unbiased naturalists do not consider this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investiÂgation is not closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
@ckorhonen72 We …
@ckorhonen72 We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. …
@1tabligh
Hate to …
@1tabligh
Hate to tell you, but we are all monkeys/primates. DNA confirms this. And if “wannabe monkeys look through the world with one eye closed” then Creationists have both eyes shut, and ears plugged while screaming “la la la.” Enjoy that.
No system or …
No system or substance in the world will be able to create or to will a moving and developing organ unless it enjoys a measure of will power and consciousness.
@agentorange20 In …
@agentorange20 In the new science of systems, the principle has been established that systems comprising living elements that have an aim or systems organized externally on the basis of a given program, may develop in the direction of expansion, greater orderliness and improvement. However, all systems, whether simple or compound, need to be aided by and interrelated with factors external to themselves; they are unable to construct themselves. …
@1tabligh ” how can …
@1tabligh ” how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves”
maybe b/c by all accounts of evidence the cosmos is utterly filled w/ it & has been existing prior to life or human even being able to consciously contemplate them. We’ve gone over this ‘god or matter’ quite enough, if you haven’t any other arguments for wanting to believe a magical sky daddy causes it all then please start anew w/ some new methods of knowing.
@1tabligh ” …
@1tabligh “Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence”
There is no need to imagine it, it’s evident in how simple patterns like in fractals results in higher orders of complexity.
either to create …
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
@Medievalpacman God …
@Medievalpacman God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ….
@1tabligh Sir, I am …
@1tabligh Sir, I am not an atheist. Furthermore, the choice of Matter or God is clearly black and white. Remember, I said nothing is absolute, thus, nothing is black and white. You can choose both. Human nature and bias though, is to see things black and white, I hope you would agree with me on that. It is either “my way or no way.” I don’t take that, you can make a choice. Ultimately though, no one is ever absolutely right. 50% faithful and 50% skeptical, God wants diversity in mind. Show it.