Richard Dawkins reads from "The God Delusion"
Richard Dawkins at Randolf-Macon Woman's College reading from his book, "The God Delusion."
Part I, (37 minutes):
Part II, (70 minutes):
Part I, (37 minutes):
Part II, (70 minutes):
Dear Believer
by Dan Barker Dear Believer, — You asked me to consider Christianity as the answer for my life. I have done that. I consider it untrue, repugnant, and harmful. You expect me to believe Jesus was born of a virgin impregnated by a ghost? Do you believe all the crazy tales of ancient religions? Julius Caesar was reportedly born of a virgin; Roman historian Seutonius said Augustus bodily rose to heaven when he died; and Buddha was supposedly born speaking. You don’t believe all that, do you? Why do you expect me to swallow the fables of Christianity? I find it incredible that you ask me to believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man’s rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, ...
Comments
(yes, I know lemmings don't really do that but the metaphor still stands)
What about the bit from the question-and-answer section when that idiot from Liberty University started talking about the 3,000-year-old dinosaur bones?
What a absolute classic! If the university really does have dinosaur bones marked as 3,000 years old, then it seems that Liberty has been unable to put two and two together and realise that they've just contradicted the old 'the-dinosaurs-must-have-been-wiped-out-during-the-great-flood' excuse!
Or maybe they actually believe that Noah (who is supposed to have lived a lot longer than 3,000 years ago) took dinosaurs on the ark as well.
'Room for a few more, Noah?'
There's always room for a bit more bullshit, that's for sure.
I've since come to see it is part of the human condition; so called "unbelievers" are every bit as engaged in demeaning conversation.
Also, Richard Dawkins is profound, and eloquent. However, in attempting to prove his points, he does the same as the religious persons he speaks against: he picks and chooses those passages (especially in narrative passages like the OT) which support his hypothesis and then supports them with the interpretations that fit his point.
We all like being right, no matter what the cost. Richard Dawkins is no different.
We all like being right, no matter what the cost. Richard Dawkins is no different.
Good conversations about being human. However, if you disagree with Dawkins, you won't be threatened with everlasting torment. And religion is an emotional topic. You can't really discuss it without raising someone's blood pressure.
Post a Comment