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):
"A Sabbatical?" or "My Anti-Testimony"
I first posted this "testimony" to the web on July 27, 2001. If you too have found Christianity specifically, or religion generally, to be less than satisfying for any reason, please consider posting your own "testimony" to this site by clicking here , or message me by clicking here. I t is invariably a shock to Evangelical Christians to come across someone who has turned his or her back on the “faith was once delivered unto the saints.” Most believers will quickly dismiss an ex-Christian by piously pointing out that anyone who turns away from Christ was never a real believer. Or, as an insider might say it, “They were never born again.” There is Biblical support for the assertion. 1 John 2:19, which addressed the problem of First Century apostates, states that: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us....
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