Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams debate religion this week

[DJRC]

Hudson said:

Dawkins is living proof you can agree with someones views and still think they're a massive cock and should be fired into the sun.

Almost my take on the man. He inherently makes me side with the religion types just so Im not on the same side as that complete bell end. I often ponder whether or not the continued existence of Dawkins is proof that God really does exist and the fker has the darkest humour in the galaxy. If he gets to be a ripe old age and then just before he dies peacefully God zaps him with a lightning bolt...well that would basically seal the deal. Or he gets buggered to death by a horny Gorilla. Both work for me.

[DJRC]

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

[dundarach]

DJRC said:

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

Bit of a sweeping statement...

[jshell]

DJRC said:

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

Oooh, a religion I can get down with!

[DJRC]

dundarach said:

DJRC said:

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

Bit of a sweeping statement...

Sorry...the Pope and by extension his wealth. Specifically the Pope's wealth in England via all the assets the Catholic Church in England controlled. The CoE was invented as little more than an asset stripping job under the convenient guise of being on nodding terms with the Diet of Worms. All that "Defender of the Faith" stuff which the Monarch still has as part of its job title and we keep being told is an important part of the Crown mixed with the CoE was actually a title conferred on fat Henry by the Pope anyway. He attacked ML over his original 95 thesis wacked on Wittenburg's Church door in 1517 (if Im a yr out sue me and lets be honest you had to wiki/google it first anyway so naff off). Henry's got a twitchy cock though and wants to get down a jiggy which throws a few spanners in the workings of European royal diplomacy, which never really bothered fat Harry too much as he basically got off on pissing Charles and Francis off in Spain and France anway. This time though he is giving the Pope right arse ache doing all this. ML and the diet of worms is giving the Pope serious arse ache and its all a wonderfully convenient smoke screen for Henry to think "fk it" and pull one of Britain's first "Go big or go home" moves on Europe. So he puts the kaibosh down on anything Popey in England, nicks anything of value the Church has he can get his hands on, tells ML, Calvin, Knox and the boys "Hell yeah chaps, Im down with you on all this Prostitution religion of yours...", "No your Majesty, our new religion is called Protestant religion because we are protesting", "...whatever Luthar dude, Protestent, Prostitute, its all gravy baby to me, we got your back bro!" Bobs your uncle, the English Reformation is born, Henry fks off the entire of Europe, nicks the dosh, divorces the bird, etc, etc.

[Derek Smith]

dundarach said:

DJRC said:

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

Bit of a sweeping statement...

I get the joke but the second bit is demonstrably wrong. Henry was very religious. He was declared defender of the faith, something our present queen still touts I believe, by an infallible pope for something he wrote. Presumably this was before he set up his own religion. In those days the church was very much as political an institution as it is now and it was dedicated to the collection plates and the collection of further influence and power.

The English Reformation was a serious religious movement - too serious for many. The odd thing is that the continental reformation was started by the invention of the printing press making the bible available to congregations, something the church opposed of course. Tradition is not the reason services were in Latin. All of a sudden people began to realise that what they were being told was not the word of their god, at least according to their version. Translating the bible into English, or other languages, was a mortal sin despite it spreading the word. All rather odd one might think.

The last thing the church wanted was for the rank and file to realise how contradictory the book was but in this they overestimated the intelligence of the population. They believed the unbelievable, they accepted unacceptable teachings, they did not find any problem in contradictory statements.

No church ever lots a congregation by underestimating their intelligence.

Rowan in dangerous because he is intelligent. Highly intelligent. Here is a man who can argue is corner in a way that few can compete with, and probably not Dawkins. In not believing in god Rowan's arguments become stronger as he has a certain logic on his side. If you listen to him he is very convincing.

He should be watched, not listened to.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Derek Smith said:

Rowan in dangerous because he is intelligent. Highly intelligent. Here is a man who can argue is corner in a way that few can compete with, and probably not Dawkins.

Dawkins was named by Time magazine ( I think it was Time) as number 3 in the world's top 20 intellects. Whether you like him or not, he's not exactly an idiot himself.

The problem Dawkins' opponants face is that no matter how objectionable people find him, is that he's right, and they are wrong. That is quite a difficuly obstacle to overcome.

[Shay HTFC]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The problem Dawkins' opponants face is that no matter how objectionable people find him, he's right, and they are wrong. That is quite a difficuly obstacle to overcome.

Arrogant much?

Dawkins is a massive bellend. I believe him to be right at the core (no god), but I hardly think he is right in everything he says or proposes.
Its like David Starkey. He is often right, but he is lacking in human empathy so even if he is right, his advice is not very useful for humans.

Hence, "does religion serve a purpose", is not the same as "does god exist", as religion may actually be useful for humanity, despite god not existing.

If Dawkin's argument is that religion is irrelevant in modern day life, then I can very much see him losing the debate, despite him always being right(?!) as you suggest.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Tuesday 29th January 10:46

[Derek Smith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dawkins was named by Time magazine ( I think it was Time) as number 3 in the world's top 20 intellects. Whether you like him or not, he's not exactly an idiot himself.

The problem Dawkins' opponants face is that no matter how objectionable people find him, is that he's right, and they are wrong. That is quite a difficuly obstacle to overcome.

Not sure I would believe Time in this instance. But the problem is not with Dawkins' intellect but in his ability to argue his point. He is a trifle, shall we say, didactic. Rowan's persona on TV is so likeable, and not doubt deliberately so, that if you voted against him it would mean that you also kicked kittens. The only negative is that I find myself listening to his arguments despite knowing that they are rubbish and that he no doubt thinks so as well.

I will take stronger issue with your suggestion that being up against someone who is 'right' in the sense of logical is all that difficult to overcome if you are trying to influence the Oxford debate vote. The way they will vote is more predictable than Thursdays.

[Derek Smith]

Shay HTFC said:

Arrogant much?

Dawkins is a massive bellend. I believe him to be right at the core (no god), but I hardly think he is right in everything he says or proposes.
Its like David Starkey. He is often right, but he is lacking in human empathy so even if he is right, his advice is not very useful for humans.

Hence, "does religion serve a purpose", is not the same as "does god exist", as religion may actually be useful for humanity, despite god not existing.

Starkey comes over much better in his books I find. I've bought a number but am irritated by him on TV. He's the sort of bloke you could cheerfully let a door close in on his face.

[Ozzie Osmond]

omgus said:

I don't care what you believe, provided it doesn't hurt anyone and you can manage not to be a bellend about it.

I completely disagree with you.

It is wrong that people are taught to believe what we now know to be obvious nonsense. If a person believes one bit of obvious nonsense they are quite likely to believe another, spouted by some dangerous politician. For starters,

• Jesus was not the product of virgin birth and did not rise from the dead.
• The Jews are not God's Chosen People
• Mohammed did not have a hot-line to the Almighty. (That was Tony Blair...)
• God does not write books.
• One religion isn't "all right" and the others "all wrong".

Having said that, there is much that is sensible and good within religions. Dawkins point is simple, cut out the magic and the lies - then you are left with sensible questions about "what is the best way for people to live their lives, both personally and as a community?".

[Ozzie Osmond]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The problem Dawkins' opponents face is that no matter how objectionable people find him, he's right and they are wrong. That is quite a difficult obstacle to overcome.

^^^ What an excellent summary!!

[Alex]

mattnunn said:

But

But Dawkins isn't. (clever enough to trot out the tired old canards atheists usually rely on that is)

That's because the "tired old canards atheists usually rely on" are the facts.

[Halmyre]

DJRC said:

Sorry...the Pope and by extension his wealth. Specifically the Pope's wealth in England via all the assets the Catholic Church in England controlled. The CoE was invented as little more than an asset stripping job under the convenient guise of being on nodding terms with the Diet of Worms. All that "Defender of the Faith" stuff which the Monarch still has as part of its job title and we keep being told is an important part of the Crown mixed with the CoE was actually a title conferred on fat Henry by the Pope anyway. He attacked ML over his original 95 thesis wacked on Wittenburg's Church door in 1517 (if Im a yr out sue me and lets be honest you had to wiki/google it first anyway so naff off). Henry's got a twitchy cock though and wants to get down a jiggy which throws a few spanners in the workings of European royal diplomacy, which never really bothered fat Harry too much as he basically got off on pissing Charles and Francis off in Spain and France anway. This time though he is giving the Pope right arse ache doing all this. ML and the diet of worms is giving the Pope serious arse ache and its all a wonderfully convenient smoke screen for Henry to think "fk it" and pull one of Britain's first "Go big or go home" moves on Europe. So he puts the kaibosh down on anything Popey in England, nicks anything of value the Church has he can get his hands on, tells ML, Calvin, Knox and the boys "Hell yeah chaps, Im down with you on all this Prostitution religion of yours...", "No your Majesty, our new religion is called Protestant religion because we are protesting", "...whatever Luthar dude, Protestent, Prostitute, its all gravy baby to me, we got your back bro!" Bobs your uncle, the English Reformation is born, Henry fks off the entire of Europe, nicks the dosh, divorces the bird, etc, etc.

Not quite how Messrs Bronowski, Schama or Starkey would have put it but vastly more entertaining.

[mattnunn]

Alex said:

mattnunn said:

But

But Dawkins isn't. (clever enough to trot out the tired old canards atheists usually rely on that is)

That's because the "tired old canards atheists usually rely on" are the facts.

You can proove anything with facts

-Homer Simpson

[mondeoman]

Ozzie Osmond said:

omgus said:

I don't care what you believe, provided it doesn't hurt anyone and you can manage not to be a bellend about it.

I completely disagree with you.

It is wrong that people are taught to believe what we now know to be obvious nonsense. If a person believes one bit of obvious nonsense they are quite likely to believe another, spouted by some dangerous politician. For starters,

• Jesus was not the product of virgin birth and did not rise from the dead.
• The Jews are not God's Chosen People
• Mohammed did not have a hot-line to the Almighty. (That was Tony Blair...)
• God does not write books.
• One religion isn't "all right" and the others "all wrong".

Having said that, there is much that is sensible and good within religions. Dawkins point is simple, cut out the magic and the lies - then you are left with sensible questions about "what is the best way for people to live their lives, both personally and as a community?".

Agree with that, but without a "leader" its going no-where as an institution that people can get behind, then all of a sudden you're left with a religion...

[LostBMW]

DJRC said:

dundarach said:

DJRC said:

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

Bit of a sweeping statement...

Sorry...the Pope and by extension his wealth. Specifically the Pope's wealth in England via all the assets the Catholic Church in England controlled. The CoE was invented as little more than an asset stripping job under the convenient guise of being on nodding terms with the Diet of Worms. All that "Defender of the Faith" stuff which the Monarch still has as part of its job title and we keep being told is an important part of the Crown mixed with the CoE was actually a title conferred on fat Henry by the Pope anyway. He attacked ML over his original 95 thesis wacked on Wittenburg's Church door in 1517 (if Im a yr out sue me and lets be honest you had to wiki/google it first anyway so naff off). Henry's got a twitchy cock though and wants to get down a jiggy which throws a few spanners in the workings of European royal diplomacy, which never really bothered fat Harry too much as he basically got off on pissing Charles and Francis off in Spain and France anway. This time though he is giving the Pope right arse ache doing all this. ML and the diet of worms is giving the Pope serious arse ache and its all a wonderfully convenient smoke screen for Henry to think "fk it" and pull one of Britain's first "Go big or go home" moves on Europe. So he puts the kaibosh down on anything Popey in England, nicks anything of value the Church has he can get his hands on, tells ML, Calvin, Knox and the boys "Hell yeah chaps, Im down with you on all this Prostitution religion of yours...", "No your Majesty, our new religion is called Protestant religion because we are protesting", "...whatever Luthar dude, Protestent, Prostitute, its all gravy baby to me, we got your back bro!" Bobs your uncle, the English Reformation is born, Henry fks off the entire of Europe, nicks the dosh, divorces the bird, etc, etc.

What a nicely written and gently toned post...

[DJRC]

LostBMW said:

DJRC said:

dundarach said:

DJRC said:

The CoE has never cared much about God, it was only ever set up with the intention of not believing in the Pope!

Bit of a sweeping statement...

Sorry...the Pope and by extension his wealth. Specifically the Pope's wealth in England via all the assets the Catholic Church in England controlled. The CoE was invented as little more than an asset stripping job under the convenient guise of being on nodding terms with the Diet of Worms. All that "Defender of the Faith" stuff which the Monarch still has as part of its job title and we keep being told is an important part of the Crown mixed with the CoE was actually a title conferred on fat Henry by the Pope anyway. He attacked ML over his original 95 thesis wacked on Wittenburg's Church door in 1517 (if Im a yr out sue me and lets be honest you had to wiki/google it first anyway so naff off). Henry's got a twitchy cock though and wants to get down a jiggy which throws a few spanners in the workings of European royal diplomacy, which never really bothered fat Harry too much as he basically got off on pissing Charles and Francis off in Spain and France anway. This time though he is giving the Pope right arse ache doing all this. ML and the diet of worms is giving the Pope serious arse ache and its all a wonderfully convenient smoke screen for Henry to think "fk it" and pull one of Britain's first "Go big or go home" moves on Europe. So he puts the kaibosh down on anything Popey in England, nicks anything of value the Church has he can get his hands on, tells ML, Calvin, Knox and the boys "Hell yeah chaps, Im down with you on all this Prostitution religion of yours...", "No your Majesty, our new religion is called Protestant religion because we are protesting", "...whatever Luthar dude, Protestent, Prostitute, its all gravy baby to me, we got your back bro!" Bobs your uncle, the English Reformation is born, Henry fks off the entire of Europe, nicks the dosh, divorces the bird, etc, etc.

What a nicely written and gently toned post...

The academic version is basically the same, but a lot more dull. This is the abridged robot chicken teenage version.

[omgus]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I completely disagree with you.

It is wrong that people are taught to believe what we now know to be obvious nonsense. If a person believes one bit of obvious nonsense they are quite likely to believe another, spouted by some dangerous politician. For starters,

• Jesus was not the product of virgin birth and did not rise from the dead.
• The Jews are not God's Chosen People
• Mohammed did not have a hot-line to the Almighty. (That was Tony Blair...)
• God does not write books.
• One religion isn't "all right" and the others "all wrong".

I am pretty against organised religion but i will try to answer to show why i don't really care what people choose to believe.
As ideas change and improve what the people thought a few years ago can now seem very stupid. Some people might take longer to catch up, but that shouldn't be held against them, yes i think every point you have made up there is correct, but if i start forcing this view on others (who have looked at the various evidences and stories given to them and decided to believe in something from the stories) then how am i any better than any Evangelical Religonist?

Just because they believe one daft thing that doesn't make them a moron, the man who theorised the big bang was clergy but now most people think that was what happened, and although i don't beleive in god but i still flash my full beams at traffic lights just incase it works this time, even though i know it doesn't, you can't make assuptions about someone based solely on the answer to one question.

Ozzie Osmond said:

Having said that, there is much that is sensible and good within religions. Dawkins point is simple, cut out the magic and the lies - then you are left with sensible questions about "what is the best way for people to live their lives, both personally and as a community?".

Well in answer to that i think it is probably by not judging everyone by our own personal standards, you know living and letting live, possibly (for example) by not stating that because they choose to believe one daft idea they are completely gormless and will then swallow every other daft idea, but maybe i'm just not militant enough to be a real athiest, i never get the urge to stand outside churches telling them they're wrong.
The nicest person i know and the one who would do most to help you is Mormon, now you have to be pretty fking dafthave a lot of faith to believe that, but it shouldn't take away from the fact that if everyone was like them the world would be a better place.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

omgus said:

The nicest person i know and the one who would do most to help you is Mormon, now you have to be pretty fking dafthave a lot of faith to believe that, but it shouldn't take away from the fact that if everyone was like them the world would be a better place.

What makes you think he would turn into a horrible person if he woke up tomorrow and had lost his faith?

You might as well say the nicest person I know is left handed/drivers a Ford Focus/ has a beard/supports Rochdale. What's the link?