Skip to comments.The Dawkins Challenge
Posted on 06/14/2012 6:58:55 AM PDT by C19fan
The noted atheist Richard Dawkins has been very active recently in his campaign to discredit religious belief, in particular Christianity, and Roman Catholicism has been a special target. He had a debate of sorts with Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, and appeared on an Australian television program, Q and A, with Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney. His animus against Catholicism was also evident in a joint appearance with Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and fellow non-believer (as Krauss likes to be called), at the Australian National University.
Krauss is the author of the much heralded, A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, in which he argues that it is highly plausible that we will soon be able to understand how the entire universe, including the fundamental laws of physics, can start from absolutely nothing without any need to appeal to a creator or supernatural agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecatholicthing.org ...
Dawkins should debate with a Jihadist.
Has he ever attempted to discredit any religions other than Christianity?
—Has he ever attempted to discredit any religions other than Christianity?—
Why should he? He is doing Satan’s bidding. Satan’s only enemy is Christianity, and of course the deity they worship.
Dawkins should totally take on the most oppressive religion in the world first and then once he is done with that one he can “work his way down the ladder”. He should do a survey of all the world’s religions and find one that oppresses women, condones slavery, and the killing of people who believe otherwise and start there.
No wait, that would mean he would have to start on Islam first and he is too much of a chickenshit pansy ass to do that. So much safer to go against christians cause christians don’t saw you head off with a rusty knife to make a point.
—Krauss is the author of the much heralded, A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, in which he argues that it is highly plausible that we will soon be able to understand how the entire universe, including the fundamental laws of physics, can start from absolutely nothing without any need to appeal to a creator or supernatural agency.—
The problem with this whole statement is that it only demonstrates that Science is about “how”.
Christianity is about “why”. And that is the higher pursuit.
I was surprised to learn that most of the really difficult (supposedly original) questions that Atheists ask about the existance of God, Hell, suffering, etc. have mostly been brought up more than a thousand years ago by theologians within the church playing Devil’s advocate.
Isn't this guy a huge lightweight, left wing, CINO? Heck, if he is who I think he is, he might be an atheist plant. What did that debate look like?
Dawkin-”Christianity is rotten, backwards, and bigoted against gays and minorities”
Williams-”Yes it is. Sorry.”
Bingo! Atheists never come up with anything new, they just they do. They are very proud of themselves.
Sorry satan. Next!
I guess that’s a no? thanks
—I guess thats a no? thanks—
You’re welcome. :-)
That’s probably because there is nothing left to debate. A long time ago we discovered that it’s simply a matter of faith...different kinds...one has it in some form, or one doesn’t. I think it will be that way forever.
Recalling the phrase: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ..." we can observe that Catholics believe that there was a beginning ... from nothing ... thanks to God.
Conversely, one might mull on the fact that there cannot be a beginning if the concept of eternity works both ways.
An actual scientist wouldn't try to pretend that 'science will one day prove or observe something' which isn't currently proven or observed.
Dawkins isn't acting as a scientist when he claims this stuff, but as a polemicist.
I’d like to see him tackle Islam- but then I guess he’s afraid of them like everyone else.
Those things that we call the universe, time and space each only exist as a temporary ‘island’ within eternity.
There was a beginning of time and space - and of the temporary parts of creation, just like an island has a north shore.
In the same way: there will also be an end of time and space and the other pieces of temporal creation, just like an island has a south shore.
While we move and act for a few short years on the island, eternity is waiting for us. That reality - outside of time and space - is our true home.
One day the island isn’t going to be around anymore. But we will be.
Well, hope this flawed analogy was helpful.
Dawkins treats all religions equally, but as he points out, because Christianity is the dominant religion in Western culture (the one in which he resides and which represents the market for his work), he often uses it as an example. But Dawkins is no more anti-Christian than he is anti-Islamic or anti-Wiccan. If anything, he is kinder to Christianity due to its more civilizing influence.
The second problem with Dawkin's statement is that it's not true. Not remotely. An actual scientist wouldn't try to pretend that 'science will one day prove or observe something' which isn't currently proven or observed. Dawkins isn't acting as a scientist when he claims this stuff, but as a polemicist.It appears to be Krauss' statement, not Dawkin's, but your point still holds. Setting aside experimental evidence, I haven't even heard of a scientific hypothesis put forward of something coming from truly nothing. His "nothing" is not really nothing, although his argument may be.
Yes. But he is British. The people that tend to want to debate him are British and American, and likely Christian.