At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it. Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?” Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.” There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
I’ve never met an atheist face to face. Every single person that claimed to be, eventually admitted that he just didn’t know for sure. Which makes him agnostic.
But they are trying to redefine the words. They now try to say that Christians are really “Christian agnostic” since they are not “sure”, and atheists are “atheist agnostic”.
Don’t buy into it.
Why this reads pretty much just like what that serpent told Eve.
Even atheists don’t believe that life started from “nothing,” but that it evolved by natural processes from something; i.e., the primordial soup.
Too bad over history and all the people that have come and gone, no one has figured out a way to prove or disprove God’s existence to all agnostics without requiring a leap of faith. If there were such a way, I imagine the world would be way different than it is now.
But how do we know that Richard Dawkins even exists?
For a Friday chuckle go to Youtube and type in “The Dawkins Delusion”.
I see the staggering, elegant, beautiful thing - the anatomy of the eye, the germination of a seed, the ocean tides, the water cycle, the construction of a cell - any number of countless beautiful things -
as evidence of a great Designer, a Designer of unfathomable wisdom and perfection.
hardly as “messy.”
I know someone who reads Dawkins’ stuff. They said he acknowledges in his books that he can’t prove a negative, that his books are a lot more logical than his public persona.
I find that idea not beautiful, but sad.
If the third human on this planet DIDn’T come from two other ones..
WELL THEN.. you are forced to concoct/make up/compose a BIG Yarn.. a Story.. a Tale.. to explain it..
Dawkins is quite good at it.. call it Science Fiction.. or Creative Factoids.. or Academic Fund Raisers..
Fiction must believe believable else whats the point...
Reality need not BE logical at all to humans..
What is.... IS... and What ain’t..... AIN’T..
Where did the third human come from?..
Pray for him. It’s the Judeo/Christian thing to do.
Are you a monkey? Wanna see a monkey? Go look in the mirror, you’ll see a monkey. Great ape, actually, the hairless ape.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a scientist...or someone who says they are...to be an atheist. Agnostic it must be...
We have no idea what it is or how it works.
Pretty colors on an MRI screen when you think of the word "cat" are just pretty colors on an MRI screen.
Quantum mechanical phenomenon require a conscious observer, meaning that consciousness and the very existence of matter are intimately intertwined.
Dawkins and Hawking and other atheists/agnostics are blowing smoke out of their wazoo apertures when the pretend that science now explains everything.
The following was a comment on one of the articles:
Everybody relax.
Dawkins has said repeatedly that it's impossible to disprove God, just as it's impossible to disprove the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has mentioned his position on the scale of disbelief many times. This is not news.
It's certain that any and every faith-based organization will quote mine this article in an attempt to diminish Dawkins' work and words (as Ben Stein so dishonestly did for his film, "Expelled.")
The book speculates deeply on how science might prove or disprove the existence of God, and the conclusion of the book literally made me gasp.
It's not at all what you might expect from Sagan.
FYI, the movie almost completely ignored the theme that made the book so good. In fact, the movie didn't even attempt to portray the dramatic climax of the book.
Atheism is moronic.....it requires a God to not believe in.
The migration to agnostic can be expected as God draws them unto himself.
Salvation of atheists is one of our Lords greatest pleasures and Glories.
Atheism is every bit as much a “faith” as is the belief in God.
News Flash to Dickie Dawkins:
If you sincerely talk to God, tell Him you want to know the truth, and ask Him to reveal Himself to you; He will. He will speak to your spirit, and/or lead you to get into His Word, the Bible, and in a relatively short while you will KNOW that He is real. From that point, just submit to His Word and the leading of His Spirit in your inner man.
Dawkins is a believer just like I am. We simply have different belief systems. He believes in the power of nothing to create universes and morality. I believe that the Good Lord did that. I am agnostic in the power of nothing to do anything and faithful that when I pass my agnosticism in nothing will be justified.