It's pretty great, Richard Dawkins speaks at Randolph-Macon Women's College and a bunch of dorks from Liberty University show up to ask him a litany of sophomoric questions including the dreaded "What if you're wrong?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8033327978006186584&q=richards+dawkins+randolph+macon&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
2007-07-22 05:02:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Seen it, incredibly funny. I thought he over reacted at first then realised, he was expecting a serious question.
Edit: I am not an Atheist, but there is no hell or punishment for not sharing my beliefs, so I even find that type of argument funny.
2007-07-22 05:05:59 · answer #1 · answered by Link , Padawan of Yoda 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I am watching it now.
I will comment in a bit.
EDIT: I really found nothing relevatory about what he had to say. I know that Dawkins is highly regarded amongst many circles. I would not attack him for believing what he believes. But I will say this, he doesn't understand the Spirit of God, and has never met Him. So of course, as he seems to be a good orator, he reveals to me the lack of guidance that God brings to those who trust him.
When Richard Dawkins said this:
Do I make a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith? No. He showed me that he had to rationalize a different meaning to the word faith. One that is not based upon the Biblical Greek, and therefore seemingly excluding himself from admitting to any faith whatsoever. I could get that here on Yahoo!Answers every day. There is a common thread of irrational thinking that disincludes certain meanings of certain words in order to deny the existence of trust in the Atheist mindset. To me, it is irrational to deny it.
To exclude your beliefs as immune to faith is to question everything about what you do, which would not allow us if we were to practice 'non faith' to proceed through life normally.
What that philosophy would seem to imply is that everything that we haven't experienced at any given point in time would be questioned. The example of the ball included. Or we would simply disavow a proper and well applied word to our actions. Which to me is tending towards shutting off a part of the dictionary so that we could only define words as we want them, instead of what the word allows. In effect, we will have given ourselves tunnel vision, or in effect put on horse blinders, so that we can convince ourselves that our similar actions are not at all similar to those we ridicule. I find that childish and immature.
2007-07-22 05:22:32 · answer #2 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes watched it on cspan liked when he said he believed in aliens. or when he said something to the extent that the fossil record does not show evolution but the fossil record is wrong. got a good laugh out of that.
2007-07-22 05:23:16 · answer #3 · answered by rap1361 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I watched this in the winter, it's one of the things that sold me on buying his book. That and his doc "The Root of All Evil?"
Liberty U chick: "What if you're wrong?"
RD: "What if your wrong about the great Joe-boo at the bottom of the sea?"
The other highlight was when he said that people should leave Liberty and enroll in a "proper" university.
2007-07-22 05:16:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Gotta love that guy. If you think Pascal's wager is a logical argument, you should watch this.
2007-07-22 05:10:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I've seen it... it's hilarious! I thought he was smooth and confident...
2007-07-22 05:16:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I will right now. Thanks for the link!
2007-07-22 05:08:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Idiot
2007-07-22 05:06:14 · answer #8 · answered by God is love. 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋