The idea that the universe happened as a result of a random 'Big Bang' is infinitely more beautiful than the idea that somebody/thing designed it. The latter is somewhat depressing, similar to the feeling you experience when a magic trick is explained to you.
It's understandable how man evolved to the point of attaching a man like god to his unexplained reasons. It makes perfect sense.
I have faith we will one day evolve to a higher standard of intelligence, finally letting go of illogical old beliefs & assumptions. Maybe then 'we' could know peace.
I also can't help liking Rowan Williams as he is clearly an intelligent and gentle man, but the argument from beauty is rather unsatisfying to say the least.
@hedgehog1965uk Clearly intelligent? In 2007 he called for the introduction of certain elements of Sharia law in the UK to appease Muslim fanatics. Don't confuse intellegence with someone who seems to talk in an intelligent way. He does the perfect impersonation of a Welsh sheep. This is why you found his argument from beauty rather unsatisfying.
@hedgehog1965uk Yes, intelligent people do sometimes do stupid things. I agree. But please recognise Williams for the charlatan that he is. Exposing theists to the fact that they have been conned all along seems to rub some folks the wrong way. A belief in a supernatural, all-powerful creator of the Universe is a prepostorous, mind-shrinking falsehood. It teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world in which we live.
The laws don't break down, they change. As the universe gets hotter the 4 forces ( known ) act differently.
There was no "point" in space. Space didn't exist. It's easy to imagine a big black void with a dot in it, but this isn't the case... just like the atomic model isn't really a small planet like electron in an orbit around the nucleus.
There isn't really a "before" either... because time doesn't really exist "before". It's odd to think about, I know.
It's not funny it's math. Since before the big bang all known variables and physical attributes would reach infinity and the math formulas don't lead to reliable solutions at that moment of time and space.
Since we are creatures within the universe we don't have any measurements of something outside the universe just like we only started to gain knowledge of how the universe looked like when we could reliable look beyond Earth's orbit.
"and where the blazes does that come from"?, Dawkins would respond, "we have theories and are working on it". You arrogant moronic superstitious religious fools already claim to know, because of unsubstantiated 500th hand information which began in a semi-illiterate corner of the middle east 4000 years ago as a stolen version of prior myths and nonsense. really people do the math its staring in the face, your answer to this is just not the truth period, evolve already!!
@guwest2 The Archbishop's response is only 'lame' to those who cannot hear. But for those ready to receive it, Love is the entre, the beginning of the road that leads to life. It is the place where dialogue begins.
@vanapple1 - "Love is the entre, the beginning of the road that leads to life. It is the place where dialogue begins" - what dialogue would that be then?
I think that this fellow human is a good man and though the question wasn't directed at me I would answer as follows; We have survived and evolved, slowly and often in the face of great hardship from single celled organisms that were biologically compelled to exist to beings that have the capacity to enjoy and understand existence. We are the consciousness of the univererse, and our love is that of the universe directed at itself, pleased to have come so far.
@AYoungContrarian But what is the essence of that sense of wonder? Why the yearning to understand not only how it all works (which can be explained through the forces of evolutionary adaptation) but what it all *means*. Why do we want to know what it means?
IF all the religious people were like Rowan Williams the world would be a far better place. I do not agree with what he beliefs in but I do like him as a person, he is I think a good man.
How far do the science absolutists want to take their quest for understanding? Do they want to be robotic pawns in a rationally intelligible universe? If there is only one objective, observable truth, it is not only God that goes out the window but all meaning and mystery. There are some things science can't account for and the sooner we realise that the better.
@ZF1000 Quite right--I am always astonished when I question these scientific peoples knowledge of Xzhashxa the great pink unicorn with the golden horn who lives in the andromeda galaxy and they've no insight whatever at all! What have they learned in college and university my gosh! Its clear to me for whatever reason Xzhashxa is behind the chinese and their currency manipulation, I saw this in the stars, but I don't know why. Science lack of knowledge in this area saddens me very much
"... Naturalism assumes much more than science can prove or demonstrate."
Naturalism, by definition, only involves that which is scientifically demonstrable. It does not assume. Your claims are as desperate as your hopes of some ambiguous immortality; continue to delude yourself with your metaphysical fantasies all you like, but the burden of assumption definitely lies on you my friend. Good day.
I have no problem with religion being a poetic reaction to the wonders and beauties of the Universe, and suspect that for many Christians of Williams' ilk God is the personification of that poetic relationship, which can surely be of great personal comfort and inspiration. I do however, have a problem with zealots codifying their own particular poetic relationship with the universe into a set of Laws which they then seek to impose upon me!
Love comes from the brain. Just like all emotions it is caused by an external stimuli and the subsequent neurochemicals affecting the brain. Doesn't make it any less real; it's just not metaphysical. Derp.
@195ashes How do you know that the brain isn't just a receiver of emotions that come from the outside, like a computer connected to the internet?.... when a computer crashes, the internet is still there...it may be metaphysical...materialism/naturalism assumes much more than science can prove or demonstrate....
@195ashes This is an unscientific statement that might be called 'a scientism', which is to say it is produced from a dogged belief (let us underline that word) that there is only matter. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that 'love comes from the brain', and no scientific understanding as yet as to what is 'consciousness'. Self-honest scientists say that so far, they just don't know.
@fctchk - I was probably being a bit harsh on theists
I think most are sincere but deluded by childhood indoctrination
The power of indoctrination is something that keeps on surprising me. A typical theist (in effect, when a vulnerable child), was told a thousand times that 2 + 2 = 5
His parents and other adults he trusted said that 2 + 2 = 5
'Scholars' provide complicated supporting arguments that he doesn't quite understand but sound convincing
@shumble32 Indeed. They're not called the "formative years" for nothing. And all those who ever wanted to have their populations drink their particular brand of koolaid have pounced on this most reliable of mechanisms. Whether it be the religionists of all stripes or the commies, fascists, or even that certain civilization which preaches "freedom and democracy" with one side of its mouth while fellating (especially oil producing) despots with the other.
So what he is suggesting is that if Dawkins cannot prove exaclty how the feeling we call love evolved, then he (Williams) is justified in carrying on with his beliefs. Rather lazy argument that can be used to justify ANY religion.
Its a shame that society is dying and crumble, families broken to pieces and vunerable young people lost right in the face of the so called churches and people in authority. No impact whatsoever from the churches. There is HOPE........... GOD is in control
Many religious people struggle with the nuances of Rowan Williams thinking & I think he irritates athiests who are used to dealing with some pretty stupid people. Like many I'm a non theist who has a large amount of respect for him even if I don't agree.
If every religious person from history was like our Archbishop, about half of the massacres and wars from the medieval period onward would never have happened, scientific study would be several hundred years more advanced than it is, and stupid arguments would be replaced with sophisticated inquiry and dialogue.
Sadly, that isn't the case and us atheists have to put up with imbeciles like Ray Comfort and the Pope instead.
im an atheist and i think rowan is a good man and i have nothing against christians. im just sick of christians trying to shove religion down my throat! i get some people from the local christian church saying my dad will burn in hell for being an alcoholic, and that i will burn in hell for not being a christian!
@cookiesandcandy4ever They say that? That's not nice. I would remind them "judge not lest ye be judged", & that the God revealed through the life of Jesus is one of who's kindness and understanding and compassion are infinite.
@gextvedde When you say,`you expect nothing less `.Basically what you get is exactly what you would expect.In this instance.I expected R williams question to be stupid,and it sure was.
As most atheists here have said they have immense respect for Rowan Williams, my one claim to fame is in fact that I was confirmed by him in 2000 while he was Bishop of Monmouth (and I was a christian!), I really could listen to him speaking all day, he has the most fascinating and thought provoking voice I've had the pleasure of hearing, he has a very balanced view and acceptance of atheists and non-christian religions, and due to that requires great respect from everyone, regardless of belief
@swordseller1 Thats an interesting judgement (I'm being polite here) that would go against many peoples viewpoint. Do you have any particular reason for thinking this?
@gextvedde Them people the Bible talks about loving the attention of high position and like to be greeted on market place. Jesus Christ says what makes them unclean is what that comes out from their mouth. Pharisee that looks good on the outside but filthy on the inside. They speak of the world because they are from the world and the world loves them
@swordseller1 Ok.. but that doesn't answer the question does it. You must know Rowan pretty well to know his inner motives like loving attention etc. You perhaps also should explain what he says that shows his inner "filth". My suspicion is that you're making judgements without much knowledge of the man. I'm fairly confident Jesus had a few things to say about that as well...
@gextvedde look back and see for yourself what the so call church leaders has to say about the moral decay of society. Nothing at all because of their shallow foundation and believe. No radical whatsoever about this people who claim to be a follower of CHRIST. They are weak in confronting the evilness in society, and they never rebuke the establishment and the monarchy of evilness. They fear men more than the Almighty
Why can't I be in love with the universe and still not accept that Jesus died for me or that some strange self-destructive or overly narcissistic Yahweh forced him to do so because of the fact that I love the universe? How is religion not quackery on an infinite loop? Unless you're scared to death of dying, or so stupid you don't know it's a bad idea to commit murder or marry your own sister? FACT: Yahweh is a total prick and Jesus is a total vulva. Read Bloom and square the circle!
I am aware that he is anglican. It's the image of the collar I was talking about. On reflection, however, if I were a chef and I found out that other chefs were adding hepatitis to their meals, I wouldn't throw down my puffy hat. But still, when someone puts money in a (catholic) collection plate they are condoning the covering-up of horrible criminal acts. Good response btw One mild insult and a valid (if slightly misinterpreted) point. I admire your restraint.
@TheCraich Not only are you talking complete nonsense but you've also neglected the fact that Rowan Williams is the leader of the Church of England and thus, is not Roman Catholic.
Stupid, infantile comment from a man that does not tell the truth. Why does he have to look so scruffy with his hairy face? Does he think he is looking at Jesus when he looks in the mirror?
To begin with, we must correctly identify our enemy. It is frankly naive to say we are at war with “terror” because a nation cannot be at war with a tactic. Its like United States went to war against the “kamikaze” in W War 2
That's why this war is not with al-Qaida or the Taliban. It is like we were fighting 12th German Panzer or the 55th Japanese Infantry in WW2. Before al-Qaida there was Hezbollah.
In 21st Cent we are fighting Islamic totalitarianism which has NO country NO borders. (A.West)
@jstsurreal I think that's is because you don't want to be convinced... Look, Zakir Naik does not even know what the word theory means in science. All the time in his talks he just makes stuff up and pretends its facts. In fact even Muslims are turning against him now. The Muslim Dawafilms has talked about how Zakir Naik is bad for Islam.
@FrozenPetrolPie I agree! and I'm atheist as well, people in England are lucky to have this kind of religious people, unlike here in Latin America that we have to deal with a lot of nutcases charlatans (mainly catholics but there are also some protestants because of USA mega churches influence here ¬¬).
@FrozenPetrolPie So because the are worse religious people in world, this one should get a free pass to agitate for religious law in England? (not that he is not allowed to the opinion, but that it should be contested)
@neuromatiker My point is that atheism is strong on youtube but pretty weak in real life. So, we need to pick our battles and gather tactical allies. Lets not fight all religion left right and center. Often moderate religion agrees with us on key issues, lets use that.
I have never heard that Rowan wants some kind of religious law in England. If he thinks that, then he is not moderate.
@FrozenPetrolPie I understand your point Frozen, and perhaps we live in diffferent parts of the world because atheism is very strong in Denmark where I live. But we have long had a state church which in all practicality has reduced it to a insignificant institution.
However I don't thik that is the proper way to fight your battles. I don't like to tell the enemies of reason, that as long as they do not to go too far, it is ok. I will choose the honest fight any day.
@neuromatiker I don't have a problem with people of faith, as long as their religion is not doing any harm. A priest of the danish state church is not saying that abortion should be illegal, and they are not saying that evolution is false. So I don't really care about the fact that they still believe in god. Why should we fight them when we have bigger fish to fry? Why turn moderate religion against us even more, when we could use them as allies against the fundamentalists?
@FrozenPetrolPie funny thing. as we have been debating here, the priest of our state churchhave started to oppose gay marrige, so it turns out that even the moderate religious wants to tell the rest of how we can live...
But on another point, respecting moderate religion isa very slippery slope, that the more fundamental religious are quick to exploit, in the name of respect. Throughout the world religion demands to be respected, even when it deserves none and without fursther reason.
@neuromatiker Oh well I know of gay priests who have nothing against gay marriage. I don't agree that moderate religion is dangerous on the whole. Modern moderate believers are often very progressive. Lets not turn into fanatics who hate all religion, you don't even have to respect all religion. Just ignore the harmless moderates and use them as allies. Thats all I have to say about this.
@FrozenPetrolPie delusion is the enemy, not people, and the things that stem from it. I suspect Rowan Williams is a nice chap, but the delusions his church support lead to many of the worst aspects of human life. For example secular humanists almost universally support assisted suicide, or similar, we wouldn't let an animal suffer unnecessarily. Rowan Williams will let you suffer in ways he wouldn't allow other animals to suffer because his "faith" tells him you are different.
@51monw Yes, I agree. Delusion is the enemy. However with people like Ray Comfort and Zakir Naik the delusion is so deep and severe that it has become one with them. I'm afraid the only way to make Ray Comfort a decent human being, is to replace his brain.
Death for apostasy or death for homosexuality is a much worse delusion then to be against assisted suicide. So in my opinion I think we have bigger fish to fry then Rowan Williams.
@FrozenPetrolPie I'm not sure it is that simple, and assisted suicide was one example, but to press it further Death for Homosexuality and Death for Apostasy are criminal offences. Assisted suicide in contrast is illegal and carries a potential jail term of 14 years. So whilst C. and Z. may be a "lunatic fringe", the ABC has rather more impact, being able to suggest unelected members of the House of Lords. Education is the big issue, he has (undue) influence over 4600 schools.
@51monw You have a point, and I agree in spirit. But we(atheists) are like 5% of the worlds population so we have to act wisely. To attack religion left, right and center and painting all religion with the same brush is unwise. It will further cement the image of atheists as shrill and strident.
@FrozenPetrolPie Thank you,my friend. As a Christian I do not share your athiest belief but I respect your choice to have those beliefs. However, your remark about Rowan was very welcome. I once met Rowan and have corresponded with him a couple of times and he is not only stunningly intelligent but also a wonderfully pastoral and holy man. Recent rumours of a possible early retirement. if it happens, will leave the Anglican Church a poorer place without his wonderful leadership.
Firstly, I feel forced to say however that Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. In the same way, to not collect stamps is not a hobby.
Secondly, I did not "choose" to be an atheist, since I cannot control what I believe. If you tell me that you own a pet unicorn, I CANT believe you even if I want to.
But no matter, I get the good nature of your comment.
@FrozenPetrolPie He would still be preaching what are essentially lies. The concerns I have with this is that (as we can see today) people can become dogmatic (such as deciding homosexuality is a sin as that is what's stated in the bible and therefore should be made illegal again) or they can misinterpret ideas which is one of the causes of Islamic terrorism.
@195ashes True, but in the war against extremism - who do you think will have the best angle? As we try to win over the hearts and minds, who will the fanatic listen to? Me the atheist, or Rowan Williams the moderate believer?
@zensparkle2481 You are welcome. In our struggle to make our civilization more rational, we must make sure that we are not attacking all theists in blind rage. Some of them, like Rowan Williams could function as our allies on issues of modernization of faith and progressiveness.
All about Muhammad (the founder of Islam, the supreme example for Muslims).
PLEASE: All Christians and Muslims (who say Islam is peace - there are no two Korans), please 'copy and paste', THE WHOLE OF THE ABOVE (two lines) - on youtube address bar
NOT AGAINST CHRISTIAN RELIGION, or TO WATCH THIS VIDEO, educational I found, some true Arabic Translations.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Love comes from the understanding of the interconnectedness of phenomena and the understanding of the impermanence of this - so it is a marveling at what conditionality can produce - that sounds too sterile doesn't it, this is why William Blake puts it much more beautifully:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.
What i'd like to ask is this - will most people on earth go to hell? For thousands of years the far east had its own much older religions and beliefs, nobody had ever heard of Jesus or the bible and to this very day Christianity is irrelevant to billions of people in this area of the world. The whole Christian argument seems completely absurd
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I won't speak for RDawkins, but my answer to RWilliam's question is;
That nearly everyone on the planet is capable of the transcendent doesn't suggest in the slightest that there is a God. It suggests that Mankind is yet more complex, and that there is more to discover. In that unknown space beyond our current knowledge is beauty and wonder. To label it God on it is to put a stop to our advancement.
To suggest that we owe our Personal awe to an unseen and all powerful God is to belittle us.
@drfoxcourt Sore loser. You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast.I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin,”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud.
@Seigu007 1 - I make no reference to Darwin, though I accept his theory of evolution to be profound and factual.
2 - I do not think you have a proverbial life raft to throw to me, so that is an empty statement.
3 - My point centers around the notion that "God's awesomeness" has been in retreat at every instance that Science and genuine knowledge (based on facts and evidence) of the Universe come into conflict with faith. Show me wrong.
@drfoxcourt What you’ve given as weak watered down proof for no God amounts to little more than personal opinion. The fact is you hate God ,and that’s what drives you here.
Why aren’t you over on the flying spaghetti monster forum tirading against them?
I’ll tell you why,it’s because you are what’s called a “scared believer”.
A hypocrite that wears the mark on his sleeve like an open wound.
@Seigu007 I'm no fan of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I don't believe in the Christian God, so there is no reason to be a "scared believer".
I'm scared that religion is used to legitimize the worst behaviors because they find justification in religious tracts. The Bible can be used to support slavery and the Q'uran can be used to support terrorism. These are not moral, but their legitimized by faith. Faith is our worst reason, not our best.
@drfoxcourt Ha! You mean like the free thinking atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the murderers in the Khmer Rouge that spilled the innocent blood of 200 million people in the last 100 years alone?
Again, you are a “God-Hater,” and to hate something you must believe in it first.
The fact that you are arguing against something that you claim to have no belief in makes you a liar.
@Seigu007 You might condemn me along with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot on the basis that we are all men. That IS something we have in common. Are you a man?
The reason they were able to do what they did is not because of their lack of belief in a deity, but because of their abuse of authority unfounded in fact. We do not have that in common. I do not condone unfounded authority. Do you?
I do not care for religion on the same grounds. It is unfounded in facts.
@drfoxcourt Strawman argument. I hold a degree in science.
Intelligent Design fits science like a velvet glove both beautifully, and fully.
God is science and science is God.
A more natural presupposition is that as an atheist you basically have problems with all science.
It's funny - you God-Haters are too busy listening to yourselves pontificate to take notice of all of the things going against you and your religious zeal.
@Seigu007 Not only is God not science. God isn't. Get over the notion that God doesn't exist.
You call me a god-hater, but I do not believe God exists, so should I call you a ape-to-human-transitional-species hater?
And just what is a "degree in science"? Why the appeal to authority of your "degree"? Why not appeal to the degrees of Dawkins, Dennet, Krauss or Sagan?
As for calling my argument a strawman, just what were you doing hinting that free-thinkers are all like Pol Pot et al.?
@drfoxcourt Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you. The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-) Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
@Seigu007 Answer the questions troll: should I call you a ape-to-human-transitional-species hater?
And just what is a "degree in science"? Why the appeal to authority of your "degree"? Why not appeal to the degrees of Dawkins, Dennet, Krauss or Sagan?
As for calling my argument a strawman, just what were you doing hinting that free-thinkers are all like Pol Pot et al.?
@drfoxcourt I really would not say that we just say GOD DID IT and we abandon it. Many of the greatest scientists out there (Bacon, Galileo, Mendel, etc.) believed in God and it was their belief that helped them strive. My dad's a biochemist educated at MIT and he finds it to be a spiritual quest when he goes into the lab.
@kubrox91 My complaint really isn't against people who believe, Believe if you want, but don't put your faith our there as if it is important to anyone but yourself. It is not legitimized because it is a shared unfounded belief. Nobody should place unfounded notions (faith) above what is demonstrably true.
Your dad sounds like someone who understands the proper place of his faith. We can have spiritual quests without believing in a god or gods (read Sam Harris).
--He is possessed by a demon, and we must pray for him.
--He still has seizures.
--We must pray harder.
--The boy is dead; I don't understand.
--It's God's will; we aren't meant to understand. Next!
Whether maliciously or innocently misleading, it is irrelevant.
Insert ANY problem for epilepsy, and the result will be the same languishing in ignorance. Insert science, or medicine, and the result is the opposite.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
@MrIrishlogic Difficult to look wise when you talk nonsense !! I had heard he was due to resign from the Church to become a theology lecturer . ( It was in the Telegraph on line ). You really want to listen to him for hours and hours per week !!
@MrIrishlogic Yes he needs to lose that Old Testament Hollywood Image. A short beard or clean shaven would be better.He just looks like he might not look out of place on a cloud somewhere !!
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Colour and Beauty are triggered by our own perspectives. It is entirely possible to see *different* colours (or no colours at all) than other people (with no other side effects). We may not even be seeing the 'real' colour of objects we look at; but rather the colour our brains (and eyes) allow us to see.
Hypothetically. :P
Beauty is decided on a personal basis--not by the universe ;p
I find empty roads and city streets beautiful... But not sunsets.
love and beauty are mechanisms of approval. They are hardwired rules of thumb that aim to create an inclination to what is (or used to be, when we where wild animals) better for us. The enjoyment of beauty is little more than a triggering of the reward mechanism in our brain.
Obviously we love where we are and find it beautiful, becase we evolved to live in it. Our minds perceive nature as beautiful because humans respond well to nature, peace an discovery. Why does God have to exist for humans to find something beautiful? And anyway, knowing where the perception of beauty comes from doesn't mean you have a diminished sense of it.
@YunoSmile ....Just as I don't think colour began to exist at the moment eyes evolved I don't think beauty began to exist at the point that complex brains evolved. But things such as Colour and Beauty exisited before our evolution, prior to the evolution of any living thing, and that we "discovered" things like beauty and colour.
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 I think a better way to word it would be; Beauty is an emotional trigger. And emotion... is not a universal creation - god or no. It's also inconsistent. People simply do not find all of the same things beautiful. A triangle being 3-sided is a factual statement that does not relate. It is a moot point.
Of 'course' it would still be 3-sided. We INVENTED it. Furthermore it's a label. That's like saying our planet is still counted as 'one' planet no matter how far back you go:P
@jaieet By beauty I don't just mean, that which causes pleasure, because eating chocolate causes me pleasure, but I wouldn't say the exerpience is beautiful. You say beauty is an trigger for emotion, I suppose you mean emotions like love & pleasure. But doesn't this suggests there is something which exists outside of the mind which causes the mind a very intense form of pleasure, yet isn't connected to the taste, touch or smell, but rather are auditory the & visual senses. I call this beauty.
@jaieet Also you may say there are some people who appear to have no ability to appreciate beauty, but theres also insane people who can't understand geometry or sociopaths who can't understand it's wrong to cause suffering to innocent people. People who don't understand beauty or geomerty or morality have defective brains, I think they can't interpret the real world properly because some part of their brain is lacking in certain areas.
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Exactly; there are people who find beauty in the suffering of others (or, in some cases, the torment of others - which goes beyond poetic and into sociopathic). This means, by default, that beauty is not a base law. If it *were*, it would affect every single living being in some notable way. Being unable to comprehend geometry does *not* exclude you from geometric effects
As far as pleasure goes; we have an aptly named 'pleasure centre of the brain'. ;p
@YunoSmile I don't think, that if there would be nobody there to enjoy the sunset that would mean that the sun at that moment in time would lack beauty, anymore than it does today. The essence of a sunset may also be contained in it's colours. 3 billion years ago a sunset would still have been red/orange/yellow even though there were no eyes at that point on the earth to see the colour of the sunset.....
@YunoSmile No, your English is excellent. I think we disagree on beauty being relative. I should say that there is objective meaning in calling an object beautiful. Imagine the situation, 40 million years ago, before we evolved, I maintain that a triangle would stilll have been a shape which had 3 sides & that it's angles equal 180 degrees. Just as this would be true, I think that the essence of a sunset would still have been beautiful, even though humans had not evolved to see it yet.
@YunoSmile I see, Very often I find atheists wish to accept B & C, but you say you accept A & C as I would too. That point I was trying to make here 4 days ago, perhaps rather unclearly was that from my point of view you should accept either B & D or A & C but nor B & C. I'd like to stress that I don't regard the question of the beauty of the universe as a strict proof of God's existance but rather that I think He is the best explanation for it.
@YunoSmile You've started off by talking about life & complexity, which I didn't say anything about I'm certainly not advocating anything like Intelligent Design
But puting that aside, which of the following would you accept
A) The beauty of the universe may be relevant over the question God.
B) The beauty of the universe is irrelevant to the question of God
C) The evil in the universe may be relevant to the question of God
D) The evil in the universe is irrelevant to the question of God
I think he is talking more about the nature of belief itself than attacking Dawkin's specific belief. A bit like saying "I will never understand how your mind works, and for that reason I find it fascinating".
@pimpjuice739 Well I don't think Wiilliams meant this proves God in the strict sense but rather it's suggestive of a God. The atheist may say the argument from 'beauty' is flawed, even when used as being merely suggestive. But then by that logic the atheist who argues agaisnt God's existance from the evil & suffering in our world, is just as wrong. I don't think the atheist can't have it both ways. Either both are acceptable forms of evidence or neither are.
The idea that the universe happened as a result of a random 'Big Bang' is infinitely more beautiful than the idea that somebody/thing designed it. The latter is somewhat depressing, similar to the feeling you experience when a magic trick is explained to you.
daveduuggsy 11 hours ago
The idea of a god seems so dull.
It's understandable how man evolved to the point of attaching a man like god to his unexplained reasons. It makes perfect sense.
I have faith we will one day evolve to a higher standard of intelligence, finally letting go of illogical old beliefs & assumptions. Maybe then 'we' could know peace.
There is only one god & he lives in my pants.
now worship & like it. he may bless you!
it comes with a manual & instructions, as proof.
Berrgk 11 hours ago
Wake up idiots, this phoney twat is only interested in his stipend, life-style and fat pension.
PeterTattersall46 17 hours ago
What meaningless drivel...
Goonertillidie1978 1 day ago
Insane scumbag!
publicanimal9 1 week ago
Great, more infinite regress...
kingwillie206 1 week ago
"Where the blazes." religion poisons everything. :-)
mouthyweasel 1 week ago
I also can't help liking Rowan Williams as he is clearly an intelligent and gentle man, but the argument from beauty is rather unsatisfying to say the least.
hedgehog1965uk 1 week ago 7
@hedgehog1965uk Clearly intelligent? In 2007 he called for the introduction of certain elements of Sharia law in the UK to appease Muslim fanatics. Don't confuse intellegence with someone who seems to talk in an intelligent way. He does the perfect impersonation of a Welsh sheep. This is why you found his argument from beauty rather unsatisfying.
5anthonys 1 week ago
@5anthonys Sometimes intelligent people do stupid things.
hedgehog1965uk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hedgehog1965uk Yes, intelligent people do sometimes do stupid things. I agree. But please recognise Williams for the charlatan that he is. Exposing theists to the fact that they have been conned all along seems to rub some folks the wrong way. A belief in a supernatural, all-powerful creator of the Universe is a prepostorous, mind-shrinking falsehood. It teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world in which we live.
5anthonys 1 week ago
...God comes at the place where ideas end
supaordinary 1 week ago
I actually like him.
Svankmajer 1 week ago
It's funny how all the laws of physics break down when science thinks of what happened before the point in space they say everything cam efrom.
SuzLa1 1 week ago
@SuzLa1 why's it 'funny'?
guwest2 1 week ago
@SuzLa1
The laws don't break down, they change. As the universe gets hotter the 4 forces ( known ) act differently.
There was no "point" in space. Space didn't exist. It's easy to imagine a big black void with a dot in it, but this isn't the case... just like the atomic model isn't really a small planet like electron in an orbit around the nucleus.
There isn't really a "before" either... because time doesn't really exist "before". It's odd to think about, I know.
Callirgos1 1 week ago
@SuzLa1
It's not funny it's math. Since before the big bang all known variables and physical attributes would reach infinity and the math formulas don't lead to reliable solutions at that moment of time and space.
Since we are creatures within the universe we don't have any measurements of something outside the universe just like we only started to gain knowledge of how the universe looked like when we could reliable look beyond Earth's orbit.
kMondrakken 1 week ago
"and where the blazes does that come from"?, Dawkins would respond, "we have theories and are working on it". You arrogant moronic superstitious religious fools already claim to know, because of unsubstantiated 500th hand information which began in a semi-illiterate corner of the middle east 4000 years ago as a stolen version of prior myths and nonsense. really people do the math its staring in the face, your answer to this is just not the truth period, evolve already!!
vaiboy55 1 week ago
What a moronic thing to say, regarding the universe "Well where the blazes does that come from?" An argument from ignorance.
marktdf 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I fail to see his logic, or reasoning.
ZaidSalohcin 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ZaidSalohcin 2 weeks ago
this man has some boss eyebrows
TKBarks 2 weeks ago 19
LincolnDiocese, you're doing the atheists' work for them by posting this amazingly lame response to Dawkins.
guwest2 4 weeks ago
@guwest2 The Archbishop's response is only 'lame' to those who cannot hear. But for those ready to receive it, Love is the entre, the beginning of the road that leads to life. It is the place where dialogue begins.
vanapple1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vanapple1 - "Love is the entre, the beginning of the road that leads to life. It is the place where dialogue begins" - what dialogue would that be then?
shumble32 1 week ago
@vanapple1 "Love is the entre"? No idea what you're talking about I'm afraid.
guwest2 1 week ago
@vanapple1 - oh, so it was just empty, but deep-sounding words then?
shumble32 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vanapple1 - oh, so it was just empty, but deep-sounding words then?
shumble32 5 days ago
Beautiful.
squamish4244 1 month ago
Top comments are retarded. This man is an enemy to reason. Plain and simple.
Syndicat3 1 month ago
I think that this fellow human is a good man and though the question wasn't directed at me I would answer as follows; We have survived and evolved, slowly and often in the face of great hardship from single celled organisms that were biologically compelled to exist to beings that have the capacity to enjoy and understand existence. We are the consciousness of the univererse, and our love is that of the universe directed at itself, pleased to have come so far.
AYoungContrarian 1 month ago
@AYoungContrarian But what is the essence of that sense of wonder? Why the yearning to understand not only how it all works (which can be explained through the forces of evolutionary adaptation) but what it all *means*. Why do we want to know what it means?
squamish4244 1 month ago
IF all the religious people were like Rowan Williams the world would be a far better place. I do not agree with what he beliefs in but I do like him as a person, he is I think a good man.
maggru91 2 months ago
Claiming a monopoly on love. . . can't say it's the first time I've heard that one.
J0shReed 2 months ago
How far do the science absolutists want to take their quest for understanding? Do they want to be robotic pawns in a rationally intelligible universe? If there is only one objective, observable truth, it is not only God that goes out the window but all meaning and mystery. There are some things science can't account for and the sooner we realise that the better.
ZF1000 2 months ago
@ZF1000 Quite right--I am always astonished when I question these scientific peoples knowledge of Xzhashxa the great pink unicorn with the golden horn who lives in the andromeda galaxy and they've no insight whatever at all! What have they learned in college and university my gosh! Its clear to me for whatever reason Xzhashxa is behind the chinese and their currency manipulation, I saw this in the stars, but I don't know why. Science lack of knowledge in this area saddens me very much
EMPERORMIKI 1 month ago
I'm an atheist and I also think that Rowan Williams is a good man.
CliftonCarlBarbara 2 months ago
@davidondich
"... Naturalism assumes much more than science can prove or demonstrate."
Naturalism, by definition, only involves that which is scientifically demonstrable. It does not assume. Your claims are as desperate as your hopes of some ambiguous immortality; continue to delude yourself with your metaphysical fantasies all you like, but the burden of assumption definitely lies on you my friend. Good day.
wetheatheists 2 months ago
It will be a different story if John Wesley and John Whitefield still alive today. I can only imagine
swordseller1 2 months ago
He was a lot funnier in Blackadder.
FranZabich 2 months ago
I have no problem with religion being a poetic reaction to the wonders and beauties of the Universe, and suspect that for many Christians of Williams' ilk God is the personification of that poetic relationship, which can surely be of great personal comfort and inspiration. I do however, have a problem with zealots codifying their own particular poetic relationship with the universe into a set of Laws which they then seek to impose upon me!
vortx100 2 months ago
Love comes from the brain. Just like all emotions it is caused by an external stimuli and the subsequent neurochemicals affecting the brain. Doesn't make it any less real; it's just not metaphysical. Derp.
195ashes 2 months ago
@195ashes How do you know that the brain isn't just a receiver of emotions that come from the outside, like a computer connected to the internet?.... when a computer crashes, the internet is still there...it may be metaphysical...materialism/naturalism assumes much more than science can prove or demonstrate....
davidondich 2 months ago
@195ashes This is an unscientific statement that might be called 'a scientism', which is to say it is produced from a dogged belief (let us underline that word) that there is only matter. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that 'love comes from the brain', and no scientific understanding as yet as to what is 'consciousness'. Self-honest scientists say that so far, they just don't know.
Seabirdinflight7 1 month ago
@Seabirdinflight7 - " Self-honest scientists say that so far, they just don't know"
and non-self-honest theists say that they do know
shumble32 1 week ago 14
@shumble32 Theist are by definition "non-self-honest". Otherwise they would not be a theists.
fctchk 6 days ago
@fctchk - I was probably being a bit harsh on theists
I think most are sincere but deluded by childhood indoctrination
The power of indoctrination is something that keeps on surprising me. A typical theist (in effect, when a vulnerable child), was told a thousand times that 2 + 2 = 5
His parents and other adults he trusted said that 2 + 2 = 5
'Scholars' provide complicated supporting arguments that he doesn't quite understand but sound convincing
His world is built upon 2 + 2 = 5
shumble32 6 days ago
@shumble32 Indeed. They're not called the "formative years" for nothing. And all those who ever wanted to have their populations drink their particular brand of koolaid have pounced on this most reliable of mechanisms. Whether it be the religionists of all stripes or the commies, fascists, or even that certain civilization which preaches "freedom and democracy" with one side of its mouth while fellating (especially oil producing) despots with the other.
fctchk 5 days ago
So what he is suggesting is that if Dawkins cannot prove exaclty how the feeling we call love evolved, then he (Williams) is justified in carrying on with his beliefs. Rather lazy argument that can be used to justify ANY religion.
Martinovichy 2 months ago
perhaps Williams needs to go back to school because all he's doing at the moment is brainwashing everybody who believes in this nonsense.
celticboy1950 2 months ago
Its a shame that society is dying and crumble, families broken to pieces and vunerable young people lost right in the face of the so called churches and people in authority. No impact whatsoever from the churches. There is HOPE........... GOD is in control
swordseller1 2 months ago
Many religious people struggle with the nuances of Rowan Williams thinking & I think he irritates athiests who are used to dealing with some pretty stupid people. Like many I'm a non theist who has a large amount of respect for him even if I don't agree.
gextvedde 2 months ago
The bishop is right in a way. In the end, none of us truly know, not Dawkins, not Rowan.
AnaLoGMunKy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IT IS A LONG PROCESS TO EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW GOOD MUHAMMAD WAS, To know briefly & to comment on it, plz .....watch?v=vtWENrsxV9k
halimoyusuf 3 months ago
If every religious person from history was like our Archbishop, about half of the massacres and wars from the medieval period onward would never have happened, scientific study would be several hundred years more advanced than it is, and stupid arguments would be replaced with sophisticated inquiry and dialogue.
Sadly, that isn't the case and us atheists have to put up with imbeciles like Ray Comfort and the Pope instead.
ASaxonAtHeart 3 months ago
im an atheist and i think rowan is a good man and i have nothing against christians. im just sick of christians trying to shove religion down my throat! i get some people from the local christian church saying my dad will burn in hell for being an alcoholic, and that i will burn in hell for not being a christian!
cookiesandcandy4ever 3 months ago
@cookiesandcandy4ever They say that? That's not nice. I would remind them "judge not lest ye be judged", & that the God revealed through the life of Jesus is one of who's kindness and understanding and compassion are infinite.
Anglican08 2 months ago
I have come to expect nothing less from this idiot,Williams,not Dawkins :)
naybobdenod 3 months ago
@naybobdenod Less than what?
gextvedde 2 months ago
@gextvedde When you say,`you expect nothing less `.Basically what you get is exactly what you would expect.In this instance.I expected R williams question to be stupid,and it sure was.
ps
Thanks for your comment
naybobdenod 2 months ago
As most atheists here have said they have immense respect for Rowan Williams, my one claim to fame is in fact that I was confirmed by him in 2000 while he was Bishop of Monmouth (and I was a christian!), I really could listen to him speaking all day, he has the most fascinating and thought provoking voice I've had the pleasure of hearing, he has a very balanced view and acceptance of atheists and non-christian religions, and due to that requires great respect from everyone, regardless of belief
olih27 3 months ago
He is going to hell yes this man no holiness whatsoever
swordseller1 3 months ago
@swordseller1 Thats an interesting judgement (I'm being polite here) that would go against many peoples viewpoint. Do you have any particular reason for thinking this?
gextvedde 2 months ago
@gextvedde Them people the Bible talks about loving the attention of high position and like to be greeted on market place. Jesus Christ says what makes them unclean is what that comes out from their mouth. Pharisee that looks good on the outside but filthy on the inside. They speak of the world because they are from the world and the world loves them
swordseller1 2 months ago
@swordseller1 Ok.. but that doesn't answer the question does it. You must know Rowan pretty well to know his inner motives like loving attention etc. You perhaps also should explain what he says that shows his inner "filth". My suspicion is that you're making judgements without much knowledge of the man. I'm fairly confident Jesus had a few things to say about that as well...
gextvedde 2 months ago
@gextvedde look back and see for yourself what the so call church leaders has to say about the moral decay of society. Nothing at all because of their shallow foundation and believe. No radical whatsoever about this people who claim to be a follower of CHRIST. They are weak in confronting the evilness in society, and they never rebuke the establishment and the monarchy of evilness. They fear men more than the Almighty
swordseller1 2 months ago
Rowan Williams would be just great doing Barry White covers.
Nick300wm 3 months ago
The question would be : Don't put too much faith on that Atheism
MrCobra811 3 months ago
Why can't I be in love with the universe and still not accept that Jesus died for me or that some strange self-destructive or overly narcissistic Yahweh forced him to do so because of the fact that I love the universe? How is religion not quackery on an infinite loop? Unless you're scared to death of dying, or so stupid you don't know it's a bad idea to commit murder or marry your own sister? FACT: Yahweh is a total prick and Jesus is a total vulva. Read Bloom and square the circle!
AAwildeone 3 months ago
It's the universe to big for god ?
mcgeogheganj 3 months ago
I am aware that he is anglican. It's the image of the collar I was talking about. On reflection, however, if I were a chef and I found out that other chefs were adding hepatitis to their meals, I wouldn't throw down my puffy hat. But still, when someone puts money in a (catholic) collection plate they are condoning the covering-up of horrible criminal acts. Good response btw One mild insult and a valid (if slightly misinterpreted) point. I admire your restraint.
TheCraich 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheCraich 3 months ago
@TheCraich Not only are you talking complete nonsense but you've also neglected the fact that Rowan Williams is the leader of the Church of England and thus, is not Roman Catholic.
blibit 3 months ago
Stupid, infantile comment from a man that does not tell the truth. Why does he have to look so scruffy with his hairy face? Does he think he is looking at Jesus when he looks in the mirror?
577666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=vtWENrsxV9k
It's all about Muhammad BUT?! you have to watch it coz
John 8:32: said, "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free."
Muslim Quran 5:101 says, 'stay ignorant'
sorpotal 3 months ago
A pathetic answer from a pathetic man
2up2u 4 months ago
@2up2u Oh dear...
Makashi11 3 months ago
To begin with, we must correctly identify our enemy. It is frankly naive to say we are at war with “terror” because a nation cannot be at war with a tactic. Its like United States went to war against the “kamikaze” in W War 2
That's why this war is not with al-Qaida or the Taliban. It is like we were fighting 12th German Panzer or the 55th Japanese Infantry in WW2. Before al-Qaida there was Hezbollah.
In 21st Cent we are fighting Islamic totalitarianism which has NO country NO borders. (A.West)
sorpotal 4 months ago
@sorpotal you forgot to mention 'no adherents' either ;-)
jstsurreal 3 months ago
To my fellow atheists out there... Rowan Williams is not the enemy. People like Ray Comfort and Zakir Naik are the enemy.
If all religious people was like Rowan Williams I would have nothing to say about religion.
FrozenPetrolPie 4 months ago 33
@FrozenPetrolPie lol why diss zakir naik lol
jstsurreal 3 months ago
@jstsurreal Because Zakir Naik is a charlatan and a liar. A quite dangerous one at that.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie How so? i've watched a few videos against him.. they don't seem to be very convincing..
jstsurreal 3 months ago
@jstsurreal I think that's is because you don't want to be convinced... Look, Zakir Naik does not even know what the word theory means in science. All the time in his talks he just makes stuff up and pretends its facts. In fact even Muslims are turning against him now. The Muslim Dawafilms has talked about how Zakir Naik is bad for Islam.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie I agree! and I'm atheist as well, people in England are lucky to have this kind of religious people, unlike here in Latin America that we have to deal with a lot of nutcases charlatans (mainly catholics but there are also some protestants because of USA mega churches influence here ¬¬).
freiheitsalv 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie So because the are worse religious people in world, this one should get a free pass to agitate for religious law in England? (not that he is not allowed to the opinion, but that it should be contested)
neuromatiker 3 months ago
@neuromatiker My point is that atheism is strong on youtube but pretty weak in real life. So, we need to pick our battles and gather tactical allies. Lets not fight all religion left right and center. Often moderate religion agrees with us on key issues, lets use that.
I have never heard that Rowan wants some kind of religious law in England. If he thinks that, then he is not moderate.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie I understand your point Frozen, and perhaps we live in diffferent parts of the world because atheism is very strong in Denmark where I live. But we have long had a state church which in all practicality has reduced it to a insignificant institution.
However I don't thik that is the proper way to fight your battles. I don't like to tell the enemies of reason, that as long as they do not to go too far, it is ok. I will choose the honest fight any day.
neuromatiker 3 months ago
@neuromatiker I don't have a problem with people of faith, as long as their religion is not doing any harm. A priest of the danish state church is not saying that abortion should be illegal, and they are not saying that evolution is false. So I don't really care about the fact that they still believe in god. Why should we fight them when we have bigger fish to fry? Why turn moderate religion against us even more, when we could use them as allies against the fundamentalists?
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie funny thing. as we have been debating here, the priest of our state churchhave started to oppose gay marrige, so it turns out that even the moderate religious wants to tell the rest of how we can live...
But on another point, respecting moderate religion isa very slippery slope, that the more fundamental religious are quick to exploit, in the name of respect. Throughout the world religion demands to be respected, even when it deserves none and without fursther reason.
neuromatiker 3 months ago
@neuromatiker Oh well I know of gay priests who have nothing against gay marriage. I don't agree that moderate religion is dangerous on the whole. Modern moderate believers are often very progressive. Lets not turn into fanatics who hate all religion, you don't even have to respect all religion. Just ignore the harmless moderates and use them as allies. Thats all I have to say about this.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie delusion is the enemy, not people, and the things that stem from it. I suspect Rowan Williams is a nice chap, but the delusions his church support lead to many of the worst aspects of human life. For example secular humanists almost universally support assisted suicide, or similar, we wouldn't let an animal suffer unnecessarily. Rowan Williams will let you suffer in ways he wouldn't allow other animals to suffer because his "faith" tells him you are different.
51monw 3 months ago
@51monw Yes, I agree. Delusion is the enemy. However with people like Ray Comfort and Zakir Naik the delusion is so deep and severe that it has become one with them. I'm afraid the only way to make Ray Comfort a decent human being, is to replace his brain.
Death for apostasy or death for homosexuality is a much worse delusion then to be against assisted suicide. So in my opinion I think we have bigger fish to fry then Rowan Williams.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie I'm not sure it is that simple, and assisted suicide was one example, but to press it further Death for Homosexuality and Death for Apostasy are criminal offences. Assisted suicide in contrast is illegal and carries a potential jail term of 14 years. So whilst C. and Z. may be a "lunatic fringe", the ABC has rather more impact, being able to suggest unelected members of the House of Lords. Education is the big issue, he has (undue) influence over 4600 schools.
51monw 3 months ago
@51monw You have a point, and I agree in spirit. But we(atheists) are like 5% of the worlds population so we have to act wisely. To attack religion left, right and center and painting all religion with the same brush is unwise. It will further cement the image of atheists as shrill and strident.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie great comment , well said.
grumpyguts1967 3 months ago
@grumpyguts1967 thanks
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie Thank you,my friend. As a Christian I do not share your athiest belief but I respect your choice to have those beliefs. However, your remark about Rowan was very welcome. I once met Rowan and have corresponded with him a couple of times and he is not only stunningly intelligent but also a wonderfully pastoral and holy man. Recent rumours of a possible early retirement. if it happens, will leave the Anglican Church a poorer place without his wonderful leadership.
MrJayguess 3 months ago
@MrJayguess You are welcome.
Firstly, I feel forced to say however that Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. In the same way, to not collect stamps is not a hobby.
Secondly, I did not "choose" to be an atheist, since I cannot control what I believe. If you tell me that you own a pet unicorn, I CANT believe you even if I want to.
But no matter, I get the good nature of your comment.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie
Well said
AnaLoGMunKy 2 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie He would still be preaching what are essentially lies. The concerns I have with this is that (as we can see today) people can become dogmatic (such as deciding homosexuality is a sin as that is what's stated in the bible and therefore should be made illegal again) or they can misinterpret ideas which is one of the causes of Islamic terrorism.
195ashes 2 months ago
@195ashes True, but in the war against extremism - who do you think will have the best angle? As we try to win over the hearts and minds, who will the fanatic listen to? Me the atheist, or Rowan Williams the moderate believer?
FrozenPetrolPie 2 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie Exactly my thought. Thank you.
zensparkle2481 2 months ago
@zensparkle2481 You are welcome. In our struggle to make our civilization more rational, we must make sure that we are not attacking all theists in blind rage. Some of them, like Rowan Williams could function as our allies on issues of modernization of faith and progressiveness.
FrozenPetrolPie 2 months ago
>You love something
>God is love
>Therefore, god exists
majsbullen 4 months ago
@majsbullen Therefore, God is a verb?
You love God,
God doens't exist,
Therefore you love nothing.
Horus8305 4 months ago
I'm an atheist but I think that Rowan Williams is a good man.
Tlevids 4 months ago 23
@Tlevids 90 odd percent of Christians are inherently 'good' but they're just deluded
williamblair11 3 months ago
The classic argument from ignorance.
The Universe is beautiful, therefore God Exists.
Uberlaser 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
All about Muhammad (the founder of Islam, the supreme example for Muslims).
PLEASE: All Christians and Muslims (who say Islam is peace - there are no two Korans), please 'copy and paste', THE WHOLE OF THE ABOVE (two lines) - on youtube address bar
NOT AGAINST CHRISTIAN RELIGION, or TO WATCH THIS VIDEO, educational I found, some true Arabic Translations.
Please spread the truth about MUHAMMAD
more@: alisina.or g
miladmeah 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
I quite like Rowan Williams, he seems like a really cool guy.
but yeah his question was a bit crap.
TweekDash 4 months ago
I think Dawkins would say "Oh SH** you're right! God made it!"
RobBrooksMusic 4 months ago
Love comes from the understanding of the interconnectedness of phenomena and the understanding of the impermanence of this - so it is a marveling at what conditionality can produce - that sounds too sterile doesn't it, this is why William Blake puts it much more beautifully:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.
I see no God in any of this!
jagara1 4 months ago
What i'd like to ask is this - will most people on earth go to hell? For thousands of years the far east had its own much older religions and beliefs, nobody had ever heard of Jesus or the bible and to this very day Christianity is irrelevant to billions of people in this area of the world. The whole Christian argument seems completely absurd
dustziggy 5 months ago
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Comment removed
gazz12345a 5 months ago
I won't speak for RDawkins, but my answer to RWilliam's question is;
That nearly everyone on the planet is capable of the transcendent doesn't suggest in the slightest that there is a God. It suggests that Mankind is yet more complex, and that there is more to discover. In that unknown space beyond our current knowledge is beauty and wonder. To label it God on it is to put a stop to our advancement.
To suggest that we owe our Personal awe to an unseen and all powerful God is to belittle us.
drfoxcourt 5 months ago 2
@drfoxcourt Sore loser. You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast.I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin,”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud.
Notice the sympathetic wince?
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 1 - I make no reference to Darwin, though I accept his theory of evolution to be profound and factual.
2 - I do not think you have a proverbial life raft to throw to me, so that is an empty statement.
3 - My point centers around the notion that "God's awesomeness" has been in retreat at every instance that Science and genuine knowledge (based on facts and evidence) of the Universe come into conflict with faith. Show me wrong.
Shame on you.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt What you’ve given as weak watered down proof for no God amounts to little more than personal opinion. The fact is you hate God ,and that’s what drives you here.
Why aren’t you over on the flying spaghetti monster forum tirading against them?
I’ll tell you why,it’s because you are what’s called a “scared believer”.
A hypocrite that wears the mark on his sleeve like an open wound.
The only person you’re kidding here is yourself.
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 I'm no fan of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I don't believe in the Christian God, so there is no reason to be a "scared believer".
I'm scared that religion is used to legitimize the worst behaviors because they find justification in religious tracts. The Bible can be used to support slavery and the Q'uran can be used to support terrorism. These are not moral, but their legitimized by faith. Faith is our worst reason, not our best.
You evade the issue. I do not.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Ha! You mean like the free thinking atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the murderers in the Khmer Rouge that spilled the innocent blood of 200 million people in the last 100 years alone?
Again, you are a “God-Hater,” and to hate something you must believe in it first.
The fact that you are arguing against something that you claim to have no belief in makes you a liar.
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 You might condemn me along with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot on the basis that we are all men. That IS something we have in common. Are you a man?
The reason they were able to do what they did is not because of their lack of belief in a deity, but because of their abuse of authority unfounded in fact. We do not have that in common. I do not condone unfounded authority. Do you?
I do not care for religion on the same grounds. It is unfounded in facts.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Strawman argument. I hold a degree in science.
Intelligent Design fits science like a velvet glove both beautifully, and fully.
God is science and science is God.
A more natural presupposition is that as an atheist you basically have problems with all science.
It's funny - you God-Haters are too busy listening to yourselves pontificate to take notice of all of the things going against you and your religious zeal.
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 Not only is God not science. God isn't. Get over the notion that God doesn't exist.
You call me a god-hater, but I do not believe God exists, so should I call you a ape-to-human-transitional-species hater?
And just what is a "degree in science"? Why the appeal to authority of your "degree"? Why not appeal to the degrees of Dawkins, Dennet, Krauss or Sagan?
As for calling my argument a strawman, just what were you doing hinting that free-thinkers are all like Pol Pot et al.?
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you. The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-) Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
Seigu007 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seigu007 Answer the questions troll: should I call you a ape-to-human-transitional-species hater?
And just what is a "degree in science"? Why the appeal to authority of your "degree"? Why not appeal to the degrees of Dawkins, Dennet, Krauss or Sagan?
As for calling my argument a strawman, just what were you doing hinting that free-thinkers are all like Pol Pot et al.?
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt I really would not say that we just say GOD DID IT and we abandon it. Many of the greatest scientists out there (Bacon, Galileo, Mendel, etc.) believed in God and it was their belief that helped them strive. My dad's a biochemist educated at MIT and he finds it to be a spiritual quest when he goes into the lab.
kubrox91 4 months ago
@kubrox91 My complaint really isn't against people who believe, Believe if you want, but don't put your faith our there as if it is important to anyone but yourself. It is not legitimized because it is a shared unfounded belief. Nobody should place unfounded notions (faith) above what is demonstrably true.
Your dad sounds like someone who understands the proper place of his faith. We can have spiritual quests without believing in a god or gods (read Sam Harris).
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
@drfoxcourt
"...put a stop to our advancement." Indeed.
--The boy has seizures.
--He is possessed by a demon, and we must pray for him.
--He still has seizures.
--We must pray harder.
--The boy is dead; I don't understand.
--It's God's will; we aren't meant to understand. Next!
Whether maliciously or innocently misleading, it is irrelevant.
Insert ANY problem for epilepsy, and the result will be the same languishing in ignorance. Insert science, or medicine, and the result is the opposite.
jamesharrel 4 months ago 2
it comes from the mind, which is material.
Huckxxx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@MrIrishlogic Difficult to look wise when you talk nonsense !! I had heard he was due to resign from the Church to become a theology lecturer . ( It was in the Telegraph on line ). You really want to listen to him for hours and hours per week !!
domnal 5 months ago
@MrIrishlogic Yes he needs to lose that Old Testament Hollywood Image. A short beard or clean shaven would be better.He just looks like he might not look out of place on a cloud somewhere !!
domnal 5 months ago
Here's a question he could ask Mr Dawkins - "Would you lend me a shaving razor ? "
domnal 5 months ago
-.-
TheMrGerund 5 months ago
An useless airy-fairy comment as bewildering as the applause.
plonk220a 5 months ago 22
Comment removed
Seigu007 4 months ago
@plonk220a "An useless" LOL! Great spelling.
MetalBru01 3 months ago
@MetalBru01 Sorry typing error. Thanks teacher!
plonk220a 3 months ago
@plonk220a Detention!
MetalBru01 3 months ago
Pompous fool.
kts68 5 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Colour and Beauty are triggered by our own perspectives. It is entirely possible to see *different* colours (or no colours at all) than other people (with no other side effects). We may not even be seeing the 'real' colour of objects we look at; but rather the colour our brains (and eyes) allow us to see.
Hypothetically. :P
Beauty is decided on a personal basis--not by the universe ;p
I find empty roads and city streets beautiful... But not sunsets.
jaieet 5 months ago
I genuinely believe Williams is agnostic.
ImMichaelTaylor 5 months ago
love and beauty are mechanisms of approval. They are hardwired rules of thumb that aim to create an inclination to what is (or used to be, when we where wild animals) better for us. The enjoyment of beauty is little more than a triggering of the reward mechanism in our brain.
once again, no god is needed
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
trim those eyebrows dude :)
zircle1 5 months ago
Obviously we love where we are and find it beautiful, becase we evolved to live in it. Our minds perceive nature as beautiful because humans respond well to nature, peace an discovery. Why does God have to exist for humans to find something beautiful? And anyway, knowing where the perception of beauty comes from doesn't mean you have a diminished sense of it.
hellieweird123 5 months ago
those eyebrows are amazing.
callinshumen 5 months ago
@YunoSmile ....Just as I don't think colour began to exist at the moment eyes evolved I don't think beauty began to exist at the point that complex brains evolved. But things such as Colour and Beauty exisited before our evolution, prior to the evolution of any living thing, and that we "discovered" things like beauty and colour.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 I think a better way to word it would be; Beauty is an emotional trigger. And emotion... is not a universal creation - god or no. It's also inconsistent. People simply do not find all of the same things beautiful. A triangle being 3-sided is a factual statement that does not relate. It is a moot point.
Of 'course' it would still be 3-sided. We INVENTED it. Furthermore it's a label. That's like saying our planet is still counted as 'one' planet no matter how far back you go:P
jaieet 5 months ago
@jaieet By beauty I don't just mean, that which causes pleasure, because eating chocolate causes me pleasure, but I wouldn't say the exerpience is beautiful. You say beauty is an trigger for emotion, I suppose you mean emotions like love & pleasure. But doesn't this suggests there is something which exists outside of the mind which causes the mind a very intense form of pleasure, yet isn't connected to the taste, touch or smell, but rather are auditory the & visual senses. I call this beauty.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
@jaieet Also you may say there are some people who appear to have no ability to appreciate beauty, but theres also insane people who can't understand geometry or sociopaths who can't understand it's wrong to cause suffering to innocent people. People who don't understand beauty or geomerty or morality have defective brains, I think they can't interpret the real world properly because some part of their brain is lacking in certain areas.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Exactly; there are people who find beauty in the suffering of others (or, in some cases, the torment of others - which goes beyond poetic and into sociopathic). This means, by default, that beauty is not a base law. If it *were*, it would affect every single living being in some notable way. Being unable to comprehend geometry does *not* exclude you from geometric effects
As far as pleasure goes; we have an aptly named 'pleasure centre of the brain'. ;p
jaieet 5 months ago
@YunoSmile I don't think, that if there would be nobody there to enjoy the sunset that would mean that the sun at that moment in time would lack beauty, anymore than it does today. The essence of a sunset may also be contained in it's colours. 3 billion years ago a sunset would still have been red/orange/yellow even though there were no eyes at that point on the earth to see the colour of the sunset.....
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
@YunoSmile No, your English is excellent. I think we disagree on beauty being relative. I should say that there is objective meaning in calling an object beautiful. Imagine the situation, 40 million years ago, before we evolved, I maintain that a triangle would stilll have been a shape which had 3 sides & that it's angles equal 180 degrees. Just as this would be true, I think that the essence of a sunset would still have been beautiful, even though humans had not evolved to see it yet.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
@YunoSmile I see, Very often I find atheists wish to accept B & C, but you say you accept A & C as I would too. That point I was trying to make here 4 days ago, perhaps rather unclearly was that from my point of view you should accept either B & D or A & C but nor B & C. I'd like to stress that I don't regard the question of the beauty of the universe as a strict proof of God's existance but rather that I think He is the best explanation for it.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
@YunoSmile You've started off by talking about life & complexity, which I didn't say anything about I'm certainly not advocating anything like Intelligent Design
But puting that aside, which of the following would you accept
A) The beauty of the universe may be relevant over the question God.
B) The beauty of the universe is irrelevant to the question of God
C) The evil in the universe may be relevant to the question of God
D) The evil in the universe is irrelevant to the question of God
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
Comment removed
Anglican08 5 months ago
the brain is a highly complex organ
brownie003 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins is "in the know." This idiot is a fantacist.
Mzungu64 5 months ago
I think he is talking more about the nature of belief itself than attacking Dawkin's specific belief. A bit like saying "I will never understand how your mind works, and for that reason I find it fascinating".
RH98 6 months ago
His use of logic is flawed
pimpjuice739 6 months ago
@pimpjuice739 Well I don't think Wiilliams meant this proves God in the strict sense but rather it's suggestive of a God. The atheist may say the argument from 'beauty' is flawed, even when used as being merely suggestive. But then by that logic the atheist who argues agaisnt God's existance from the evil & suffering in our world, is just as wrong. I don't think the atheist can't have it both ways. Either both are acceptable forms of evidence or neither are.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 6 months ago