Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Pt. 13 of 15

[kylejoshua85]

I find it interesting that Dawkins so often dismisses things because they are not "helpful," since describing something as either helpful or unhelpful assumes a particular telos. To what end is Dawkins assuming something must be helpful or unhelpful? According to his disenchanted understanding of the world, anything helpful to whatever particular end he might assume would ultimately be meaningless and at best only self-interested.

[axolotl5]

@sdwhitesox - I completely agree re Einstein !  Who cares about any one persons view? There is no doubt his views on the existence of God was an unusual perspective, but one thing he was clear on was his view that life after death was a childish fallacy. Now if the religious were to be told in church that 'we don't want you to stop coming to church, ,but I have some bad news for you, we were wrong on the subject of life after death. Everything else remains the same....how much would be left in

[JediVulcanTimeLord]

I do wish McGrath would stop equating atheism with marxism. He seems to be implying that they are one and the same and that all atheism arises from marxist beliefs or similar. It doesn't! My own atheism arises from my lack of any spiritual need to have some sort of intelligence behind the universe. I am perfectly happy to believe that we have evolved as a result of a beautifully poetic coming together of the laws of science.

[setnoset]

... such as life after death. In this case science, at least theoretical science mights be able to understand it. This would be possible if we could look at spirituality using Mathematics. However seems to be far from what we can do presently.

Assuming this spirituality existed, I think we could only reach this level of understanding in the time when we are able to link physics and psychology, i.e. give a mathematical intererpratation of psichological effects.

[setnoset]

"supernatural explanations are not going to be helpful"

I think this is all an issue of semantics and the way we see the word 'supernatural'.

Perhaps he defines 'supernatural' as what cannot be explainned by science. We have to remembered that science is limited by the ability of humans. If, then, God existed and was complex in a way that God is above our level of conciousness, our ability to understand God would be limited.

However we could still understand fully more simple concepts ...

[bassetter1]

OK. so you want atheism to just go away . LOOOL.

[TugNThaPecker]

Ultimately the individual must evoke stern discipline of keeping to the applied definitions of language and denying ourselves the temptation to succumb to the connotations of words as a result of social implications over time. Until then we can never actually recognize the justifiable interpretations of fundamental argument or discussion. Simply everything will be left to become a hyperbole of diction.

[hippo11222]

@navychaplain7 Hindu's are pantheists so this would reinforce what l just said. By the way, where did you hear that he believed in the Bhagavad Gita?

[CarmineFragione]

Richard Dawkins studies well a choice of words, but he really does not say anything very complicated. He cannot understand why God does not use an absolute power of decision making, if God exists and has such power. It is almost a childish question. It is more intuitive of knowing what Dawkins considers the proper use of absolute power, that it ought to be directed to an outcome. God wants human development of character, not a predictable outcome that says , it was not worth the wait.

[rememberthename33]

it's hard for me to continue watching McGrath not answer anything properly, the title of the video should be "Alister McGrath dodging questions"

[alangnixon]

Spirituality does not have to include the supernatural or Godlike. There are things like our interactions, self, cognitions and society that although based in material phenomenon, have an emergent transcendental element. We ourselves do not have full control over these things and yet we are immersed in them. There is a redefining of spirituality occurring at this time in history and McGrath seems to have missed the point of the trend.

[tonyhsu1234]

For everyone use communist as an example of evil Atheist:

Remember, communist ban anything compromise the party leadership, not only ban religion. They also ban free speech, freedom of demonstration, assembly and so on. Atheist are not dangerous, because atheist are not organized believe. For example, there is few lobbyist or political group for atheist. Same cannot be said  about religion.

[emekonen]

they are ignoring people like Mao and Pol Pot, virtually identical to Lenin and Stalin.

[azdgariarada]

@emekonen Where Dawkins' point still applies. They may have been atheist and committed atrocities, but they didn't commit them BECAUSE of their atheism. Whereas suicide bombers DO commit their atrocities BECAUSE OF their religion.

You wouldn't say "people with red hair kill others BECAUSE they have red hair". People can be atheist, and do harm. But the atheism isn't the CAUSE of the harm, it's just as incidental as the color of their hair. But religion specifically CAUSES some to do harm

[emekonen]

@azdgariarada Here is where it gets semantical. Dawkins liberally groups all religions together and says they do this because of their religion. In the case of Islam, your correct. Their religion commands this kind of action and behavior, whereas Christianity is pacifist. Therefore, how can you blame a religion that teaches the opposite of violence for what an individual has done? So I agree, to an extent.

[azdgariarada]

@emekonen So the Crusades were examples of christian pacifism? And the Spanish Inquisition? Or how about christians that kill abortion doctors by blowing up their offices? Yup, seems pretty pacifist.

Dawkins' point is that, all religions provide a climate where these kinds of extremists can flourish, because of the promotion of "faith" as a virtue. A.K.A. believing in something despite a lack of evidence, or indeed, even in spite of directly contradicting evidence.

[emekonen]

@azdgariarada Well again the religion itself preaches against this behavior. So if someone is killing people in the name of Christ, well quite simply it is moronic. It is not exactly turn the other cheek. What your saying is that because supposed Christians did the inquisition that Christianity is bad. Why then is it wrong to say that because atheists killed over 149 million in under 100 years, that atheism is to blame?

[azdgariarada]

@emekonen Motivation is everything. You may claim that a violent christian is really no christian at all. I would agree. But they believe they are, and act based on what their beliefs tell them. Religion is the MOTIVATION for their violence.

It could be that 149 Million people died under atheist leaders (there are some disputable "facts" here), but their atheism wasn't their motivation for killing. Not believing in a god simply isn't a motivation for murder, mass or otherwise.

[emekonen]

@azdgariarada Well actually their atheism was a big part of why they exterminated to many people, I will not assert that all atheists are bad as a result of Marxism though. What you fail to understand is, that person most likely would have committed an act of violence regardless of being religious or not. If the religion specifically speaks against violence, then it clearly does not come from the religion but from the person who uses religion merely as a scapegoat. So religion is not responsible

[TheBbg83]

@azdgariarada Really? Then why did they murder anyone who practiced a religion? You can't have your cake and eat it to.

[azdgariarada]

@TheBbg83 Show me the research you did to show that "they" killed anyone who practiced religion.

*Fun Fact: "My Pastor said so" does not count as research.

Psychopaths kill for a variety of reasons, some of which only make sense to them. Only a few of the leaders often cited as atheist actually WERE non believers to begin with. And even among the true atheists, their motivation for killing was NOT BECAUSE they lacked a belief.

I invite you to show evidence to the contrary.

[greggcaff]

atheism is by cultural factors, if he was born in India he would be a Hindu or Muslim, explain that, if Japan probably Shintuism

[gjsterp]

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[lamb4067]

why do we have access/ are exposed to the unedited version?

[Plissken07]

I'm just curious, who are the people in the background speaking to Dawkins and McGrath?

[MRP0k3rs]

The way McGrath tilts his head when he speaks tilts me like crazy.

WTF is wrong with him? (besides the fact that he is a superstitious ignorant fuck)

[Gazdo01]

@MRP0k3rs How the hell does it relate to the subject? You accuse him of being superstitious, maybe we could accuse you of being superfluous?

Maybe he has a torticollis (congenital or aquired) or whatever... Who cares?

If you can't follow this debate without commenting on such insignificant things, maybe you're the ignorant fuck here ;)

[tubalooney]

science and religion ARE in conflict

Gallileo heresy trial 1633

pardonned 2000

367 years of conflict there just for starters

[muncyj123]

Can you have free will without people making bad choices? Can you have bad choices without there being negative consequences? If God desired free will, then he must be willing to accept the consequences that people may make bad choices and that these choices will have negative consequences. The most negative of these consequences is death. Fortunately, through Christ, God has taken care of death. However, again, we have the free will to accept or reject that. Choices have consequences.

[PooeyBum11]

@muncyj123 our choices, likes and dislikes are determined by the way our brain is built and the influences of the environment. If we rolled back time and let the big bang take its course in the exact same way, we would arrive back at this exact spot because our choices are predetermined by the laws of physics. Free will in the sense that a spiritual person would mean it is impossible.

[muncyj123]

@PooeyBum11

"Free will in the sense that a spiritual person would mean it is impossible."

I guess you were destined to think that way. I choose to think otherwise.

[PooeyBum11]

@muncyj123 yes and you were determined by the structure of your brain and the influences of the environment to ultimatly come to the choice you made. The belief that you could have done otherwise is an illusion. Hence god cannot know the future and create all the things that influence it and at the same time create free will. If i create a computer program, it is destined to do what i programmed it, even if im smart enough to make it concious and believe it had a choice. The computer is not free

[IrishStorm1]

As clever as both these dudes are, one point we all keep forgetting is that the answer has already been provided. Lucifer was cast upon the earth and once there, he sought to tempt the hand of God, constantly. Therefore, is it not reasonable that lucifer would throw all manner of horror at that which God loves the most? If God was to intervene, then lucifer will have succeeded. If knowledge is given to man, then surely that will allow man to not only tempt God, but to challenge him?

[domthomson]

it seems mcgraths head is attached to his body by a piece of string, mere talking makes it wobble uncontrollably, just like his views on all of dawkins questions

[weefeatures]

I'm glad McGrath finds so many things interesting

[GodStink]

Perhaps, nowadays, as The Church no longer has the power to murder, torture or ostracize those who go against religion publicly, more people feel free to speak out against the idiocy that is religion ...?

McGrath would marginalize or better yet. have us forget the atrocities that were and still are being committed by the Catholic Church and other religions on people simply for not thinking what the Church tells them ...!

[djkoch65]

I think Alister is wrong on a couple of points. 1) young people more and more just don't care about religion or being an atheist but are atheist by default...this is a general statement from what i have seen. the kids of today seem to see through the fallacies pretty quickly. 2) true atheists do not look around and say there is more to what they see around them in a spirtual sense.

This is an argument meant to "bring back" atheist as still believing in "god" but not saying it. FAIL.

[Domzdream]

Sure, I'll grant Alister that there could be something there, Something we cannot maybe meaure with scientific tools, as it were. But to label it god, this whatever thing you don't even know what is, is stupid, foolish, and wrong.

Especially when claiming their brand of the deiety in question. Namely the christian god. The muslims think the very same thing. Which one's right? I say NONE!

[hypnowist]

Why does Dawkins keep invoking the concept of evil? No matter this debate is great and both men are on top form.

[Domzdream]

One of my best freinds is a self proclaimed atheist, which she keeps saying there's something out there. There just has to be. I'm thinking all the time, wanting something to be true doesnt make it real. For me, it's not good enough by a person saying that there is some sort of great conciousness out there. I mean, how the hell did you get that info other than having feelings of there being one.

I could have feeling that pixies are real. But does that automatically make them real? No.

[CincinnatusUSA]

What people think of ID and creationism is not particularly important to a free mind--the issue is whether they are reasonable. They have been considered so for most of human history, in some form or other, and in fact most philosophical systems have had some kind of One, or Absolute, or various constructions of 'God,' etc. The question is whether any particular religion's god is credible as real. If a supreme, personal being (generalizing finite minds, that is) exists, then why not?

[kyle28731]

I think modern people are more spiritual, as in supernatural, because of 2012.

People are scared of what might happen on that date that they turn religious.

Just wonder what you guys thought on this point.

[ETworldjone]

I admire Mcgrath's classic English gentleman approach :-)

[thinedoor2]

@ETworldjone It was a wise production choice to encourage them to convey their arguments in such a mutually courteous way. In every debate in which he's participated that I've seen, Dawkins has shown a great deal of patience and civility.

Also, I wonder if I'm alone  in here being reminded by McGrath of Eric Idle circa Monty Python?

[EdwardLittleWilly]

@Medievalpacman Atheism is to embrace uncertainty. Dawkins freely concedes that neither he, nor any one else, can know whether or not there is a god. Thus, as an atheist, he is unwilling to invest belief in a god but accepts that there could be one.

[PsycholoFist]

Director: 'OK Richard, make a valid point. And Alister, make a round about contradictory response that makes this interview totally redundant. Aaand Action!'

[thecamlayton]

atheism is on the rise because people are using the internet to cut through religion's bullshit. they can do this in privacy so they are free to do so more than ever before.

[PlanetBongoSan]

these people are all predicting the death of atheism right now. the truth is the opposite as they well know. It is blind faith which is in its ugly death throes right now, I can only hope that it is not replaced by the kind of wooly bullshit you hear from the spiritual left.

[amoneymoney]

@gamlastanarn

Yeah it's so rare to find a debate/conversation/interview/­argument about a subject where two people have so many opposing views and to not have each participant cut the other one off every 15 seconds.

[TheVodkaHaze]

Einstein was a deist AT BEST. He wasn't an atheist, many people assume this because he refuted that he wasn't a theist.

[hippo11222]

Einstein seems to be much more of an apathetic agnostic than anything.He did have a lot of critiques about religion,but he never believed in a personal deity. Though he did share a certain affinity for the philosophical view of God.Look up Spinoza's God.He could techically be called a poetic deist or maybe even a pantheist in that God is the sum of all natural law and phenomenon,basically meaning that God is the universe,but certainly I agree he was nowhere near a classical theist or an atheist.

[RayTech70]

@hippo11222 Good point... even Carl Sagan was not hardcore atheist. Sagan denied that he

was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

[TheBlackWhirlwind]

@TheVodkaHaze

That is indeed true about Einstein, he wasn't an atheist, in fact he openly declare that he felt sorry for those who attempted to debunk religion (he'd weep for Dawkins!), even though he himself was not part of any specific denomination or religious creed.

[tophattaxidermy]

Einstein did not believe in any god of religion of even in a creator. He explained his use of the word god as basically the mysteries he couldn't solve. Probably due to phrases like "God knows" i use that phrase myself but i dont believe in god.

[TheVodkaHaze]

From what I can recall, and I might be pretty inaccurate,Einstein was actually, some sort of a pantheist. Pantheism believes that the Universe IS God, and Einstein held belief that God was the mysteries of science and the Universe.

[ThePresident001]

as far as i know he was an atheist. he used the word god in a poetic sense, in reference to amazing things in the universe not actually as a religious belief. i think im right not too sure

[word4today1]

I must say I would certainly have to disagree about Albert Einstein being an atheist. I recall reading some Stephen Hawking books, I cant recall which one, but on he often quotes Albert Einstein as speaking about God. It also seems by the way he spoke about God that he did have some sort of belief, to what extent I wouldnt like to hazard a guess.

[pickboy87]

From what I remember reading, I believe that Albert Einsteins "God" was not actually the God of the bible. He had a different meaning behind the word. I don't remember exactly what his definition was behind it, but I believe it was something inside of everyone (don't quote me on that) or something to that nature. So in a sense I guess he was Atheist, but I do understand your point.

[word4today1]

I dont know, I think he probably had some sort of belief he was after all brought up in a Jewish family and was himself Jewish, not that it necessarily means he wasnt an atheist. I think that people should get away from this idea that because Einstein may or may not have had some sort of spiritual belief, that it somehow diminishes his brilliance and credibility.

[mystisme]

instead of using the word spirituality we should use the word psychic

[Twicebakedtaters]

Faith at it's worst, Faith at it's best.

No, humans at their worst, humans at their best.

Richard needs to remind himself of this.

[tonygmilan7]

why did dawkins call einstein an atheist?

[weswebb1979]

Because he was one. He only used the word 'God' in order to explain concepts etc: he was using poetic licence. He had to declare that he did not believe in a personal God because people misunderstood his use of the word as meaning that he was a believer.

[tonygmilan7]

einstein believed in a creator of the universe.

[weswebb1979]

when did he ever say that?

[tonygmilan7]

did u eevn watch the whole vid?

[weswebb1979]

Relax Tony, of course I did. You asked why he called Einstein an atheist and I tried to help by answering your question. Only a handful of theologians and many ultra-conservative Christians think he was a believer in God.

[tonygmilan7]

einstein was a desit/pantheist.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

[womperj]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

[womperj]

I should add that that quote does not constitute Pantheism either. He states clearly his admiration for science, not his admiration for the design a pantheistic deity would imply.

[tonygmilan7]

i never said he einstein was a theist. all i said was he believed in a creator of the universe

[womperj]

Believing in a creator of the universe that then had no further interference is Pantheism, which is different from Theism. Einstein was not a Pantheist. His expression of "God" was his poetic licence for the laws of nature, not of a pantheistic deity, as you seem to think. I quoted him in full for that reason and to give context, not because I thought you were calling him a Theist.

[womperj]

In addition to that, your quote references "Spinoza's God". Spinoza also used the word God to mean the unity of the laws of nature, not any sort creator God. Unfortunately your own quote does not help your position.

[willo996]

If that fuckwit would keep his head still then he might!!!!!

[Pein740]

If we had no religion and we all followed evolution to the point were we are basically worshipping it. Then we would care only about our own survival and the emotion of compassion as we know it would have disappeared.

[LucianUramu]

You're and idiot evolution is open to ridicule and scrutiny like anything else in science so it would never lead to worship since it is always being updated as new evidence and information comes to light. Also we are a social species so looking out for our own survival isn't very likely especially since a modern world requires depending on others to ensure the level of comfort we have now. No one would ever advocate what you think evolution leads to.

[Pein740]

How ironic. You are calling me an idiot yet you cannot spell. Anyway Evolution may be founded on evidence (and I am not a creationist and I believe it to be logical) yet even with this amount of evidence you still have to interpret it and come to an opinion about the world. Evolution does not disprove God. Maybe you should look it up in your 'Bible' The Origin of Species.

[LucianUramu]

First off wow one missspelled word means everything else spelled correctly is to be ignored. Second interpretation of evidence is based on observable and duplicatable of findings so one conclusion is really what is left.

[anthonzi]

2:50 lol where is this belief eroding? You must be looking in the wrong places because your neighbors are some of the most atheistic people in the world.

[dracpcpp]

1:40 cameraman doesn't know what the fuck to do.

[milyang]

There is no such thing as a pure atheist. Even their atheism is the result of living in a Christian culture. Can they honestly say their morality was derived independently from Christianity? Maybe if they can prove to me that they're some undiscovered tribe living in isolation for these past thousands of years. Atheism cannot flourish without some religious influence. Throw some babies onto an island and I guarantee, they will develop a religion of their own.

[dracpcpp]

i agree that the the theoretical babies would eventually develop some form of religion or worship, religion is mankind's first attempt to understand the world around itself.

[anthonzi]

Can you honestly believe that most of the modern moral insights are derived from religion? Did we learn to stop burning witches for heracy from religion?  Did we learn not to stone women for adultery when they'd been raped from religion? Did we learn to stop torturing our children and leave their genitals intact from religion? Did we learn that it was wrong to own another person from religion? Just because religiosity can be argued as natural does not mean it is beneficial.

[Pein740]

Actually yes. Especially the part about stoning was stopped by a religious man called Jesus.

[anthonzi]

And you think that couldn't have been acheived by a nonreligious soceity? And stoning was started by religious people in the first place.

[mawa89g]

For Christianity I can say you don't do all this things if you follow it...you can't blame it for things which are done in it's name while being forbidden by it.

[dimic]

Evil has also been apparent within Atheism in the past through communism.

[CMFordonFordain]

there's no such thing as good and evil in atheism. Why is Richard Dawkins saying one thing is actually evil?

[josharounder]

Religion does not define good and evil.

We do.

The Crimes of Hitler and Stalin, the mass murdering etc, are both undoubtedly evil acts.

but unlike faith-heads we dont paint everything black and white, there are shades of grey.

[alieales]

CMFordonFordain - Have you heard of Humanists?

[guitarsquiddy]

Science and religion have worked well together in the past? Really? Christian religion?

The sheer political power of rome has held science back throughout the ages.

If we refer to past scientists as religious, we often forget, that the church had the power to prevent a book from being printed. So every scientific publication had to accommodate the church and refer to god's wonders several times. Face it. Science and religion are directly opposed and always will be if we're honest.

[ygustavo]

Eisntein was not an atheist. he was in the middle of deism and pantheism . when he was asked about if he was religious, he said, "i have faith in Spinoza´s god, but toward the abrahamic God, im just agnostic." and he said towards the atheist : "the worst thing about them , is that they want to count me between their advocates".

[Raffzeee]

Atheists can be stupid too, like the ones who really believe that ALL Christians believe in Creationism and ID. Not true, this man doesn't.

[sophiasaurus]

There is a very small percentage of atheists who assume such. but atheists focus on creationism and ID because it is immediately threatening to the educational system. just because you talk about it doesn't mean you think all christians fall in line with that. but they are still just as big of a problem because they only unintentionally support that cause.

[Raffzeee]

You don't have to talk to me about ID and creationism, I hate it. I wouldn't want to unintentionally support that cause. Why would I?

[sophiasaurus]

keyword: unintentionally.

[ygustavo]

ID and creationism are damaging religion.

[PencilsAreAwesome]

@sophiasaurus "There is a very small percentage of atheists who assume such. but atheists focus on creationism and ID because it is immediately threatening to the educational system."

And funny.

[ferinkyra]

@sophiasaurus Disagree. Most atheists I have met and conversed with assume that I believe in a literal 7 day creation and that I don't believe in science and are surprised to hear that I, along with many other "religious folk", have given it a lot of thought and study, and are open to theories, including evolution, and even reject Young Earth creationism.

[AzBirdDog]

@sophiasaurus WRONG!

What is threatening to our educational system is teaching darwins theory of no proof, pure speculation and fantasy.

We should teach what is true and provable. Neither are based in science FACT, both based in "Faith".

How did life began?

Neither sides know and can only guess.

Is evolution real? Nobody has proof either way.

[rkeck91]

@AzBirdDog Your ignorance is mind numbing. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, both fossil evidence and DNA evidence. Your question about life's origins does not involve evolution. Read a damn book.

[IstickThingsUpMyBum]

@AzBirdDog Even if Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, Kaku, Attenborough, Dennett and the other thousands of leading scientists are wrong about Evolution, which alternative explanations do you suggest we introduce our youngsters to?

Scientology? Greek mythology? Genisis and the talking snake? The various Hindu Gods? The wheel of reincarnation?

[Epyx911]

@AzBirdDog

? To think there are actually still humans so ignorant about evolution. Evolution is not a theory, it is a proven fact. You can ignore the mountain of evidence which is completely within your right but to dismiss it as fantasy is wrong as it does humanity a great disservice. 

[aeroshock1]

@Raffzeee Surely you are kidding? A person cannot be a Christian by definition if you don't believe that "god created the heavens and the earth". (The first verse in the bible). This verse defines creationism and ID. Some Christians disagree on the timetable in which the earth/etc. was created, but they ALL agree in creationism and ID. If god didn't create anything, then why the hell would anyone be compelled to believe a god at all?

[fakeaccount8455hr]

@Raffzeee Still, almost half of the United State's population believes in creationism and ID so we should be worried. That is very frightening indeed and will not change our world for the better.

[GodStink]

@Raffzeee

If you believe the Bible is the word of god then the Bible says god created everything and being a Bible-believing christian you can't NOT believe in Creationism.

Not believing in creationism and still believing in the Bible means you're just making it up as you go along and must stop using the Bible to reinforce your opinions.

[burtonius55]

@GodStink Raffzee believes God created the evolution process its very simple so you CAN believe in the Bible and evolution i wonder what stupid comment part 14 will bring from your ignorance

[GodStink]

@burtonius55

God, the enduring underachiever and eternal plagiarist, claiming the work of others as his own.

Please point out in the bible where it mentions divine creation by force of evolution. I seem to have missed that bit ... otherwise you are just inserting your own words into the mouth of god for your own convenience.

[atheist6in6a6foxhole]

@Raffzeee if the bible was wrong about ID, then why believe any of it? that's the question you need to ask yourself.

[Nihawmah]

I pity you in a condescending way.

Your dad must've brest fed you seeing that you can't flourish from calling names.

[josetogan]

awful camera work!

[Nihawmah]

Can't you see that it clearly says UNCUT FOOTAGE?

[Intellektual1]

A spiritual atheist? Very interesting. Doesn't that suggest a belief (of some sort) in the supernatural?

[bhig3]

Atheist only means a lack of belief in a God or Gods... I know a Wiccan Atheist who believes in magic.

[tielec01]

I know I'm committing the no true scotsman fallacy here... but no true atheist can believe in mumbo jumbo like that :)

[bhig3]

\/( ' _ ' )\/

I don't really get her either.

[stephendanielssoup]

Theyre not atheist.  theyre stupid

[lamplighteyes]

What he means is a poetic, romantic atheist I think rather than a "spiritual" atheist. Some people hold an incredibly jaundiced view that all scientists are sort of feelingless, vulcan automatons who don't understand anything unless it's expressed in formula, I suppose that's why he goes to the effort to call himself "spiritual". The problem is "spirituality" is a very vague concept, so anyone can say they are a spiritual person and it can mean anything.

[stephendanielssoup]

no. god delusion. chapter 1

[theheretic999]

you can certainly be an atheist and be spiritual. if only because 'spiritual' is a stupid word that doesnt have any meaning.

[jackdav34]

Einstein was a pantheist, who did not believe in a personal God. He was neither an atheist nor a theist.

[wjb67]

Discussion and reason is anti-thetical to faith and religion? Wasn't that covered in the first two minutes of the discussion? Very disingenuous on Dawkins' part.

[gtg309v]

"The first thing to do is to get rid of theories that have no supporting evidence" You can start by getting rid of God, creationism, the resurrection of Jesus, the story of Moses parting the sea, and finally the tooth fairy.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

You've got a problem gtg309v "Revealing God's Treasure - The parting of the Red Sea" video here on You Tube and in my favorites shows there is data (hard evidence) existing for the parting of the sea.

Do you think you think differently now or avoid truth?

[ratholin]

"One person would say that our sense of awe is not just in our head." hehe another person would say the evil leprechaun that tells me to burn things is not just in my head. Another person would say that my sense of lust is actually created by god to make me rape women. Wouldn't it be easier if we acknowledge things in our head are things in our head?

[Timbobz]

LOL Police sirens at the end of the video....in Oxford! What is it coming to lol

[FreiheitKampfer]

lol, what's up with the theist tilting his head all the time?

[Timbobz]

I assume because at times the camera is BEHIND Dawkins, so the only way to see McGrath's face is for him to tilt it a wee bit.

[rowanofrin1]

It is all part of Dawkins' grand plan to give McGrath neck problems :D

[pikechris1]

see? just once again, its the immoral atheism. lo! ;-)