The Case for God? (Part 1 of 2)

Aired September 6, 2010 on BBC One -

To mark Rosh Hashanah, Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks interviews four distinguished and engaging atheists in The Case For God?.

By having his own faith challenged by some of today's finest atheist minds, Lord Sacks attempts to get closer to what faith means. He interviews writer Howard Jacobson, who feels that religion is too bogged down by rules and regulations, while philosopher Alain de Botton does not believe any one religion can be the true faith". Scientist Colin Blakemore insists that science makes religion redundant, and professor Lisa Jardine maintains that human suffering undermines faith in God.

Will the Chief Rabbi find areas of common ground with these atheists and their issues with faith, and will it make him rethink his own beliefs?

via http://www.AtheistMedia.com

-

• Category

  Education

[995dave]

5:21 is epic!

[finausis]

A 'sin' is going against any commandment that G-d gave us to follow from Mt Sinai. For instance...there is a list of what we are allowed to eat and what we are not It is a sin if we disobey them and we then pay the consequences. He formed us, he knows what is good for us. The 10 Commandments are for all mankind.

[tocororomacho]

Religion itself is like a wall where you can't take out the bricks you do not like and still expect to perform its role as expected. Either you take it as it's, or you don't.

You can't cherry pick what you want when you do not know. Do not be afraid if you are going to do it and just jump into with open heart or stay home to yourself.

[Jeff Riley]

The rules in the old testament like not eating bacon, some crustation are just things to keep the Jewish people clean from disease. Things science didn't even know about for 5000 years later. (no refrigerators). It is not a sin if you do eat those things. Sins are the ten commandments.

[ExtremeBogom]

Can Satan be snorted back up ones nose?

Just curious because this sounds like fun.

[boliussa]

You should try to quote me if you try to differ with me. I replied to your recent point about materialism. Mohammed had a very materialistic view, e.g. you snort Satan out of your nose in the morning. You can drink wine and do other materialistic things in your paradise. You really shouldn't be criticising such materialism and as you say "superstitious notions", while getting up in the morning and snorting satan out of your nose etc.I don't deny the immaterial by the way. As I said, quote me.

[1tabligh]

Talking like a 6 years old kid!

So much science for this uncivilized stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!

The argument of an IGNORANT!

How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

[1tabligh]

***RED HERRINGS***!

Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.

[boliussa]

I don't believe in invisible monkeys. You believe in Jinn.It is Mohammed that says Satan (a supposedly immaterial being) Lives up your nose and can be flushed out with water. It is Allah and mohammed that promise you wine and 72 virgins(material) and maybe young boys, and sex in paradise. It is Allah that tells you he will burn your skin off and shove a thorny plant down your throat in hell. Nothing i've said is more materialistic than that, supposedly immaterial things described like that.