Frank Skinner and The Archbishop of Cantebury 'in Conversation' clip

The Archbishop of Canterbury talks with comedian Frank Skinner during 'The Gathering' an event run by the Diocese of Canterbury

To order the full DVD visit www.canterburydiocese.org

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Frank Skinner
• Rowan Williams
• The Archbishop of Canterbury
• Canterbury
• Archbishop
• Diocese of Canterbury
• Church of England
• Roman Cathlic
• Lambeth Palace
• Comedy
• Religion
• live
• clip
• pastor
• gospel
• dean
• ministry
• Canterbury Cathdral
• in Conversation

[GodTheHypothesis]

Atheism isn't cool at all- I don't even know what that means. Religion has just become conversationally marginalised. People quietly giggle when you mention any unfounded belief. That's exactly the way it should be. People should be able to believe whatever they want- but the rest of society should react to these beliefs with either respect, if deserved, or ridicule. The only difference between a christian and someone who believes he's napoleon is that one belief is protected by society.

[conrad1on]

I've never really heard Frank speak seriously about religion, and I can see why now. I'd much rather he stick to the knob gags.

[mikelheron20]

@streetpilot123 Allow me to spell it out for you. Science derives its understanding of the world from observation, testing and the rigorous appraisal of evidence. Atheists reject the idea of God because it relies upon unsupported belief and unverifiable texts purported to be divinely inspired. To that extent atheism is a logical outcome of a scientific method. But atheists have no shared "ideology". Atheism is a rejection of the myth of God and the supernatural - and that's it.

[streetpilot123]

@mikelheron20 What a load of rubbish, atheists have used science to further a philosophical ideology, there's no connection between atheism and science at all and to try and link them is futile.

[mikelheron20]

Atheism is necessarily intellectually superior to theism because the latter rejects the intellect as a means of arriving at the truth. Theists are prepared to use their minds up to the point where they arrive at something they cannot explain and then resort to blind belief. In my book that makes them intellectually inferior. This is what makes dialogue between atheists and theists so futile - just like this conversation.

[spoonfulofdreams]

@mikelheron20 I didn't say atheism was dogma, I said your argument was dogmatic. I have no problem with atheism so long as its honest. You have no interest in honest dialogue, you only insist that atheism is intellectually superior to theism. You are entitled to your opinion.

[mikelheron20]

@spoonfulofdreams You wouldn't require evidence that your wife wasn't cheating because of the love and respect you have for her - based on your knowledge of that person's character which is a form of evidence. Or do you automatically trust everyone on first sight. I've arrived at my position as a result of thinking and examining what others - including believers have written and said. It was your view that atheism is dogma that I'm calling silly. I neither know nor care about your other views.

[spoonfulofdreams]

@mikelheron20 Faith that's based on evidence is no faith at all. If you needed evidence to prove your wife wasn't cheating on you it would demonstrate lack of faith. Experience is something different entirely. Atheism cannot be experienced but that doesn't invalidate it. You are deluded if you think you have arrived at your position by yourself and to consider my own views as silly when I haven't even stated my position on deism diminishes your argument considerably.

[mikelheron20]

@spoonfulofdreams I would argue that trust and faith (what's the difference?) are based on evidence (experience). I suspect even love. I'll leave love out of it bcause we probably mean different things by it. Atheism is the antithesis of dogma unless you're going to argue that thinking for onesself is a dogma. Seems a pretty weird argument to me but your entitled to your views no matter how silly.

[spoonfulofdreams]

@mikelheron20 I was simply explaining the reasoning, not promoting deism. Obviously your question was rhetorical because you are not interested in any sort of dialogue. Global warming is not only a scientific issue, it affects our everyday lives and the future of civilisation. I agree that belief in God is not scientific but neither is trust, love or faith in people. Your argument is useless because its just dogma dressed up as reason.