As promised to my beloved non-believing posters, I am posting the interview between Bill O’Reilly and Richard Dawkins.
Highlights of the exchange include the following:
O’Reilly: “I understand the physiology of it, if you will, but it had to come from somewhere and that is the leap of faith that you guys make – ‘that it just happened’.”
O’Reilly: “Jesus was a real guy, I could see him, you know, and I know what he did and I’m not positive that Jesus is God but I’m throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys because you guys can’t tell me how it all got here – you guys don’t know.”
Dawkins: “We’re working on it.”
And there you have it – the bottom line. Atheists run around blathering about pseudo-science and pseudo theories and when realists denounce it as a crock (as it is), they turn the message from these people aren’t convinced with the lack of evidence we have provided to Believers are ignorant people who hate science.
Dawkins in his own words admits that there is no empirical evidence available to denounce a greater being that created it all but then insists that it is up to the majority of the country to convince him and the 12% of Atheists living here simply because they’re “working on it”?
What!?
I’ll say it one more time to avoid confusion – I believe in God. I proudly believe in God. My belief in God is infinite and everlasting and it is something that I internally know to be confirmed. It is not my job to convince anybody what the majority of this country already agrees with me on.
Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens everyday are illustrating what side of the debate has claimed extremism. If atheists were as convinced as they are telling us they are, they would just believe what they wanted and would shut up about it and stay out of my pockets for funding Darwinism in public schools.
sflesher2002@yahoo.com
My MySpace Page:
www.myspace.com/snorp73
25 responses so far ↓
Richard // July 18, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“we’re working on it” – why? Because it’s not an easy question! Yes, science doesn’t have all the answers, but it STRIVES to, and it knows how to go about doing it (i.e. the scientific method)
What new questions have Christians answered in the last 2000 years? What “work” has been done? At least scientists are attempting to answer the question properly, rather than saying “goddidit” with their heads in the sand.
True, some take atheistic evangelism a little far (so do many Christians), but how many extremist Atheists are out there compared with religious extremists? Not that I agree with them, but I understand why some atheists (e.g. Dawkins) resort to “extremism” – you’ve got to fight them on their own level.
Steve // July 18, 2007 at 7:14 pm
There is no living Christian today as extreme as Hitchens. In debates, it is atheists that spew hostility toward Believers. What I spew is frustration for the following comment:
“What new questions have Christians answered in the last 2000 years?”
What new questions would they answer? If a group of people are happy and confident in their beliefs, how many more questions should they ask? 76% of this country agrees with me and are believers as well. I don’t have the problem with familiarity by in large.
The burden is on the minority to make their case and I am sorry but while the minority is still “working on it” — we need to have these crackpot theories refrained from being rammed down the throats of children in public schools at my expense.
Richard // July 18, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I can’t comment about Hitchens, as I know nothing about him/her. As for your question, “what new questions should they answer?” – how about “am I right?”
Just because something is popular (if that’s the right word), it doesn’t make it right. 66% of the world agrees that Christianity is NOT the right religion. Since you’re the minority, justify yourself.
Devil Dog // July 18, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Richard said: “What new questions have Christians answered in the last 2000 years? What “work” has been done?”
Christians have answered the questions of poverty, starvation and homelessness through their compassion to help the underprivileged.
Scientists don’t make the distinction between what is moral and immoral. That is a dilemma that I would not want to be part of at any time. It is so cold in the scientific community.
Devil Dog // July 19, 2007 at 12:04 am
Richard said: “Just because something is popular (if that’s the right word), it doesn’t make it right. 66% of the world agrees that Christianity is NOT the right religion. Since you’re the minority, justify yourself.”
One thing you don’t understand, Richard, is that the website is what religion you identify with, not whether you believe the other is wrong or right. One thing about religion is that people respect the other person’s religion, for the most part.
Your attempt to say that people believe Christianity to be WRONG based solely on their adherence to what their respective religion is, makes your argument very disingenuous.
Try again!
Richard // July 19, 2007 at 1:05 am
Devil Dog – you ever met a religious person who DOESN’T think that other religions are wrong? If so, I’m willing to admit the figure might be slightly lower than 66%.
And yes, science doesn’t answer the question of morality. But that doesn’t mean scientists don’t have morals. And last time I checked, poverty, starvation and homelessness have not been “answered” – but, like Dawkins, perhaps you can claim to be “working on it”…
Devil Dog // July 19, 2007 at 3:17 am
Yes, I have met numerous religious people who do not think that other religions are wrong. Yes, a vast majority believe that. Please, stop listening to the media about what religion is and is not.
Hell, they run stories like “Who was Jesus?” and “Was Jesus A Man?” Who is the uneducated about religion – yes, the media.
I never once said that scientists don’t have morals. But, on the contrary, how many scientists do you really think believe in God? That would be a conflict in my opinion.
Of course, religion doesn’t have an answer to poverty, homelessness, etc., but they have done more to try to solve it than scientist or athiests for that matter.
Steve // July 19, 2007 at 5:43 am
That is an excellent question, Devil.
“How many scientists believe in God?”
I wonder if anyone’s ever taken a poll on that. American scientists anyway. Only 12% or so are atheist (the population altogether) –I wonder of the American public, how many are scientists?
And does anyone (Richard) know the percentage of bonafide scientists that believe in God versus the ones that do not?
Richard // July 19, 2007 at 6:45 am
Why does science HAVE to conflict with religion? The first scientists WERE religious people. The first science experiments were sponsored by the church. Saying that scientists believing in god is a conflict is not a position supported by history.
Do I know the statistics? No.
That said, I’m a little confused – are you guys against atheists, or scientists, or both?
Steve // July 19, 2007 at 6:55 am
Richard said:
“Why does science HAVE to conflict with religion?”
That is precisely our question – the believers, the ones who are tired of the atheist hype.
Which side has made science an enemy of their opposition? We certainly didn’t do it!
It’s the atheist side that is always saying that Christians don’t value science and proclaim that believers hate it.
Also, most atheists proclaim that science is directly on their side.
So, wouldn’t it be a logical question of what the statistics are?
Richard // July 19, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Science IS on the atheist side (when we use the normal atheists definition of Atheism – a LACK of belief in God – rather than the often argued belief there is DEFINITELY NOT a God). Science, by its very nature is skeptical, as are atheists. Religious people, in general, are not skeptical, but belief despite a lack of evidence. That alone, I have little problem with.
That said, while modern science grew FROM the church, I believe it was the church who first rejected science. Many of the great discoveries about our universe were made be religious people, although their claims were rejected by the church. Even Darwin wasn’t an atheist, and only lost faith in Christianity after his daughter died (and NOT because of science).
I don’t believe Athiests DO claim all Christians don’t value science – although certain Christians (like the author) certainly don’t. Darwinism IS science, and this post specifically suggests teaching our children this science is not valuable. I didn’t make the claim, the author did.
As for the statistics – yes, it’s a logical question to ask, but one I don’t have the answers to. If you find a study, I’d be interested in the results – particularly if it breaks down their beliefs into detailed categories (deist, theist, religious, agnostic, atheist, etc.).
bluerat // July 19, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Typical religious clap-trap. So many poor assertions. Firstly, Richard is right that science is by its nature sceptical – and that is a good thing. Scientific methodology answers questions primarily concerned with trying to understand the nature of matter in a rational and systematic way. Atheists do not claim that Christians don’t value science, and plenty of scientists in the past have been religious, though the WAY in which they are religious varies. For example John Polkinghorne is a full Anglican minister, but Freeman Dyson believes only in a rather attenuated God. If you read the history of science and religion, you’ll find that since the Enlightenment (roughly since Galileo, Copernicus and Newton) onwards, scientific discoveries, which are repeatable, verifiable and so forth, have historically weakened the religious (Christian in Europe at the time) case that holy texts contain valid facts about the origins of the universe or how it works. Darwin is merely a continuation of that trend, a trend incidentally that was in fine fettle in Ancient Greeks where atheism emerged originally. The Church partriarchs shut down a lot of sketpical debate relating to these things. As for the moral claim: Christianity has made scant progress in solving the world’s big problems. Different denominations emphasise such things as charity work to different extents. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian institution on the planet, has still found itself unable to move on from outdated doctrines and sanction the use of condoms in Africa, a stupidity for which thousands die each day from preventable diseases, most obviously HIV/AIDS. In contrast scientists are working on treatments for these.
Steve’s implication that Dawkins is somehow wrong for having said that science (not atheism, incidentally) is “working on it” when it comes to explanations about the universe is completely hollow. Working on it is exactly what science is doing, and it is making lots of progress. Working on things is exactly what brought humanity out of medieval primitiveness and into an age of computers, for instance – which Steve uses to propagage his silly arguments. Steve benefits from scientists “working on it”. And as religionandatheism wrote in a separate post elsewhere on this silly site:
“You should note that where you find out about facts or observations science is yet to explain or be confident about, that is not an indictment of science; it is a recognition of the fact that theories take a great amount of meticulous development, and an acknowledgement that hubristic assertions of omniscience are out of place in any system with true explanatory power.”
That science has not explained EVERYTHING does not mean it’s not infinitely better than religion, which in naturalist terms has explained NOTHING. “God did it” is not an explanation to the origin of the universe. It’s just a wild assertion founded on cultural factors. If I said “Zeus did it” I’d be making a statement with exactly the same explanatory value. Or for that matter if I said “the universe hatched out of a giant indetectable egg” that would still have the same power of “explanation”. The honest thing to say, my dear sirs, is “we don’t know YET, we’re working on it.” There’s no arrogance or atheism in that statement.
Steve // July 19, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I don’t think that Dawkins is wrong. I just don’t know why you couldn’t admit this early on when I suggested it?
You talk about my “silly assertions” Blue, but somehow manage to confirm his point that atheists really DON’T know as they proclaim they do.
It’s amazing how rational you become when faced with answering the fact that Dawkins –the Atheist’s God — has no factual evidence to claim that there is no higher being.
In lieu of coming out with that claim in your earlier posts (which stemmed from one humorous line uttered by Ann Coulter), you chose to propagandize your extremist views. You also proclaim that it is my responsibility to prove to you what you guys have failed to disprove — and the majority of the country is with me on this.
Again, the overall point is that the science-loving crowds; who coincidentally do not believe in God, are the extremists rather than Christians trying to do good for others and trying to do right by their families while making the choice to believe in something beyond and having “faith.”
I feel bad for true science and the way its name has been drug threw the mud by others. Keep in mind “science” is also drug through the mud to warn us of a slow-human boil right here on Earth. Keep in mind that “science” was also drug through the mud in the 70’s when it was “warned” that you and I were supposed to be snowmen by now.
In the end, I’m happy that Atheists and Agnostics have the freedom in this country to have their personal beliefs.
All I ask is you keep out of my pocket for pseudo-scientific funding and teaching children these incomplete theories in public classrooms.
You apparently have “faith” in pseudo-science. My “faith” is elsewhere. Is it a difference you can live with?
Steve // July 19, 2007 at 8:14 pm
By the way, Blue, what on Earth was “religious” in this post?
You weren’t so willing to admit the “bottom line” early on and as I have already pointed out, you are willing to rationalize and admit science’s flaws and limitations now because Dawkins said it.
You then bring religion into it by being the first non-believer type to unite Christians with science — after you brand me “typical religious clap-trap.”
But simutaneously (a few paragraphs later) you show the true twisted hypocrisy to your positions by saying:
I never compared the two, Blue but you just did.
Christians do not hate science and science is not even in the same arena as religion. But they are not enemies of eachother.
And if there ever is a war between the two, it will be because of people like you — not me.
Richard // July 19, 2007 at 10:46 pm
What’s religious about that post? How about “I believe in God. I proudly believe in God. My belief in God is infinite and everlasting and it is something that I internally know to be confirmed.”
Christians do not hate science
Then why are you so against tax money being spent on scientifically educating your country’s children?
Steve // July 19, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Richard,
Next time I’m using a hammer and chisel on your head……….
I was not promoting religion by stating that I believe in God – I am not suggesting that your tax dollars support Intelligent Design or any alternative-theory to Darwinism. As you clearly state your position (and as Blue did) I clearly state mine.
What Blue insinuated is that my pointing out Dawkin’s admission of not knowing where it all started had something to do with religion, and it does not, it has to do with fact — thus leading to the argument of why it is I’m expected to pay for its teaching.
One more time with the hammer and chisel — I am not against bonafide biological and natural sciences! I do not mind educating on true science. Darwinism and Dawkinsland do not qualify.
Understand yet?
Richard // July 20, 2007 at 2:52 am
I understand perfectly. But darwinism IS a bonafide natural science. “Knowing where it all began”, however, is not part evolution (or darwinism), so you’re clearly confusing your sciences. Perhaps you mean to suggest that “big bang” theory should be taught in schools?
Secondly, it’s not MY tax dollars, because in my country, this stupid anti-darwinism thing isn’t even an issue! Thank the almost-certainly-non-existant God…
Steve // July 20, 2007 at 6:31 am
It’s my tax dollars (I won’t even play the game of who pays more taxes per year) –
Kinda cute you tried to sneak it in with natural science. Sorry Richard, it is not a true natural/biological science without much evidence to support and as a matter of fact, a lot of evidence contradicts it.
Phillip E. Johnson, Professor at Berkeley had an interesting take –
You can read more at: http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_whatisdarwinism.html
He explains why Darwinism continues to be passed off as scientific fact when indeed it is not. It also explains the difference between Evolution and Darwinism (somewhat.)
I found it pretty fascinating.
Richard // July 21, 2007 at 1:18 am
(Not sure if that last comment got through or not, if it did, please feel free to delete this…)
Last time I checked, biology IS a natural science.
Secondly, if you want to quote someone reputable about evolutionary biology, an ex-Berkley law professor is not my idea of a credible source… Find me a reputable biologist (or even a reputable scientist in a related field), and I might take more notice…
Nathan A // July 24, 2007 at 10:04 am
First, I’d like to reawaken the topic of extremist and lead you all to this youtube video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YnG0eFwlmgI
There are in fact religious extremist that balance out Hitchens alive today.
“All I ask is you keep out of my pocket for pseudo-scientific funding and teaching children these incomplete theories in public classrooms.” Second, science class is about the history of science. Darwin, although not 100% true is very important to the progress of science, and his tributes should be learned. Evolution and natural selection are widely accepted as scientifically true. SCience class should be intended to educate kids who are potential scientists, and biology isn’t a psuedo-science and to be a biologist one will have to know about evolution and Darwin. Yes, science also believes that it may be found out to be wrong years down the road, but that’s no reason to not teach the science we think true now.
On the other side, the word of God does preach pretty much all good virtues, and there isn’t really any justification for people like Hitchens saying otherwise. God isn’t needed for someone to have principals, true but people use the word of God for their own evil agenda, God’s words are not the evil.
But I do have one question for the religious parties potentially reading this:
Why is it so much more unlikely that energy and matter and space and time are infinite (in the case of no creator) than it is that God, Himself, is actually infinite? If God could have always been, why couldn’t something else?
20 gram Soul : Am I too argumentative? // July 25, 2007 at 5:43 am
[...] said, blatantly stupid comments still draw my ire – fine – be religious, believe in a personal God. I’ll disagree with you, [...]
Steve // July 25, 2007 at 7:12 am
“First, I’d like to reawaken the topic of extremist and lead you all to this youtube video”
Thanks Nathan for helping to make my point. Phelps and their crew are just crazy having nothing to do with general Christianity.
Liberals and atheists alike have put Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in with the “religious right.” There you have it when you saw Sean denounce this nut. So would you label Sean and Ann as part of the religious right now?
Nathan, biologial and natural sciences are indeed 100% true. Any scientific subject in school should be to require the use of my tax dollars.
Lastly, how about atheists like Hithens that claim religion is poison and that anyone is dangerous that believes in it. Rather “extreme” wouldn’t you say?
If Sean Hannity (someone already labeled as a religious-righty) can dismiss Shirley Phelps, certainly we can get one atheist to dismiss the extremism of Hitchens, right?
How about the atheists who debate Christians that never smile and throw out insults. They call God a “sky fairy” & purposely throw out these epithets to intentionally hurt the feelings of loyal Christians.
Christians haven’t done that to them — and it’s worth noting that, too.
Richard // July 25, 2007 at 8:45 am
“Dawkins: Why I do believe the atheists have found their God” isn’t insulting to atheists?
Steve // July 25, 2007 at 9:30 am
No. You guys literally look up to this guy as a God.
Richard // July 26, 2007 at 3:18 am
Spokesperson, possible, but I have yet to meet ANYONE (atheist or otherwise) who agrees with him 100%. There are some points on which we disagree.
One of the wonderful things about free-thought – we can read a book, and not have to believe it’s infallible!
And personally, while I’d accept the title of this post as potentially humorous – if you DO mean it seriously, then it is an insult.