This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Thread for discussion of Richard Dawkins and Archbishop talk

Thread for discussion of Richard Dawkins and Archbishop talk - Comments

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 1 by Steve Zara

From the Guardian's report:

Then he quoted a poem by the biologist Julian Huxley and launched into his credal statement: "The laws of physics have conspired to make the collisions of atoms produce plants, kangaroos, insects, and us."

I sighed with delight at reading this. It cheered my non-existent materialist soul! If we have to have a creed, let it be that!

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:47:28 UTC | #921198

michal.stanislaw.wojcik's Avatar Comment 2 by michal.stanislaw.wojcik

I think that a good start was the question to Richard Dawkins about consciousness. If the consciousness is a delusion what is not. Which I understand in the way: what is the meaning of the concept 'delusion' if we do not introduce a concept of consciousness first. In the real world there is no such thing as delusion, things exist or do not, there is no delusion. I must say I am struggling with understanding of the word delusion especially if we don't assume consciousness as primary. Unluckily this part of discussion was interrupted and I can't hear the proper Dawkins' reply.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:05:17 UTC | #921209

peter mayhew's Avatar Comment 3 by peter mayhew

I'm afraid My overriding thought is that this discussion was not worthy of discussion. I got more evidence for the internal woolliness of the AB of C. I had heard Richard's stuff before. That's it.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:16:44 UTC | #921217

richard jr miles's Avatar Comment 4 by richard jr miles

Richard, I think a good answer re the soul is the effect of the human self-conscious inability in trying to understand the unconscious autonomic part that is responsible for 24/7 function. I like the way you did not get sucked into the philosophical categorization meta-bollocks.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:58:15 UTC | #921244

AnthropicConstance's Avatar Comment 5 by AnthropicConstance

You would think believers would be eager & curious to know how the Big Guy really booted up the Big Bang, but Williams is desperate to NOT KNOW the origins of the universe. He seems to lack the courage of his convictions to question the cuddly, fuzzy Father-figure in the face of impartial, definitive Laws of Nature. If this god were real Nature will provide evidence. Williams is terrified because of this, not despite it.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:38 UTC | #921274

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 6 by Neodarwinian

" No knockout blows in Richard Dawkins v Rowan Williams bout "

You would think that not having any evidence for your delusion would rather count as a KO against you, or at least a technical knockout.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:12:34 UTC | #921286

StephenH's Avatar Comment 7 by StephenH

Well, the Archbishop wins in one area.. the height department

Reminds me of a boxing match i saw once

Both fighters danced around each other, but did not land many punches

The Archbishop's face was a picture to behold a few times, as Richard let fly with some reason and logic

I get the impression Rowan will resume the silent waiting on the ?

Will there be a rematch one day?

Difficult, how do you debate something that does not exist, and there is no evidence for?

On that one to seven scale, make me a 6.99999

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:13:12 UTC | #921288

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 8 by xmaseveeve

We must try to watch and listen to everything Richard Dawkins broadcasts, as that's the best way of learing how to stay calm in the full smelly blast of this rotting fish - a hard smell to get rid of - the unwarranted influence of Christianity.

I'll watch this as soon as I can pay my phone bill, and don't have to use a dongle! RD never lets us down.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:34:39 UTC | #921301

"'s Avatar Comment 9 by "

I note from the above photograph that the Archbishop is wearing a large crucifix around his neck. I think it might help in future debates if RD was similarly adorned; perhaps with a 6 inch wide golden letter "A" on a chain around his neck? I just don't like to see theists with better bling.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:55:34 UTC | #921310

Mignostic's Avatar Comment 10 by Mignostic

Comment 9 by chimpious :

I note from the above photograph that the Archbishop is wearing a large crucifix around his neck. I think it might help in future debates if RD was similarly adorned; perhaps with a 6 inch wide golden letter "A" on a chain around his neck. I just don't like to see theists with better bling.

Heh! Contrary to what the article suggests, atheism isn't just another type of religion. As Richard pointed out before, atheism deserves no name (just like aracism isn't a name) and it deserves no symbols either.

Still found your idea funny though ;-)

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:08:22 UTC | #921315

/Mike's Avatar Comment 11 by /Mike

I started this thread and forgot that there was already an article posted - please continue comments there http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645036-the-nature-of-human-beings-and-the-question-of-their-ultimate-origin

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:11:47 UTC | #921316

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 12 by QuestioningKat

Comment 9 by chimpious :

I note from the above photograph that the Archbishop is wearing a large crucifix around his neck. I think it might help in future debates if RD was similarly adorned; perhaps with a 6 inch wide golden letter "A" on a chain around his neck? I just don't like to see theists with better bling.

Here's one option

Or one of these

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:22:26 UTC | #921323