Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"

[Lysander]

There is no evidence at all for that though. It can only be believed. I'm sorry but blind faith is not good enough for me. According to everything we know, you start decomposing when your heart stopped pumping and your organs have failed. Eventually only bones are left. And far enough into the future, even the bones will wither away. Your consciousness ceases once the brain functions have stopped.

That's what happens to the flesh and blood, yes.

And no you will never be able to prove religion, that would make God's creation pointless. We are created in His image and thus have a free will. There is a region why it's called belief and not fact.

[Loki]

That's what happens to the flesh and blood, yes.

That's all we are, unfortunately.

And no you will never be able to prove religion,

Which is why it is considered to be nothing more than superstition.

[Poltergeist]

Stupid question - stupid answer. That's it.

[Lysander]

That's all we are, unfortunately.

That's the visible part of us.

Which is why it is considered to be nothing more than superstition.

Nah, to me the changing of seasons is enough to see the divine work of God on earth. All this an accident? I think not.

[Loki]

That's the visible part of us.

As opposed to ... the invisible? You are quite right. I don't believe in things that only exist in imaginations and wishful thinking. Like ghosts, spirits, etc.

Nah, to me the changing of seasons is enough to see the divine work of God on earth. All this an accident? I think not.

Yes, you think not. Which means you cannot comprehend everything. Neither can I, after all we are only human. But that doesn't mean we have to fill the gap of the unknown with religion. That's a massive leap of faith which is not required. Rather, we can strive to understand more through factual and evidential scientific investigation and logical evaluation.

[Lutiferre]

Why is transcendence so important? I don't get it. And to what end?

Why transcendence is important? That was not what I was starting a debate about; I merely stated the obvious fact of religions which do value transcendence.

Why transcendence is important is obvious if you can imagine the viewpoint of any seeker of transcendence. Transcendence is what gives everything else it's meaning and importance, it's existence or non-existence, significance or non-significance; that which is greatest for you and everything and everyone else, and that which is the eternal good, right now and forever on, even if it is not the temporal good. As C.S. Lewis said, I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

If you say not all religions are equal, then in your view (as a Christian) ... what is the difference between a Hindu and an atheist? According to accepted Christian teaching, both are going to hell anyway.

No. There is no accepted Christian teaching on who in general is going to hell or heaven, the only general teaching is that it depends on free will (which is why universal salvation cannot be true; it would violate human freedom if God forced us into heaven). Hindus can be saved if Christ wills it and if they freely will it to the extent they can, in their ignorance. But that doesn't mean Christianity isn't still the safest path to salvation. And salvation, by the way, doesn't mean just going to hell in some distant future; it means healing and wholeness in relation to God and creation and yourself in your entire life on earth, as well.

As for elevation of self, atheism is more effective in that. Atheism frees you up to appreciate this life -- the only one you'll ever have -- and utilize it to the full. A belief in an afterlife can lead to negligence in this life.

You don't even know what I meant with elevation. You are speaking about devaluation of self rather than elevation into transcendence, that which is eternally bigger than self, whereas you confine self to be eternally small, meaningless, non-existing and unable to progress beyond and detach from beastliness and mere materiality.

[Lutiferre]

There is no evidence at all for that though. It can only be believed. I'm sorry but blind faith is not good enough for me. According to everything we know, you start decomposing when your heart stopped pumping and your organs have failed. Eventually only bones are left. And far enough into the future, even the bones will wither away. Your consciousness ceases once the brain functions have stopped.

That the body decomposes only shows that your consciousness will stop changing, because matter is the potency for change. However, that the brain and body is necessary for consciousness, sensory input and change in consciousness, is obvious; but the modality of necessity for the ontogenesis of conscious being within the world is not the same as sufficiency or exclusivity.

Indeed, the Christian belief is that the consciousness remains in stasis at death because there will be no body (brain) attached to it, with which to alter the consciousness since matter is potency and time is the medium of change; and there will be no time, which is also why we can never change whether we are going to heaven or hell after we die since there can be no change by metaphysical necessity. The nature of this state is unknown, and whether it's actually truly conscious or not is unknown. Many believe it will be a soul-sleep until the soul regains a body.

We don't believe true consciousness can be actually disembodied; it requires a body (including brain) by modal necessity. Therefore, we will only ever regain true consciousness in the ressurrection with a body.

[Eldritch]

I think he just came across as a heartless bully culling off an easy scalp.

Yes, the person who asked the original question may have been uninformed and naive, and quite probably not intellectually prepared to engage Dawkins in a seriouis debate (I think the very simplistic forming of the original question is ample proof of that).

But still, imo he should have had the discipline of simply bypassing the question.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It is that all religions have truth and no matter how much, if they do have truth, they certainly have more of the truth than an irreligious person in any case.

Could you quote some please

[Liffrea]

Dawkins is a fool who thinks you can hammer a nail in with a tea towel; he doesn’t understand the concept of using the correct tool for the right job as the ultimate reductionist reactionary he thinks he can use the same tool for every job.

More fool him.

Being blinded by science is just as foolish as being ignorant of it.