Richard Dawkins V Rowan Williams Round Two

[Khandro]

When; Tonight
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Please supply me with a list of attributes, and with total clarity I will tell you what God is not. //

No you won’t. Total clarity cannot apply to a wholly ambiguous subject. For total clarity to be achieved, demonstrable evidence must be forthcoming – and you have none.

[Khandro]

modeller: Yes, I may be wrong.
LG; So much huffing and puffing, but you still have not made any attempt at answering from where you think the laws of physics originate, Do you understand the question?
Ratter; Yes please, "explain it", in your own words if you can.

[naomi24]

Tut! There’s me answering Khandro’s post to me – and I've been ignored. Can't think why. ;o)

[chakka35]

angorstran, I don't know what 'life created itself' means. What is certainly true is that modern complex life evolved from extremely primitive life by the established process of evolution. So the question is: how did that primitive life appear?

The most reasonable theory so far is that it appeared by the coming together of the right chemical constituents in the right conditions at the right time. This has not yet been proved but work in that direction is well on its way. So far reproducing those early conditions has resulted in the spontaneous appearance of all 20 amino acids necessary for life.

Still a long way to go. But at least these people are working on it instead of just shouting meaningless challenges.

[LazyGun]

I haven't bothered answering the question Khandro, because I think it is a silly question as it stands.

Why don't you try rephrasing it?

[LazyGun]

@Khandro "You ask if I believe God created the universe, the short answer is yes, but the God (for want of a better name) I believe in, can not, unaided by grace, be grasped by human reason.
I adopt a position of what has been called one of "learned ignorance"; "

How convenient - what an excellent way to deflect tough questions.
You sound almost proud about being in a position of "learned ignorance"
And how dismissive of the human intellect you are.

[naomi24]

//You sound almost proud about being in a position of "learned ignorance" //

I think he is. All religious belief is learned ignorance, but he doesn't seem to understand that 'ignorance', learned or otherwise, is nothing to crow about.

[Khandro]

naomi; Perhaps if you were better read (not to mention better mannered) you would know that the term isn't mine. You could try 'How to be an Agnostic' by Mark Vernon, but I wont hold my breath.

[naomi24]

Khandro, as someone who needs to be reminded regularly to check his manners, good breeding is very clearly a subject rather beyond your area of expertise, so best not go there. As for your recommended reading, thank you, but having followed your advice previously, I’m sure you’ll understand why I’ll pass on this one.

Interesting though, that other men's words seem to influence you so greatly. On this thread alone we’ve had several examples from you. Young, Nietzsche, Aquinas, Vernon - and I don’t know if I’ve missed any but I’m sure I saw Confucius flailing around in there somewhere. It strikes me that your penchant for assuming that such examples somehow impress the reader, and hence, lend support to your argument, would make for a rather interesting psychological study, but that aside, ever thought of thinking for yourself? Once you get the hang of it, it can be wonderfully therapeutic, you know. ;o)

[Khandro]

^ Your 'Going it alone,' method, doesn't seem to be getting you very far!

[birdie1971]

Keyplus - “... That does not make me a complete buffoon but tells many about a very common sense that if you can't prove either way then might as well stop wasting your time and wait and see. So what's wrong in that my little birdie?...”

You're now trying to change what you originally said. How very familiar. Have you always been a pathological liar or is it a skill you've honed and perfected over many years Keyplus? Just in case you have amnesia, you said [22:31 Thu 31st Jan 2013], “... Once God will press "stop" button on the remote that Dawkins is running on, he will find out about the full possibility...”.

Your post was not saying let's just wait and see. It was in fact a simplistic, pointless and impotent threat to Dawkins specifically and to atheists in general.

[birdie1971]

Khandro “... Your 'Going it alone,' method, doesn't seem to be getting you very far!...”

And your penchant for name-dropping philosophers all over the place is winning the hearts and minds of your fellow debaters is it?

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Your 'Going it alone,' method, doesn't seem to be getting you very far!//

I’ve no idea where you imagine I’m trying to get to, but if it helps I’m content where I am.

[Khandro]

I think those last two posts by birdie and naomi speak volumes, and require no response whatsoever.

[naomi24]

Yes, don't they just. Clearly why you have no response.

[birdie1971]

Khandro - “... I think those last two posts by birdie and naomi speak volumes, and require no response whatsoever...”

Is that how it works in your world Khandro? You insult people and when they defend themselves or others defend them, you claim that those comments are irrelevant and beneath your contempt?

And you claim that other people are ill mannered! How thoroughly unpleasant of you.