Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

liamw

I would love to see Dawkins on the Late Late Show. Anyone know if Pat Kenny is a catholic?

I think a lot of Irish people need to see the side of realism and rational thinking. At times it seems people here are so backwards, they still believe in intelligent design of humans...

Not that this would do any good perhaps, but maybe if enough of us encouraged the show to do it, we could make it happen?

jd

liamw wrote: »

I would love to see Dawkins on the Late Late Show. Anyone know if Pat Kenny is a catholic?

I think a lot of Irish people need to see the side of realism and rational thinking. At times it seems people here are so backwards, they still believe in intelligent design of humans...

Not that this would do any good perhaps, but maybe if enough of us encouraged the show to do it, we could make it happen?

He was on a few years ago.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,402,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Late-Late-Show-with-Pat-Kenny,RTE-1-Ireland-Richard-Dawkins

Rev Hellfire

Dawkins has been on the late late before.

liamw

wow, never realised that. thanks

http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/20061208.html

apoch632

they still believe in intelligent design of humans...

If you mean god started it or was the cause of big bang then yes most probably do. If you are talking about the 5000 year story I would disagree with you. Its anecdotal evidence granted but I've met maybe 4-5 people in my life that were like that and the vast majority are not

SoupyNorman

Darwin on the Late Late, no theres a crowd puller.

liamw

bravestarr082 wrote: »

Darwin on the Late Late, no theres a crowd puller.

Indeed, Charles Darwin on the late late would be a crowd puller alright

RKDus

Here's a link to watch his appearance

http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_20061208.html?2201046,null,228

I must say I found the ignorance of the people making points really annoying.

MrPudding

liamw wrote: »

Indeed, Charles Darwin on the late late would be a crowd puller alright

Why not? All it would require is a resurrection. Stranger things have happened.*

MrP













* And by "Happened" I mean probably have not actually happened but a bunch of people believe that they did happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, possibly because their heart has somehow told them that it is correct.

liamw

RKDus wrote: »

Here's a link to watch his appearance

http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_20061208.html?2201046,null,228

I must say I found the ignorance of the people making points really annoying.

I find the ignorance of religious people in general very annoying

Galvasean

liamw wrote: »

I find the ignorance of religious people in general very annoying

You're fitting in already :cool:

Mickeroo

MrPudding wrote: »

Why not? All it would require is a resurrection. Stranger things have happened.*

MrP


* And by "Happened" I mean probably have not actually happened but a bunch of people believe that they did happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, possibly because their heart has somehow told them that it is correct.

Maybe god cloned jesus

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

* And by "Happened" I mean probably have not actually happened but a bunch of people believe that they did happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, possibly because their heart has somehow told them that it is correct.

Provide this evidence please? If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.

1 Corinthians 15:14 wrote:

and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.

Or is it that you are talking nonsense as usual? If so, perhaps you should actually consider the arguments that have been put forward for the likelihood of the Resurrection in Christian apologetics.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

Provide this evidence please? If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.

Provide evidence it happened.

Bible quotes don't count.

CiboC

Jakkass wrote: »

If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat.

Didn't Bertrand Russell have something to say about idiotic suggestions like this... something about a china teapot...??!

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Provide evidence it happened.

Bible quotes don't count.

I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

I don't claim to have a proof for the Ressurection, but I believe I have strong indication that it did happen. Check the link on my sig, and if you want more information feel free to PM me.

CiboC wrote: »

Didn't Bertrand Russell have something to say about idiotic suggestions like this... something about a china teapot...??!

Argument from Authority - I think you'll find that's a logical fallacy.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

Argument from Authority - I think you'll find that's a logical fallacy.

Referencing a name (as credit or to help pinpoint) while making an argument isn't argument from authority. He's not claiming something is true just because BR said so.

CiboC

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't claim to have a proof for the Ressurection, but I believe I have strong indication that it did happen.

So your (and everyones, as nobody has proof of the ressurection) case for Christianity rests on your belief in a strong indication that it might have happened...?

Well, if that's good enough for you.....

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

I underlined the bit I disagree with. Even if he were to hypothetically show the world undeniable evidence that it certainly didn't happen there would still be thos who would refuse to believe it. I mean, we still have those who refuse to believe in evolution, round Earth theory and the Holocaust.

edit: for the record I'm not implying that you would disregard evidence in such a way, merely that there are those who do.

Genghiz Cohen

Derp

johnnyskeleton

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

How about we kill someone, bury them for 3 days, and see what state of decomposition the body is in. It would be hard for Jesus to come back and knock around for a few days if bacteria had eaten most of his internal organs. Also, a decomposed body smells pretty bad, yet people were happy to go drinking with him afterwards? Seems pretty incontrovertible that the ressurection didn't happen. Maybe he didn't die, maybe he just hid in a cave for a few days. One thing's for sure, he didn't die and come back to life. It's not physically possible.

philologos

CiboC wrote: »

So your (and everyones, as nobody has proof of the ressurection) case for Christianity rests on your belief in a strong indication that it might have happened...?

Well, if that's good enough for you.....

I have reason to believe that there is a strong indication for this, actually quite a few. So if it was just mere belief, yes, your post would have been valid. However when it is indicated for in actuality that is different. Seriously do some research on what Christian apologetics has to say on the issue, and then come back when you have educated yourself about what is being argued. I'd reccommend you Lee Strobel, the Case for Faith for a start.

Galvasean wrote: »

I underlined the bit I disagree with. Even if he were to hypothetically show the world undeniable evidence that it certainly didn't happen there would still be thos who would refuse to believe it. I mean, we still have those who refuse to believe in evolution, round Earth theory and the Holocaust.

edit: for the record I'm not implying that you would disregard evidence in such a way, merely that there are those who do.

I'm going to concede this point. You're perfectly right in this objection to my post. In rephrasing it, would it be reasonable to say that Christianity probably wouldn't have as much momentum if the Ressurection had been disproven (or that the supernatural had been shown to be disproven, as to do one you have to do the other). Or would you have contention that Christianity currently has momentum. Share with me your reasoning on it.

philologos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about we kill someone, bury them for 3 days, and see what state of decomposition the body is in. It would be hard for Jesus to come back and knock around for a few days if bacteria had eaten most of his internal organs. Also, a decomposed body smells pretty bad, yet people were happy to go drinking with him afterwards? Seems pretty incontrovertible that the ressurection didn't happen. Maybe he didn't die, maybe he just hid in a cave for a few days. One thing's for sure, he didn't die and come back to life. It's not physically possible.

Your post would be excellent if it didn't have the following issue:

To observe killing someone, and observing decomposition, all you would be proving would be that this doesn't normally happen. And Christians most certainly would agree with you. We don't see this as a normal natural occurrence at all. It would be a strawman of the Christian position to do this, as Christians see the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a supernatural event which is considered miraculous. If miracles occurred every day they would no longer be miracles but they would be "normal".

You're not comparing like with like, therefore your post doesn't pertain to the situation we are discussing.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Provide this evidence please? If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.

For me the evidence is that it is one of dozens, probably hundreds of resurrection stories from back then and I have no particular reason to believe this one over any of the others

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm going to concede this point. You're perfectly right in this objection to my post. In rephrasing it, would it be reasonable to say that Christianity probably wouldn't have as much momentum if the Ressurection had been disproven (or that the supernatural had been shown to be disproven, as to do one you have to do the other). Or would you have contention that Christianity currently has momentum. Share with me your reasoning on it.

It's very hard to gauge exactly how such a (hypothetical) discovery would effect an establishment like Christianity. For example a lot of the Christians ('Christians' perhaps?) I know don't actually believe in the Ressurection or indeed much of the Bible, but carry on classifying themselves as Christians regardless.
Personally I don't think such a discovery would impact Christianity as badly as one might think. The casuals arent fully convinced of most of the supernatural events in the Bible while the more hardcore beelievers aren' going to let a few scientists convince them that they are wrong, regardless of how strong their case is.

johnnyskeleton

Jakkass wrote: »

Your post would be excellent if it didn't have the following issue:

To observe killing someone, and observing decomposition, all you would be proving would be that this doesn't normally happen. And Christians most certainly would agree with you. We don't see this as a normal natural occurrence at all. It would be a strawman of the Christian position to do this, as Christians see the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a supernatural event which is considered miraculous. If miracles occurred every day they would no longer be miracles but they would be "normal".

You're not comparing like with like, therefore your post doesn't pertain to the situation we are discussing.

If only christians were defence lawyers, then that guy in Cork who laundered the money from the Northern Bank raid could have said "the money coming into my account was a miraculous event". Sadly though, he wasn't and he was convicted.

Can you prove that miracles exist? Because I think there is fairly good proof that, other than in certain environmental conditions which would not have prevailed at the time in the middle east, a human body will suffer decomposition over 3 days, and this was overlooked in the bible. If you take it as true that a man went into a cave on day one and on day three the same man came out again, the only rational conclusion supported by the evidence is that he was not dead during any part of the three days.

So I've shown that it is not physically possible for the resurrection to occur. Now, in order to rebut that, you must show that miracles exist and point to specifics of the miracle that happened in this instance.

Otherwise I put it to you that Christians wouldn't carry out this experiment because they know that they would be proved incorrect.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

I don't think i copped out to be honest. At least you admit you have no proof of the ressurection which is something. It really is something that is a complete waste of time arguing about as i'll never believe it happened and you will always believe it happened. I read the link in your sig and i appreciate that you took the time to write those things out. I find your reasoning pretty flimsy for some of the points but I can't make any arguents that haven't been made ad nauseum both here and in the christianity forum.

branie

Someone should repost the first interview on youtube.

DeVore

Jak, can i ask... What WOULD convince you? What would you consider proof?

DeV

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

It's very hard to gauge exactly how such a (hypothetical) discovery would effect an establishment like Christianity. For example a lot of the Christians ('Christians' perhaps?) I know don't actually believe in the Ressurection or indeed much of the Bible, but carry on classifying themselves as Christians regardless.
Personally I don't think such a discovery would impact Christianity as badly as one might think. The casuals arent fully convinced of most of the supernatural events in the Bible while the more hardcore beelievers aren' going to let a few scientists convince them that they are wrong, regardless of how strong their case is.

Yes, of course it would be hypothetical. Sometimes I think talking about the hypothetical can be pointless, but I think there may be some use of it in this case.

As for many of the Christians you say don't believe in the Resurrection, and much of the Bible. I find that odd, as Paul writes, if the Resurrection didn't happen there is pretty much no point in believing in Christianity. I think these people who you know who hold these views, don't really have much justification for holding them, or that they really know what Christianity itself advocates. I just don't understand that form of Christianity that seems to be emerging more and more. I'd consider it a worrying development.

However, yeah I think you have a good point. I'd say there would be quite a bit of a drop off though. Contrary to popular belief many Christians do seriously think about what they believe and assess if it is reasonable to hold these views before adopting them.

Mickeroo wrote:

I don't think i copped out to be honest. At least you admit you have no proof of the ressurection which is something.

I have enough to indicate for it. However you are correct that I do not have absolute proof. Nobody does. Do you wonder why people call it belief? We have to deal with probabilities. God may or may not exist, from this point we have to provide reasons for why we believe in God, or why we don't believe in God (even if a lot of atheists are reluctant to do this, they must too be questioned). I hope you get where I am coming from, feel free to ask any more questions if you don't.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Can you prove that miracles exist? Because I think there is fairly good proof that, other than in certain environmental conditions which would not have prevailed at the time in the middle east, a human body will suffer decomposition over 3 days, and this was overlooked in the bible. If you take it as true that a man went into a cave on day one and on day three the same man came out again, the only rational conclusion supported by the evidence is that he was not dead during any part of the three days.

I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural. Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it. I would argue that something of a similar fashion had in the case of Jesus Christ. Whether or not you believe that God was behind the creation or not is actually irrelevant for now, the facts are something grossly improbable did transpire.

Now, just to clarify further, wouldn't you be an outright hypocrite if you said that something as improbable as the world coming into existence could happen, but the Ressurection of Jesus Christ couldn't?

Seems to me like a class A case of it.

I'd like to see your reasoning on it though.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

So I've shown that it is not physically possible for the resurrection to occur. Now, in order to rebut that, you must show that miracles exist and point to specifics of the miracle that happened in this instance.

Otherwise I put it to you that Christians wouldn't carry out this experiment because they know that they would be proved incorrect.

Miracles are the result of God, not the result of my work or the work of any other man. Experimentation on this wouldn't work due to the fact it would be directly disobeying God's commandment not to test Him. You could do it anyway, but you would no longer be testing the Jewish or Christian hypothesis, but you would be testing an abstract God that nobody ever argued for, but rather is the result of a strawman.

I'd like to know how you would have us demonstrate a miracle to you anyway. I think just as Jesus rejected to show signs to the Pharisees saying that they were "an evil and perverse generation", He would just as easily refuse to perform miracles to us because we are perhaps more evil and perverse than the Pharisees ever were. At least they were Jews who believed themselves to be righteous and who believed they had served the Lord.

philologos

DeVore wrote: »

Jak, can i ask... What WOULD convince you? What would you consider proof?

DeV

Thanks for the queston DeVore.

I think in order to put an end to Christianity for me, you would have to do a lot of ground work. However I'll keep this specific to the Resurrection.

You would most certainly have to narrow any possible gap where God could have possibly have come into the process of the formation of the universe. Why the formation of the universe counts in relation to the question of the Resurrection is precisely because you would have to destroy any notion that the Creation was a supernatural event, but rather was the result of it having happened of it's own accord. Basically one would have to explain step by step in an entirely logical process that there wasn't a hope of God having been involved in the creation of the universe, and that there is no means whatsoever that a higher power could have been involved at all.

Then to finish it off you would have to find a decent explanation as to why the disciples did what they did based on historical documents by those who had witnessed them at the time insisting that they were absolute frauds, or documents that discussed the fabrication of the New Testament texts, and admitted that they were a hoax while proving that they were from the correct dating in history, had the correct language, and were found in the correct location.

Basically DeVore, to disprove my position, someone would have to do a lot of ground work. I think this is reasonable, because I have decided to commit my life to Christianity, and I have decided that I want to grow and develop as a human being to Christ's teachings. It's a big investment, and it would need a lot of groundwork to justify ditching such a big investment.