1. Comment #45593 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 11:46 am

It wasn't a very satisfactory debate at all - so short nothing of substance could really be said. The only message that I got from it was that Lord Winston believes it could cause a lot of offense to call so many believers deluded. I see his point, but I think using the term 'delusion' is really rather clever. It is really nowhere near as offensive at it sounds. Wikipedia defines 'delusion' as "a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception." In the context, it is hard to think of a more accurate word. The "derived from deception" part is particularly appropriate, as it indicates the role of churches and religious leaders.

Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a little offensive. "The God Delusion" is a useful meme. I don't think "I think you might be a bit wrong about God" would have sold quite so well.

Other Comments by steve99

2. Comment #45594 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 11:46 am

Doh!!

Five minutes of debate?? I was really looking forward to a big showdown between RD and Winston after all the sniping in the press. One reason for having that hope was my suspicion that Winston was going to evade the debate as he duly did so here and got off very lightly indeed. This was a big let down but no fault of RD.

Richard, did they really invite you all the way to the Hay Festival just for that?

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

3. Comment #45595 by DavidJGrossman on May 28, 2007 at 11:46 am

Yeah, an MP3 of this would be great. I refuse to infect my computer with any software from RealNetworks. Google RealPlayer and adware and you'll understand.

(haha, in the time it took me to write this, someone posted an MP3. Awesome!)

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

4. Comment #45597 by Richard Dawkins on May 28, 2007 at 11:52 am

Richard, did they really invite you all the way to the Hay Festival just for that?

No, I did four things while at Hay. An on-stage interview with Rosie Boycott about The God Delusion, in front of a large audience who asked questions during the second half. An on-stage discussion with Steve Jones and Martin Rees on the theme of whether we have abandoned the Enlightenment, again with Q & A from a large audience. The Today discussion with Robert Winston. And a Podcast for The Guardian. I should imagine that all of these will eventually find their way onto our website.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

5. Comment #45598 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Thanks Richard, glad to hear it. Though I wish you had had more of a chance to debate Winston given his recent comments in the papers.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

6. Comment #45599 by BicycleRepairMan on May 28, 2007 at 12:20 pm

I refuse to infect my computer with any software from RealNetworks.

I couldnt agree more, however, there are alternatives, or, atleast one: Real Alternative, also known as Media Player Classic, it works fine on this one:

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

7. Comment #45600 by captain underpants on May 28, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I refuse to infect my computer with any software from RealNetworks.
Why don't you use winamp for mp3 files?

Other Comments by captain underpants

8. Comment #45601 by Rtambree on May 28, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Once again, Winston squirmed out of that one and refused to declare precisely what he believes.

It's all very well to say "different people believe different things" or "religion has done good" or "the use of the word 'delusion' is insulting" but he won't actually state his own beliefs and arguments for them.

Winston is wrong about atheism damaging science - quite the opposite.

Winston must employ a gigantic leap of faith to jump from the mystery of the universe's orgin all the way to a specific set of Abrahamic beliefs.

Instead of arguing... if A, then B, then C, then D, Winston goes from... if A, then Z and skips all the intermediate steps.

It's strangely disconcerting for such a prominent and eminent scientist to hold such publically wishy-washy beliefs.

Every time Dawkins has come into a debate with Winston on this topic (e.g. The Story of God), it's over before it begins.

Dawkins and Winston need to stage a 15-Round Title Fight. I tip Dawkins with a K.O. by Round 9.

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #45602 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 12:49 pm

"Dawkins and Winston need to stage a 15-Round Title Fight. I tip Dawkins with a K.O. by Round 9."

I totally agree, its almost as if Winston had a button he could press to end the debate as soon as he felt it was getting a bit sticky. This spat has got quite a bit of coverage in the press and it would have been a very good thing (for England in particular) if two of England's best known scientists were to debate religion/atheism through the prism of science. I'm really annoyed with the way it turned out.

I can't understand why the BBC or Channel 4 don't bring the two of them together with a studio audience for a proper one-off debate. With titles such as TGD and such like riding high, you simply can't tell me that there isn't enough public interest. What do we get for the licence fee instead? Tonnes and tonnes of talent-show SHITE.

AAAARRRRGGGHH

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

10. Comment #45603 by Mr. Grape on May 28, 2007 at 12:53 pm

"Dawkins and Winston need to stage a 15-Round Title Fight. I tip Dawkins with a K.O. by Round 9."

"And Richard Dawkins in a ninja suit burst through the window, glass spewing every which direction, his sword glistening in the meager fluorescent lighting as the creationists turned their heads in curiosity. Throwing stars found their marks in the necks of the scurrying pseudo-science promoters who, in a panicked frenzy, hopelessly clung to what remained of their severed, blood spurting carotid arteries as they succumbed to hypovolaemic shock. Swing after relentless swing of the Blade of Truth cleaved into what remained of the crowd as Dawkins bestowed his odious rampage on the stupidity entrenched in the heads of the believers in the form of indiscriminate carnage. Eventually, as the last body collapsed unceremoniously onto the crimson soaked carpet, Ninja Dawkins vanished in a cloud of smoke, eagerly plotting his next skirmish in the war on ignorance."

Don't remember where I picked that quote up, but a little humor here can't hurt :)

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

11. Comment #45604 by Rtambree on May 28, 2007 at 12:54 pm

What about a Reality Television program where you lock up Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Jonathan Miller in a house with Robert Winston, Alister McGrath, Francis Collins, Denys Turner and the Bishop of Oxford, and viewers have to vote one off each week?

It would rate!

(There'd be no booze, so perhaps Hitchens wouldn't last)

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #45605 by DavidJGrossman on May 28, 2007 at 12:54 pm

"Why don't you use winamp for mp3 files?"

When I first posted my response, there was no MP3 file, only a RealAudio link. Thankfully an MP3 file was posted shortly thereafter. I do use Winamp for MP3s

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

13. Comment #45606 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 12:57 pm

(LAUGHS) nice one Rtambree

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

14. Comment #45607 by alovrin on May 28, 2007 at 1:03 pm

My opinion of Robert Winston's reputation continues to decline.

I just dont get this Point of view "you cant say that cause it might hurt some peoples feelings and could stop a continuing dialogue"

Well hasnt the dialogue been stopped at the" you cant say that" part of the conversation?

And then he waffles on about god or "spirituality" being a very personal thing....yeah and? does that mean you cant explain it or talk about it.

God is my friend and anyone cant say horrid things to me about him? He might strike you with lightning? WHAT THE FUCK?

Other Comments by alovrin

15. Comment #45608 by phil rimmer on May 28, 2007 at 1:04 pm

"Dawkins and Winston need to stage a 15-Round Title Fight. I tip Dawkins with a K.O. by Round 9."

Yes, indeed. This could be a hugely productive debate. Whilst I find Winston's position to be wooly-liberal with a surfeit of old-fashioned respect for others beliefs, I truly believe he respects truth more. Debates we've seen to date have either been honest but fruitless (e.g. with fundamentalist) or slippy and dishonest (e.g. with most moderates / religious apologists.)

Please, please, Richard??? Perhaps, if not an actual debate then a published exchange of letters ?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

16. Comment #45609 by Rtambree on May 28, 2007 at 1:10 pm

14. Comment #45607 by alovrin

Yes, there seem to be a number of standard defences religious-apologists employ...

1. God means different things to different people, and because science is not certain, therefore religion can't be criticised.

2. The God you're attacking isn't the one I believe in.

3. People need religion.

4. Religion does good things.

5. The world would still have bad things in it, even if we could get rid of religion.

6. You can't disprove God.

7. This all had to come from somewhere.

8. The style of your tone is too aggressive*

* Although it is a legitimate debate among atheists as to what style (good cop or bad cop) is the most effective in "deprogramming" theists.

Other Comments by Rtambree

17. Comment #45610 by isaone on May 28, 2007 at 1:13 pm

The thing that gets my goat is that these people who find fault with The God Delusion always completely avoid one important fact. Richard is logically completely correct !!!

Have you noticed that no one even dares to engage the facts of the case (the probability that the God of the major religions does not exist). Instead they focus on 1) He is rude (sorry, sometimes the truth is rude (for ex. we are all going to die) Richard himself is extremely polite) 2) He is 'helping' the 'other' side (this one generally misses the point that as I see it Richard is not on one side or the other he is simply stating facts. If the facts change I believe he will happily change his beliefs 3) No one can be 100 % certain that God does not exist (so what? the same can be said for any and all 'facts' so this is completely irrelevant) 4) Atheists must be immoral, unhappy, angry, miserable, .....{fill in the blank} (Ok if you show me the statistics I will look at them but even it it is true it is irrelevant) 5) No one believes in the god that TGD is referring to (Odd I myself know many people personally who are creationists and at least one young earther. So this is obviously not true and if TGD is not talking about their 'God' then the book is completely irrelevant to them and instead of debating Richard they should completely support him).

I would be interesting for a change to find a critic who actually disagrees with what the book says but I guess that is a variation on my eternal (and fruitless) search for a reasonable, intelligent fundamentalist.

Other Comments by isaone

18. Comment #45612 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 1:18 pm

alovrin : Well hasnt the dialogue been stopped at the" you cant say that" part of the conversation?

Precisely, which is why I think this soppy, sloppy way of "thinking" could be utterly humiliated by RD if there was a decent debate between the two.

I smell a cop-out here. If RD was available for a proper debate with Winston (being, as he was, at the Hay Festival) it wouldn't surprise me if Winston had said something like "Yeah I'll give you five minutes, on the phone" knowing full well RD would catch him out sooner rather than later. Winston would rather try and land sly digs in the press from a safe distance.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

19. Comment #45613 by reggiedixon on May 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Richard (If I may be so bold as to use your first name), I notice you gave Winston a chance to assert whether he personally believes in god and he ducked the question.
I'd call that Game, Set and Match to you.

Other Comments by reggiedixon

20. Comment #45614 by NJS on May 28, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I believe a valid reply to "your stance is insulting and offensive" is "You believe I will burn in hell forever - whats more offensive than that?"

Other Comments by NJS

21. Comment #45617 by Rationalist on May 28, 2007 at 1:41 pm

It's odd that so many religious people take offense at the term delusion. Delusion is a false belief or opinion such as I am under a delusion if I think pi is rational.

The one thing one can say with certainty about people with a religious faith is that most (perhaps all) are wrong in their beliefs. The Catholics, the Muslims, the Mormons and the Pastafarians and thousands of other religions and denominations can't all be right, indeed thay have radically different beliefs, both in practice of how to follow God's commands and in what God is.

In fact if they were being honest they would say that people of other religions are under a false set of beliefs or delusion.

Other Comments by Rationalist

22. Comment #45618 by The Wee Flea on May 28, 2007 at 1:47 pm

"I would be interesting for a change to find a critic who actually disagrees with what the book says but I guess that is a variation on my eternal (and fruitless) search for a reasonable, intelligent fundamentalist."

Try 'The Dawkins Letters - challenging atheist myths' by David Robertson or 'The Dawkins Delusion by A McGarth'. The former goes through each chapter of TGD, the latter looks at four aspects. I'm sure you won't agree but it is a whole lot better than this constant debating with people who don't really get the point!

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

23. Comment #45619 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I believe a valid reply to "your stance is insulting and offensive" is "You believe I will burn in hell forever - whats more offensive than that?"

I think in this case that response would not be fair. I don't believe Winston believes that.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #45621 by CJ on May 28, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Well that was a complete waste of every body's time.

As already pointed out "Dawkins and Winston need to stage a 15-Round Title Fight."
I agree totally. This debate just isn't suited to sound bite journalism.

Other Comments by CJ

25. Comment #45622 by Wrought on May 28, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I believe a valid reply to "your stance is insulting and offensive" is "You believe I will burn in hell forever - whats more offensive than that?"

Actually, I think that is brilliant.

The "you're not respecting my beliefs" argument comes up all the time.

I usually say "So, would you show my beliefs respect if I believed in unicorns and fairies?"

The reply by NJS is much better.

Sadly, one listener to the above show already said to me: "Ahh... you didn't tell me Richard Dawkins says he's only 99.9% sure... that means a tiny part of him thinks there is a God."

*sigh*

Other Comments by Wrought

26. Comment #45624 by maton100 on May 28, 2007 at 2:35 pm

If God has a problem with the title he'll let Richard know first thing!

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

27. Comment #45625 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Lord Winston on belief in God sounds very much like Prince Charles on love. Can we look forward to a divorce* in a few years?


*But not, let us pray (to the FSM), remarriage.

Other Comments by Shuggy

28. Comment #45626 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 2:49 pm

The reply by NJS is much better.

But not in the UK (where this debate was held). Here we have a soft and very moderate Chritianity, where most people would think that any mention of Hell would be in bad taste.

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #45629 by clashpalace on May 28, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Interesting that Winston essentially dodged the question "Do you actually believe in God?" He ran to the definition argument but I think he knew that Richard was referring to the traditional personal intervening god. He dodged the question.

Other Comments by clashpalace

30. Comment #45631 by Paul Creber on May 28, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Infrequent visitors to this site should be aware that "Wee Flea" (above) is none other than David Robertson, which means that he is using a pseudonym here to promote his own book. Some might consider this questionable ethics on the part of a minister of the church - or indeed anybody.

Other Comments by Paul Creber

31. Comment #45633 by Friend Giskard on May 28, 2007 at 3:38 pm

In his lecture The Science Delusion Winston says: "It is as equally 'deluded' to believe that Science has all the answers as it is to profess a belief in God"
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/externalrelations/events/lectures.html

Presumably Professor Winston believes that anyone who believes that 'Science has all the answers' must be 'deluded' to a very high degree.

But it follows from this, and his statement above, that somebody professing a belief in God must also be 'deluded' to a very high degree.

I hope he will be apologizing soon to the world's faith communities for using such patronizing and insulting language in connection with their sincerely held beliefs.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

32. Comment #45635 by Bonzai on May 28, 2007 at 3:54 pm

In his lecture The Science Delusion Winston says: "It is as equally 'deluded' to believe that Science has all the answers as it is to profess a belief in God"

Whoever thinks that the only alternative to religion is to believe that "science has all the answers" is either seriously deluded or intentionally misleading.

Science has a lot of answers but it also tells you honestly that it doesn't have an answer when it in fact doesn't. Religion claims that it has all the answers,--though interestingly the scope is shrinking as science progresses as if the Gods are getting more stupid by the day,-- while all the answers it offers are either wrong or non-answers.



Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #45636 by dyingfaith on May 28, 2007 at 3:54 pm

For any next debate, how about a really simple question like where exactly is heaven? Is it closer to our galaxy or some remote galaxy? Maybe between Io and Jupiter? How about the Crab Nebula?

Other Comments by dyingfaith

34. Comment #45637 by Bonzai on May 28, 2007 at 3:58 pm

For any next debate, how about a really simple question like where exactly is heaven? Is it closer to our galaxy or some remote galaxy? Maybe between Io and Jupiter? How about the Crab Nebula?

Well not all religious people believe in heaven and hell. The Jews apparently don't, neither do the believers of reincarnation.

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #45641 by dyingfaith on May 28, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I know not all believe in a hell but I thought the majority of christians, jews, and muslims believe in a heaven?

Other Comments by dyingfaith

36. Comment #45644 by Vinelectric on May 28, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Wrought wrote:

Sadly, one listener to the above show already said to me: "Ahh... you didn't tell me Richard Dawkins says he's only 99.9% sure... that means a tiny part of him thinks there is a God."

But why wouldn't you or RD reserve that 0.1% ?

Many physical and biological phoenomena appear to pursue some sort of direction/target. Entropy tends to increase over time, evolution tends to proceed along the lines of increasing functional complexity. The latter has culminated in a consciousness and intelligence without which (as has been poetically expressed by one of the readers of the site) the universe wouldn't have developed the capacity to perceive itself. Indeed that may have been the case for billions of years.

A universe determined to pursue any sort of 'direction' may as well have 'something in mind'. I agree that the observable data don't point to a personal God but to suggest that we, personal, purposefull, sentient beings are a product of an impersonal blind purposeless system is probably the ultimate oxymoron.

Moreover you hear Daniel Dennett say that 'evolution happens because it can' or RD say that inquirng about the purpose of our existence is a query that doesnt' deserve an answer and I wonder if that is supposed to be an 'intellectually satisfying' answer at all.

Maybe that's a question for philosophers to play with. I'd imagine that if Hume lived to learn of Quantum weirdness and its defiance of the logic of causality he would've conceded that not even his discipline is likely to contribute significantly towards understanding the mystery of existence.

That 0.1% is defiintely worth more than you're suggesting.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

37. Comment #45645 by Bonzai on May 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Comment #45641 by dyingfaith

Nope, many Jews apparently don't believe in a heaven either according to some Jewish friends of mine. They say the mentioning of hell and heaven in Jewish literature was later development influenced by Christian beliefs. Many mystical religions (or even mystical sects in the big three) believe that the "soul" is a little bit of God's consciousness which get trapped in the body. When you die the soul returns to the source like pouring a bucket of water back into the ocean. The 'self" thus ceases to exist, but not really "dead' because the little bit of consciousness called "you" is reunited with the cosmic consciousness.

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #45646 by Vinelectric on May 28, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Bonzai you've just summarised religious mysticism in a nutshell!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

39. Comment #45647 by GoatBoy36 on May 28, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Re the comments made about the standard objections put forward by theists to any atheological argument: May I comment here on one in particular, namely that people will be "offended" if you discuss their beliefs. (Or, as it may be said: you're being "rude" to people by telling them that they're wrong.)

Ok, so most people don't like being told they're wrong. Back in my drinking days I remember my younger brother sitting down and telling me that what I was doing was all wrong, that I was wasting my life, that I could be doing far more constructive (and less expensive) things and so on and so forth. Did I enjoy being told that my whole lifestyle was wrong, morally and practically, and that I needed to radically rethink my approach to life? Well, no, not really. My younger brother, telling *me* that I was wasting my life? What a cheek. What a hard neck. How ... offensive.

But wait. Was my brother right? Well now that I look back on it with a good few years of sober life under my belt, of course he was. Every word of it. Me being all offended and dismissive at the time is neither here nor there. Absolutely irrelevant. Now.

I wouldn't expect people to like being told that both morally and practically, the way they're living their lives is all wrong. But that is no reason at all to stifle free speech. I'm glad now that my brother gave me a good talking to.

Maybe a few years down the line some people will be just as glad they read a book by Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens. Let's all hope so. :-)

GB.

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

40. Comment #45648 by Nails on May 28, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Let's not forget that Dr Winston is a man who is proud of his delusion but it has't stopped him pioneering an area of research that most religious leaders squirm about.
As far as faith-heads go, he's OK by me. I would liken him with someone who is jewish because of the culture rather than the meaning, but it obviously does hold some meaning with him somehow.

Other Comments by Nails

41. Comment #45650 by drive1 on May 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm

by Paul Creber "Infrequent visitors to this site should be aware that "Wee Flea" (above) is none other than David Robertson, which means that he is using a pseudonym here to promote his own book. Some might consider this questionable ethics on the part of a minister of the church - or indeed anybody."

Well spotted. Just the sort of dubious and deceitful self-puffery 'Private Eye' delights in printing (and I delight in reading).

Other Comments by drive1

42. Comment #45655 by Mr. Mark on May 28, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Telling people that if they don't accept Jesus and spend their lives grovelling at his feet in their original-sin unworthiness, they are condemned to spend an eternity burning in hellfire - peachy keen!

Telling people that god is a delusion - offensive!

Everybody clear on that?

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

43. Comment #45658 by John Frum on May 28, 2007 at 6:21 pm

You would think a that a Jew would know religion is "harmful" by now!

Other Comments by John Frum

44. Comment #45660 by BT Murtagh on May 28, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Re: #45636 by dyingfaith: For any next debate, how about a really simple question like where exactly is heaven? Is it closer to our galaxy or some remote galaxy? Maybe between Io and Jupiter? How about the Crab Nebula?

But Jack Van Impe has already answered you! I transcribed it for you here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1032,Worlds-most-prominent-atheist-takes-on-the-Biblical-God-and-other-topics,Jack-Van-Impe,page3#comments

"The Bible teaches in Second Crinius (?) 12:2 that there are three Heavens. The first one goes up 600 miles and consists of the atmosphere, trophosphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, ionosphere, and exosphere. Then, from 600 miles up, and the astronomers have already discovered this, it goes up to 186 trillion billions of miles, and then above that is a third Heaven where God rules and reigns.

"Now there's only one way to get to that third Heaven, and the Bible says that there's an empty space in the north. What an up to date book!

"Job 26:7, 'He hangeth the Earth upon nothing, and stretched out the north over the empty place.' Why? Because the north is where God has shown us the way to get into Heaven.

"It's in the north? Yes, because when Satan fell from Heaven, in 14:12-14, he said 'I will sit upon God's throne in the side to the North,' and Psalms 75:6 adds, 'Blessings come neither from the east nor the west nor the south but from the North.' Now why is that important?

"Wow, what a book! In the constellation of Orion there is an opening out of the Second Heaven to get to the Third!"

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

45. Comment #45664 by MIND_REBEL on May 28, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Winston would get destroyed by Dawkins in a real debate.

It's hard to believe that some so called "scientists" still believe in a space merlin that created the world. Stupid and dangerous delusions from a confused old man.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

46. Comment #45666 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 9:19 pm

It's hard to believe that some so called "scientists" still believe in a space merlin that created the world. Stupid and dangerous delusions from a confused old man.

You are going way over the top here. Lord Winston is a very respected scientist and certainly not a "confused old man". If you listened to the debate you should have picked up that he probably isn't really a believer of the kind that Dawkins is against. What Robert Winston is almost certainly concerned about is the offense he thinks others will feel. I understand your sentiments, but I think it would be wise to do a bit of research before you post.

Other Comments by steve99

47. Comment #45667 by MelM on May 28, 2007 at 9:24 pm

The title "The God Delusion" points a finger of disapproval both at the belief and the believer. It's saying that not only is the belief wrong but the way people have arrived at it is wrong as well--"delusion" focuses on the irrationality that supports the belief, i.e. how people are getting away with it. People don't like their indulgence made visible. but it's what keeps religion going. So, "Delusion", I believe, is an important part of the title and needs to be defended.

Other Comments by MelM

48. Comment #45669 by MorituriMax on May 28, 2007 at 9:37 pm

What's up with the lightning thing he brings up twice. Is he seriously suggesting that, unlike us poor atheists, religious people KNOW when lightning is about to strike someone for speaking against God?

Hmmmm.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

49. Comment #45674 by NJS on May 28, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Further to my comment about burning in hell and the response that the good old CofE type theist doesn't really believe that, I think that provides another "opening" for debate.

As I've argued in the past the "fundamentalist" Christian or Islamic approach which includes creationism often strikes me as more worthy of a kind of respect as at least its "true" to the books and makes sense in that context.

When it all gets watered down a la CofE and they try and make room for evolution and the notion of a "good" person not being damned I find myself thinking whats the point? If they do believe their God isn't as vain as others think and would base the thumbs up or down on how moral you are then whats the point in worship/belief?

I think people like this Winston guy should be asked to clarify this if he feels we are "offensive" - Will I burn in hell? - if not why should I bother believing?

Other Comments by NJS

50. Comment #45677 by Nastikananda on May 28, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Belief, like hope, is rooted in the unconscious, it would be very difficult to really question it.Some people are scared of questioning it because it makes everything crumble and people do not like to live in uncertainty. Even the so called scientists spend their whole lives hunting for certainty.

Dr. Winston is no different. Richard Dawkins is asking too much, he is challenging the evolutionary need for security. People like to live a lie. What Richard Dawkins is talking about could be called : Spirituality in its pure form.Science may be the only way to unravel the secret of life. Meditation and silence can assist.

Other Comments by Nastikananda