Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

YouTube video

Very interesting interview with a more liberal clergyman.

On this forum we usually just see the fundamentalists (of either side) and I think it is a nice change to see a theist and an atheist talk reasonably.

There are quite a few topics covered, euthanasia, Christian view of homosexuality, institutionalization of Christianity, early indoctrination of children, spirituality or religiousness, miracles, virgin birth, etc.

What do you guys think of his views? Is that an approach the churches should have in the future to live without clashing with other views in our society?

My speakers aren't working.........

*looks for head phones* 🙁

I think Richard Dawkins is an athiest fundamentalist. Hes almost as bas as some of the people he crticises ie he thinks all religous people are stupid and from what I remember religon should be irradicated. I kinda got the impression that if he had the power he would use force.

Have a take a look at this. This is the program called The Trouble with Atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLpx2nFTc0

Originally posted by Alfheim
I think Richard Dawkins is an athiest fundamentalist. Hes almost as bas as some of the people he crticises ie he thinks all religous people are stupid and from what I remember religon should be irradicated. I kinda got the impression that if he had the power he would use force.

Have a take a look at this. This is the program called The Trouble with Atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLpx2nFTc0

Well, do you think he seems like that in that interview?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, do you think he seems like that in that interview?

No. Bare in mind that I was refering to the rest of the program in which that interview occured. Gonna look at my link? I think Richard Dawkins appears in that program as well.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No. Bare in mind that I was refering to the rest of the program in which that interview occured. Gonna look at my link? I think Richard Dawkins appears in that program as well.

I will consider it, not at the moment. But I agree he is usually a fundamentalist. Though he does make good points.

Anyway I think I will start a new thread instead. In all fairness I think religous fundies wind him up.

Ok I watched the whole thing this is what I think. I agree with most of what Dawkins and The Bishop said but what I disagree on is:

1. The Bishops views of homosexuality. The Bishop said that in the days of the Roman people felt they had a choice about sexuality while nowhere days we know better. This is neither here nor there. I dont think there is any conclusive evidence that people are born gay or bi, but as far as im concerned it doesnt matter. Persecuting people for their sexuality is stupid end of story.

I think the Bishop should just own up and say that some rules in the Bible are stupid instead of making excuses.

2. I think the Bishop again should understand that some of the stories in The Bible are supposed to be taken metaphorically and not literialy. I think this would give him a better understanding of the Bible.

I also noted how Richard was rather calm and to an extent both The Bishop and Richard seemed to agree on alot. I think if people stopped taken religon literialy and were more open minded people like Richard would be less pissed.

There is no problem with religon just how people interpret it.

1. He didn't say that they were born that way, he just said they find themselves in that situation. Which is what homosexuals state, that they did not decide to be that way. So, I can see his argument.

2. What makes you think he doesn't? He accepts Evolution...meaning he must already believe that some stories are indeed at most metaphorical.

And I agree with the last part.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1. He didn't say that they were born that way, he just said they find themselves in that situation. Which is what homosexuals state, that they did not decide to be that way. So, I can see his argument.

The sound quality wasnt that good. Im not going over it again. It was llllloong.

Originally posted by Bardock42

2. What makes you think he doesn't? He accepts Evolution...meaning he must already believe that some stories are indeed at most metaphorical.

Well I got the impression he was making excuses for the homosexuality rule. I couldnt hear everything that was said about creation myths...so yeah maybe I missed that part.

Originally posted by Bardock42

And I agree with the last part.

Originally posted by inimalist
I really don't like how Dawkins has been branded as the "radical" athiest. Honestly, he normally puts many conditions on his statements and in fact, in his "manefesto" of athiesm, conciedes that he can only claim to be scientifically agnostic about the idea of God, a statement many athiests would consider soft on God. The series that the clip is taken from was origionally going to be named something much more benign than "the root of evil", however, BBC, against Dawkins' wishes, named it such, understanding how much controversy it would create. Dawkins is willing to ask people questions to their face, but when you talk about fanatacism, he is way down on the list.

If you want more radical atheism, go look up some of the Marquis de Sade. Or even failing that, look up Sam Harris. He is a modern atheist that is promoting people being "conversationally intollorent" of religion.

Dawkins = scape goat whipping boy

and honestly, he is a REAL soft target for theists

oops, posted this in the wrong atheism thread.... sigh

In my opinion, Richard Dawkins has every right to be a fundamentalist, and so do all Atheists. It's just right. We all agree with eachother, yet we've never spoken to one another, and only the famous ones are heard? Think about it, if more than one person has the same views, without any connections between eachother, it's logical to think their views are correct.

Atheists see the truth, they see religion from the outside and they know it's problems. Those who are religious are deluted and limited to their thoughts, therefore they don't see the full picture that Atheists see.

I know I'm sounding arrogant, but as an Atheist, I deserve to be.

You can flame me now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
they find themselves in that situation.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I think Richard Dawkins is an athiest fundamentalist. Hes almost as bas as some of the people he crticises ie he thinks all religous people are stupid and from what I remember religon should be eradicated.

It should be fully eradicated, the virus of Religion should be wiped from the face of the earth. It has no use whatsoever in todays society. Most Religious people do have a lower intelligence, I wouldn't call all of them stupid, but if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, that some magic fairy in the sky made it in a few days, then I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Simple as that. You follow a bullshit book wrote thousands of years ago instead of thinking for yourself - You're a clown if you believe it.

Originally posted by Boris
You're a clown if you believe it.

Thomas Aquinas
St. Augustine
René Descartes
Soren Kierkegaard
Gottfried Leibniz

All clowns in your book. In most people's book they're among the greatest philosophers ever known.

Originally posted by Boris
It should be fully eradicated, the virus of Religion should be wiped from the face of the earth. It has no use whatsoever in todays society. Most Religious people do have a lower intelligence, I wouldn't call all of them stupid, but if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, that some magic fairy in the sky made it in a few days, then I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Simple as that. You follow a bullshit book wrote thousands of years ago instead of thinking for yourself - You're a clown if you believe it.

The Bible is supposed to be taken metaphoricaly......

Originally posted by Ytse
Thomas Aquinas
St. Augustine
René Descartes
Soren Kierkegaard
Gottfried Leibniz

All clowns in your book. In most people's book they're among the greatest philosophers ever known.

You know what I mean.

Originally posted by Ytse
Thomas Aquinas
St. Augustine
René Descartes
Soren Kierkegaard
Gottfried Leibniz

All clowns in your book. In most people's book they're among the greatest philosophers ever known.

Maybe in most Christan's books... I mean Aquinas and Augustine they were theologians... Theology... it's total bullshit. I really don't know Kierkegaard so can't comment. The other two were good men who done alot for science, but they lived in a time where religion ruled all, if you described yourself as a atheist you could be tortured and killed... do you think that had they lived in our time they would have taught the same? I think not. It really doesn't matter what they believed, if they were Christan's does it make it true? No.. of course not.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The Bible is supposed to be taken metaphoricaly......

Originally posted by Boris
Maybe in most Christan's books... I mean Aquinas and Augustine they were theologians... Theology... it's total bullshit. I really don't know Kierkegaard so can't comment. The other two were good men who done alot for science, but they lived in a time where religion ruled all, if you described yourself as a atheist you could be tortured and killed... do you think that had they lived in our time they would have taught the same? I think not. It really doesn't matter what they believed, if they were Christan's does it make it true? No.. of course not.

Yet alot of people take it as truth. No matter what way you take the Bible it's still a bunch of nonsense.

Try being a little open minded. No im not saying become Christian I think im Agnostic but I tend not to write things off like you do.

Try reading some Carl Jung.

Originally posted by Boris
Maybe in most Christan's books... I mean Aquinas and Augustine they were theologians... Theology... it's total bullshit.

Yes, yes, you say that quite a lot. Is that the most substantive thing you can say on the issue?

The other two were good men who done alot for science, but they lived in a time where religion ruled all, if you described yourself as a atheist you could be tortured and killed... do you think that had they lived in our time they would have taught the same? I think not.

You think not? Wild speculation isn't a very convincing form of argument.

What? No one wants to comment my bigotry? This is unusual.