Richard Dawkins говори о еволуцији и религији

[cloudking]

Grigorije, totalno si omasio njegovu metaforu sa vanzemaljcima... da nisi, do sad bi ga psovao a ne bi se zavaravao tim pretpostavkama

[Juan Valdez]

Tопла препорука за ову књигу:

http://www.heliks.rs/najveca_predstava_na_zemlji.asp

[grigorije22]

Grigorije, totalno si omasio njegovu metaforu sa vanzemaljcima... da nisi, do sad bi ga psovao a ne bi se zavaravao tim pretpostavkama

To nije nista cudno ideju da je zivot dosao iz svemira su zagovarali jos Dzejms Votson i Frensis Krik

Metafora znaci nema bukvalnog tumacenja

[cloudking]

Grigorije, totalno si omasio njegovu metaforu sa vanzemaljcima... da nisi, do sad bi ga psovao a ne bi se zavaravao tim pretpostavkama

To nije nista cudno ideju da je zivot dosao iz svemira su zagovarali jos Dzejms Votson i Frensis Krik

Metafora znaci nema bukvalnog tumacenja

Tzv Usmerena Panspermija... pa sta... nigde Dokins nije ni rekao da je on izmislio tu hipotezu?

[grigorije22]

Grigorije, totalno si omasio njegovu metaforu sa vanzemaljcima... da nisi, do sad bi ga psovao a ne bi se zavaravao tim pretpostavkama

To nije nista cudno ideju da je zivot dosao iz svemira su zagovarali jos Dzejms Votson i Frensis Krik

Metafora znaci nema bukvalnog tumacenja

Tzv Usmerena Panspermija... pa sta... nigde Dokins nije ni rekao da je on izmislio tu hipotezu?

Nije izmislio ali je prihvatio svidza mu se ta ideja

[Passenger]

Tопла препорука за ову књигу:

http://www.heliks.rs/najveca_predstava_na_zemlji.asp

Bas je sada citam.

Odlicna!

[cloudking]

Grigorije, totalno si omasio njegovu metaforu sa vanzemaljcima... da nisi, do sad bi ga psovao a ne bi se zavaravao tim pretpostavkama

To nije nista cudno ideju da je zivot dosao iz svemira su zagovarali jos Dzejms Votson i Frensis Krik

Metafora znaci nema bukvalnog tumacenja

Tzv Usmerena Panspermija... pa sta... nigde Dokins nije ni rekao da je on izmislio tu hipotezu?

Nije izmislio ali je prihvatio svidza mu se ta ideja

Opet ti?

Nije je prihvatio nego je naveo kao jedinu mogucu implikaciju Inteligentnog dizajna... dal je stvarno toliko tesko?

[Душко Дугоушко]

First and foremost, I want to say that I think that those who posit an opposition between science and religion, as if the two were in conflict, are being ridiculous and absurd. Pseudo-theology and pseudo-science...

To all appearances, the earth is billions of years old. Volcanoes, rock layers, fossils, the light visible on earth from stars certain distances away, and numerous other scientific observations all point to an earth that is very, very old, certainly much older than 6000 years. Scripture affirms that God is not a liar (see Titus 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 14:33). Young Earth Creationism seems to have a neo-Gnostic streak. This neo-Gnostic tendency is to be expected, given Young Earth Creationism's origins among Calvinists and semi-Calvinists, Calvinism being a neo-Gnostic movement itself. The neo-Gnostic tendency in Young Earth Creationism is perhaps most obvious in the often (rightfully) mocked assertion that "I didn't come from monkeys." Questions of the inaccuracy of this silly statement aside, its very presence in and use by Young Earth Creationist adherents seems to me to indicate neo-Gnostic tendencies. Why else would there need be an adamant denial that man is part of the system of life on earth? Even if we reject Young Earth Creationism in favor of, for instance, Intelligent Design or so-called Old Earth Creationism, these alternatives are still very, very problematic. Associating any particular scientific theory too closely with the Christian faith is very dangerous. Blessed Augustine of Hippo, writing in his Confessions in the fifth century, raised this point very early on in Christian history. The Manichaeans, a syncretist Gnostic sect with which he had been affiliated before his conversion to Orthodox Christianity, had incorporated points of ancient Greek astronomy and cosmology into their dogmatic system; by Aureliuse's day much of this older Greek science had been discredited and replaced with more up to date understandings of the earth and the universe. As Saint Augustine continued in his secular education and learned that the Manicahaeans were teaching incorrect ideas about science, he came to question their religious ideas also; if they are so wrong about the stars, the sun, the moon and the earth, he reasoned rightly, how can they possibly be right about lofty and complex concepts like God, the afterlife, and spirituality? I wonder what Saint Augustine would say about those Christians today who teach certain pseudo-sciences alongside the dogmas of the Christian faith. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis that would be fine for New Agers and UFO-logists, but it's preposterous for Christians. Both absurdly rejection of scientific advancement in favor of some clearly incorrect understanding of the world as Young Earth Creationists and frantically trying to "prove God" with science as many supporters of Intelligent Design seem to do are most definitely unacceptable for Orthodox Christians. Both are the product of an understanding of the Scriptures that is in conflict with the ancient Christian understanding and both are serious threats to the continued life of the Christian faith. Orthodox Christians must avoid falling into the frameworks, and so the pitfalls and, inevitably, the heresies, of the West; both Creationism and Intelligent Design stem from a uniquely anti-Orthodox framework. Let us see the Patristic answer to all of this. Vladimir Lossky, in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, explains that "the theology of the Orthodox Church, constantly soteriological in its emphasis, has never entered into alliance with philosophy in any attempt at a doctrinal synthesis." In fact, "having no philosophical preferences, the Church always freely makes use of philosophy and the sciences for apologetic purposes, but she never has any cause to defend these relative and changing truths as she defends the unchangeable truth of her doctrines." This point, I think, is indispensable for a truly Orthodox Christian understanding of and relationship with modern science. Modern science is not a threat to Orthodox Christianity any more than was ancient Greek science, which similarly ran contrary to a literalist interpretation of the Genesis account. Though The Church Fathers used the science of their day, as they were most educated men of their time; but Christianity's focus is salvation, not explanations for the origins of and events within the natural world. Because science is not and cannot be a threat to Christianity, we must also not shy away from any aspect of the modern scientific understandings of the universe. I have heard some people claim, for instance, that they are willing to accept evolution but not that humans evolved from apes because "humans are different." I see no reason to reject evolutionary theory. Unlike so many of our Western brothers, Orthodox Christians are not Platonists. We do not believe that the material world is inherently evil or that it is anything less than "good," the term which God used to describe each aspect of his creation in the Genesis account. Not only that, but matter has been redeemed and even sanctified; this was one of the main arguments put forward by Saint John Damascene and the other Orthodox defenders of the Holy Icons and Relics of the Saints against the iconoclasts in the eighth and ninth centuries. We do not believe that man entered the world from somewhere else, as in the Origenist scheme of the pre-existence of souls; we affirm, along with the Genesis account, that man was created from the dust of this very earth. We also do not believe that man is going to die and leave this material world behind forever; according to Orthodox Christian eschatology, the end of the age comes with the resurrection of the body. Indeed, man has been, is, and always will be a part of this world. There's absolutely no reason to reject the evolutionary concept of common descent nor man's part in that common ancestry of all living things on earth. Affirming common descent is entirely compatible with affirming the biblical account of creation. If anything, I think it could be argued that common descent only serves to illuminate and magnify the Orthodox Christian understanding of man's origins, man's goal, and man's place in the world. Our work as Christians is the redemption and sanctification of the world; I can think of no more beautiful example of this than the priest's lifting of the unconsecrated bread and wine while he intones "thine own of thine own we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all" during the Divine Liturgy. We are both created from the dust of the earth and also created in the image and likeness of God. Common descent only, I believe, adds a further and beautiful dimension to this understanding. The job of the Church and even, I would dare say, of the individual Christian is not to try to reconcile Genesis with Darwin or to formulate some new, theistic explanation for evolutionary processes. The job of the Christian is to declare Jesus Christ crucified and risen. The job of Christians is to check the pride of man by reminding him that he will one day have to give an account before the dread judgment seat of the Lord and to uplift him by reminding him that life is not meaningless and that we are not alone. God has a purpose for us - human life has meaning - and God is still "Emmanuel," God with us.

[Млађони]

Ако се равнамо етимолошки по значењеу речи, и како атеист значи безбожник, дакле атеисти би били они који у животу живе без Бога, не размишљају о Богу, не служе Богу, нe славе Бога итд, Докинс онда није атеиста, он је онда антитеиста или противбожац. Дакле он не да нема појма о вери, има он онолико појма колико му је довољно да хули и мрзи на Бога, а то је и доказао својим изјавама у филму Бен Штајна, Expilled.

Da se razumemo film Bena Štajna ekspeld je jedan film koji radi po mikimaus principu koji je jako ružno montiran i koji je predstavio mnoge stvari u pogrešnom svetlu.

Drugo biti ateista sigurno ne znači ne razmišljati o bogu. To ne znam odakle si izvukao ali se miriše na kilometar da u takvoj izjavi nije nešto uredu. Kao da si rekao biti ne'bankar znači ne razmišljati o parama. Ako razmišljaš o parama automatski nisi nebankar.

Treće Dowkins mrzi u huli boga sa razlogom. Zato što i nije baš prijatna niti lepa lićnost taj bog kog opisuje biblija. Mada ja ono ne bih ni nazvao mržnjom dowkins sve što kaže o bogu apsolutno je racionalno, podupreno dokazima itd. Sad ti možeš da argumentuješ da je to mržnja ja baš i ne mogu jer i ja i dowkins mislimo da je bog samo ideja.  

Dawkins veruje u vanzemaljce bangin 0120_angryy 0120_angryy

Kao i 90 % sveta nauke.

Православља, да хришћанство (овде мислим на правсолавно) НИЈЕ РЕЛИГИЈА. Зашто? Зато што је религија заиста људска измишљотина

To će katolik da kaže za svoju verziju, protestanti će da pričaju za svoju, muslimani za svoju etc.. got da point.

Što se tiče toga dowkins protiv dizajna morate razmeti da nauka ne dozvoljava MAGIČNO razmiljanje, da je nešto PUF stvoreno od jednom. I da takvo ramišljanje ne vodi nikud niti se igde ikad pojavio forezički dokaz da se to desilo. Ako razumete nauku razumeće te Dowkinsovu izjavu ovde.

[Teleskop]

Interesuju me - posto su bile razne debate atheists vs theists - ko je na vas sa obe strane ostavio dobar utisak, ako ste gledali naravno (bez navijanja za jednu stranu, objektivno dakle)?

[Grizzly Adams]

Лепо питање. На мене је супер утисак оставио Alister McGrath. Ево његове познате дебате са Докинсом:

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

[Juan Valdez]

Лепо питање. На мене је супер утисак оставио Alister McGrath. Ево његове познате дебате са Докинсом:

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Цела та екипа оставља леп утисак.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php

[Passenger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harries,_Baron_Harries_of_Pentregarth

Asocira me na Vladetu Jerotica, koji takodje zna da bude interesantan za slusanje i odaje utisak smirene, samouverene i na mestu osobe.

Ljudi poput Alistera MeGra, D'Souze, Krejga mi deluju nadmeno, govore ono sto se njima govori, pa se rasprava sa njima svodi na gluve telefone.

Malo mi je naporan za slusanje i Hicens, koji ima status Seselja za te duele - satro nepobediv i zna da bude vulgaran. Pominjem ga jer je on (navodno - nisam video taj citat) okarakterisao kao najrazboritijeg od svih koji su bili sa njim u "duelu" upravo Dinesh D'Souzu (od pomenutih bili su svi).

Meni ti dueli nisu zanimljivi. Nista novo ne moze da se cuje u njima, obicno ni polemicari ne cuju jedni druge, nista se sa njima ne moze postici - tako da jedinu korist izvlace dzepovi diskutanata. Uvek bih pre pogledao partiju tenisa ili boks mec nego njihovo kvazi nadmudrivanje.

[Млађони]

Послушај пажљиво шта је Докинс на овом снимку рекао па ћеш видети да се, благо речено, није најбоље снашао. Небитно какав је лик Бен Стајн и какав му је документарац.

\

Nije se iybljuvao uopste dowkins je naucnik otvorenog uma njemu je svako racionalno objasnjenje moguce ukoliko je racionalno i podrzano dokazima pa i inteligetni dizajn to je hte oda kaze.

Лепо питање. На мене је супер утисак оставио Alister McGrath. Ево његове познате дебате са Докинсом:

Sve je to super dok se ne stave na vagu argumenti i dokazi i onda vaga mnogo vi[e naginje ka dawkinsovoj strani.

Interesuju me - posto su bile razne debate atheists vs theists - ko je na vas sa obe strane ostavio dobar utisak, ako ste gledali naravno (bez navijanja za jednu stranu, objektivno dakle)?

ateisti zahvaljujuci merenju dokaza iz tih debata ja sam danas ateista.

[Grizzly Adams]

Зависи чија је вага...