Richard Dawkins on The Cosmos

“Even if we don’t understand how it came into existence, it’s not helpful to postulate a creator because a creator is the very kind of thing that needs its own explanation. It’s a hell of a lot harder the explain how a god came into existence than to explain how a simplicity came into existence”.

Oxford Museum of Natural History Dawkins vs Lennox

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

36 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins on The Cosmos”

  1. It’s especially easier to explain a simplicity that to explain something that doesn’t exist. What exactly are the origins of a mythical being? That one is a little easier to answer!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I just signed up for love over religion…looks very good. I am so grateful I have discovered several of the blogs here lately by rational logical smart people. It is so refreshing in the crazy world we live in.
    Thanks😊

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Oh Jim. I’m glad to hear you’re not traumatized over your deconversion, but you know how you can GET traumatized? Try to engage in reasonable conversations with combative theists. Before you know it you’ll be wishing an ice pick was lodged in your skull, and you’ll be praying to the non existent god for a quick death.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I’ve got an ice pick at the ready. I think I’ll go through the ear though. It’s the most painful process that will hardly compare to the sly combative theist I am about to encounter. Or I could defibrillate myself with my old life pack 4. 200j will do it. Or the 325 high bride by my house. 4.7 second freefall is 60,000j on impact. I’ve got all the angles. If that doesn’t work I could always unapprove his banter and just move on.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. Yeah! Cuz it’s nearly 1am and I can’t sleep for all the shit that’s taken place online tonight, and a bridge is sounding like an excellent option.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Hey did you see the post I did about the Iranian ex Muslim atheist? I just thought he explained things magnificently.

          Like

          1. I did see it and thought it was very good. I was embroiled in a nasty conversation that has taken my time, so I didn’t have a chance to respond.

            Like

            1. Enough. He’s on my site daily but has been pretty courteous except the first day he took a lot of comment space and said nothing. Weird huh? It was the Columbus and spaniards murdering natives post.

              Like

            2. And that dear friend is just the tip of the iceberg. Funny thing is I was accused of using revisionist history. The book was written by a guy that was there. Lol.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I have another segment ready for the weekend. You really see the evil religious intentions come out. Whose site had all the arguing tonight. On Branyans?

              Like

            4. I got into it with a few people on Mak’s blog. The topic was how to breach the divide between the genders, and I was one woman in a room with only men. The conversation did not go well. I suggest your spare yourself the torture of reading it. I’m rather upset about the whole thing.

              Like

  4. “…it’s not helpful to postulate a creator because a creator is the very kind of thing that needs its own explanation.”

    This has been addressed many times by many people, Jim.
    Have you ever read any of those responses?

    Like

    1. No sir. Just watched it for the first time today and wrote that out when I heard it. Sounds like an reasonable statement and approach. What do you think? I do think it is more reasonable to explain a simplicity than try to explain something deemed incomprehensible.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Jim, I’ve spent 11-12 years (and it continues to grow) studying “alternative viewpoints” — i.e. Christian folklore or Theistic philosophy — and it is all simply recycling and repackaging of the same thing: the 4th-century CE canonical Bible. I finally said to myself at the end of the 12th year, Why don’t I just go straight to THE ONE SOURCE? Why do I need to keep reading other imperfect human’s Thesauruses about their one immutable God, especially after doing it for 3.5 years in seminary, 7-years in ministry, and then 10-11 years during deconversion!? Besides, what’s the immutable definition of Canon? Hahahahaha, right? 😉 😛

        What’s the popular cliché? Why reinvent the wheel a gazillion times? Can a Closed belief-system be also an Open belief-system? 😜🤯

        Liked by 1 person

        1. New twists and personal revelations sell more books. It’s a whole industry designed to distract you from what’s really in the Bible. Which is not much with a lot of blood

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s