Richard Dawkins your Response To Callers Question yesterday Was Too Weak
Posted by pwl on March 5, 2009
At about 31 minutes 20 seconds into the interview Richard Dawkins answers a question about history and the validity of the “virgin birth”. Dawkins, in my view didn’t answer that very well.
Yes, one time events in history can’t be repeated by using the scientific method, so how do you test the claims of the “resurrection” of “jesus”?
Well, that’s easy with biology. When a human being dies their body decays. Upon heart dead, brain death and cell death, living bodies decay. Micro organisms immediately start eating your body from the insides out and outside in. Bugs and insects of all kinds begin their feasting on a pretty much set schedule. The body decays. If you’re unlucky enough to die away from a modern hospital emergency room there is no hope, and if you were lucky to be in an ER there is a very small chance they can being you back from some causes of death, like a heart attack, but the percentage is very low.
Laws of science not just rule in possibilities but they rule out possibilities. So nope, no possibility of any resurrection for anyone named jesus in the first century! This is proven by the laws of biology that we know of today. Therefore the resurrection of jesus is simply a bad bed time story written by superstitious folks or by con men attempting to con the masses back in the day. Looks like many are still taken in by this obvious attempt to undermine people’s ability to reason critically with objective reality in mind.
A debate with another blog commenter ensued which you can read at that site. It’s also been archived in case anything happens to it (as has happened in the past by zealous censors). Well, well, well, my concerns were unfortunately realized by the censors over at Minnesota Public Radio. It looks like I’ll have to repost the original uncensored conversation. I tried to post the following this morning but they had “ended the debate” by cutting off new comments, I guess it was too intense for them. Sigh.
Yikes, it’s a good thing I saved the uncensored version considering the “[personal attack removed]” edits done by Minnesota Public Radio site’s censor this morning. It’s prudent to save one’s debates for this very reason.
A note to the editor of Minnesota Public Radio, I didn’t consider any of what the other author wrote to me to be a personal attack worthy of being censored. It was simply the normal types of polite pokes that I usually get (and dish back when I get them).
Actually they were quite polite compared to other attacks I’ve received in the past elsewhere. I realize you might have a different policy oh censor of Minnesota Public Radio, but I just wanted to let you know that I had no problem with anything that was said to me.
In fact it would be better to have the uncensored version published.
Now I have to compare the two and see if anything of substance was deleted! Sigh… more work…
I think it’s also instructive for people to see the whole debate since it shows that not all “atheists” think alike and that some do disagree with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the other gaggle of published luminaries.
You at Minnesota Public Radio should hear what people say to me in person when debating the same issues! That is when the censors need to come out for atheists and theists mouths alike!
Un-thanks for editing my comments Minnesota Public Radio. Thanks for your kind reflection Minnesota Public Radio. Thanks for hosting the debate and having Richard Dawkins on board for the Interview Minnesota Public Radio.