• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Archbishop of Canterbury to Debate Richard Dawkins - Live Video Stream 23/02/2012

Bad Lieutenant

Muse
Bad Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
606
Saw this on the BBC site and thought some folks here might be interested. There's a live video stream on this page, starting from 15.50 GMT


_58435953_dawkins1.jpg


The sold-out event will be chaired by the philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny and will take place at the Sheldonian Theatre on 23 February.

It is being organised by Oxford University's Theology Department.

The subject for discussion is the nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16988341


It's the big one; Dawkins VS Williams! Thursday, 23 Feburary 2012 4.00-5.30pm!​

Wonder if it'll be reminiscent of the Chisora/Haye press conference :D
 
I wonder how they're going to structure it; questions from the audience? 90 mins is quite a long time.
 
Missed it but waiting for archive to be updated to watch soon I hope but not on bloody I Tunes

Williams will I expect, as usual in his gentlemanly pseudo intellectual way dance around the issue with flowery metaphorical language. Tying himself in knots in the process.
 
Last edited:
Rrose Selavy said:
Williams will I expect, as usual in his gentlemanly pseudo intellectual way dance around the issue with flowery metaphorical language. Tying himself in knots in the process.
Click to expand...

What else do you expect? Religious apologists (and to some extent philosophers) tend to obscure things with verbal ballettes. Scientists on the other hand get straight to the point. At least that's my impression.

I can pretty much guess what and how they will argue, but I'd still like to watch because Dawkins debating (or speaking) is really fun to watch.
 
Here's the BBC's writeup : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17140107

Prof Dawkins set out a world view without hidden glories. It was a straightforward process of evolutionary selection, played out over millions of years.

There was nothing particularly special about the creatures on this planet, he argued [1], with the likelihood that the "universe was crawling with life".

But the Archbishop of Canterbury challenged this human-centric vision of the universe [2], arguing that all our analysis of the accidental or divine design of life was seen through the narrow lens of our own human experience.

...

A generation ago, it would have been the clerics who would have been wary of smugness. But now it was the atheists who had to be aware of their own glow of rather irritating infallibility [3].
Click to expand...

1. I don't remember him saying that.

2. Nice of the reporter to decide that saying there might well be life on other planets is a "human-centric vision of the universe".

3. Well, I think anglican clergy have an irritating glow of delusional disingenuousness, not to mention irritating bank balances furnished at the expense of the taxpayer.

Another impartial piece of journalism from the BBC then. Maybe it's impossible to write impartially about this topic - everybody's got an opinion already.
 
Oh yeah, they also went with "snarling Dawkins" as the article picture.

_58672290_dawkinswilliams304.jpg




I'm convinced there's a state orchestrated campaign of disinformation about atheism, now officially branded "militant secularism" rearing its ugly head these days. It feels more and more like a theocracy every week.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
I'm convinced there's a state orchestrated campaign of disinformation about atheism, now officially branded "militant secularism" rearing its ugly head these days.
Click to expand...

I've delt with civil servants from time to time. No there isn't.

It feels more and more like a theocracy every week.
Click to expand...

The deputy prime minister is agnostic. As for the rest of a cabinet if a couple of them being somewhat religious is an issue for you you have an unreasonable definition of a theocracy.
 
geni said:
The deputy prime minister is agnostic. As for the rest of a cabinet if a couple of them being somewhat religious is an issue for you you have an unreasonable definition of a theocracy.
Click to expand...

Thousands of years from now, when religious historians of the future have all had millenia to understand and possibly misinterpret and miscategorise the information retrieved from the 21st century internet, I predict that this statement above will still be unanimously voted the "most akin to receiving a slice of lemon in the eye at 25mph" several years in a row

prove me wrong
:p
 
geni said:
I've delt with civil servants from time to time. No there isn't.



The deputy prime minister is agnostic. As for the rest of a cabinet if a couple of them being somewhat religious is an issue for you you have an unreasonable definition of a theocracy.
Click to expand...



How about the House of Lords..... how many of them are INHERITED positions?

What about the Queen.... is she the High PONTIFF of the Anglican Church and at the same time the RULER of Britain?

What about the Lords Spirituals.... how many of the seats are appointed to bishops?

Does the House of Lords affect governmental actions and legislations? does the Queen?

If part of the government is INHERITED positions and positions given to ecclesiast ONLY because they are Anglican Bishops....where does that leave Britain on the scale of EQUALITY?
 
I saw the debate..... I was disappointed.... it was INSIPID and had no real value or substance. Even Dawkins was nondescript.
 
Leumas said:
How about the House of Lords..... how many of them are INHERITED positions?
Click to expand...

Err none. The Lords Spiritual are nor hereditary peers. The Lords Spiritual make up about 3.3% of the lords.

What about the Queen.... is she the High PONTIFF of the Anglican Church and at the same time the RULER of Britain?
Click to expand...

No she the Supreme Governor of the church of england and the the Queen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories. "Ruler" isn't a valid title in the UK.

What about the Lords Spirituals.... how many of the seats are appointed to bishops?
Click to expand...

26. Which currently works out at about 3.3%. Varies a bit depending on the size of the lords.

Does the House of Lords affect governmental actions and legislations?
Click to expand...

does the Queen?
Click to expand...

On religious matters she defers to the Prime Minister. There are only a handful of political actions over the last half centery that can be shown to be due to the queen. None of them are religious. Well okey one of them did involve cricket.

If part of the government is INHERITED positions and positions given to ecclesiast ONLY because they are Anglican Bishops....where does that leave Britain on the scale of EQUALITY?
Click to expand...

The 92 hereditary peers are Lords Temporal and are accepted to be an anomaly.
 
geni said:
Err none. The Lords Spiritual are nor hereditary peers. The Lords Spiritual make up about 3.3% of the lords.



No she the Supreme Governor of the church of england and the the Queen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories. "Ruler" isn't a valid title in the UK.



26. Which currently works out at about 3.3%. Varies a bit depending on the size of the lords.





On religious matters she defers to the Prime Minister. There are only a handful of political actions over the last half centery that can be shown to be due to the queen. None of them are religious. Well okey one of them did involve cricket.


The 92 hereditary peers are Lords Temporal and are accepted to be an anomaly.
Click to expand...


:D
 
Looks like it will be interesting, but the stream doesn't seen to work properly.
They should have uploaded it to youtube, which actually works.:mad:
 
geni said:
The 92 hereditary peers are Lords Temporal and are accepted to be an anomaly.
Click to expand...



Well.... not until July 2011.... I guess better late than never.... but until July 2011 (9 months ago) they were ALL hereditary except for the 26 Lords Spiritual.

House Of Lords
Membership was once a right of birth to hereditary peers but, following a series of reforms, as of 1 July 2011 only 90 members sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage remain.[6] The number of members is not fixed; as of 1 December 2011 the House of Lords has 788 members (plus 21 who are on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified from sitting),[1] as against the fixed 650-seat membership of the House of Commons.[1][7]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bad Lieutenant said:
Here's the BBC's writeup : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17140107



1. I don't remember him saying that.

2. Nice of the reporter to decide that saying there might well be life on other planets is a "human-centric vision of the universe".

3. Well, I think anglican clergy have an irritating glow of delusional disingenuousness, not to mention irritating bank balances furnished at the expense of the taxpayer.

Another impartial piece of journalism from the BBC then. Maybe it's impossible to write impartially about this topic - everybody's got an opinion already.
Click to expand...

Wtf? Religion is nothing if not human-centric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom