Prager University: God, Part 1: What Would Make You Believe in God?

Share

Digg! Google! Live! Facebook! Yahoo!

Info

Description

Dennis Prager, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, asks a fundamental question and comes up with an answer that may surprise both believers and non-believers.

Video Comments

Comments  

 
0 #19 jac m 2010-09-07 05:16
RE: # 14 K.D. are you implying Kerby Anderson’s work is what it took to make you believe in God?
Quote
 
 
0 #18 jac m 2010-09-07 04:21
RE:#13 As to your challenge you and I doubt the bible, therefore the bible can be doubted with out impunity. Gen 1/1 is not for doubters but rather it is addressed to and is a statement of fact only for those who have acquired that belief. What can be inferred from the Bible is that morality is fickle. Things like gold, illusion and high sounding intentions lead people to do things the ‘interpreters’ say are not in keeping with Gods morale code(compass). You imply you have your own moral compass, great! But who interprets and validates it? We are focused, this is topic specific because a god without a reasoned, justifiable and universally applicable moral code is not trustworthy or believable. If there is a god I’m headed for Gehenna, conversely if there is no god I can justify everything I’ve done or am going to do.
Quote
 
 
0 #17 jac m 2010-09-07 04:12
RE:#12 How do even (eg) atheists know what's "the right thing" to do? Secular societies have progressed beyond slavery, the subjugation/subordination of women, equal rights for those not created heterosexual, etc.
Your secular societies answer to your atheist question leaves the reader to infer atheists knew the right things to do, and were responsible for separation of church and state. The actual provision states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”.
Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution but was attributed to Jefferson who wrote the 1st Amendment erected a “wall of seperation” between the church and the state. John Adams also said it “drew a line”. The comonality of these thinkers was their contempt for a state run church like England had in the Anglican Church
Quote
 
 
0 #16 jac m 2010-09-07 04:09
RE:#12 The reference to you as my dear Watson was to add levity to your ‘handle’ Think For Thyself, which to me is demanding. The handle jac m is a acronym for just a common man (without pedigree, title or degree, colored blind and tone deaf) so you can see there is no way I could be Holmes and where I might interpret your Handle as bitchin and in need of levity.
Quote
 
 
0 #15 jac m 2010-09-07 04:04
RE:#13 As for me Think For Thyself, understanding a persons position is different than you first assumed requires no apology but respect for your effort to develop a reasoned evaluation of differences.
Quote
 
 
0 #14 K.D. 2010-09-05 13:00
I am sure you have heard of him, but a great addition to this conversation is the work of Kerby Anderson.
BS Oregon State University - Zoology
MFS Yale University - Science
MA Georgetown University - Govt.
Kennedy Institue of Bioethics - Wash DC

His discussion of science vs. God is unbelievably detailed and incredibly well researched. Check into it.
Quote
 
 
0 #13 Think For Thyself 2010-08-13 07:43
I apologize for previous posts straying from topic, and assuming everyone here thinks the same way and agrees with each other on one interpretation of the bible.

Back on topic (and re-emphasizing what's important), my main point is about how absurd it is to assume that there is no morality without God. Such an absurd statement also implies very strongly that atheists therefore have no moral compass, which I'm personally offended by every time I hear it. It just feels like the same old, exclusionary Holier Than Thou preaching.

Secondly, jac m says that doubt is tolerated. But this does not really apply to the bible, right? In fact, did not David Prager say in The Most Important Verse in the Bible "... if what is said in Genesis 1:1 is not the case, then nothing that follows matters"? I challenge anyone here to name even a part of the bible that can be doubted.
Quote
 
 
0 #12 Think For Thyself 2010-08-13 05:33
Quoting jac m:
My dear Watson ...(snip)...

Could you identify the secular societies that were created by atheist where they have progressed beyond slavery, the subjugation/subordination of women, equal rights for those not created heterosexual, etc more than USA culture has? Please define or provide links to how you established a baseline and then a method by which these assumption can be tested and documented. jac m


Whoa, sounds like you're either assigning a college assignment, or you think you're really Sherlock talking to me as Watson? OK...

So first problem is, I didn't say "atheistic"; I said "secular". Secularism doesn't require atheists or atheism, altho of course it doesn't hurt. Like separation of church and state, you know... that kind of idea? And it's not just for USA.

Still wanna go on with this off topic debate here? If so, I'm definitely willing to give references wrt my claims.
Quote
 
 
0 #11 Think For Thyself 2010-08-13 05:20
Quoting jac m:
The art of manipulating people into a certain mesh is a great survival of the fittest tactic


Mmmm, I didn't communicate clearly enough and/or you're missing my point. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't really make sense in this context. I'm talking about *cultural* evolution (which includes both "progress" and cultural flaws, depending on how you define these things), which has a lot less to do with "fitness" than genomic evolution. Cultural evolution includes all kinds of things, like tribal campfires, tools and weapons, art, music, religion, cults... soccer... soap operas on TV... you name it.
Quote
 
 
0 #10 jac m 2010-08-12 06:35
My dear Watson because someone doubts your position that biblically “doubt is not tolerated” and uses that document to identify specific contents within it to establish a reasonable doubt in your position doesn’t require one to be an adherent to that religion or any religion. In fact the opposite is true. The art of manipulating people into a certain mesh is a great survival of the fittest tactic but you must give more deference to your scientific training and be less dependent on assumption without due diligence.

Could you identify the secular societies that were created by atheist where they have progressed beyond slavery, the subjugation/subordination of women, equal rights for those not created heterosexual, etc more than USA culture has? Please define or provide links to how you established a baseline and then a method by which these assumption can be tested and documented. jac m
Quote
 

Add comment

Security code
Refresh