The Dawkin delusion?

[جوري]

Haven't really had the time to read this, seems good..

http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/20...ns-part-1.html

just putting it out there for general knowledge' sake..


:w:

[barney]

Just finished Mc Graths book last month.The Dawkins Delusion. Its on my desk right now.
His arguments are basically
1) Dawkins is rude
2)Dawkins uses biology to explain everything, thats not a good way to do it.
3)Dawkins cherrypicks the nasty verses and ignores the odd nice verse you might find.
4)Dawkins hasnt explained a physics answer to pre-planktime

Thats basically it. Mc Grath at least dosnt embarrass himself by trying to prove god. He simply picks shallow and funny holes whilst scrabbeling to make an arguement. He takes Dawkins's points and basically says no, no he's wrong, look at all the good done in the world by theism.

I agree with him on one thing in the book. Point 2)
He has written a short yet long winded book of no depth , no substance or rationality. He could have summoned his points up in 3 lines, but i Imagine that that wouldnt have sold so well.

[جوري]

I don't know about all the additives and preservatives or who Grath even is
but can tell you this much, I have my masters in molcular biology amongst other science degrees , and Dawkin or others can't use 'Biology to explain the nonexistence of God' or his existence for that matter.. it will always be a default conclusion when the answer can't be reached by science!
science is science, philosophy is philosophy and beliefs are beliefs no matter who sports them!

all the best!

[barney]

I don't know about all the additives and preservatives or who Grath even is
but can tell you this much, I have my masters in molcular biology amongst other science degrees , and Dawkin or others can't use 'Biology to explain the nonexistence of God' or his existence for that matter.. it will always be a default conclusion when the answer can't be reached by science!
science is science, philosophy is philosophy and beliefs are beliefs no matter who sports them!

all the best!

Alister McGrath is the foremost and most successful anti-dawkins author. He wrote the dawkins delusion, a massive bestseller.
Thought your readers might like a reveiw of his work.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

I should probably be ashamed to admit this (not really) though-- but
I haven't read Dawkins book to read his nemesis book..
I have seen some excerpts however from his book the ones that are concerned with science and found them surprisingly negligible for what he was trying to accomplish if this is the mode to his means he has failed to make a case with it!..

when speaking of belief, any belief ( a belief that the drug your manufacturing can save people from cancer) as an example, you'll have invested your entire being into it, and it will be a complexity of many things, that you'll go to extreme efforts to defend it. for it is after all the very marrow of ones being at that point.. one becomes emotive and less scientific.. that isn't to say that the drug can't save people from cancer, but if you understand the actual science of how all cancer works, you'll know that no treatment can be a one size fits all, and in the very end, people will still end up dead.
It is very crucial to understand limitations and be forth coming come what may.. to me honestly that is the actual meaning of a 'humanist'

Hence my peeve with Dawkin isn't so much that he is an atheist, or that he is proud of it or that he advertises it, or even that he vehemently and without logic attacks theists.. It is that he abuses his status as a scientist to push out his own personal agenda. It is an appeal to authority nothing more, and is met with ridicule to anyone who remotely challenges him, other scientists even (Dr. Mullan) for instance , rather stating the science very matter of fact and letting folks decide for themselves..
in the process in fact he becomes what he loathes most-- a religious zealot albeit it from the other end of the spectrum...

[barney]

Meh. Read the book, then critisise it. Till you have- you cant.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


I checked out mcgrath's book, its alright - he's got good manners too. He defends the concept of God by showing its not blind faith but on valid logical reasoning, but a hard line atheist wouldn't become totally convinced by his arguments (since that wasn't his intent anyway - his intent was to defend the belief in God), nor would a person like to read dawkins works because of his bad manners and harshness and lack of open mindedness (which surprisingly many of his followers [not all] imitate.)


One thing which i found quite interesting in the book was how governing by atheism has a great deal of evil effects (which he proved by explaining Russia as an example during its soviet rule - i.e. when they banned all religions, and how faith flourished after this suppression etc), something which many atheists are unaware of.


He made alot of good points, but it was mainly a book on the defensive - so i think he achieved what he targeted, alhamdulillah. :)



Oh, and like the blog suggests - the god delusion book was so not what i expected from someone whose supposedly got such a good reputation for atheism. And that's the first book i attempted to read of dawkins too. He's so ignorant of religions, and he argues without knowledge on something which he has no knowledge of.

i got curious why he was so hyped up - but dawkins was a great let down, and i have to say mcgrath has way more good manners.

[جوري]

sure I can it is easy... I know science.. there is no secret formula that he would know that the rest of the scientific community would have failed to account for...

ex: a gastric bypass will always be used to treat obesity by reducing the size of the stomach
whether you go about it with a Roux En Y, a gastric silastic ring, or a biliopancreatic diversion or whatever else might arise in the future.. the concept is always the same, even if the science around it evolves...

Do you understand? If you truly comprehend molecular biology, you can determine easily why Dawkin with all his conjectures in science can't make a case for God or a No God... it is Simply a waste of everyone's time and money to perpetuate his antics by purchasing his bible...

[AntiKarateKid]

Meh... the Quran and the lives of the Prophet Muhammad, Isa, Moses and the rest ( peace be upon all of them) are plenty evidence against Dawkins. :coolious:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's important to note that Dawkins and (I would hope) the majority of atheists do not disbelieve in god simply to be rude, or to attack theists.

We don't believe there is a god: because after having considered the evidence, that's the way things seem to us.

Simple as that.

Peace

[جوري]

But it isn't as simple as that when he attacks theists and pushes out his so-called 'humanist' agenda on buses, books , websites, etc..
At this stage, it is no longer a predilection after careful consideration.. It becomes an institution expressing strong beliefs and bordering upon intolerance, if not the exact things he is fighting against he becomes!

I know you don't agree, but atheism is a belief!.. a belief that there is no God..
Logic dictates and if I may use the most simple of examles to describe a most complex one:
if I wake up in the morning, find a couple of eggs (even with burnt edges and sunny side up, not quite to my liking) waiting for me on a plate, I'd automatically conclude that someone must have fried them and put them there, they didn't simply appear 'ex nihilo' from simple then complex molcules, that some how gathered on the frying pain, cracked themselves, added some salt and butter then assembled on my plate.. the logical thing for any thinking adult I believe would be that someone fried them and put them there.

Now I can ponder the meaning of those fried eggs, or I can just eat them, shrug my shoulders and go on with my day and in the terms of our good buddy D, 'there is no chef. so enjoy your eggs' give or take a couple of words. I can cook up a couple of scenarios of the chef at the end of the day, but there really would be no point to that, anymore than discussing very technical laws on Islamic jurisprudence with someone who doesn't believe in God all together...
the problem that remains at the end of the day, whether in real life, or for my quasi perfect meal would remain, how it happened and why?.. and so long as an atheist or a theist offers conjectures that neither conform with the principles or methods used in science can they both equally come down to a personal belief....


all the best..
btw thanks for the rep.. been meaning to give you one, but my repping power appears lifted at the time...

[Muezzin]

Greetings,

It's important to note that Dawkins and (I would hope) the majority of atheists do not disbelieve in god simply to be rude, or to attack theists.

We don't believe there is a god: because after having considered the evidence, that's the way things seem to us.

Simple as that.

Peace

Dawkins could've fooled me :p Seriously, when it comes to religion, the man only seems to know how to destroy belief and then replace it with... nothing. And not in the philosophical 'believe in whatever you want' way, but the 'um, I'm not too good at this positivity lark. Down with religion!'

But yeah, the majority of athiests (or people of any persuasion) are fine. The only place this even becomes an issue is in print or online. In real life, people (colleagues, friends, coworkers etc) tend to just get along and don't really talk about religion or lack thereof.

[barney]

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious. They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship, scripture symbology, gathering and observance, doctine and song, to make their religion with them as the deitey.

[SixTen]

Alistar McGraph is a funny character. I mean, he is supposed to be a devoted Christian, but if you see his debates, its as though he is on the fence - how he readily accepts flaws in religion ( why believe in flawed religion, as being from God?), he wasn't able to respond to some questions except by making a joke (when confronted with, discussion about hell), and basically, he seems to have a "modernised" christian belief, which I am sure, many christians would argue has missed out many fundamentals.

Richard Dawkins comment on the book was funny though, that is, Alistar is making money by riding on his back (lol).

As already mentioned, the way he attacked Dawkins was pretty much flawed - as have many critics stated. Dawkin tries to be a philosophist - but not a good one (he should stick to biology?) - I mean, the God delusion, is criticised ignoring theology - its just based on his own philosophy <-- think that would be a better critic personally.

[جوري]

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious. They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship, scripture symbology, gathering and observance, doctine and song, to make their religion with them as the deitey.

It is innate to want to worship and have religio type prescripts and structure.. thing about atheists is try as they may to stray from the curve, they are never more than one or two standard deviation ( it is the theme of our human condition).. in lieu of convention which they frown upon, they create their own incredibly imperfect flawed philosophy, actually very much in concert with my earlier statement being Atheism very much a belief system, and your buddy D, isn't only a victim of it but seems to be club president though he is seemingly unaware of it? (perhaps he enjoys playing dumb for reasons unknown?).. comparable to a diseased person in the hospital who thinks everyone else is diseased and contagious and wants exclusive rights and isolation, but fails to recognize that he too is a patient, and in all likely cases hazardous to someone else!

Atheists merely work by substitution-- They take what they deem above natural laws a few notches down to the lowest common denominator.. and the lowest common denominator so far has brought upon humanity its worst most disgraceful periods... I have no reason to suspect your buddy D is above it, for so long as it is human made, it is subject to human error!

[Muezzin]

The real flaw in this type of argument is that it uses science as its base and ignores theology in order to criticise theology.

Now wait just a dang minute. They're two completely different things.

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious.

No, they're simply basic human control mechanisms. Religion didn't invent them, it just exhibits them.

They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship,

Define 'deity worship' in the context of the above list of despots. Unless you'd include the (corrupted) concept of the ubermensch as a deity.

scripture symbology

One man's Commandment is another man's Constitution, or Magna Carta.

'That's against God's law!'

'That's against the law!'

People need constants and rules, whether they're divine or man-made.

gathering and observance

Like those team-building exercises they're so fond of in business? Or supporting a football team, watching their matches live with the rest of the fans? Humans are social animals. Gathering is natural.

doctine and song

As one entity you mean? Like, say, any national anthem you'd care to think of?

to make their religion with them as the deitey.

Hitler and Stalin claimed to be gods?

All this puts me in the mind of this essay I read which cast the modern sort of 'movie culture' as a quasi-religion, with 'scripture' (posters, scripts) and 'clergy' (directors, writers, producers) and 'icons' (actors, actresses) and rituals (cinema-going as Mass) and things. Very amusing and very fascinating. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But it isn't as simple as that when he attacks theists and pushes out his so-called 'humanist' agenda on buses, books , websites, etc..

Dawkins doesn't attack theists per se, he attacks theism. There's a big difference.

As I said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with all the advertising, but at the same time I do think it's good for people to know that there are a considerable number of atheists out there.

At this stage, it is no longer a predilection after careful consideration.. It becomes an institution expressing strong beliefs and bordering upon intolerance, if not the exact things he is fighting against he becomes!

But there are certain things we shouldn't tolerate. If evil is done in the name of religion, then we should speak out against it.

I know you don't agree, but atheism is a belief!.. a belief that there is no God..

That's completely correct.

Logic dictates and if I may use the most simple of examles to describe a most complex one:
if I wake up in the morning, find a couple of eggs (even with burnt edges and sunny side up, not quite to my liking) waiting for me on a plate, I'd automatically conclude that someone must have fried them and put them there, they didn't simply appear 'ex nihilo' from simple then complex molcules, that some how gathered on the frying pain, cracked themselves, added some salt and butter then assembled on my plate.. the logical thing for any thinking adult I believe would be that someone fried them and put them there.

Now I can ponder the meaning of those fried eggs, or I can just eat them, shrug my shoulders and go on with my day and in the terms of our good buddy D, 'there is no chef. so enjoy your eggs' give or take a couple of words. I can cook up a couple of scenarios of the chef at the end of the day, but there really would be no point to that, anymore than discussing very technical laws on Islamic jurisprudence with someone who doesn't believe in God all together...

You've given us another rendition of the argument from design, to which the obvious rejoinder is: "Who designed the designer?" I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that from anybody.

You're trying to argue with Dawkins without having read his book. Surely you can see the flaw in that approach?

the problem that remains at the end of the day, whether in real life, or for my quasi perfect meal would remain, how it happened and why?.. and so long as an atheist or a theist offers conjectures that neither conform with the principles or methods used in science can they both equally come down to a personal belief....

Correct. The answer to your question is "Nobody knows." Atheists do not claim to know the answer, and neither should anybody else.

all the best..
btw thanks for the rep.. been meaning to give you one, but my repping power appears lifted at the time...

All the best to you too. :)

Peace

[Trumble]

It is innate to want to worship and have religio type prescripts and structure..

Is it? I would have thought quite the contrary, both are conditioned responses, not unconditioned ones.

[جوري]

You'll have to forgive my brevity, any truly deep philosophical debate will have to be postponed on until the end of Oct. but for now, not to be rude, I'll reply

Greetings,


Dawkins doesn't attack theists per se, he attacks theism. There's a big difference.

a difference but a problem indeed, considering that 'theism' is put into practice and not left on paper, if he'd his way, all religion would be in the Smithsonian next to his sense of humor? :D

As I said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with all the advertising, but at the same time I do think it's good for people to know that there are a considerable number of atheists out there.

I am not comfortable with advertising either as the saying goes, if you are advertising you must be selling... be that as it may, atheists makeup 10% of the population, and I am not quite sure what their size denotes if any? do they want special privileges for being atheists?

But there are certain things we shouldn't tolerate. If evil is done in the name of religion, then we should speak out against it.

same indeed when evil is done in the name of atheism by atheists, yeah yeah, I know what you'll have to say but fact is evil was done by atheists, and the way I see it, at least religion has a moral conduct.. atheists are left to their own moral devices whatever they maybe... I assure you that is not to say I think atheists are immoral, given that I personally think that goodness is innate (divine) in origin, I can't take it away from a group, unless they desire to denounce it on their own!

That's completely correct.

:-\

You've given us another rendition of the argument from design, to which the obvious rejoinder is: "Who designed the designer?" I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that from anybody.

The whole universe is built around seven themes, argument from design is a very strong option because this is the situation we find ourselves in. You can't encompass some very basic concepts and abstracts very much relevant to our existence, yet wish to take this to that which is beyond comprehension? -- that is arrogance, and getting in way over ones head...Just because something isn't palpable to you does it mean it isn't there... all these phenomenon of our existence truly enumerable and utterly fascinating read (on Growth and form by D'arcy thompson) followed from a causation whether you are an atheist or a theist you must at least concede that fact!
I say MR. CzGibson, how about finding a cure for Fanconi-Bickel syndrome GSD type XI with some vectors so you can save two or three kids before probing the nature of the creator?

You're trying to argue with Dawkins without having read his book. Surely you can see the flaw in that approach?

I said I have read excerpts that weren't impressive followed by I have my B.S, M.S and doctorate in science, in other words nothing he can come up with beyond what I did read of his work, will be of shock to me save for his gross disuse of science to misguide people!

Correct. The answer to your question is "Nobody knows." Atheists do not claim to know the answer, and neither should anybody else.

Dawkin claims he has the answer and is advertising it to your already troubled youth!
I'll just leave it at that!

All the best to you too. :)

Peace

thank you :D

[barney]

Dawkins answering evrything with biology is as madcap as say answering evry post with a obscure medical term which has little to do with the subject. I could tab every post with a historical anecdote rather unrelated to the matter in hand.
Lets say, Dawkins reminds me in his trivialness very much with the Dingwea era of the Zulu, where Dingwea trivialised Shakas adoption of the Ikthwa as the new issue weapon to his great folly.
Now dosnt that sound rather adacemic and worthy of collective head nodding?

In short, stick to the topic already not vainly spamming non-attached knowlage.
Vanity is apparently a sin last time i checked.

[Amadeus85]

I also havent read Dawkins, neither Hitchens. Something tells me that they wont be even mentioned after few years from now.

[جوري]

Dearest Barney

the problem isn't with the terminology I use since in fact it is very related, rather the problem is with your ability to consider concepts without dwelling on the obvious ; having an abstract and theoretical mind that can go beyond the box... frankly you do your whole clan a disservice as you are the prototypic atheist if such exist.. someone who hasn't evolved past the Pre-Operational stage in development! Thus I'll leave my thread to ones who reveal a more keen insight and good judgment.. just reflecting on your past performance from articles you yourself quoted not understanding content therein.. I am not particularly offended ...

all the best

[جوري]

I also havent read Dawkins, neither Hitchens. Something tells me that they wont be even mentioned after few years from now.

Would love for those who display unswerving allegiance to dawkin and his use of 'biology' to go ahead and distill for the rest of us how a science dedicated to the study of living organisms disproves God without referencing us to a website babbling confused terms if at all after such emphatic assertions. ''uses biology' 'dances with wolves' 'sings to the stars' 'sparkles with joy'
I struggled myself to find a philosophical meaning as a student to posttranscriptional events, Translation, Genomes, Taq DNA polymerase and the rest of the clan in relation to theology, but perhaps this new religion of dawkin offers the answers and is too shy to make that assertion of definite in lieu of probable?

Beliefs or non by proxy of a man who trod and wrote a book of poetic science by a long stretch of the imagination ..

Hilarious

[alcurad]

I also havent read Dawkins, neither Hitchens...

I haven't either, actually I can't be bothered to...
on another note, what's wrong with advertising religion or beliefs?

[Chuck]

imo Dawkin is not worth discussing. Although, I do feel for him, he was abused by Anglican priest when he was 16, and probably that experience made him bitter.

[barney]

The real flaw in this type of argument is that it uses science as its base and ignores theology in order to criticise theology.

Now wait just a dang minute. They're two completely different things..

Dawkins uses science as a base and uses it to critisise theology. Since he and all other atheists tend to get their questions responded to by scripture, he also uses scripture and theology to destroy theology.

No, they're simply basic human control mechanisms. Religion didn't invent them, it just exhibits them. .

Teaching a child from the cradle that they happen to live in the one perfect system and the leader of their system is infallible and the most marvellous being who ever lived. He has come to save the world from itself. The songs praising him are sung, the masses congregate in front of him in huge crowds to listen to his amazing and charismatic words, the crowd feeds upon itself, the mantras are chanted louder and louder, over and over again imprinting themselves upon the child and the adult. The masses unite under the symbol, read of the amazing deeds done by and terrible suffering that their leader has endured, for them, for his chosen ones. Those who disagree are, strangly missing or dwindeling. Traitors to the cause.

Now I'm describing the Nurenberg Rally here. Of Course.

Define 'deity worship' in the context of the above list of despots. Unless you'd include the (corrupted) concept of the ubermensch as a deity..

As above

One man's Commandment is another man's Constitution, or Magna Carta.

'That's against God's law!'

'That's against the law!'.

Constitutions you can change , "Gods law"...a bit more tricky. In my opinion the only differences between the two are the religion in questions official stamp of their own particular Gods law. Thor had laws.

People need constants and rules, whether they're divine or man-made..

Again, IMO, see above.

Like those team-building exercises they're so fond of in business? Or supporting a football team, watching their matches live with the rest of the fans? Humans are social animals. Gathering is natural.


As one entity you mean? Like, say, any national anthem you'd care to think of?.

And some people kill each other for such loyalties. However when a body of people gather to hear an ideal being shouted from a platform,with threats and enticements then its either Politics in a dictatorship or Religion

Hitler and Stalin claimed to be gods?

.

Not if you count a god as being an invisible, intangeble, immaterial thing that claims to do everything but dosnt actually do anything.
These two were real, visible, talked in aubible frequencies and if their regimes had worked we would read in our German papers of the Miracles the Dear leader had preformed making another bumper harvest grow, just as he did in 1955, also how the traitors and Juden influences were responsible for the credit crunch.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

same indeed when evil is done in the name of atheism by atheists, yeah yeah, I know what you'll have to say but fact is evil was done by atheists,

Evil is done by people with all sorts of different beliefs, and it should be condemned whoever they are.

and the way I see it, at least religion has a moral conduct.. atheists are left to their own moral devices whatever they maybe...

Ever heard of The Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative? Both of those work even without god.

The whole universe is built around seven themes, argument from design is a very strong option because this is the situation we find ourselves in. You can't encompass some very basic concepts and abstracts very much relevant to our existence, yet wish to take this to that which is beyond comprehension? -- that is arrogance, and getting in way over ones head...Just because something isn't palpable to you does it mean it isn't there... all these phenomenon of our existence truly enumerable and utterly fascinating read (on Growth and form by D'arcy thompson) followed from a causation whether you are an atheist or a theist you must at least concede that fact!

Am I arrogant because you can't answer the question?

I say MR. CzGibson, how about finding a cure for Fanconi-Bickel syndrome GSD type XI with some vectors so you can save two or three kids before probing the nature of the creator?

I think barney said it best. Why do you think that blinding people with science will help you win the argument?

Dawkin claims he has the answer and is advertising it to your already troubled youth!

No, he doesn't. Read his book.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Evil is done by people with all sorts of different beliefs, and it should be condemned whoever they are.

Indeed

Ever heard of The Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative? Both of those work even without god.

To adhere to any philosophy is to accept that school of thought as authoritative in a way adopting it as a form of religion -- I don't really see how philosophizing makes God unnecessary? -- It is merely an aversion not a fact..
same if I state, there is no such state as compassion and empathy, rather an extension of one's narcissism and be as equally correct if I can find enough test subjects to run my thesis on!

Am I arrogant because you can't answer the question?

The questions at hand are really posed to atheists not theists.
I assume you are a product of your environment and upbringing admixed with your own learning, reading etc.. somewhere along the way you yourself advocated the principle of parsimony: the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.. well the simplest theory is an omniscient originator .. if you don't accept that theory, then you are the one under an obligation to come up with a simple answer to the very complex world we find ourselves in. The way I see it really, is that you are the one who can't answer the question, not me!

I think barney said it best. Why do you think that blinding people with science will help you win the argument?

How am I blinding you with science? I think I am playing it down to the lowest common denominator. You wish to bring the first causation down to something that even someone like Barney can understand, yet neglect understanding and solution to some very common every day problems that plague humanity-- and what a thing for so-called humanists to neglect?
It is a conundrum to me personally.. those who think God illogical and lacking all orderly continuity, fail to use that same science to abridge rather wide gaps in their theories and expect the rest of us to subscribe to it by that same stretch of imagination, yet by the same token can't use that same logic or science for that matter to correct something as simple as a single missing enzyme disorder?!

No, he doesn't. Read his book.

Peace

You understand how science disproves God by all means distill that biology down for the rest of us to make the theological connection... The day I personally buy a Dawkin's book will mark a blizzard in hell with all the devils ice skating!

all the best!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

To adhere to any philosophy is to accept that school of thought as authoritative in a way adopting it as a form of religion -- I don't really see how philosophizing makes God unnecessary? --

Read more philosophy, then, and make up your mind. I'd particularly recommend reading Kant, Hume, Russell, and Popper.

It is merely an aversion not a fact..

You are correct that atheism is not a fact. I'm not arguing that it is.

same if I state, there is no such state as compassion and empathy, rather an extension of one's narcissism and be as equally correct if I can find enough test subjects to run my thesis on!

Yes, this is all highly debatable.

The questions at hand are really posed to atheists not theists.
I assume you are a product of your environment and upbringing admixed with your own learning, reading etc.. somewhere along the way you yourself advocated the principle of parsimony: the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.. well the simplest theory is an omniscient originator .. if you don't accept that theory, then you are the one under an obligation to come up with a simple answer to the very complex world we find ourselves in. The way I see it really, is that you are the one who can't answer the question, not me!

The question I asked you was: "Who designed the designer?"

I don't claim to know the origins of the universe, and as an atheist, why should I need to provide an explanation to you? All that is required to be an atheist is to believe that the god hypothesis is untrue.

How am I blinding you with science? I think I am playing it down to the lowest common denominator. You wish to bring the first causation down to something that even someone like Barney can understand, yet neglect understanding and solution to some very common every day problems that plague humanity-- and what a thing for so-called humanists to neglect?
It is a conundrum to me personally.. those who think God illogical and lacking all orderly continuity, fail to use that same science to abridge rather wide gaps in their theories and expect the rest of us to subscribe to it by that same stretch of imagination, yet by the same token can't use that same logic or science for that matter to correct something as simple as a single missing enzyme disorder?!

So do you think everyone should follow your particular path? Do people who work in other areas, like education, manufacturing or services provide no useful function?

You understand how science disproves God by all means distill that biology down for the rest of us to make the theological connection...

Who is claiming that science disproves god?

The day I personally buy a Dawkin's book will mark a blizzard in hell with all the devils ice skating!

Then you are losing the debate, since you do not know your adversary's position.

Peace

[Hamayun]

Sister Skye why do you humour them???




"As to those who reject Faith it is the same to them
Whether thou warn them or do not warn them;
They will not believe.
"Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on their eyes is a veil
Great is the penalty they incur."
[Al-Qur’an 2:6-7]

[جوري]

Greetings,


Read more philosophy, then. I'd particularly recommend reading Kant, Hume, Russell, and Popper.

I have taken philosophy in undergrad and wasted two semester courses writing papers on philosophers and their points of view.. what is the point?

You are correct that atheism is not a fact. I'm not arguing that it is.

Ok

Yes, this is all highly debatable.

Indeed

The question I asked you was: "Who designed the designer?"

the question is an oxymoron it conjoins contradictory terms. As if me saying did you take an Aspirin for your cerebral hemorrhage? or when does infinity end? or what is the last number?-- you are committing a fallacy of Conflicting conditions!

I don't claim to know the origins of the universe, and as an atheist, why should I need to provide one to you? All that is required to be an atheist is to believe that the god hypothesis is untrue.

You are right, you don't need to provide me with an explanation, and I don't owe you one either, I neither forced or threatened you to partake in the topic.. I am merely stating from where I stand, an atheist is committing a universal negative, atheists have no basis beyond faith for the foundation of their beliefs. This is the sort of situation where in order for you to prove your beliefs correct, you need to disprove the opposite incorrect using the same means you impose on theism which is to subject it to science. And so I ask that science be used to disprove religion and so far none of you have been successful!

So do you think everyone should follow your particular path? Do people who work in other areas, like education, manufacturing or services provide no useful function?

? this is a conclusion that does not follow from any premise I have employed.. I believe in a step wise systematic process whether you work in shipyards or academia.. there is really no point in getting ahead of yourself...

Who is claiming that science disproves god?

Perhaps you should scroll back and see what your pal barney wrote before jumping in his defense just in your last post?!

Then you are losing the debate, since you do not know your adversary's position.

Peace

No debate is about a win or a loss, at the end of the day we'll each hold our respective point of views --it rather lacks maturity to even suggest that is what this topic is about considering in which section I have chosen to place this tread and when you yourself entered unto the scene?


all the best

[Chuck]

Interesting discussion here: http://telicthoughts.com/behe-vs-dawkins/

[Muezzin]

Dawkins uses science as a base and uses it to critisise theology.

That's as flawed as using theology as a base to criticise science.

Since he and all other atheists tend to get their questions responded to by scripture, he also uses scripture and theology to destroy theology.

Where?

Teaching a child from the cradle that they happen to live in the one perfect system and the leader of their system is infallible and the most marvellous being who ever lived. He has come to save the world from itself. The songs praising him are sung, the masses congregate in front of him in huge crowds to listen to his amazing and charismatic words, the crowd feeds upon itself, the mantras are chanted louder and louder, over and over again imprinting themselves upon the child and the adult. The masses unite under the symbol, read of the amazing deeds done by and terrible suffering that their leader has endured, for them, for his chosen ones. Those who disagree are, strangly missing or dwindeling. Traitors to the cause.

Now I'm describing the Nurenberg Rally here. Of Course.

You're describing the abuse of human control mechanisms, be the abuse religious or secular. You seem to assert that human control mechanisms were invented by religion. Religion is an expression of these control mechanisms, not the origin of them.

As above

So you would inculde the concept of the ubermensh as a deity?

Constitutions you can change , "Gods law"...a bit more tricky. In my opinion the only differences between the two are the religion in questions official stamp of their own particular Gods law. Thor had laws.

Constitutions you can change with great difficulty. Has the Magna Carta ever been changed? God's law you can just ignore if you're so inclined.

And some people kill each other for such loyalties. However when a body of people gather to hear an ideal being shouted from a platform,with threats and enticements then its either Politics in a dictatorship or Religion

Or just someone on a soapbox making ad populous statements.

Not if you count a god as being an invisible, intangeble, immaterial thing that claims to do everything but dosnt actually do anything.
These two were real, visible, talked in aubible frequencies and if their regimes had worked we would read in our German papers of the Miracles the Dear leader had preformed making another bumper harvest grow, just as he did in 1955, also how the traitors and Juden influences were responsible for the credit crunch.

You haven't answered my question. Did Hitler and Stalin claim to be gods or not?

[barney]

That's as flawed as using theology as a base to criticise science.


Where?


You're describing the abuse of human control mechanisms, be the abuse religious or secular. You seem to assert that human control mechanisms were invented by religion. Religion is an expression of these control mechanisms, not the origin of them.


So you would inculde the concept of the ubermensh as a deity?


Constitutions you can change with great difficulty. Has the Magna Carta ever been changed? God's law you can just ignore if you're so inclined.


Or just someone on a soapbox making ad populous statements.


You haven't answered my question. Did Hitler and Stalin claim to be gods or not?

Science is based on reason and measurements and observable facts. Therefore it may be used as a critical base.

Theology critisising this with unprovable unmeasurable unsubstaniated ideas is only as qualified as philosophy to do this.

I will clarify that it's my beleif that Human control mechanisms, many and varied as they are, invented religion. It is perhaps the earliest of such mechanisms perhaps only after the father's wooden club and throwing rocks at the tribes failures.

The Ubermenche isnt the deity. The Ubermench is the Saved, the salvated, the chosen people, the blessed, the beleivers, the residents of national-socialist paradise.

You can disobay Gods law if you wish to be burned at a stake,imprisoned, beheaded or cast out from your society. Hard though some things may be consitutionally to amend, they can be amended. You cant "amend" the Koran, it dosnt need amending.
Ever.

Sorry if I diddnt address it: Hitler and Stalin diddnt claim to be Gods. Their people would have expected miracles in an age of Photography and radio.
They made themselves Gods on earth in the eyes of their people by the age old methods of religion.

[Chuck]

Hitler and Stalin diddnt claim to be Gods. Their people would have expected miracles in an age of Photography and radio.
They made themselves Gods on earth in the eyes of their people by the age old methods of religion.

Well Stalin was atheist, and he was trying to wipe out religion with force. People from my family suffered under his rule. And people behind him were atheist to who believe religion is evil and source of control, their line of argument wasn't different than yours, except they were using force to implement their world view.

[جوري]

Interesting discussion here: http://telicthoughts.com/behe-vs-dawkins/

:sl:

Thanks.. I enjoyed this comment the most

50 years maybe ?

Dawkins style atheism was in ascendence during the 19th century with its mechanistic view of the universe and the "progress" of mankind. Then it started to take body blows left and right as the 20th century unfolded.

Marx's materialist utopia failed to materialise, Freud's reductionist psychology likewise has fallen on hard times, and now Darwins mechnistic paradigm is coming apart. It has already happened in cosmology with the big bang and quantum mechanics, it is just a matter of time in biology.

This materialist worldview arose at a time of superstition and ignorance about the natural world and if they had known then what we know now about people nobody would have bought into the silliness for a second and millions may have been spared horrible deaths.

I would guess maybe in the next 50 years you'll see the old materialist superstitions finally collapse and die out mostly. You need to wait for the die hards to die off. But they are getting pretty old now and the next generation look to be a bunch of idiots, of course they are just following in the steps of their most vocal forerunners.


Comment by thesciphishow — August 15, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

although I can personally see where biology as well it has fallen on hard times, as per the commentator's portents---
be that as it may, I just can't stand reading anything by Dawkin.. the man thrives on vitriolic critique, I almost dread any small excerpt I read by him including his appraisal to the qualifications of others --(where is the content? I can't seem to get past the acid) .. he seems more angry than effectual and scientific. I am not sure, does he think he is making a case for atheism by being especially caustic?

I tend on a personal level to want to feel something human in those atheists I have encountered whether in real life or via books, forums etc, but they are so keen on abnegating their own humanity, and reducing themselves to no more than an order Primates, for the most part, I can't see where a dialogue about religion/ philosophy/ theology or existence is of any use with them is of any use?.... best to stick with statistical mechanics or something equally sterile...

:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

although I can personally see where biology as well it has fallen on hard times, as per the commentator's portents---
be that as it may, I just can't stand reading anything by Dawkin.. the man thrives on vitriolic critique, I almost dread any small excerpt I read by him including his appraisal to the qualifications of others --(where is the content? I can't seem to get past the acid) .. he seems more angry than effectual and scientific. I am not sure, does he think he is making a case for atheism by being especially caustic?

Do you think you make a good case for your beliefs by being especially caustic?

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Do you think you make a good case for your beliefs by being especially caustic?

Peace

I think it is rather foolish of you to assume a conversion based on a correspondence you've had on a forum? I haven't made a case for Islam, I am not sure I was under obligation to? I'd rather cultivate the knowledge of existing Muslims than engage in vain discourse with atheists, indeed I have expressed that in an abundant manner on various threads!

My 'cynicism' is merely at folks who wish to tread on an Islamic forum or even attack Islam on a website or a book, and yet expect to be handled with kid gloves when met with the same tone!


all the best :)

[barney]

Your probably in a huff because Dawkins scathing retorts are better than yours!:D

[جوري]

Your probably in a huff because Dawkins scathing retorts are better than yours!:D

No, I am rather in a huff, because he gets to make a living out of being farcical.... Although admittedly the world needs him for that episodic comic relief -- he represents his clan so well :wink:
The magnitude of his bravado in all likely cases directly proportional to his impotence else where!

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think it is rather foolish of you to assume a conversion based on a correspondence you've had on a forum?

Conversion? :?

I haven't made a case for Islam, I am not sure I was under obligation to? I'd rather cultivate the knowledge of existing Muslims than engage in vain discourse with atheists, indeed I have expressed that in an abundant manner on various threads!

Are atheists not worth talking to?

My 'cynicism' is merely at folks who wish to tread on an Islamic forum or even attack Islam on a website or a book, and yet expect to be handled with kid gloves when met with the same tone!

Why not discuss things with them in a civilised way, instead of ranting and raving all the time?

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Conversion? :?

What is the end outcome of making a 'case for one's religion'?

Are atheists not worth talking to?

Some indeed aren't!

Why not discuss things with them in a civilised way, instead of ranting and raving all the time?

Peace

I am not certain what your definition is of civility?

all the best!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What is the end outcome of making a 'case for one's religion'?

Many outcomes are possible.

Some indeed aren't!

So why do you spend so much time on the forum conversing with people you clearly hold in the utmost contempt?

I am not certain what your definition is of civility?

Clearly not. Part of its definition might include not ranting and raving all the time.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Many outcomes are possible.

like what?

So why do you spend so much time on the forum conversing with people you clearly hold in the utmost contempt?

How much time have I spent? were you timing me?

Clearly not. Part of its definition might include not ranting and raving all the time.

Peace

I think you are ranting and raving now- No?.. does the principal of 'civility' only apply to theists? the way I see it is, I wouldn't spend $300 on a $20 skirt, and I don't go all out, for folks who define the rules for us only to neglect them... if you have something of substance to impart on the topic itself and not my own person, then by all means please do so, if you don't, then contrary to your delusions- I don't in fact have so much time to spend tit for tat with you- and you can call it a day

all the best

[barney]

Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.

If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.

Hmm...i just Ockhammed that arguement . :|

[جوري]

he is a tethered animal who gets into everyone's face.. I would indeed agree non-reinforcement is best for someone like him.. but what is worst than being a ranting idiot saving being the bottom feeder of a ranting idiot...

*shrugs shoulders*

[Chuck]

Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.

If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.

Hmm...i just Ockhammed that arguement . :|

Pat Robertson gets many peoples noses too, and his fans also believe that it is the force of their argument and measurable facts.

[barney]

what is worst than being a ranting idiot saving being the bottom feeder of a ranting idiot...

*shrugs shoulders*

You talking about my posts again?:rollseyes

[Ali_Cena]

The question I asked you was: "Who designed the designer?"

lol that is jokes man, listen we know that Allah (God) is eternal and the definition of eternal is something that has no beggining or an end, now you said who designed the designer welll if Allah was to be designed then we would not be eternal, you understand, Allah can not be designed so why you asking such as thing? you cant be designed or created if you are eternal. now on to my second point, who designed the universe????????-------and we know the universe is not infinite or "eternal"...... that you can ask and the answer is Allah.

peace

[جوري]

Pat Robertson gets many peoples noses too, and his fans also believe that it is the force of their argument and measurable facts.

maybe we should add Harun Yahya to spice it up.. if it all comes down to

'was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from (a)theists that he does'

[Ali_Cena]

LOL i like harun yahyas work, well all of it, until couple of days ago i was hearing that he has alot of unscientific and well work which contains errors, none that i have seen so far, i think he is a great man, which defends the creationists in my opinoun

[Muezzin]

Science is based on reason and measurements and observable facts. Therefore it may be used as a critical base.

Next up: Apples versus oranges. The winner? Purple.

Which is to say that theology is more on the philosophical than the empirical side of the spectrum. Which is to say neither faith nor logic can 'prove' or 'disprove' the other.

Theology critisising this with unprovable unmeasurable unsubstaniated ideas is only as qualified as philosophy to do this.

Yes. Because it's an entirely different field.

I will clarify that it's my beleif that Human control mechanisms, many and varied as they are, invented religion. It is perhaps the earliest of such mechanisms perhaps only after the father's wooden club and throwing rocks at the tribes failures.

Okay.

The Ubermenche isnt the deity. The Ubermench is the Saved, the salvated, the chosen people, the blessed, the beleivers, the residents of national-socialist paradise.

So, rather than religion per se, your dispute (among others) is with the concept of the Chosen People, wherever and however it manifests, because of its ease of abuse?

You can disobay Gods law if you wish to be burned at a stake,imprisoned, beheaded or cast out from your society.

You can disobey man's law if you wish to be executed, incarcerated or sued into the poor house.

There are consequences to breaking rules. Those who are particularly good at it manage to avoid the consequences, whether the rules are said to be divine or man-made.

Hard though some things may be consitutionally to amend, they can be amended. You cant "amend" the Koran, it dosnt need amending.
Ever.

Apart from the odd abrogation here and there in its early history. But now, it does not need amending. Same as the American Constitution, as it stands, does not need amending. Or the Magna Carta. Does that mean some will never attempt to amend it, however misguidedly? Who can say?

Sorry if I diddnt address it: Hitler and Stalin diddnt claim to be Gods. Their people would have expected miracles in an age of Photography and radio.
They made themselves Gods on earth in the eyes of their people by the age old methods of religion.

So, when we have two non-religious, arguably atheistic tyrants, their vile methods are only condemned with qualifications? 'Yes, what they did was bad, but they were only following the template set by religious people!'

That is what I object to. That sort of scapegoating or buck-passing. I don't care if you claim to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or atheist, we all agree the oppression of innocents is wrong, and if you indulge in it, we will condemn you.

Baney, If I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I am wont to do, I do apologise.

Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.

As opposed to the strength of them.

It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.

Except that Dawkins himself believes in the concept of an overlording master intelligence. He just doesn't like the term 'God' because it implies something supernatural.

Given that, I find Mr Dawkins' personal dispute with religion rather puzzling. It needn't be framed in confrontation for one thing.

If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.

What kind of argument is that?

In the information age, anyone can get a response. Just visit YouTube. The mere existence of a response does not imply the strengths or weaknesses of the initial argument. That's rather circular. That's like saying, 'If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be on an Islamic forum debating His existence, would we? Hmm?'

[barney]

Next up: Apples versus oranges. The winner? Purple.

Which is to say that theology is more on the philosophical than the empirical side of the spectrum. Which is to say neither faith nor logic can 'prove' or 'disprove' the other.


Yes. Because it's an entirely different field.


Okay.


So, rather than religion per se, your dispute (among others) is with the concept of the Chosen People, wherever and however it manifests, because of its ease of abuse?


You can disobey man's law if you wish to be executed, incarcerated or sued into the poor house.

There are consequences to breaking rules. Those who are particularly good at it manage to avoid the consequences, whether the rules are said to be divine or man-made.


Apart from the odd abrogation here and there in its early history. But now, it does not need amending. Same as the American Constitution, as it stands, does not need amending. Or the Magna Carta. Does that mean some will never attempt to amend it, however misguidedly? Who can say?


So, when we have two non-religious, arguably atheistic tyrants, their vile methods are only condemned with qualifications? 'Yes, what they did was bad, but they were only following the template set by religious people!'

That is what I object to. That sort of scapegoating or buck-passing. I don't care if you claim to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or atheist, we all agree the oppression of innocents is wrong, and if you indulge in it, we will condemn you.

Baney, If I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I am wont to do, I do apologise.


As opposed to the strength of them.


Except that Dawkins himself believes in the concept of an overlording master intelligence. He just doesn't like the term 'God' because it implies something supernatural.

Given that, I find Mr Dawkins' personal dispute with religion rather puzzling. It needn't be framed in confrontation for one thing.


What kind of argument is that?

In the information age, anyone can get a response. Just visit YouTube. The mere existence of a response does not imply the strengths or weaknesses of the initial argument. That's rather circular. That's like saying, 'If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be on an Islamic forum debating His existence, would we? Hmm?'

The correct simaler would be, Apples? Are they a Fruit or a thing of grace and splendour?
Theology is a "Field" which is simply a collective interpretation of others ideas, which rests on its substance as provable by itself. You start with nothing you may debate nothing for 4000 years and end up with....?

I Dispute both. The ubermenche is an effect. Theism is the cause.

Wonderful, yet by mans law you cant now get burned as a witch. By Gods law, you must for now and ever.
Would you advocate abrogating something from the Quran? Thats impossible, the only person with that power was Mohammed.


Well they werent following an Atheistic template. There isnt one. Also, as you have agreed, the methods they used were identical to.....?


Force to include strength :D

Dawkins argues against an overlording intelligence debunking it simply by the truth that the complex needs the supercomplex to create. Perhaps I'm getting your meaning wrong? Dawkins definatly dosnt argue that! :)

Its a poor arguement. People can get very very worked up by beleifs. Perhaps its natural that he draws such fire. Even if he wrote a series of books saying the world was made from a fine french cheese, he would be hated by theists.


Nice debate BTW, and apologies for not multiquoting...its so blinking time consuming!

Cheers.

[wth1257]

Read more philosophy, then, and make up your mind. I'd particularly recommend reading Kant, Hume, Russell, and Popper.

Reading what about them?

I don't see any pattern or logic in your recomendations it seems like you were just name dropping. I mean Kant reacted against Hume so I can kind of see the reasoning for that but Popper's main contributions were in political philosophy and overcomeing epistemological problems posed by naturalism and falsifiability. Russell fits with Hume and Popper but a lot of his really important work is outdated. I mean I guess there is "On Denoting" but I don't see how referentialism and identity theory really fits in. I mean the biggest problem is he wrote on a huge ammount of topics, what exactly do you want her to read from Russell?

Should she crack open a fresh copy of Principia Mathematica? Because "read Russell" could fit into anything from technical mathematical papers to Vietnam.

[wth1257]

Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.

If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.

Hmm...i just Ockhammed that arguement . :|

I think his reaction is largely due to his reputation as a scientist. I have never heard him advance any particularly interesting or powerfull argument outside the biological sciences. Quite honestly I really doubt "The God Delusion" would have been published if it didn't have the "Dawkins Brand" on it.

I don't have any problem with Dawkins. He deserves credit for his scientific reaserch, but I don't think his non-scientific writtings will survive, at least on their merits, beyond this latest wave of "New Atheism".

[wth1257]

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious. They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship, scripture symbology, gathering and observance, doctine and song, to make their religion with them as the deitey.

How are they religions?

I mean what exactly does he mean by "religion"

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Reading what about them?

Good question, but since this is a debate about atheism vs. theism, perhaps you can guess?

I don't see any pattern or logic in your recomendations it seems like you were just name dropping.

Thanks for your confidence. Those philosophers have all offered interesting arguments on the god question. It's a pity more people aren't aware of them.

Peace

[wth1257]

Greetings,


Good question, but since this is a debate about atheism vs. theism, perhaps you can guess?

If one is somewhat aquainted with them then that that would not be to cryptic a recomendation. However you are assuming that she is not aquainted with the authors in question which would make the recomendation hopelessly ambiguious.

Kant's magnum opus was "Critique of Pure Reason" which does contain criticisms of natural theology and classical arguments for God's existance however I am not sure how keen Islam is on natural theology. The Qur'an makes a lot of teological appeals but that is the only direct relivance Kant would have.

Russell seemd to primairly focus on Christianity, He made some general critiques of religion that wern't specific to religion but given the scope and size of his work one would really need to know where to look.

Hume all that comes off the top of my head is his argument against miricles which is interesting enough but I don't think you would have to "read him" to get that. I would think more readable and brief versions would be avaliable.

Popper I guess that's more obvious given the nature of his work.

That's all that comes off the top of my head that would relate here. Unless you mean in a more conceptual sense but again I don't know that the systems are conceptually consistant.

Thanks for your confidence. Those philosophers have all offered interesting arguments on the god question. It's a pity more people aren't aware of them.

Peace

sure.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If one is somewhat aquainted with them then that that would not be to cryptic a recomendation. However you are assuming that she is not aquainted with the authors in question which would make the recomendation hopelessly ambiguious.

I don't see what you're getting at with this at all.

Kant's magnum opus was "Critique of Pure Reason" which does contain criticisms of natural theology and classical arguments for God's existance however I am not sure how keen Islam is on natural theology.

But you may well be aware of how keen Islamic scholars are on classical arguments for the existence of god, despite Kant and many others.

Russell seemd to primairly focus on Christianity, He made some general critiques of religion that wern't specific to religion but given the scope and size of his work one would really need to know where to look.

Or, miracle of miracles, one could do some research!

Hume all that comes off the top of my head is his argument against miricles which is interesting enough but I don't think you would have to "read him" to get that. I would think more readable and brief versions would be avaliable.

That's all that comes off the top of your head? Well, I guess that settles that, then.

Peace

[wth1257]

Greetings,


I don't see what you're getting at with this at all.

That the advise was unrealistic.

But you may well be aware of how keen Islamic scholars are on classical arguments for the existence of god, despite Kant and many others.

Sure

Or, miracle of miracles, one could do some research!

Obviously you don't know enough about this, you should read Aquinas, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Godel, Dummett, and Wittgenstein.

If you find this adivse somewhat cryptic perhapse you should do some reaserch!

That's all that comes off the top of your head? Well, I guess that settles that, then.

Peace

Given how brief my response was I don't know much about the subject, I was obviously not implying that because thats all I can think of thats all there was about the subject.

[جوري]

let me some it up for you in lieu of the ping-pong and lofty pretense!
The argument against religion has been to some extent attempted through the use of science, well this poses quite a problem on two levels really
1- It is not an area of expertise for Mr. CZ where he can annihilate some religio-myth with some solid scientific dexterity, and it amazes me he should in fact mention Popper amongst others in assumption that he is better read, which I can accept-- but popper does propose that theories can never be proved to be true, but are tested by attempts to falsify them, which is in fact what I ask most atheists here to do when it comes to the existence of God or religion .. problem is they can't...
so they take the philosophy route which brings us to point 2- as philosophy can be considered a subclass of religion and actually stands with it on equal and my personal opinion lesser grounds as you are left to the surmises and conjectures of various people undoubtedly influenced by the geo-political and economic conditions of their time as well a strong dislike to the main religion of their region being 'Christianity' and who can blame them really, when for centuries people lived at the mercy of the church which dictated some unreasonable things from where to keep their circumcised regions so God can put them back together; to not wearing pointy shoes, to things that caused the death of thousands (I call you attention for instance to how potatoes were forbidden as they were considered the devil's food growing from the earth) and in times of famine in lieu of eating what was provided them naturally ended up needlessly starved or worst dead! I would be dismayed with the church too, and philosophize until the cows come home! .. early philosophers have proposed life to have emerged from things as silly as the basic four elements, or by forms of reincarnation etc
If I am left to 'may the best philosophy wins', I'll say I have found my niche in Islam...

Mr. CZ can't wrap his head around that idea, not so much that he is an atheist, but how can others be willingly consciously and freely accepting of that which he detests... and he in fact has some pre-formed prejudices about Muslims, and women in general though he may not admit them freely, subconsciously with presumptions and condescension they seep through...

I find myself at a loss most of the time really.. i browse the web, and find that westerners (men especially) feel sorry for us, oppressed Muslim women, and by the same token want us to shut up on our own forums under the guise of not being literate enough? learned enough? politic enough?...

I had to drop my two cents, even though I have a deadline to meet and professed so on first page, I can't engage in any deep philosophical discussion. Further put this under education with the heading of 'for general knowledge' sake' rather than refutation purposes for exactly that reason-- I'll use my time off wisely to read some sound philosophy to expose the doubt in me that never believed in God all along...


all the best!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It is not an area of expertise for Mr. CZ where he can annihilate some religio-myth with some solid scientific dexterity,

True. I'm not a scientist. Does every atheist need to have specialised knowledge about science? I think there are also many compelling reasons outside science for not believing in god.

but popper does propose that theories can never be proved to be true, but are tested by attempts to falsify them, which is in fact what I ask most atheists here to do when it comes to the existence of God or religion .. problem is they can't...

Hopefully you realise (I'm sure it's been mentioned many times) that atheism is a belief and not a fact. I'm not aware of any atheists who think that they have some kind of proof that atheism is true, or who are aiming to come up with one.

as philosophy can be considered a subclass of religion

Philosophy in general has very little to do with religion, although religion may provide an object of study for philosophers. Philosophy itself can be seen as a testing ground for new ideas. It essentially gave us all the sciences, for example.

Mr. CZ can't wrap his head around that idea, not so much that he is an atheist, but how can others be willingly consciously and freely accepting of that which he detests... and he in fact has some pre-formed prejudices about Muslims, and women in general though he may not admit them freely, subconsciously with presumptions and condescension they seep through...

Could you spell out my prejudices for me? I'm curious to know what you think I believe.

I'll use my time off wisely to read some sound philosophy to expose the doubt in me that never believed in God all along...

I'm glad you're going to read some philosophy, and I hope you are able to see some value in it.

In one of your points, you're right about me: I simply cannot understand how someone could believe as you do.

We disagree, and it's obviously something that you don't like talking about. I'm sorry that my questioning upsets you.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


True. I'm not a scientist. Does every atheist need to have specialised knowledge about science? I think there are also many compelling reasons outside science for not believing in god.

The majority of most vocal atheists (do browse the web) have yielded a huge persuasion of the synonymy of Atheism and science -- vs the widely popular religion 'incompatible' with science!

Hopefully you realise (I'm sure it's been mentioned many times) that atheism is a belief and not a fact. I'm not aware of any atheists who think that they have some kind of proof that atheism is true, or who are aiming to come up with one.

I am glad you feel that way.. and have actually professed it!

Philosophy in general has very little to do with religion, although religion may provide an object of study for philosophers. Philosophy itself can be seen as a testing ground for new ideas. It essentially gave us all the sciences, for example.

Philosophy in the context you peddle is basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group as defined to us by meriam webster!

Could you spell out my prejudices for me? I'm curious to know what you think I believe.

What you believe is what you share on the pages, I am not a mind reader!

I'm glad you're going to read some philosophy, and I hope you are able to see some value in it.

That was sarcasm Mr. CZ.. It behooves you to reflect on that!

In one of your points, you're right about me: I simply cannot understand how someone could believe as you do.

I feel the same way about atheists... I can't understand how a small percentage believes as you do....

We disagree, and it's obviously something that you don't like talking about. I'm sorry that my questioning upsets you.

Peace

I am not sure how you've upset me?

all the best!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

One of Dawkins books could have been called the “Evolution Delusion” I say this because of the magic he uses to try and illustrate his point.

He starts of specifically by trying to discredit Genesis with the possible way the eye evolved. He based his argument on a computer programme that could only show success and his computer eye had a bump start. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Nilsson and Pelger began with a flat retina atop a flat pigment layer and surmounted by a flat, protective transparent layer. The transparent layer was allowed to undergo localised random mutations of its refractive index. They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before.

I fail to see how Dawkins could truthfully call this science, If Dawkins bases all his BELIEFS on evolution on this kind of rigged research, how can we take him seriously.

The beauty of simulating an eye, as distinct from, say, the leg of a running cheetah, is that its efficiency can be easily mea-optics

I think what Dawkins really means is that you would need to give the computer programme a lot of help to show how a Cheetah leg could evolve.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...6peepers.shtml

take care

Eric

[Trumble]

I fail to see how Dawkins could truthfully call this science, If Dawkins bases all his BELIEFS on evolution on this kind of rigged research, how can we take him seriously.

It was not 'rigged' at all. It is precisely the restriction you highlight that makes it an experiment about evolution by natural selection as that is how the effects of that process are simulated.

Please look again at the purpose of the experiment. It was to establish whether a 'smooth gradient of change' existed from primitive pigmented eye spot to an eye with lens and cornea, and how long such an evolution might concievably take. It was not to 'prove' evolution (which it assumes) let alone 'discredit' Genesis (which has no scientific credibility to discredit), but to examine (assuming evolution by natural selection) whether the eye could evolve, and within an acceptable timescale.

The experiment certainly doesn't prove anything, any more than computer simulations of anything ever can (think economics, or global warming). It merely provides evidence. A simulation is a simulation not reality; a rather more fruitful line of attack for creationists, I would have thought?

[wth1257]

That was sarcasm Mr. CZ.. It behooves you to reflect on that!

Wow.

I have not heard that word, behoove, saince my mother in like grade school.

"And let me tell you something young man, it would behoove you to...."

Being an English Major before grad school she integrated more obscure vocabulary words when she was annoyed, I don't think she ever noted that her 8 and 5 year old sons did not share her knoledge of vocabulary and often did not know what on earth she was talking about:D

Sorry, just very strange. I have not heard that word in years^o)

[Ali_Cena]

lol mashallah sister skye is very knowledgable in english and afcoures french.

[Muezzin]

The correct simaler would be, Apples? Are they a Fruit or a thing of grace and splendour?

Perhaps. But that's a false dichotomy. Can an apple not be both a fruit and a thing of grace and splendour?

But maybe that's the thing. I personally don't think science and religion should be at odds. Science, religion and politics are three of the key ingredients of this soup of humanity. You can't remove them. Rather than having them clash, you can make them work together constructively - or at least accept them all.

What I also find rather puzzling is that so many so-called anti-religious people seem not to realise that they are not anti-religion at all, but rather anti-God. Or at least anti-God's Rules.

Theology is a "Field" which is simply a collective interpretation of others ideas, which rests on its substance as provable by itself. You start with nothing you may debate nothing for 4000 years and end up with....?

That's philosophy for ya. Completely different to empericism.

But seriously, that's a bit reductive, considering subjects like this help people to clarify the way in which they lead their lives.

I Dispute both. The ubermenche is an effect. Theism is the cause.

How do you figure? Considering that the ubermensch's originator Nietchse was an athiest.

Wonderful, yet by mans law you cant now get burned as a witch. By Gods law, you must for now and ever

I don't have to tell you that witch-hunts still occur. By man's law, idiots can drive you from your home because they think your profession abuses children.

By man's law, other idiots can lie to the police such that they attack your home and shoot you as a terrorist.

At any rate, my intent is not to continue this tit-for-tat. My point was that people need rules, and disputing where those rules come from is a fruitless exercise provided the rules themselves are agreed upon. For instance, there are those who would take issue with the Ten Commandments as a load of poppycock, but would not disagree with the rules themselves. We can all agree, religious or not, that murder is wrong, for example.

Would you advocate abrogating something from the Quran?

No.

Thats impossible, the only person with that power was Mohammed.

It's not impossible to physically change or remove sentences from a book. It would be a vast sin to do so to this particular book, but to say it's (physically) impossible is a bit silly. Especially considering some people already tried to make a '21st century-friendly' Quran with what they deemed offending verses removed. I'd provide a link if I could find it.

Well they werent following an Atheistic template. There isnt one.

They did, however, abuse science for their disgusting eugenics experiments. That doesn't mean science is to blame for the Nazis' brain rot.

Also, as you have agreed, the methods they used were identical to.....?

I agree that they have abused human control mechanism popularised by religion. They perverted certain mechanisms for their own ends. Just as a terrorist who calls himself Muslim perverts certain mechanisms for his own ends. Just as a child abuser who calls himself a Catholic perverts these mechanisms for his own ends.

Another reason I don't like the 'Let's blame religion for all the world's ills' is that sooner or later you start blaming the victims. The Holocaust for instance. If you take the road that religion is the cause of it all, you're a never far from saying, 'well, if all those people weren't Jewish, this wouldn't have been an issue'.

Force to include strength :D

Heh.

I think his force sometimes exceeds his strength when it comes to this particular issue. It's off-putting, to put it mildly.

Dawkins argues against an overlording intelligence debunking it simply by the truth that the complex needs the supercomplex to create. Perhaps I'm getting your meaning wrong? Dawkins definatly dosnt argue that! :)

"Well, I'm convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine." Why not call it God? "I don't think it's helpful to call it God." OK, but what would "it" be like?

"I think it'll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison." He can even see how "design" by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. "But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It's not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of.These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It's going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it's going to put theology to shame."

Source and the rest of the interview

If I've misinterpreted his words, I do apologise.

Its a poor arguement. People can get very very worked up by beleifs. Perhaps its natural that he draws such fire. Even if he wrote a series of books saying the world was made from a fine french cheese, he would be hated by theists.

Only if that vision of the world left no room for a deity.

Plus, I for one don't hate the man. I disagree with his philosophical beliefs and I think he gets far too aggressive (intellectually speaking) at times, but he's not the sort of person I can hate without meeting him. Though that might change if he ever decided to go into politics. :p

He is an excellent scientist.

Nice debate BTW, and apologies for not multiquoting...its so blinking time consuming!

Whatever floats your boat.

Cheers.

No problem.

[barney]

Eric.Im picking up that you dont actually know what evolution is really about.

Heres a 1991 lecture by dawkins that will explain how the eye evolved amongst other stuff. Its a long watch so a cup of cocoa one evening is in order. You will need to watch the whole series.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qdCoFWlns20

[Liberty]

I haven't read dawkin's book nor this new one.
Just ... haven't had the time and I'm not really interested in reading about someone degrading God or any possibility of a deity.