To the quote above, keep in mind that Dawkins is stating that whatever is found could not be called "god". Not because of any malice or belief in atheism, but simply because it is not useful in any way to science advancement.
if you find '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.” 'scientific' then by all means, you'd do yourself a world of disservice discussing your miltonic mind before us oafs!
Science must be agnostic when it comes to the question of god, some religions emphasize that god is something beyond the scope of science. That's fine, however, it's due to the fact that religion often tresspasses on the territory of science with testable claims that we run into this dialogue of science versus religion.
As Einstein once said '' “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” seems hypocritical for so-called scientists to trespass territories to make asses of themselves and not expect the same courtesy back.. especially when it is so **** hilarious
@Naidamar,
If you always get your information second hand, especially considering the man is alive and capable of explaining himself, then you are likely to get a lot of misinformation.
All the best,
Faysal
Maybe it is best he gets it from third party info (i.e) through you, so that it is better sugared coated?
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
For your benefit, I don't always get information second hand (frankly, it is strange for atheists who normally demand absolute proof/evidence for anything to have so readily jumped into conclusion about the habit of another person they don't know at all).
In any case, I do not find atheism interesting or important or beneficial, so that's why any information about Dawkins is of no use for me, either way.
I didn't mean to imply that you never do any research. I couldn't know that. I was commenting upon your words:
I actually have never read any work by Dawkins, and have not even seen his youtube clips because I believe that would be a waste of my time, and the above statement from Dawkins is enough to confirm that I made good decision.
in relation to the fact that the quote posted by Gossamer skye does not adequately represent the beliefs of Richard Dawkins. In such a case, where the individual is quite public about his personal beliefs and reasoning, it actually helps to get material first hand. I'm not in any place to advise you on how to spend your time, you can do as you wish.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If you don't find it funny, there is nothing we can do to help you!
or is it because atheists don't like comments that poke at their core beliefs?
You could explain why you find it funny. I'm not without a sense of humour.
You can poke all you like, just as you already take the liberty to exercise that privilege.
if you find '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.” 'scientific' then by all means, you'd do yourself a world of disservice discussing your miltonic mind before us oafs!
You really do miss the whole point, which is alright because quote miners quite often miss context. The same thing happened in a somewhat famous interview a few years ago when the intelligent design vs. evolution 'debate' at the forefront and the movie "Expelled" was released.
Richard is not an unreasonable man, if you listen to the whole of his point what he does for the audience is to set up a reasonable argument for the other side before he begins his criticism.
The whole point of what he was saying was if physicists found some particle or constant or law that was so wonderful and amazing as to move us emotionally, it doesn't actually help science to ascribe it to a transcendent order that doesn't help us scientifically. He was giving some options to consider, a metaphor or analogy if you like. It doesn't mean he truly believes the admittedly sci-fi scenario is true. All you have to do is listen to the 4 minute clip you posted to understand that.
In his interview for the movie "Expelled" he set up the idea of having a seed for life on earth via panspermia, the point of which was to illustrate that it doesn't matter how life initiated in terms of evolutionary theory. It may well have been a divine artificer or it may have been an extra-terrestrial origin. In either case, the way to move forward is to search for explanations. What you have in the movie is a snippet of his point which leads viewers to the conclusion that Dawkins believes in Panspermia. It's irrelevant, let alone not true.
As Einstein once said ''
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” seems hypocritical for so-called scientists to trespass territories to make asses of themselves and not expect the same courtesy back.. especially when it is so **** hilarious
Leaving aside that Einstein did not profess a belief in a personal god, what exactly is the domain/territory of Religion?
I don't find it 'hilarious' either; Dawkins' point is quite clear. Must be a theists thing.
It's not even as if the position is a new one. Buddhists have been quite happy for over two millennia to believe there is a naturalistic explanation for 'life, the universe and everything' that may be temporarily (or indeed permanently) outside the grasp of our humble little gray cells. In doing so they have encountered no great urge to just assign the tricky bits to 'God' in the hope the problem just goes away. Although, to be fair, that may just be because they consider the immediate human condition to be a far more pressing problem.
You could explain why you find it funny. I'm not without a sense of humour.
I think we should be the judge of whether or not you have a sense of humor, your views of yourself are bound to be biased!
You can poke all you like, just as you already take the liberty to exercise that privilege.
Indeed-- there is no point in stating the obvious!
You really do miss the whole point, which is alright because quote miners quite often miss context. The same thing happened in a somewhat famous interview a few years ago when the intelligent design vs. evolution 'debate' at the forefront and the movie "Expelled" was released.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct the point in a more goal oriented fashion and explain how it is at odds with what you think we think of said points without being so strained for effect?
Richard is not an unreasonable man, if you listen to the whole of his point what he does for the audience is to set up a reasonable argument for the other side before he begins his criticism.
Yes, and I find FSM's and celestial tea pots amongst other nonsense to be quite 'reasonable' points to bring to a theological debate!
The whole point of what he was saying was if physicists found some particle or constant or law that was so wonderful and amazing as to move us emotionally, it doesn't actually help science to ascribe it to a transcendent order that doesn't help us scientifically. He was giving some options to consider, a metaphor or analogy if you like. It doesn't mean he truly believes the admittedly sci-fi scenario is true. All you have to do is listen to the 4 minute clip you posted to understand that.
Are you asking for a reprieve for his moronic 'metaphors' -- I can be game with that if a 'metaphor' is your get out of jail free card. One wonders then, why many of you labor to misconstrue religious metaphors just the same? Hypocrisy perhaps? or selective intellectualization?
In his interview for the movie "Expelled" he set up the idea of having a seed for life on earth via panspermia, the point of which was to illustrate that it doesn't matter how life initiated in terms of evolutionary theory. It may well have been a divine artificer or it may have been an extra-terrestrial origin. In either case, the way to move forward is to search for explanations. What you have in the movie is a snippet of his point which leads viewers to the conclusion that Dawkins believes in Panspermia. It's irrelevant, let alone not true.
It doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, what matters is that they are beliefs just the same, and not any more or less scientific than anything religion offers even if you'd pretty it up under 'axiomatic wisdom' Religion hasn't offered nitty gritty details of how anything was created save that God said be and it was, if that is your axe to grind and label it the god of the gaps then it would make perfect sense that science picks up on said shortcomings and elucidate them without substituting one set of beliefs for another?-- Don't in the end wonder why you are labeled the pawn of a lesser god-- from the lowest common denominator your brand of 'axiomatic wisdom' is neither reproducible, consistent with what we know of science or even naturally observable and I don't see how any of it can be at odds at with religion if again, religion hasn't offered a method, and the methods you throw on the table as sound and scientific can likewise be labeled under beliefs. Beliefs are beliefs no matter how fantastic or down to earth or 'natural' they still stand on equal grounds with those you or he finds so detestable!
Leaving aside that Einstein did not profess a belief in a personal god, what exactly is the domain/territory of Religion?
You don't actually know what Einstein professed on his own private time, as spirituality is a matter personal in nature.. I have no idea what you mean by 'domain/territory' of religion -- Religion is concerned with perfecting people's behavior, cementing the relationship between human fellows, curbing evil tendencies towards others, Religion is meant so we'd reflect and consider nations and tribes as complementary not opposites, to enhance moral values and to help people act morally, to do good and avoid bad and crooked behaviors, and to teach of being sociable, lovable and tolerant, to establish spiritual growth if for nothing else but for one's own well being and comfort in lieu of the prozac pump and to ground and humble us in what is good, like establishing charity, fasting, offering of ourselves not merely financially but physically so humanity can be experienced from its most basic condition, religion is meant to point that all that is beautiful and sacred in the world isn't random, lowly and without meaning, that they are a sign of divine love and justice-- that as we came from the nothing of the womb to life, as we emerge from the uncertainty of sleep to morning light, so shall we rise from death to eternal life and be held accountable for all that we have offered good or bad in a goal directed fashion... If that is NOT compatible with your principles, life-style, personal beliefs, you are certainly free to leave that aside and follow your whimsy or dawkins' 'reason' . If you will take the time to poke fun at religious 'metaphors' and denigrate all that is important and holy to others, then be likewise prepared for a barrage of offensive abuse of equal or greater caliber, the only difference is, how incredibly deserved and how easy!
All the best,
Faysal
Indeed!
Last edited by جوري; 11-23-2009 at 09:40 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Perhaps if atheists were a bit more intellectually honest, they'd have realized that it is impossible to prove a universal negative
That is there very point of bringing up the pixies. You can't prove they don't exist. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove any of these unprovable things don't exist. It doesn't give you any reason to believe that they do exist. It is a demonstration of the flaw in the logic of saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist" as if it means something. The statement is true, but that doesn't make the claim that God does any more potent.
Pink unicorns and celestial tea pots haven't left us with polka dotted elephants and chamomile tea for us to ponder their existence or whatever the generate of either 'magical beings' is to yield-- However, God has given us every last morsel in the Universe and taken credit for it in his books.
So all it takes is for somebody to write a book claiming that pixies are responsible for the creation of everything we see? Would every creation myth of ancient people's suffice to put their own claims on par? That'd include everything from the earth being perched on the back of a giant turtle to to, yes, pixie like creatures making us.
If atheists know better then perhaps they can show us how it all began and where it is going?
That is a god-of-the-gaps appeal. If nobody knows how it all began, that doesn't give any more reason to accept the creation myth you suggest.
That is there very point of bringing up the pixies. You can't prove they don't exist. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove any of these unprovable things don't exist. It doesn't give you any reason to believe that they do exist. It is a demonstration of the flaw in the logic of saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist" as if it means something. The statement is true, but that doesn't make the claim that God does any more potent.
Again, the thread is neither about pixies or celestial teapots, it is about the cult of atheism and how it is incapable of grounding itself in science without some form of make belief.. try to read everything before you write.. Don't like God, give us a good clean scientific alternative that does what religion can't!
So all it takes is for somebody to write a book claiming that pixies are responsible for the creation of everything we see? Would every creation myth of ancient people's suffice to put their own claims on par? That'd include everything from the earth being perched on the back of a giant turtle to to, yes, pixie like creatures making us.
I have no idea what this mindless drivel is all about.. try to go to the bathroom before you sit in front of your computer next time!
That is a god-of-the-gaps appeal. If nobody knows how it all began, that doesn't give any more reason to accept the creation myth you suggest.
Indeed, and that works both ways!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Again, the thread is neither about pixies or celestial teapots, it is about the cult of atheism and how it is incapable of grounding itself in science without some form of make belief.
You are correct here. Atheism can't be spoken of without addressing make belief (God). Atheism is a reaction to something with no basis in science, so no, it can't ground itself in science. There is nothing it could work with towards that end.
You are correct here. Atheism can't be spoken of without addressing make belief (God). Atheism is a reaction to something with no basis in science, so no, it can't ground itself in science. There is nothing it could work with towards that end.
Rather, atheism is a colorful new cult with staunch defenders who delude themselves that their brands of fairy tales are more sound and reasonable than everyone else' yet can't seem to go the extra mile to elucidate their points to save their dear life with that thing they claim their roots grounded in ...'science' ..
how is this for scientific?
__________
perhaps
as colorful as this?
oh wait, at least the celestial teapot can indeed be visualized!
we'll be waiting for rocks and computerized sperm in distant planets to take flight, before you come speaking of science!
all the best
Last edited by جوري; 11-23-2009 at 11:36 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
And why do you associate any of the above with atheism?
As for the "science of atheism", atheism is a response to theism and as such can only work with the claims of theism. Theism will have to open itself to scientific study before atheism can do anything.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 11-23-2009 at 11:44 PM.
And why do you associate any of the above with atheism?
per your quote
"Atheism is a reaction to something with no basis in science"
and the above is the distillate of the science that atheism has given us..
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
This is the problem, Skye. I don't believe you're stupid, but it's clear you don't understand much of this debate at all.
Peace
Rather what is stupid is to dignify feeble-minded attempts when seeking a goal directed dialogue knowing well the frequent detours to lala land when the going gets tough for one of you a unicorn or a tea pot is a good trump card--
all the best!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Whether richard Dawkins is correct or not is not a great issue .
What is relevant is that all religions are Myths else they would all be true from the prehistoric era thru to scientology There are or have been many thousands of religions in existence over time and the amazing thing is that adherents fervently believe in ONE and know categorically that the remainder are myths or even less so are we saying that a majority of people know the true religion or only a tiny minority . Or is it a matter of faith and not numbers as advised by my local pastor . WHY does it matter if out of 6 billion people noone can claim supreme knowledge ;its all faith based and faith is just a part of one's imagination and requires no proof or logic just fervent belief .
Well it doesn't really matter as long as followers just follow their faith but when it comes to killing or culling the population based on the other persons faith then we could be in trouble . but it could also be the answer to world over population which is the real problem that needs addressing
It’s funny how the local atheist that claims high and loud that God does not exist is at the same time logically admitting his existence with these very claims. I love it! Besides Dawkins now has his own cult! Loll, I guess we should start buildings new churches of le Dawkins, I can imagine the sermons taking place there, fine little gems like the one sky provided. I saw an interview with this Dawkins guy and some other atheist show host, it almost made me sick. the two oafs seem to be praising themselves, sick.
I will now postulate my belief in a fine tuned universe by God: Wherever we look fine tuning is apparent, for example the laws of gravity, Gravity’s’ fine tuning is apparent, If gravity were too strong, stars would have
lifetimes shorter than a billion years, and if it were too weak (or negative), no solid
bodies could exist in the universe. Given the range of forces, gravity must be fine-tuned
to one part in 10^36 Carbon is another example among many of a fine tuned universe Carbon is extremely important for the existence of life, and if it were not for the
fine-tuning of the nuclear strong force, it would not be produced in sufficient quantities to
allow life. An increase or decrease of this force by approximately 1 percent would cause
this unwelcome result. Increasing this force more than two percent would prohibit the
existence of atoms and a reduction of 5 percent or more would make stellar burning
impossible.
It all boils down to this:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.
I will explain, in 2 it is not due to physical necessity because Attempts to explain fine-tuning by
means of physical necessity rely on the dubious assumption that all of the laws of the
universe can be reduced to a fundamental law and fail to consider initial conditions of the
universe, this only manage to push the question of design up one step.
And It is not due to chance because of absolute
Improbability, To deny the absolute improbability, the critic must address the evidence for fine tuning, I have provided 2 nice examples above.
The universe was designed it is obvious.
Justufy, even if we were to accept that the universe is designed, its still a long way from there to concluding a God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and wants us to behave a certain way.
Justufy, even if we were to accept that the universe is designed, its still a long way from there to concluding a God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and wants us to behave a certain way.
Well the Qur'an pretty much covers all that. I only see the God of Abraham claiming He created the universe (in the Quran). Thor didn't; Shiva didn't; Vishnu didn't etc.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Well the Qur'an pretty much covers all that. I only see the God of Abraham claiming He created the universe (in the Quran). Thor didn't; Shiva didn't; Vishnu didn't etc.
So because you have a book where a character called Allah claims to have created the universe, that is enough to convince you to make all of the logical leaps that Pygoscelis described?
So because you have a book where a character called Allah claims to have created the universe, that is enough to convince you to make all of the logical leaps that Pygoscelis described?
Peace
No I'm saying only one of the many deities of religions has actually outright claimed total creation of the universe. It would be logical to therefore use that deity as a starting point, thus minimising any useless comments such as pygo's (no offence or anything, but that post really doesn't pose a problem for theists). If you have one deity (and only one) claiming such things I'd say that's a pretty big claim to make!.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
No I'm saying only one of the many deities of religions has actually outright claimed total creation of the universe.
What a strange thing to say. There are (and have been) many gods whose followers credit them with the creation of the universe. Here are a few of them:
It would be logical to therefore use that deity as a starting point, thus minimising any useless comments such as pygo's (no offence or anything, but that post really doesn't pose a problem for theists).
It would be interesting if you could explain why those several logical leaps are not a problem for theists. I can't understand what gives you the justification to jump from one to the other.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks