Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

[جوري]

Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.

His 'beliefs' are as irrelevant as yours. When you speak of 'Logic' beliefs don't play part and when they do, then there is really no room for reasoned judgment .. what will it come down to? whose beliefs rebuts whose? -- whatever beliefs dawkins hold I am pretty sure they don't include the death of god or that a god at all exists. If we follow your book, any rational reader wouldn't conclude that Jesus (p) is a god let alone god crucified and that is by your records alone. You can only take his side because you are a hypocrite.. Hypocrites often comb through things hold beliefs that they don't profess or subscribe to simply to foster an agenda. It is no wonder that Christianity is in such a deplorable state universally with all that maximum effort at evangelizing and character assassinating on the side..

I truly pity you!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.

so you believe the Messiah was killed? I thought nobody can kill the messiah?

 

[Saad17]

so you believe the Messiah was killed? I thought nobody can kill the messiah?

Don't even go there because the answer is simple that the Messiah HAD TO DIE for your sins and then GOD resurrected him 3 days after Messiah's prophesied death etc etc.


As for the topic I would say that its pointless to address Dawkins with theistic arguments , only Quran can knock senses into him which he never read, he only interview Muslims who don't read the Quran themselves so either tell him to go get a Quran and read it before you he goes all anti-Islamic because since the Theory of Evolution was a great product of Science, Dawkins is convinced that faith in science alone is enough rather than faith in God. Beside most atheists I have seen are smart enough to reach the Creator themselves unless they choose otherwise which is their loss because awakening common sense comes first than belief in God because your imam depends on how much you understand the Creator.

 

[Grace Seeker]

so you believe the Messiah was killed? I thought nobody can kill the messiah?

Where did you get that idea? That the Messiah was crucified and died on a cross is so fundamental to Christian beliefs, and I know you are familiar with them in other contexts, that for you to raise this question here makes you sound like a troll. I think Saad gives good advice in this instance:

Don't even go there because the answer is simple that the Messiah HAD TO DIE for your sins and then GOD resurrected him 3 days after Messiah's prophesied death etc etc.


As for the topic I would say that its pointless to address Dawkins with theistic arguments. ... Most atheists I have seen are smart enough to reach the Creator themselves unless they choose otherwise which is their loss because awakening common sense comes first than belief in God because your imam depends on how much you understand the Creator.

 

[Saad17]

Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.

However as for you. As an atheist Richard Dawkins believe there is no god so Christ's death is pointless and not to mention he said once in his lecture that there isn't enough historical evidence for Prophet Jesus (AS) so there is a possibility he thinks that Jesus (AS) and the crucifixion are fiction.

 

[TheRationalizer]

If you wrote to Richard Dawkins to ask him these questions he probably didn't reply for 2 reasons.

1: He gets lots of emails from complete strangers so is very selective about which ones he spends time responding to.
2: He suspects (as I do) that you don't want the answers to the questions, you just think they are questions which will destroy his stance. Seeing that he most likely disagrees with that opinion (as do I) and that he suspects you probably won't list he probably saw no point.

If you want to ask him a question you could try attending one of his talks, he usually does a Q&A at the end.

I can answer these questions if you wish, but I certainly don't claim to speak for Mr Dawkins.

 

[Thinker]

Questions posted on Aug 18, 2009 on Richard Dawkins.net, still not answered by Richard Dawkins:
S1:
What is the real objective of the human life?
S2:
Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?
S3:
Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?
S4:
Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?
S5:
Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?

Aristotle:

All men by nature desire to know (understand).

Man cannot expect to understand an answer to a question without understanding the problems in answering that question.

S6: The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?

That statement shows an astounding degree of niaivity, ignorance or brainwashing; what level of education did you attain - Madrassa level 10?

 

[Saad17]

Richard Dawkins would say:

"I don't know and I don't care."


Simple as that.

 

[جوري]

That statement shows an astounding degree of niaivity, ignorance or brainwashing; what level of education did you attain - Madrassa level 10?

Let's hear your brand of enlightenment.. so far the articles you've shared and your opinion have shown an equal indoctrination albeit from the other side of the spectrum.. perhaps when you too stop quoting dead philosophers to counteract other passed on philosophers could you hope to achieve some level of credibility!
or where did you attain your education bel-beit level 3?

all the best

 

[Thinker]

Let's hear your brand of enlightenment.. so far the articles you've shared and your opinion have shown an equal indoctrination albeit from the other side of the spectrum.. perhaps when you too stop quoting dead philosophers to counteract other passed on philosophers could you hope to achieve some level of credibility!
or where did you attain your education bel-beit level 3?
all the best

On which point do you want me to ‘enlighten’ you? Taking aboard your agreed observation on the level of the posters ‘indoctrination,’ I’ll presume you don’t need enlightening on the ludicrous statement he made at S6?

On the question he posed of Dawkins which I would summaries as “Prove there is no God” I submitted two observations made by Aristotle (and generally accepted as correct).

The first observation, ‘All men by nature desire to know (understand)’ describes how it is within the nature of man to want to know how and why and the biggest question asked by all men throught all of the history of man is who are we, where did we come from and where did our world come from. And, every group in every part of the globe has come up with an answer for that question albeit a different answer and every group believes that their answer(s) are correct and everybody elses are incorrect. What we can say is that they we know that they cannot all be correct and we know that they could all be incorrect. We can also say that because we don’t know or cannot prove the answer today does not mean that we will never know AND we can also say that there were many things that we did not know and could not prove that we now do know and can prove and that trend is likely to continue. In conclusion, because men are driven to find an answer and are in discomfort until they have an answer doesn’t mean that the answer is correct.

The next observation, ‘Man cannot expect to understand an answer to a question without understanding the problems in answering that question’ again an undeniably correct observation can be used to show how it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God because there are so many things we do not (yet) know. And that the more difficult the problems in answering the question make any answer more likely to be incorrect. And we know that over the centuries man, in his ignorance, has ascribed to God certain events (e.g. thunder etc etc) which we now understand and can explain and know that it is not God expressing his anger but a natural phenomina conforming to the known laws of science. It follows then that neither you, I or Dawkins know or can prove whether there is or is not a God but to take that as proof that there is a God is a leap of faith – but then isn’t that what it it comes down to faith?

That’s how difficult it is to prove the existence of God. All that said, I can understand how and why some people have decided to believe that there is a God. What I can’t get my head around is how you can then believe that this perfect entity, creator of all that is, knower of all that is, really cares about which way you stand when you are praying or whether your hair is covered or whether you grow a beard etc., etc; to believe that (IMHO) is just unbelieveable.

 

[Zafran]

Where did you get that idea? That the Messiah was crucified and died on a cross is so fundamental to Christian beliefs, and I know you are familiar with them in other contexts, that for you to raise this question here makes you sound like a troll. I think Saad gives good advice in this instance:

I didnt see this anyway
Its valid as anything - your basically claiming that God was KILLED on the cross - the all living actaully can be killed - christians argue that he GAVE his life but you actually think (like follower who I was replying to) that he was killed intresting - seems to me you christains cant make your mind up on such an important thing.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thinker, I love your post above ^^, especially your analysis that in the end we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and how it comes down to faith. I presume you would carry that out to mean that even the athiest is expressing an unproven belief as well, albiet a belief that that there is no God to believe in.

With one point I do take some exception:

And we know that over the centuries man, in his ignorance, has ascribed to God certain events (e.g. thunder etc etc) which we now understand and can explain and know that it is not God expressing his anger but a natural phenomina conforming to the known laws of science.

Now, I agree that humankind has in the past ascribed these sorts of events to God perhaps because we have not understood their natural causes and how they conform to the laws of science. But I suggest that even understanding them from the standpoint of science would not preclude that we can no longer also understand them as being the result of God's sovereign acts. Indeed, one of the problems that all religions must face is to answer the question of why (given a belief in the sovereignty of God) do bad things happen if God is intrinsically good? Some religions have answered by saying that God is not necessarily good. Others that God has a greater good in mind in a tragic situation than what the human mind perceives or can understand. But science answering the question as to the cause of thunder, lightening, earthquakes, floods and tornados and people accepting science's answer does automatically mean that humans have now displaced God from being the cause of these events. Thus is was that, despite scientific knowledge as to how hurricanes form and are moved by steering winds, some suggested that Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans was a judgment of an angry God against sin.

So, the exception that I take is just as you indicated that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, it isn't just because there are things that we do not know. Even knowledge of how things work does not answer the question of why things are the way that they are. The ascribing of purpose to what science may call random events is an element of epistemological faith that science is not capable of addressing.

 

[جوري]

On which point do you want me to ‘enlighten’ you? Taking aboard your agreed observation on the level of the posters ‘indoctrination,’ I’ll presume you don’t need enlightening on the ludicrous statement he made at S6?

But I do.. It is always amusing and virtually appealing to read your analyses!

On the question he posed of Dawkins which I would summaries as “Prove there is no God” I submitted two observations made by Aristotle (and generally accepted as correct).

many things are generally accepted as correct! Aren't you here to disprove that what is generally accepted by us as 'correct' is in fact nothing more than indoctrination? Yet you do it using a statement generally accepted as correct? A hypocrite or simply obtuse?

The first observation, ‘All men by nature desire to know (understand)’ describes how it is within the nature of man to want to know how and why and the biggest question asked by all men throught all of the history of man is who are we, where did we come from and where did our world come from. And, every group in every part of the globe has come up with an answer for that question albeit a different answer and every group believes that their answer(s) are correct and everybody elses are incorrect.

that in fact isn't the Islamic position, perhaps it is yours and it is apparent not only from your caustic and biting sarcasm your total insolence when addressing other members but your unrelenting pomposity which you use undoubtedly to inflate your otherwise henpecked ego into thinking you're correct, thoughtful and 'not indoctrinated' The islamic position is that everything has a little bit of truth in it. It isn't a matter or right or wrong rather what is most correct and in concert with all fields and offers a response that is satisfactory both to the heart and mind!

What we can say is that they we know that they cannot all be correct and we know that they could all be incorrect. We can also say that because we don’t know or cannot prove the answer today does not mean that we will never know AND we can also say that there were many things that we did not know and could not prove that we now do know and can prove and that trend is likely to continue. In conclusion, because men are driven to find an answer and are in discomfort until they have an answer doesn’t mean that the answer is correct.

Stating the fact but not living by it unfortunately!

The next observation, ‘Man cannot expect to understand an answer to a question without understanding the problems in answering that question’ again an undeniably correct observation can be used to show how it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God because there are so many things we do not (yet) know. And that the more difficult the problems in answering the question make any answer more likely to be incorrect. And we know that over the centuries man, in his ignorance, has ascribed to God certain events (e.g. thunder etc etc) which we now understand and can explain and know that it is not God expressing his anger but a natural phenomina conforming to the known laws of science. It follows then that neither you, I or Dawkins know or can prove whether there is or is not a God but to take that as proof that there is a God is a leap of faith – but then isn’t that what it it comes down to faith?

Who is behind any 'natural phenomenon'? Natural in and of itself is an imaginary line or standard by which things are measured or compared, you observe something repeatedly then you render it 'Natural' if we're all born cyclops then that would be rendered 'Natural' as to why we actually have two eyes, you have no clue, it is just 'Natural' Science can answer the how but not the why.. you know the process by which clouds are formed and rains fall but the whys and wherefores you have no clue of. You have no idea if a tsunami is in fact God's wrath, you may know the alleged natural phenomenon that contributed to the formation of one but never if a people were in fact chosen to suffer in its path because it is God's will and wrath!
Where Dawkins stops giving answers religion and spirituality picks up and it is a drive in all of us, that some simply fill with hedonistic pleasures while pointing out to others the error of their ways!
you can't prove that there is a God, you can't disprove God, however what you are incapable of doing is offering an explanation to the world we live in without resorting yourself to some absurd fairy tales yet have the galls to mock those who say they do?!

That’s how difficult it is to prove the existence of God. All that said, I can understand how and why some people have decided to believe that there is a God. What I can’t get my head around is how you can then believe that this perfect entity, creator of all that is, knower of all that is, really cares about which way you stand when you are praying or whether your hair is covered or whether you grow a beard etc., etc; to believe that (IMHO) is just unbelieveable.

I can't help you there and I doubt that anyone can.. it is an issue you'll have to figure out on your own private time.. In general I wouldn't concern myself with finite details of any religion when I can't even prove to myself that the world is created and not a mere chance encounter.. you've alot to take care of starting with a point of origin and moving things in a positive direction to yield zillions of biochemical, physiological, genetic variations, aesthetics, seasons, elements, species, higher reticular function, why bananas and oranges have rinds and don't come pre-peeled before you concern yourself of whether God wants people to cover up or walk around naked!
Also as a general rule, if your family is good and naked then why concern yourself with those who aren't good and naked? That is the actual conundrum really, you present yourself as a perverse sociopath!

all the best

 

[Thinker]

you can't prove that there is a God, you can't disprove God, however what you are incapable of doing is offering an explanation to the world we live in without resorting yourself to some absurd fairy tales yet have the galls to mock those who say they do?!

Absurd fairy tales – really that’s not very nice (apart from being totally inaccurate).

Indeed, as I stated I can not prove or disprove the existence of God but I can prove that if there is a God, that God does not conform to the description you have for the Allah described by Islam.

 

[جوري]

Absurd fairy tales – really that’s not very nice (apart from being totally inaccurate).

Please go on and prove me wrong.. share with us your version of the truth!

Indeed, as I stated I can not prove or disprove the existence of God but I can prove that if there is a God, that God does not conform to the description you have for the Allah described by Islam.

Go ahead prove it then.. put your money where your mouth is!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Absurd fairy tales - really that's not very nice (apart from being totally inaccurate).

How nice of you too!

When our signs are recited to [the unbeliever], he says, "Fairy-tales of the ancients!" No indeed; but that they were earning has rusted upon their hearts. (Koran 83:13-14, Arberry)