The Dawkin delusion?

[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/

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...

 

[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!

 

[جوري]

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

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