Dawkins banned due to atheism

[jarofthoughts]

Dawkins and few others calim that TOE proves against God. How does TOE disprove a God or a necessary cause?

He never said it did...
Seriously, read the quote you posted again.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Comments such as above suggest to me that Dawkins is perhaps shallow.
Human history is replete with examples how humans have extended the natural powers given to them: to increase mobility, to increase computation power and to increase killing power through weapons. Humility is to acknowledge the natural given powers and not to deny them. Opposite of humility, IMO, is to consider that the powers are all causally determininstic products and yet claim that one is better endowed with intelligence and one is more open compared to the opponents who are all closed, infected with bad kind of virus.

Seems you have a lot of opinion there mate... :sarcastic
Any chance of seeing an actual argument?

 

[atanu]

Seems you have a lot of opinion there mate... :sarcastic
Any chance of seeing an actual argument?

That is the problem mate. When Dawkins sweeps with a wide brush and tars all relious people as closed to rational arguments, then his opinion is fine.

 

[Copernicus]

When he gets older, and when he loses the financial backing, he likely will backtrack 180 degree.

What are you talking about? The man is 70 years old and financially stable.

 

[atanu]

He never said it did...
Seriously, read the quote you posted again.

But that's what his followers say. And that is the bad meme that he is spreading. There is no link with TOE and 'proof of absence of a primary cause or God'. But he links the two. It is not science.

 

[jarofthoughts]

When he gets older, and when he loses the financial backing, he likely will backtrack 180 degree.

Almost missed this one...
What on Earth are you on about?
The man is a retired professor, a best selling author many times over with speaking arrangements for years to come.
Who exactly does he need financial backing from?

 

[jarofthoughts]

That is the problem mate. When Dawkins sweeps with a wide brush and tars all relious people as closed to rational arguments, then his opinion is fine.

Can you provide me with a sourced quote where he claims that ALL religious people are closed to rational arguments?
Because... I'm fairly familiar with his work and I've never seen or heard him say that... :sarcastic

 

[jarofthoughts]

But that's what his followers say.

I think you're going to have to substantiate that because I've never heard any of his 'followers', whoever that might be, claim that ToE disproves god.

And that is the bad meme that he is spreading. There is no link with TOE and 'proof of absence of a primary cause or God'. But he links the two. It is not science.

Where exactly does he say that?
Mate, you're racking up a whole lot of claims here with little substantiation.
Better get to work sourcing those quotes for us...

 

[atanu]

Seems you have a lot of opinion there mate... :sarcastic
Any chance of seeing an actual argument?

I dislike using the above but could not help. The quote in question is:

Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.

Richard Dawkins

What argument is required mate? Is the computer that beats a human in a game of chess not a product of humans? A car can move many times faster than a man and does that prove that humans are humbled by the car?

Kindly check your own bias.

 

[atanu]

My criticism of Dawkins is not because he is militant atheist but because, IMO, he uses science loosely to score wins over popular theology and brands the whole field of theology as rooted in evil. How can people who do not discriminate whether the God principle is valid or not, discriminate non-science in Dawkins' writings?

The Extended Phenotype - How Richard Dawkins Got It Wrong Twice

 

[Dirty Penguin]

this is how he is...
i've never seen him loose his cool. his demeanor confirms his confidence...
his demeanor speaks volumes... go dawkins!!!

:clap

 

[Revoltingest]

Mr Dawkins is certainly smart as a whip, but he can be a tad impolite to believers.
A revolting ode to Mr Dawkins getting the boot.....er....golf shoe

We all shouldn't be quite so quick
presuming why he got the stick.
They might not be seeth'n
just cuz he's a heathen.
It could be because he's a d***.

 

[jarofthoughts]

My criticism of Dawkins is not because he is militant atheist but because, IMO, he uses science loosely to score wins over popular theology and brands the whole field of theology as rooted in evil. How can people who do not discriminate whether the God principle is valid or not, discriminate non-science in Dawkins' writings?

The Extended Phenotype - How Richard Dawkins Got It Wrong Twice

The author of that article (and by extension, you apparently) seems ignorant of the difference between a hypothesis that is (currently) untestable and a proposition that is unfalsifiable.
The first could very well be both scientific and valid, but the second cannot.
Big, big difference...

 

[jarofthoughts]

I dislike using the above but could not help. The quote in question is:

[/b]


What argument is required mate? Is the computer that beats a human in a game of chess not a product of humans? A car can move many times faster than a man and does that prove that humans are humbled by the car?

Kindly check your own bias.

You don't see why humans being beaten at something that is essentially a cognitive exercise would be humbling?
Do I really have to explain why that is? :sarcastic

 

[atanu]

You don't see why humans being beaten at something that is essentially a cognitive exercise would be humbling?
Do I really have to explain why that is? :sarcastic

Why not. An automatic machine gun or a car can also humble humans.

 

[atanu]

The author of that article (and by extension, you apparently) seems ignorant

Yes. This is the theme.

Though the organism is nothing but product of a gene, the organism called Dawkins is however illuminated and others are ignorant, infected by bad virus meme. Although obviously, the organism called Dawkins had no control over how the gene manifested him, yet he understands it better than all. Yes. It seems God Delusion to me.

Probaly you will say that Ernst Mayr was also ignorant?

Mayr said, “The term (gene as replicator) is, of course, in complete conflict with basic Darwinian thought…Since the gene is not an object of selection (there are no naked genes) any emphasis on precise replication is irrelevant. Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies as is claimed so often, but the maintenance or improvement of adaptedness and the origin of diversity. Changes in gene frequency are a result of evolution, not its cause. The claim of gene selection is a typical case of reduction beyond the level where analysis is useful.”

(Not necessary that I agree with one or the other. I am just demonstrating the need to denounce the opponent as ignorant).

 

[jarofthoughts]

Why not. An automatic machine gun or a car can also humble humans.

The cognitive sphere is where we humans have made our mark throughout our short history on this planet and it has always been our forte.
If a machine show signs of being able to 'out-think' us that would be far more humbling than a machine that kills/runs/lifts better than us, especially considering that the brain has traditionally been somewhat steeped in mystery and it's inner workings have been all but unsolvable.

THAT is why a machine that beat us at a cognitive competition would be humbling.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes. This is the theme.

Though the organism is nothing but product of a gene, the organism called Dawkins is however illuminated and others are ignorant, infected by bad virus meme. Although obviously, the organism called Dawkins had no control over how the gene manifested him, yet he understands it better than all. Yes. It seems God Delusion to me.

Alright. If you are not ignorant about the difference between something that is untestable and something that is unfalsifiable in relation to science, please explain what that difference is then. :sarcastic

 

[Badran]

this is how he is...
i've never seen him loose his cool. his demeanor confirms his confidence...
his demeanor speaks volumes... go dawkins!!!

Just in the other video posted earlier i found him disrespectful... So no, i disagree that this is how he always is.

Unless you're referring to his tone or voice, way of speaking etc...sure he is 'cool' in that regard. The British accent sure doesn't hurt

However, respect or lack of it isn't dependent on these things only.

 

[Badran]

I will reply to your post jarofthoughts later today.