INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

So then, what’s the problem? Piltdown man was never considered accepted science.
I don’t think I’ve said it’s remarkable at all. It’s the norm in science, as you point out.

The problem is that is no defense as it exists for every claim in every field. The issue was the fraud that stood for 40 years not the obligatory skepticism every claim initially gets until it becomes a mantra or a need like abiogenesis.

You don’t see anyone using Piltdown man as evidence of human evolution, do you? That’s what matters. There were huge concerns from the get-go that it didn’t fit with the known evidence for human evolution.

You did at the time. One article I actually posted said it was damaging mainly because it caused evolution to take a detour for decades.

And yet it was never incorporated into our understanding of human evolution. Isn’t that interesting?

It was at the time by many.

Who said it has? Please don’t make me repeat myself again.

I asked for any evidence that science has created life from non-life and you gave a few articles in response to that request, what else would anyone think?

Where is it that you say science claims stuff it never produces? Where is this happening?

Everywhere. I have even given an article about that particular issue. I have however given it up because you simply find an insufficient reason to reject them or defend a scientific claim that has no effect on what I claimed about them. The last one you said it being 60 years old made it meaningless when even if 600 years old it would have lost no meaning whatever.

The popular press may have made some pretty sensationalistic claims about these studies, but they’re more concerned with drawing in readers than properly and accurately explaining scientific findings. Which is why I tend not to read them.

I have just realized that a critique of science is not a point I even need to make. I defend God primarily, not attack science. Post anything science reliably knows as true as evidence against God's existence, I do not care about academics that much these days.

He may have been from Bell labs but he was exposed for the fraud he was, stripped of his degrees and tossed out of the scientific community. That’s what happens to you when you produce bad science. If your assertions are true, this probably never would have happened. There may have been more than evidence driving him, but when he produced bad science, he removed himself from the scientific community which is evidence that the scientific method works. Which is what I’ve been saying.

Is that what happened with Haeckel’s drawings which were declared frauds long ago but still in text books in very modern times and his theory is still taught in schools.

Now that I think about it, it may not be your best example, given that it appears that Linnaeus truly thought it was a new species of butterfly.
The peppered moth wasn’t a hoax, it was a study that included an error (namely photos that didn’t properly identify the environmental conditions involved). But it really didn’t detract from the gist of the study. Since that time, many more studies have been carried out, all confirming the original findings. I could cite them, if you’d like.

The point is science is as faulty even in its mundane forms like application and local observation as any human effort and when it comes to the theoretical realm (where any contention against God arises) it is almost useless as an argument. I have gotten far afield here but this is the point that is fundamental in my argumentation. Science KNOWS nothing that argues against faith

 

[1robin]

I don’t get the analogy. Science publishes its findings, so anyone in the public can stay informed, should they choose to do so. We don’t have to blindly trust them and put our faith in them. I don’t want to do either of those things and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to do it either. If you’re trying to say that they hoaxes you pointed out are akin to something as dangerous as what you’ve stated above, I fail to see it.

As I have stated we have gotten way of track. There is nothing in science that makes faith less tenable is my claim and all I need to defend. I am wasting a lot of time debating something I do not care about that much. Science is as flawed as any other human enterprise, nothing novel in that claim nor worth debating for weeks.

Why do you think scientific claims are made to challenge god? I mean, I think they’re made to open avenues of study that aren’t fully understood at the time and require further investigation.

Both motivations are present in science in ratios impossible to accurately define.

That’s not entirely accurate, and somewhat out of context. I’m thinking you pulled this from the movie Expelled?

Nope, never seen it but plan to some day.

I’ll let Dawkins explain, in his own words, since he was pretty ticked off that the context of his comments were removed from the movie:

“Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure — that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).”
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus

That should both clear things up and address the comments you made below.
(Continued Below)

I buy that. I have never heard his explenation before and it sounds reasonable. However since Dawkins is on the block let me ask you about another one that is a little different and one I have researched quite a bit.

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.
http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/

He states the obvious fact that without God morality becomes chaotic and preference based and self centered however what does he say about God?

“Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
—Richard Dawkins
http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/

So on his view Hitler may have been right but faith is what must be stopped. God help us we are at the hands of highly educated madmen.

 

[1robin]

“The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very garbled understanding of the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did. My own view, frequently expressed (for example in the The Selfish Gene and especially in the title chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) is that there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.”

This was not the point I was making although Dawkins is wrong here and the point would be true. I was saying that when God is eliminated from the equation morality becomes an ambiguous illusion. I used his statement as an example of that, I was not attempting to equate Nazism and Darwinism. I can show that in Hitler's own words he used evolutionary principles to justify his actions. Hitler took actions for reasons of greed and power, he used theology to claim they were right, and he used evolution to make them logical. However theology that includes thou shall not murder can't be accurately used to justify killing but evolution can. Al the justification for chattel slavery, racism, inequality, oppression, and tribal warfare can be found in evolution but his is a separate issue.

They probably do exist in science but again it’s the evidence that is the determining factor.

Not always but I am getting off track debating this issue.

I didn’t say “it’s too old,” I simply said it isn’t exactly modern, given that’s the word you used to describe it.

Modern is relative statement with no clear line of demarcation but being that it is within the last .002 of human existence the line is way older than my claim.

Well, the devil is in the details, so to speak.
Scientists are skeptical toward everything, it’s part of their training. So you agree with me? I thought you had said they were mostly just skeptical concerning god claims?

They are skeptical of most things for various reasons (some good some very bad). They however are most rabidly skeptical for mostly terrible reasons against God. It's degree.

Climate and weather are different things, a simple thermometer reading isn’t going to clear everything up. We have to go where the evidence leads, which in 2013 points towards global warming and climate change.

The point was in the 80's they were addressing the UN and congress and saying it was global cooling Armageddon.

People have known something about sanitation and health since ancient times. The ancient Minoans, Chinese, Egyptians, and Greeks all practiced it in some form or another. It seems like it was the Europeans who lacked knowledge of it which I suspect had something to do with the dark ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire since we know it was a period of decline in technology, economics, and overall knowledge in general.

You are missing the point so many times here it looks intentional. I can grant all this and it even makes science look worse. Why were professional surgeons (scientists interested in infection) killing millions because they did not know what you claim all these ancient civilizations did. I have been getting off track in order to show that science even in these mundane local issues has a successful but very flawed track record that in the theoretical arena where anti-God science exists it is almost meaningless. I believe I have done so even if you have sufficiently contended a couple of my claims. That is the extent of my purpose and have realized just how far from God this discussion has gotten. Science has no evidence inconsistent with Biblical faith is the original position I started with and where I am headed again.

 

[1robin]

Again I agree with you that the issue deserves a more sincere discourse. Showing some intellectual sincerity would be a good start steering toward that. When you argue against science and in favour of the Abrahamic God you are arguing against common sense, reason and logic in favour of pitiless cruelty.

"To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used".
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

Dawkin's (responsible for what has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought) is not the source I would appeal to in a sincerity and common sense point.

If you are a Dawkinite then you can explain this as well:

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."[1]
Larry Taunton, the interviewer wrote, regarding Dawkins' Hitler comment:
“I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point. Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest.
Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia

You have hitched your wagon to one sick pony. If I were on your side I would insist he never be allowed out of a lab.

 

[Skeptisch]

Dawkin's (responsible for what has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought) is not the source I would appeal to in a sincerity and common sense point.

Most people with a brain wired for faith would agree with you. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible.

God killed every first born Egyptian child
Ex 12:29-30

God sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of a prophet's bald head
2Kg 2:23-24

God killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings
Num 16:49

The Amalekite genocide
1Sam 15:2-3

God killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) inspired him to have
2Sam 24:15, 1Chr 21:14

God slowly killed David's baby boy to punish David for adultery
2Sam 12:14-18

Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God as a burned offering (to pay him back for helping him slaughter 20 cities)
Jg 11:39

The Flood of Noah
Gen 7:23

When the people complained, God burned them to death
Num 11:1

Sodom and Gomorrah
Gen 19:24

PS: Robin, how old were you when you decided not to be a homosexual?

 

[1robin]

Most people with a brain wired for faith would agree with you. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible.

God killed every first born Egyptian child
Ex 12:29-30

And away we go again. God is God, Dawkins is not. God created all these children Dawkins did not. God could take them into heaven without having to suffer loss and sickness for 20 or thirty years, Dawkins can't even get himself there. God's sovereignty extends to these kids, Dawkins does not. God has the moral point of view that allows perfectly just decisions whether you or Dawkins agree or not. In the context God comes with these kids in all likelihood would have all grown up as pagans and gone to hell. You are actually indicting God for saving them in spite of their future sins he knew of and insist leaving them to pursue a doomed terminal corruption is a more justified act. All claims that God is evil reside within the same scope of ignorance that this one did. With the exception of your bears verse, I have no idea what to do with that one and I admit it. That however leaves 749,990 words out of 750,000 that speak of a good God and has produced both the book and the person most universally associated with good than any other concept in history.

It will take a while to get through all of these but this caught my eye. It takes a lot more work to construct a house than tear one down so time is on your side and I am out of it for today. An ignorant man can do the latter while it takes wisdom and knowledge to do the former.

PS: Robin, how old were you when you decided not to be a homosexual?

I never even heard of a homosexuality until in my teens. Apparently biology works different in the Bible belt or any region that is not as progressive as others. However I wish to know what you asked for. That was a strange and humorous question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

At this point I think you are misdirecting. The fact that theological preference influenced (though maybe not have overwhelmed) their scientific judgment is indefensible.

According to the Wiki article you posted. That’s not exactly indicative of the popular opinion on the matter.

I’m not defending bias, I’m saying it didn’t end up influencing their acceptance of the evidence that the scientific method had uncovered.

I sincerely attempt to never deny scientific facts or very good theories with undeniable evidence, and all of that is consistent with the Bible or pretty darn close. A faith based on denial of truth is meaningless. All the science I contest is in the fantasy, virtually no evidence, realm. Science like every other aspect of human life (creationism included, probably more so) is not free from greed, pride, preference, and the in crowd. I try and segregate the good from the bad and have consistent standards and that is all I expect from your side but never get it.

Well that's good to know and I'm happy to hear it. But you don’t accept macroevolution. Why is that? It certainly is not fantasy.

No human being is completely free of greed, pride, preference, the in-crowd etc. But the thing I’ve been trying to explain about the scientific method is that it is free from such things – it’s set up that way, in fact. So that the evidence always prevails and biases and personal preference are weeded out.

Actually in the context of theology it does not matter. I only insist evidence is weighted evenly and that is exactly what does not happen. Virtually anything is fine for non-theological explenations and virtually nothing is enogh for theological theories.

The evidence is weighted according to what is demonstrable and testable. How do you suggest we test things which are not demonstrable?

Nor are multiverses, abiogenesis, or morality without God. I would not even mind if the God indicating aspects of a single finite universe were considered no better than the non God indicating aspects of a multiverse would be. At least that would be a start. The point is the most rabid of unequal standards are used with virtually no justification. Continued below:

All of those things can be demonstrable.
Your idea that the big bang proves that your god is real doesn’t really show that. At most, you could theorize that some god exists but as Hitchens would say, you’ve still got all your work ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that it is your personal, intervening, benevolent version of god that has done it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What? Is 1/3 of a page the limit for what may be used. I read teh surrounding context for that claim and it just got more damning. There exists no context in teh immediate area that changes that quote. It only enhances it. Take a look at what you have doen on this issue. You have stated that just because facts eventually overcame theological preference for a scientific conclusion that it means nothing. Then quotes are invalid. Then only those in the first 66.6% of an article are ok to get out from under the unavoidable fact that science like everything else is affected greatly by human preference.

No, no, no. I would suggest you read the entire book review. I was only indicating to you where the quote you cited was located on the page. I didn’t mean for you to only read the remaining ¾ of the page. And that’s not the reason I said the quote was invalid, I was pointing out that it lacked the proper context.

1. I have never claimed religious folks are completely unbiased. I think I have said the exact opposite many times.
2. Where does what you posted come from. I searched the site and found no reference to it?
3. This is what I found: The article will show how intelligent design theory is science, and not religion, and it will show that while individuals at IDEA Center have religious beliefs, this does not affect the quality of the science we promote as an organization nor does it negate the secular, scientific basis of the theory of intelligent design.
4. Even if they were completely biased that does not make their claims wrong.

1. I didn’t say that you did. I was just pointing out that if you’re going to complain that scientists are biased, you probably shouldn’t quote from a site that states outright that the site makers are biased.
2. It comes from the website you cited from. You can find it under the “About IDEA center” tab on the top right hand side of the page.
3. Not necessarily. But it’s different than the way scientists go about discovering evidence in that they come to the table with a preconceived notion into which they have to fit the evidence. Which is why you’ll find dismissal of certain pieces of evidence.

4. Even if wrong is it not justified to get both sides. The only demand I would make is that your side be as honest as that statement you found somewhere that contradicts what the site says.

Both sides of what? Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and has no explanatory power.

5. We are all biased and use faith as a primary input. At least Christian’s admit it.

We all use faith as a primary input? How so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Needs a login.

Damn.

The title of the study is, “Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a
1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment,” if you can manage to find it.

Here is the abstract:
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]Archived samples from a previously unreported 1958 Stanley Miller[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]electric discharge experiment containing hydrogen sulfide (H[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]2[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]S)[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]were recently discovered and analyzed using high-performance[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]liquid chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. We[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]report here the detection and quantification of primary aminecontaining[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]compounds in the original sample residues, which were[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]2[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]S, CH[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]4[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B],[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]NH[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]3[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B], and CO[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]2[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]. A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples. The[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]major amino acids with chiral centers are racemic within the accuracy[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]of the measurements, indicating that they are not contaminants[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]introduced during sample storage. This experiment marks[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]the first synthesis of sulfur amino acids from spark discharge[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]experiments designed to imitate primordial environments. The[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]relative yield of some amino acids, in particular the isomers of[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]aminobutyric acid, are the highest ever found in a spark discharge[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]experiment. The simulated primordial conditions used by Miller[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]may serve as a model for early volcanic plume chemistry and provide[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]insight to the possible roles such plumes may have played[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]in abiotic organic synthesis. Additionally, the overall abundances[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]of the synthesized amino acids in the presence of H[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]2[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]S are very[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]similar to the abundances found in some carbonaceous meteorites,[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]suggesting that H[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]2[/FONT][FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]S may have played an important role in prebiotic[/FONT]
[FONT=AdvOT2b189473.B]reactions in early solar system environments.[/FONT]

Needs login.

This one is called, “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome.”

Here’s the abstract:
We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

Can't make work. What are you claiming these sites negate. We do not know what existed by then however many claim they do know. What is wrong about that?

This one should work:
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

They were meant to negate this comment you posted from Michael Denton:
Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”

That is false.

Yet they claim to know anyway. Study their hearts out in my opinion just do not claim you know what you don't and all is well.

They don’t claim to know. That’s why they’re called hypotheses.

That was not the real issue here. They were claiming X existed yet they could not provide evidence of X and the double standards that indicates are obvious and the actual issue. Little has changed since 1958 in either of these two respects. There still is no evidence worth the name that life originated on its own or that science only claims what it knows. The same is true about all of humanities "experts" 60 years ago or 6000 years ago. If I could find a person that debated from science that did not employ obvious double standards I think I would buy them a Daniel Webster cigar.
I had little time today. My job is fixing even the many mistakes of the application scientists and buisness is a boomin. Please wait for me to respond to the rest of your three volume work before adding more or it will become unmanigable. I will do so soon.

Eiseley wasn’t saying that hypotheses about the origin of life are unscientific, he was just saying that he thought our level of technology (in 1958!) couldn’t help us explain how life originated.

Little has changed since 1958? Surely you aren’t serious! Do you really not think that technology has advanced since 1958?
There is evidence that life could have originated on its own, you just choose to ignore and/or dismiss it! Which is what this discussion is about.
Oh and the scientific method didn’t exist 6000 years ago.

 

[SkepticThinker]

[/i] And away we go again. God is God, Dawkins is not. God created all these children Dawkins did not. God could take them into heaven without having to suffer loss and sickness for 20 or thirty years, Dawkins can't even get himself there. God's sovereignty extends to these kids, Dawkins does not. God has the moral point of view that allows perfectly just decisions whether you or Dawkins agree or not. In the context God comes with these kids in all likelihood would have all grown up as pagans and gone to hell. You are actually indicting God for saving them in spite of their future sins he knew of and insist leaving them to pursue a doomed terminal corruption is a more justified act. All claims that God is evil reside within the same scope of ignorance that this one did. With the exception of your bears verse, I have no idea what to do with that one and I admit it. That however leaves 749,990 words out of 750,000 that speak of a good God and has produced both the book and the person most universally associated with good than any other concept in history.

I have a question. How do you determine that god is good?

It will take a while to get through all of these but this caught my eye. It takes a lot more work to construct a house than tear one down so time is on your side and I am out of it for today. An ignorant man can do the latter while it takes wisdom and knowledge to do the former.


I never even heard of a homosexuality until in my teens. Apparently biology works different in the Bible belt or any region that is not as progressive as others. However I wish to know what you asked for. That was a strange and humorous question.

He was pointing out that as a heterosexual you probably didn't make a conscious choice to be so. So why would you imagine that a homosexual would be a making a conscious choice on the matter?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh Boy!!
Are you sure you want to risk being converted or is your stance so firm that not even the killing of brain cells can alter it?

I'l risk it! I could be converted, given good reason and evidence to do so. It happened once already (just in the opposite direction)!

Your last brain cell might be like Stalin and raise up out of his coma and shake his fist at God then die. Of course my last few brain cells will probably get the directions to heaven wrong and I will spend eternity on South Street in Philly knowing my luck.

Haha! Sounds like you have my luck.

If they would cut out the body humor (I can't stand it) that might be one of the funniest shows ever.

Ah, just ignore it and focus on the clever stuff. It's still one of the funniest show son TV.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They use both terms frequently and for a forum either is sufficient.

I’m pretty sure there is a difference between the two and that they don’t refer to the big bang as a explosion.

There are hypothesis for aliens building the pyramids, lizards in congress, and Atlantis. That does not mean any of them are true.

And the scientific evidence is … ?

The name is very familiar but I cannot place it.

He’s a theoretical physicist who wrote “A Universe from Nothing.” You can also find a lecture he did on it, on Youtube.

Because they are vastly inadequate. We have done nothing in any lab that is even remotely sufficient to claim life came from non-life. My examples were absurd yet less so than the experiments and the claims made about them.

In your opinion they are vastly inadequate. And they do indicate that it is theoretically possible for non-life to produce life. That’s what the evidence shows. There’s just no way around that.

Science is a word.

Excuse me. The scientific method is the most reliable tool we have that enables us to discover the world around us and the mechanisms involved. It has produced everything we know about the world we live in.

It was and they said so in their own words in at least three quotes I have given.

Not really.

There is nothing about that claim that suggests that sway factor was permanent or conclusive. It just means it was there and should not have been. Again, it is indefensible.

They accepted the EVIDENCE. End of story.

Why would they accept it without any evidence?

You must be being intentionally obstinate. Science claims that it does not ever use theological preference in the methods for determining truth yet they in their own words did. It makes no difference if it was not an overwhelming factor. It is indefensible. When indefensible things are defended it makes al the arguments of a person look suspicious. It suggests your motivation is "science wrong or right" which is almost as bad as "I am driving drunk or sober". If you had instead of defending what they did would have said “so, they are human and have human faults and they are a very small minority” I would have accepted that. But no your side always opts for the "My country right or wrong, or there is no God true or false"

Science is just a word.

But they didn’t use or not use theological preference in determining the truth. They used the evidence. It doesn’t matter what their personal opinions are on the matter (for either believers or non-believers), what matters is the evidence. Of course every human has faults, but when the evidence came to light they had to accept it for what it was. That’s why the scientific method is so great and so reliable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem is that is no defense as it exists for every claim in every field. The issue was the fraud that stood for 40 years not the obligatory skepticism every claim initially gets until it becomes a mantra or a need like abiogenesis.

It didn’t stand for 40 years, since it wasn’t accepted into the evolutionary framework because it was so dubious.

You did at the time. One article I actually posted said it was damaging mainly because it caused evolution to take a detour for decades.

Funny how it never did become incorporated into our understanding of human evolution and the only people who ever reference Piltdown man anymore are creationists.

It was at the time by many.

Not by the scientific community as a whole. It doesn’t matter what individuals accept or don’t accept. It’s the same reason that Francis Collins can be a Christian whilst still doing good science.

I asked for any evidence that science has created life from non-life and you gave a few articles in response to that request, what else would anyone think?

I gave you organic compounds forming out of inorganic compounds. I’d say that’s a pretty good start to build upon! And that’s all I’ve ever said.

Everywhere. I have even given an article about that particular issue. I have however given it up because you simply find an insufficient reason to reject them or defend a scientific claim that has no effect on what I claimed about them. The last one you said it being 60 years old made it meaningless when even if 600 years old it would have lost no meaning whatever.

First of all, most of the examples you gave were well over 60 years old (including Piltdown) and all I was quarrelling with was your use of the word “modern” in reference to them.

And secondly, are you still harping on multiverses?

I have just realized that a critique of science is not a point I even need to make. I defend God primarily, not attack science. Post anything science reliably knows as true as evidence against God's existence, I do not care about academics that much these days.

Science isn’t out to disprove god. That’s a false assertion you keep telling yourself.

Is that what happened with Haeckel’s drawings which were declared frauds long ago but still in text books in very modern times and his theory is still taught in schools.

His theory is not still taught in schools.

Here’s a good article on that, by PZ Myers:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

The point is science is as faulty even in its mundane forms like application and local observation as any human effort and when it comes to the theoretical realm (where any contention against God arises) it is almost useless as an argument. I have gotten far afield here but this is the point that is fundamental in my argumentation. Science KNOWS nothing that argues against faith

Why do you keep ignoring the self-correcting mechanism which is built into the scientific method? It has exposed all the frauds and errors you keep posting.


I'll have to get to the rest a bit later ...

 

[Skeptisch]

I never even heard of a homosexuality until in my teens. Apparently biology works different in the Bible belt or any region that is not as progressive as others. However I wish to know what you asked for. That was a strange and humorous question.

Since you appear quite a gullible person there was always a chance you might answer: “I had no choice for homosexuality, I was born straight”. It then might have dawned on you that a homosexual does not choose either, he is born that way. (in the image of god?)

Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin.
Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent.
First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Many of us who quarrel with you do not do so because they want to be right, or want to convert you, but we hope a casual reader of this thread might come to the conclusion that our wonderful pale blue dot would be a terrible place if we took our morality from the Abrahamic god and the bible.
Why not just replace all that biblical mumbo jumbo with our innate desire to treat others the way we want to be treated.

There is a crystal clear night in the pacific north west and I want to get some of the feeling good old Albert describes like this:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
Albert Einstein
:run:

 

[1robin]

Since you appear quite a gullible person there was always a chance you might answer: “I had no choice for homosexuality, I was born straight”. It then might have dawned on you that a homosexual does not choose either, he is born that way. (in the image of god?)

The unnecessary offensive statement are appearing so often in your claims that I am getting close to terminating a discussion with you. The bitterness and hostility of the left and of non-theists is fine as long as I do not have to get too much of it on me but it is almost to a tipping point in your posts. So your question was a trap that even if sprung makes no sense. Even if you had trapped (and that is an all too often non theist debate strategy with those who want to win word fights not resolve issue meaningfully) it would have proven nothing. Nothing I say or you say makes homosexuality an un-chosen practice. Only biology could and so far there is little proof. If you wish to use this as an argument then quit the traps and semantics and instead post relevant research.

Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin.
Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent.
First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

I agree with this. Why did you post it? BTW homosexuality has been condemned by all cultures, religions, and even atheist regimes (the most dysfunctional by far) at many times in history. The difference is that only with God can anything actually be termed right or wrong with justification. The atheists do so without any justification and even deny a need for any. Whatever short comings (correct or not) you invent for God they are infinitely worse for atheism.

Many of us who quarrel with you do not do so because they want to be right, or want to convert you, but we hope a casual reader of this thread might come to the conclusion that our wonderful pale blue dot would be a terrible place if we took our morality from the Abrahamic god and the bible.
Why not just replace all that biblical mumbo jumbo with our innate desire to treat others the way we want to be treated.

It would be an infinitely worse place without that God because morality has no actual meaning without him. All that is left that is even theoretically possible is opinion, preference, assumptions, and self-centered specieism. That is why people more honest about it like the Philosopher of science and Dawkins have said morality is an illusion without God or that on evolution who can say Hitler was not right. What about either is better than calling sin what it is? As modern moral progressivism and relativism takes the place of traditional morality society has nose-dived and your side calls this progress. It is one thing to try a new way and find it faulty and give it up. It is quite another to dismiss the old and substitute the new if it has no application then when it fails you blame everything but it and condemn the traditional system that worked far better than it does. That is not ignorance or a mistake; it is intentional sabotage with intent and using delusion. Was the moral landscape of the US better in Christian 1950 or secular 2013? We got cell phones and yet kill 10,000 times more innocent babies a year than homosexuals persecuted in the entire history of Israel. We are now so open minded we think very little is wrong, like two men raising a young girl, yet a large and increasing number of children spend their childhood doped up for problems that arrose with the inability to call sin what it is. The man that calls that progress is delusional on purpose.

There is a crystal clear night in the pacific north west and I want to get some of the feeling good old Albert describes like this:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
Albert Einstein

I see your Albert and raise you a Chesterton. The important thing about children’s stories is not that dragons exist or not, but that they can be slain.

Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon. Exactly what the fairy tale does is this: it accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that these limitless terrors had a limit, that these shapeless enemies have enemies in the knights of God, that there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness, and stronger than strong fear.

This lesson beats any gained by looking at stars.


Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.

• Illustrated London News (23 October 1909)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton
Abortion comes to mind

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]

I'l risk it! I could be converted, given good reason and evidence to do so. It happened once already (just in the opposite direction)!

There exists no evidence that atheism is true. How were you converted from what you already were. We are born seperated from God we can't get converted to it from it.

Haha! Sounds like you have my luck.

If I owned Hell and philidelphia of 1989. I would rent out Philly and live in Hell.

Ah, just ignore it and focus on the clever stuff. It's still one of the funniest show son TV.

It is clever.

 

[1robin]

I’m pretty sure there is a difference between the two and that they don’t refer to the big bang as a explosion.

I am sure there is but it is not relevant for this forum.

And the scientific evidence is … ?

Why would anyone be limited by the narrow scope of science alone. There is historical, philosophical, experiential, logic, reason, rationality, and moral evidence etc....... Science is not the arbiter of all truth. Since I do not agree with any of those claims I am not a good source for explaining them but there proponents claim volumes of evidence of many types.

He’s a theoretical physicist who wrote “A Universe from Nothing.” You can also find a lecture he did on it, on Youtube.

Universes do not come from nothing, nothing does if hippie song lyrics or everything ever observed is relied upon.

In your opinion they are vastly inadequate. And they do indicate that it is theoretically possible for non-life to produce life. That’s what the evidence shows. There’s just no way around that.

I have explained this more than sufficiently. Atlantis and aliens building the pyramids are possible and have evidence according to hundreds of people yet you think it inadequate. Why do you have a separate standard when it comes to claims (in many ways far more fantastic) if they contend with the Bible.

Excuse me. The scientific method is the most reliable tool we have that enables us to discover the world around us and the mechanisms involved. It has produced everything we know about the world we live in.

Prove that murder is wrong using it. prove that reality is not 5 minutes old with the appearance of age. Prove life has meaning with it. Heck prove science is true with it. Explain teh fine tuning and origin of the universe with life. When used it does not indicate life came from non life. I think it is a tool that is selectively used, violated, or set aside as is needed.

Not really.

Well who could argue with "not really" trumping their own simple words.

They accepted the EVIDENCE. End of story.

As well as theological preference.

Why would they accept it without any evidence?

What? I never said anything about no evidence. I said an equation that should have included evidence also included what it should not have: preference. No matter what conclusion was reached the equation included what it never should have and there is no defense and attempts at one make it worse.

Science is just a word.

Exactly but I have to operate on common ground and that includes concepts as you take them to be.

But they didn’t use or not use theological preference in determining the truth. They used the evidence. It doesn’t matter what their personal opinions are on the matter (for either believers or non-believers), what matters is the evidence. Of course every human has faults, but when the evidence came to light they had to accept it for what it was. That’s why the scientific method is so great and so reliable.

They used evidence and something they should not have (preference) in an equation that equaled truth. In this case maybe evidence was the more persuasive but that does not make preference go away or valid. As I have said we have left the realm of anything I think worthy of debate and I will steer the discussion back to relevance concerning God hopefully. You have not done a bad job defending my example of scientific error but you have not even touched God and that was the issue.

 

[1robin]

It didn’t stand for 40 years, since it wasn’t accepted into the evolutionary framework because it was so dubious.

That is not what I read but this is getting far afield.

Funny how it never did become incorporated into our understanding of human evolution and the only people who ever reference Piltdown man anymore are creationists.

That is like saying the only people who talk about the holocaust are non-Germans.

Not by the scientific community as a whole. It doesn’t matter what individuals accept or don’t accept. It’s the same reason that Francis Collins can be a Christian whilst still doing good science.

This discussion has got to get back to God.

I gave you organic compounds forming out of inorganic compounds. I’d say that’s a pretty good start to build upon! And that’s all I’ve ever said.

Why? Organic means among other things containing carbon. I could have told you the sun can make carbon a long time ago however even that process is balanced on a razor blade so thin it was thought impossibly for a long time. BTW what do you do with fine tuning? I am sure whatever it is that is used to make it dismissible is exhausting. There are 3.2 billion bits of data in DNA. How many bits of data is the max for these experiments?

First of all, most of the examples you gave were well over 60 years old (including Piltdown) and all I was quarrelling with was your use of the word “modern” in reference to them.

Yeah I know .001 long ago in human history is ancient. Modern is a relative quality but it certainly includes .001 ago.

And secondly, are you still harping on multiverses?

As long as science uses them as a counter argument to the God indicating finite universe we know exists but rules out God I will continue to do so.

Science isn’t out to disprove god. That’s a false assertion you keep telling yourself.

Tell Dawkins that and then explain all the quotes I have given. I not think it universal, organized, and many times it is involuntary but our stance of theology creeps into everything we do whether God exists or not and I gave evidence for it a number of times.

His theory is not still taught in schools.
Here’s a good article on that, by PZ Myers:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

I have debated this many times and need no additional info. I have even given textbooks that included the drawings up until recent history and his embryology is still taught.
According to the Science article, Haeckel's drawings "show vertebrate embryos of different animals passing through identical stages of development. But the impression they give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong." Richardson comments on this as follows:
If so many historians knew about the old controversy [over Haeckel's drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology textbooks which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of the whole story.
Likewise Gould wrote:
[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/DiscoveryInstitute_2011TextbookReview.pdf

Why do you keep ignoring the self-correcting mechanism which is built into the scientific method? It has exposed all the frauds and errors you keep posting.

There are tens of millions of people that died as a result of infection from non-sanitary conditions presided over by men of science. Ask them this. Teaching kids that Embryos evolve in the womb is appalling and diabolical, eventually stopping that lie is not noble it is about time. It is too much to ask that my children not be taught things inconsistent with their faith until known for a fact. Keep the theories out of the class room is no too much to ask. I do not ask that the bible be taught in school in spite of the fact that is what Christians began our school system for.
As America is secularized and science argues against traditional morality or morality at all millions of Babies die for convenience, as we now accept two men raising a girl or two women raising a boy and God is ripped from school systems teen pregnancy is astronomical, a large portion of kids for the first time are all doped up because reality is just too much all of a sudden, and as condoms are passed out STDs are exploding. Even if science recognizes it's mistake it is too late for these million and millions of kids led astray by modern "progress". There are more abortions in a decade than have been killed in all the crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, and supposed persecution of gays in the entire history of man. Yet religion must be stopped even though it is what stopped slavery, teaches against promiscuity, and homosexuality. Makes men equal, gives life absolute value and sanctity, grounds every human right, and produces the most generous demographic on earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I have stated we have gotten way of track. There is nothing in science that makes faith less tenable is my claim and all I need to defend. I am wasting a lot of time debating something I do not care about that much. Science is as flawed as any other human enterprise, nothing novel in that claim nor worth debating for weeks.

Both motivations are present in science in ratios impossible to accurately define.

Humans are flawed for sure, but the scientific method is the most reliable method we have for discovering how reality operates, thanks to its built-in mechanism for self-correction. And it works.

Have all the faith in your religion that you want, you certainly have a right to it. Just don’t expect others to share your faith when they see no good reason to do so.

Nope, never seen it but plan to some day.

I hate to tell you, but it’s pretty boring and mostly inaccurate. Most of the scientists interviewed in the film feel like they were misled and their comments taken out of context. PZ Myers and his family were kicked out of the screening before the movie even started, even though he has a special thanks at the end of the movie.

I buy that. I have never heard his explenation before and it sounds reasonable. However since Dawkins is on the block let me ask you about another one that is a little different and one I have researched quite a bit.

Okay, cool.

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.
http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/
He states the obvious fact that without God morality becomes chaotic and preference based and self centered however what does he say about God?

First of all, atheism is not a philosophical position any more than a lack of belief in fairies is a philosophical position. It speaks to only one specific claim – the claim for the existence of god(s). Atheists can be conservative, liberal, nihilistic, humanistic, etc., etc. Atheism isn’t a philosophy or a world view. So this person is just wrong about that particular claim.

Secondly, he’s not exactly saying what you apparently think he is saying (see below).

So here’s a more comprehensive and detailed quotation from the interview that was taken from (bolded parts are Dawkins words):

“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity.
There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued.
“We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.”
He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject.

“I’m actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist. If you travel anywhere in the Western world, you find a consensus of opinion which is recognizably different from what it was only a matter of a decade or two ago. You and I are both a part of that same zeitgeist, and [as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like ‘it’s in the air.’”

At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeist is a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeist or should they look beyond it to something else?

I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.
Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest.

“Now you have to remember where I am from,” I objected. “Birmingham, Alabama—the home of the civil rights movement. Many there would argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was motivated by his Christian convictions. And what of William Wilberforce?”

But Dawkins would have none of it. Christianity, in his view, had contributed nothing worthwhile to Western civilization, morally or otherwise. Moral advances—and, curiously, he did consider them advances—were matters for further scientific inquiry.

Dawkins sat back again. “I think that’s the best answer to your question, although I agree that it’s a complicated answer—it doesn’t come from anywhere simple—and it is necessary to say that whatever else it comes from, it most certainly doesn’t come from religion.” He considered me for a moment. “Anybody who thinks that they get it from religion really is deluded. Certainly nobody could maintain they seriously get it from the Bible. I take it you agree with that, because if you got it from the Bible you’d have to cherry pick which bits of the Bible you accept and which bits you don’t.”

It was a provocation intended to flush me out. I obliged.

“I would disagree,” I began slowly. “I believe you can get your morality from the Bible.”

“Well, which bits of the Bible?” His eyes flashed. “Presumably not Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy?”
As I began to explain the function of Old Testament law, Dawkins pounced.

“You’re not telling me that as a civilized 21st-century man that you get your morality from the Ten Commandments?” He was incredulous. To him, it was as if I were saying, “The Easter Bunny gave us these laws, and they fall into three categories … .”
http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/?comment=1705

Does that help?

 

[SkepticThinker]

“Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
—Richard Dawkins
http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/
So on his view Hitler may have been right but faith is what must be stopped. God help us we are at the hands of highly educated madmen

The full context for the above quote can be found here (it’s a good read, actually):http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

I don’t think he’s a madman at all. He doesn’t say there is no morality or there should be no morality. He says what appears obvious to people like me – that morality comes from us. The world is what we make it. The part about choosing bits and pieces from the Bible drives that home, I think.