Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[footprints]

Kind of like how you take Richard Dawkins' quotes out of context and refuse to look at the bigger picture of what he is trying to say.

No quotes from Dawkins were taken out of context. Dawkins was very specific in explaining exactly what he meant even down to the fact of decrying other atheists with more reasonable positions.

No, they are not. Name one scientific theory which states that the Universe - or anything, for that matter - came from nothing.

LOL, you and I both know, scientists ignore this point completely and start their premise after the absolute origin. Attempt to explain what they can, given the knowledge we have.

 

[footprints]

Of course it is speculative. Everything is speculative. The point is that some things have more evidence supporting the speculation than other things. The Big Bang has more objective evidence supporting it than the God hypothesis does.

Yes it is speculative. Every theory as it pertains to the orign of the universe can equally be applied to deity, the method used. As much as it may go against your belief patterns, it is a reality which many believers will use and point to.

Yeah with the Big Bang, let us just forget about inflationary universe theories (IUT's) which have all but made the Big Bang theory completely defunct. Parallel Universe theories, string theory and multiple dimensions et al.

Again, we have objective evidence that the universe exists. We don't have objective evidence that God exists.

So this just proves the atheist and theist beliefs, the exact same evidence can be used for both. The question which remains is, "Is there are deity?"

Trying to equate the two is like saying it is just as speculative to wonder about the evolutionary lineage of the platypus as the unicorn. We know the platypus exists, therefore it must have an evolutionary lineage. We have no evidence that the unicorn exists, so it is kinda strange to wonder about its evolutionary lineage.

The thing is with the unicorn, did it ever exist? Certainly there is testimony to it.

You are splitting hairs. If God was the first cause, then he is the origin.

I do not speculate, and I do not use specualation as evidence.

Except for the pesky fact that one hypothesis has a whole lot more evidence than the other hypothesis. It's all about the amount of evidence.

The Big Bang theory as first proposed had more questions than it had answers. It has changed and been changed again, and will in all probability be changed in the future.

Do you watch the show CSI? It's about a lab that invesitgates crime scenes. If, after matching the bullet to the gun, matching the fingerprints on the gun to Mr. Green, and matching Mr. Green to the fingerprints, they come to the conclusion that Mr. Green did it, is that just as speculative as claiming that Mrs. White did it instead?

I do not watch TV as a general rule, and I certainly would not use a television show as some sort of evidence. It is fictional, which may align with some peoples personal belief patterns.

I'm fine with mysteries. I'm not fine with claiming that the mystery has a name, and it is God. Unless, of course, you can show me a good reason why I should believe so.

Critical reasoning is a hard point to take, especially when it goes against a persons personal belief patterns. For most intelligent minds, intelligence takes over and rejects anything which doesn't align with their personal belief.

What you believe and what you don't believe is up to you. Critical reasoning has no place for belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No quotes from Dawkins were taken out of context. Dawkins was very specific in explaining exactly what he meant even down to the fact of decrying other atheists with more reasonable positions.

Well, here's an example:

Somebody quoted Dawkins as having said the following: "My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all."

You reacted quite objectionably to this, and among one of your many tirades against it you said the following: "Point out to me where he also states, money, greed, power, national pride, fear of being ridiclued by ones own society for not fighting, defence of ones homeland and loved ones, defence of ones cultural values, attack is the best form of defence, better stop this person before they take over the world. He doesn't use any of these things, he just uses religions, due to his own religious beliefs and dogma."

And yet for all your ranting, you obviously made no attempt to understand his argument by looking up the source for the quote - instead you just assumed that the sentence was the entirety of his argument and in your bias decided that, therefore, it must be wrong. Yet, in the essay from which that quote came from:
"They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around."

And there he is, pointing out the exact same things that you claimed he did not. Yet you never addressed this, nor did you retract your argument when it was presented to you.

LOL, you and I both know, scientists ignore this point completely and start their premise after the absolute origin. Attempt to explain what they can, given the knowledge we have.

So, you can't answer my challenge?

Name one scientific theory which states that the Universe - or anything, for that matter - came from nothing.

 

[Falvlun]

Footprints, I think you bring me closer to Nirvana.

Breathe in, breathe out. Frustration is unnecessary in friendly conversation. Ohm-on, baby!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is said to a) to have just appeared from nothing or b) have always existed. The exact same speculation we have for the universe at this present point in time.

Almost. For God, we also have c) not to exist at all.

This option doesn't apply to the universe, since we exist in it.

 

[Skeptisch]

[/font]
Of course you can prove something doesnt exist...

It lies with the theorists or the believer to prove that something exists, and that until it’s proven as existing, it does not. This is the way that the majority of the scientific and philosophical communities think about the existence of things.

So if there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of something, other than electrical impulses (thoughts) in someone’s head, believers are welcome to believe in belief.

They are also welcome to present their scientific evidence that there is something to talk about, but so far they have failed quite miserably.

 

[footprints]

Well, here's an example:

Somebody quoted Dawkins as having said the following: "My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all."

You reacted quite objectionably to this, and among one of your many tirades against it you said the following: "Point out to me where he also states, money, greed, power, national pride, fear of being ridiclued by ones own society for not fighting, defence of ones homeland and loved ones, defence of ones cultural values, attack is the best form of defence, better stop this person before they take over the world. He doesn't use any of these things, he just uses religions, due to his own religious beliefs and dogma."

And yet for all your ranting, you obviously made no attempt to understand his argument by looking up the source for the quote - instead you just assumed that the sentence was the entirety of his argument and in your bias decided that, therefore, it must be wrong. Yet, in the essay from which that quote came from:
"They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around."

And there he is, pointing out the exact same things that you claimed he did not. Yet you never addressed this, nor did you retract your argument when it was presented to you.

Hence, you're an ignorant, biased hypocrite.


So, you can't answer my challenge?

Name one scientific theory which states that the Universe - or anything, for that matter - came from nothing.

LOL your challenge has met and defeated, you just don't know it, or can't accept it. This goes both for Dawkins, and for your universe theories.

 

[footprints]

Almost. For God, we also have c) not to exist at all.

This option doesn't apply to the universe, since we exist in it.

There are many beliefs, that is a fact.

You are right, there are many theories and answers. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are some people who believe the whole universe is just an illusion and doesn't really exist.

 

[footprints]

Footprints, I think you bring me closer to Nirvana.

Breathe in, breathe out. Frustration is unnecessary in friendly conversation. Ohm-on, baby!

LOL, I am sure Ohm would be proud, to know his name and Law, are being used for a mantra.

 

[footprints]

It lies with the theorists or the believer to prove that something exists, and that until it’s proven as existing, it does not. This is the way that the majority of the scientific and philosophical communities think about the existence of things.

So if there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of something, other than electrical impulses (thoughts) in someone’s head, believers are welcome to believe in belief.

They are also welcome to present their scientific evidence that there is something to talk about, but so far they have failed quite miserably.

We also failed miserably to understand gravity once. Time and knowledge provide many answers.

 

[Sunstone]

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are some people who believe the whole universe is just an illusion and doesn't really exist.

Don't you think it's disingenuous to pretend their beliefs are on a par with the notion the universe exists?

 

[Skeptisch]

Don't you think it's disingenuous to pretend their beliefs are on a par with the notion the universe exists?

It is interesting to note how different brains believe in different beliefs and don’t see that many of those beliefs are completely different. The most drastic example is someone asserting that any belief is just a belief. For instance, equating a belief in belief and the supernatural, with a belief in scientific evidence.

To try to have a logical discussion with this kind of believer is fruitless mainly because their belief system does not allow striving for what any scientist strives for, the closest approximation to reality and truth.

"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another."
— Carl Sagan (Cosmos)

 

[footprints]

Don't you think it's disingenuous to pretend their beliefs are on a par with the notion the universe exists?

I will not rule out any belief, albeit I would rate the probability of this very low at this point in time.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes it is speculative. Every theory as it pertains to the orign of the universe can equally be applied to deity, the method used. As much as it may go against your belief patterns, it is a reality which many believers will use and point to.

Can you explain exactly how cosmic background radiation (a piece of evidence for the Big Bang theory) applies equal evidence for the existence of God?

Yeah with the Big Bang, let us just forget about inflationary universe theories (IUT's) which have all but made the Big Bang theory completely defunct. Parallel Universe theories, string theory and multiple dimensions et al.

The inflationary universe theory is basically a revision of the original Big Bang theory. It attempts to smooth out and explain some of the issues and inconsistencies present within the original theory. This is exactly how science is supposed to work: concepts are continually evolving as we integrate the knowledge we have systematically discovered about the universe with our current theories. The inflationary universe theory has it's own issues as well; apparently, the calculations don't work out using realistic numbers, as of yet.

Note that the scientists, and those of the scientific persuasion, are not chasing the belief. They are chasing the evidence. They are willing to give up the belief when the evidence points them in a different direction.

Parallel and multiple universe theories don't really effect the BB theory, since it is, afterall, simply a description of how our universe evolves over time, ie, that at some point, our universe was a small, hot, and extremely dense mass that is now expanding and becoming cooler. It's not even an "origin" theory, per se, since it does not attempt to explain where the extremely hot mass came from.

If you are interested, here is a great Big Bang website; I haven't had the time to completely peruse it, but it seems chock-full of information.

So this just proves the atheist and theist beliefs, the exact same evidence can be used for both. The question which remains is, "Is there are deity?"

The question "is there a deity" certainly does remain precisely because there is no overwhelming objective evidence that one exists. There is generally not the same confusion over whether the universe exists. Again, I ask, how exactly does the abundance of light elements (another observation about the universe that nicely corresponds to the predictions of the BB theory) give equal evidence for the existence of God?

The thing is with the unicorn, did it ever exist? Certainly there is testimony to it.

So you believe that studying the evolutionary lineage of the unicorn would be just as profitable as studying that of the platypus? I would love to see the grant proposal for that one.

I do not speculate, and I do not use specualation as evidence.

Then you have no evidence for the existence of God (since it is all hearsay and speculation) and tons of evidence for the a naturalistic explanation of the universe. So, why then do you claim that there is equal evidence for both?

The Big Bang theory as first proposed had more questions than it had answers. It has changed and been changed again, and will in all probability be changed in the future.

Great! I couldn't be more thrilled.

But don't think that means you can throw the baby out with the bathwater. The BB is the sum total of all the current observations of the universe combined with the best explanation for them. It would be foolish to put that on equal footing with an untested and unsupported hypothesis.

I do not watch TV as a general rule, and I certainly would not use a television show as some sort of evidence. It is fictional, which may align with some peoples personal belief patterns.

Seriously, footprints. It is not a "personal belief pattern" to assume that the person to whom the evidence points is more likely to have committed the crime than the person to whom no evidence points.

Critical reasoning is a hard point to take, especially when it goes against a persons personal belief patterns. For most intelligent minds, intelligence takes over and rejects anything which doesn't align with their personal belief.

What you believe and what you don't believe is up to you. Critical reasoning has no place for belief.

Exactly how does this pertain to the claim that "I don't know" is a better response than "God did it" when there is no substantial evidence that God did, in fact, do it?

I would think "I don't know" is a remarkably hard thing to admit, especially when one holds strong beliefs, and is a great indication that critical reasoning is present.

 

[Falvlun]

I will not rule out any belief, albeit I would rate the probability of this very low at this point in time.

Which is a great indication that you don't actually think the evidence is equally weighted. Otherwise, shouldn't the probabilities be the same?

 

[Skeptisch]

I would think "I don't know" is a remarkably hard thing to admit, especially when one holds strong beliefs, and is a great indication that critical reasoning is present.

"And so we pursue knowledge by using the scientific method to constantly ferret out all the mistakes that human beings chronically make, all of the lies we tell ourselves to combat our fears, all of the lies we tell each other. Here’s science, just working like a tireless machine. It’s a phenomenally successful one, but its work will never be finished."
Ann Druyan

Thanks Falvlun and Footprints :dan:

 

[Copernicus]

Which is a great indication that you don't actually think the evidence is equally weighted. Otherwise, shouldn't the probabilities be the same?

Footprints likes to act as if there is a difference between his skepticism and ours, but the only difference is in his unwillingness to admit that "low probability" is equivalent to "rejection" of belief in a practical sense.

 

[Skeptisch]

Sometimes you do need to speak out against one, and in favor of another.

Richard Dawkins’ optimistic thoughts about a time in the future when most of humanity will get along:

“I am optimistic that the physicists of our species will complete Einstein's dream and discover the final theory of everything before superior creatures, evolved on another world, make contact and tell us the answer. I am optimistic that, although the theory of everything will bring fundamental physics to a convincing closure, the enterprise of physics itself will continue to flourish, just as biology went on growing after Darwin solved its deep problem. I am optimistic that the two theories together will furnish a totally satisfying naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything that's in it, including ourselves.”

“And I am optimistic that this final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstition.”

 

[Skeptisch]

I suspect Dawkins real sin is that he is so often spot on in his criticisms of religion. There are folks who just can't handle that about him.

Yes, Richard is trying to divide the world.

Into those who want to know and those who want to believe. His “THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH” should remove any doubt about where we come from and how we got here for anyone who wants to know. Not accepting scientific evidence, reason and logic to find the truth is a right we all have, but so is lacking general education or knowledge.

Believing in scientific evidence is a dynamic and never ending venture, believing in belief and the supernatural not so much. Believing in belief means one is happy not understanding the natural world we live in.