Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[footprints]

And yet you deny Fairies, Unicorns or anything that people decide to make up and claim to exist... See the problem here? Why is your god concept different somehow?

I don't think I have ever denied unicorns, there is mention of them in many greek texts. Did unicorns ever exist, or a unicorn type creature? have they become extinct like many other species in life? Was a unicorn a rhino or other such animal, as some people speculate? I do not have the answer to this, nor do you. Some people surely thought they did exist and documented it. And other people live in blind faith, that they never did.

As for fairies, we know from reality they were a direct creation of mankinds intelligence and are a real and valid entity in childrens stories, and have been for hundreds of years.

I see no problem, you choose to live in instant denial of anything which goes against your own faith of belief, I choose to wait for evidence to provide answers for me.

 

[Tiapan]

Dawkins was on a program "Q and A" at the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission), last week.
It is a current affairs program where a guest panel answer questions from the audience and web.
On the Panel were three federal politicians, one from each side of the house and an independent, A woman rabbi, a Humanitarian and Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins was brilliant, answering with clear logic the pandering religious twits in the audience. What amazed the hell out of me was the responses of the politicians, their total ignorance of both science and the bible some professed to follow. They too appeared total twits.

But even scarier was the fact that our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd carries a Bible in his top pocket every where he goes. That lost him a lot of brownie points from my point of view.

For those interested here is the link.

God, Science and Sanity | Q&A | ABC TV

Cheers

 

[logician]

Dawkins was on a program "Q and A" at the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission), last week.
It is a current affairs program where a guest panel answer questions from the audience and web.
On the Panel were three federal politicians, one from each side of the house and an independent, A woman rabbi, a Humanitarian and Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins was brilliant, answering with clear logic the pandering religious twits in the audience. What amazed the hell out of me was the responses of the politicians, their total ignorance of both science and the bible some professed to follow. They too appeared total twits.

But even scarier was the fact that our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd carries a Bible in his top pocket every where he goes. That lost him a lot of brownie points from my point of view.

For those interested here is the link.

God, Science and Sanity | Q&A | ABC TV

Cheers

Not only is it amazing how little the average person knows about science, it is amazing how little the average person knows about their own religion. Truth is, Dawkins could put to shame most people in a battle of knowledge about that person's own religion.

 

[gnomon]

Dawkins was on a program "Q and A" at the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission), last week.
It is a current affairs program where a guest panel answer questions from the audience and web.
On the Panel were three federal politicians, one from each side of the house and an independent, A woman rabbi, a Humanitarian and Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins was brilliant, answering with clear logic the pandering religious twits in the audience. What amazed the hell out of me was the responses of the politicians, their total ignorance of both science and the bible some professed to follow. They too appeared total twits.

But even scarier was the fact that our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd carries a Bible in his top pocket every where he goes. That lost him a lot of brownie points from my point of view.

For those interested here is the link.

God, Science and Sanity | Q&A | ABC TV

Cheers

Interesting show.

Every time Steve Fielding spoke I just cringed at his obfuscation. Answer the question!

Noticed most questions were directed at Dawkins. His answer to the question regarding absolute morality was great.

edit: Patrick McGorry and his take on the immigration and asylum seekers was actually the best part. The moderator was very good as well. Or I should say host.

 

[Skeptisch]

By the way, can anyone here find a source for the “... Otherwise they should just shut up about it” quote?

Dawkins appears to have used it but it was attributed to an unknown source.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

we dont believe in faires because firstly there has been no good arguement for fairies while for christianity alone I could say william lane craig, augustine, hume, hugal etc.

Many of the arguments used by Christians actually apply just as validly to a broad range of supernatural things. For instance, the teleological argument works just as well if you assume the designers are fairies as if you assume the designer is God.

state three situations

Heh... Sure. To begin with, there's any sort of sampling:

- opinion polls. Absence of people voting for candidate X in the survey sample is evidence (within the poll's margin of error and confidence interval) that there are no voters for candidate X in the population as a whole.

- geological sampling. Absence of a mineral in a core sample is evidence that the mineral is absent from the rock of the surrounding area.

And in some cases, the existence of thing A implies that thing B must exist as well, the absence of thing B implies the absence of thing A. For example, the absence of tire tracks on my lawn is evidence that nobody drove across it this afternoon.

Also, there are some cases where thing B is necessary for thing A, so the absence of thing B implies the absence of thing A. For instance, the fact that this room is not filled with water is evidence that swimming fish are also absent from it.

Also, there are some cases where a thing can be observed in its entirety. For instance, when I look in my mailbox and fail to see any letters, this is evidence that my mailbox is empty.

So there you go: your three examples, plus one bonus (two bonuses if you count the two sampling examples separately).

 

[Storm]

Heh... Sure. To begin with, there's any sort of sampling:

- opinion polls. Absence of people voting for candidate X in the survey sample is evidence (within the poll's margin of error and confidence interval) that there are no voters for candidate X in the population as a whole.

- geological sampling. Absence of a mineral in a core sample is evidence that the mineral is absent from the rock of the surrounding area.

And in some cases, the existence of thing A implies that thing B must exist as well, the absence of thing B implies the absence of thing A. For example, the absence of tire tracks on my lawn is evidence that nobody drove across it this afternoon.

Also, there are some cases where thing B is necessary for thing A, so the absence of thing B implies the absence of thing A. For instance, the fact that this room is not filled with water is evidence that swimming fish are also absent from it.

Also, there are some cases where a thing can be observed in its entirety. For instance, when I look in my mailbox and fail to see any letters, this is evidence that my mailbox is empty.

So there you go: your three examples, plus one bonus (two bonuses if you count the two sampling examples separately).

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" doesn't imply that the latter doesn't exist. And all your examples are the latter, not the former.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" doesn't imply that the latter doesn't exist.

It can. One reason for a thing being absent is that it's non-existent.

And all your examples are the latter, not the former.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: does your second "latter" refer to the same thing as your first "latter"?

 

[Storm]

It can. One reason for a thing being absent is that it's non-existent.


I'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: does your second "latter" refer to the same thing as your first "latter"?

Sorry, that post was rather confused, wasn't it?

There is such a thing as evidence of absence. That's what all your examples showed.

Except for the polling one; there could be a single voter for the candidate not represented.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, that post was rather confused, wasn't it?

Heh... I chalked my confusion up to being tired.

There is such a thing as evidence of absence. That's what all your examples showed.

Right... and each one showed that through some sort of absence of evidence.

Except for the polling one; there could be a single voter for the candidate not represented.

More than that. There's even a very, very small but non-zero chance that every person in the population who wasn't in the survey sample will vote for candidate X. That's why I put in the "margin of error and confidence interval" disclaimer. The bigger the sample size, the more certain you can be that it reflects the overall population, but you'll never be 100% certain until you poll everybody.

 

[Storm]

Right... and each one showed that through some sort of absence of evidence.

I disagree, but I'm tired, too. And a bit drunk.

 

[Falvlun]

There is no evidence for the absolute origin of the universe. Therefore according to you belief, the universe cannot exist.

Either that or you are guility of applying double standards.

No evidence for the absolute origin of the universe would simply be that: no evidence for an absolute origin. It says nothing about the existence of the universe. Perhaps the universe has simply existed forever.

And if it didn't exist forever, and a discrete point of origin was necessary for the universe's existence, then the fact that the universe exists is evidence that the point of origin also existed.

Your analogy sucks.

 

[IndieVisible]

Any one can divide, that's easy!

Try uniting, now that is tricky!

 

[Falvlun]

Any one can divide, that's easy!

Try uniting, now that is tricky!

Now, I know you meant this in the best way possible, but my ornery mind immediately jumped to Fox News' slogan "Fair and Balanced". This concept of "fair and balanced"-- in all news outlets, not just Fox-- has been taken to mean that every side must get equal respect and consideration.

So, you might ask, what's the problem with that?

Some viewpoints simply don't have facts, or a coherent, rational arguement to support them. Thus we get intelligent design pitted against evolution, as if intelligent design is a scientific concept capable of overthrowing the theory of evolution. We get "death panels" alongside living wills. We get "snowstorm in DC disproves global warming" against scientists explaining why a snowstorm in one area doesn't dictate the entire global weather system. When you put a ridiculous viewpoint on equal footing with a rational one, then you lend credence to the ridiculous viewpoint.

The point being, sometimes uniting, or equal acceptance of all beliefs, isn't possible or desirable. Sometimes you do need to speak out against one, and in favor of another.

 

[footprints]

No evidence for the absolute origin of the universe would simply be that: no evidence for an absolute origin. It says nothing about the existence of the universe. Perhaps the universe has simply existed forever.

Something from nothing, an effect without a cause, both are God Scenarios

And if it didn't exist forever, and a discrete point of origin was necessary for the universe's existence, then the fact that the universe exists is evidence that the point of origin also existed.

Yes, this is the argument many believers use. At least you know your logic and reason aligns with many believers.

Your analogy sucks.

Anything which shows irrational logic, is irrational logic, sucks.

 

[Falvlun]

Something from nothing, an effect without a cause, both are God Scenarios

Please don't sidestep what you said. You claimed that because there is an absence of evidence for the absolute origin of the universe*, the universe cannot exist. That doesn't follow the formula of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Your statment would have to be "there is an an absence of evidence for the origin, therefore this is evidence that the origin never existed" or "there is an absence of evidence for the universe existing, therefore this is evidence that the universe does not exist." You can't garble the two up and come out with an argument.

*I don't know whether that is actually a true statement or not; from what I've read there is a lot of evidence which is consistent with a big bang.

As for your claim "something from nothing, or an effect without a cause, are God scenarios" doesn't really make sense. Ultimately, something had to come from nothing, something had to be uncaused, or something had to have existed forever, whether that something be god or the universe. I don't see how choosing the universe to have existed forever somehow makes it a god scenario.

Yes, this is the argument many believers use. At least you know your logic and reason aligns with many believers.

Wrong again. Believers go an extra step and claim to know what the origin is, ie God. Assuming that an origin point is necessary, the existence of the universe is merely evidence that an origin did exist at some point; it is not evidence towards any specific origin.

 

[footprints]

Please don't sidestep what you said. You claimed that because there is an absence of evidence for the absolute origin of the universe*, the universe cannot exist. That doesn't follow the formula of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Your statment would have to be "there is an an absence of evidence for the origin, therefore this is evidence that the origin never existed" or "there is an absence of evidence for the universe existing, therefore this is evidence that the universe does not exist." You can't garble the two up and come out with an argument.

I would suggest you read back and keep things in context. I did say what you said, but I also said more. The more in this case, is relevant to the bigger picture.

*I don't know whether that is actually a true statement or not; from what I've read there is a lot of evidence which is consistent with a big bang.

The Big Bang is speculative, a very good guess for a first guess, but speculative never the less.

As for your claim "something from nothing, or an effect without a cause, are God scenarios" doesn't really make sense. Ultimately, something had to come from nothing, something had to be uncaused, or something had to have existed forever, whether that something be god or the universe. I don't see how choosing the universe to have existed forever somehow makes it a god scenario.

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.

Wrong again. Believers go an extra step and claim to know what the origin is, ie God. Assuming that an origin point is necessary, the existence of the universe is merely evidence that an origin did exist at some point; it is not evidence towards any specific origin.

I do not know of any believer who can tell me what the origin is or was, some just say, God per se, was the cause of the effect.

LOL that is just building specualtion on speculation, of what speculation you will accept and what speculation you will reject.

Something from nothing, or an effect without a cause, are two scientific improbabilities at this point in time of human knowledge, yet there they are, at the bottom of each theory pertaining to the origin of the universe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would suggest you read back and keep things in context. I did say what you said, but I also said more. The more in this case, is relevant to the bigger picture.

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.

Not entirely relevant, but still a good indication of your hypocrisy.

The Big Bang is speculative, a very good guess for a first guess, but speculative never the less.

No, it isn't.

Read: Evidence for the Big Bang

It's been thoroughly evidenced and researched and passed every test on the way to becoming scientific theory.

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.

Except that we already know that the Universe exists, and we have absolutely no understanding of what physical laws existed before the planck time - if any. So your assertion that speculation on the origin of the Universe is the same as speculation on the origin of God is bogus.

I do not know of any believer who can tell me what the origin is or was, some just say, God per se, was the cause of the effect.

LOL that is just building specualtion on speculation, of what speculation you will accept and what speculation you will reject.

Something from nothing, or an effect without a cause, are two scientific improbabilities at this point in time of human knowledge, yet there they are, at the bottom of each theory pertaining to the origin of the universe.

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

 

[Falvlun]

The Big Bang is speculative, a very good guess for a first guess, but speculative never the less.

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.

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.

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

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.

I do not know of any believer who can tell me what the origin is or was, some just say, God per se, was the cause of the effect.

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

LOL that is just building specualtion on speculation, of what speculation you will accept and what speculation you will reject.

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.

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?

Something from nothing, or an effect without a cause, are two scientific improbabilities at this point in time of human knowledge, yet there they are, at the bottom of each theory pertaining to the origin of the universe.

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.

 

[Skeptisch]

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.

The above was a response to our tap-dancing RF circle talker.

Here is the big picture Richard Dawkins seems to have on the Pope and the Catholic Church in general. If only Dawkins wouldn’t beat around the bush so much!

Should the pope resign?

“No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.”
RD
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html