Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Richard Dawkins' Mindset Limited and Assuming

Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:55:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost Athiest speakersin the world. He states things on what he thinks are finite ideas and mocks any theory or possibilty even if the theory IS possible. His smug "shaking off" of perfectly well thought out theories that contradict his beliefs, shows something about him. He is VERY religious. The theories he counters are theories that would shake his own belief system. He's like the Creationist who defends wild ideas to the bitter end, even if those ideas are easily targeted and challenged. Mr. Dawkins, like any human with deep beliefs, is afraid. Afraid of even the 1% possibiltiy that he could be wrong.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:55:12 PM, Sooner wrote:
Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost Athiest speakersin the world. He states things on what he thinks are finite ideas and mocks any theory or possibilty even if the theory IS possible. His smug "shaking off" of perfectly well thought out theories that contradict his beliefs, shows something about him. He is VERY religious. The theories he counters are theories that would shake his own belief system. He's like the Creationist who defends wild ideas to the bitter end, even if those ideas are easily targeted and challenged. Mr. Dawkins, like any human with deep beliefs, is afraid. Afraid of even the 1% possibiltiy that he could be wrong.

Define "theory" and provide an example of what you're talking about?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:55:12 PM, Sooner wrote:
Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost Athiest speakersin the world. He states things on what he thinks are finite ideas and mocks any theory or possibilty even if the theory IS possible. His smug "shaking off" of perfectly well thought out theories that contradict his beliefs, shows something about him. He is VERY religious. The theories he counters are theories that would shake his own belief system. He's like the Creationist who defends wild ideas to the bitter end, even if those ideas are easily targeted and challenged. Mr. Dawkins, like any human with deep beliefs, is afraid. Afraid of even the 1% possibiltiy that he could be wrong.

LOL. Yet, another believer who has no clue what Dawkins is talking about.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 3:05:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I went off Dawkins with the God Delusion. His early books - Selfish Gene, Blind watchmaker etc - are 'must reads'. They make the case for a non-creationist view of the world without any polemic, just by calmly and honestly and describing the facts.

God Delusion was a terific disappointment. Instead of an objective examination of the history and current state of religion, we got a polemic rant that seems to aim more for large sales than to inform. I;m not saying I disagree with what is in the God Delusion - I agree with Dawkins on every major point - but I didn't like his new style.

Possibly the anti-theist movement needed an aggressive approach to get anywhere, but I am rather more laid back about things. For example, I think that we won't solve the problem of extremist Islam by alienating ordinary Muslims. As I see it moderate Christians have more in common with moderate Muslims than either has in common with the extremists on either sides. The extremists on both sides however have a great deal in common with each other! It is peraps worth reminding people that Islamic extremism kills a lot more ordinary Muslims that it kills Christians.

Dawkins is a very intelligent bloke and he has arrived at his position through reason and has considered the alternatives several times. If the he seems inflexible its because there are no new ideas being offered that need considering.
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with David Berlinski that Dawkins is a poor intellectual philosopher (see Berlinski's discussion of him in the video Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein. I agree with Berlinski because I've actually read Dawkins and have two of his books: The God Delusion and the Blind Watchmaker and I've read a few other essays and books by him.

FYI I also wrote an essay critical of him and Christopher Hitchens at http://www.lutheranscience.org...

Here are some of my many complaints about Dawkins:
1 Dawkins can't seem to grasp that many people who are religious are religious because they have chosen to believe in their religion because it makes sense. Dawkins seems to think that only neurological happenings explain religious belief or the impulse to be religious. Because humans don't behave as he thinks they should, he simply ignores their choices and ascribes them to unconscious motives.
2. Dawkins acts like a person who has "seen the light" regarding how true evolution is, but he obviously is biased toward his beliefs as evidenced by noting that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It's obvious that Dawkins is an atheist that prefers to be intellectually fulfilled.
3. He can't seem to grasp the fact that one claim of his will be offset or contradicted by another claim. He says in his book the God Delusion (or at least strongly infers) that all claims about God are meaningless. Yet, he often makes claims about God as if he can or does know a lot about God or what God would do. Does he know nothing about God or does he know a lot about God? Can't have it both ways.
3. Following up on # 3, he happily quotes Marc Hauser's book the Moral Minds that offers evidence of objective moral codes - evidence that any Christian philosopher would find compelling - but fails to see them as such even though he acts many times as if God's existence is a worthy intellectual search.
4. He can't understand that you can't use a created computer program as evidence of a random process. That's like claiming a dictionary can originate by random trial-and-error processes by offering up a computer program I wrote to do that as evidence.
5. He believes biological life is the result of randomness and we should expect chaos and disorder, murder and mayhem, at times. But when he sees order, particularly moral order, he believes that order is a result of his random process as well. So he believes random processes created disorder and order.

That should be it for now. I could provide a longer list than that.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:43:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:55:12 PM, Sooner wrote:
Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost Athiest speakersin the world. He states things on what he thinks are finite ideas and mocks any theory or possibilty even if the theory IS possible. His smug "shaking off" of perfectly well thought out theories that contradict his beliefs, shows something about him. He is VERY religious. The theories he counters are theories that would shake his own belief system. He's like the Creationist who defends wild ideas to the bitter end, even if those ideas are easily targeted and challenged. Mr. Dawkins, like any human with deep beliefs, is afraid. Afraid of even the 1% possibiltiy that he could be wrong.

I have read every book Dawkins has written.

And...funny thing, this, but I do not recall him ever "shaking off " any "perfectly well thought-out theories."

Perhaps you can give me an example? And please remember that, in science, the word "theory" has a very different meaning that when laymen use it in common every day parlance.

Thanks. I'll be eagerly awaiting your honest and linked/sourced reply!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:56:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:37:34 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I agree with David Berlinski that Dawkins is a poor intellectual philosopher (see Berlinski's discussion of him in the video Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein. I agree with Berlinski because I've actually read Dawkins and have two of his books: The God Delusion and the Blind Watchmaker and I've read a few other essays and books by him.

FYI I also wrote an essay critical of him and Christopher Hitchens at http://www.lutheranscience.org...

Here are some of my many complaints about Dawkins:
1 Dawkins can't seem to grasp that many people who are religious are religious because they have chosen to believe in their religion because it makes sense. Dawkins seems to think that only neurological happenings explain religious belief or the impulse to be religious. Because humans don't behave as he thinks they should, he simply ignores their choices and ascribes them to unconscious motives.

Belief is not a choice. Beliefs are formed and one of the things, which you would know if you had actually read Dawkins, is that he considers religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse. Contrary to your assertions, most people who are religious do not form that belief because it makes sense (these rationalizations come much later) but because they follow the lead of their parents, authority figures and the community when they are at an impressionable age. Specific religious belief correlates very strongly with geographical location.


2. Dawkins acts like a person who has "seen the light" regarding how true evolution is, but he obviously is biased toward his beliefs as evidenced by noting that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It's obvious that Dawkins is an atheist that prefers to be intellectually fulfilled.

This makes absolutely no sense.

3. He can't seem to grasp the fact that one claim of his will be offset or contradicted by another claim. He says in his book the God Delusion (or at least strongly infers) that all claims about God are meaningless. Yet, he often makes claims about God as if he can or does know a lot about God or what God would do. Does he know nothing about God or does he know a lot about God? Can't have it both ways.

Dawkins makes no claims about God. He merely takes theistic claims about God and either debunks them or follows them through to their logical conclusion. How could he make a claim about a God he doesn't believe exists? Again, you make no sense.

3. Following up on # 3, he happily quotes Marc Hauser's book the Moral Minds that offers evidence of objective moral codes - evidence that any Christian philosopher would find compelling - but fails to see them as such even though he acts many times as if God's existence is a worthy intellectual search.

Um, he fails to be convinced, therefore he's not intellectually honest? Is that your contention?

4. He can't understand that you can't use a created computer program as evidence of a random process. That's like claiming a dictionary can originate by random trial-and-error processes by offering up a computer program I wrote to do that as evidence.

Have you heard of a random number generator? Most computer languages have such a function.

5. He believes biological life is the result of randomness and we should expect chaos and disorder, murder and mayhem, at times. But when he sees order, particularly moral order, he believes that order is a result of his random process as well. So he believes random processes created disorder and order.

Variation throws up individuals who are capable of murder and mayhem. This is undeniable. The process which you call random has a non-random component called selection. You should educate yourself on evolutionary basics before pretending you are in a position to criticize. If you really read Dawkins, which I strongly doubt, then it either went over your head or you are misrepresenting what you read.

That should be it for now. I could provide a longer list than that.

I'm sure you could, but the above serves to show that you don't have much clue about Dawkins and his works. Please spare us the task of dissecting your misrepresentations.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:01:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:55:12 PM, Sooner wrote:
Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost Athiest speakersin the world. He states things on what he thinks are finite ideas and mocks any theory or possibilty even if the theory IS possible. His smug "shaking off" of perfectly well thought out theories that contradict his beliefs, shows something about him. He is VERY religious. The theories he counters are theories that would shake his own belief system. He's like the Creationist who defends wild ideas to the bitter end, even if those ideas are easily targeted and challenged. Mr. Dawkins, like any human with deep beliefs, is afraid. Afraid of even the 1% possibiltiy that he could be wrong.

Congratulations. This has to be the most ignorant and vaguely targeted rant I have seen for quite a while. Lol.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:06:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:37:34 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I agree with David Berlinski that Dawkins is a poor intellectual philosopher (see Berlinski's discussion of him in the video Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein. I agree with Berlinski because I've actually read Dawkins and have two of his books: The God Delusion and the Blind Watchmaker and I've read a few other essays and books by him.

FYI I also wrote an essay critical of him and Christopher Hitchens at http://www.lutheranscience.org...

Here are some of my many complaints about Dawkins:
1 Dawkins can't seem to grasp that many people who are religious are religious because they have chosen to believe in their religion because it makes sense to them. Dawkins seems to think that only neurological happenings explain religious belief or the impulse to be religious. Because humans don't behave as he thinks they should, he simply ignores their choices and ascribes them to unconscious motives.

I added an important caveat to the above statement that I think might be the source of Dawkins disagreement. The trick is there are a lot of things that "make sense" to people: a bunch of different religions, ghosts, UFOs, etc. But the scientific view of something "making sense" means it has sufficient evidence that it is very hard for any rational person to disagree with. So Dawkins is applying a scientific view of "making sense" with is based on reason with the religious view of "making sense" which is based primarily on emotion and belief.

2. Dawkins acts like a person who has "seen the light" regarding how true evolution is, but he obviously is biased toward his beliefs as evidenced by noting that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It's obvious that Dawkins is an atheist that prefers to be intellectually fulfilled.

I don't see the problem there... I would have thought that was an obvious fact. Seeing the connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom did dispel the idea of human superiority over the animal kingdom as presented in Genesis and broke down a major foothold religion had held. What exactly is the issue with that statement?

3. He can't seem to grasp the fact that one claim of his will be offset or contradicted by another claim. He says in his book the God Delusion (or at least strongly infers) that all claims about God are meaningless. Yet, he often makes claims about God as if he can or does know a lot about God or what God would do. Does he know nothing about God or does he know a lot about God? Can't have it both ways.

I have never read any of his work so I can't talk specifics. But the problem I see here is the method used: religious claims tend to involve inductive reasoning where they start with a few passages from a holy book and create these broad generalities in a way that best suits the interpreters needs. Science uses deductive reasoning.

Take for example the problem of suffering: the scientific approach is there is suffering and an all powerful being could stop suffering should it desire. Therefore there either isn't an all powerful being or that being isn't interested in stopping suffering. The religious approach to the question takes a few passages from their text and extrapolates that either suffering is the fault of humans, or it is part of that divine beings greater plan, or it doesn't matter because of the idea of heaven.

3. Following up on # 3, he happily quotes Marc Hauser's book the Moral Minds that offers evidence of objective moral codes - evidence that any Christian philosopher would find compelling - but fails to see them as such even though he acts many times as if God's existence is a worthy intellectual search.

Again, never read his work so I don't know specifics about what he is talking about. But from your statement there are several possibilities: Dawkins unfairly dismisses valid arguments due to his own bias, Christian philosophers unfairly accept flawed arguments due to their own biases, or a combination of both. I would image the combination of both is most likely and the ideas here go back to the scientific versus religious views of what "makes sense" as discussed earlier.

4. He can't understand that you can't use a created computer program as evidence of a random process. That's like claiming a dictionary can originate by random trial-and-error processes by offering up a computer program I wrote to do that as evidence.

I don't understand that either. If one group claims random processes can't create complexity and another group devises an experiment based on random processes that creates complexity doesn't that prove the former group wrong?

If I wrote a computer program that utilizes random trial-and-error processes to create a dictionary it would seem to me that absolutely proves your assertion that a dictionary can't originate by random trial-and-error processes wrong. What am I missing here?

5. He believes biological life is the result of randomness and we should expect chaos and disorder, murder and mayhem, at times. But when he sees order, particularly moral order, he believes that order is a result of his random process as well. So he believes random processes created disorder and order.

I don't understand this argument either... random processes aren't perfect. Would you not expect them to both work sometimes (produce order) and not work sometimes (produce disorder)? That is exactly what I expect: random processes give random results.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:41:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Define "theory" and provide an example of what you are talking about. "

Theory: an explanation for something or a proposed idea, neither of which can be 100% proven, at least not yet.

(Many theories seen to be false, could be true. Many theories seen to be true, could be false.)(If 0% of people do not believe it's true, it could still be true.) (If 100% of people believe it is false, it could still be true. (If we have much supporting evidence that something is true, it could still be false.) (If we have much supportive evidence that it is false, it could still be true.)
Scientist #1's Theory: "Science and its laws are finite and those rules apply to everything, and those rules/laws can not be changed.
Scientist #2's Theory: "The laws of Science are not concrete and are changeable by outside influences.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:41:29 AM, Sooner wrote:
"Define "theory" and provide an example of what you are talking about. "

Theory: an explanation for something or a proposed idea, neither of which can be 100% proven, at least not yet.

If you are going to talk about science and theories it seems like you would use the definition of a scientific theory... not your own idea about what a theory is. That would at least make for a more coherent argument.

(Many theories seen to be false, could be true. Many theories seen to be true, could be false.)(If 0% of people do not believe it's true, it could still be true.)
(If 100% of people believe it is false, it could still be true. (If we have much supporting evidence that something is true, it could still be false.) (If we have much supportive evidence that it is false, it could still be true.)

Scientist #1's Theory: "Science and its laws are finite and those rules apply to everything, and those rules/laws can not be changed.
Scientist #2's Theory: "The laws of Science are not concrete and are changeable by outside influences.

So given that we have much evidence that #1 is true and no evidence that #2 is true which is more likely? #1. We also would not call #2 a theory because it doesn't have any evidence to support it. You could call it a hypothesis (or wild speculation), but a theory should make testable predictions and have some support for those predictions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 2:20:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:55:12 PM, Sooner wrote:
Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost Athiest speakers in the world. He states things on what he thinks are finite ideas and mocks any theory or possibilty even if the theory IS possible.

An atheist myself, I don't read Dawkins, Sooner, though I have watched him interview, debate and present. On that basis, I think his strengths lie mainly in science and critical thought, but I don't think he's strong in the humanities, and I think he has only a limited insight into other people.

I don't believe those weaknesses generally invalidate his broad conjecture that the popularity of religion may be a consequence of evolutionary adaptation, but they do sometimes weaken their communication.

Notwithstanding that, atheism is ancient and nondoctrinal. Wth its earliest roots in the thought of ancient Greeks and Vedic Hindus, atheism has been reconceived independently throughout history for disparate reasons, and atheism is embraced in multiple doctrines and philosophies.

While Dawkins' thought may be influential, the reasons he personally rejects religion may have no bearing on the reasons another atheist does. And what he concludes about the social impacts of religion may not be (and in fact, are not) shared by all atheists.

I don't read Dawkins not because I reject his ideas, but rather because his ideas are ones I'd already considered anyway. I'm not looking for more evidence for those thoughts. Rather, I'm interested in a broader and more insightful perspectives.

I hope that may be of use.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 3:21:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
" "Truth" As We Accept it is Subjective.

"100 AD "Truth"
The Earth is flat(and is not spherical).
"Supportive Evidence: based on current knowledge and observation, the Earth is definately flat. (The Earth being a "sphere" is a "theory" that lacks logic or basic reasoning.) The Earthy laws that dictate our world simply prove without doubt that the "Earth is a Sphere Theory" is a creatively imagined idea that ignores the powers of the Earth that are obvious and are observed and witnessed every day. These "observable forces" over a reasonable span of time, through observation, have proven to be forces that give consistant boundries, rules and truths. There are no known observed exceptions to these known and accepted truths, therefore, we accept these forces and truths as #1 existing, #2 possessing powers that govern and limit the Earth daily and consistantly over a reasonable amount of time, enough so to "observe" that these forces possess characteristics that limit and define uncrossable boundries by all living creatures that through observation and results of 100% consistancy that based on the observable, reliable, and consistant results, prove the Earth is not a sphere(As one "fool" tried to convince us was a plausable and possible theory.) He was convinced through temporary or possibly permanent insanity or maybe even demon possession, that the Earth has a spherical shape. His arguments have been tossed out and deemed a "gross discounting and ignoring of "obvious and observable forces and powers that counter and disprove his claims beyond any doubt. These observed and reliable forces consistantly react the same way to every situation that challenges their ability to force boundries, limitations, and are accepted as forces that keep the Earth's order and are ordained to prevent chaos. It is agreed that any normal, reasonable, intelligent person would, through common sense, have witnessed and understand the concept of being upside down as opposed to right side up. There are no observations of people being sucked into the sky, proving that the Earth is a flat plane. This is a basic characteristic of the Earth that keeps all things on the ground right side up and without this characteristic things could be upside down and getting sucked into the sky. This principle proves the Earth is not of a spherical shape. Basic observation learned at a young age, mixed with common sense, points out with extreme logic that if the Earth were a sphere, anyone located on the side of the Earth pointing down, would fall off the Earth and into the "abyss". The "Earth is a Sphere Theory" ignores proven principles, makes no sense, and relies on mystical, magical made up powers to keep all people on Earth from falling off the Earth when they are at the bottom of this "sphere". The "Earth is a Sphere Theory" lacks credibility because there are no known observed cases, even within the many countries recognized throughout our experts' and scholars' world travels, where people were located at the bottom of this "spherelike" Earth and observable cases of objects, unwinged animals, and human beings began falling off the Earth into the abyss in mass. Our experts conclude that through observation, common sense, and unnumbered discussions and votes by respected philosophers, that the Earth has one TRUTH that our qualified panel agrees on 100%. The Earth is flat. But what lies at the edges of the Earth is unknown. Discussions by our panel created a vast array of theories and possibilities. Trying to wrap the human mind around the visions of what could possibly reside at the edges of the Earth is mind boggling. Our panel designed answers such as doorways to Heaven, Utopian pillars, golden ladders reaching to our forfathers' locations, and unnumbered unicorns set to take us all toa new Earth.
"100 AD final judgement.
"TRUTH" as defined by experts in 100 AD: The Earth is a flat plane and is not in the shape of a sphere.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 3:45:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:21:55 PM, Sooner wrote:
" "Truth" As We Accept it is Subjective.

"100 AD "Truth"
The Earth is flat(and is not spherical).
"Supportive Evidence: based on current knowledge and observation, the Earth is definately flat. (The Earth being a "sphere" is a "theory" that lacks logic or basic reasoning.) The Earthy laws that dictate our world simply prove without doubt that the "Earth is a Sphere Theory" is a creatively imagined idea that ignores the powers of the Earth that are obvious and are observed and witnessed every day. These "observable forces" over a reasonable span of time, through observation, have proven to be forces that give consistant boundries, rules and truths. There are no known observed exceptions to these known and accepted truths, therefore, we accept these forces and truths as #1 existing, #2 possessing powers that govern and limit the Earth daily and consistantly over a reasonable amount of time, enough so to "observe" that these forces possess characteristics that limit and define uncrossable boundries by all living creatures that through observation and results of 100% consistancy that based on the observable, reliable, and consistant results, prove the Earth is not a sphere(As one "fool" tried to convince us was a plausable and possible theory.) He was convinced through temporary or possibly permanent insanity or maybe even demon possession, that the Earth has a spherical shape. His arguments have been tossed out and deemed a "gross discounting and ignoring of "obvious and observable forces and powers that counter and disprove his claims beyond any doubt. These observed and reliable forces consistantly react the same way to every situation that challenges their ability to force boundries, limitations, and are accepted as forces that keep the Earth's order and are ordained to prevent chaos. It is agreed that any normal, reasonable, intelligent person would, through common sense, have witnessed and understand the concept of being upside down as opposed to right side up. There are no observations of people being sucked into the sky, proving that the Earth is a flat plane. This is a basic characteristic of the Earth that keeps all things on the ground right side up and without this characteristic things could be upside down and getting sucked into the sky. This principle proves the Earth is not of a spherical shape. Basic observation learned at a young age, mixed with common sense, points out with extreme logic that if the Earth were a sphere, anyone located on the side of the Earth pointing down, would fall off the Earth and into the "abyss". The "Earth is a Sphere Theory" ignores proven principles, makes no sense, and relies on mystical, magical made up powers to keep all people on Earth from falling off the Earth when they are at the bottom of this "sphere". The "Earth is a Sphere Theory" lacks credibility because there are no known observed cases, even within the many countries recognized throughout our experts' and scholars' world travels, where people were located at the bottom of this "spherelike" Earth and observable cases of objects, unwinged animals, and human beings began falling off the Earth into the abyss in mass. Our experts conclude that through observation, common sense, and unnumbered discussions and votes by respected philosophers, that the Earth has one TRUTH that our qualified panel agrees on 100%. The Earth is flat. But what lies at the edges of the Earth is unknown. Discussions by our panel created a vast array of theories and possibilities. Trying to wrap the human mind around the visions of what could possibly reside at the edges of the Earth is mind boggling. Our panel designed answers such as doorways to Heaven, Utopian pillars, golden ladders reaching to our forfathers' locations, and unnumbered unicorns set to take us all toa new Earth.
"100 AD final judgement.
"TRUTH" as defined by experts in 100 AD: The Earth is a flat plane and is not in the shape of a sphere.

LOL----that may very well be the world's longest non sequitur. At least insofar as answering my challenge to you to provide one source where Dr. Dawkins has "shrugged off" or denied any largely-held scientific theories."

All I have ever seen him spurn is some of those spurious pseudo-science claims, like Intelligent Design. As well as, of course, some wholly groundless ones, like God. Or a human itinerant Jewish carpenter/philosopher of 2000 years ago who rose from the dead and not sits up in Heaven and listens to your prayers.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 3:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution."

------ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 4:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:21:55 PM, Sooner wrote:
" "Truth" As We Accept it is Subjective.

"100 AD "Truth"
The Earth is flat(and is not spherical).

Spherical earth became was known to the Greeks as early as 6th century BC.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 4:19:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind.

A tad MRDA, but he - and we - know that ain't gonna happen !

I didn't mention it before I also didn't like it when Dawkins and a few others started the 'Brights' movement. Nothing wrong with it except the bloody stupid name. It meant they came across as smug and 'superior', not as serious minded and rational. The name - intentionally or accidentally - insulted anyone who did not agree with them, and insulting people is not the way to get converts.

On scientific and philsophical matters I'm with Dawkins 100% - its his style (since becoming a 'professional atheist'?) that I'm not massively fond of.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 4:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:21:55 PM, Sooner wrote:
" "Truth" As We Accept it is Subjective.

Sooner, I fear you may have conflated subjective (i.e. individual and dictated by history, culture and viewpoint) with emergent (i.e. capable of being refined with better information and analysis.)

The shape of the earth is not subjective. It is objective, meaning that anyone, regardless of culture, history or belief, can successfully execute a round the world trip that always heads West. However our understanding of that shape was emergent.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 5:20:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Does Richard Dawkins Exist?"

I ponder the question because I'm not 100% sure on this one. If Richard Dawkins exists, why haven't I ever met him or seen him in person.(The Richard Dawkins Delusion?)
-One could point to evidence of his existence by handing me a copy of "The God Dillusion" saying it's written by Richard Dawkins, but how can you prove Dawkins actually wrote the book and the picture of "him" isn't a photo of another "real" person who actually exists? Isn't it possible that there is no Dawkins in reality, "The God Dillusion" book formed through a sophisticated, random process that evolved pages, letters, and combinations of letters. Perhaps with infinite more opportunities, this sophisticated process formed pages, spewed out thousands of "evolved" symbols going by scientific names like "A", "B", "C", and "D", and with complete randomness, pieced together hundreds of pages and thousands of "letters" that by mere chance alone, morphed together into larger entities(lets call them "words" as their new scientific name), and the random accumulation of thousands of random letters and words by mere 100% random chance, unfathomably formed sentences, paragraphs and coherant opinions. This mind boggling proccess consisting of evolutionary random coherant books being formed from a non guided, mindless mass of microscopic particles originally, has shaken my original faith that Dawkins actually exists.
-One could say,"Hey, the words in this book prove Dawkins exists because they are his ideals put on paper.
Let's say I read the book and take in its information. What's to say these were words inspired or written by Dawkins? Maybe evolution evolved the book over billions of years. Maybe someone else wrote it.
-More proof? Of Dawkins' existence?
He obviously walked this Earth at one time, even though I've never seen him or met him, because the words accredited to him are influencing and shaping beliefs even still today.
So what if the words are coherant and have been read by people and influence people still"today? That doesn't prove a Dawkins ever walked this Earth or influenced beliefs and lives.
Perhaps Dawkins is like Santa Clause. He doesn't really exist, but we are familiar with pictures of many artists' conceptions of what he might look like, are familiar with writings about him, and have a generalization as to what we think he would be like. But sadly, as kids all learn one day, Dawkins... I mean Santa Clause isn't real. The argument is moot. Even if a man came to me with similar looks as the man on the cover of "The God Dillusion", I have no guarantee that he's not a Dawkins impersonator, a hologram or cyborg version of the fictional Dawkins ?
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Quoted from dee-em:
"Belief is not a choice. Beliefs are formed and one of the things, which you would know if you had actually read Dawkins, is that he considers religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse. Contrary to your assertions, most people who are religious do not form that belief because it makes sense (these rationalizations come much later) but because they follow the lead of their parents, authority figures and the community when they are at an impressionable age. Specific religious belief correlates very strongly with geographical location."

Seriously? I grant you that there are a number of believers who adopt their faith because of what they have been taught in their youth (I had an Aunt who would certainly be described that way), but I have read or heard of many people who have changed their faiths because of what they perceive to be solid reasons for believing what they believe. And what has Dawkins to say about such things? The memes did it or the neurons did it or something unconscious did it. His belief system says nothing about how people consciously choose their faith.

"Um, he fails to be convinced, therefore he's not intellectually honest? Is that your contention?"

Yes, that is my contention. I claim that he wishes to rig the game so his own beliefs cannot be disproven.

"Variation throws up individuals who are capable of murder and mayhem. This is undeniable. The process which you call random has a non-random component called selection. You should educate yourself on evolutionary basics before pretending you are in a position to criticize. If you really read Dawkins, which I strongly doubt, then it either went over your head or you are misrepresenting what you read."

That blurb fails to persuade me, but as typing this I wasn"t sure how to phrase my reply. I will have to wait until later to maybe figure out how I want to say it. Or I could simply quote part of my book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief where I discuss Dawkins.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:18:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 5:20:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
"Does Richard Dawkins Exist?"

I ponder the question because I'm not 100% sure on this one. If Richard Dawkins exists, why haven't I ever met him or seen him in person.(The Richard Dawkins Delusion?)
-One could point to evidence of his existence by handing me a copy of "The God Dillusion" saying it's written by Richard Dawkins, but how can you prove Dawkins actually wrote the book and the picture of "him" isn't a photo of another "real" person who actually exists? Isn't it possible that there is no Dawkins in reality, "The God Dillusion" book formed through a sophisticated, random process that evolved pages, letters, and combinations of letters. Perhaps with infinite more opportunities, this sophisticated process formed pages, spewed out thousands of "evolved" symbols going by scientific names like "A", "B", "C", and "D", and with complete randomness, pieced together hundreds of pages and thousands of "letters" that by mere chance alone, morphed together into larger entities(lets call them "words" as their new scientific name), and the random accumulation of thousands of random letters and words by mere 100% random chance, unfathomably formed sentences, paragraphs and coherant opinions. This mind boggling proccess consisting of evolutionary random coherant books being formed from a non guided, mindless mass of microscopic particles originally, has shaken my original faith that Dawkins actually exists.
-One could say,"Hey, the words in this book prove Dawkins exists because they are his ideals put on paper.
Let's say I read the book and take in its information. What's to say these were words inspired or written by Dawkins? Maybe evolution evolved the book over billions of years. Maybe someone else wrote it.
-More proof? Of Dawkins' existence?
He obviously walked this Earth at one time, even though I've never seen him or met him, because the words accredited to him are influencing and shaping beliefs even still today.
So what if the words are coherant and have been read by people and influence people still"today? That doesn't prove a Dawkins ever walked this Earth or influenced beliefs and lives.
Perhaps Dawkins is like Santa Clause. He doesn't really exist, but we are familiar with pictures of many artists' conceptions of what he might look like, are familiar with writings about him, and have a generalization as to what we think he would be like. But sadly, as kids all learn one day, Dawkins... I mean Santa Clause isn't real. The argument is moot. Even if a man came to me with similar looks as the man on the cover of "The God Dillusion", I have no guarantee that he's not a Dawkins impersonator, a hologram or cyborg version of the fictional Dawkins ?

Nice try. But in the end, an absurd and totally illogical metaphor for Atheists not believing in your invisible and fictional god.

Here's why.....

Go to youtube right now. See all the Dawkins videos. The debates. the books. The interviews. The seminars he does. Hundreds. Right?

Now find one of your god.

LOL.

Epic Fail, amigo.

Hook "em Horns, BTW.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:21:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 4:19:47 PM, kp98 wrote:
If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind.

A tad MRDA, but he - and we - know that ain't gonna happen !

I didn't mention it before I also didn't like it when Dawkins and a few others started the 'Brights' movement. Nothing wrong with it except the bloody stupid name. It meant they came across as smug and 'superior', not as serious minded and rational. The name - intentionally or accidentally - insulted anyone who did not agree with them, and insulting people is not the way to get converts.

On scientific and philsophical matters I'm with Dawkins 100% - its his style (since becoming a 'professional atheist'?) that I'm not massively fond of.

Uhh...but us Brights ARE intellectually superior!

So I reckon I do not understand your argument.

Here, let me engage in some of the circular logic you guys use when defending god:

"Prove to me that the Intellectually Superior Atheist Mind DOES NOT exist!"

LOL.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 5:21:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 9:03:19 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
Quoted from dee-em:
"Belief is not a choice. Beliefs are formed and one of the things, which you would know if you had actually read Dawkins, is that he considers religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse. Contrary to your assertions, most people who are religious do not form that belief because it makes sense (these rationalizations come much later) but because they follow the lead of their parents, authority figures and the community when they are at an impressionable age. Specific religious belief correlates very strongly with geographical location."

Seriously? I grant you that there are a number of believers who adopt their faith because of what they have been taught in their youth (I had an Aunt who would certainly be described that way), but I have read or heard of many people who have changed their faiths because of what they perceive to be solid reasons for believing what they believe.

Anecdotal evidence? Seriously? Lol.

http://www.christianitytoday.com......

Despite the many societal changes that have lurched us towards greater individualism and away from a more collective family focus, over half of young adult children are following in their parents' footsteps, in that they are affiliated with the parents' religious tradition. (To a lesser extent, their religious practices and beliefs also align with those of their parents). This number is the same now as it was in the 1970s. In today's culture, one that often disparages family continuity and assumes that families are not doing a good job, our research reflects a basic resiliency in American families over generations. Good news for the church.

And what has Dawkins to say about such things? The memes did it or the neurons did it or something unconscious did it. His belief system says nothing about how people consciously choose their faith.

Don't you know what Dawkins has to say? After all, you claim to have read some of his books. Lol.

"Um, he fails to be convinced, therefore he's not intellectually honest? Is that your contention?"

Yes, that is my contention. I claim that he wishes to rig the game so his own beliefs cannot be disproven.

That's interesting. If someone can't be persuaded by argument, they must be dishonest, because you were persuaded. You don't see anything wrong with that worldview? Like, perhaps, examining the objections to see if they have merit? Can you give us an example where he "rigs the game" please?

"Variation throws up individuals who are capable of murder and mayhem. This is undeniable. The process which you call random has a non-random component called selection. You should educate yourself on evolutionary basics before pretending you are in a position to criticize. If you really read Dawkins, which I strongly doubt, then it either went over your head or you are misrepresenting what you read."

That blurb fails to persuade me, but as typing this I wasn"t sure how to phrase my reply. I will have to wait until later to maybe figure out how I want to say it. Or I could simply quote part of my book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief where I discuss Dawkins.

I can't wait.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
?

Nice try. But in the end, an absurd and totally illogical metaphor for Atheists not believing in your invisible and fictional god.

Here's why.....

"Go to youtube right now. See all the Dawkins videos. The debates. the books. The interviews. The seminars he does. Hundreds. Right?

Now find one of your god."

For identifying purposes, I'm Agnostic, and from day to day lean slightly towards Creationism ina very broad sense and other days lean completely towards randomness, science, observable data, etc. But having been programmed by my the donor of half my gentic makeup to consider all possibilities, theories, and philosophies, at least in part, I will play devil's advocate with you.

-I don't believe Richard Dawkins exists. A youtube video showing someone you name as "Richard Dawkins" is no more proof than Catholic bringing me a copy of "The Passion ofthe Christ", then trying to convince me that was the real Jesus and the real Satan in physical form caught on film. THe shroud with"Jesus face imprinted on it", doesn't "prove he exists.
I sometimes chuckle. Seeing that I've accepted that the "true truth" is probably well beyond mistifying, complex, mythological in thought, and making complex quantum ideas seem simplistic. If there is a "God" and he chooses to not come down and "prove himself" or "prove his existance", for starters Atheism would then be incorrect in "true truth". So let's start there.
If he exists:
1)He is likely the "creator" of what we know as "Science". If so, then changing whatever variables that give science its power, would then change the mathematics or "rules" of Science's authority. He could change the mathematics of gravity, making our reality ruled more or less by gravity. He could deprogram, reprogram, change code, change variables, etc. Making our attempt to reason out, discover, or prove finite ideas and laws futile. If he can mix and match, take away and add on scientific "truths" in our reality, our abilty to discover or prove the true truth is impossible, unless he purposefully includes the clues, does not defend against us discovering them, and "allows" us obtain that information. And even then, if we are unable to interpret or understand the information, we still wouldn't know the true truth. When a person a person says "I know there is no god",or "I know there is a god", figuratively speaking, they have their head in a noose and their feet in crisco.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 5:30:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You ask me to disprove your God. I say to you: Disprove my claim that I have a Pink Unicorn. Go ahead. I will use the same method as you do in defending it."
You do have a pink unicorn. I know for a 100% fact that you have one.

By a proccess(Creationism, Evolution, Other. You choose) horses came into existance. Animals with a single head came into existance. A horse like animal with a single horn on its head would have manifested if things had lined up as such. In infinite time, one will manifest somewhere, some time, if it hasn't already. The simple, microscopic components needed to manifest a unicorn are everywhere. The components needed to compose an entire universe are so small that they can be fit into something as small as a memory stick or a hard drive. The components of unicorns are gathering and ungathering all over your body as we speak. Now, let's get to the point. Since you claim to have a manifested unicorn, I must now report you to the feds. I'm pretty sure they will be protected as "endangered" once they know you have it.
But your well thought out point was logically delivered. Because if I "had a god", I would obviously keep him here in my yard to show you so you could pet him, feed him, analyze him, and get the satisfaction of having touched and seen him. If he would manifest in physical form, let you ride him around my yard, and let you pet his belly, would you believe then? And if you started believing, what would be next? One would wonder?
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:42:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 9:18:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/13/2015 5:20:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
"Does Richard Dawkins Exist?"

I ponder the question because I'm not 100% sure on this one. If Richard Dawkins exists, why haven't I ever met him or seen him in person.(The Richard Dawkins Delusion?)
-One could point to evidence of his existence by handing me a copy of "The God Dillusion" saying it's written by Richard Dawkins, but how can you prove Dawkins actually wrote the book and the picture of "him" isn't a photo of another "real" person who actually exists? Isn't it possible that there is no Dawkins in reality, "The God Dillusion" book formed through a sophisticated, random process that evolved pages, letters, and combinations of letters. Perhaps with infinite more opportunities, this sophisticated process formed pages, spewed out thousands of "evolved" symbols going by scientific names like "A", "B", "C", and "D", and with complete randomness, pieced together hundreds of pages and thousands of "letters" that by mere chance alone, morphed together into larger entities(lets call them "words" as their new scientific name), and the random accumulation of thousands of random letters and words by mere 100% random chance, unfathomably formed sentences, paragraphs and coherant opinions. This mind boggling proccess consisting of evolutionary random coherant books being formed from a non guided, mindless mass of microscopic particles originally, has shaken my original faith that Dawkins actually exists.
-One could say,"Hey, the words in this book prove Dawkins exists because they are his ideals put on paper.
Let's say I read the book and take in its information. What's to say these were words inspired or written by Dawkins? Maybe evolution evolved the book over billions of years. Maybe someone else wrote it.
-More proof? Of Dawkins' existence?
He obviously walked this Earth at one time, even though I've never seen him or met him, because the words accredited to him are influencing and shaping beliefs even still today.
So what if the words are coherant and have been read by people and influence people still"today? That doesn't prove a Dawkins ever walked this Earth or influenced beliefs and lives.
Perhaps Dawkins is like Santa Clause. He doesn't really exist, but we are familiar with pictures of many artists' conceptions of what he might look like, are familiar with writings about him, and have a generalization as to what we think he would be like. But sadly, as kids all learn one day, Dawkins... I mean Santa Clause isn't real. The argument is moot. Even if a man came to me with similar looks as the man on the cover of "The God Dillusion", I have no guarantee that he's not a Dawkins impersonator, a hologram or cyborg version of the fictional Dawkins ?

Nice try. But in the end, an absurd and totally illogical metaphor for Atheists not believing in your invisible and fictional god.

Here's why.....

Go to youtube right now. See all the Dawkins videos. The debates. the books. The interviews. The seminars he does. Hundreds. Right?

Now find one of your god.

LOL.

Epic Fail, amigo.

Hook "em Horns, BTW.

-------Could you recap the OU vs. Texas football game from last year. I have forgotten who won.
I had a nice juicy steak earlier. How does that make you feel?--------
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:46:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 6:42:40 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:18:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/13/2015 5:20:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
"Does Richard Dawkins Exist?"

I ponder the question because I'm not 100% sure on this one. If Richard Dawkins exists, why haven't I ever met him or seen him in person.(The Richard Dawkins Delusion?)
-One could point to evidence of his existence by handing me a copy of "The God Dillusion" saying it's written by Richard Dawkins, but how can you prove Dawkins actually wrote the book and the picture of "him" isn't a photo of another "real" person who actually exists? Isn't it possible that there is no Dawkins in reality, "The God Dillusion" book formed through a sophisticated, random process that evolved pages, letters, and combinations of letters. Perhaps with infinite more opportunities, this sophisticated process formed pages, spewed out thousands of "evolved" symbols going by scientific names like "A", "B", "C", and "D", and with complete randomness, pieced together hundreds of pages and thousands of "letters" that by mere chance alone, morphed together into larger entities(lets call them "words" as their new scientific name), and the random accumulation of thousands of random letters and words by mere 100% random chance, unfathomably formed sentences, paragraphs and coherant opinions. This mind boggling proccess consisting of evolutionary random coherant books being formed from a non guided, mindless mass of microscopic particles originally, has shaken my original faith that Dawkins actually exists.
-One could say,"Hey, the words in this book prove Dawkins exists because they are his ideals put on paper.
Let's say I read the book and take in its information. What's to say these were words inspired or written by Dawkins? Maybe evolution evolved the book over billions of years. Maybe someone else wrote it.
-More proof? Of Dawkins' existence?
He obviously walked this Earth at one time, even though I've never seen him or met him, because the words accredited to him are influencing and shaping beliefs even still today.
So what if the words are coherant and have been read by people and influence people still"today? That doesn't prove a Dawkins ever walked this Earth or influenced beliefs and lives.
Perhaps Dawkins is like Santa Clause. He doesn't really exist, but we are familiar with pictures of many artists' conceptions of what he might look like, are familiar with writings about him, and have a generalization as to what we think he would be like. But sadly, as kids all learn one day, Dawkins... I mean Santa Clause isn't real. The argument is moot. Even if a man came to me with similar looks as the man on the cover of "The God Dillusion", I have no guarantee that he's not a Dawkins impersonator, a hologram or cyborg version of the fictional Dawkins ?

Nice try. But in the end, an absurd and totally illogical metaphor for Atheists not believing in your invisible and fictional god.

Here's why.....

Go to youtube right now. See all the Dawkins videos. The debates. the books. The interviews. The seminars he does. Hundreds. Right?

Now find one of your god.

LOL.

Epic Fail, amigo.

Hook "em Horns, BTW.


-------Could you recap the OU vs. Texas football game from last year. I have forgotten who won.
I had a nice juicy steak earlier. How does that make you feel?--------

As long as the steak did not consist of BEVO, it does not bother me. LOL.

I am a UT alum. Class of '06. Hence my "hook 'em." But yeah, I know damn well they sucked last year. I believe this season will be better, though.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 9:54:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Texas Longhorn Fan:
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog."
From me, Sooner Fan:
I would absolutely 100% agree with you, and I do join hands fully with you in reguards to this quote, but I can't FULLY agree with you because at least a dog with rabies won't conquest the conquering of the world, cut the heads off of and torcher anyone with differing views, kill people who pose no threat to them at all, then be chicken sh*t enough to put on masks, hide behind videos, encourage others than themselves to strap on bombs, blowing themselves up and a number of random people from Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buhdists, Agnostics, elderly, children, and even random Muslims and their very own people. And within the darkest and most monumental hypocrisy of all, their leaders encourage suicide bombings while conveniently never strapping one on themselves. These "chosen" men present themselves in high placed points before massive gatherings of Muslims as though they themselves are godlike, despite their rhetoric being uneducated, full of false information, ignorant on the subjects they discuss, and encouraging of the destruction ofall nonMuslim people and things. If God exists and has the characteristics that "Alah" is said to have based on the Quran, the Suna, the ancient hadiths, and modern hadiths, he would have already manifested himself in physical form at least thousands of years ago, would have used his power to prevent Atheism, Christianity, Buhdism, Hinduism, and any else nonMuslim and ruled this world with an iron fist. Everyone on Earth would take their shoes off on holy ground, scramble by the billions to the haj or any pilgramage they could muster, and Mecca, Saudi Arabia wouldn't have the capacity to support the 7 billion mindless, raging converted Muslims under Alah's all powerful, unchallenged, religious cult like mental and physical slavery system he used to keep tabs on, brainwashing on, and physical or spritual threats on. Every person on Earth would have his physical image burned into their minds. He would haunt the dreams of every human on Earth. He would beall seeing, all knowing judge, jury, and executioner.
Anything fun would not exist. Freedom would not exist. Creativity would not exist. The zombie apocalypse would be lived out right before our very eyes. WE would be the zombies. We might not eat each other, but would make us no less zombie like.
I bring forth an idea to all free thinking, freedom loving, warrior minded people on Earth. If such an entity exists, and he manifests himself physically here on Earth one day, let's all go out with a bang. Let's present him with a present. We will bow to him(temporarily), present him a golden chest, and step away. When he opens the chest, he will see a note inside. The note will say,"If you wanted us all to mindlessly submit to your ways, your ideologies, and your full control over us, you should have stopped us from developing nucleur technology, and you shouldn't have manifested yourself in our presence in a human body that is fragile.
So our gift to you is locked in the bottom of this chest. Before I reveal to you the gift, I'd like to say Muhamed was a child molesting psychopath, the Quran could have been written by a toddler, pilgramages are stupid, the "Pillars" of Islam are for mindless sheep, suicide bombings are illogical when bombs can be triggered without suicide, and your philosophies are on about a preschool level, and not even the semi smart preschooler's level. You my friend are uneducated, archaeic, mindless, a chicken sh*t, evil, unholy, unworthy of praise, unimpressive, chaotic, lacking sound judgement, unorganized, lazy, corrupt, spineless, planless, unspecial, and simply unneccessary. But since "We the people" wanted to "be a good host", we have a provided you a gift. It is a nucleur device capable of destroying Earth ten times over. It is set to go off... well...3...2...1...
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 11:28:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
and its laws are finite and those rules apply to everything, and those rules/laws can not be changed.
Scientist #2's Theory: "The laws of Science are not concrete and are changeable by outside influences.

------So given that we have much evidence that #1 is true and no evidence that #2 is true which is more likely? #1. We also would not call #2 a theory because it doesn't have any evidence to support it. You could call it a hypothesis (or wild speculation), but a theory should make testable predictions and have some support for those predictions-----

Actually the second "theory" has observable examples in our own reality that make it a valid theory, even if it's not true. If we knew it were true, it wouldn't be a theory. If you are a full blown Atheist, there are many routes of information, sources, and seminars that you can examine and educate or judge for yourself. That's simply your business.
But as a observing neutral witness who has listened to Dawkins and others for years, I suggest a word of caution, at least if you want credible influences and unmanipulated ideas presented to your mind:
Don't get caught up in what I call "Dawkins Think"
He's like a salesman who has trained in a proccess that underhandedly uses canned responses. If his challenger presents a challenge, he has a system for protecting his product. As long as he keeps certain ideas and concepts out of the box of focus, his product's validity stays the same. He can still charge for speaking and charge for books and media. His skills and understanding abilities are actually not very vast in most of the areas that anyone who could be considered genius enough to put forth an intellectual, hardcore, penetrating presentation that would make a phenom with deeper math, chemistry, physics and understanding pause. A presentation by Richard Dawkins is like this.
If you heard a 14 year old who had a little music ability, and had practiced for a couple months play something that was mildly complex, and you had no or little music ability, you would be at least somewhat amazed of the presentation of the 14 year old. Someone who wrote symphonies for orchestras might think it was okay, but would know that this 14 year old is no musical phenom or even tipping the scales of understanding the complexities of truely complex themes and coordination involved when musical phenoms design and execute musical principles that almost no one else on Earth can duplicate, execute, or even understand.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
CONTINUED:

In other words, Dawkins is not a phenom at anything. Forget Atheism vs. Creationism for a minute. If a phenom scientist, with abilties to see and understand at the highest level in his area of expertise were to stand up during one of Dawkins' lectures, and asked Dawkins to put a simple equation on the board used for equating mass, force, or speed given certain variables, Dawkins wouldn't understand how using equations to come up with the data or answers we define as "finite" or "true" in science.
Now, in physics, we use an equation to come up with what the result will be given that no other outside variables enter the demonstration.
One new variable, no matter how small, can change the results of the equation's predetermined answer. If I say James would beat up David if they fought right now because David is tied up, has no arms or legs, is blind deaf, and is in a vegetable state, my equation would put all those variables together.
Now, James is a highly trained Ninja warrior of the Empirical Guard for the Emporor of Japan. He is wielding a sword, is in perfect shape, and has never been beaten in a fight. I would place those variables into my equation.
I put together a bunch of variables, and say all these variables added together = If they fought, James would beat David.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.