john5746 Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 http://richarddawkins.net/article,2588,Richard-Dawkins-Interview-on-TVOntario,Your-Agenda Since this thread is about Dawkins, I thought he did a nice job on this topic.
Reaper Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 http://richarddawkins.net/article,2588,Richard-Dawkins-Interview-on-TVOntario,Your-Agenda Since this thread is about Dawkins, I thought he did a nice job on this topic. That's a pretty good video, Richard Dawkins really does know how to argue his points. EDIT: just watched the whole thing. At the very end of the program, they put out the results of the poll, regarding the question of whether or not the world would be better off without religion. The verdict? 84% of the people surveyed think so. I wonder if you would get similar results overall if you took a poll like this again and again...
ParanoiA Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 Oh good grief! I'm not going to bother responding to any more of these idiotic posts, especially ParanoiA's as he is clearly not interested in an honest debate. Here's the bottom line: the stupidity on most of this thread was entertaining a while back, and so was playing around with you guys for a little bit. But now it's starting to get real annoying. So, iNow, lucespa, and ParanoiA, unless you want this thread to meet the same fate as this one over here, you have until the count of five to get your act together, to get back on topic, to stop strawmanning, to stop the evasions, red herrings, desperate false analogies, etc. Understand? On the side note I really do feel that it's long past time that this thread should be locked.... I don't know why you have an issue with our posts, they've been interesting. If you're not down with "discussion" then why discuss with me? You know me, Lockheed. You know my nature. I thought we were here to get in to it, expand our thoughts, evolve our thinking, critically analyze things and hopefully do it with respect to one another - not an ego driven debate. You're posts prove that you're trying to "win" something. That's not productive and I believe is the source of your problems with our exchange. Otherwise, you'd appreciate the dialoge and the directions we went with it. You made great points, I don't get your negative take on all this.
Reaper Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 I don't know why you have an issue with our posts, they've been interesting. If you're not down with "discussion" then why discuss with me? You know me, Lockheed. You know my nature. I thought we were here to get in to it, expand our thoughts, evolve our thinking, critically analyze things and hopefully do it with respect to one another - not an ego driven debate. I know. I'm here on this site for the same reason too. You're posts prove that you're trying to "win" something. That's not productive and I believe is the source of your problems with our exchange. Otherwise, you'd appreciate the dialoge and the directions we went with it. You made great points, I don't get your negative take on all this. I'm ready to put a stop to this when you are. =================================== One.
stevo247 Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 There are different theories about deity, but when you get down to people's experiences, they are remarkably similar. What are these experiences of deity that are remarkably similar? Wouldn't they be considered the “body of evidence” for the existence of deity? Couldn't these experiences be approached and evaluated scientifically? It's already being done, e.g. “The Mystical Mind” d'aquili / Newberg.
john5746 Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 What are these experiences of deity that are remarkably similar? Wouldn't they be considered the “body of evidence” for the existence of deity? Couldn't these experiences be approached and evaluated scientifically? It's already being done, e.g. “The Mystical Mind” d'aquili / Newberg. I doubt it. The placebo effect seems to be effective on most people, but that doesn't give any evidence for the actual effectiveness of the stuff used, just the power of illusion.
stevo247 Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 I doubt it. The placebo effect seems to be effective on most people, but that doesn't give any evidence for the actual effectiveness of the stuff used, just the power of illusion. Or the power of belief.
iNow Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 So, iNow, lucespa, and ParanoiA, unless you want this thread to meet the same fate as this one over here, you have until the count of five to get your act together, to get back on topic, to stop strawmanning, to stop the evasions, red herrings, desperate false analogies, etc. Understand? Or else what? Interesting response you've made there. I find it curious how you assume ownership of the discussion despite your only recent participation in it. Since we all like evidence, how about you man up and be specific on where I have, in this thread: 1) Gone off topic 2) Strawmanned anyone's position 3) Evaded any issues or questions 4) Used a red herring 5) Shared a "desperate" and/or "false" analogy Be careful who you're poking with a stick and where you poke it, my friend. Some of us poke back with much sharper instruments and much greater force. You're [Reaper's] posts prove that you're trying to "win" something. That's not productive and I believe is the source of your problems with our exchange. Otherwise, you'd appreciate the dialoge and the directions we went with it. You made great points, I don't get your negative take on all this. Well said. It's as if he's arguing just for the sake of arguing, and I am not sure why he's even attacking the positions of others when they are exactly aligned with his own. Too emotive, and concurrently not very articulate.
ParanoiA Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 Since we all like evidence' date=' how about you man up and be specific on where I have, in this thread: 1) Gone off topic 2) Strawmanned anyone's position 3) Evaded any issues or questions 4) Used a red herring 5) Shared a "desperate" and/or "false" analogy[/quote'] I don't see where you're guilty of any of this. I thought your exchange with Lucaspa was just fine and I'm not sure why any observer in this thread would have any issues with an exchange that didn't involve them in the first place. You and Lucaspa seemed to be equally passionate and liberal in your conversation structure, so I don't get the issue here. I'm pretty sure that list is aimed at me.
iNow Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 no one has Ever come up with a single reason I can`t do exactly the same things any other scientist can.or tell me in any way How it lessens my ability as a scientist? the REAL facts are that it Doesn`t! not in Any way shape or form change a thing! I thought of you whilst watching this segment of a longer interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uki7aAuMRx0&feature=related
YT2095 Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 LOL, I just watched, and did you notice how he mentioned "Magic" and "Spells" etc... where no such thing is even present! (think NLP). also note that he only mentions the Judeo-Christian God, not allah or Siva or Zeus or Ra etc... he`s got a Big up his ass specifically about the Judeo-Christian God, and never could he have more self evident than in that clip, Thanks for the good Laugh
john5746 Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 LOL, I just watched, and did you notice how he mentioned "Magic" and "Spells" etc... where no such thing is even present! (think NLP). Yes, I think Dennis never really says he thinks there is God behind the process, just that it is a philisophical question, not a scientific question. But, if you claim god is behind a science process, you either are saying nothing or you need to claim how he is doing it. In the how might be what we would consider magic. Maybe Richard is including other religions in his answer as you seem to want. also note that he only mentions the Judeo-Christian God, not allah or Siva or Zeus or Ra etc... He mentions Zeus in other parts of the religion and in this clip he is saying he regulates Yaweh equal to all the other specific gods of mythology and other religions - not real. he`s got a Big up his ass specifically about the Judeo-Christian God, and never could he have more self evident than in that clip, Thanks for the good Laugh That's like saying he spends all his time speaking to english speaking people! That's the religion he was raised in and decided was false. From that, he realizes they are all untrue - no need to study all of them and decide. Thanks for showing us how to give an unbiased and respectful review that you always ask from others.
Lighthouse Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 One thing I have never understood is if creationism is false and humans were created by chance, how did something that began inanimate turn into a living organism? That is what evolutionists believe, right? (As you can see, I'm not the most educated person. My defense is that I'm young. Which I am.) I'm merely trying to learn. Any responses are appreciated. I've also read somewhere that it has been attempted to create an organism from non-living matter and it was unsuccessful. I just wanted to add that in. (Again, remember, I probably know nothing compared to some of you. My purpose here is to learn.)
ydoaPs Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Evolution says nothing about how life began. That's abiogenesis.
foodchain Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 One thing I have never understood is if creationism is false and humans were created by chance, how did something that began inanimate turn into a living organism? That is what evolutionists believe, right? (As you can see, I'm not the most educated person. My defense is that I'm young. Which I am.) I'm merely trying to learn. Any responses are appreciated. I've also read somewhere that it has been attempted to create an organism from non-living matter and it was unsuccessful. I just wanted to add that in. (Again, remember, I probably know nothing compared to some of you. My purpose here is to learn.) A few points. In terms of biology evolution is used after the point of abiogenesis. If you want to learn more about abiogenesis well that implies knowing a lot about everything really, not just biology. We do not fully grasp scientifically the reality of matter, we do not know every possible chemical reaction, we cannot perfectly mimic yet every aspect of the earths atmosphere/geology all through the ages, there is a lot we don’t know. Here is a nifty thing to think about though, everything chemically speaking originate from hydrogen, so you also have a chemical evolution too. You also have evolution of solar systems, stars and other bodies in space. You have cultural and social evolution also, in fact the word evolution can be applied to many things if not just about everything. So how did life evolve from inanimate matter? Well what is inanimate matter? sounds like something incapable of change for one, but lets just say you mean life. Currently the closest thing we have is the ability to create various organic compounds thought necessary for life to form in connection with variables though to exist in the earths past, such as atmosphere composition, plus we can create protocells, or protobionts which are damn close to life and even exhibit primitive reproduction and metabolism not to mention the reality that is has a lipid bilayer. There are various hypothesis about how life started out though. It would also help to remove thinking about humans in connection with say abiogenesis. In reality the only thing you should think about really in the circumstance is microbes like bacteria which happen to have existed now for billions of years.
Aremathiea Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 A fascinating book for anyone that might have questions on religion and arguments pertaining to theism and deism. This book is one of my favorites, along with the selfish gene as far as Richard Dawkins goes. Personally I am happy that the main stream media was so up in arms about it.
iNow Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Grab a beer and pop some corn. It's worth the watch. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7023586193707783714&q=dawkins+liverpool&ei=B9ReSJ_XGJD6qQPqrPDoCw
atheistoverlord Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Dawkins, one of the more soft, civil anti-theists, writes with a great sense of militancy against the chosen detestable. The God Delusion is a great book for those on the fence, agnostics, deists and the like. It's rational argument, peppered incessantly with humour, consistently shows us than religion is equal in its stupidity to "worshipping the sun" - R.I.P George Carlin
jryan Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Here is an interesting article on this general subject (science and religion, not Dawkins specifically) by Stuart Kauffman, Professor of Biology, Physics and Astronomy at the University of Calgary. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman08/kauffman08_index.html
iNow Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Here is an interesting article on this general subject (science and religion, not Dawkins specifically) by Stuart Kauffman From your link: If half of us believe in a supernatural God, science will not disprove that belief. My claim is not simply that we lack sufficient knowledge or wisdom to predict the future evolution of the biosphere, economy, or human culture. It is that these things are inherently beyond prediction. Not even the most powerful computer imaginable can make a compact description in advance of the regularities of these processes. There is no such description beforehand. Thus the very concept of a natural law is inadequate for much of reality. Science cannot explain the intricate, context-dependent, creative, situated aspects of much of human action and invention, or the historicity that embraces and partially defines us. Well, that's just a little bit disturbing now, isn't it? Edited June 25, 2008 by iNow
atheistoverlord Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 That is not simply disturbing it is plain: Bullshit.
ParanoiA Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 That is not simply disturbing it is plain: Bullshit. Isn't that about as impressive as a creationist coming in here and laying down a one liner that evolution is bullshit? How does that really refute anything? Grab a beer and pop some corn. It's worth the watch. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7023586193707783714&q=dawkins+liverpool&ei=B9ReSJ_XGJD6qQPqrPDoCw Great lecture. I really enjoyed the comedy relief too, that was freaking hilarious. I just loved the whole "uh...when you're done pillaging, bombing and killing everyone - could we have our planet back?" So true.
Scientia Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 That was indeed a wonderful talk. Dawkins never fails to deliver.
pioneer Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Here is something to consider. Humans have been practicing religion since the beginning of civilization, if not longer. Until modern science, this was the way people orientated themselves and explained reality. Thinking about gods and spirits was something people did most of the day, by default. That adds up to is roughly 10,000 years of programming that, according to evolution, should have created an imprint on the human brain and may have been induced as part of genetics. Natural selection was decided by religion for 10,000 years, from caveman to modern. The deviates would have their genetics beheaded. Natural selection would shift the brain genetics to maximize adaption to the training. That, in turn, would be in the direction of religion. For example, the domestication of dogs and cats changed the innate behavior of these domestic versions compared to the wild. They have relatively small brains and education is rather thin. But with religion the same domestication of the pre-humans to modern humans will have a much deeper behavioral impact. The result may be you can take humans out of religion but maybe not religion out of humans. It may be part of genetic and the brain structure similar to an modern instinct. This is an application of evolutionary theory and natural selection.
iNow Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Here is something to consider. Let me preface by saying that you're off topic. I had some posts indicating this get (understandably) deleted. Humans have been practicing religion since the beginning of civilization, if not longer. No, they haven't. Not all humans, and not all civilizations. If you wish to continue with your assertion, then support it. All it would take to prove it wrong is to show examples where humans did not practice religion. False premise #1. Thinking about gods and spirits was something people did most of the day, by default. What evidence do you have of what every human being thought in ancestral times? Questionable premise #1. That adds up to is roughly 10,000 years of programming that, according to evolution, should have created an imprint on the human brain and may have been induced as part of genetics. Societal and group teachings do not "imprint" themselves on the human brain. There may be certain behaviors selected for or against, but you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Religion and belief in god(s) are more likely an emergent property of other evolved characteristics. Obedience to authority (children that didn't listen to the instructions of their parents were more likely to die). Learning and teaching from others in the group (stories of the tribe take on larger significance, and the stories continue and change as they are passed on to each new generation). Those who questioned or challenged the stories accepted by the larger group were more likely to be ostracized, and hence would have limited access to resources and potential mates. Humans lack context of entities which do not come from previous life. All humans have parents, as do animals and plants, so god is the presumed "first parent." The desire to attach meaning to events assisted in the ability to predict them, and hence increased the probability of survival. Those that predicted better and explained better consequently survived better. Emergent from this evolved trait/desire is the presumption of "god" for those things more difficult to explain. Those are just a few off the top of my head. False premise #2. Natural selection was decided by religion for 10,000 years, from caveman to modern. Your meaning here is unclear. As I mentioned above, religious belief could very well be correlated with survival and selection through various mechanisms, but it is not causal. Questionable premise #2. The deviates would have their genetics beheaded. By "deviates," I presume you mean those who chose not to accept the fairy tales and imaginary friends of the group? Natural selection would shift the brain genetics to maximize adaption to the training. If natural selection was involved, then this trait of group cohesion happened WELL before the advent of religion or god(s), and also in nonhuman animals. False premise #3. That, in turn, would be in the direction of religion. Not if the group was not a religious one. There were human groups and tribes who were not religious, and who did not believe in god(s). False premise #4. The result may be you can take humans out of religion but maybe not religion out of humans. We did not evolve for religious belief. Religious belief is an emergent property of other traits which were beneficial to survival. For that reason, it is invalid to suggest that humans cannot exist without religion, and it is also invalid to suggest that religion cannot be removed from human society. False premise #5. It may be part of genetic and the brain structure similar to an modern instinct. This is an application of evolutionary theory and natural selection. Since so many of your premises were false, so are your conclusions. Also, you're not on topic.
Recommended Posts