Deep Sight:

Because the crux of the matter is the cause of the universe.

Nevertheless i concede that you have made a good point here: namely: his freedom to discuss and write about whatever he pleases.

Okay.

Deep Sight:
Nobody does this.

I am tempted to leave the statement at that in order to mimic your brief and taciturn style, but just to save myself the bother of another response after you traditionally respond with probably three words ("who says so" or the like) - Let me just clarify that nobody goes about endangering other peoples lives on account of mere belief in a creator or non belief in a creator.

They go about endangering lives on account of the spiced up versions of what God entails - namely - their religions.

So you are speaking to religion, and not to God - and most of all - you are not speaking to the question of cosmological causality which is the question Dawkins should be addressing himself to as a scientist.

But you just said that Dawkins shouldn't be bothering himself with the myths that you seem to agree can be reasons why people endanger the lives of others. Though you agree that Dawkins may concern himself with whatever he wanted to. So are you still wondering why we bother with these myths?

Deep Sight:
Is his concern about the harm that Christianity or Islam does? If so, secular society is dealing with that - viz: Womens rights in Islamic Societies is being fought for by the International Community in many ways. Would disproving the existence of God aid that fight, please answer me specifically on this cardinal question?

Yes it is one of his concerns. Sure secular society is doing something about it but there are times when it hasn't done enough. Yes showing that their Gods don't exist does aid that fight. I'm not sure if you know this but people's attitudes towards others and with respect to issues do change when a core belief of theirs changes.

Deep Sight:
That question, if you absorb it, shows the point: namely: if he was really fighting the excesses of religion, he would address secular rights and not the existence of God, because proving or disproving the existence of God will not address those secular moral issues which you point out, no?

He has addressed secular rights. He is also concerned about thinking for oneself and doing so rationally. Disproving the existence of God does address some of those issues. e.g the divine command moral theory won't be tenable without a God.

Deep Sight:
This alone shows that his issue is in fact not the moral or ethical questions of religious practice; but rather the cosmological and philosophical question of the existence of God, ab initio - and therefore should be addressed as such!

Haba, thehomer, I don try. I dont think I have been as succinct as this ever on this forum, as such I hope you see the point!

How can you say that he isn't concerned with the moral or ethical questions of religious practice when his book talks about the immorality of God and certain religious practices? Please even if you don't want to read the book, at least take the time to read fair summaries of the book because you don't seem to have an idea of what he's actually said.

^^^ Are there people who go about butchering atheists? Is it not the case that they go about butchering people of faith - of a counter-faith - and even so, mostly with political reasons?

You did not answer my question as to if female rights would be helped by making mislims atheistic in those societies. Do you not see the fact that those rights are a cultural issue?

Do you think a Jihadist that is "converted" to atheism would lose his ideas about honour killing for the dignity of his family?

Would he cease to see his women as property to be protected? I gave you the analogy of 'atheistic' lions for heavens sake. Need I write a thesis before you get the point? This is EVIDENTLY a cultural issue. God's existence does not impact on it.

Seriously, no one goes around harming people for non belief in God. They actually go around harming people for believing in God differently. That is what history and current affairs show us.

Ol, boy you are not thinking deep enough.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Are there people who go about butchering atheists? Is it not the case that they go about butchering people of faith - of a counter-faith - and even so, mostly with political reasons?

You did not answer my question as to if female rights would be helped by making mislims atheistic in those societies. Do you not see the fact that those rights are a cultural issue?

Do you think a Jihadist that is "converted" to atheism would lose his ideas about honour killing for the dignity of his family?

Would he cease to see his women as property to be protected? I gave you the analogy of 'atheistic' lions for heavens sake. Need I write a thesis before you get the point? This is EVIDENTLY a cultural issue. God's existence does not impact on it.

Seriously, no one goes around harming people for non belief in God. They actually go around harming people for believing in God differently. That is what history and current affairs show us.

Ol, boy you are not thinking deep enough.

Lol, interestingly, I can bet that if you confront thehomer or any other of our in-house atheists with Lenin's atrocities and cite disbelief in God as the reason, they will be quick to point out to you that the reasons are political motivations and not Lenin's position on God's existence.
But then on the flipside, They are quite happy to cite belief in God as the reason for atrocities and reject the explanation that it is politically and culturally motivated notions and not the belief in itself. Why the double standard?

Deep Sight:

^^^ Are there people who go about butchering atheists? Is it not the case that they go about butchering people of faith - of a counter-faith - and even so, mostly with political reasons?

Actually there are people who are willing to kill atheists for being atheists and note that I'm not just talking about murder, but also about discrimination.

Deep Sight:
You did not answer my question as to if female rights would be helped by making mislims atheistic in those societies. Do you not see the fact that those rights are a cultural issue?

I did answer that question. I told you that people often do change their ancillary beliefs with a change in their core beliefs. e.g how often do you see people who may be considered cultural Muslims trying to do away with female rights? Try to take a look at the Council of ex-Muslims. Even liberal Muslims try to support women's rights.

Deep Sight:
Do you think a Jihadist that is "converted" to atheism would lose his ideas about honour killing for the dignity of his family?

At least initially, the Jihadist won't be willing to kill you for perceived slights against his prophets and that is a step in the right direction.

Deep Sight:
Would he cease to see his women as property to be protected? I gave you the analogy of 'atheistic' lions for heavens sake. Need I write a thesis before you get the point? This is EVIDENTLY a cultural issue. God's existence does not impact on it.

It would go some way to leading him to that conclusion. And I give you the example of the Council of ex-Muslims. I don't think you gave me the analogy of atheistic lions. Isn't religion partly a cultural issue?

Deep Sight:
Seriously, no one goes around harming people for non belief in God. They actually go around harming people for believing in God differently. That is what history and current affairs show us.

Ol, boy you are not thinking deep enough.

History and current affairs has shown us that people would harm you whether physically or otherwise for not believing in God at all. There have been several cases of children being disowned by their parents, sentenced to jail for not believing in God among other things.

You're the one not thinking deep enough maybe because you have a deep seated desire not to rock the boat.

Mr_Anony: . . . . Why the double standard?

Duplicity.


Minawala (aka meanwhile), onto another of the things I find fascinating about this thread.

In 'The Distinguished Gentleman', one fellow accused the Eddie Murphy character of being another congressman's 'Yes man'. Eddie Murphy promptly replied: "I'm not just his Yes man! When he votes No, I vote No too."

On this thread some of Dawkins disciples have been defending a speculation put forward by their Daddy G.O. as a worthwhile hypothesis. Now we know, as davidylan pointed out, that if that same speculation/hypothesis had been put forward by a creationist or believer in ID, Dawkins' followers would have ridiculed the person.

Interestingly, now that we have shown that after Dawkins himself was ridiculed for his 'speculation/hypothesis', he denied that he was putting forward the speculation/hypothesis and even impliedly ridiculed the speculation/hypothesis claiming it is the argument of creationists etc.

Do Dawkins' followers still believe that the 'speculation' or 'hypothesis' "discussed" by their Daddy G.O. in the OP video is worthwhile and worthy of defending?

Are Dawkins' disciples both Yes Men and No Men?

Mr_Anony:
I never said it was simple, I only said it was singular

OK. . . .

Good then you understand what I am saying. In fact when you ask the question "who wrote X software?" The default assumption is usually one person and not many people. It may well turn out to be many people but you don't just start your investigation by assuming many people. It is just not the reasonable way to go about it. This you know

OK. . .What I said is that the possibility of it being many is very high as well. . .

We both know that your login name is not proof that you actually typed that comment. Anyone ranging from your mother to your pet cat could have created that comment. Heck it is even possible that your login name itself was not created by you but by one of your friends or even your cat walking across your keyboard or even 500 people taking turns to press one key at a time.

Ohh really?. . .I can call my mum and she will come and try to sign in and we will see if she can do that. . .I don;t even have a cat in my house so that option is completely off the table. . .No animal resides in my house. . .500 people?. . .If you want convincing evidence, it can be shown. . .Credible and convincing evidence to show that your god alone created anything. . .

Of course, I haven't written out the possibility I'm just saying that it is an unreasonable possibility to introduce at the beginning of our investigation because it will only serve to muddle up the investigation at the onset rather than help it. Remember we are working from design towards finding out who the designer is. It doesn't help us if we start by attempting to falsifying the designer from the onset.


P/s: Notice how irrational I'm being about proof of your creation i.e. your first comment. Rather than at least accept the most plausible explanation and then build from there, I am throwing in all sorts of possibilities at the beginning. It will never help our investigation when the aim is not to discover but to discredit.

Both of us can either get reasonable and logically work this thing through or we can continue playing the part of the irrational skeptic. I'll oblige you either way

OK, but we know that people come together and design many complex things. . .Its is nothing new, many people already believe that many gods created the universe because it is not something strange but something that is common and acceptable in the human society, you are only trying to begin the argument from your own position because you feel it will suite you. . .Many complex designs have many designers, most of the complex strueture we see around were never created by a single person. . .Even a house is not built by one person. . .So there is nothing wrong to begin with many creators, since it is already a very common thing and many others already began from that position, i.e their many gods created the universe. . .

There is NOTHING irrational there. . .It is something that is common. . .We have to look at all possibilities, not just stick to one. . .If you have the evidence that your god alone created anything then just put it up already. . . .

Deep Sight:

^^^ Are there people who go about butchering atheists? Is it not the case that they go about butchering people of faith - of a counter-faith - and even so, mostly with political reasons?

You did not answer my question as to if female rights would be helped by making mislims atheistic in those societies. Do you not see the fact that those rights are a cultural issue?

Do you think a Jihadist that is "converted" to atheism would lose his ideas about honour killing for the dignity of his family?

Would he cease to see his women as property to be protected? I gave you the analogy of 'atheistic' lions for heavens sake. Need I write a thesis before you get the point? This is EVIDENTLY a cultural issue. God's existence does not impact on it.

Seriously, no one goes around harming people for non belief in God. They actually go around harming people for believing in God differently. That is what history and current affairs show us.

Ol, boy you are not thinking deep enough.

@ First bold. Jihad is an islamic concept. Lose islam, you lose the principle of jihad (doesnt matter whether he converted to buddhism or xtianity).


@ second bold, you are a liar.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interestingly, I can bet that if you confront thehomer or any other of our in-house atheists with Lenin's atrocities and cite disbelief in God as the reason, they will be quick to point out to you that the reasons are political motivations and not Lenin's position on God's existence.
[/b]But then on the flipside, They are quite happy to cite belief in God as the reason for atrocities and reject the explanation that it is politically and culturally motivated notions and not the belief in itself. [b]Why the double standard?

See the lies one has to tell to reassure himself in the belief of a personal god?

Communist leaders killed for their ideology not atheism. This is as clear as daylight. Atheism is not a belief or set of beliefs. One can not commit murder in the name of atheism. "I killed him in the name of no god". You will find that these people killed political opponents.


On the other hand, a liar like you will try to claim that someone that kills based on his interpretation of the scriptures "God/Allah told me to do it", is not doing it because of a bleief in God. How dubious of you. Not all christians kill in the nakme of god or christianity but some do.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interestingly, I can bet that if you confront thehomer or any other of our in-house atheists with Lenin's atrocities and cite disbelief in God as the reason, they will be quick to point out to you that the reasons are political motivations and not Lenin's position on God's existence.
But then on the flipside, They are quite happy to cite belief in God as the reason for atrocities and reject the explanation that it is politically and culturally motivated notions and not the belief in itself. Why the double standard?

That is because disbelief in God isn't the reason. What line of thought takes you from "I don't believe in God" to "I'm going to murder a lot of people"? This can easily be shown when it comes to the belief in a God. e.g if someone believes that God commands that homosexuals be killed, and they are killed, would you say that the belief in God had something to do with the killing?

I hope you're also aware that religious belief is sometimes a part of these culturally motivated notions you're talking about. So what you're calling a double standard actually isn't one.

thehomer:
How can you note that from this video? Yet life on earth had to come about somehow from non-living materials especially when you know that at some point in time, there was no life in the universe.

A senseless statement. Since there is no principle that explains how life could possibly arise from non-living materials.

Uyi Iredia:

A senseless statement. Since there is no principle that explains how life could possibly arise from non-living materials.

A senseless response once you realize that there was a time that this universe couldn't have supported life. Even if you wish to claim "god did it", he had to have done it using non-living materials.

thehomer:

A senseless response once you realize that there was a time that this universe couldn't have supported life. Even if you wish to claim "god did it", he had to have done it using non-living materials.

There is no way they can conceptualize the bolded. Since they believe that the universe is 6000yrs old.

If the universe is 6000yrs old, then life on earth only began less than a second ago, and with population growth and its attendant environmental degradations and eventual collapse, there are few reasons to believe that the earth is capable of supporting life for the next 6000 yrs, or another 1 second in the celestial clock.
What has this purposefully designed universe been doing before our arrival, and most importantly , what will it be doing after we may have consumed ourselves to extinction, right after our 2 seconds of celestial existence?

plaetton:

There is no way they can conceptualize the bolded. Since they believe that the universe is 6000yrs old.

If the universe is 6000yrs old, then life on earth only began less than a second ago, and with population growth and its attendant environmental degradations and eventual collapse, there are few reasons to believe that the earth is capable of supporting life for the next 6000 yrs, or another 1 second in the celestial clock.
What has this purposefully designed universe been doing before our arrival, and most importantly , what will it be doing after we may have consumed ourselves to extinction, right after our 2 seconds of celestial existence?

Exactly. That is the sort of hubris one has come to expect from the religious. They seem to think that the universe was created so that humans could show up and pray to their particular God. There billions of years before humans showed up and there will be billions after we're gone for whatever reason it may be. I wasn't bothered by those billions of years before I came on the scene so why should I be so deeply concerned to the extent of nihilism when I'm gone?

thehomer:

A senseless response once you realize that there was a time that this universe couldn't have supported life. Even if you wish to claim "god did it", he had to have done it using non-living materials.

An inane reply which even didn't answer the substance of my argument, which was the fact that there is no principle which explains how life arises from non-life.

thehomer:

A senseless response once you realize that there was a time that this universe couldn't have supported life. Even if you wish to claim "god did it", he had to have done it using non-living materials.

And that process or mechanism by which non living matter becomes living, is still and forever unknown to you, to Darwin and to Dawkins - not a crime of course, but still remains a fact which questions your confidence that life must not have come from pre-existing life. A principle, which by the way, and as you know, was proven by the french scientist Loius Pasteur.

On the contrary, no such thing can be said for your own abracadabra belief in which non living things suddenly, magically and purposelessly become living. And evolve into intelligent sentient beings to boot.

plaetton:

There is no way they can conceptualize the bolded. Since they believe that the universe is 6000yrs old.

If the universe is 6000yrs old, then life on earth only began less than a second ago, and with population growth and its attendant environmental degradations and eventual collapse, there are few reasons to believe that the earth is capable of supporting life for the next 6000 yrs, or another 1 second in the celestial clock.
What has this purposefully designed universe been doing before our arrival, and most importantly , what will it be doing after we may have consumed ourselves to extinction, right after our 2 seconds of celestial existence?

And that very same fact; to wit: our smallness in time and space: means that we are in no position to claim to be either relevant (theists position) or irrelevant (atheists position). The same way that the vastness of time and the universe does not permit the theist to conclude that the universe is all about him, is the exact same way that that same vastness must restrain the atheist from concluding that there is not more beyond what we can see or know or even that the theist may not be right after all.

This just the way that a single cell in the human body can not know, and can NEVER know its relevance or irrelevance to the entire body because the entire structure is far too large for it to ever see or apprehend its true place in the super-structure. I dont know if you are familiar with the Raelian suggestion that the entire universe is just a micro-organism within the body of a larger being, and that larger being is just a micro cell within another larger being and so on into infinity in both directions. I have not said that it is true and it is a question that can NEVER be answered in all eternity, but it is food for thought, which means that you would be s.illy to conclude definitely that humans are irrelevant in the grand scheme. You cannot know that we are irrelevant just as the theist cannot know that we are relevant.

As for me, my own conclusion is that everything is relevant one way or the other. Such would square with science and logic as nature abhors a vacuum and logic does not contain chasms.

As far as I am concerned, although I have never uttered it until now, one of the strongest arguments in favour of my belief in the existence of God, is just how f.ucking strange reality and the experience of reality is. I will do a thread on that strangeness soon.

Uyi Iredia:

An inane reply which even didn't answer the substance of my argument, which was the fact that there is no principle which explains how life arises from non-life.

Yet another dumb response. You didn't make an argument. The fact that we don't yet know how it happened doesn't change the fact that it happened somehow.

Deep Sight:

And that process or mechanism by which non living matter becomes living, is still and forever unknown to you, to Darwin and to Dawkins - not a crime of course, but still remains a fact which questions your confidence that life must not have come from pre-existing life. A principle, which by the way, and as you know, was proven by the french scientist Loius Pasteur.

Question my confidence in what way? We know that billions of years ago, the universe couldn't have supported life because it was too hot and dense. Today, we know that it does support life. This tells me that billions of years ago, there was no pre-existing life but there was matter and life consists of this matter. It in fact consists of the most common elements in the universe so I still don't see what you think is supposed to question my confidence. Did Louis Pasteur know about the Big Bang?

Deep Sight:
On the contrary, no such thing can be said for your own abracadabra belief in which non living things suddenly, magically and purposelessly become living. And evolve into intelligent sentient beings to boot.

It wasn't sudden. If anyone is trying to introduce magic, it would be you theists who propose some magical entity that is both outside and inside the universe who may or may not be doing anything that decided to magically create life.

Deep Sight:
And that very same fact; to wit: our smallness in time and space: means that we are in no position to claim to be either relevant (theists position) or irrelevant (atheists position). The same way that the vastness of time and the universe does not permit the theist to conclude that the universe is all about him, is the exact same way that that same vastness must restrain the atheist from concluding that there is not more beyond what we can see or know or even that the theist may not be right after all.

Actually, on the cosmic scale, you're irrelevant but at the regular human scale, you're relevant. The problem is that theists claim that humans are relevant both at the cosmic scale and at the human scale. What more are you talking about? If you want to say God, just come out and do so.

Deep Sight:
As far as I am concerned, although I have never uttered it until now, one of the strongest arguments in favour of my belief in the existence of God, is just how f.ucking strange reality and the experience of reality is. I will do a thread on that strangeness soon.

So because you find the universe strange you think a God must have been involved? This is just an argument from incredulity and it is fallacious.

thehomer:

Question my confidence in what way? We know that billions of years ago, the universe couldn't have supported life because it was too hot and dense. Today, we know that it does support life. This tells me that billions of years ago, there was no pre-existing life but there was matter and life consists of this matter. It in fact consists of the most common elements in the universe so I still don't see what you think is supposed to question my confidence. Did Louis Pasteur know about the Big Bang?



It wasn't sudden. If anyone is trying to introduce magic, it would be you theists who propose some magical entity that is both outside and inside the universe who may or may not be doing anything that decided to magically create life.



Actually, on the cosmic scale, you're irrelevant but at the regular human scale, you're relevant. The problem is that theists claim that humans are relevant both at the cosmic scale and at the human scale. What more are you talking about? If you want to say God, just come out and do so.



So because you find the universe strange you think a God must have been involved? This is just an argument from incredulity and it is fallacious.

I will respond later to this posts as I am taking a dump right now. However please note that I have added a paragraph to my post above.

Note also that I did not say the universe was strange, I said that reality is strange. Different statements please. I will elaborate on that in another thread but its just my subjective perception and maybe I am the strange one.

@Deepsight:

No one, not me at least suggests that the presence of life on earth is of zero significance.
In the grand tapestry of the universe every thing or every thread supports and are intertwined with others.

Raelian suggestion that the entire universe is just a micro-organism within the body of a larger being, and that larger being is just a micro cell within another larger being and so on into infinity in both directions.

The above reference to micro and macro universes are not originally Raelian, but is the cornerstone of the Hermetic Philosophy.
"As it is above, So it is below, all the manifestations of one(energy)".
When we loot at atoms in a microscope we realize how big and mighty we are, but when we look at stars on a telescope, we see the same dynamism and realize how small and insignificant we are.

It is interesting that you acknowledge both chaotic and the orderly aspects of the universe. We see no arbitrariness that would suggest a conscious purpose.

The universe, consciousness,etc, are by-products of the oscillations of just one big ball of pure electromagnetic energy, that certainly does not need a purpose.
The universe speaks to us, not through philosophy,but through mathematics.

^ Mathematics is philosophy. There is even a branch of philosophy that is entirely mathematics.

Deep Sight:
^ Mathematics is philosophy. There is even a branch of philosophy that is entirely mathematics.

Mathematics and philosophy are separate fields that intersect. The logic equations (for lack of a better word) are both in maths and philosophy.


To claim that mathematics is philosophy is quite erroneous!

Logicboy03:


Mathematics and philosophy are separate fields that intersect. The logic equations (for lack of a better word) are both in maths and philosophy.


To claim that mathematics is philosophy is quite erroneous!

Agreed.

Pythogoras and his disciples believed and emphasized that mathematics was the key to understanding nature and the universe. Every aspect of nature and the universe had corresponding mathematical relationships to others.

plaetton:

Agreed.

Pythogoras and his disciples believed and emphasized that mathematics was the key to understanding nature and the universe. Every aspect of nature and the universe had corresponding mathematical relationships to others.

Do you agree with Pythagoras?

Logicboy03:



Do you agree with Pythagoras?

Yes. He was far ahead of his time in understanding man's relationship to the universe. He taught in his time the relationship between music, mathematics, the mind, and the universe.
With no instruments, he deduced that the earth had a harmonic rythmn, a hum, a unique frequency of its own: something that has been confirmed by modern science.

plaetton:

Yes. He was far ahead of his time in understanding man's relationship to the universe. He taught in his time the relationship between music, mathematics, the mind, and the universe.
With no instruments, he deduced that the earth had a harmonic rythmn, a hum, a unique frequency of its own: something that has been confirmed by modern science.

Wow.

Logicboy03:


Mathematics and philosophy are separate fields that intersect. The logic equations (for lack of a better word) are both in maths and philosophy.


To claim that mathematics is philosophy is quite erroneous!

plaetton:
Agreed.

Pythogoras and his disciples believed and emphasized that mathematics was the key to understanding nature and the universe. Every aspect of nature and the universe had corresponding mathematical relationships to others.

Do you guys know what philosophy is at all? Please go and study what philosophy entails.

Mr_Anony:



Do you guys know what philosophy is at all? Please go and study what philosophy entails.

And your point is ....?

plaetton:

And your point is ....?

He has none.

plaetton: And your point is ....?

plaetton: And your point is ....?

Oh my point is that if you knew what philosophy was, then you wouldn't be drawing the dividing line you are trying to draw between philosophy and mathematics. What you are trying to do is just as bad as trying to divorce science and chemistry. Mathematics is a subset of philosophy much in the same way chemistry is a subset of science.

It will do you both good to go and study what philosophy is.

Mr_Anony:


Oh my point is that if you knew what philosophy was, then you wouldn't be drawing the dividing line you are trying to draw between philosophy and mathematics. What you are trying to do is just as bad as trying to divorce science and chemistry. Mathematics is a subset of philosophy much in the same way chemistry is a subset of science.

It will do you both good to go and study what philosophy is.

Even more Anonyism!



You have done nothing but use an inapplicable analogy to philosophy and mathematics. You havent shown any reason why Mathematics is a subset of philosophy as an academic field.


There is mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics, just like science and the philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics



Better get your facts right.

Logicboy03:


Even more Anonyism!



You have done nothing but use an inapplicable analogy to philosophy and mathematics. You havent shown any reason why Mathematics is a subset of philosophy as an academic field.


There is mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics, just like science and the philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics



Better get your facts right.

Lol, drawing more imaginary dividing lines are we? Why don't you tell us precisely what the difference is.

Ah, before this thread winds down finally, I'm interested to see/know:

1. Whether anyone still or now doubts that, in the OP video, Dawkins was himself putting forward the speculation that aliens seeded life on this earth.

2. Whether anyone still or now doubts that the speculation or 'hypothesis' put forward by Dawkins is indeed directed panspermia.

3. Whether anyone thinks that Dawkins was honest in that second video, that I put up, when he denied that he was putting forward the speculation/hypothesis that some alien intelligent beings possibly seeded life on earth.

4. Whether anyone still or now wants to defend that speculation/hypothesis as worthwhile.