Richard dawkins

[Castiel]

White noise.

Avoidance of questions you cannot answer.

Are you an evolutionary biologist? I'm not, and thus, feel I should refer questions regarding such things to somebody competent in that field.

Are you a theologian?, if not, it would seem that by your very argument you are not qualified to have an opinion on Religion. Maybe you should refer questions relating to theology and Religion to those you consider more qualified also. Have you no mind if your own? This is not the first time you have avoided a question by refering to someone elses opinion.

I love this argument. You may find it an unwelcome conclusion that you're descended from apes, or may wish that it wasn't true, but it just is. Sorry. Bertrand Russell said that it's a fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.

I see, so because I do not accept that Evolution adequately explains individualism or my sense of 'self' that means I must be a creationist. Get over yourself, you may love the arguement, yet you cannot seem to answer it, instead refering to another's irrelevent quotation.

 

[semi-pro waster]

That's the same as saying a hair on my forehead is connected to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three seconds in a court of law would see that evidence rebutted.

I don't know, were you in the Oval Office at the time? Were you used as a Presidential footstool during the Clinton Presidency?

Flippancy aside I'll point out again I put no judgement on the relative merits of each piece of evidence, the process is simple - you advance evidence and it gets rebutted or it doesn't and weight is placed upon it based on how the people viewing the evidence rate its value.

I will however say that I think you're being overly dismissive of the evidence as you, presumably, have no link to Monica Lewinsky or Bill Clinton so can relatively safely said to be a kook in making that claim - the Bible on the other hand is the primary source of evidence relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether it is ultimately viewed to be a verifiable account or not I rather suspect it would receive more than a cursory glance to ascertain it's veracity so no, it's not the same.

 

[Vonhelmet]

That's the same as saying a hair on my forehead is connected to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three seconds in a court of law would see that evidence rebutted.

It's actually nothing like that, but well done for trying.

 

[Naff8000]

I don't know, were you in the Oval Office at the time? Were you used as a Presidential footstool during the Clinton Presidency?

Flippancy aside I'll point out again I put no judgement on the relative merits of each piece of evidence, the process is simple - you advance evidence and it gets rebutted or it doesn't and weight is placed upon it based on how the people viewing the evidence rate its value.

I will however say that I think you're being overly dismissive of the evidence as you, presumably, have no link to Monica Lewinsky or Bill Clinton so can relatively safely said to be a kook in making that claim - the Bible on the other hand is the primary source of evidence relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether it is ultimately viewed to be a verifiable account or not I rather suspect it would receive more than a cursory glance to ascertain it's veracity so no, it's not the same.

I have yet to hear one piece of evidence from the entire Bible that could possibly stand up in court as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You can call it evidence, but then any old wives tale written down in the past could be used as evidence for that particular matter. I agree it's not quite the same as my hair example Yes by definition it is evidence but only by definition

 

[Castiel]

That pope thing that Christopher Hitchens actually came up with is right on the money. Why should anyone be above the law? Especially someone who covers up a crime as disgusting as paedophilia. Just shows you what a daft world we live in and how power controls everything. It wasn't so much about trying to force their atheism down people's necks, but to highlight what they've been saying all along - Religion demands and receives way too much respect and protection. It's crazy.

How anyone can defend the pope and turn it back on Hitchens and Dawkins is shocking.

I wasn't defending anyone, least of all the Pope. It was simply an observation. The Pope has broken no laws and if you read the News yesterday you would see that he was also quite prepared to punish those guilty of wrongdoing whilst he was a Cardinal, internal politics denied him.

Too many people making judgements with limited information is what is shocking.

 

[Naffa]

Avoidance of questions you cannot answer.

Well, first of all, it wasn't a question. The concept of free will cancels itself out if it's forced upon us, no?

Are you a theologian?, if not, it would seem that by your very argument you are not qualified to have an opinion on Religion. Maybe you should refer questions relating to theology and Religion to those you consider more qualified also. Have you no mind if your own? This is not the first time you have avoided a question by refering to someone elses opinion.

Did I not make it clear as day that I did not wish to alleviate myself of the responsibility of answering a question posed to me, but that the video I posted featured the point I would make phrased a thousand times better?

I still find it somewhat misguided to place science and religion on an equal footing, and in doing so, you demonstrate a misunderstanding of both that's not likely to be resolved via a thread on OcUK. Making a comment about, or even rebutting the nonsensical claims of religion requires nothing more than a certain amount of reason, science would arguably require more.

I see, so because I do not accept that Evolution adequately explains individualism or my sense of 'self' that means I must be a creationist. Get over yourself, you may love the arguement, yet you cannot seem to answer it, instead refering to another's irrelevent quotation.

It's not an irrelevant quotation, I hoped it would underline the blatant stupidity of choosing to believe, or not to believe, something just because it does, or does not satisfy you. Which is a position you take, and have just reiterated.

And also, I do 'love the argument'. I do think it's very important to debate these points, as intelligent beings, we should be constantly prepared to challenge our beliefs.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I wasn't defending anyone, least of all the Pope. It was simply an observation. The Pope has broken no laws and if you read the News yesterday you would see that he was also quite prepared to punish those guilty of wrongdoing whilst he was a Cardinal, internal politics denied him.

Too many people making judgements with limited information is what is shocking.

The thing is that the Pope represents the Catholic Church as does the Vatican. As an organisation purported to speak for 'God' they need to appear to be infallible simply because if they are seen to be fallible they are suddenly not viable as 'Gods' representative. The Popes crime is not paedophilia but, being the figurehead for the Vatican, attempting to place the paedophiles out of the public eye and retain the infallible image of the Catholic Church. If not directly responsible, as the head of the church, he is still responsible.

In my eyes it merely serves to highlight what seems so obvious to me - that religion in all flavours is about control and a patriarchal ability to exercise that control in the name of a 'greater being' and a 'greater cause'.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

I wasn't defending anyone, least of all the Pope. It was simply an observation. The Pope has broken no laws and if you read the News yesterday you would see that he was also quite prepared to punish those guilty of wrongdoing whilst he was a Cardinal, internal politics denied him.

Too many people making judgements with limited information is what is shocking.

Limited information? It's fact that he wrote letters to every priest etc... in the world, basically telling them to keep quiet in order to protect the 'good' (haha) reputation of the Catholic Church.

Internal politics denied him? The right thing to do would have been at least to just let the allegations take their course, but instead he took active steps to conceal the truth, which almost certainly led to the continuation of priests abusing children. It's indefensible from a moral view point, even if it's not in law. If the law does prevent prosecution, then the law needs changing.

I doubt that Hitchens and Dawkins ever thought that they would be successful! They are way to learned of the world we live in to think that something would actually be done. However, they have just proven what they have said all along.

 

[Narziss]

My perspective on Dawkins is that in the face of so many people that want to ram their religions and moral judgements down everymans/womans throat, Dawkins represents the polar opposite. He's at times as vehement about his anti religion as they are for. Personally I sit firmly on his side. IMO Religion is a pox on society and the only thing going for it is some moral high ground.

He is, in my view, someone who doesn't feel the need to tiptoe around the idea that rationally arguing against the need for religion and against the insane delusion of male superiority in a patriarchal organisation. I'm all for the man.

This.

 

[Castiel]

<snip>

Problem is, increasingly you are refering to others opinion instead of giving your own. You may not be an evolutionary biologist, but I would like to know if you accept like Prof Blackmore that our entire life is predestined by our evolutionary and biological makeup and that freewill is simply a fallacy? And if so why?

I don't think that Dawkins believes so, as he accepts there may be some form of transcendence that science cannot currently quantify.

I'll come back to some of your other points later. It is difficult to post coherently on an iPhone.

 

[Naffa]

Problem is, increasingly you are refering to others opinion instead of giving your own. You may not be an evolutionary biologist, but I would like to know if you accept like Prof Blackmore that our entire life is predestined by our evolutionary and biological makeup and that freewill is simply a fallacy? And if so why?

I will do so if you answer me this question, does God exist?

I thought it would be quite plain, especially in the case of my referring to the opinion of one Christopher Hitchens, that the only reason I would do so is because it mirrors my own. Would you like me to repeat that a fourth time?

I don't think that Dawkins believes so, as he accepts there may be some form of transcendence that science cannot currently quantify.

Of course there are all sorts of things that science cannot quantify. I don't see why you feel the need to point that out, unless you can point me to a person that makes doing so necessary.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I will do so if you answer me this question, does God exist?

I have a better question. Why does it matter if God exists?

 

[Naffa]

I have a better question. Why does it matter if God exists?

Given that we hear, near enough every day; but certainly every week, of people being murdered (in huge numbers) by others that believe they have divine permission to do so, I would say that such a question has a way to go before it's naive.

That is one of a thousand answers I could have given.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I have a better question. Why does it matter if God exists?

It doesn't - what matters to people is that when they die there is some sort of continuation and that they are not just like the next animal returning to the dirt...

Ironically where life is full of disappointments, I suspect death will be the same.

 

[Naffa]

Ironically where life is full of disappointments, I suspect death will be the same.

I don't know, the idea of nothingness sounds quite appealing. I think I would get a bit sick of heaven after the first hundred million years of praising and thanking my creator for creating me, something which I did not ask him to do.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Given that we hear, near enough every day; but certainly every week, of people being murdered (in huge numbers) by others that believe they have divine permission to do so, I would say that such a question has a way to go before it's naive.

That is one of a thousand answers I could have given.

It's the grand irony of religion isn't it - where do these people get the permission from? God is it? Via some dudes 'interpretation' of a book written by other dudes that has been subsequently 'translated' and 're-interpreted' by some other dudes...

 

[Castiel]

I will do so if you answer me this question, does God exist?

I thought it would be quite plain, especially in the case of my referring to the opinion of one Christopher Hitchens, that the only reason I would do so is because it mirrors my own. Would you like me to repeat that a fourth time?

Of course there are all sorts of things that science cannot quantify. I don't see why you feel the need to point that out, unless you can point me to a person that makes doing so necessary.

[/QUOTE]

Define God? Although answering a question with a question is tantamount to avoidance once again.

I understand you referring to Hitchens, but simply using his argument as your own, or stating things like I'm not a Evolutionary Biologist.... simply means we may as well debate with him, or ignore any comment you may make regarding any subject you are not formally qualified in.


As for the last, it is pertinent considering Colin Blackmore's belief as I pointed out earlier, it refers to the question you cannot or will not answer about predestination being an inescapable evolutionary fact.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Given that we hear, near enough every day; but certainly every week, of people being murdered (in huge numbers) by others that believe they have divine permission to do so, I would say that such a question has a way to go before it's naive.

That is one of a thousand answers I could have given.

"Proving" God exists or not won't change this. People will kill people if they want to and find all manner of excuses to justify it. Nazism is a good example of this.

 

[Naffa]

"Proving" God exists or not won't change this. People will kill people if they want to and find all manner of excuses to justify it. Nazism is a good example of this.

Nazism is not a good example of this. Although Soviet Russia, or Maoist China could not be described as irreligious states, they would be better examples.

Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and although he showed a distaste for religion, he never repudiated it. The Catholic Church celebrated his birthday; prayed for him, under orders from the Vatican, every year until he died. According to the Catholic historian Paul Johnson, no less than 50% of the SS were confessing Catholics. Call that what you want, but you sure as hell can't call it secular.

 

[Naffa]

Define God? Although answering a question with a question is tantamount to avoidance once again.

Did I not say that I would answer? The reason I postponed doing so was to gauge the level of irony contained within the question. Unless you will say, outright, whether or not you believe that God exists (God being an intelligent creator of the universe, a deist creator) I don't believe that I should answer your question.

I understand you referring to Hitchens, but simply using his argument as your own, or stating things like I'm not a Evolutionary Biologist.... simply means we may as well debate with him, or ignore any comment you may make regarding any subject you are not formally qualified in.

If I was of that train of thought, I would simply have plagiarised his comments verbatim and passed them off as my own. I don't understand your objection. I made it quite clear that we share a view, and I made it quite plain that my point would be better made via referral. All Christopher does in the video if quote C.S. Lewis, anyway. I can't believe that you're even picking me up on this point, what an utter waste of time.

As for the last, it is pertinent considering Colin Blackmore's belief as I pointed out earlier, it refers to the question you cannot or will not answer about predestination being an inescapable evolutionary fact.

It's not an 'evolutionary fact', in so much as the theory of evolution itself is (and of course when I say fact, I don't mean it in a literal sense, etc). I said that evolutionary biology is pointing in that direction, which it is. I'm not an absolutist, in any sense of the word. I reserve the right to suspend judgement, and I would go so far as to say that the only thing one can be absolutely certain about in this world, is that nothing is absolutely certain. The only certainty is uncertainty, and I feel I'm wasting my time pointing this out.