DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[yorkshirelad]

Bill, I enjoy your posts on other threads, (you have good logic and wit), but man you get your feelings hurt in the religious ones way to easily. .

That's because some on this threadtake potshots at other's religious beliefs in order to demean, but Bill has not taken the same attitude with them. Reread the whole thread and you will understand.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Perhaps, but The Selfish Gene is likely his most influential book (along with The Extended Phenotype, a sequel of sorts)


You're not buying the whole 'scientist' thing?

The Selfish Gene maybe influential, but his most famous book is The God Delusion.

I believe that Dawkins books are based on scientific research, but i believe him to be more of a controversial author and salesman. Did Einstein Have E=MC2 all over the side of buses? He has also denied the existance of God, a being that is still in the realm of possibility, which is a very unscientific thing to do. It seems that he has reached a conclusion about the existance of God without the necessary proof.

 

[Andrew Green]

I have said before, I don't like to be preached to by religious folks including Christians and atheists.

I don't think you really understand what it means for a person to be an atheist....

 

[yorkshirelad]

oooooh... We are just going to have to call you Sherlock. I bow before your fantastic powers of deduction.

Yeah he writes a books, he expects to sell some, good call Sherlock!

I shall take that as a compliment. Holmes was rather intelligent and a master of 'Bartitsu' if I remember correctly. He was also very artistic as his grandparentage included the painter Vernet.

I shall refer to you as either Cheech or Chong.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I don't think you really understand what it means for a person to be an atheist....

......Um to not believe in God...am I right Andrew, please tell me I'm right!!

There are some pretty outspoken atheists out there, some have posted on this thread. There is also an atheist movement taking hold. The movement insists on 'reeducating' the faithful and explaining how mistaken (stupid) they are.

I think that you don't really understand what it means to be one of the faithful. I belong to no church and do not preach fire and brimstone to anyone. In the same vein, I don't like it done to me. I believe in both evolution and God. i have yet to find an atheist who could prove the non-existance of God and I am unable to provide evidence for the existance of God. STALEMATE

 

[Andrew Green]

I think that you don't really understand what it means to be one of the faithful.

Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.

I belong to no church and do not preach fire and brimstone to anyone. In the same vein, I don't like it done to me. I believe in both evolution and God. i have yet to find an atheist who could prove the non-existance of God and I am unable to provide evidence for the existance of God. STALEMATE

True, however the burden of proof is not on the non-believer. There are all sorts of things that you do not believe and have no supporting evidence for their non-existence, however that does not mean we should accept that they exist.

Do you believe in Ghosts? Vampires? Werewolves? Alien Abductions? Zeus? Thor? Elves? Leprechauns? Lizard men? Teapots orbiting the sun?

Why not? You can't provide any proof that they don't exist, at least no more so then a person can disprove the existence of God. I also can't prove that they exist, any more so then I can prove the Christian God (one of many that have been believed in) exists.

However if you believed every idea that was presented to you that could not be disproved you would have a very interesting and inconsistent set of beliefs.

 

[Ken Morgan]

That's because some on this threadtake potshots at other's religious beliefs in order to demean, but Bill has not taken the same attitude with them. Reread the whole thread and you will understand.

Bill's latest post explained his view to me quite nicely. I had misunderstood part of his position, but now I understand. In fcat we have a great deal in common.

No, there is still a difference between making fun of religion and making fun of religious people. Some religious people can not or are unwilling to see the difference. Because I think your religion is a joke, doesn't mean I believe you to be.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.

.

Exactly, Dawkins has faith that God does not exist. There is nothing scientific about his lack of belief in God.

I disgree with the burden of proof. I don't need proof. I have no interest in converting others to believe in God. The burden of proof lies with the one who insists on recruiting others to his way of thinking, which in this case is Dawkins.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Bill's latest post explained his view to me quite nicely. I had misunderstood part of his position, but now I understand. In fcat we have a great deal in common.

No, there is still a difference between making fun of religion and making fun of religious people. Some religious people can not or are unwilling to see the difference. Because I think your religion is a joke, doesn't mean I believe you to be.

I agree that it is good to inject humour into the discussion, but some posts were intended to cause offense. I don't for a second think that you have been in any way offensive. Omar on the other hand has. The offense taken by Bill and myself for that matter was directed at Omar.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.

Let me try this one more time.

If I believe in XYZ and there is no proof of it, that's faith.

It is faith whether or not XYZ happens to exist.

This can be demonstrated.

If I believe in XYZ and I go to live in a cave, and during that time, XYZ is proven to exist, what is my faith now? It is justified because you on the outside world know it is true, but me, in my cave, do not know of this proof. My faith is still faith. It did not transform into something else.

This demonstrates that faith is internal to the person. It is decoupled from the actual fact of truth or untruth. My faith while I am in the cave is still faith - even if the proof becomes known to all (except me) because even though my faith is now justified by being true, I don't know that.

Furthermore, if XYZ is proven while I am in the cave, not only is XYZ now a truth, but it always was. So my faith ten years ago was justified too, I just didn't know it. But it was still faith. It is entirely without relevance to the actual truth or untruth of XYZ.

As I said before in this thread, if the (Christian for example) God is suddenly proved to exist, such that everyone accepts it and agrees, then God always existed, and faith in God was always justified by truth, even though generations lived and died without reason to back it up.

Faith is not belief without factual basis. Faith is belief without understanding. The actual facts don't matter to faith, what matters to faith is our internal understanding.

People who believed in evolution before Darwin, where they practicing faith? Yes, they were. But evolution existed even before Darwin, he just discovered it, he didn't invent it. So evolution always was true, but the people (if there were any) who believed in descent with modification before Darwin did not know that to be a fact. Their belief was faith.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Do you believe in Ghosts? Vampires? Werewolves? Alien Abductions? Zeus? Thor? Elves? Leprechauns? Lizard men? Teapots orbiting the sun?

Why not?

You have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in such things. I know a very intelligent person, who believe in lizard men, I wrote about him in an earlier post. The same guy believes in alien abductions. I have a Hungarian friend who believes in werewolves and vampires. I believe in Ghosts. When visiting my great aunt in Tyrone in the North of Ireland, she was convinced that a banshee was living in a field that she owned. believing in such things is akin to believing in Leprachauns.

I've never mocked these people for their beliefs, and have never tried to disprove them because I don't know if such things exist or not. What's more, there is no way of knowing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, there is still a difference between making fun of religion and making fun of religious people. Some religious people can not or are unwilling to see the difference. Because I think your religion is a joke, doesn't mean I believe you to be.

Not to pick nits, but that's not exactly what I meant. I do not have a problem with making fun of religion or religious people. I don't think religious people should be given special protection from having their beliefs hauled out and criticized, even by very intelligent people who greatly outmatch them.

My objection is not to what was made fun of, it was the reason fun was being made. Not to prove a point, but to gain sadistic entertainment.

Did you see the video posted here not long ago of that allegedly mentally-challenged man being beaten to a pulp by the black belt student whose sensei ordered it? That's what I mean. I have no problems with a fight, even a mismatched one. What I had a problem with was that the sensei was using his position and his greater intellect to be cruel and sadistic for his own and his student's enjoyment. I object to cruelty for the sake of pleasure.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Not to pick nits, but that's not exactly what I meant. I do not have a problem with making fun of religion or religious people. I don't think religious people should be given special protection from having their beliefs hauled out and criticized, even by very intelligent people who greatly outmatch them.

My objection is not to what was made fun of, it was the reason fun was being made. Not to prove a point, but to gain sadistic entertainment.

Did you see the video posted here not long ago of that allegedly mentally-challenged man being beaten to a pulp by the black belt student whose sensei ordered it? That's what I mean. I have no problems with a fight, even a mismatched one. What I had a problem with was that the sensei was using his position and his greater intellect to be cruel and sadistic for his own and his student's enjoyment. I object to cruelty for the sake of pleasure.

I don't disagree with you, I just don't believe taht was Dawkins intent.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't disagree with you, I just don't believe taht was Dawkins intent.

OK, I understand. I only take my cue from the joy those who post his videos show in it. The subject line of this thread is one such example. If Dawkins did not do it intentionally, then he is surely intelligent enough to realize that's what many people watch his videos to see anyway. I suppose it could be accidental on his part, but I do credit Dawkins with great intelligence.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Exactly, Dawkins has faith that God does not exist. There is nothing scientific about his lack of belief in God.

I disgree with the burden of proof. I don't need proof. I have no interest in converting others to believe in God. The burden of proof lies with the one who insists on recruiting others to his way of thinking, which in this case is Dawkins.

If you don’t like Dawkins don’t buy his book, turn off the Radio when he comes on, ignore his ads. It’s not hard.

Atheists don’t go door to door to try and convert people, they don’t harass you on street corners, they don’t post signs on their property, they don’t wear little Darwin necklaces proclaiming their beliefs, they don’t kill people for not believing the same way they do, they don’t shun you when you decide you want to believe in something else, they don’t disown their own children for loving someone with different beliefs, atheists and agnostics don’t blow each other up over semantics, they don’t use their power to rape little children, they don’t need the fear of some omnipotent being in order to be good.

I’ve never seen an atheist in public jump all over someone for being religious, but I have seen it, many times when religious people will jump all over an atheist.

 

[yorkshirelad]

If you don’t like Dawkins don’t buy his book, turn off the Radio when he comes on, ignore his ads. It’s not hard.

Atheists don’t go door to door to try and convert people, they don’t harass you on street corners, they don’t post signs on their property, they don’t wear little Darwin necklaces proclaiming their beliefs, they don’t kill people for not believing the same way they do, they don’t shun you when you decide you want to believe in something else, they don’t disown their own children for loving someone with different beliefs, atheists and agnostics don’t blow each other up over semantics, they don’t use their power to rape little children, they don’t need the fear of some omnipotent being in order to be good.

I’ve never seen an atheist in public jump all over someone for being religious, but I have seen it, many times when religious people will jump all over an atheist.

I know atheists who have fish stickers on the back of their cars with Darwin written in them to mock christians. I have an aquaintance who married his wife because she was attractive and then sprung his atheism on her and for years abused her by calling her 'stupid' for her beliefs.

How do you know that atheists haven't at some time raped little children? I think atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many. It was because of the illusion of their own omnipotence that the did what they did. Maybe their lack of belief contributed to their accountability to themselves alone.

I've said before that I have no time for organized religion and I believe in evolution. Most of the time I do ignore Dawkins and have rarely read his works. I actually enjoyed the God delusion, even though I didn't agree with it. It is hard to ignore him however when his views are written all over buses.

I don't like jehovah's witnesses coming to my door either. that's something we have in common.

Btw, if you don't like the signs people put on their property, you too can look the other way. "It's not hard".

 

[Ramirez]

How do you know that atheists haven't at some time raped little children? I think atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many..

And you think Hitler growing up in a Christian dominated society had nothing to do with his anti semitism? Holmes, your deductive powers need a tune up.

 

[Jenna]

Atheists don’t go door to door to try and convert people, they don’t harass you on street corners, they don’t post signs on their property ...

That is just the problem. Dawkins is wholly committed to exactly this kind of evangelism you mentioned. He is often impossible to escape. For a while here we could not go anywhere without the "There's Probably No God" propaganda. It was all over the papers [double-page spreads] it was on billboards, it was on buses all over town..

Again, let me just state, I have no problem with anybody's position. What galls me is those having a position, such as that of Dawkins, Polly Toynbee and all the others here who would shove it down my throat, and do exactly all those aforementioned things you posted.

Atheists can be [and often are] as indoctrinated and evangelistic and proselytising as supporters of religion.. ref. this bloody thread right here! WAKE UP AND HEAR YOURSELVES!!!

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I've read through the last 6 or so pages since I was last here, and there are a few things I wouldn't mind adding.

Some minor ones first.

The two theories in physics that "disagree" with each other, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, yes that is a problem. In essence, General Relativity works wonderfully for large objects (larger than an atom), and Quantum Mechanics has very different rules and laws to govern the behaviour of small objects (sub-atomic particles). The problem is when you get an incredibly small object with incredible mass, such as a black hole singularity. Which laws do you use? General Relativity because it has a huge mass, or Quantum mechanics because it is very small? Problem...

This lead to the search for a Grand Unifying Theory of Physics. The best candidate at present is String Theory, as mentioned previously. I know we have danced around describing it, as it's quite complex, but a simple (?) explanation is this: String Theory proposes that, smaller than the known subatomic particles (electrons, photons etc), there are the smaller particles which make up the known ones. These particles are refered to as "strings", as that is the shape they take.

These strings "vibrate" at different frequencies, giving rise to particular properties. They are sometimes closed loops, and sometimes open-ended, resulting in the variety of particles we know and don't know, including predicted Gravitons, sparticles, and potentially dark matter.

String theory goes on to predict up to 11 dimensions, and the possibility that our Universe is located on a plane travelling through the spacial element, with other planes moving through as well (leading to a possible explanation for the Big Bang, amongst other things, such as the reason for gravities extreme weakness). Fun stuff.

Okay, string theory down. That was very basic, but I'm sure no-one wants to get too far into this here.

Mary as the Immaculate Conception. Yep, very true. Although it is not as emphasised in most Christian churches as much (mostly in Catholicism, for the record) as it is in Islam. In fact, the Koran has far more references to Mary the Holy Mother than the Christian canonical Bible does.

While I'm on that, it is probably best to remember that religion is really the human control on spirituality. That can be a very good thing, giving boundaries, and a defined sense of belonging, as well as giving a constructto the form of worship taking place (set practices for prayer and ritual, for example). But it is also a dangerous thing, when such boundaries are enforced upon the followers, and is used to control, or justify behaviours. I'm sure most here can see that, and it's actually not my point here.

My point is that what is thought of as the true Bible (for example) is just what has been chosen to be presented by a group of people, and the reasons are not always spiritual in nature. Basically, what is in the Bible is only part of the story. There have been many alternative religious and spiritual writings that were denied canonization by the Council of Carthage, and the reasons ranged from not having enough evidence of the particular writings validity (such as not being written in the right timeframe), through to emphasising the wrong things (to a Christian viewpoint), supporting the wrong political ideals, through to giving tacet permission to completely unacceptable acts (for this, there are examples of a longer version of Genesis... I'll talk about that if people ask, but if not, I won't. It's about the gaps in the canonical text, and I don't want to offend anyone).

With regard to Mary, it is believed that the reasons the stories about her were kept out of the canonical Bible were simply that they took the emphasis away from Jesus (taking the narrative off tack, as it were). Within the Islamic faith, Jesus, although important, is a secondary figure to Muhammad, so taking emphasis off him to talk about the miracle of his mother is fine. Other texts to give a greater feel for the comptemporary writings are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Ethiopian Bible, which is based on an earlier (pre-Council of Carthage) version. Again, fun stuff.

Now Dawkins and his agenda. I don't think it's hard to see that his take on religion in general is pretty negative, and he makes no attempt to hide it. And I agree with Jenna that his approach is quite ironic, with his very evangelical attempts to convert those around him and beyond. That said, I disagree wholeheartedly with everyone here who has said that his purpose in this interview is to make believers look stupid, ill-informed, or bad in any way. As I mentioned before, he has other shows about that, this one was purely about Darwin. What he was doing was making people who refuse to accept established scientific fact, even when presented with the evidence, even when it can be shown to be congruent with their faith, even when every argument they have is defeated, these people who insist on speaking to children, claiming to be protectors of childrens educations when refusing to be educated themselves, that is what he is showing up here. Yes, her belief has helped shape her views here, but her faith is not why she was being interviewed. She was a very vocal proponent of a highly flawed educational standpoint, requesting theological concepts dictate scientific classes. That is simply wrong, and she is one of many who ask for such a thing to occur. So the point it not "she believe's in God, what an idiot", it is more "she has no ability to think critically, no ability to differentiate between theological and scientific concepts, and wants to thrust such igonrance on our young, what an idiot". Her believing in God is not an issue, her lack of understanding of the concepts she is fighting for and against is.

I think that's it for now...

 

[Ramirez]

I think atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many. It was because of the illusion of their own omnipotence that the did what they did. Maybe their lack of belief contributed to their accountability to themselves alone..

Two can play that game Holmes, I don't recall anyone screaming "No God is great" as they flew airplanes into buildings.