Richard Dawkins talking about a Creator

by FusionTheism 89 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cappytan

  I suppose that if you do not want your position on an issue challenged or questioned if you fail to provide evidence, you would not enjoy any kind of conversation with Viv or Cofty.

  But, if you actually want to have a real conversation instead of just preaching at people, if you want a free exchange of ideas based on evidence, then you would immensely enjoy conversations with them.

  Interacting with them challenges me to back up my claims with evidence, not supposition, conjecture and baseless speculation.
• 

  InjusticeSystem

  FusionThiesm - I have to ask - What is the point of all this?

  Richard Dawkins is clearly an athiest in that he does not see either evidence or necessity for a god or creator at this time. However, his comments that you refer to say something wonderful about athiests in general. If there were ever to be good evidence that had been rigorously tested by the scientific method that proved or even strongly suggested that a god or extraterrestrial or any other creator of life and the universe (as opposed to abiogenesis and natural cosmic processes) did in fact exist, do you know what athiests (including myself) would do? Believe it.

  Athiests believe evidence, facts, and reasonable thinking. Right now, there just isn't evidence that a god or creator exists. On top of that, whenever we as a species have shoved god into a gap in understanding that we once had, later on those gaps have been filled by knowledge gained by experimentation, observation, and testable theories. Science has an excellent track record of explaining what was once thought to be impossible without a supernatural intervention, and making possible amazing feats that were once only possible by the power of gods.

  One thing that is certain - if there is a creator, it IS NOT the god of the bible as he is described therein. I think anyone who is examining the evidence objectively and logically can see that reality.

  So again, what is the point of this? If you want people to believe in a god or creator, get out there and find it! Prove that is the truth. You'll be famous, and you'll have helped the entire human race to better understand ourselves and the universe, the core goal of all science. Until that point, all this bickering seems fairly useless.
• 

  cofty

  I find viv and cofty just too hostile to reply to - Ruby

  I asked you respectfully to join the dots between memes and you assertion that Dawkins is militant.

  In what way was that hostile?

  Could it possibly be that you are obfuscating?
• 

  freemindfade

  InjusticeSystem

  I've already tried. He seems to want to make it appear he isn't trying to make a ppint except that us godless ones are jerks by the wat we react. But there has been no clear admission as to the purpose of these posts.
• 

  Ruby456

  (been away nursing a migraine)

  freeminfade - yes it is hilarious - thanks for sharing

  oubliette asked

  When you say "hostile" do you mean ruthlessly rational? Requiring logic, reason and evidence?

  Then I'd agree. They are both way too hostile.

  ruthless rationality, logic, reason and evidence are fine by me. It is when anyone promotes their opinions and when those opinions are based on contraventions of naive physics and promoted as scientific truth rather than theory and for which there is no/ or insufficient evidence (Dawkins on religion and memes for example) then i have a problem with it.
• 

  Ruby456

  cofty asked

  I asked you respectfully to join the dots between memes and you assertion that Dawkins is militant.

  In what way was that hostile?

  Could it possibly be that you are obfuscating?

  vintage cofty - stock replies
• 

  cofty

  Ruby - So still no actual answer to a simple and respectful question then?

  when those opinions are based on contraventions of naive physics

  What exactly is naive physics and who contravened them?

  What has memes got to do with militant atheism?

  Have you read Susan Blackmore's "The Gene Machine", especially chapter 15 "Religions as meme complexes"?
• 

  Ruby456

  have you read where Susan Blackmore's has been debunked because of her lack of evidence?

  she says that memes are like genes in that they too are replicators - lol - she needs to read up about chinese whispers.

  I'd agree more with Scott Atran and others that there is an analogous likeness between genes and memes but would not say that memes are like genes as literally as Dawkins and Blackmore do which is that memes are fixed on their own survival. I also maintain that it is this mistaken idea, propagated by Dawkins and Blackmore amongst others that fuels the frenetic militancy of militant atheists in that they (militant atheists) are gripped in the thrall of fighting unseen hordes that are bent on their own survival.Your very own "attack the idea not the person fits this description". If you did just that it would be fine - but you seldom separate the idea from the person (I don't think it is even possible to do so).
• 

  Viviane

  It is when anyone promotes their opinions and when those opinions are based on contraventions of naive physics and promoted as scientific truth rather than theory and for which there is no/ or insufficient evidence (Dawkins on religion and memes for example) then i have a problem with it.

  When you see someone besides yourself do that, let me know. I know I've never done that and I've never seen Cofty do it. You, however, do it rather often. As in the post complaining about you, you appear to have little understanding of the terms you use, a "naive" understanding, so to speak.

  I'd agree more with Scott Atran and others that there is an analogous likeness between genes and memes but would not say that memes are like genes as literally as Dawkins and Blackmore do which is that memes are fixed on their own survival. I also maintain that it is this mistaken idea, propagated by Dawkins and Blackmore amongst others that fuels the frenetic militancy of militant atheists in that they (militant atheists) are gripped in the thrall of fighting unseen hordes that are bent on their own survival.Your very own "attack the idea not the person fits this description". If you did just that it would be fine - but you seldom separate the idea from the person (I don't think it is even possible to do so).

  This is an excellent example of unconnected rambling.
• 

  sunny23

  FusionTheism - "This refutes those atheists who say anyone who believes in a Creator is STUPID or an IDIOT."

  FT, are you implying that Richard Dawkins believes in a Cerator, Richard Dawkins is not stupid, therefore it refutes atheists who say that 'anyone who believes in a creator is stupid'?

  If so you haven't proven that Richard Dawkins believes in a creator. Is allowing a 0.001% chance of possibility for a 'thing' the exact same as believing that 'thing' positively exists???