Mr_Anony:
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.

This is one of the most brilliant posts I have ever read on Nairaland - provided that the poster (Anony) was hinting at what I think: namely improbabilities. Indeed if that is the case; it should trouble the atheist that the statistical chances of life within this universe are far less than the chances of 500 people walking over a keyboard and thereby creating a username, and using it to make posts.

Thots!

jayriginal:

This is the part that really interests me because I have argued on this forum that this is incorrect. I have argued this with theists, deists, atheists and "agnostics". Its a common misconception. An atheist is one who does not believe in god. It is a very general term and not specific for those who declare that there is no god. So you guys are jubilating because Dawkins refused to declare god non existent when he is supposed to be an atheist. It shows you dont know what you are wrestling with.

This misconception leads to warped arguments all the time. Warped arguments and phantom chasing.

JAY BRO! ! ! ! ! Longest time, u no gree wish me happy new year? Just because of of some small yabbis Abeggiiiii! Where u don dey na?

Anyway your comment above brings some illumination to some of what you have said in the past regarding atheism and agnosticism and I can see where you are coming from.

Common lets be in touch. How's practice?

And if I may add, Deepsight's notion that a simple belief in creator is harmless seems to ignore all tragedies of human history. There is no such thing as a simple belief in a creator. A belief in a creator brings many many complications and chaos to human interactions and human life, in general.
Again, taking a cursory look at history, we find that humans do not kill or war over observable phenomena, such as moon phases, the planets and stars, sun cycles,gravity, sunshine and rain, atoms, protons, etc.

On the other hand, humans have an inclination to kill and war over man-made things like god,religion , economic and political ideologies.

What I am trying to say, is that if god were self-evident, human life would have been far less complicated than it has been.
The belief in god is a source of unending complications and conflict to human simply because it is a projection of the human mind or psyche, with all the contradictions therein.

Deepsight is worse than any religious nutjob you can think of.

He doesnt believe in the same god as christians and muslims but he is ready to curry their favour because he knows that they are in the majority.

Imagine making the statement that belief in god is not harmful? If Deepsight was talking in a pure deist sense, yes. But even at that, there is the problem of intelligent design taken as a scientifc theory over evolution.

However, we have seen the destruction caused in different gods' names.


DeepSight is a sycophant.

Mr_Anony:
That is merely your opinion of what "they owe to themselves"

Again, it is not merely my opinion, it is what honest people do when they want to show that they were being honest.

Mr_Anony:
All I saw was a question asked and a question answered.

Don't you think that the sequence or any intervening words could be important?

Mr_Anony:
What evidence exactly?

The fact that intelligent design asserts that life came about by creation by some intelligent agent. Creationism says the same thing.

Mr_Anony:
The bold is what you think their claim was and not what it is. If I recall correctly, the phrase Stein used was "legitimate pursuit" Not "serious contender". You a loading their claim to make it sound like something else.

No I'm not loading their claim. What you don't seem to understand is that what may be a "legitimate pursuit" to Dawkins may not be one to you and vice versa. If Dawkins thought it was a "legitimate pursuit", why do you think he hasn't devoted his own resources to consider it as he has considered his other scientific work? Isn't that what scientists often do when they think that something is a "legitimate pursuit"?

Mr_Anony:
If a person says that something is possible he doesn't necessarily mean that such a thing is a 'serious contender' compared to another theory, but yes he definitely means that such a thing can be legitimately explored.

Come on. To a scientist, pretty much anything can be legitimately explored. If you think this was Dawkins point, then it is a trivial one and won't be news. After all, the prayer experiments among others were considered areas of legitimate exploration by scientists so would it have been news if that is what was actually meant?

Mr_Anony:
Here's a transcript typed from Dawkins' "rebuttal video" posted on this thread.



Now please read the above exchange carefully.

1. At no time did Ben Stein say that Dawkins believed in Intelligent Design. His voice-overs to me are an accurate representation of what Dawkins had just said.

I never said that he did.

Mr_Anony:
2. At no time in the "rebuttal video" did Dawkins say that the clip was edited to change the questions asked to him. He posts the same questions and the same responses as they were in the video.

I didn't say this either besides, what you have there is a transcript of the text from the video.

Mr_Anony:
3. All Dawkins is claiming is that they took his statements to mean something else other than what he intended. But then again, no one has said that Dawkins believed in ID. That's Richard Dawkins strawman.

But the implication of saying "Dawkins thinks ID is a legitimate pursuit" in the context of the video connotes that he somehow thinks that ID is good enough to be considered in the greater scheme of things.

Mr_Anony:
4. To me I think Richard is only upset because the video was not championing Darwinian evolution propaganda. As for his comments on the video, they are there for all to see.

He said why he was upset himself. It is right there in the exchange you quoted.

Mr_Anony:
Here is an exchange between Dawkins and Mark Mathis the producer of "Expelled" at the screening of the movie.



My friend I see no dishonest editing anywhere. Perhaps you should show me what it is that you are seeing because I simply can't see it.

I've tried several times to show it to you but if you still cannot see it, then there's probably nothing more I can do.

Edit: Do you think that Dawkins would consider a research for God a "legitimate pursuit"?

Deep Sight:

What I mean is that religion is not the issue in purely theistic debates such as most of those Dawkins is involved in. Proving the falsity of religion is not the issue in such debates: the issue is a purely cosmological and philosophical question as to the origin of the universe.

The answer to that question; one way or the other, is harmless.

Well you're wrong about that. In the clip under discussion, he read what he wrote about the Christian God in the God Delusion. Do you think that quote had anything to say about religion? Have you read the God Delusion or a fair review of what it contains? If you had, you'll realize that he tried to show that at least the Abrahamic Gods didn't exist and that even if they did, they would be tyrants and religions based on them would be expected to be tyrannical.

To you it is harmless but to those who are denied proper education, are beaten or killed due to religious ideas, it is harmful.

Deep Sight:

This is one of the most brilliant posts I have ever read on Nairaland - provided that the poster (Anony) was hinting at what I think: namely improbabilities. Indeed if that is the case; it should trouble the atheist that the statistical chances of life within this universe are far less than the chances of 500 people walking over a keyboard and thereby creating a username, and using it to make posts.

Thots!

Well the statement in bold is false. The statistical chances of life in this universe is 1.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Let me interject and help out Anony here.

There is a clear difference between not believing in something, and, asserting with absolute conviction that the thing in question does not exist.

Thank you.

Deep Sight:

JAY BRO! ! ! ! ! Longest time, u no gree wish me happy new year? Just because of of some small yabbis Abeggiiiii! Where u don dey na?

Anyway your comment above brings some illumination to some of what you have said in the past regarding atheism and agnosticism and I can see where you are coming from.

Common lets be in touch. How's practice?

No vex bros. Happy New Year!

I was in Lagos over the weekend and thought about you and Toba.

I did mention you on one thread though. You probably didnt see it. Anyway, I'm fine. I resolved not to get too into this religion stuff again cos it eats into ones time. Thats especially important for me. I can use the time to see to some pet projects of mine. Nairaland as a whole is quite distracting. These days I try to keep my comments and arguments short.

thehomer:

Well you're wrong about that. In the clip under discussion, he read what he wrote about the Christian God in the God Delusion. Do you think that quote had anything to say about religion? Have you read the God Delusion or a fair review of what it contains? If you had, you'll realize that he tried to show that at least the Abrahamic Gods didn't exist and that even if they did, they would be tyrants and religions based on them would be expected to be tyrannical.

To you it is harmless but to those who are denied proper education, are beaten or killed due to religious ideas, it is harmful.

Well you know the issue remains the existence of God; and not religious biases. Especially as a scientist, his own take can and must remain on the logicality of the existence of God as propounded in cosmological and philosophical terms. Going further to Yahweh, Krishna, Allah, or other such, belittles and renders redundant the discussion. Surely you know that?

plaetton:
And if I may add, Deepsight's notion that a simple belief in creator is harmless seems to ignore all tragedies of human history. There is no such thing as a simple belief in a creator. A belief in a creator brings many many complications and chaos to human interactions and human life, in general.
Again, taking a cursory look at history, we find that humans do not kill or war over observable phenomena, such as moon phases, the planets and stars, sun cycles,gravity, sunshine and rain, atoms, protons, etc.

On the other hand, humans have an inclination to kill and war over man-made things like god,religion , economic and political ideologies.

What I am trying to say, is that if god were self-evident, human life would have been far less complicated than it has been.
The belief in god is a source of unending complications and conflict to human simply because it is a projection of the human mind or psyche, with all the contradictions therein.

If you were being realistic, you would realize that a belief in a creator actually also does a lot of good to a lot of people. Surely you cannot deny that.

In fact, I would go so far as to add that the belief in a creator alone, does no harm: it is the addittional ingredients that cause differnces which lead to wars and fatalities: i.e: The creator is Jewish, the creator is a man, the creator was never a man, the creator is a trinity, the creator demands sacrifice, etc ad infinitum.

Aside these 'spices and ingredients' the mere belief alone that the world is created has never done any one any harm.

And it is that strict point of creation that a biologist like Dawkins should be addressing.

A scientist, such as Dawkins, should not be concerned with religious notions of God at all. His argument should be against the cosmological and philosophical question of causation. Period.

thehomer:

Well the statement in bold is false. The statistical chances of life in this universe is 1.

Nonsense.

I see you are gradually receding into the lunacy that made some eediotc scientist begin to calculate the statistical probability of nothingness; and ascribe a number to it (nothingness), as they did. You really are a prisoner of some spoon-fed balderdash and I doubt you can think for yourself.

This is why virtually everything you have written on this forum since inception are one line repetitions of things you have read elsewhere.

No original thought whatsoever; not from you now, and YOU KNOW that you will NEVER have an original thought all the days of your life. sad.

Logicboy03: Deepsight is worse than any religious nutjob you can think of.

He doesnt believe in the same god as christians and muslims but he is ready to curry their favour because he knows that they are in the majority.

Imagine making the statement that belief in god is not harmful? If Deepsight was talking in a pure deist sense, yes. But even at that, there is the problem of intelligent design taken as a scientifc theory over evolution.

However, we have seen the destruction caused in different gods' names.


DeepSight is a sycophant.

@ the bold - yes, I am speaking in a pure deist sense.

Deep Sight:

@ the bold - yes, I am speaking in a pure deist sense.

Then why complain about Dawkins with religious peeps who are about god in a more than deist sense?

Logicboy03:




Then why complain about Dawkins with religious peeps who are about god in a more than deist sense?

Because as a scientist addressing a logical discussion; he should not even address himself to religious notions of God at all. He should address himself to cosmological and philosophical notions of God. Agree?

Deep Sight:

If you were being realistic, you would realize that a belief in a creator actually also does a lot of good to a lot of people. Surely you cannot deny that.

In fact, I would go so far as to add that the belief in a creator alone, does no harm: it is the addittional ingredients that cause differnces which lead to wars and fatalities: i.e: The creator is Jewish, the creator is a man, the creator was never a man, the creator is a trinity, the creator demands sacrifice, etc ad infinitum.

Aside these 'spices and ingredients' the mere belief alone that the world is created has never done any one any harm.

And it is that strict point of creation that a biologist like Dawkins should be addressing.

A scientist, such as Dawkins, should not be concerned with religious notions of God at all. His argument should be against the cosmological and philosophical question of causation. Period.

Again, you are not being realistic.
Religions always thrive on and sell the notion that a belief in god is good for everyone, not only here in terra firma, but in the hereafter.
Even the present pope, Ratzinger, believes that faith is not a matter of choice, in one of his writings.
From faith, you inevitably need to have submission, unquestioned submission. And then you have a special self-appointed elite who claim to be the viziers of the creator, serving as his eyes, ears and enforcers of nebulous creator-dictated or inspired doctrines.

And the results.......?

I am yet to come across any society with where the belief in a creator comes without embellishments and the ingredients for complications, exploitations,rancour and conflicts.

So, no one , scientists or layman,can address the issue of origin and the belief in a creator without paying due attention to the nasty ingredients that come with that belief.

Logicboy03:

Huh?

I think he forgot to mention that without sin, the world is just a flat paradise, with no mountains, no volcanoes,no deserts, no below freezing point weathers, no scorching heat, etc, because these were ANGRY-GOD syndromes.

Deep Sight:

Nonsense.

I see you are gradually receding into the lunacy that made some eediotc scientist begin to calculate the statistical probability of nothingness; and ascribe a number to it (nothingness), as they did. You really are a prisoner of some spoon-fed balderdash and I doubt you can think for yourself.

This is why virtually everything you have written on this forum since inception are one line repetitions of things you have read elsewhere.

No original thought whatsoever; not from you now, and YOU KNOW that you will NEVER have an original thought all the days of your life. sad.

And you're rapidly ascending to being detached from reality. If you actually knew anything about determining probability, you'll know that if an event has occurred, then its probability is one. We've been through this before too but you refused to learn from that exchange. If you haven't corrected the sorts of errors you made then, what makes you think that I need something "original" to show you the error of your thoughts?

I can understand that you're bitter about being unable to counter anything I've said but saying that they're things I read elsewhere isn't an insult or a criticism of what I've written here.

That your thought is "original" doesn't make it true and having your type of "original thought" except maybe in composing literature for pleasure isn't really useful especially when they've been shown to be wrong decades ago. What you need to realize is that one doesn't need the "unoriginal thought" you seem to be criticizing to respond reasonably to you. In fact, you won't be having these wrong "original thoughts" in the first place if put the effort into understanding what we've found out so far.

Be happy with your "original thought". I'm sure there was once a time when Bozo the clown was considered original.

plaetton:

Huh?

I think he forgot to mention that without sin, the world is just a flat paradise, with no mountains, no volcanoes,no deserts, no below freezing point weathers, no scorching heat, etc, because these were ANGRY-GOD syndromes.

Deep Sight:

Well you know the issue remains the existence of God; and not religious biases. Especially as a scientist, his own take can and must remain on the logicality of the existence of God as propounded in cosmological and philosophical terms. Going further to Yahweh, Krishna, Allah, or other such, belittles and renders redundant the discussion. Surely you know that?

No I don't know that the only issue is the existence of God. I hope you're aware that there are people who cannot think of a God without a particular religious framework. Yahweh, Krishna, Allah and others are different from the sort of God you have in mind. The fact that you don't think they're important doesn't mean that others don't think they're important.

Deep Sight:

Because as a scientist addressing a logical discussion; he should not even address himself to religious notions of God at all. He should address himself to cosmological and philosophical notions of God. Agree?

Dawkins is free to pursue whatever he wants as a scientist and as a human being. You're not in a position to tell him to only focus on your own abstract idea of a God.

thehomer:

And you're rapidly ascending to being detached from reality. If you actually knew anything about determining probability, you'll know that if an event has occurred, then its probability is one. We've been through this before too but you refused to learn from that exchange. If you haven't corrected the sorts of errors you made then, what makes you think that I need something "original" to show you the error of your thoughts?

I can understand that you're bitter about being unable to counter anything I've said but saying that they're things I read elsewhere isn't an insult or a criticism of what I've written here.

That your thought is "original" doesn't make it true and having your type of "original thought" except maybe in composing literature for pleasure isn't really useful especially when they've been shown to be wrong decades ago. What you need to realize is that one doesn't need the "unoriginal thought" you seem to be criticizing to respond reasonably to you. In fact, you won't be having these wrong "original thoughts" in the first place if put the effort into understanding what we've found out so far.

Be happy with your "original thought". I'm sure there was once a time when Bozo the clown was considered original.

His interest as a scientist should be cosmological.

Discussing, and attempting to rebutt myths, is hilarious.

Why is he not trying to rebutt Zeus?

Period.

Deep Sight:
gradually receding

thehomer:

rapidly ascending

Brilliant play on words here though. Nice one. Never thought you could be artistically inclined.

Deep Sight:

His interest as a scientist should be cosmological.

Discussing, and attempting to rebutt myths, is hilarious.

Why is he not trying to rebutt Zeus?

Period.

See your life? You are now making the same argument as religious dunces.


Are Zeus's Temples forcing millions to reject evolution and science or is it churches and mosques that hate on evolution/science?

Logicboy03:



See your life? You are now making the same argument as religious dunces.


Are Zeus's Temples forcing millions to reject evolution and science or is it churches and mosques that hate on evolution/science?

You miss the point, Sir R.E.R.

If Zeus exists, it is irrelevant to the cosmological or philosophical debater what his followers do or do not do. The question is whether such an entity exists or not.

That is what an interested scientist should address himself to.

Not myths and fancies.

That would be just as ridiculous as spending your career arguing against the existence of Santa Claus and his retinue.

A serious scientist, if interested in the issue at all, cannot do such: he can only approach the question from a cosmological and philosophical point of view. Obsessing with Myths like Yahweh is as bad as trying to disprove Santa Claus.

Deep Sight:

You miss the point, Sir R.E.R.

If Zeus exists, it is irrelevant to the cosmological or philosophical debater what his followers do or do not do. The question is whether such an entity exists or not.

That is what an interested scientist should address himself to.

Not myths and fancies.

That would be just as ridiculous as spending your career arguing against the existence of Santa Claus and his retinue.

A serious scientist, if interested in the issue at all, cannot do such: he can only approach the question from a cosmological and philosophical point of view. Obsessing with Myths like Yahweh is as bad as trying to disprove Santa Claus.

How foolish.


Dawkins has said numerous times that he is an educator. Idont want to argue too much but I will quote myself again;

Logicboy03:



See your life? You are now making the same argument as religious dunces.


Are Zeus's Temples forcing millions to reject evolution and science or is it churches and mosques that hate on evolution/science?

Well if what I wrote up there escapes you, please don't waste any money celebrating your next birthday.

There will evidently be nothing to celebrate.

Deep Sight:

His interest as a scientist should be cosmological.

Why? He isn't a cosmologist and he wasn't writing a scientific paper.

Deep Sight:
Discussing, and attempting to rebutt myths, is hilarious.

Sure. Until you encounter people who endanger their lives and that of others around them for the sake of these said myths. Whether you like it or not, some people take those stories more seriously than you do.

Deep Sight:
Why is he not trying to rebutt Zeus?

Period.

Because so far in his society, Zeus hasn't been used as a tool for harm neither has he been cited as a reason for some dangerous action or ignorance.

thehomer:

Why? He isn't a cosmologist and he wasn't writing a scientific paper.

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.

Sure. Until you encounter people who endanger their lives and that of others around them for the sake of these said myths. Whether you like it or not, some people take those stories more seriously than you do.

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.

Because so far in his society, Zeus hasn't been used as a tool for harm neither has he been cited as a reason for some dangerous action or ignorance.

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?

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?

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!

Specifically, I should ask you if you think that disproving the existence of God to, say, muslims in Saudi Arabia, would translate to female liberation?

Do Lions believe in God? Do they liberate their females?

Think, man!

Deep Sight:

You miss the point, Sir R.E.R.

If Zeus exists, it is irrelevant to the cosmological or philosophical debater what his followers do or do not do. The question is whether such an entity exists or not.

That is what an interested scientist should address himself to.

Not myths and fancies.

That would be just as ridiculous as spending your career arguing against the existence of Santa Claus and his retinue.

A serious scientist, if interested in the issue at all, cannot do such: he can only approach the question from a cosmological and philosophical point of view. Obsessing with Myths like Yahweh is as bad as trying to disprove Santa Claus.

If the belief in god, a.k.a Yahweh, to 2 billion or more christians, is the default position, as you have argued severally and passionately in this forum, why shouldn't Dawkins, scientist or not, first of all,spend considerable time and energy to debunk such a default position as not only false , but very dangerous(with history as proof) to everyone's dignity and commonwealth?.