davidylan:

Which is quite funny considering the atheists response to every question to show prove of his alternate universe is met with "i dont know".
The burden of proof is not on the christian... frankly most christians would be just fine discussing their faith without your constant need to insert vituperative bile. Its ok not to believe God exists... you're the one tearing your hair out.

Wow? so it is atheists forcing religion and belief in god to people?

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim that there is god, then prove it. Simple.


Atheist simpky say that there is no evidence to believe in God. The multiverse hypoithesis is a strawman. Try again

davidylan:

today was saturday, i went shopping.

Oh by the way, you should pay attention to enigma.

Enigma is talking nonsense out of butthurt.

first 2 pages was nothing but shouting evangelical atheism and now that he has someone attacking logicboy, he wants to join in and shout panspermia.

Logicboy03:


Wow? so it is atheists forcing religion and belief in god to people?

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim that there is god, then prove it. Simple.


Atheist simpky say that there is no evidence to believe in God. The multiverse hypoithesis is a strawman. Try again

I dont know where your first line came from but obviously it is no coherent follow up to whatever i said.

Now i repeat - the burden of proof is not on the christian here, it is your choice to not believe in God. I dont know why you are whining so hard for God's personal address. Feel free to enjoy your secular world.

davidylan:

I dont know where your first line came from but obviously it is no coherent follow up to whatever i said.

Now i repeat - the burden of proof is not on the christian here, it is your choice to not believe in God. I dont know why you are whining so hard for God's personal address. Feel free to enjoy your secular world.

So the burden of proof is not on the one that claims that there is a god?



Wow.....just wow

Logicboy03:



So the burden of proof is not on the one that claims that there is a god?



Wow.....just wow

why should it? The christian is very secure in his faith... it is the atheist that has a problem. I have nothing to prove to you... you are quite free to toss a bible out the window.

Logicboy03:



Enigma is talking nonsense out of butthurt.

first 2 pages was nothing but shouting evangelical atheism and now that he has someone attacking logicboy, he wants to join in and shout panspermia.

You know what I always say and who I always think your insults also apply to whenever you insult me.

As I said before, the evidence of Dawkins saying specifically that the hypothesis he was putting forward is directed panspermia can be produced in a matter of seconds. However, I will only put it forward, if I find it necessary at all, in my own time.

Meanwhile, people enjoy something I posted long before this thread.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-argument-existence-something#10528689

Enigma: Let us add more big big grammar. It was "directed panspermia"!

Even the dunce Dawkins realised how bad that one is that he quickly moved to dissociate himself after evidently putting it forward as the basis of origin of life on earth.

davidylan:

why should it? The christian is very secure in his faith... it is the atheist that has a problem. I have nothing to prove to you... you are quite free to toss a bible out the window.

You wouldnt mind if we ban any official prayer or official declaration of god in schools and public institutions now, would you?

Keep in mind your past posts!



Are you really secure? Then why the fear of evolution?


If christians were truly secure in their faiths, there wouldnt be grwoing irreligin in christian countries.


Furthermore, you are not secure, you are just very deluded and stubborn in your worship of a non-existent slave go

davidylan:

why should it? The christian is very secure in his faith... it is the atheist that has a problem. I have nothing to prove to you... you are quite free to toss a bible out the window.

Last time I checked, you live in America.

Logicboy03:


You wouldnt mind if we ban any official prayer or official declaration of god in schools and public institutions now, would you?

Keep in mind your past posts!

Why? that doesnt make logical sense. You only ban what you fear... you have the freedom NOT to worship, everyone else deserves the freedom to worship as they see fit.

Logicboy03:
Are you really secure? Then why the fear of evolution?

This is pointless... no one fears evolution, at least we arent running around in court struggling so hard to ban evolution neither do you see christians setting up threads to discuss evolution here and there unlike atheists.

Logicboy03:
If christians were truly secure in their faiths, there wouldnt be grwoing irreligin in christian countries.

This is bizarre. What has security in our faith got to do with growing irreligion? shouldnt we then be instituting capital punishment for apostasy in that case?

Logicboy03:
Furthermore, you are not secure, you are just very deluded and stubborn in your worship of a non-existent slave go

Oh we are now back to projecting now aye?
If you think my "slave God" doesnt exist then why do you fight him 23 hours a day?

davidylan:

Why? that doesnt make logical sense. You only ban what you fear... you have the freedom NOT to worship, everyone else deserves the freedom to worship as they see fit.

We ban dangerous substances like cocaine that destroys the minds of people. Your religion is a class A drug that should be banned from govt/law (separation of church and state) . You have the freedom to worship but not to interfere with your religious nonsense in the law of a secular democratic country.


Havent you been complaining about atheists and their removal of god from the public? Mr Secure Faith?

davidylan:
This is pointless... no one fears evolution, at least we arent running around in court struggling so hard to ban evolution neither do you see christians setting up threads to discuss evolution here and there unlike atheists.

Christians here have created threads with false anti-evolution narratives to hate on evolution. You should stop lying.

davidylan:
This is bizarre. What has security in our faith got to do with growing irreligion? shouldnt we then be instituting capital punishment for apostasy in that case?

If christians were secure in faith, they wouldnt leave their religion. We would have emptying churches and decreasing attendance.

davidylan:
Oh we are now back to projecting now aye?
If you think my "slave God" doesnt exist then why do you fight him 23 hours a day?

I dont fight your god. Your god doesnt exist (too much of a paradox). I write for some few hours a day about the fools that do nonsense in god's non-existent name

davidylan:

today was saturday, i went shopping.

Oh by the way, you should pay attention to enigma.

Bros, a wise person would pay attention to that advice.

Take for example the old post that I referred to in my last post --- I've just had a look at the date and it was made in April 2012 - long before this thread as I said. That would put a wise person on notice to tread carefully.

Enigma:

Bros, a wise person would pay attention to that advice.

Take for example the old post that I referred to in my last post --- I've just had a look at the date and it was made in April 2012 - long before this thread as I said. That would put a wise person on notice to tread carefully.

i notice he was trying way too hard to ignore you by reacting to irrelevancies.

Enigma:

You know what I always say and who I always think your insults also apply to whenever you insult me.

As I said before, the evidence of Dawkins saying specifically that the hypothesis he was putting forward is directed panspermia can be produced in a matter of seconds. However, I will only put it forward, if I find it necessary at all, in my own time.

Meanwhile, people enjoy something I posted long before this thread.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-argument-existence-something#10528689

And i should note that no atheist turned up to adrress the question there.

Logicboy03:


Fail......

The christian claims that god exists and the atheists tells the christian to prove it (Which the christain cant prove, by the way)!

The burden of proof is on the claimant and not the skeptic

I used to say this once upon a time (regarding burden of proof). But I have come to rethink that seriously. The burden of proof should rightly lie on he who asserts a position contrary to default and known science: namely: the physical principle of causality.

There are many reasons why the atheist should bear a burden of proof, several of which were discussed here -


https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

Perhaps it is time to say what I think of the video:

Dawkins was asked what he thinks of the possibility that life was intelligently designed. He answered by citing the possibility that an alien intelligent life form could have seeded life on earth. He even suggests that we might see a signature for this designer in the complex mechanisms of molecular biology.....


...Now pause for a minute and let that sink in...


Actually, I can't fault Dawkins there because it simply follows that where we see complex order, we deduce that there is an intelligence behind it. That's a pretty straightforward argument. Interestingly, it is also one of the most basic evidence provided for God i.e. creation has a creator. Essentially what Dawkins has done there is to admit there possibility of a creator.


....But the interview continues and this is where it gets interesting....


Dawkins makes it clear that a creator could exist but it would have most likely evolved in a Darwinian manner i.e. it must have a naturalistic explanation (notice how Richard paints everything with his Darwinian evolution brush).
Ben Stein notices this and points out that Dawkins doesn't really have a problem with a creator. He only insists that the creator must be naturalistic/material.

Ben goes on to press him on the question about the belief in any gods whatsoever to which he replies that such an assertion would contradict everything he has been saying (he completely forgot that he had just proposed physical gods from another planet)



Now to the problems with Dawkins' logic.

1. Dawkins accepts the possibility of an intelligent creator, he only insists that such a creator would have evolved as well as us. This doesn't help us at all because all it does is introduce an infinite regress of design and evolution. At some point you must end at a first intelligent life that did not evolve (The very kind of intelligent life Richard dawkins rejects). Puzzling isn't it?

2. Dawkins is right in deducing an intelligent designer as responsible for a complex life, but then there is no reason to insist that this intelligent life must have evolved. The only reason why Dawkins would think this is because of his bias emanating from a Darwinian/materialist worldview.


Conclusion:
Watching that video showed me something very important: It is not that the there is no evidence for God as the atheist would like to believe, It is just that the atheist is fanatically committed to a naturalistic worldview (which by the way, he has no justification for as it cannot explain all the aspects of his reality) and for that reason, even when he sees evidence for God staring him in the face, he refuses to acknowledge him.

The conclusion of that video was very telling: When Dawkins is asked what he will say to God after his death, Dawkins says he'll ask why God took so much pains to hide Himself.
Dawkins forgot that he had just suggested that "the details of molecular biology might hold the signature of a designer". Clearly the evidence of God lies before Dawkins. Pity he would rather it was aliens.


But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth.
But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.
What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. Romans 1:18-23(MSG)

Mr_Anony: Perhaps it is time to say what I think of the video:

Conclusion:
Watching that video showed me something very important: It is not that the there is no evidence for God as the atheist would like to believe, It is just that the atheist is fanatically committed to a naturalistic worldview (which by the way, he has no justification for as it cannot explain all the aspects of his reality) and for that reason, even when he sees evidence for God staring him in the face, he refuses to acknowledge him.

And the supernatural explain what aspect of reality?. . .Where is the evidence of the supernatural in action. . .Just a single evidence of the supernatural in action will do. . .Natural processes and principles have been used to transform the earth and life completely. . .Man uses natural principles ALL the time to do things and alter how things are done. . .The supernatural has NEVER been shown to work or applied any where it is only claimed and REMAINS a myth plus a figment of imagination of those that advocate it. . .

As for evidence of god, its funny how the god that christians promote now has been reduced to an intelligent designer. . .The christians god is always evolving and shrinking. . .From the god that speaks to people, answers their prayers, protects them the way a father will protect his kids, self evident god that speaks to them and wants a personal relationship with them etc. . This same god has now been reduced and relegated to the deist creator or intelligent design god. . .If we agree that the universe was intelligently designed, how do we know and what are the evidence to show that the god of the bible did it and not some aliens living in another part of the universe or some other supernatural group of gods that live outside space and time?. . .Where is the evidence that yahweh alone created the universe?. . .Why not allah or any of the other hindu gods?. . .What is the evidence that every thing was created by a being that speaks the human language and interacts with humans?

The conclusion of that video was very telling: When Dawkins is asked what he will say to God after his death, Dawkins says he'll ask why God took so much pains to hide Himself.
Dawkins forgot that he had just suggested that "the details of molecular biology might hold the signature of a designer". Clearly the evidence of God lies before Dawkins. Pity he would rather it was aliens.

And you know it is not aliens, how?. . .If you can provide SPECIFIC evidence to show that your god alone created anything and not some other god or gods or a group of aliens then we might take you seriously. . .You even claim you speak to your god. . .Tell him to give you evidence as part of the tools your need to convince the atheist of his existence since you are constantly making his case for him and failing all the time due to lack of any evidence. . .Tell your god since you claim to speak to him to provide you with evidence already so that you can win more people on his side for him. . .Here is the FACT, you don't know anything. . .You don't know what, when and how the universe was created. . .You don't even know what created it. . .You only BELIEVE that some entity which you have been indoctrinated to accept a non existent entity that lives ONLY in your imaginations created it. . .

But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth.
But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.
What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. Romans 1:18-23(MSG)

Allah created the universe. . . .Go and read what he says in his revealed book the koran. . .

Funny but lenin had the same goals ..you are just to much of a sissy to carry out his methods..
But with ideals like this you are pretty dangerous..just dont get into power!

Logicboy03:


We ban dangerous substances like cocaine that destroys the minds of people. Your religion is a class A drug that should be banned from govt/law (separation of church and state) . You have the freedom to worship but not to interfere with your religious nonsense in the law of a secular democratic country.


Havent you been complaining about atheists and their removal of god from the public? Mr Secure Faith?




Christians here have created threads with false anti-evolution narratives to hate on evolution. You should stop lying.







If christians were secure in faith, they wouldnt leave their religion. We would have emptying churches and decreasing attendance.




I dont fight your god. Your god doesnt exist (too much of a paradox). I write for some few hours a day about the fools that do nonsense in god's non-existent name

^^^Hello,stalin!

Deep Sight:

I used to say this once upon a time (regarding burden of proof). But I have come to rethink that seriously. The burden of proof should rightly lie on he who asserts a position contrary to default and known science: namely: the physical principle of causality.

There are many reasons why the atheist should bear a burden of proof, several of which were discussed here -


https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

No there aren't

Most theist here seem to be confused about atheism, they some how think atheist hate their god(no atheist hates any god). You can not hate what does not exist. . . .Dawkins was not talking in absolute terms, since he does not have evidence to support his ideas. The atheist position can be sumarized by a post that was dropped on nairaland some years ago by someone here

1) If there is a God(creator(s) of the universe), he/she/they cannot be known, to know God is to be God.

2) Religions are all terribly flawed and all are born out of man’s imagination. All the god that men worship are a creation of men as such every society or culture created its own god. . . .

3) The universe is made up of laws the wise explore its loop holes and use it to their advantage.The unwise sit down and keep making things up about the universe purely based on their mythical construct or imaginations. . .What ever man want's to do must be done by man himself. . .

4) Religious faith is mostly irrational, but it is a good psychological coping mechanism.

5) Any phenomena that cannot be replicated and verified independently by others should be classified as fiction or pseudo-science at most. The supernatural claims all falls into this category. the supernatural has never been shown or demonstrated to exist any where. . .Even the supernatural claims that people bandy about all require natural explanations when it matters. . .All supernatural claims do NOT stand on their own when scrutinized.

6) Science does not have all the answers, but those it has are genuine and can be replicated. It remains the best tool at man's disposal to better understand the world and the universe around him. It remains the best tool at his disposal that is universally acceptable for the betterment of his life and environment.

7) The big banng theory is as lousy as the creationist theory; yet they both agree on one thing, that is, “NOTHING existed before existence”. Maybe God is NOTHING. They are both theories and should be taken as just that, nothing more, nothing less till they can be proved and replicated. Until any of them is substantiated, but remain the invention of men trying to find possible explanations for what they see. . .

8.)The God’s of religion are anthropomorphic, they usually take the nature of their host community and the human nature of its founder e.g. Angry God, blood thirsty God, loving God, vengeful God, Randy God etc. Humans created all these gods and as such they reflect the culture that created them. All gods have to evolve over time, example the christian and muslim gods are evolving before our very eyes because the people that believe in them are also evolving in their thoughts and belief systems. . .The muslim god is very slowly evolving but will still evolve over time. . .

9) Fear and Violence are the historical and present driving forces of most religion, it’s about control and power to lord the ignorant masses.

10) Blind faith is sheer stupidity and an avid mockery of the human intellect, it is spite to the maker of the human mind; be it deity(s) or evolutionary forces of chance.

11) One man’s God is another man’s Demon/Devil; the God of the victor is worshipped while the God of the vanquished is classified as a demon. History shows that today’s God might become tomorrow’s demon. Our local deities in Africa are presently referred to as demons, but they were once revered and worshipped as very mighty Gods.

12) To base ones believes on eternal damnation or pleasure is just an extended gratification of our human pleasures, greed and fear. E.g why give me gold in the afterlife, why give me many women when I die, why must the afterlife be made up of images of this present life?
1
3) If a God is real and powerful, he should fight his own battles and leave humans out of it. If god exist then humans have no business trying to convince other humans about its existence. Such god/gods should do that themselves. If any god/gods can create the universe then revealing themselves to humans should not be a problem, after all in story books written by religious people we were told that such gods once lived with men or appeared to men when they were primitive and without much knowledge. Why is it that as men gained more knowledge and were able to understand and control their environment all the god's disappeared and ran away?. . .

My replies to individuals on this thread:

@Logicboy:- Please type in "directed panspermia" in the search box of your beloved wikipedia and stop disgracing yourself.

@thehomer, you think the video was edited to make Dawkins look bad? I don't think so. First of all you have no evidence for this other than Mr Dawkins word. Unfortunately Mr Dawkins is under no obligation to tell the truth neither is there an incentive for him not to lie.

Secondly, It was Dawkins himself proposing the theory that life on earth could have been a result of directed panspermia. At least he doesn't deny that he did this even if we allow (without proof) that he was tricked into into it by a cunning question. It doesn't change the fact that he considers 'alien reproduction' to be a plausible origin of life.

My friend, your contention here holds no water.

@advocate666: Your response was quite interesting to me. The purpose of this thread for me was to see what conclusions people will draw from watching the same video. I was really looking at how our preconceived biases shape how we look at evidence. It is interesting how what the rest of us saw saw as legitimate questions, you saw as "straw questions"

@mazaje: I know you think Dawkins and everyone else deluded but then the thread is about the video and not tangential arguments of which "God-theory" is right. However, I will oblige you all the same as long as your skepticism is rational.

@davidlyan, enigma and creatixity: Thanks, I am happy you saw what I was hoping you'll see. And thanks enigma especially for the links. Very educative.

@Mazaje:

Let us go on the tangent you have been clamouring for and deal with your questions.

First, I'll take it that you agree that the precision and improbable complex order of the cosmos is evidence that it has an intelligent designer (codename: GOD). Your challenge to us is to prove to you that the God I worship is true as opposed to a myraid of different theories of God.

I would like you to note at this point that we have left atheism far behind because once you agree that there is a God evidenced by His creation, the question is no longer "Does God exist?" rather it is "Who is God?"

Do you agree up to this point?

mazaje: Most theist here seem to be confused about atheism, they some how think atheist hate their god(no atheist hates any god). You can not hate what does not exist. . . .Dawkins was not talking in absolute terms, since he does not have evidence to support his ideas. The atheist position can be sumarized by a post that was dropped on nairaland some years ago by someone here

1) If there is a God(creator(s) of the universe), he/she/they cannot be known, to know God is to be God.

2) Religions are all terribly flawed and all are born out of man’s imagination. All the god that men worship are a creation of men as such every society or culture created its own god. . . .

3) The universe is made up of laws the wise explore its loop holes and use it to their advantage.The unwise sit down and keep making things up about the universe purely based on their mythical construct or imaginations. . .What ever man want's to do must be done by man himself. . .

4) Religious faith is mostly irrational, but it is a good psychological coping mechanism.

5) Any phenomena that cannot be replicated and verified independently by others should be classified as fiction or pseudo-science at most. The supernatural claims all falls into this category. the supernatural has never been shown or demonstrated to exist any where. . .Even the supernatural claims that people bandy about all require natural explanations when it matters. . .All supernatural claims do NOT stand on their own when scrutinized.

6) Science does not have all the answers, but those it has are genuine and can be replicated. It remains the best tool at man's disposal to better understand the world and the universe around him. It remains the best tool at his disposal that is universally acceptable for the betterment of his life and environment.

7) The big banng theory is as lousy as the creationist theory; yet they both agree on one thing, that is, “NOTHING existed before existence”. Maybe God is NOTHING. They are both theories and should be taken as just that, nothing more, nothing less till they can be proved and replicated. Until any of them is substantiated, but remain the invention of men trying to find possible explanations for what they see. . .

8.)The God’s of religion are anthropomorphic, they usually take the nature of their host community and the human nature of its founder e.g. Angry God, blood thirsty God, loving God, vengeful God, Randy God etc. Humans created all these gods and as such they reflect the culture that created them. All gods have to evolve over time, example the christian and muslim gods are evolving before our very eyes because the people that believe in them are also evolving in their thoughts and belief systems. . .The muslim god is very slowly evolving but will still evolve over time. . .

9) Fear and Violence are the historical and present driving forces of most religion, it’s about control and power to lord the ignorant masses.

10) Blind faith is sheer stupidity and an avid mockery of the human intellect, it is spite to the maker of the human mind; be it deity(s) or evolutionary forces of chance.

11) One man’s God is another man’s Demon/Devil; the God of the victor is worshipped while the God of the vanquished is classified as a demon. History shows that today’s God might become tomorrow’s demon. Our local deities in Africa are presently referred to as demons, but they were once revered and worshipped as very mighty Gods.

12) To base ones believes on eternal damnation or pleasure is just an extended gratification of our human pleasures, greed and fear. E.g why give me gold in the afterlife, why give me many women when I die, why must the afterlife be made up of images of this present life?
1
3) If a God is real and powerful, he should fight his own battles and leave humans out of it. If god exist then humans have no business trying to convince other humans about its existence. Such god/gods should do that themselves. If any god/gods can create the universe then revealing themselves to humans should not be a problem, after all in story books written by religious people we were told that such gods once lived with men or appeared to men when they were primitive and without much knowledge. Why is it that as men gained more knowledge and were able to understand and control their environment all the god's disappeared and ran away?. . .

Lol............All you've done here is state that All explanations presented are wrong without vaguely suggesting what a correct explanation might look like. This is irrational skepticism that closely resembles a weird mix of Relativist and Dadaist philosophy. Anyway moving on..........

Please respond to my previous post and let's see if perhaps we can wrest something vaguely rational out of all this.

Mr_Anony: :. . . . Unfortunately Mr Dawkins is under no obligation to tell the truth neither is there an incentive for him not to lie. . . .

Indeed, some would argue that Dawkins did indeed lie or at least try to 'spin' things. I will leave that for later.

For now, let me say that there are a number of things I find fascinating about this thread and to hint at one of them as follows.

As far as I can see so far, the posters on this thread are agreed that in that video Dawkins was himself putting forward a "speculation" or "hypothesis" of how life came about on earth.This speculation/hypothesis (which we do not have to name for now ) is to the effect that life might have originated on earth as a result of the actions of some other forms of intelligent entities/beings or 'aliens'. OK so far?

Again, my observation is that on this thread both atheists and theists are agreed that Dawkins himself was making this speculation/hypothesis. In fact some atheists are still defending Dawkins' suggestion as a worthwhile hypothesis.

Now supposing someone else comes along and says that in that video Dawkins was not himself putting forward the speculation/hypothesis at all but was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make.

Would we say that such a person is lying?.

Enigma:

Indeed, some would argue that Dawkins did indeed lie or at least try to 'spin' things. I will leave that for later.

For now, let me say that there are a number of things I find fascinating about this thread and to hint at one of them as follows.

As far as I can see so far, the posters on this thread are agreed that in that video Dawkins was himself putting forward a "speculation" or "hypothesis" of how life came about on earth.This speculation/hypothesis (which we do not have to name for now ) is to the effect that life might have originated on earth as a result of the actions of some other forms of intelligent entities/beings or 'aliens'. OK so far?

Again, my observation is that on this thread both atheists and theists are agreed that Dawkins himself was making this speculation/hypothesis. In fact some atheists are still defending Dawkins' suggestion as a worthwhile hypothesis.

Now supposing someone else comes along and says that in that video Dawkins was not himself putting forward the speculation/hypothesis at all but was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make.

Would we say that such a person is lying?.

YES. Such a person would be lying.

Dawkins makes a point of insisting that such a higher intelligence must have come to be through an "ultimately explicable process" such as perhaps some sort of Darwinian means. This tells us that it is clearly Dawkins himself speculating. and NOT his impression of what a creationist/intelligent design believer might say.

Mr_Anony: My replies to individuals on this thread:

. . . .

@thehomer, you think the video was edited to make Dawkins look bad? I don't think so. First of all you have no evidence for this other than Mr Dawkins word. Unfortunately Mr Dawkins is under no obligation to tell the truth neither is there an incentive for him not to lie.

Actually, the evidence lies in the fact that they've been unable to release the unedited clips, they conducted the interviews by misleading the interviewees and that it is actually possible to dishonestly edit something to make it look as if someone holds a view they actually don't. We know Dawkins doesn't hold that view, he's written several books on this already. Which do you think is more likely that in this single edited clip he chucked out his written work or that someone with an ulterior motive who opposes his views tries to make him say something he doesn't actually believe?

Mr_Anony:
Secondly, It was Dawkins himself proposing the theory that life on earth could have been a result of directed panspermia. At least he doesn't deny that he did this even if we allow (without proof) that he was tricked into into it by a cunning question. It doesn't change the fact that he considers 'alien reproduction' to be a plausible origin of life.

My friend, your contention here holds no water.

. . . .

His point with panspermia is that it is still more plausible than his God and it actually is more plausible than the Christian God. Dawkins wasn't proposing a theory, he was simply considering a hypothetical. It is something that scientists, philosophers and others do.

The fact that panspermia can be thought of as being a plausible origin of life doesn't somehow make intelligent design creationism more reasonable. It still has lots of problems with it. The fact that something can be considered by someone as being plausible doesn't mean that it is what the person actually believes happened.

Again, the evidence lies in the fact that the interview had to have been edited in multiple places at multiple times in order to get it to fit with their narrative.

{Please forgive my little wayo of first hiding my main question which now follows}

If it was Dawkins who subsequently claimed that he was not putting forward that speculation/hypothesis at all but that he was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make . . . . . would we say that Dawkins would be lying in that event?

Deep Sight:

I used to say this once upon a time (regarding burden of proof). But I have come to rethink that seriously. The burden of proof should rightly lie on he who asserts a position contrary to default and known science: namely: the physical principle of causality.

There are many reasons why the atheist should bear a burden of proof, several of which were discussed here -


https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

A childish cartoon to illustrate the foolishness of your stance on the burden of proof;

Mr_Anony: Perhaps it is time to say what I think of the video:

Dawkins was asked what he thinks of the possibility that life was intelligently designed. He answered by citing the possibility that an alien intelligent life form could have seeded life on earth. He even suggests that we might see a signature for this designer in the complex mechanisms of molecular biology.....


...Now pause for a minute and let that sink in...


Actually, I can't fault Dawkins there because it simply follows that where we see complex order, we deduce that there is an intelligence behind it. That's a pretty straightforward argument. Interestingly, it is also one of the most basic evidence provided for God i.e. creation has a creator. Essentially what Dawkins has done there is to admit there possibility of a creator.


....But the interview continues and this is where it gets interesting....


Dawkins makes it clear that a creator could exist but it would have most likely evolved in a Darwinian manner i.e. it must have a naturalistic explanation (notice how Richard paints everything with his Darwinian evolution brush).
Ben Stein notices this and points out that Dawkins doesn't really have a problem with a creator. He only insists that the creator must be naturalistic/material.

Ben goes on to press him on the question about the belief in any gods whatsoever to which he replies that such an assertion would contradict everything he has been saying (he completely forgot that he had just proposed physical gods from another planet)



Now to the problems with Dawkins' logic.

1. Dawkins accepts the possibility of an intelligent creator, he only insists that such a creator would have evolved as well as us. This doesn't help us at all because all it does is introduce an infinite regress of design and evolution. At some point you must end at a first intelligent life that did not evolve (The very kind of intelligent life Richard dawkins rejects). Puzzling isn't it?

2. Dawkins is right in deducing an intelligent designer as responsible for a complex life, but then there is no reason to insist that this intelligent life must have evolved. The only reason why Dawkins would think this is because of his bias emanating from a Darwinian/materialist worldview.


Conclusion:
Watching that video showed me something very important: It is not that the there is no evidence for God as the atheist would like to believe, It is just that the atheist is fanatically committed to a naturalistic worldview (which by the way, he has no justification for as it cannot explain all the aspects of his reality) and for that reason, even when he sees evidence for God staring him in the face, he refuses to acknowledge him.

The conclusion of that video was very telling: When Dawkins is asked what he will say to God after his death, Dawkins says he'll ask why God took so much pains to hide Himself.
Dawkins forgot that he had just suggested that "the details of molecular biology might hold the signature of a designer". Clearly the evidence of God lies before Dawkins. Pity he would rather it was aliens.


But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth.
But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.
What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. Romans 1:18-23(MSG)

There is nothing to argue. The moment that I saw this video, I knew that you were a lying christian. Why?

You are late to the christian urban legend from over 4 years ago that claims that Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins as someone that supports intelligent design just like a christian would.

Since 2008, this video has surfaced on many conservative christian websites;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Ben_Stein_Interview_with_Richard_Dawkins
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1793395/pg1
http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins/page/full/



Note that;
1) Dawkins was speculating and clearly said that it is a possibilty that some civilization seeded the earth with life
2) Dawkins clearly said that if there were an intelligent designer that such a designer would himself come from a physical process as well.

Creatrixity: Funny but lenin had the same goals ..you are just to much of a sissy to carry out his methods..
But with ideals like this you are pretty dangerous..just dont get into power!

^^^Hello,stalin!

See this ignorant dunce.


Yes, arguing for a secular democracy was Stalin's ideals.

Note that most of the modern western world is a secular democracy

Mr_Anony: My replies to individuals on this thread:

@Logicboy:- Please type in "directed panspermia" in the search box of your beloved wikipedia and stop disgracing yourself.

@davidlyan, enigma and creatixity: Thanks, I am happy you saw what I was hoping you'll see. And thanks enigma especially for the links. Very educative.

Typical lying christian.



Note what the argument was about;

CreativeX claimed that Dawkins was talking about panspermia. Which I disagreed up with. Realising this mistake, Enigma then corrected it to "directed panspermia" and then lied that Dawkins claimed in the video that he was talking about directed panspermia.

Creatrixity: ^^what is stupid?hear yourself logicboy..here are possible scenarios for the origin of life according to panspermia..

Apparently the originators of the panspermia theory got confused..so next time before you get all worked up and post insupportable stupidity...think!!

Logicboy;

Creatrixity: Dawkins did not mention panspermia but he did imply it !here:

"It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization [/b]evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a [b]very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet."

If this aint panspermia i don't know what it is..come and defend your pope logicboy!

Take note of the bold and then go and read the panspermia hypothesis.

Panspermia Theory suggests that life seeds came from outer space and planets exchanged life. Panspermia literally means seeds everywhere.

Panspermia suggests that life could have existed on another planet and moved to Earth. Statistics have showed 7.5% of rocks from Mars reach Earth. The rocks would travel between less than 100 years to 16,000 years and more to get to earth.

Some of the proponents include Sales Gyon de Montlivant, who proposed life came from moon, H.E. Richter, who suggested life came from meteorites/comets, and Svante Arrhenius, who came up with Panspermia.

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed" is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.[1]
Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance.[2][citation needed]

See how stoopid some people are? Everyone can see how Dawkins was talking about a different origin of life than panspermia.

You accuse me of lying when clearly you utilize dodgy means of debating..ok "guardian of truth" from the video it was clear that darwin was referring to panspermia..and they said only religionists practice hero worship..smh..you are so bent on defending your latest favorite idol dawkins even when his gaffes are glaringly obvious!..you are a scam and a plonker!

Creatrixity: You accuse me of lying when clearly you utilize dodgy means of debating..ok "guardian of truth" from the video it was clear that darwin was referring to panspermia..and they said only religionists practice hero worship..smh..you are so bent on defending your latest favorite idol dawkins even when his gaffes are glaringly obvious!..you are a scam and a plonker!

What was Dawkins gaffe? Please tell me?