davidylan:

that is quite true, it is the reason most of them devolve into apoplexy when his words are challenged on here. They have never read his books, they simply use the few words copied off the internet as a figleaf to lend legitimacy to their own poorly developed arguments.

How does his one book square with over a million books written pastors, priests, imams of different and even conflicting goddist sects?

So if Dawkins, a human, is somehow flawed in his presentation of facts, how does that validate or help the many glaring contradictions of religious scriptures?

Religion , the god package, is being gradually immascultaed. That is why You guys are always clutching at straws.

Logicboy03:


Argument from authority? Seriously?

A rational atheist needs Dawkins to know that there is no evidence for God? Or that God committed genocides in the old testament?

I dont know which atheists you sampled.

the painful truth is that most would have no coherent argument for their atheist positions if the likes of Dawkins didnt exist.

davidylan:

but you do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about this non-existent "God".

Do atheists complain about God or what religious people like you do in God's name?

Logicboy03:

There are 8 planets but 8 itself does not exist.

Then how is it possible to say that there are eight planets.

Ol' boy, leave the matter. It is way above your head. I would like to delve into elucidations which, given your antecedents, would be impossible to discuss with someone of your capacity and disposition, no offense meant.

thehomer:

That same thread that you eventually absconded from?



Ooh Mr. Deep Sight lays down the law on who a dunce is.



Of course. Ignore the pastors and prophets who haven't written anything controversial but have made more money. Though people like you simply miss the point. The main question is: why should religion be out of the realm of what can be honestly criticized? You now assert that writers are actually con-artists. Please can you tell me what concept of con artist you're using? I ask because anyone who understands the language and buys the book most likely knows what to expect. You go ahead and write your controversial book but before you do, please tell us why writing on religion is controversial.



Really? Are you aware that because of religion, people have been doing and are doing stupid and dangerous things that affect not only themselves but others around them? On Dawkins advancing his professional calling, why don't you actually take a look at his accomplishments on Wikipedia. Seriously, people like you sometimes make me wonder what you think scientists and education are for. You seem to think that scientists should simply shut up and work in their labs as if they're not a part of the society they live in or that they may have views that they may wish to express.

As to your last paragraph; religion is not the issue. The existence of a creator is the issue. And it is a harmless philosophical and theological question. Period.

Logicboy03:

Do atheists complain about God or what religious people like you do in God's name?

Just look down at the roll-call of NL atheists reading this page. you wonder what draws them like nervous flies to a thread about "God" time and time and time again especially since they spend half the time blabbing about how God is supposedly non-existent. you would think they had something better to do than recycling the same tired arguments about why the pink tooth fairy could not possible be real.

davidylan:
. . . .

The miller-urey experiment has been discussed here severally and shown to be a complete dud. If it was a success one would think that 48 yrs on, creating amino acids in the lab would be a pretty routine process no? As at 2013, there is no scientist anywhere in the world who has been successful at creating amino acids in the lab.

Your quote in bold is false. We create amino acids in labs all the time. Some even exist in space.

Ah, and again from the horse's mumu's own mouth or hand ---- mind anyway.

Per richard Dawkins

I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point . . . .

plaetton:

How does his one book square with over a million books written pastors, priests, imams of different and even conflicting goddist sects?

So if Dawkins, a human, is somehow flawed in his presentation of facts, how does that validate or help the many glaring contradictions of religious scriptures?

Religion , the god package, is being gradually immascultaed. That is why You guys are always clutching at straws.

You only emasculate something you are afraid of... food for thought.

Deep Sight:

As to your last paragraph; religion is not the issue. The existence of a creator is the issue. And it is a harmless philosophical and theological question. Period.

Religion is not the issue to who? Do you see God coming down to kill homosexuals and blow up buildings? The fact that you think it is harmless, doesn't make it so as many religious people will show you if you push them to it. Period.

davidylan:

Just look down at the roll-call of NL atheists reading this page. you wonder what draws them like nervous flies to a thread about "God" time and time and time again especially since they spend half the time blabbing about how God is supposedly non-existent. you would think they had something better to do than recycling the same tired arguments about why the pink tooth fairy could not possible be real.

Is this fear I sense? It costs little to rebut the God claims so why not do it at my leisure?

Deep Sight:

Then how is it possible to say that there are eight planets.

Ol' boy, leave the matter. It is way above your head. I would like to delve into elucidations which, given your antecedents, would be impossible to discuss with someone of your capacity and disposition, no offense meant.

Wow, such elitism. You are so smart! Keep using big words (elucidation, antecendents, disposition) .......these big words will help you cover you empty arguments


You do realise that numbers are an abstract concept right? It is what we use to quantify items. The numbers do not exist. The planets exist. The numbers are our way of quantifying them.

thehomer:

Your quote in bold is false. We create amino acids in labs all the time. Some even exist in space.

Again i reiterate... much of your "knowledge" really goes no further than what you can glean from the internet since you have zero real world experience with amino acids. Amino acids, as components of proteins, cannot be created in the lab on a routine basis. Finding 3 amino acids in space rocks doth not a viable protein make. Please provide a recent peer-reviewed scientific paper describing in detail the process of amino acid generation in the lab. thanks.

thehomer:

Is this fear I sense? It costs little to rebut the God claims so why not do it at my leisure?

That is just absurd. Fear of what? thehomer and wirinet?

Deep Sight:

Yes there are. They were made and I gave the link. If you disagree, go there and tell me whats wrong there. I will not pander to your laziness in simply saying "no there aren't". Read the thread provided and show what arguments are wrong. If you cannot do that, or perhaps you don't have the time, then you cannot expect me to write all over again here. That will "expose" my joblessness.

I did start reading, I stopped where you said there was overwhelming evidence of design or something similar. That looks patently false to me. I've got pictures of the loch ness monster for instance, that means the burden of proof isn't on me? That is far from enough evidence to support my extraordinary claim.

davidylan:

You only emasculate something you are afraid of... food for thought.

Wait, people emasculate certain animals by removing their horns to avoid the danger of getting injured. You could say that they do that in fear of getting injured.

How does this make religion or the animal horns good for human beings?

Logicboy03:


Wait, people emasculate certain animals by removing their horns to avoid the danger of getting injured. You could say that they do that in fear of getting injured.

How does this make religion or the animal horns good for human beings?

Again i repeat... you only emasculate something you are afraid of. What makes you deathly scared of the christian God? I dont see you foaming in the mouth about Ifa.

davidylan:

Again i reiterate... much of your "knowledge" really goes no further than what you can glean from the internet since you have zero real world experience with amino acids. Amino acids, as components of proteins, cannot be created in the lab on a routine basis. Please provide a recent peer-reviewed scientific paper describing in detail the process of amino acid generation in the lab. thanks.

Guy don't embarrass yourself again. Wikipedia is your friend besides, haven't you ever heard of intravenous fluids that are given that contain all the necessary amino acids? Take a look at the protein part of total parenteral nutrition. Amino acids are one of the components given.

You'll be surprised at the sorts of things modern pharmacies are capable of Mr. 100% real world experience with amino acids.

davidylan:

That is just absurd. Fear of what? thehomer and wirinet?

Maybe. You're the one wondering about the onslaught of Nairaland atheists.

mazaje:
I do not know what the right explanation is but I can tell when I see a wrong explanation: I might not know what 23355433333 X 23443245557654 is but I know it is not 10. . . . .

True... but in other to know that it is not 10, you must know how multiplication works and know what a likely answer would look like. You didn't provide us even a vague idea of what the right answer might look like. It is irrational to oppose a position in a vacuum. In order to oppose a position properly, you must define a counter position based upon which you oppose it.

mazaje:
Nope; you are question begging. . .How do you know that the the force responsible for the universe assuming it exist is only one single entity?. . .The environment is evidence for the environment and NOT evidence for any god. . .There is so much that we do not know about the universe; the creators of the universe if there is any could have died, it could be a force or some forces that created and ran away, it could be some alien life that created our own planet and life that is found in it that. . .The universe might have created it self, it could have been created by many forces, it could be that all the life forms on earth were created by some other intelligent life forms living some where in the universe who could be living or dead. It could be anything.

If you don't agree that precision and improbable complex order that characterizes our universe is evidence for a designer, then you must tell us what you think is most plausible upon which you base your disagreement. As I said earlier, you can't oppose a position in a vacuum

But let me agree with you that there is a single god that created the universe. Pls what evidence do you have to show that your god alone created the universe and not a combination of many other gods or some other single god or some any kind of vague force? I am talking of objective evidence that can stand alone not some philosophical ramblings that provide no evidence at all. . .

Inasmuch as it appears that you agree here, you also give no basis for your agreement and from your comment you are also not prepared to accept a series of preceding arguments so I really can't help you. Your request (especially how it is phrased) is irrational.

It is like me asking you to prove that the first comment you presumably typed on this thread was actually created by you (presumably a human person) and not something else ranging from humans to robots to cats walking along a keyboard to atoms randomly forming mass and depressing keys on a keyboard. . . .and no I will only accept "objective evidence" and not "philosophical ramblings".

Perhaps you have noticed how irrational the request I made above is. Perhaps you have also noticed that I haven't really defined anything upon which I based my above request.

In the same way you cannot disagree in a vacuum, you also can't agree in a vacuum. There must be a basis for every claim or counter-claim.

So once again, I ask: Do you agree that the precision and improbable complex order of the cosmos is evidence that it has an intelligent designer? If yes we continue and move past your atheism. If no, Why? specifically

davidylan:

Again i repeat... you only emasculate something you are afraid of. What makes you deathly scared of the christian God? I dont see you foaming in the mouth about Ifa.

The fact remains that I do not believe in any God. There is also the fact that christians of nowadays, in general, are more in number and more intolerant to unbelievers.


You really need to start thinking

Mr_Anony:
True... but in other to know that it is not 10, you must know how multiplication works and know what a likely answer would look like. You didn't provide us even a vague idea of what the right answer might look like. It is irrational to oppose a position in a vacuum. In order to oppose a position properly, you must define a counter position based upon which you oppose it.

Wrong. I can oppose an idea if there is no proof or logical evidence for it.

In a formal debate, if you claim that atheists do not believe in the spiritual and I tell you to prove it, you have to prove it or you have lost points.


"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

davidylan:

You only emasculate something you are afraid of... food for thought.

Agreed.
But Religion is very fearful. Don't you agree?
Religion is also all about fear. Fear is the principal currency.
From fear you get, hate, bigotry, exploitation, etc, etc.
Just look at the havoc it wrecks on the human psyche.
Just look at the havoc it wrecks on the Nigerian society.

I hold religion responsible for every problem we have in Nigeria. Yes, religion.

Enigma: Thanks Mr Anony; that is a matter of simlpe straight logic and we will see if his disciles will now come to his defence.

From a post made in December 2011, I take the second video since the first duplicated is the same as in the OP. Watch Dawkins deny that he was himself putting forward that 'speculation' or 'hypothesis' but that he was in fact presenting the "best argument" that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might put forward.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/811383/big-lie/1#9813061


His disingenuous attempt at 'self-rebuttal' here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM





Oh by the way that video is just one evidence that Dawkins was indeed talking about directed panspermia in the OP video.

Lol...at least one thing is clear Dawkins himself has said he was indeed talking about directed panspermia. (for the benefit of logicboy)

2. Dawkins is here desperately trying to back away from his statements because it is obvious through the video that Dawkins has no problem with intelligent design just certain kinds of designers. He even makes a point of stressing what the designer cannot be.

3. Did you notice the "We Are The Light" song at the end?

Mr_Anony:
Lol...at least one thing is clear Dawkins himself has said he was indeed talking about directed panspermia. (for the benefit of logicboy)

2. Dawkins is here desperately trying to back away from his statements because it is obvious through the video that Dawkins has no problem with intelligent design just certain kinds of designers. He even makes a point of stressing what the designer cannot be.

3. Did you notice the "We Are The Light" song at the end?

Anonyism..............

Y'all indulging so many false claims. The nature of the vid is as clear as it gets. The only thing I personally disagree with is his need to proselytize, in a manner of speak, with the whole religious people will feel better if they free themselves from religion. I agree for many that would hold, it won't for others. At the end of the day it's not by force (so long as one minds his business, difficult, I know).

The questions the interviewer asked about percentages were blatantly disingenuous considering context, that more or else set the tone of the interview. We also know that apparently the full session has never been released. Why? This video was built specifically to create issues where there are non. To appeal to pseudo-intellectuals looking for any straws they can cling to to support their tenuous case. A bit like propaganda, nothing honest here.

Even if this interview were legit and these were dawkins opinions, assertions made here have been wrong. Dawkins isn't some sort of priest, sorry to disappoint you. 1 percent (I think even less in his book) doubt amounts to nothing practical, it's about being open minded and objective (yes there is a chance, but it's extremely unlikely). Etc, etc, and all the good stuff that's been pointed out.

His stance, it isn't illogical, it looks more to me y'all are disappointed he didn't make $hit up. Well, that's not he rolls it seems, sorry.

@mazaje, I don't think that's the default atheist stand, or if there's one for many of the issues you raise there. I personally don't agree with some of that for instance

thehomer:
They are if they wish to claim that there was no dishonesty on their part. Dawkins himself has made documentaries. In fact, when McGrath claimed that the best arguments for theism were cut out what happened? The full unedited interview was posted online for all to see.

They aren't and as far as I know, Dawkins has not requested it either.

Sure I can. When you consider Dawkins work and the methodology that Stein used for this film, it isn't a stretch.

From you and Ben Stein. This was what you said.

He wasn't proposing a theory, he was simply considering a hypothetical that was explicitly asked of from him. But the part where the question was being posed was edited to make it look as if he was spontaneously proposing it. If you think that Dawkins actually holds that view, then why does his extensive writing not support that it is actually his view?

Actually no my friend that is inaccurate. The question was not edited out. Please watch the video. Again you are clutching on a strawman, I haven't claimed that that's what Dawkin's believes; I have made it clear however that he thinks intelligent design plausible. His only grouse is with the nature of the designer. That much is obvious

And there are points against it too. Besides, do intelligent design creationists argue for panspermia?

I have told you before that intelligent design is not the same as creationism.

What? Do you think that was the entire uncut interview? What sort of evidence are you asking for? And who do you think should have it?

No I obviously don't think it is an uncut video however I am contesting your suggestion that it was edited with the intent of undermining Dawkins that is what you have no evidence for. Dawkins answers to me already fits their "narrative" without much need for disingenious editing.

plaetton:

Agreed.
But Religion is very fearful. Don't you agree?
Religion is also all about fear. Fear is the principal currency.
From fear you get, hate, bigotry, exploitation, etc, etc.
Just look at the havoc it wrecks on the human psyche.
Just look at the havoc it wrecks on the Nigerian society.

I hold religion responsible for every problem we have in Nigeria. Yes, religion.

Really?,now thats a new one..please let us not argue based on sentimentalism and emotion.please state the merits and demerits of religion and also the merits and demerits of irreligion..
I will agree 100percent with you if you prove that irreligion will lead to world peace,eradicate tribalism and racism..
Thanks..

Creatrixity:
Really?,now thats a new one..please let us not argue based on sentimentalism and emotion.please state the merits and demerits of religion and also the merits and demerits of irreligion..
I will agree 100percent with you if you prove that irreligion will lead to world peace,eradicate tribalism and racism..
Thanks..

Irreligion does not lead to world peace. However, secularism (separation of church and state) is a prerequisite for an advanced nation.

I dont want to remove religion. I only dont want religion to have a place in a nations law or in govt funded institutions! You can worship your god or whatever in your houses and private institutions or even in the open square.


Religious morality is flawed and not based on logic. We want laws based on logic. A great example is where a religious hospital refused abortion to a woman becuase the child had a heartbeat even when the woman was experiencing serious back pain. The woman and the child both died later. Religion (Abrahamic) is foolish on abortions.

Look at any advanced nation and you will find that they secular or at least have secular laws.

Creatrixity:
Really?,now thats a new one..please let us not argue based on sentimentalism and emotion.please state the merits and demerits of religion and also the merits and demerits of irreligion..
I will agree 100percent with you if you prove that irreligion will lead to world peace,eradicate tribalism and racism..
Thanks..

Irreligion does not lead to world peace. However, secularism (separation of church and state) is a prerequisite for an advanced nation.

I dont want to remove religion. I only dont want religion to have a place in a nations law or in govt funded institutions! You can worship your god or whatever in your houses and private institutions or even in the open square.


Religious morality is flawed and not based on logic. We want laws based on logic. A great example is where a religious hospital refused abortion to a woman becuase the child had a heartbeat even when the woman was experiencing serious back pain. The woman and the child both died later. Religion (Abrahamic) is foolish on abortions.

Look at any advanced nation and you will find that they secular or at least have secular laws.

Creatrixity:
Really?,now thats a new one..please let us not argue based on sentimentalism and emotion.please state the merits and demerits of religion and also the merits and demerits of irreligion..
I will agree 100percent with you if you prove that irreligion will lead to world peace,eradicate tribalism and racism..
Thanks..

First, I dont need you to agree 100% with anything.

If you consider being sedated with opium a good thing, then religion might be considered a good thing because it keeps people mentally sedated witha false sense of security and a deluded sense of well being.
I personally dont see that as a good thing, so I dont see anything good about religion.

As for the bad things about religion, ha ha ha, where do start from?
From the bible , from our modern times or from present day Nigeria?
Should I mention genocidal wars,crusades, jihads, slavery,witch hunts, child molestations, financial fraud, Al queda, Boko Haram, Pentecostal Fraudsters Of Nigeria, sign Fireman and his "God is a game" theme, child witch killings, rev. King.

C'mon. The list is too long.

Lol, how do you read?

Logicboy03:
Wrong. I can oppose an idea if there is no proof or logical evidence for it.

True. . .but then logical evidence demands that each succeeding premise must follow from the previous and thereby providing the basis for the eventual proof.

For instance, you can't proceed to prove that Logiboy built a house if your opponent will not even grant that the existence of a house itself is evidence of a builder especially without stating a definite reason how else a house can come about so that we can weigh them side by side.

It is equally irrational to grant that a house was built by a person without granting that the house is evidence of a builder.

In a formal debate, if you claim that atheists do not believe in the spiritual and I tell you to prove it, you have to prove it or you have lost points.

Actually this example is a poor one because you are asking for proof of the very definition of something.

Atheists by definition cannot hold that the spiritual exists and at the same time deny a spiritual being i.e. God. I don't need to provide proof for something that is part of the definition of a thing. Kinda like asking proof that a democrat(not the american political party) believes in voting

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

True...Same for conclusions without basic premises