On the subject of atheism.

[billy rubin]

...And the question is, if we assume such a designer, would any reasonable one have chosen that solution? Perhaps the answer is yes. In that giraffe example, the answer is "no."

only if the god is named asmo.

[Asmodean]

...But He is thusly named, although with the added The. His Divine The is important, you see.

Actually, doesn't even take an engineer to determine that the most effective route for a wire is the shortest one possible along the existing support structures.

[billy rubin]

yes. but nowhere in this conversation has it been established that the design considerations and goals of an effective engineer are the same as any given god.

perhaps god likes weird circulatory systems in giraffes. finding odd and impractical features of nature says nothing sbout whether they were designed, only that we would do it differently were we the designer.

what wS it that haldane said when the priest asked him what his evolutionary studies had ttaught him about the mind of god?

". . . an inordinate fondness for beetles . . ."

[The Magic Pudding..]

I think we are talking dog works in mysterious ways, the ineffable plan.
Billy understands this and Dawkins doesn't, Dawkins is such a dolt.

yes. out of his area of expertise, dawkins is a dolt. he would have done better to emulate his idol, thomas henry huxley.

when huxley learned of darwins theory of evolution by means of natural selection, his immediate response was to say,

"how stupid of me not to have thought of that . . ."

i have yet to hear dawkins utter anything so humble.

Why does Dawkins need to be humble?
He's a rock star, he has made a success of his life, he doesn't drive a literal shit truck or a figurative shit truck with wheels that fall off and go we know not where, potentially killing other people's children, trucks a reasonable person would refuse to drive.
I see Dawkins as a person promoting reason, opposed to bullshit religion exemplified by the weird fuck creationists.  Creationism is shit, I don't see any virtue in examining every turd, but you seem to Billy, and disparage Dawkins for not...

How do you know what Dawkins is thinking?

"dawkins wanted to be the new t h huxley, but he doesnt have the insight huxley had."
richard dawkin's arrogance is in his belief that the only real god must exist in the image of richard dawkins. thats not something most people assert, and dawkins is too dumb to see it

"only if the god is named asmo."

Arrogance, ye, I find it a really annoying trait in idiots, highly intelligent accomplished people, less so.

[billy rubin]

I see Dawkins as a person promoting reason, opposed to bullshit religion exemplified by the weird fuck creationists.  Creationism is shit, I don't see any virtue in examining every turd, but you seem to Billy, and disparage Dawkins for not...

perhaps you should rethink your standards of reason. dawkins's weakness is a common one in academics.

the problem is when soneone is very good at something and carries that confidence into an area in which they are not good, but dont realize it. my own experience in university environments has demonstrated it several times.

dawkins is a good example of someone being right (in my own opinion) for the wrong reasons.

[zorkan]

Dawkins is clever, but he's no genius, would be my assessment.
So what about the other 'horsemen': Hitchens, Harris, Dennett.
I have a copies of these books.
Hitchens: God Is Not Great. The Portable Atheist.
Harris: The End of Faith.
Dennett: Breaking the Spell.

Others I assume never met.
The 5th is sometimes given as Victor Stenger.
I'll nominate the 6th as Isaac Asimov.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Four-Horsemen-Discussion-Revolution-Foreword/dp/0593080394/ref=asc_df_0593080394/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310848077451&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4655319355711064098&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045565&hvtargid=pla-525300721174&psc=1&mcid=c90b75c975183b0883dd292c8a1dd666&th=1&psc=1

Some of them are no longer here, but I would have had a question for each of them.
Could god have been formed out of the chaos of the Big Bang?
Meaning that god was created, not  a creator.

[billy rubin]

in my opinion hitchens appeared to be an intelligent and no nonsense advocate for clear thinking. i havent read a great deal of what he wrote, so my opinion isnt worth much.

harris is a moral monster, if thats important to anybody. its a shame when you realize he has quaker roots.

ive never heard of dennet

[zorkan]

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher, and just as philosophers do he takes a long time to explain what could be written in a few sentences.
I'd recommend him as a cure for insomnia.
His full name is Daniel Clement Dennett III.

Dawkins' given first name is actually Clinton.
As he possibly didn't want to be confused with a well known Hollywood actor he dropped it.

[billy rubin]

if you ever want to read something philosophical that will drive you insane try out karl popper on the logic of scientific discovery. ive gave it a serious go once and it absolutely defeated me

[zorkan]

If I read Pooper (sic) how quickly can I get to sleep?

Any book on accountancy is almost certain you get a good night's sleep.

This is what Stephen Hawking had to say about philosophy:

During his presentation Stephen Hawking said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research.

"But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," he said. "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."

[Asmodean]

During his presentation Stephen Hawking said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research.

"But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," he said. "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."

I think I would broadly disagree with this.

True enough, the "big questions" cannot be resolved without aggregating data, but the backside of it is understanding said data. What does it mean and imply? That, I think, is where "useful philosophy" lies - at least in that regard.

[zorkan]

I knew you would.

Whenever I'm in Oxford I hope to get a sight of Dawkins as he lives there.
There yesterday and still no sighting, even in Blackwell's bookshop where he has been known to wander.
I'm told he avoids all contact, and is as mysterious as god himself.
He doesn't suffer fools like me gladly, but I'd just like to see him.

[Asmodean]

Are you celebrity-stalking the good professor?

Eh... I suppose I wouldn't say no to having tea with the man either, though we would be unlikely to "talk shop" unless he was so inclined.

[zorkan]

He might invite you into his home by the canal, where at the bottom of his garden it 'rains' DNA.
Not right now. I noticed that nearly all the Port Meadow was under water from the Thames.

[Asmodean]

Nah... I wouldn't fly all the way to Britainland just for some tea and DNA. I mean, when I was even ten years younger - sure. These days, however... The hassle seems to demand ever more of an excuse to inflict upon one's weary bones.