So atheism has been around for thousands of years, but I'm interested in the rise of it after Darwin (neo atheists).
I have books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Mills. These seem like intellectual arguments against religion.
There are also books and videos more like counter arguments.
None of them address the big issue, that we may well be living in a created universe.
Atheism as a subject fascinates me, but I wonder about the unbalanced argument.
I've recently read The Desire for God by David Baddiel, who is a secular Jew, and more like a balanced argument.
Do you agree?
The idea of a supernatural god is challenged by the JS Mill argument that god himself would need a creator.
The black hole here is that for some reason many people need an entity to look up to and worship.
Better to worship a human god or just plain human, as with the case of the islanders of Tanna.
"They spoke of how Prince Philip was a deity, the son of the volcano god Kalbaben, and how a token from Him would set things aright."
It seems this is not just a cargo cult, but has some connect to how the human mind works.
Quote from: zorkan on December 03, 2023, 12:02:48 PMSo atheism has been around for thousands of years, but I'm interested in the rise of it after Darwin (neo atheists).
I have books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Mills. These seem like intellectual arguments against religion.
There are also books and videos more like counter arguments.
None of them address the big issue, that we may well be living in a created universe.
how would we tell that we are living in a created universe, zorkan?
may the other question is simpler to answer:
how would we tell that we are not?
Even Dawkins kind of suggests he's not completely sure.
https://richarddawkins.net/2006/10/why-there-almost-certainly-is-no-god/
And, for sure, I'm not either.
As in a Venn diagram there does seem to be an overlapping area here which I'm trying to explore.
SJ Gould attempted to answer this with a non overlap - NOMA.
i spoke with gould once, briefly. should have taken more time. hurried on to listen to sewell wright and george gaylord simpson.
both of them about to drop dead from years of accumulated wisdom.
dawkins is kind of an idiot, although a cheerful one, in the british tradition. much more interesting than the murderous sam harris, who i would happily squash like a bug.
personally, i dont know how to determine the difference between a created universe and an uncreated one.
i dont think its possible to do so reasonably.
From earliest times humans have found good and evil which evolved into god and devil.
Later came arguments like Pascal's wager and the god of the gaps.
Priests explain away difficult questions by saying there are things that god only knows.
It feels like a no win situation for atheists.
There will always be a corridor of uncertainty either way.
Even J Welby has his doubts whether god exists.
Look at it another way.
Humans need to worship in some way.
Find something to scapegoat.
In terms of theism or lack thereof, what does it matter whether or not the universe was created by a concsious entity (or a group thereof) or not? How would that speak for or against capital-G gods? Was it Zeus who explosively farted and called it Big Bang? YHWH? Chtulhu? Eru Iluvatar? Lrrr of Omicron Persei Eight? Are those gods and alien man-eating horrors products of the universe, perhaps? Maybe even far-down-the-line products-of-products? It's a pretty meaningless conversation.
If you assume that the universe was thusly created, that would create this and other otherwise-unnecessary variables that would have to be accounted for to bolster a specific theistic argument.
My point is this; there is no need to address that "we may well be living in a created universe" because we, quite simply, may well not. It is on those who would invent a variable to demonstrate its necessity. If you want a balanced argument, throw away any variable you can do without, then the rest is pretty much it. From there, if you are so inclined, you may add variables and justify and explain them accordingly, thus evolving your model of reality.
QuoteMy point is this; there is no need to address that "we may well be living in a created universe" because we, quite simply, may well not. It is on those who would invent a variable to demonstrate its necessity. If you want a balanced argument, throw away any variable you can do without, then the rest is pretty much it. From there, if you are so inclined, you may add variables and justify and explain them accordingly, thus evolving your model of reality.
Scientists who think the universe might have evolved include Lee Smolin and Stephen Hawking.
I take no notice of Dawkins on this issue because he says god would have to be more complex than his creation.
Better to reason that the universe started with simplicity and evolved from there, like the way biological evolution started. Could have been a warm little pond, an undersea vent, an alien virus, one cell finding its way into another.
The laws of physics may also have evolved. I understand this was Hawking's final theory.
Then the universe might have been created by a white hole in the centre of a black hole from another universe.
The Mysterious Universe, a book by James Jeans from a century ago is a bit out of date but still an amazing read, shows how fascinating it all is.
I will only agree that theists will try to exploit our scientific knowledge for their own ends.
What AI chatbot are you using Marcus?
I don't seek to censor, it's a shitload better than your poetry.
What the **** is that last post?
Like to ask real questions.
You go to school and are brainwashed into whatever religion.
You see reason when your brain is developed and you become angry.
Has anyone tried to sue the school on the basis of no evidence for what you were taught?
Take it a stage further.
Can you appeal for a place of religion to be shut down on the basis of what they teach in there is deceit.
If I were to be called to court on the basis of religious hatred, I would refuse to take any oath and instead hold up a copy of All In The Mind by Ludovic Kennedy.
Quote from: zorkan on December 07, 2023, 10:35:42 AMAll In The Mind by Ludovic Kennedy.
So what did he have say for himself?
Quote from: zorkan on December 07, 2023, 10:35:42 AMWhat the **** is that last post?
Sorry
Quote from: zorkan on December 07, 2023, 10:35:42 AMYou see reason when your brain is developed and you become angry.
I love that line.
Quote from: zorkan on December 07, 2023, 10:35:42 AMHas anyone tried to sue the school on the basis of no evidence for what you were taught?
Take it a stage further.
Can you appeal for a place of religion to be shut down on the basis of what they teach in there is deceit.
Suing on a basis you make up, chortle chortle, snigger snigger.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on December 08, 2023, 11:57:41 AMQuote from: zorkan on December 07, 2023, 10:35:42 AMAll In The Mind by Ludovic Kennedy.
So what did he have say for himself?
Get hold of the book.
It's an easy read.
I'd compare him to Bart Ehrman, agnostic atheist.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780340680643
Bart Ehrman the christian scholar is an author I've read only briefly, and I don't know what influence he has had.
I'm going to try and find all his books.
"How Jesus became God" seems interesting and I only glanced at a copy of it this week.
Can anyone help me here with an opinion.
I've found a copy of Whose Word Is it? by Ehrman. (AKA The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.)
What caught my eye is a quote from Porphry.
"The evangelists were fiction writers - not observers or eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion".
Much like the argument made by Thomas Paine, centuries later, in his book The Age of Reason.
Z, if you are into reading, try also The End Of Biblical Studies: Hector Avalos. ISBN 978-1-59102-8.
Avalos, like Ehrman, is a professor of theology at a large university. He is at Iowa State University, Ehrman is at North Carolina University.
Quote from: zorkan on December 06, 2023, 10:58:43 AMScientists who think the universe might have evolved include Lee Smolin and Stephen Hawking.
"Evolved" may be a bit of a loaded term to a naïve (with regards to "science-speak") reader. It does not assume
Creation, though it may point to a beginning.
A fair few years ago now, I was pretty into the Big Bounce hypothesis of the origin and fate of the Universe. Totally wrong about that, but that's not the point. It ties everything together rather neatly in the Universe expanding, then contracting until a critical mass is reached, then expanding (blowing up, if you will) ad infinitum. Within the scope of infinity, that would be a revolving system. Within the scope of one crest-to-trough or trough-to-crest period, however, it could either be a devolving or an evolving system.
QuoteI take no notice of Dawkins on this issue because he says god would have to be more complex than his creation.
Better to reason that the universe started with simplicity and evolved from there, like the way biological evolution started. Could have been a warm little pond, an undersea vent, an alien virus, one cell finding its way into another.
The laws of physics may also have evolved. I understand this was Hawking's final theory.
Not to speak for the good professor, but I assume his logic is as follows; there is "nothing." (Quotation marks to denote a specific use of the word, with reference to the degree of relative complexity) A universe is created. If it was created by the application of intelligence or will, then there must exist a system capable of said intelligence and/or will. That system is comparatively
complex. Enough so to require an explanation all its own, and implausible due to its comparative complexity.
That said, I'm kind-of more interested in that last sentence there. What was it you propose to have been Hawking's "final theory?" The theory of the Evolution of Physics? Is that... I mean... I'm
me, and honestly, I don't even know where to start. Would you clarify?
QuoteThen the universe might have been created by a white hole in the centre of a black hole from another universe.
Maybe too technical a point, but the hypothetical white hole lies
"beyond" the singularity, which is what lies at the centre of a black hole, though I understand that your mileage may vary what with ring singularities and such like. In any case, it would possibly be a little more accurate to then think of the Universe as the expanding emissions plume from a black hole elsewhere. That said, this is a few ticks above my pay grade and highly hypothetical besides, so inexpert opinion and ought to be weighted as such.
I'm referring to a couple of books I've picked up recently, but will admit they are still work in progress for me.
On The Origin Of Time by Thomas Herzog, who is writing about Hawking's final theory.
White Holes by Carlo Rovelli. Could white holes explain dark matter?
Icarus: Thanks, I'll look for that book.
That's some fine reading material. :smilenod:
The theory Hertog's referring to though is not one of evolution of physics, but indeed of the cosmological origin of time. I'm not too sold on their [Hawking's et al.] approach, but that is not to say that it is without merit. In any case, "every" research physicist worth his monthly wage evolves the science of physics. Hawking was by far not the first, nor will he by far be the last.
I've picked up, but did not buy, a copy of Ehrman's 'How Jesus Became God.'
He soon refers to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana
Which of course Christians would laugh at, but my understanding is there were any number of god-men in antiquity.
For a start, all Jews believed they were the sons and daughters of god.
For a full list I recommend Bible Myths by Thomas Doane. May not be his real name because it was published in the 19th Century. It's also a book of comparative religion.
Not to overload the thread subject but......Another book that I find worth reading is;
And Man Created God. By Selina O'Grady. Sub title; A history of the world at the time of Jesus.
This is an exploration of the history of Christianity. O'Grady does it quite well.
ISBN 978-1-250-04407-5
I will also look out for that book. Thanks.
Here is a pdf of Bible Myths which I can assure you Christians want to avoid.
I have my own facsimile copy.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/31885/pg31885-images.html
Happy the Christian / pagan festival of Xmas now over.
With all those messages of peace and goodwill, love thy neighbour and other stuff, we can now get back to the nightmare that different interpretations of the god of Abraham have unleashed in a small place called Gaza.
Yeah, the whole Middle East thing... That takes more than religion, though religion does do its utmost to not-help.
Personally, I'm kind-of glad that 2023 is on its way to history. All in all, a bit of a mixed year in my book. Mom died, I took a financial hit or three, bought a new(-er) car, which is just adorable... Well, for a land yacht. The left shoulder is deteriorating... What else? Read some good books, watched some truly awful and a couple of great films... Played Dungeons and Dragons now that I'm way too big and scary to bully for my nerdy ways. :smilenod:
Yeah... That was my year. Going to try to recover some finances, travel a bit and do some cool projects for work in 2024. First though, perhaps just go fishing with a friend. That sounds like a fine idea. :smilenod:
i havent been fishing in fifty years, except for trying to catch dolphins off the stern of a mudboat with a bent nail and shrimp for bait. not very successful. ive seined for madtoms in shallow riffles, but that's not really fishing.
fishing always brings back the memory of smells-- nutrient-rich fresh water, or atlantic tide pools. my sense of smell mostly disappeared years ago, and i find it interesting how much of my perception of the world formerly came through olfaction.
Has anyone else watched YouTube vids with Emma Thorne? She is a really cute young woman who is a Brit, a lesbian, an ascetic, also a profane atheist.
Yikes, I think I have a crush on her...... alright it is only a grandfatherly kind of crush.
Here is Emma. you can skip forward to about 2:30 to begin. She does not exercise her potty mouth until about 14:30.
Quote from: Icarus on December 28, 2023, 03:12:50 AMHere is Emma. you can skip forward to about 2:30 to begin. She does not exercise her potty mouth until about 14:30.
I only got to 5:43, talking about faith.
She does seems fun.
The disciples spent lots of time with Jesus, but they weren't as stalwart as I'd expect persons who'd actually spent time with the son of god to be. I share names with two of them, some respect for the doubter.
Later followers who never met Jesus died gruesomely, gladly maybe without denying him.
I think the "word" grew with the telling.
All I see, all I intuit are the words of men and those should always be questioned.
Kings were told and accepted they were god given.
There were how many centuries, where you couldn't question aloud?
That guy should have a discussion with this guy:
Which religions are you most atheist to on a sliding scale of 1 to 10?
All of these get a 10 from me.
https://www.ranker.com/list/fringe-weird-religions/ivylocke
Pana Wave sounds great, but I won't bite.
Not mentioned here is Anastasianism.
Based on a tale of the blonde haired Anastasia, who is so close to nature she is fed by wild animals.
Big following in Russia, Poland and other neighbouring states.
A hoax for sure but I kind of like it. Scores 9/10 on my scale of nonsense.
I am atheist. [Period]
I'm not on some <current year> spectrum of bullshit when it comes to it. I do not hold any belief whatsoever in YHWH, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Krishna or the doctrines of intersectionalism. This is by far not an exhaustive list.
I find some religions palatable, others fascinating, others still tolerable and a bunch - worth regretfully forgetting, with some overlap in places. That does not, however, in any way speak to me having faith in a particular deity or adhering to any particular doctrine.
At best, I'm a coincidental -ist in pretty much every regard - yes, even when it comes to atheism. I don't believe in gods - therefore I'm atheist. I'm not "atheist, therefore <insert dogma>."
Had you been living in a past century, would you still have been an atheist?
Because of you non belief, would you have accepted being burned alive?
I think I would have gone along with the herd and gone to church/mosque/temple/whatever.
Praise be to Charles Darwin for informing us of why life exists.
Mention also to Einstein, Hubble, space telescopes.
Quote from: zorkan on January 16, 2024, 12:32:29 PMHad you been living in a past century, would you still have been an atheist?
I have lived in the past century and I
was.I understand what you are trying to say, and it's difficult to know. Had I been born in 2005 in rural Alabama, I may not have been atheist today.
QuoteBecause of you non belief, would you have accepted being burned alive?
Acceptance of the guilty is not necessary for justice to work. Now, whether I would have thought it just is a-whole-nother matter.
That said, I'm kind-of on the self-serving side of things, so I try not to pick fights I cannot win as long as whether or not I do has a tangible impact upon my sweet, sweet self. Thus, it stands to reason that if I
were some kind of heretic in times where that was punishable by more than I was willing to endure, then I would outwardly toe the line.
QuoteI think I would have gone along with the herd and gone to church/mosque/temple/whatever.
Yeah. When I was younger, I knew plenty of kids from the american bible belt who did just that, then covertly talked about not actually being religious in various atheist fora online.* It may well be that if you depend on someone and your trust in them having your back is conditional to say the least, that keeping your head low is the safest strategy. If you depend on your parents for stuff like food and shelter and know that their loyalty to their faith surpasses that to
you... I'd call that one such circumstance.
QuotePraise be to Charles Darwin for informing us of why life exists.
He didn't. His body of work is on
how life
changes.QuoteMention also to Einstein, Hubble, space telescopes.
As long as we are honourable-mentioning the honoured dead, I'd like to lift up some less-known yet no less important names; John S. Bell, father Georges Lemaître, Ralph A. Alpher, George Gamow. Many others.
[EDIT:]*Wow, that doesn't seem like such a long time ago, but over two decades went by. I was maybe 16-17 when I entered the online Atheist scene... Getting long in the proverbial tooth, and I'm not sure I like it. :rant1:
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2024, 01:36:23 PMI have lived in the past century and I was.
I find it irritating that we date our centuries from the supposed birth of one Jesus X.
If he was born at the time of one Herod, didn't that king die in 4 BC.
There we go again. I'm using BC as a calendar.
Why do we still continue with this outdated nonsense?
Might as well think the ancient Greeks knew they were living in PC times.
I'm happy with a year being a full orbit of the sun, even though that's not strictly accurate 365 days.
Abolish the word year altogether and use one orbit of our star. Like we're all on our Xth orbit of the sun.
In the unlikely event that aliens are observing us dumb Earthlings, what in 'heaven' must they be thinking of our calendar, considering we date from a time of mythology. Other non-christian dating methods are available and they are all wrong.
Everything is superstition.
And we are all ignorant of what the future holds.
Is atheism an insult to god, or perhaps religion is?
If I were god, would I want to be worshipped?
I'd probably lay down a few rules for life, like a number of do's and don'ts.
Given about 300,000 years of human history and about 8000 years of human civilisation, then why did god delay in revealing himself by way of incarnation? Surely he could just have left texts on stones.
If like me, you have a problem identifying the gospel writers, you are not alone.
"Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses."
Like these 4, I was also not present to witness any of the events attributed to the life of Jesus.
I would also like to know what he was doing before he came to preach.
It seems I am not even allowed to ask questions like this.
Were the gospel writers attempting to start a new religion?
Was there perhaps another motive?
Denied by many christians, Jesus was a Jew and Jews needed their heroes at the time of Roman occupation.
Somehow the cult got lucky but Christianity was delayed for another 400 years.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1138419-the-only-position-that-leaves-me-with-no-cognitive-dissonance
Definition: Spiritual cognitive dissonance (SCD) is a condition wherein a person holds conflicting thoughts about their spiritual beliefs and their behavioral patterns (Festinger, 1957).
Something you may want to think over. There is a drastic (supposed to be) difference from old testament to new. The religion hold onto the old in conjunction with the new as it facilitates the general mentality of what they want. Combining the two has led to trash religion that doesn't make much sense on the overall.
For christians the great link between OT and NT is the prophet Isaiah.
He forecast the coming of the christ.
Now, was this a few months or years before the great one. Maybe it was 50 years.
Nope. More like 800 years and he didn't mention Jesus at all, instead it was Immanuel, later to be known as Our Immanuel.
A bit like going back in time from the present to the time of the Crusades.
Quote from: zorkan on January 16, 2024, 04:14:34 PMI find it irritating that we date our centuries from the supposed birth of one Jesus X.
Other calendars of questionable precision are available. Julian, Lunar, Bengali...
The Gregorian calendar "won" due to a multitude of factors - the rise and fall of empires, "chronological" alliances, its overall usefulness... It may be irritating, but it is understandable, as it is understandable why the origo is placed around-ish Jesus' alleged birth day.
QuoteI'm happy with a year being a full orbit of the sun, even though that's not strictly accurate 365 days.
Abolish the word year altogether and use one orbit of our star. Like we're all on our Xth orbit of the sun.
The year of our Earth 4567362179... Or was it 4567362163?
...And the time before the origo, that being the year the Earth accreted from a cloud of dust (a process which I assume took far longer than a year) we could call BE - "before Earth."
So, change a system to one with far less intuitive numbers, which has all the flaws of the current one with no everyday life benefits. Why?
QuoteIn the unlikely event that aliens are observing us dumb Earthlings, what in 'heaven' must they be thinking of our calendar, considering we date from a time of mythology. Other non-christian dating methods are available and they are all wrong.
They would find it a useful way of measuring time. What does it matter if the coordinate system is arbitrary, as long as it is agreed upon?
Will cyborgs burn in hell? A new age has begun.
https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musks-brain-chip-technology-heralds-the-age-of-the-cyborg-13059835
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just media hyping up something that is far less interesting up close - at least from that particular source. Now, if someone like Microsoft or some other "reputable" entity were heralding the age of the cyborg, I would possibly be mildly intrigued. Musk..? Not so much.
That said, I've never quite understood how a soul is supposed to burn in Hell, since it's not alleged to be made of anything flammable. A cyborg, on the other hand, that you could burn.
Good to know only cyborgs will be thrown into the fiery lake, which I assume is central to hell.
But isn't the soul supposed to be linked to both body and mind?
The penalty for not believing in the loving Jesus is still a burning end whether you're a cyborg or not.
There are other places of the mind.
One is Shangri-La favoured by Tibetans.
"The mythical land of Shangri-La is the novelist James Hilton's fictional account of the legendary Tibetan paradise Shambala. In Hilton's 1933 novel, Lost Horizon, he changes the name of the paradise to Shangri-La."
People regain their youth here in a sort of youthing field.
Well, it makes a change from the idea of hell.
Quote from: zorkan on February 01, 2024, 05:28:37 PMGood to know only cyborgs will be thrown into the fiery lake, which I assume is central to hell.
:smilenod: Made from regular matter them 'borgs, you see.
QuoteBut isn't the soul supposed to be linked to both body and mind?
Yeah, but body and, by extension, mind just rot after death - or get disposed of in some other way. The soul is supposed to get "released" or some such nonsense at or around that point. I postulate that it makes it unburnable by virtue of immateriality.
And you know what could be used synonymously with "immateriality?"
Non-existence. :smilenod:
QuoteThe penalty for not believing in the loving Jesus is still a burning end whether you're a cyborg or not.
Well, yeah, but what does it matter? (See what I did there? Matter. :snicker1: Because immaterial. Comedy. Fucking. King. Yep. :D )
If you in your soul form can very well exist in the core of a star, then what's a little lake of magical fire?
QuoteThere are other places of the mind.
One is Shangri-La favoured by Tibetans.
My end-of-the-line complaint with most concepts of eternal life, life after death and such like is that eternity is a very long time. Now, if you get reincarnated and thereby "reset" every time you die, then it need not matter to you how you live - you will not even be you, let alone remember anything, upon reincarnation. That one is kinda' close to nature recycling your molecules.
As for "eternal soul" worlds, I present you with one trillion years. If you reset your birthdays for convenience every 100 years, after a trillion years, you will have celebrated your 100th birthday
ten thousand million times. Humans being what they are, there is "nothing" worth doing that many times. So, deathly bored but doomed to undeath, there you are, having shoved that birthday cake into every orifice imaginable more times than you can count... Welcome to the very
beginning of your eternity.
How's
that for Hell? 8)
Seems like you could benefit from this.
https://www.mysticmag.com/psychic-reading/what-you-need-to-know-about-past-life-readings/
You could also try the Akashic records.
Would like your opinion on The God Delusion by Dawkins.
The only effect it's had is to harden atheism and religion at the same time.
We know that religion puts people into a straight jacket, as they descend further and further into their own mental black hole.
Few people admit to being wrong, not even Dawkins.
Black holes are a reality from which you cannot escape.
In fact you won't even know you have fallen below the event horizon.
With Dawkins it's more than just non belief. It's an intellectual argument that had to be won.
He's failed, hasn't he?
I have the book, I have read it carefully. Dawkins does a pretty good job of making his point of view applicable to reality. The book is probably on the prohibited list in many red state American libraries.
Yes Dawkins has failed to persuade or reason with the people who will not, or cannot, read his book. What I mean by "cannot" is that potential learners are prohibited by their religious peers from reading such "ungodly trash".
Dawkins and others of similar persuasion are pissing against the tide of the religious establishment.
Some of us, a growing number of us, are slowly removing ourselves from the self imposed slavery to religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Steele, and others have helped keep the ball rolling.
Quote from: Icarus on February 04, 2024, 03:21:04 AMI have the book, I have read it carefully. Dawkins does a pretty good job of making his point of view applicable to reality. The book is probably on the prohibited list in many red state American libraries.
I can't find any evidence it is banned in any state. I assume some libraries simply won't keep it.
QuoteYes Dawkins has failed to persuade or reason with the people who will not, or cannot, read his book. What I mean by "cannot" is that potential learners are prohibited by their religious peers from reading such "ungodly trash".
The book was written about 20 years ago now, and it does appear to have aged. I ended up buying 3 copies.
He probably started to write most of it after 911.
His forum richarddawkins.net didn't last long. It became a platform for anarchists and closed.
I think he should have seen that coming.
QuoteDawkins and others of similar persuasion are pissing against the tide of the religious establishment.
They have probably helped in a limited way to help make the UK a more of a place of free thought.
QuoteSome of us, a growing number of us, are slowly removing ourselves from the self imposed slavery to religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Steele, and others have helped keep the ball rolling.
"self imposed slavery to religion" or of religion?
Based on population census every 10 years (latest in 2021) : "In 1981, 82% of the Pre-War generation in Britain said they believed in God – but this is now down to 59%. Baby Boomers have followed a similar trend, with 2022 marking the first time less than half (48%) said they believed in God. But Gen Z (37%) have the lowest levels of belief.1 May 2023".
Maybe they prefer to hear something more contemporary than the bible.
"The first and most important commandment was that they must not worship any god other than the Lord. Whoever violated this commandment should be killed and Exodus 22:20 reads "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed."
Maybe they are aware of this:
"The Quran has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." Jews and Christians are specifically included among such "infidels."
The Quran's Sura 5:33 says about infidels, "They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off." Sura 9:5 says, "Slay the infidels wherever you find them ... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them)." Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.
The next time you hear about god's love, consider how many times the word love is mentioned in the bible.
The answer is zero. The bible wasn't written in English.
Only from nuanced words can the figure be given as anything from 300 to 800.
By comparison:
https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
If your finger gets tired of scrolling, the answer is about 25 million.
Here is a tip of the hat to you Zorkan. You have posted many references that suggest that you have studied your subject very well.
If you were a Christian preacher, you would be dangerous.
My overall opinion of The God Delusion is that it was a book for its time and of its time, as it was for its audience.
Personally, I did not learn many new things from it, nor saw anything noteworthy in a different light after reading it - at least not to the best of what I can remember.
Beyond that, this here was well-said.
Quote from: Icarus on February 04, 2024, 03:21:04 AMDawkins does a pretty good job of making his point of view applicable to reality.
***
Some of us, a growing number of us, are slowly removing ourselves from the self imposed slavery to religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Steele, and others have helped keep the ball rolling.
It was an important piece of literature for many who arrived at similar conclusions but dared not or could not openly voice them, or those who had godlessness "in the back of their mind," but did not know how to formulate their position.
It has helped shape and sharpen some - many, I suppose - athesits' view on religion and their own lack of faith.
A year after the GD was published arrived a book by Victor Stenger - God: the Failed Hypothesis.
Where Dawkins emphasises evolution, Stenger takes a broader view with cosmology.
Together they make a compelling argument.
I like Dawkins' comment that religion makes you lazy. You don't need to think, you just obey as a member of the herd.
In schools all over the world science in the form of evolutionary biology and cosmology is pushed into the background by religious studies. That's because schools don't want free thought. They want you to obey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
""All freethinkers should have both volumes The God Delusion and God: The Failed Hypothesis, side by side, on their bookshelves."
dawkins is a pioneering sociobioligist, but i have found his writings on religion pretty shallow. his flaw is that he needs to define god as a cosmic richard dawkins, and if he finds that the proposed god behaves in a way that he wouldnt, then its god that is unlikely, rather than his conception of god.
the selfish gene should be required reading for anybody wanting to think about biogenesis, but i dont see his other stuff as useful.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 05, 2024, 01:42:14 PMthe selfish gene should be required reading for anybody wanting to think about biogenesis, but i dont see his other stuff as useful.
I'd like to :this: the first sentence, while mildly disagreeing with the second.
Whie I do agree that the good professor's writings lack a certain depth, when taken into account who they seem to be
for, there may be room for baby steps.
It's a bit like in a different conversation, zorkan provided a "pop-sci" article referring to a very watered-down (and/or overly-rigid) view of thermodynamics and the implications of its second law. In a deep dive, that kind of scope of inquiry would (and did) leak like Titanic after the whole iceberg thing. However, if you approach it from "I have no idea what this is. Where do I start?" then it provides an easier to digest model of reality than some overly-picky picker of nits like a certain The Asmo would be easily-capable of. (Though if I do say so myself, my nits tend to be rather important to whatever the subject at hand is)
I don't mean to throw shade at your sources or arguments, Z - just pointing out through direct comparison that while they may appear shallow and incomplete
to you or me, they do provide a springboard for future discussion. As such, I
do see "pop-sci/pop-phil" literature as useful.
dawkins may give comfort to struggling atheists, but it doesnt change his philosophical blindness.
much of his biological arguments against god-- such as the blood vessels in the neck of the giraffe-- are merely pretentious statements of "i wouldnt have done it thst way if i were god, therefore god does not exist . . . "
dawkins wanted to be the new t h huxley, but he doesnt have the insight huxley had.
or the humility.
I have Stengers book;The God Delusion, Science and Religion; Paul Kurtz, The God Virus; Darrel Ray, Inventing Jesus; Pail Gabel, A God who Hates: Wafa Sultan.......and a few others including The Book of Morman, the KJV, and so on.
The Book of Morman was given to me by two very nice young men who were on their church obligation to spread the truth of the church of LAtter Day Saints.. Rocks in a hat in order to read the goldens tablets and all that sort of horse patootie. The nice young men did not believe that the Smith guy was a horny huckster who was promoting bigamous arrangements..
I did not buy and read these books so that I could reinforce my Atheism. I didn't need that help.
One of my favorite books is one that I was required to read in my college days. It is titled, Three Ways of Thought In Ancient China. Christianity is not one of the ways of thought in that book. Holy Cow! Can you imagine a college that required that their students consider the validity of a way of thought that was not Christian religion encumbered? Holy Cow Again!!! That university was a state uni; The University of Florida which is in the deep south. Times have changed big time I fear.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 05, 2024, 03:15:45 PMmuch of his biological arguments against god-- such as the blood vessels in the neck of the giraffe-- are merely pretentious statements of "i wouldnt have done it thst way if i were god, therefore god does not exist . . . "
I think pointing out poor design decisions for no apparent cause is actually not a bad argument. Being into engineering, there are often compromises to be made, but there is always a reason to make them. In the case of the giraffe, it's far more reasonable to assume that an animal evolved from a form where the configuration of its neck nerves or arteries or whatever was it was efficient enough to one where it was merely not [enough of a] a hindrance, thus allowing the animal to live. While constructing a giraffe, however, there are good reasons not to rout its plumbing that way and no good reasons to do it. Thus, to what end did god supposedly do it?
The meaning I take from it is that the template for "intelligent design" is, in fact, evolution by natural selection. (As in, god would have been likely to have followed a common template when designing different animals, creating - or evolving - imperfect systems from common roots. If we then drop the unnecessary variable - that being a god - well... Here we are) But then, I am prone to overthinking, so there is that.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 05, 2024, 03:15:45 PMdawkins may give comfort to struggling atheists, but it doesnt change his philosophical blindness.
much of his biological arguments against god-- such as the blood vessels in the neck of the giraffe-- are merely pretentious statements of "i wouldnt have done it thst way if i were god, therefore god does not exist . . . "
dawkins wanted to be the new t h huxley, but he doesnt have the insight huxley had.
or the humility.
He isn't the only one to point out flaws in intelligent design, which are to expected in an evolutionary process.
A peculiar bullshit post Billy but you decrying Dawkins for a lack of humility was a hoot.
My atheist toolkit comprises these books.
The Devil's Chaplain by Robert Taylor.
The Diegesis by Robert Taylor.
Bible Myths by Thomas Doane.
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.
You should be able to read them all online.
Take a look at this, if you haven't already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nAos1M-_Ts
Gets even more chilling after 40 minutes.
Just like to add that for the first time ever, today I've heard a guy shouting out Allah Akbar in a public place.
"intelligent design" doesnt mean intelligently designed. it means designed by an intelligence. theres no requirement that the design must be well-engineered, merely that occurence by chance is unlikely.
if you can find anything intelligent in a jackson pollock painting i will reconsider the point.
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.
still, hes a dotty-uncle kind of dumb. not hateful, just dotty.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 06, 2024, 02:37:13 PM"intelligent design" doesnt mean intelligently designed. it means designed by an intelligence. theres no requirement that the design must be well-engineered, merely that occurence by chance is unlikely.
Bullshit distinction
Quote from: billy rubin on February 06, 2024, 02:37:13 PMif you can find anything intelligent in a jackson pollock painting i will reconsider the point.
More bullshit, I couldn't give a fk what you deign to consider.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 06, 2024, 02:37:13 PMrichard 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.
Ad hominem bullshit
Quote from: billy rubin on February 06, 2024, 02:37:13 PMstill, hes a dotty-uncle kind of dumb. not hateful, just dotty.
Oh ye he must be dotty, he is an English professor after all.
well, you wrote a lot for not giving a fuck.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 06, 2024, 02:37:13 PM"intelligent design" doesnt mean intelligently designed. it means designed by an intelligence
. theres no requirement that the design must be well-engineered, merely that occurence by chance is unlikely.
I disagree. Intelligent design assumes design by a
supreme inteligence. A chimp can fashion a tool for fishing termites from a hole. I can do it better. Someone properly trained or divinely intelligent and wise can do it better still.
In short, intelligent design
does assume application of intelligence in the design elements. The rest is a matter of magnitude.
Quoteif you can find anything intelligent in a jackson pollock painting i will reconsider the point.
You
could, though this is a flawed comparison. Ignoring any emotional bullshit involving "the meaning of art," Pollock's paintings were designed about as well as "any other" painting. You take your canvas, you build a rectangular frame from wood or metal or whatever have you, You stretch the canvas over the frame. You apply layers of colour to one side of said canvas. You have a painting. Remember, we are not debating the
soul and meaning of a giraffe - only its plumbing/electrics.
Quoterichard 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.
He may be working from a premise that man created god in his image, and may not be wrong in doing so. I don't see how he believes that that image is of him specifically.
I would not have designed giraffes or human penises that way either.
why would you expect a god to hold the same system of values that you grew up with? perhsps a being more intelligent than you or i would have different motivations kr aesthetics..
a termite stick that isnt made well by our standards may be perfect according to plans of any particular god who is engaged in a project of which you and i are ignorant.
i could design a solar system far superior to what we actually have, according to my own wants and needs. the fact that the real solar system doesnt conform to how i would do it says nothing about whether a designer was involved, intelligent or otherwise.
dawkins is a great sociobioligist, and his novel approach to natural selection clarified a lot of muddled thinking about abiogenesis in the primitive earth. his 1976 book on the selfish gene was a gem that broke down evolutionary theory to its fundamentals in a way that nobody had ever thoyght of. it was revolutionary. his god stuff, not so much.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 07, 2024, 02:38:28 PMwhy would you expect a god to hold the same system of values that you grew up with? perhsps a being more intelligent than you or i would have different motivations and insights.
It's not a matter of values I grew up with. Let me put it this way; you could design a circuit for turning your kitchen light on and off in many different ways. The best way can be thought of as the best available tool for the job. How do you achieve what you are after using the least material and in the most efficient way? Now, there may be minor variations in the end result, but the underlying philosophy is still "is it the best tool for the job?" You could wire your kitchen light from the breaker a meter and a half away using five kilometers of plastic tubing filled with salt water. Sure, it would work (we are assuming no practical hindrances), but it's a wasteful and inefficient - unintelligent, in fact - design,
when compared to other available solutions. It's comparative rather than cultural.
Quotea termite stick that isnt made well by your standards may be perfect according to that of any particular god who is engaged in a project of which you and i are ignorant.
Again, I am not making a cultural argument. My tool would be capable of fishing out more termites per unit of time than a chimp's. It's comparative.
Quotei could design a solar system far superior to what we actually have, according to my own wants and needs. the fact that the real solar system doesnt conform to how i would do it says nothing about whether a designer was involved, intelligent or otherwise.
Same issue. If your solar array converts more light into electric energy, then yours is better than mine. That is its job, and yours does more of it with roughly the same expense (not exclusively or even primarily of the monetary kind) - or as much of it with less. If it's perfect according to you, but mine does the job better. then yours sucks by comparison regardless of your upbringing, self-importance or prior accolades. (What can affect the final tally, so to speak, are things like for example longevity and robustness of the system, but even before you reach that point, a patently bad design can be evaluated as such with reasonable objectivity with regard to no more than the job it is for and how it compares to other available designs for the same job)
again, you misunderstand "intelligent design, " asmo. theres not much more i can say.
it does NOT mean"intelligently designed," "well-designed," or "best-possible design." efficiency, economy, best use of materials, and so on have nothing to do with the religious concept of intelligent design. the sole criterion is that the observed system could not arise by non-sentient natural forces.
here is a standard definition:
Quotenoun The belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result chiefly from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes.
noun The purposeful design perceived in the universe or one of its parts and attributed to such a being.
im not defending the idea-- i think its BS and argue against a designed cosmos with theists on a regular basis.
What then, if anything, separates something that was designed by [an] intelligence from something that occurred through other processes?
I mean, if it's not intent, then what?
Quote from: Asmodean on February 08, 2024, 07:21:39 AMWhat then, if anything, separates something that was designed by [an] intelligence from something that occurred through other processes?
I mean, if it's not intent, then what?
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.
Initially I didn't get much out of the Selfish Gene.
It reminded more of a quip by Terry Pratchet: "The Shellfish Scene".
Only after I took the big flip with the Neckar cube analogy, I did eventually get it.
Over time, I became less impressed because it does not explain life at all.
All genes do are to encode proteins.
I think Dawkins grew ever more frustrated that few people understood what he was saying.
That's why he had to publish ever more books.
His flaming metaphors don't impress me, either.
Quote from: zorkan on February 08, 2024, 11:31:59 AMInitially I didn't get much out of the Selfish Gene.
It reminded more of a quip by Terry Pratchet: "The Shellfish Scene".
Only after I took the big flip with the Neckar cube analogy, I did eventually get it.
Over time, I became less impressed because it does not explain life at all.
All genes do are to encode proteins.
I think Dawkins grew ever more frustrated that few people understood what he was saying.
That's why he had to publish ever more books.
His flaming metaphors don't impress me, either.
"Over time, I became less impressed
because it does not explain life at all
All genes do are to encode proteins"
Quote from: Asmodean on February 08, 2024, 07:21:39 AMWhat then, if anything, separates something that was designed by [an] intelligence from something that occurred through other processes?
I mean, if it's not intent, then what?
intent
is the separator. non-sentient processes do not have "intent" to start with. so that is the only distinction.
in practice, proving design is very difficut. paley's watchmaker is a good example of the attempt, as was behe's irreducible complexity
i do not know how to distinguish something designed with intent from something that arose without design, except by comparing it to something very similar that i know had a designer. thats why paleys watchmaker fails- everybody knows a watch has a designer. but a fine-tuned universe?
not so simple.
Indeed, but then my point stands. To assume intelligent design is to assume designer[-s] creating a system for a purpose. Even the aforementioned Pollock paintings have that - from profit generation to hole-in-the-wall covering. Having made that assumption, you absolutely can evaluate the design comparatively as good or bad as compared to what could have been done with the available resources in stead.
For example, a giraffe converts vegetation into little giraffes. Other systems such as zebras do similar things, but at lower heights, so from a designer's standpoint, the call/need would have been for a system that converts vegetation at greater heights into baby-itself-selves. (more or less. More more than less.)
The overall system is decent at it, but its subsystems are suboptimal. Therefore, having looked at a generation 1 giraffe, a designer would optimise most of those out in generation 2. That's what intelligence does - turns wheelbarrows into space shuttles through the evolution of design. Is a cable unnecessarily long? Re-route it. Is the lower neck too un-bendy? Implement a [lockable] joint. Such like. The tools and scalable templates are already there, so either god is shit at designing systems, uncaring of the quality or wastefulness of the end product (thus having no professional pride in it) or he did not design shit.
Intent does open those avenues of inquiry in ways that evolution by natural selection simply does not, since there is no capacity for fore- or afterthought. Being able to plan and then evaluate an action (learn and adapt, in slightly different terms) is pretty much the difference between an intelligent and a non-intelligent system.
If the intelligent designer exists then why can't we see him?
Many have no doubt tried, but god has a trick up his sleeve.
https://firmisrael.org/learn/no-man-can-see-my-face-and-live/
Does that mean if you do see him face to face, he will kill you.
Or does it mean the opposite?
an example, asmo. an endpoint to make a larger point about the general distribution.
you are a woodcutter. every day you walk to the forest, cut wood, and carry it back to town to sell. between your hut and the forest is a stream. not too wide, not too deep, but inconvenient. one day you decide to solve the problem.
you journey up to the creek step up to the nearest tree, and cut it down so it falls across the creek. now you have a bridge. the bridge is an example of intelligent design. an intelligent agent designed and implemented it.
but its a lousy bridge. its too narrow, round on top , not very stable, covered in scrubby branches, and at an inconvenient spot. you could have made a better one perhaps, but you didnt.
that night there is a thunderstorm. a bolt of lightning hits a large tree a ways down the stream from your bridge. it splits the tree in two, and sets fire to all the twigs. half the tree falls across the stream, embedding itself firmly in the soil. the halftrunk is wide and flat on top, perfect for walking. no twigs are left yo trip you up. it doesnt rock because its firmly fixed, and it hsppens to be at a very convenient place.
the natural bridge is superior to the one you made in every wsy, but it wasmt designed by an intelligent agent. your inferior bridge is an exampke if intelligent design, while the superior natural bridge is not.
thats the difference between intelligent design and mere.happenstance.
recent examples of intelligent design include behes bacterial flagellum, an interesting electric motor with a spinning propeller. behe cites it as evidence of intelligent design based on its irreducible complexity, not because it is a superior design. like the metaphor of the mouse trap, the flagellum is composed of a few essential parts, none of which have any functional ability until the others are all there. only when assembled does the mousetrap, and the flagellum, work. evolution could not derive the structure because there is no increase in adaptive fitness with any incompkete set of parts-- all must be tbere for it to work, like the mouse trap. he says.
because of this, he cites the need for an intelligent designer to direct the evolution of the parts, someone who has an endpoint in mind. there might be a thousand better ways to allow locomotion to evolve in bacteria, but the designer put his finger on the scales and chose the flagellum and its biochemical motor.
in fact, behes model fails because all the parts have been shown to have adaptive precursors, and the evolution of the flagellum can be modelled by adding these pieces one by one, for different purposes.
thats the idea. there are other examples. the woodcutter was an endpoint in the bell curve, an extreme instance to illustrate the distinction.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on January 20, 1970, 07:16:30 PMI 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.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 08, 2024, 06:19:45 PMan example, asmo. an endpoint to make a larger point about the general distribution.
you are a woodcutter. every day you walk to the forest, cut wood, and carry it back to town to sell. between your hut and the forest is a stream. not too wide, not too deep, but inconvenient. one day you decide to solve the problem.
you journey up to the creek step up to the nearest tree, and cut it down so it falls across the creek. now you have a bridge. the bridge is an example of intelligent design. an intelligent agent designed and implemented it.
but its a lousy bridge. its too narrow, round on top , not very stable, covered in scrubby branches, and at an inconvenient spot. you could have made a better one perhaps, but you didnt.
Precisely!
It's a poor design, as per the argument. :smilenod:
As I put it above, "so either god is shit at designing systems, uncaring of the quality or wastefulness of the end product (thus having no professional pride in it) or he did not design shit." Can this be successfully merried to the god of the bacteria chap below? If not, what is the other option? I think Dawkins' argument lies here-abouts.
Yes, you could make a makeshift bridge that sucks. However, the bridge is subject to generational changes and your whim as the designer. Wheelbarrows to space shuttles. Does it have an inconvenient branch you keep stumbling upon? Beat it with your wood cutter tools until it doesn't. Such like.
Quotethat night there is a thunderstorm. a bolt of lightning hits a large tree a ways down the stream from your bridge. it splits the tree in two, and sets fire to all the twigs. half the tree falls across the stream, embedding itself firmly in the soil. the halftrunk is wide and flat on top, perfect for walking. no twigs are left yo trip you up. it doesnt rock because its firmly fixed, and it hsppens to be at a very convenient place.
the natural bridge is superior to the one you made in every wsy, but it wasmt designed by an intelligent agent. your inferior bridge is an exampke if intelligent design, while the superior natural bridge is not.
Indeed, the latter is not even an example of design. Now,
to design a bridge drawing on the parameters of that hapless half-trunk would be intelligent. Intelligence the ability to solve problems, and efficiency in solving them is the measure of magnitude of intelligence.
Quotethats the difference between intelligent design and mere.happenstance.
It's a difference between
design and happenstance. For one thing, designs evolve - happenstances merely decay.
Quoterecent examples of intelligent design include behes bacterial flagellum, an interesting electric motor with a spinning propeller. behe cites it as evidence of intelligent design based on its irreducible complexity, not because it is a superior design. like the metaphor of the mouse trap, the flagellum is composed of a few essential parts, none of which have any functional ability until the others are all there. only when assembled does the mousetrap, and the flagellum, work. evolution could not derive the structure because there is no increase in adaptive fitness with any incompkete set of parts-- all must be tbere for it to work, like the mouse trap. he says.
because of this, he cites the need for an intelligent designer to direct the evolution of the parts, someone who has an endpoint in mind. there might be a thousand better ways to allow locomotion to evolve in bacteria, but the designer put his finger on the scales and chose the flagellum and its biochemical motor.
...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." The end system gains nothing from it, and is worse for it. In terms of your example, it would be somewhat like the crafty wood cutter splitting the trunk as the lightning did, but rather than put the pieces along each other side by side, he puts them on top of each other, flat sides inwards, thus "re-creating" the very same trunk. It's useless effort for the purpose. Is it still deliberately designed? Sure. Is it intelligently designed? No. It's dumb.
I suppose the argument revolves around the implications of "intelligent" and is semantic in nature, but then the proponents of Intelligent Design the philosophy do tend to play that game.
Reading Dawkins is like a brain tonic, concludes one reviewer of his books.
Doubt if he realises that Dawkins borrows heavily.
Having few original ideas of his own he enlarges on works by Bill Hamilton and George Williams.
I understand that Hamilton's mathematical logic is flawed and Williams's idea of reducing life to the level of the gene is also flawed.
The title of Dawkins' book Unweaving The Rainbow comes from the poet Keats.
It opens with his most famous quote:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born."
Clever, but still does not explain why life bothers to exist in relation to the universe.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 09, 2024, 07:52:59 AM...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.
...But He is thusly named, although with the added The. His Divine The is important, you see. :smilenod:
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.
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 . . ."
Quote from: billy rubin on February 08, 2024, 06:25:59 PMQuote from: The Magic Pudding.. on January 20, 1970, 07:16:30 PMI 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?
Quote"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
Quote"only if the god is named asmo."
Arrogance, ye, I find it a really annoying trait in idiots, highly intelligent accomplished people, less so.
QuoteI 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
Quote from: zorkan on February 11, 2024, 04:14:53 PMDuring 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.
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.
Are you celebrity-stalking the good professor? :snicker1:
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.
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.
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. :sadnod:
If you are invited it's best not to mention his wives.
He's had more wives (3) than offspring (1).
Bring up the subject of evolution, instead.
Tell him he looks young for his age. He loves that.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Juliet_Emma_Dawkins
Heh... It would not even occur to me to mention his wives - I know none of them and frankly, couldn't care less if they paid me to. Besides, his family life is for him to have and for me to stay out of.
I know it's somehow considered polite to inquire about such things, but I guess I'm just not that kind of small-talker.
As for talking shop - yes, if that was the point of meeting. No, if said meeting was coincidental. That is, of course, unless the "shop owner" wants to lead the conversation there.
Nothing wrong with talking about literature, language, life... So forth. There are many interesting conversations to be had with an intelligent person, which do not involve someone's specific area of expertise or the mind-numbing minutia of their private life. In fact, I'd say that outside those topics is indeed where the best conversations often lie.
If Dawkins wants to be in the public gaze his private life will be under scrutiny.
His friend Christopher Hitchens and fellow atheist was happy to reveal his private life.
Hitchens passed away aged 61 and he spoke about his health problems in a very moving book called Mortality.
Quote from: zorkan on February 14, 2024, 12:09:32 PMIf Dawkins wants to be in the public gaze his private life will be under scrutiny.
That's true of a lot of public figures, whether or not they
want to be in the public gaze. I'm not saying that [i9someone[/i] wouldn't be curious about the wives, kids or that new car - just that it would not occur to
me.QuoteHitchens passed away aged 61 and he spoke about his health problems in a very moving book called Mortality.
Case in point; I skipped that one because no interest. I think highly of Hitchens, but
he chose how he lived his life, not I - and that is how it should be.
I recommend you do read that book.
Unlike me he was a smoker but there are many good things in Mortality.
I liked the bit where he asked "Why me?" to the cosmos.
The cosmos replied "Why not you?"
Quote from: zorkan on February 14, 2024, 12:21:48 PMI recommend you do read that book.
Unlike me he was a smoker but there are many good things in Mortality.
I liked the bit where he asked "Why me?" to the cosmos.
The cosmos replied "Why not you?"
I don't doubt that it is a good read - it's just that the subject matter, that being a person's dealing with his own illness and its implications, simply holds no interest to me. I may or may not be able to relate, but it doesn't concern me.
As to "why him," well... One might suspect that it may have something to do with people having too much of certain kinds of fun while young tending not to get very old. Still, his choices were his to make as were his answers from the cosmos his.
The debate about faith schools in Britain has resurfaced again this week.
They provide kids with good morals and values, and are a great start for any young life.
There are of course counter arguments.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2021/02/the-evidence-against-faith-schools-is-overwhelming
Do they teach Big Bang cosmology? I don't think so.
Do they teach evolution by natural selection? I don't think so.
Two of the greatest ideas in the last 150 years are ignored which could inspire young minds.
My conclusion is that kids would have a better start in life by teaching facts and not fiction.