Which conversations?Talking of dodging what happened to our conversations?
Fair enough.His argument falls apart with the Bangladesh example for me. So I added it again later.
Which conversations?Talking of dodging what happened to our conversations?
Fair enough.His argument falls apart with the Bangladesh example for me. So I added it again later.
I really don't get why one needs to 'cope' with questions that science can't answer yet. It is what it is. We don't know everything yet. No need to jump to a God to explain the gaps.
Also doesn’t mean a deity fills it.The gap can get as small as it can it doesn't change the fact it's unapproachable.
Which conversations?
Fair enough.
Just a bit out of context there…Let's listen to Dawkins:
"...look at the details of molecular biology or bio chemistry you might find some signature of some sort of designer and that designer could well be a higher intelligence elsewhere in the universe"
You said you were going to read up on it. I’ve read the book of Job several times, so whenever you wanna talk about it, let me know.I'd have to look back but the one about Job and mysterious ways etc
Also doesn’t mean a deity fills it.
But really, the god of the gaps is a great way to turn a tri-omni deity into a pointless one.
How does faith help you understand the concept of eternal existence?I mean by definition we can't understand God. Faith comes into it
Just a bit out of context there…
You said you were going to read up on it. I’ve read the book of Job several times, so whenever you wanna talk about it, let me know.
If humans are able to invent the large hadron collider and clone animals, then is it far fetched that the initial development / evolution of god was in the human imagination?Here is a thought, and you will have to pardon the specifics, but if a a self replicating/splitting cell was able to evolve/develop into what we know or see today. Then is it far fetched that the initial development/evolution was of a creator and that is what happened and then that creator created us?
umm hope you have listened to that full conversation before posting that. He's answering a hypothetical question after a lot of "who, how, who, how" prodding, and even with that the portion you picked out is so out of context.Let's listen to Dawkins:
"...look at the details of molecular biology or bio chemistry you might find some signature of some sort of designer and that designer could well be a higher intelligence elsewhere in the universe"
Of course, that’s why I also referenced capitalism as another construct that has helped & harmed the world, just like religion. I preemptively whatabouted as I figured that you would use such at some point.It's a weak response in respect of the debate because what you've cited isn't limited to religion, or to the actions of religious people. Not only that but it applies much more to non-religious, secular actions.
I pointed out the following earlier in the thread for example. It concerns war and conflict, which very much includes the subjugation and eradication of cultures, but it's worth repeating -
...the authors of the 'Encyclopedia of Wars' who documented the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare.
Context:Feel free to add context.
I will read up on job. Possibly over weekend. But help a brother out and give me some detail as to what you meant. You can be awfully vague at times.
Cliff notes on Job…Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: (voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.
Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.
Ben Stein: (voiceover) So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers, such as God.
Indeedumm hope you have listened to that full conversation before posting that. He's answering a hypothetical question after a lot of "who, how, who, how" prodding, and even with that the portion you picked out is so out of context.
The mind is a wonderful thing. Humans have travelled to the moon, split the atom, as you say hadron collider, cloned animals all that in a short space of time relative to human existence. So another entity potentially older would have progressed even more surely.If humans are able to invent the large hadron collider and clone animals, then is it far fetched that the initial development / evolution of god was in the human imagination?
You're seriously quoting the notoriously shit "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?Let's listen to Dawkins:
"...look at the details of molecular biology or bio chemistry you might find some signature of some sort of designer and that designer could well be a higher intelligence elsewhere in the universe"
The context is even worse no? And my post above about evolution/development of creator seems to be a bit like what Dawkins is saying.Context:
Cliff notes on Job…
Job was a guy with a great life and a great family and was super devoted to god. Satan told god “I bet you if you took his nice stuff away he’d forsake you” and god took him up on that and allowed Job’s life to be destroyed just because he knew he’d win the bet.
No.The context is even worse no? And my post above about evolution/development of creator seems to be a bit like what Dawkins is saying.
Because that’s exactly what the last 5 chapters of the book of Job are about.Oh yeah I know that bit about Job. I know about his good times and his basically not being patient with his bad times. I'm just not sure where you are linking the poem of mysterious ways to this story.
You're seriously quoting the notoriously shit "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
If you want to use Dawkins to support your point, I think you'll find his arguments fall rather heavily in the other direction:
“The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
“Do those people who hold up the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it?”
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
“My objection to supernatural beliefs is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing-down from reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer.”
“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else (parents in the case of children, God in the case of adults) has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point. [...] Somebody else must be responsible for my well-being, and somebody else must be to blame if I am hurt. Is it a similar infantilism that really lies behind the 'need' for a God?”
“A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a 'child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.”
And so on and so on. You could have used any of those.
I am not equipped to understand. There is a being more powerful and capable than myself in every sense imaginable.How does faith help you understand the concept of eternal existence?
Thing is, no one has a "fool proof" argument. Else there would be no religious people on earth or no atheists. At the end of the day we all chose what makes sense to us. If an hour long debate could knock someones logic that easily we wouldn't be here.It was tongue in cheek as i knew it would rile some tbh.
Ive actually met Dawkins, name drop, and he talks rubbish. Like Shapiro he likes to argue with people he knows are unlikely to challenge him or within a certain set up. Her him outside of that and he isn't much of an atheist. I'd say more agnostic and even more kerching (as in this is money maker) which to be fair isn't just him. Plenty of religious blokes making a lot of money doing similar.
I’m not equipped to understand abstract algebra, but I don’t see a reason for god to exists since some folks can.I am not equipped to understand. There is a being more powerful and capable than myself in every sense imaginable.
I have faith in the above.
*faithIf an hour long debate could knock someones logic that easily we wouldn't be here.
To pervert means to disrupt the original course, meaning or state of something. So for starters you're proceeding on the premise that there was some preordained course set out somewhere, and the emergence of religion somehow altered this predestined route. A route which presumably was free from the negative effects of religion.Of course, that’s why I also referenced capitalism as another construct that has helped & harmed the world, just like religion. I preemptively whatabouted as I figured that you would use such at some point.
So what about conflict? Religion has played its part in conflict causation. Religion had also virtually wiped out cultures as well, thus perverting history. We can quibble over specifics, but there’s no doubt that religion has perverted history. None.
I think you'd like to end it because you can't gather the hard evidence to bolster your argument.If you cannot see that, it’s almost that you are taking the piss. Let’s keep whataboutery out of it & focus specifically on religion. If this cannot happen, we need to end this tête-à-tête as it will continue to get banal.
Thing is, no one has a "fool proof" argument. Else there would be no religious people on earth or no atheists. At the end of the day we all chose what makes sense to us. If an hour long debate could knock someones logic that easily we wouldn't be here.
So within that context I don't think Darwin takes "rubbish" but he's not some religious kryptonite. No more so than skilled religious orators.
I don't really disagree with you there, Dawkins is kind of insufferable. He is a great evolutionary biologist, though. Just don't get him talking about cancel culture or whatever.It was tongue in cheek as i knew it would rile some tbh.
Ive actually met Dawkins, name drop, and he talks rubbish. Like Shapiro he likes to argue with people he knows are unlikely to challenge him or within a certain set up. Her him outside of that and he isn't much of an atheist. I'd say more agnostic and even more kerching (as in this is money maker) which to be fair isn't just him. Plenty of religious blokes making a lot of money doing similar.
No.
Because that’s exactly what the last 5 chapters of the book of Job are about.
Yes, cultures outside the influence of a specific religion being virtually wiped out perverts their history & history overall. This isn’t hard to understand.To pervert means to disrupt the original course, meaning or state of something. So for starters you're proceeding on the premise that there was some preordained course set out somewhere, and the emergence of religion somehow altered this predestined route. A route which presumably was free from the negative effects of religion.
And in respect to conflict then, of course religion has played its part in conflict causation. But the part it has played has been comparatively small relative to non-religious reasons, as the facts show. That's the significant point!
Finally then...on the capitalism point, I'm pretty sure that you haven't examined those assumptions either.
I think you want to end it because you can't gather the hard evidence to bolster your argument.
Perhaps you draw on something like the effect religion/belief has had on the scientific or artistic areas of human development?
My question is not so much about the being itself, it's about the concept of eternal existence. Can you fully grasp the idea of an eternal dishwasher?I am not equipped to understand. There is a being more powerful and capable than myself in every sense imaginable.
I have faith in the above.
Tbf to Dawkins he's made what he can from it and good luck to him. And as a Muslim I find a lot of often quoted Muslim personalities also insufferable. They all have an angle that makes them popular but with time it gets grating for me.I don't really disagree with you there, Dawkins is kind of insufferable. He is a great evolutionary biologist, though. Just don't get him talking about cancel culture or whatever.
Then I seriously doubt you’ve read chapters 38-42 of that book.And I get you now about job. But I disagree. I see no mysterious ways here more an increase in understanding by getting to know God.
To be clear, you're suggesting that the (already very wealthy) Richard Dawkins isn't actually an athiest and is milking an assumed controversial position to make cash in a similar manner to Katie Hopkins and reactionary right wing nonsense?Tbf to Dawkins he's made what he can from it and good luck to him. And as a Muslim I find a lot of often quoted Muslim personalities also insufferable. They all have an angle that makes them popular but with time it gets grating for me.
Not just religion either. World events have meant some folk have had exposure that'sade th mega bucks because they chose a side and gave some quotes and became popular. You know your Katie Hopkins types.
I listen to a lot of things that I have interest in and wouldn't exclude Dawkins of learning about certain topics. I also listen to a lot of stand up comedy and liked Gervais early stuff and Chappelle was a favourite but too many people hold them in high regard for stuff that isn't comedy, so Gervais on atheism and Chappelle on LGBTQ. Not for me. Just make me laugh and that will do.
Not sure I'm following here as that's a complete non-sequitur, how a self-replicating cell led to life as we know it has no relevance to the idea that it was all started by a creator. Or are you saying that it's just as far fetched as a creator?Here is a thought, and you will have to pardon the specifics, but if a a self replicating/splitting cell was able to evolve/develop into what we know or see today. Then is it far fetched that the initial development/evolution was of a creator and that is what happened and then that creator created us?
It's not whataboutery, you're just using circular reasoning.Yes, cultures outside the influence of a specific religion being virtually wiped out perverts their history & history overall. This isn’t hard to understand.
Let’s stop the whataboutery. Really not germane here. We’re discussing religion as a singularity.
There you go again. You're wasting my time now.I’m going against what I just wrote, but you don’t believe capitalism has been good & bad? That’s odd. Which one do you think it is then?
Ha.Not at all, it’s just becoming rather predictable from your end. As I stated, it’s getting banal.
I (as an agnostic) would be more inclined to mock you if you said "its god's mysterious workings", "its faith" and what not, and not for saying I don't know. And as for your other example, I think you are misunderstanding what science is. Science doesn't say we have all the answers (like religion/god-believing people tend to). It is just an iterative process of building on top of or deconstructing and replacing what we know based on new/current evidence. So, when you ask "show me/prove big bang", all science can tell you is what is based on current evidences (i.e. theories). If there is no evidence, then I don't know is a perfectly good answer from my pov (that's why most of the answers to questions relating to before big bang is I don't know). Maybe we'll find the necessary evidence soon enough or maybe not.It's not about having fool proof arguments for me. It's having perimeters with arguments that aren't contradictory or hypocritical.
A simple example would be (and I'm not saying I believe this or agree or anything just using to highlight a point) being asked who made God. If the response is i dont know. So there follows mockery. Now ask a person to show, I don't know, big bang or something. Oh its a working theory and we don't know the answers how dare you mock.
Just went over those specific ones and I still maintain what I have said.Then I seriously doubt you’ve read chapters 38-42 of that book.
Then, quite frankly, @Moby was right… because that whole speech is literally god berating Job for having the audacity to ask why he allowed what happened. A whole speech of “you silly human, my ways aren’t meant for you to understand” (are a mystery).Just went over those specific ones and I still maintain what I have said.
Tell that to Job’s dead family.Mystery solved.
isn't Dawkins talking about the designer in the same kind of way that physicists talk about natural science showing the "mind of god"? not theistically but in the very abstract sense.Let's listen to Dawkins:
"...look at the details of molecular biology or bio chemistry you might find some signature of some sort of designer and that designer could well be a higher intelligence elsewhere in the universe"
I (as an agnostic) would be more inclined to mock you if you said "its god's mysterious workings", "its faith" and what not, and not for saying I don't know. And as for your other example, I think you are misunderstanding what science is. Science doesn't say we have all the answers (like religion/god-believing people tend to). It is just an iterative process of building on top of or deconstructing and replacing what we know based on new/current evidence. So, when you ask "show me/prove big bang", all science can tell you is what is based on current evidences (i.e. theories). If there is no evidence, then I don't know is a perfectly good answer from my pov (that's why most of the answers to questions relating to before big bang is I don't know). Maybe we'll find the necessary evidence soon enough or maybe not.
He's literally saying that it's not impossible that there could be a species evolved so advanced that they were able to create and design life. Which, as an aside, aligns to his oft made point that any such creator would be a product of, and subject to, the laws of nature including evolution and inherently not supernatural.isn't Dawkins talking about the designer in the same kind of way that physicists talk about natural science showing the "mind of god"? not theistically but in the very abstract sense.
like musica universalis. the "divine" ratios between the planets. the scientists, after a certain point in history at least, almost never meant "divine" in the theistic sense.
Then, quite frankly, @Moby was right… because that whole speech is literally god berating Job for having the audacity to ask why he allowed what happened. A whole speech of “you silly human, my ways aren’t meant for you to understand” (are a mystery).
Tell that to Job’s dead family.
You have missed the point. Science understands things based on the current evidence and refuses or changes with the evidence getting a better and better understanding of things.This argument makes me smile. Taking gravity as the example
You had newtons books on gravity. It was accepted but found to be ultimately wrong by Einstein.
You had Einstein books on gravity. Accepted but now known to have holes.
Yet ultimately accepted as a phenomenon, and it's a scientific theory so basically a work in progress until we have all the evidences.
When it comes to religion we religious folk have to provide definitive answers to all the questions.