What do you think about Dawkins?

[Phlegmak]

Link to video.

That video hurt my brain. "Evolution is a religion."

 

[Yared]

Eee, you missed the point. Evolution is a fact, "evolution through natural selection" is the theory. In terms of the video you posted, it's like "gravity is a fact and 'theory of gravity' explains how it works".

No I understood what you meant. Don't worry

 

[Winner]

That video hurt my brain. "Evolution is a religion."

I really feel for the guys - some callers are so ignorant that it really hurts.

 

[Phlegmak]

I really feel for the guys - some callers are so ignorant that it really hurts.

If it was simple ignorance, it would be ok. They could simply educate the callers who are ignorant, and an honest caller would be "Ok, I get it now". What the caller in that video did was willful and deliberate ignorance, and a willful and deliberate refusal to understand. That's much harder to deal with. And several people on this forum do that too.

 

[Yared]

And several people on this forum do that too.

thats da internet 4 ya

 

[Danielos]

Well, I agree that Dawkins is a bit light in the theological department. He is best suited when debunking creationism or when theologists make scientific claims like miracles, the efficacy of prayer, resurrections or the design of the universe. However, other atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty are very knowledgeable about the Bible and theology of Christianity, and I think they complement each other very well.

The only argument that I don´t like that Dawkins uses is the "Who designed the designer?". It seems a bit too childish to be used by an Oxford professor. It makes some sense, of course, but I expect more wit and sophistication of him than a question you would ask as a small child.

 

[Ammar]

The only argument that I don´t like that Dawkins uses is the "Who designed the designer?". It seems a bit too childish to be used by an Oxford professor. It makes some sense, of course, but I expect more wit and sophistication of him than a question you would ask as a small child.

But it's so fundamental a flaw. The only reason it might seem childish, is because it's almost embarassing having to point it out.

 

[Yared]

It seems a bit too childish to be used by an Oxford professor. It makes some sense, of course, but I expect more wit and sophistication of him than a question you would ask as a small child.

Yeah . That's the one I use whenever some youngster asks me why I don't believe in god. As "childish" as it might seem, it's a real White elephant once you've pointed it out.

 

[Phlegmak]

But it's so fundamental a flaw. The only reason it might seem childish, is because it's almost embarassing having to point it out.

Yeah . That's the one I use whenever some youngster asks me why I don't believe in god. As "childish" as it might seem, it's a real White elephant once you've pointed it out.

Agreed. It might seem childish since it's so obvious, but it's a perfectly valid question to ask.

 

[Lillefix]

The only argument that I don´t like that Dawkins uses is the "Who designed the designer?". It seems a bit too childish to be used by an Oxford professor. It makes some sense, of course, but I expect more wit and sophistication of him than a question you would ask as a small child.

I completely disagree. What do you preferred he talked about? Criticising the details of the writing of Thomas Aquinas or something?

It's those easy questions that are the most difficult. Many of the theologists he discusses with, hides behind 2000 years of insignificant discussions of the nuances of christianity. Seriously, the Christians have always argued about trivialities, the first great schism, which almost lead to civil war in the Roman Empire was whether Jesus have always existed or he came after God. Why on Earth is it necessary to know this in order to discuss the unlikeliness that all the laws of physics suddenly were suspended for some time 2000 years ago?

 

[Winner]

If it was simple ignorance, it would be ok. They could simply educate the callers who are ignorant, and an honest caller would be "Ok, I get it now". What the caller in that video did was willful and deliberate ignorance, and a willful and deliberate refusal to understand. That's much harder to deal with. And several people on this forum do that too.

Fait = voluntary suspension of disbelief.

What do you expect?

 

[Flying Pig]

But it's so fundamental a flaw. The only reason it might seem childish, is because it's almost embarassing having to point it out.

That's what I find funny about 99% of creationists, they say "the world is so complicated it must have had a god to cause it - but he doesn't need a cause". It makes no sense, but they rarely see that because they've been brought up on it

 

[Yared]

Oh yeah maybe it's worth pointing out that that line ("...who created god") is mostly if not always used as a reply to the "the universe is too complicated to have been a result of the Big Bang!" and not as an independent argument in itself. That's not to say that it shouldn't be used as such but that there are better arguments that would seem less childish to some people...

EDIT: Doh! Flying Pig got it before me!

 

[Winner]

Well, I agree that Dawkins is a bit light in the theological department. He is best suited when debunking creationism or when theologists make scientific claims like miracles, the efficacy of prayer, resurrections or the design of the universe. However, other atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty are very knowledgeable about the Bible and theology of Christianity, and I think they complement each other very well.

The only argument that I don´t like that Dawkins uses is the "Who designed the designer?". It seems a bit too childish to be used by an Oxford professor. It makes some sense, of course, but I expect more wit and sophistication of him than a question you would ask as a small child.

Let me add something to Lillefix's post - the answer/question "who created the creator?" may seem unsophisticated, but it cuts to the chase.

Believers often refuse the scientific notions by saing "everything must have been created by someone - and that someone was our God" but when they're asked to apply this principle on their God, they suddenly invent an exception - "no, our God is eternal, blablablah". Like it was supposed to explain anything. If God didn't need a creator, why the heck should the Universe need a creator?

They refuse Bing Bang theory because they can't get around the notion that there was no time before the Big Bang and thus don't understand that the question "what was before Big Bang?" is nonsensial, pretty much like a question "where does a circle start?"

The best thing is that even if they somehow proved that our universe was created (maybe in a particle accelerator built by some other race in some other universe), it wouldn't confirm their God-hypothesis since they assign many other properties to their God

I completely disagree. What do you preferred he talked about? Criticising the details of the writing of Thomas Aquinas or something?

It's those easy questions that are the most difficult. Many of the theologists he discusses with, hides behind 2000 years of insignificant discussions of the nuances of christianity. Seriously, the Christians have always argued about trivialities, the first great schism, which almost lead to civil war in the Roman Empire was whether Jesus have always existed or he came after God. Why on Earth is it necessary to know this in order to discuss the unlikeliness that all the laws of physics suddenly were suspended for some time 2000 years ago?

 

[Seon]

Let me add something to Lillefix's post - the answer/question "who created the creator?" may seem unsophisticated, but it cuts to the chase.

Believers often refuse the scientific notions by saing "everything must have been created by someone - and that someone was our God" but when they're asked to apply this principle on their God, they suddenly invent an exception - "no, our God is eternal, blablablah". Like it was supposed to explain anything. If God didn't need a creator, why the heck should the Universe need a creator?

They refuse Bing Bang theory because they can't get around the notion that there was no time before the Big Bang and thus don't understand that the question "what was before Big Bang?" is nonsensial, pretty much like a question "where does a circle start?"

The best thing is that even if they somehow proved that our universe was created (maybe in a particle accelerator built by some other race in some other universe), it wouldn't confirm their God-hypothesis since they assign many other properties to their God

What he said. .

 

[Mowque]

What a interesting thread...

 

[Smidlee]

You were about to tell me that valid point Colbert made, remember?

For one Dawkin's brain is not a product of intelligent yet he believes his book (which claim there in no nature intelligent design) is so exactly where did the intelligence come from. He trying to use a intelligent design book as proof there is no nature intelligence even though he believe he is loaded with it.

 

[Smidlee]

OMG! EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST SEEKS TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTIONARY ASPECT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Evolution shaped a large part of who we are. It isn't somehow "religious" to use science to investigate this.
.

Yeah, just like the John Cleese's video clip.

 

[Seon]

For one Dawkin's brain is not a product of intelligent yet he believes his book (which claim there in no nature intelligent design) is so exactly where did the intelligence come from. He trying to use a intelligent design book as proof there is no nature intelligence even though he believe he is loaded with it.

Umm... what the heck are you trying to say here?

 

[Yared]

For one Dawkin's brain is not a product of intelligent yet he believes his book (which claim there in no nature intelligent design) is so exactly where did the intelligence come from. He trying to use a intelligent design book as proof there is no nature intelligence even though he believe he is loaded with it.

Coherency would do you some good. Please rephrase so we might better understand the point you're trying to make.