What do you think about Dawkins?

[Smidlee]

After three days every cell in the body is dead and your body has started to decompose. If God would have managed to resurrect Jesus, the man would have been as good-looking, charming, eloquent and witty as the shambling, moaning zombies in "Dawn of the Dead"...

Man can take a pile of junk turn it into a beautiful car again.

 

[Perfection]

So where does this intelligences come from?

It evolves. The abilities we have from our intelligence are of no doubt to our survival benefit.

Man believes and acts as if he is outside of nature. There is no doubt that nature processes produces our nature bodies yet what about that part which cause man to try to speak outside of his nature body. Obviously Dawkin doesn't think he having delusions.

It seems to me that you're not thinking of intelligence (exhibiting a functional property of smartness or something like that) here, but consciousness (the internal experience of being you as someone different from the rest of the universe). That's is in fact a very interesting mystery that I don't think we've fully figured out in a completely satisfying way. However, I don't find that invoking God or religion is particularly helpful here.

Let's me try to put it another way, Dawkin believe God is a delusion because as he says it God is very improbable as if blind nature with nature laws eventually producing Dawkins who writes a book to saying that there is no god probable. It's this very problem with probability which cause some scientist's believe in multi-universes.

Ummm, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but the likelyhood of intelligent life resulting from one universe with X Y Z properties between A and B D and C and E and F or something to that effect doesn't really impact the argument because we simply do not know how much universe is out there. So that really doesn't have much of an effect on the God argument. What more matters is if it is possible for intelligence to arise from non intelligent things and evolution provides a clear path.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What on Earth do you mean about a new world order?

Paradigm shifts bring about a new way of looking at things and the scientific revolution we have seen evolve over the past several hundred years has brought about a new way of looking at the world and because it is a very high level change in thinking, I called it a "new world order". No Luminati needed though. Science has totally reshaped how people view the world. the old order is dying a slow death.

And one can expect that this is not the final word in paradigm changes. another one will come along and replace this one too. We just don't know when.

I fail to see how you can have an experience which justifies believing in the Biblical god (ie, not just 'some intelligence behind the universe'. I would also say that 99.999999999% of people have not had a religious experience

It is simple; the reason you fail to see how a person could have such an experience is because you have never had one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You know that rule that says once someone invokes Hitler in an argument, the discussion is over? (No, that's not Godwin's Law) We need a variation of that rule applied to the term "New World Order".

Yea, but I didn't capitalize it in my post. See above. ^^^

 

[Flying Pig]

It is simple; the reason you fail to see how a person could have such an experience is because you have never had one.

Yes, but I can't even think of an experience that would do that, even some bearded guy appearing and telling you he's God, so worship him.

 

[CaptainF]

I think he's a jerk, but that's not a bad thing. It's about time we pissed off the religious nutters in this country.

Run and hide, all ye fundies.

 

[Munch]

And I find the concept of there being no time before the Big Bang to be odd.

It is odd, absolutely. I suggest you read Hawking's A Brief History of Time. I haven't had a chance to get more than about a third of the way through it, but it explains this particular strangeness quite well.

 

[Danielos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibl2A3Ai7o

The problem with Dawkins is that he gets so riled up when talking to Christian fundamentalists and creationists. He looks like he want to punch Ted Haggard in the face... I can´t blame him, but I doubt Haggard would have turned the other cheek!

 

[Richard Cribb]

Because of his anti-Stalinist views?

That doesn't make him dearer to me, at least. But his political views are not so important here.
It is more his annoying style and sophomoric arguments. He doesn't seem to be much aquainted with philosophy either. But please don't ask me to elaborate on this. In general I find discussions about religion to be both boring and counter-productive.
However, if one should have one, people like Dawkins have little to contribute. He is an insult to both atheists and religious people.