No not at all
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
No not at all
So not fitting into Dawkins ramblings.
More like Jesus or Muhammad. As in attained "nirvana" or heaven etc
No it's not the former and I wish it was the latter but unfortunately it's a no there as well.
I'm talking about human beings. We are the evidence that shows the possibility of intelligent life being capable of bringing life from one planet to another.
There is no evidence of a seventh heaven though, let alone anyone or anything living there.
Last edited:
Superhuman as in omniscient, had supernatural powers, had transcended dualistic thought and fixtation and a mind free from all conceptions and mental afflictions, but totally denied buddahood meant involves creation as in creater of life and consciousness
So, after all this time, @Roane , the reason that you think Richard Dawkins is a polytheistic proponent of intelligent design is because he has stated that it is hypothetically possible (not that he believes it to be so) that suitably advanced lifeforms could exist and manipulate or propagate life, and because there'd be more than one of these beings if they were a species that he is polytheistic? If you're genuinely thinking anything like the above, I'm not sure the problem is the "ramblings" of the professional author noted for his clarity of writing, former Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and former educator.
I take it you're a fan?
Clarity of writing? Have you read the God delusion? 75% emotional nonsense and a couple of pages on the topic.
If that's clarity to you fair enough.
The guy is confused. Talks loads says not a lot and then becomes unstuck at any question from someone with announce of intelligence.
Listen to his stuff on fine tuning andnhe as much as says there is a creator/God.
Furthermore listen to why he pushes evolution to most people whilst admitting religion and evolution are not at odds. I'd post his exact words but am out.
A fan? I wouldn't say that, although he has written some great stuff. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are particularly excellent, especially for clarity of the writing and delivery of his points in an especially well constructed manner, but I preferred when he was a biologist and think it's a shame that we lost him to the debating of the existence of god or gods which is far less interesting to me.
He "pushes" evolution, as you put it, because that is what he has dedicated his life to understanding and teaching. His opions on religion and evolution, and he has no truck with NOMA for sure and argued with Gould on that point frequently, are certainly not categorisable as "religion and evolution (not being) at odds".
Yes, I have read the God Delusion and I wouldn't recognise your description of it.
He absolutely does not "as much as say there is a creator/God" and I don't know how you could possibly interpret his positions as such. I don't know if you are genuinely misunderstanding him or not, but if you come into this thread and post your misapprehensions as facts, you're going to get challenged.
Your arguments to support your positions that the World's foremost proponent of atheism, and a former professor of evolutionary biology, is an intelligent design supporting polytheist is to allude to social media and claims "you'd post his exact words but am out" and you wonder why there's a bit of a pile on?
You can't just make statements about about the beliefs of a widely known public figure, that are utterly contrary to their actual beliefs which they are on record about so frequently that it is tedious, and think no-one's going to react because you say it is so and then call the same person a rambling liar who gets slapped about in debate with anyone of intellectual substance, and wonder why you get people's hackles up. It looks an awful lot like trolling which doesn't sit well with your proclamations of desire for an adult debate.
Last edited:
This is how every conversation with him goes, so I don't know why we're expecting something new.
Ding ding ding.
Ive just the pages from 152 -156, you consider pertinent to your argument and I fail see the relevance. He simply says with such a perfectly constructed world, its not surprising that some believe it was god who did it, but then he says this is a lazy explaination that does nothing to further the real investigations into why things are the way they are. In the same chapter he underlines again that he does not belive in intelligent design, not for a single second. We are talking about the chapter "An interlude at Cambridgde" right?
Book free here, for people who dont have it at hand
https://marxistnkrumaistforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion.pdf
Last edited:
A god delusion, if you will.
He is so much a supporter of intelligent design
You were using random pages to make a point? Yes i read them. It doesnt take long. Perhaps if you want to make precise point about the inconsistencies of an authors view, just throwing out some random pages doesnt further your point.
You wouldn't say you're a fan but then go on to call him the world's foremost proponent of Atheism. I'd say you're a fan.
I was actually out, like now I am at work. So I respond but don't have time to write out the words he has said. I can't do the whole link to YouTube etc. You will have noted I write out quotes.
He is a contradiction. He says religion and evolution are comparable but then goes on to say his job is to "kill religion" and evolution is the way to do it.
His issue with questions or a creator is the word "who" as in who created us. Obviously his whole income stream disappears if he accepts the who. He instead speaks of communities of super beings.
Clarke Kent is happy with his promotion
Discussions progress and when you are replying to different people and others jump in the point gets lost.
Dawkins likes this.
Considering i just shared a free pdf of his book could you copy/paste the passages you feel are inconsistent with his official viewpoints? Im not even a big fan of Dawkins myself mainly because him and Hitchens are so reluctant to acknowledge anything good can come from the practice of religion at all, but i wouldn't want to misrepresent their core views.
Don't think I've posted in here before.
There will be much better read and more intelligent people in this forum than me. However, I have never been able to get my head around how people believe in gods and mythical beings. For me, there would be more likelihood that things like werewolves (Wolves are real) or Vampires (Bats are real) existed than a god. Yet, if somebody were to believe in Werewolves we would say they were mentally ill.
I genuinely see no difference in the two concepts and find it fascinating how gods got so ingrained in every society.
There will be much better read and more intelligent people in this forum than me. However, I have never been able to get my head around how people believe in gods and mythical beings. For me, there would be more likelihood that things like werewolves (Wolves are real) or Vampires (Bats are real) existed than a god. Yet, if somebody were to believe in Werewolves we would say they were mentally ill.
I genuinely see no difference in the two concepts and find it fascinating how gods got so ingrained in every society.
The existence of gods give hope and meaning to people, I can understand why it came to be so ingrained especially when forced on societies. But most things are explainable in modern times but religion still has a control over the masses through various means.
Again it was an example and a response to a posters point.
Here is the full post
I wasn't really suggesting do your own research. I made points from an interview and asked people to watch it for themselves to confirm. Similarly he has many a YouTube type videos where he says certain things.
It's no different to me saying in chapter four of his book, the God delusion, page 152 to 156 he makes a point. Read it.
If a person doesn't believe in God or a creator good luck to them.
However to put God in the category of mythical beings and werewolves etc is ludicrous
It's no different than Dawkins and his ilk saying about fairies and/or flying spaghetti monsters. They seem to think that this is a clever response. Although it is exactly as childish as it seems.
What's the point in those 4 pages? You can literally copy/paste the passages where he makes a point you feel contradicts his arguments and views. It should be REALLY easy for you to do. Since it went over my head reading the chapter I think its up to you point out what the fecking points are since you brought those 4 pages.
Have you read the full response?
Those pages were not relevant to the point. I could have picked any 4 pages from any book to emphasise what I was saying.
To add further if I've cited a page number and referenced a book then that's sufficient. I'm not obliged to copy and paste nothing.
Those who are happy to argue should be happy to do the work.
Why is it ludicrous? There is the same amount of evidence for both, I'd argue less for gods because we at least know wolves exist.
Not trying to be clever or anything, I just like to understand peoples thought processes and phycology and I've never been able to when it comes to religion.
All I've ever heard are things like "Just have faith" or that people like certain ways of living in a religion. Which is great and very honourable but has never quite bridged the gap for me in actually believing in something which is a story / an idea,. Exactly the same as mythical creatures in books.
I'd never try to make anybody stop having their beliefs but it would be nice to understand.
You can use that describe anything Communism, liberalism, democracy.
Full response from who? No if you cite pages from a book but can't cite the authors fallacies then it just shows you cant prove his supposed fallacies. Just throwing out random pages in your own words just shows how utterly incapable you at rational discussion and lazy at that. You made the point. Back it up. Otherwise why would anyone with an opposing view give you a minuscule of good faith?
You won't hear just have faith from me. It's the biggest cop out from so called religious people and institutions and cheeses me off as much as the whole fairies and unicorns statements.
Why the fairies etc issue is ludicrous to me is that because inside of "creation" for want of a better word, it's not hard to look for evidence for certain things. None of us have seen a dinosaur but there is a "blueprint" for dinosaurs as in fossils, bones etc. There are still things we don't know about dinosaurs but the general consensus is they existed.
When it comes to the issue of a creator we have to look outside of creation. If a creator was part of creation he cannot be the creator.
So we look for a blueprint. For the religious it maybe Mohammed, Jesus (and the other 124k) Prophets.
For me it was simple. No way for me we came from nothing and end up as nothing. There is no blueprint for it. There is a starting point. Currently the only thing that makes sense to me is Islam and it's explanations.
You sound like the media websites nowadays with clickbait headlines "Dawkins said THIS when asked about his book.... "
Interesting, thanks for replying by the way. We will always have different views but it is fascinating to get an insight.
Not sure I can agree on the dinosaur part as an argument FOR religion. By your own admission, we have evidence in the form of fossils etc. That's my whole point, for religion we have no evidence so surely that is an argument against any form of god?
Also interested by the comment about "No way for me we came from nothing and end up as nothing. There is no blueprint for it". Logic says that this is actually the blueprint for literally every living thing. My cat didn't exist 5 year ago, and in another 20 years it will once again not exist.
If we forget the creation part, why is it so hard to think we might just end up as nothing? Is it fear of nothingness?
Carolina red. Who doesn't seem to have the issue that you do.
But yeah you do you fella and I'll carry on as I see fit.
I've heard this argument quite often: "there must be a God because it can't be that we came from nothing. Something created us."
Why default to the God-explanation? Why not just say "hey we don't know, science is still working it out". What's wrong with that?
Why default to the God-explanation? Why not just say "hey we don't know, science is still working it out". What's wrong with that?
The issue is having a blueprint. Your cat has one. For fairies what's the blueprint?
For dinosaurs there's the fossils etc. For a creator there is...well us.
There is no fear of nothingness. In fact for me getting religious and realising there is something is actually more scary. And I don't mean hell etc.
So you realised there was something scary after you got religious? Not the other way round.
The God explanation is scientific. And as with all science it's the best we have.
You know people who have actually done their research can articulate it really well and if that research is about another persons work they can quote what they feel is relevant and sum it up while providing a plethora of references for their claims. Why not just admit that you know jack shit about Dawkins work rather than "just throwing out random pages i didnt expect you to read and do your own research on YouTube which i refuse to specify which videos i might have found relevant.