I know right.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Signed to provide short-term left back cover. Reckon he won't play much.
For one, by far most matter won't get gobbled up by black holes, just a tiny part. Secondly, the matter that made up those black holes doesn't disappear, it just changes forms (irrevocably, since the black hole makes everything the same). The black holes don't evaporate into nothing, it's essentially a closed system (though if anything we're getting more energy in the form of dark energy, but it's not really the same).
Jesus or Mohammed??
We couldn't afford neither, so we got Dawkins on loan.
I guess wikki and live science are wrong then.
Yeah I guess
1. That would be specific to the creator then. I’d want different things to prove the existence of the Iroquois Hahgwehdiyu than I would the Greek’s Chaos.
2. That’s not what I asked. Here, I’ll rephrase it… what evidence is necessary for you to reject the prophesy of Muhammad and instead believe the gospels of Christ as the Messiah and Son of God, i.e. to reject Islam for Christianity.
Poor Stephen Hawking's.
The universe will go dark after heat death. That doesn’t mean the universe will cease to exist.
I'm not sure I understand point one. Maybe clarify it?
Point 2 - I don't reject Jesus and I don't reject Christianity. I believe in all the prophets from Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus to Muhammad.
I believe in the 4 books revealed over time ending in the Qur'an.
All the Prophets were Muslim. Because Muslim is a doing word not just a title. Derived from Mu being to do and islam to submit. So in essence it's means to submit
All the prophets did just that. They all submitted the same way "to the willmof God" of you will and all put the foreheads to the floor.
Just as I don't accept translations of the Qur'an as the Qur'an I don't accept the old and/new testament as "the bible". They are merely translations at best and changed at worst.
I can't accept Jesus as God because the words of Jesus show he never claimed as such and isn't.
I'm simple words by accepting Islam I accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Everything in it will though?
And also the big freeze is only one of the working theories isn't it?
You asked what evidence it would take for me to be convinced a creator exists. There’s tons of creation myths. The evidence necessary to believe in one of the creators in them would likely be specific to the creator in question.
And I’m asking you what evidence will it take for you to reject the Koran.
No it won’t. It will just change its form.
And yes, that’s only one theory, but it’s the theory you brought up and argued incorrectly.
Son of God at least?
Ok I get you. I don't work that way, or haven't in my journey. I first had to be convinced that there was a creator. And then look at the "creators" out there and see which had most evidence or made sense etc.
If I didn't have a view or belief in a creator first the rest wouldn't be of interest.
That kind of answers the second question too. I didn't just arrive at Islam and/or the Qur'an. It was a journey which took on board many "beliefs" books etc.
Where I am at now it would take a lot in one sense and in another it could be simple. As in one challenge in the Qur'an is to produce a verse like it. Surah Asr being the shortest verse. Not a translation but in the Arabic with the same/right prose, rhythm etc. A simple challenge in one sense. Not been done since it's revelation so hard
So as in a form of energy or matter? Not convinced that's not seen as ending.
I didn't bring that particular theory up. It was one bought up in a discussion, by nimoc iirc. I just went with the discussion
I hope you’ll read the quote from Richard Dawkins in response to the framing of the interview that you quoted him from, because it contradicts your claims:
He most certainly doesn’t support ID. This bit in particular should be considered a conclusive argument against your claims that Dawkins finds intelligent design by aliens "probable"
"[…] bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)."
As for the atheist/agnostic point. He himself will admit that he might strictly be considered an agnostic, but that’s because any knowledgable and honest person will admit you can’t prove a negative. There’s no way of knowing. I doubt you’ll find many atheists under that definition, but fine. We can do away with the term as far as I’m concerned. It’s nit-picking compared to the more severe misrepresentations you’ve put forth.
I suspect I’m done after this one, for realsies. Unless you’re ready to acknowledge that you’ve not had as solid a grasp of Dawkins’ stances as you think. I love his science writings, and he was a useful presence to make "atheists" feel less alone in a lot of areas where you risk being ostracized for this. But as @nimic has pointed out, he hasn’t aged gracefully, and to my mind is totally off on claims like there’s no such thing as islamophobia. So I’m not even a fanboy of his at this point, but the way you’re characterising his stances is hard to leave unchallenged.
So there’s no evidence that would convince you that the Koran is wrong?
Like, Jesus Christ descends from the heavens and smacks you upside the head with a piece of the True Cross and proclaims himself as the messiah and Muhammad to be a fraud, and you’re still going to say “nope, not having it!”…?
I challenge him to try this in Texas. He will not be proclaiming anything after that.
He’s risen again, again.
All year Lent then.
He does go back and contradict himself in tweets and what not after questioned on certain things he has said. Enough evidence of that tbf. I think his tweets vex his fans these days.
Let's just say that I accept what you have said based on that explanation. However that is one conversation on the topic. How do you explain other times he has broached similar subjects?
So when he says it would be rash to say we are alone (as in aliens must exist)
He also has said if you think we are alone then the chance of life is staggeringly improbable or exceedingly implausible
He even goes onto say the aliens probably had religion too. In his words after all every other civilisation studies by anthropologists has set up a religion.
Maybe because it's logical and rational Richard?
The expanding for ever, which the big freeze is one theory, was bought up by nimic.
The Qur'an says Jesus will return/descend. So wouldn't be a surprise. He will be the Messiah. Jesus said this and Muhammad said this.
If I'm around he won't need to whack me around the head.
The cross and Muhammad being a fraud bit is unlikely at worst. The teachings of Jesus tell me that.
Edit: as I said the Qur'an itself set the challenge to prove it wrong so if anyone can do it won't need Jesus to say or do a thing. I'll simply disbelieve.
I see. So what theory were you referring to?
I don’t care if it’s unlikely. I’m asking if that happened, would you change your mind.
To be more blunt, I know what you believe, so you telling me what you believe is a waste of time. I’m not asking you what you believe.
I am asking you the same question you asked me. What evidence will it take to prove to you that your belief is incorrect?
If the answer is “there is no evidence that could convince me of that” then just say so.
If you don't care stop posing ridiculous scenarios. If you care enough to ask it prepare to listen to the answers.
After all I'm entertaining your ridiculous line of questioning.
Evidence is your simple answer.
The likelihood of there being aliens is not the same question as the likelihood of them having intelligently designed our (or any) species.
You’re either simple or a troll, but at any rate this confirms the futility of this. Cheers.
I'd made a comment about science 80 odd years ago and then things progressed. Can't be arsed to read back but if you interested have at it
Oh please either leave as you keep threatening to or quit with the faux outrage.
It's his claim both ways. You can't simply accept one and dismiss the other because it doesn't fit. Ones a joke/forced when it suits.
He poses that even if rare it will be billions due to the size of the cosmos/universe etc. They will be way way more intelligent and developed than us.
Or maybe he was forced into saying that and really we should believe it will be mouse sized rhinos and giant spiders? But super intelligent
No. I’ve read through it already. I’m asking you a simple, direct question. You knew enough of the convo to tell me what theory you weren’t talking about, but now suddenly you don’t know which theory you were?
Mighty convenient.
How is any of this in any way whatsoever a retort to Eriku's points or in any way support for your ludicrous claim that Dawkins is a polytheistic creationist?
Nonetheless, let's persevere. Here's an article, from 2014, with direct quotes from Dawkins on virtually every one of the points that you've misrepresented above, and covering your absurd claims of him being an intelligent design supporting creationist due to his opinions on aliens. It's using his actual words, in context, and it illuminates your total misrepresentation of his positions. I have bolded aspects that are particularly salient to your false claims. I also suspect that you've seen this article, or a version of it, given your comments and have either failed to understand his position, or deliberately chosen not to. I have no doubt this is a pointless exercise given your form on the matter but here you are:
Dawkins pondered whether the way certain animals have evolved on Earth has been random, or followed a path that would be similar for any alien life forms.
In particular, he discussed how organs such as eyes, on a world where light was abundant, would be very likely to evolve in a similar way.
And even things such as religion, as society develops, would be shared by humans and an intelligent extraterrestrial race.
On whether aliens might have their own religions Dawkins said: 'I think it wouldn't be totally unsurprising.
After all, he said, religion has arisen in every single civilisation that anthropologists have ever looked at that.
'I suppose it's plausible that any alien life form which is on the way to developing the sort of technology that's capable of reaching us would be likely to go through a preliminary phase of uncertain groping in the dark,' he added.
'Before they hit upon truths like Newton's laws, which are universal, and Einstein's theory of gravitation, which is also universal, they might well go through a phase of groping in the dark.
'It's something we might recognise as religion.'
Dawkins said he wants biologists to start to consider what other life might be like in the event we discover we are not alone - which he claims is increasingly unlikely.
"The number of stars in current estimates is 10 to the power of 22, and it looks as though most of them have planets, so it's feasible to say the number of planets is in excess of 10 to the power of 22", said Dawkins.
He said It would seem to be rash to predict we're the only life form in the entire universe.
'On the other hand if there was only one planet that has life then it has to be this one, because here we are,' he said.
'The alternative is to say yes, we are alone. If you want to believe that then the origin of life on this planet has to be a quite staggeringly improbable event.'
'So we're left with the rather paradoxical result that people who are trying to work out how life originated on this planet are totally wasting their time, because the theory we're seeking is not a plausible theory, it's an exceedingly implausible theory.'
Dawkins explained that if there is a plausible theory for the origin of life - one that has yet to be put forward - then there's going to be 'lots and lots' of life in the universe.
'I'm just pointing out a kind of incompatibility between the belief that we're unique, which many want to believe, and hunting for the origin of life on this planet, which is a lost cause if you want to believe that,' he continued.
'I think there's lots of life in the universe, but that's just a hunch. It may still be very rare; it may be so rare that there are only a billion of them.
Dawkins said if there are only a billion life forms then they will probably be so spaced out from each other that they'll never know each other and never come in contact.
He believes if they do come in contact, it will almost certainly be by radio than by actually bodily meeting.
'That's because radio waves get propagated in all directions, and so we could be being bathed in radio emissions of some extraterrestrial civilisation,' he said.
On what he expects to be found first, alien life or the origin of our life, Dawkins said: 'I would think finding a plausible theory of the origin of our life.
'If we can find a plausible theory then that pretty much means there's lots of life.'
One opinion he would like to distance himself from, though, is the possibility of life on Earth being seeded by aliens.
'I was interviewed by a creationist film and the man said "can you think of any conceivable way in which life on this planet could have been intelligently designed?"
'So I said the only conceivable way I can think of is not God, which is what [he wanted] me to say, but alien seeding. But I explicitly said I do not believe in alien seeding.
'If you really press me to think of how intelligence could ever have designed life on this planet, the only possibility would be alien seeding.
'That's very different from saying I believe in alien seeding. It's been distorted possibly maliciously by a creationist.'
If there is life out there, however, Dawkins thinks it is likely they follow similar evolutionary principles to life on Earth.
'Does life have to be Darwinian? I think it does,' he said.
'I don't think there's another theory that's been suggested that could give rise to the sort of organised complexity that we call life. I'm kind of betting my shirt on Darwinism.'
Last edited:
1. I didn’t ask you what you believed. You answered questions I didn’t ask instead of ones I did. That’s on you.
2. I asked you the same question you asked me. If you think it’s ridiculous, that’s also on you.
3. That is a completely nonsensical answer to the question of “What evidence will it take to prove to you that your belief is incorrect?”
Nimic took part of a larger response I made to someone else and made a comment. I engaged and followed on that conversation. Why is that hard for you to understand?
And as I said convenient or not it's there have at it
Distorted maliciously by a creationist
. Ok dickie.I'm looking for another interview/discussion where he said similar. I'll post it if I find it.
It’s just hard to leave it when you bring up a retort to the wrong question.
Don’t worry, you won’t see me bother with any more corrections. You’ve got your hands full with a bunch of perplexed posters in this thread anyway.
I see.
So, in the last page or so, have you been discussing the heat death of the universe?
Yes
No