You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Richard Dawkins Hero
November 23 2024 10.23pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Richard Dawkins Hero

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

  

the.universal 12 Jun 15 10.19pm Send a Private Message to the.universal Add the.universal as a friend

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.01pm

Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 9.39pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

To me, that's more believable than a man making it. I believe in people's right to religion, but if you break the various religious stories down, they are all fecking ridiculous.

Plus, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, science will prove it so, and happily admit it.

Religion styles itself as a different thing entirely, which can never be proved wrong.

If an omnipotent God exists then that entity is clearly far more than a mere man or woman.

I concur. And yet, he made us in his image. So what air does he breathe? And where does he poo? And why do I have an appendix?

Religion's answer = don't ask such silly questions, just believe this x thousand year old book.

 

Vive le Roy!
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ChuFukka Flag 12 Jun 15 10.19pm Send a Private Message to ChuFukka Add ChuFukka as a friend

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 9.58pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.43pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 9.28pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 Jun 2015 9.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.04pm

Quote We are goin up! at 12 Jun 2015 8.00pm

The guy is a grade A c*nt. He forces his opinion on others, he's no better than a Jehovah knocking on your door or one of those loud preachers in your face on Croydon High Street.

F*ck him.


I wasn't aware that Dawkins bothered you on your property or stood yelling on the streets. Always thought he spoke at organised events where listening to him and his views was entirely optional. Silly me.


Latest scientific theories say our universe and everything in it is a hologram! Does that mean we're not real anyway?


Of course, 'hologram' does not actually mean 'not real' in this case. Not that I claim any understanding of string theory.

So you insult Dawkins because he stands up for the voice of reason in a World where a huge chunk of the population are living in a religious delusion perpetuated by organisations whose only real ambition is to sustain their own power base.


Am I missing something? Where did I insult Dawkins? I actually agree with you, I think the power, opulence and hypocrisy of the church is vile.

Edited by ChuFukka (12 Jun 2015 9.46pm)

Sorry squire, it was "We are going up".

Apologies.

I'd repeat the question to him if he has his brain cell switched on at the moment.


No worries, I'd be interested to see if he gets back to you on that.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 12 Jun 15 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
ChuFukka Flag 12 Jun 15 10.24pm Send a Private Message to ChuFukka Add ChuFukka as a friend

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 12 Jun 15 10.27pm

Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 10.19pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.01pm

Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 9.39pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

To me, that's more believable than a man making it. I believe in people's right to religion, but if you break the various religious stories down, they are all fecking ridiculous.

Plus, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, science will prove it so, and happily admit it.

Religion styles itself as a different thing entirely, which can never be proved wrong.

If an omnipotent God exists then that entity is clearly far more than a mere man or woman.

I concur. And yet, he made us in his image. So what air does he breathe? And where does he poo? And why do I have an appendix?

Religion's answer = don't ask such silly questions, just believe this x thousand year old book.

These are separate arguments. The various religions describe God in different ways, 'in his own image' etc.

What we were discussing is the possibility of an omnipotent God independent of the attributes assigned to it by religions.

I should add here that I don't necessarily believe in such an entity, just that it is as plausible as the universe springing into being of its own accord.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
the.universal 12 Jun 15 10.27pm Send a Private Message to the.universal Add the.universal as a friend

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

And what's a bit of a treat for those that believe in the Big Bang theory, we are all, literally, made of stars.

A nice thought I feel for the non-believers.

 

Vive le Roy!
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 12 Jun 15 10.28pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 12 Jun 15 10.35pm

Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 10.19pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.01pm

Quote the.universal at 12 Jun 2015 9.39pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

To me, that's more believable than a man making it. I believe in people's right to religion, but if you break the various religious stories down, they are all fecking ridiculous.

Plus, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, science will prove it so, and happily admit it.

Religion styles itself as a different thing entirely, which can never be proved wrong.

If an omnipotent God exists then that entity is clearly far more than a mere man or woman.

I concur. And yet, he made us in his image. So what air does he breathe? And where does he poo? And why do I have an appendix?

Religion's answer = don't ask such silly questions, just believe this x thousand year old book.

Well if God is omnipotent, and wanted to breathe, he could simply conjure up some air. Similarly, if he wanted to poo, he could conjure up a toilet. He may have given you an appendix so that you could use it in a discussion on a football forum to try to prove that he did not exist. Mind you, it is difficult to judge the exact motives of an omnipotent being that made the universe. Bit like ants trying to understand what is happening when their nest is dug up by someone doing the gardening.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
ChuFukka Flag 12 Jun 15 10.44pm Send a Private Message to ChuFukka Add ChuFukka as a friend

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.


I'm not sure how many times I have to use the word 'evidence' before it gets through.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 12 Jun 15 10.45pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.


I'm not sure how many times I have to use the word 'evidence' before it gets through.

It is a theory, there is no evidence.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
ChuFukka Flag 12 Jun 15 10.48pm Send a Private Message to ChuFukka Add ChuFukka as a friend

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.


I'm not sure how many times I have to use the word 'evidence' before it gets through.

It is a theory, there is no evidence.


About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 12 Jun 15 10.52pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm

Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm

Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm

[Link]

In my opinion, he deserves hero status.

The God Delusion is a must read.

This headline is typical Guardian nonsense.

I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously.

He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is.

His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did.

The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.


Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).


You can't seriously believe that the existence of an omnipotent being (whose own origins are yet to be explained and for which there is precisely zero evidence) is remotely comparable to a well-established scientific theory with piles of studies reinforcing it?

As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being?

Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous.

Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang.

What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?


The time thing is very difficult to get your head around, and there isn't a perfect term as all our language is based around our perception of time as a purely linear entity (which it isn't). The evidence is extensive, and has filled thousands of pages of very dry physics publications which I wouldn't inflict on my worst enemy. A couple of more famous examples are the latent radiation still hanging around after the initial 'event', and the movement of all bodies in space relative to each other which show that they were, at some point, all in exactly the same place.

So the 'event' just happened.


Yes.

Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.


I'm not sure how many times I have to use the word 'evidence' before it gets through.

It is a theory, there is no evidence.


About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

Why is it commonly known as 'The Big Bang Theory' then?

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Richard Dawkins Hero