Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Are we talking multiverse here?
In Islam we have what is called the unseen universe and the seen universe. Both fall into the category of the created universe.
There is a Quranic verse which states "all praise to Allah, Lord of all the world's.
If we take professor Hawkins view that time began at a certain point, lets say the big bang. Then anything within that is the created universe/s. Anything that existed outside of that point is not by essence created.
He fecking doesn't. You really do like to wildly misrepresent Dawkins, don't you?
He feckin does.
When questioned by anyone who has a bit about him he is as confused a sleeping dog farting awake.
He started off saying the best argument theists had was re fine tuning then rambles on about how he is a biologist and that's a physics question.
And he is on video saying our existence could be an alien community starting us as an experiment.
Guy just doesn't like the word God. It's what's made him come into the public domain. He's happy to say it was many instead of one God.
Atheist? Guy's a polytheist if you listen to him in different interviews.
On top of that he has been caught lying on how he refuted beliefs from individuals. By editing the videos.
All available on social media if you care to look
Aliens COULD have seeded life, he accepts that as (to some extent) plausible. That’s not the same as saying he accepts intelligent design.
Either he’s gone wildly off the rails very recently, or you’re confused or disingenuous. Got anything to cite for us, rather than telling us to just explore social media?
He's not a polytheist. He just asks the opposition what makes God/Jehova/Allah any more real than Zeus, Thor, Odin, Indra, Vishnu and Brahma etc who are worshipped or have been worshipped through history.
Why not share this stuff from Social media. It would make it easier for us to get the gist about what you're talking about.
Last edited:
You made the claim, so it should be on you to provide the evidence.
Curiously this just showed up on my twitter with Dick Dawkins talking about the term Islamophobia
Aliens COULD have seeded life, he accepts that as (to some extent) plausible. That’s not the same as saying he accepts intelligent design.
Either he’s gone wildly off the rails very recently, or you’re confused or disingenuous. Got anything to cite for us, rather than telling us to just explore social media?
He has always been wildly off the rails.
For starters you could watch his interview with Pierce Morgan.
Yes he does ask that question, as so may an atheist, but that's not what I was pointing to.
Dawkins himself follows some of the status quo but in the end, if you listen to his ramblings, he just doesn't like the use of the word God.
He can't accept an "intelligent being" the creator because " no evidence" but happy to consider/accept intelligent super beings without erm evidence.
Never tagged you as one of the 'DYOR' crowd.
I don’t care about subjective blanket statements, or to get directed to watch more Piers Morgan (I believe I’ve seen the video anyway)
Get specific, stop dodging. You can’t back up the specific claims you made earlier. Dawkins most definitely doesn’t believe in intelligent design. Even if he believe aliens seeded life on earth, and that this could be construed as intelligent design of life on earth, I have no doubt he’d back a naturalistic explanation for their origins, rather than some supernatural entity. No chance he’s supported ID as it is being purported by the likes of the Discovery Institute and other theists.
And yet the most specific you would be is "social media", which is marginally less vague than "online". If it's so easy to find, why wouldn't you just find it to make your argument more compelling?
What's DYOR?
“Do your own research”
It’s what people say when they refuse to post evidence of their claims.
So you have seen the interview? Good
"They don't know, I don't know, you don't know...". Is not atheist it's agnostic
Same interview
I think it's highly likely there are other beings out there that are much cleverer than we are superhuman not supernatural...I would love to meet them.
And as for being specific. Pierce asks a question. Dawkins response "read Susan Blackmore".
Ok thanks.
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.
Last edited:
Were we discussing whether he was 100% atheist? He himself says it’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. This isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
And you’re not discussing with Dawkins now. I think it’s equally lazy of him to just say "read this book", and not even give a few bullet points.
Maybe if you gave me a time stamp, rather than asking me to listen to that insufferable twat Morgan for an hour.
You are arguing in bad faith, whether you know it or not. I’ll stop now, because no doubt you’ll have enough people to engage the way you’re going at it.
He himself claims to be an atheist. But it's clear he isn't by then what he says. There's no gotcha about it. It's simple fact.
I used the book answer from Dawkins to show that if you make a point and say watch an interview or read the book it's not dodging. It's perfectly acceptable. As I think Dawkins answer was. It's not the same as just saying watch or read something without making a point.
I'm not arguing and didnt ask for anyone to get involved. Quite the opposite actually. I said to a certain poster I was happy to discuss with him but didn't like people sticking the oar in and demanding answers when not involved in the discussion.
Ah, so you can't trust what he's saying, but you can trust what he's saying. That makes sense.
He is an atheist as much as anybody can be an atheist. In the sense you’re talking then Dawkins also doesn’t disbelieve the existence of unicorns.
Making a hard claim and then telling people to rummage through a long Piers Morgan interview to (possibly) find what you’re talking about is not good practice. You can’t expect people to take you seriously
You were talking about discussing finer points of religion, this is you making claims about Dawkins. You can’t be surprised to get a lot of engagement when you make claims a lot of people here know to be false, then refuse to back them up properly.
This is how a forum works. If you want a one-on-one discussion PM someone, or go out and find someone in a park.
You did that but never posted the link to the interview, hence the DYOR.
Also, very different to the instance there, considering that’s a text source and you’ve actually given the citation to find it.
Well I'm the words of the man
They don't know, I don't know , you don't know...it's super beings but not God.
As you can see I've responded to those who who have weighed in. It just makes it difficult with demands. That's the key word jumping in making demands.
My point was it's hard to have a discussion. So for me I'm happy to go into details with the person I'm discussing with. And not argue as was claimed. In this sense my responses will be not as detailed.
But it is what it is.
You're predisposed to assume that any super being he could possible be hypothesizing is "God", but that's not at all what he's saying. Only in the loosest possible sense of the word god would that ever fit, and certainly nothing to do with any religion (Abrahamic or otherwise).
I haven't refused to be engaged. And I haven't refused to back it up. I just haven't been giving the Cambridge style r ferences I had to with my dissertation.
And he isn't Atheist. Confused? Rambling? Certainly but not atheist.
As fornhiw whole fairys, leprechauns and unicorns style points. You're a biologist and claim to be a scientist Richard. Go do science and find out if they exist and what is the etymology behind them.
Accepting the possibility that there could be intelligent beings out there in the universe with the capability of seeding life on other planets is in no way similar to accepting the possibility of a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space, i.e a god.
The reason for that is that we have evidence of intelligent beings existing and we have evidence of them being capable of interstellar travel while there is no evidence of any gods.
By definition a superbeing is a "God". Certainly outside of the Abrahamic religions it's apt.
Call the creator what you like. It's super being and a creator.
As atheists are fond of saying we just believe in one less God. Dawkons believes in super being communities as creators. A bit like the Greeks?
No, not at all. That's your preferred definition, but it's not the definition. You're playing a game of semantics to justify your claim that he's not an atheist, and it's all utterly pointless.
Erm is this your tagline shining through or you are talking about some serious evidence of aliens doing aliens shit?
So someone with physical attributes whose abode is in the seventh heaven?
To quote religious scriptures from Abrahamic faiths.
Aye God
No even in the realm of the worlds largest and oldest religions Buddha Shakyamuni became canonically a superbeing but a not all powerful god or a god at all.
So Allah is ET?
Looks the part!
Was he accredited for creation?