It's an embarrassing yoke we will never fully shed.
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.
If the faithful were to reverse their thinking for a minute and have faith that there is no god/creator/allah, what would be different in the world?
If the answer is nothing then surely that would give them pause for thought?
If the answer is nothing then surely that would give them pause for thought?
The idea that Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design is downright ludicrous.
I think it would be hard to be clearer than he is as long as you understand what he is saying.
You plainly don't understand the points he is making.
Huh? I can only think you are taking something he said out of context.
He was in the public domain for decades before he became also known for trying to apply logic to refute the existence of one or more God.
No he didn't. He often uses people's belief in various single gods and some religion's multiple gods to say that even the religious are athiests about most gods.
He really isn't.
Has he? Really? I'd take a guess that this isn't entirely true.
And why are you calling him Dickie?
Last edited:
In general some measurable, testable, repeatable empirical evidence that stands up to independent scientific peer review. The fact that many hundreds of years of seeking has totally failed to find a single shred of such evidence is strongly suggestive to say the least.
That we are incredibly close to certain that there are no fundamental particles that allow for supernatural beings to exist - in effect any supernatural being can't exist if the second dual law of thermodynamics is in any way true - goes close to actually disproving the existence of ghosts and gods.
Why when there is the same total lack of evidence for all of them?
Unlike dinosaurs for which there is a massive and irrefutable body of evidence.
It isn't childish. It is pointing out how ludicrous they think it is to believe in anything for which there is zero evidence.
I'll help @Roane here with his own quote
Any discussion on an evidence or science can be done only if two parties agree on what are facts and evidences. If I start saying the existence of light or night and day is "proof" that Genesis 1:3 is correct, then there can be no discussion.
Simply stating something isn't evidence. I can tell you that the meaning of life is 42, because I read it in my favorite book, but if I actually believed that it would also be utter nonsense.
Relying on questionable evidence is obviously one of the issues here, but a weirder part for me is that he uses that evidence to create a universal rule that 'proves' existence of a creator only to immidiately break it after that. It doesn't even work within his framework.
I think he calls him Dickie because i referenced Richard as "Dick" Dawkins and started a trend since its short for Richard. Achievements aside he does come across as a bit of arrrogant dick every now and then. Im on Dick's side though. In general.
I generally think that Dawkins has lost the plot in the last few years, but it's still obviously absurd to claim that he's for intelligent design in any way.
Well yes since in the pages he specified and then claimed were completely random, he again reiterates that he doesnt believe in or supports intelligent design.
Steady on wibble that’s got a lot going for it. Nice and simple too!
I'd agree with the general assessment of Dawkins of late, but irrespective of personal feelings about Dawkins as a person, or whether you agree with his opinions, he is unequivocally not a creationist and to assert he is, as you rightly say, is absurd.
Thanks. Hopefully this should put an end to that utterly ridiculous argument.
This is why I like religious people in this thread, a bit of discussion
It most certainly will not, going by past experience.
I've not used that documentary. It's his interviews I mentioned. For example Ben Stein and pierce Morgan
Polytheism is derived from him specifically saying superbeings, as in plural. As in many
And is he being clear? He is giving possibilities which is fine. Yet he is upset with the question "who" preferring to say they. Again multiple.
He is saying scientifically it is possible. But he is uncertain. Therefore by definition agnostic.
Atheism: the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
He doesn't believe in gods, therefore...
It is a literal quote from that film. That you quoted. Yet, you say you didn't. What's your game here?
We know you're saying polytheism for that reason. It's very silly.
For the third time in 24 hours: Yes, he's strictly technically agnostic. He says this regularly. See the Dawkins scale. Actually read about it (not by quote skimming creationist websites) and see how fatuous your point is.
You can believe that somewhere in time and space there are beings far more intelligent and evolved than us, possibly even instigating life on our planet without believing in a supreme creator
It was a quote from a documentary, as @Fingeredmouse said, and that documentary is full of disingenuous takes. If you were at all unsure about what Dawkins meant, the response from Dawkins to the documentary made it plenty clear.
And for the record, there’s such a thing as agnostic atheism. Atheism doesn’t have to entail a positive belief that there is no god, it just has to state a lack of belief in a god.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
A subtle distinction I know, but if you think about it it makes sense. If you make an analogy to court, a jury can find someone not guilty without that meaning they’re sure of someone’s innocence. In the sense you’re talking there are no atheists, which is obviously not the case.
You’ve been corrected a number of times now, and we’ve given sources. Might be time to stop feeling super confident that you know what you’re talking about. At any rate I’m done, it’s quite clear that you’re either arguing in bad faith, or you’re not equipped to get a handle on all this.
Last edited:
There's wilful ignorance and then there's whatever the hell this is. You're completely misrepresenting or, to be generous, misinterpreting what was said. He's clarified it in that quote at length. This is getting a bit silly tbh.
This is a logical fallacy.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning and it has an end. Science will tell you that for the last 80 odd years.
If events depend on events this is not rational or logical as there would be no be no end
The cause of the universe must be uncaused itself. It can't have a beginning and it can't have an end.
Asking this question is a question of category. The creator and the created are not the same. One is dependent on many factors the other cannot be. You can ask what paint looks like or what it smells like but you can't ask what it sounds like. That isn't in the paint category.
Actually, right now the favoured theory among astrophysicists is that the Universe will expand forever. There is no reason why it would need to end. You're making assumptions here.
Any creator.
I believe in the Bible. Just not the bible as we have today. In the same way that I don't see a translation of the Qur'an as the Qur'an.
Are you actually genuinely thinking that your quote proved your point?
Yes I have, considering the way you keep getting caught in lies and you just keep going.
I gave you a quote of the man’s response to how his views were portrayed, which goes against your interpretation. He did not say what you think he’s saying.
Even an ever expanding universe will "end". Stars will fizzle out, Galaxies gone. Big freeze. No life.
Why are you bringing life into it? The Universe will still exist. As long as there is stuff the Universe exists, and all the stuff that is currently in the Universe will still be in it at the end, it will just be completely evenly spread out and in its most basic component.
It won't just be life. Nonstars, no galaxies nada.
The universe is a component of many parts. Of 90% of it ceases to exist it's ended
Indoctrination is a hell of a thing.
Well, you're really struggling to comprehend it.
He’s asked about Intelligent Design, and he is thinking up a hypothetical where that would apply. Then he states, IN YOUR QUOTE, that he still thinks a creature capable of that will have ultimately come about through Darwinian evolution.
It’s NOT what the Discovery Institute mean when they say Intelligent Design, nor any other theist trying to make a case for a prime mover.
It’s not complicated, but clearly you still can’t work it out.
True. Dawkins fans for ya
I already explained to you that it will have the exact same amount of stuff in it as it currently does. It will just no longer take the form of stars or galaxies.
You must surely realize how absurd that 90% comment is. If 90% of something doesn't exist... 10% still exists. Not that it describes the fate of the Universe anyway.
They will gobble it up, and as they evaporate they (very very very very very slowly) release energy "back into the Universe", as it were.
Is he thinking up a hypothetical is he? Let's be honest here your reaching into emotions of what he is thinking or was trying to say etc. Let's just focus on what he has said.
He has spoken about aliens and intelligent beings many times. Arguing that although not provable it's probable.
Now he is saying it's possible that there is a signature of ID. Super beings who seeded us. Of course he harps on about Darwin be ause he kind of has to.
Now you can come back and argue against what I said. But the fact is he is agnostic and believes in the possibility of super beings.