Richard Dawkins becoming a believer?!?!

[Tommy-K]

Article I read in The Observer last Sunday:


Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins


Cristina Odone
Sunday May 13, 2007
The Observer


You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?

This was the dilemma Richard Dawkins put to me during a weekend in the country. Our host, publisher Anthony Cheetham, had mischievously placed us next to each other at table. I thought the dilemma was a no-brainer - my only doubt was whether I would shoot straight enough to kill the beast.

He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul.

Dawkins's hatred of religion went on, as is well-known, to flower in television documentaries and, more recently, his bestselling The God Delusion. All faith is blind, rationality is anathema to believers and religion is the enemy of science: the tenets at the heart of the Dawkins dogma have been polished again and again and so widely transmitted that they have become common currency.

Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir.

In secular Britain, faith-bashing carries far more resonance and risks causing far greater damage. In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.

But there is hope. In a recent interview, Dawkins describes a gigantic intelligence which designs the universe. He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it. It sounds suspiciously like God under another name. Catholic schoolchildren used to pray for the conversion of England; nowadays, I'd settle for the conversion of Richard Dawkins.

For the only hope for tolerance is for him to publish a stream of new titles - The God Solution, The Selfless Gene - and address cosy church groups as an apostate who has seen the light. With their loudest persecutor silenced, believers would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive.


I really do hope he isn't seriously considering the possibility of some sort of God or higher power. If he is, this is frightening. For someone so vehemently atheist to become brainwashed into believing in the sky-fairy is hugely worrying.

The article is clearly written by a bible-bashing nutcase. It was in the Comments section of the newspaper so it's allowed to be biased, which I suppose is good. Freedom of speech and all that. Thankfully the actual articles are very unbiased.

Could Richard Dwkins really have found God?

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh fuck, that's going to be horrible if he "converts".

[Comrade J]

I can't think which interview this is, I might not have seen or read it, but it is likely they totally twisted what he said, Dawkins has always said that Christians will attempt to do this.

As a guess, he may have said that there "may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there" but said the probability of it is extremely low, and if there is, then Dawkins wants to ask it some questions about the state of the world, thus explaining the line "he is prepared to encounter it". Whatever he said, it would be in that context, where it is easy to twist his words.

Look at the nonsense the author is writing about belief and religion, it is obviously a Christian source whose aim is to discredit Richard Dawkins' position amongst his atheist fanbase, it's obviously bullshit.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 pm
I can't think which interview this is, I might not have seen or read it, but it is likely they totally twisted what he said, Dawkins has always said that Christians will attempt to do this.

As a guess, he may have said that there "may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there" but said the probability of it is extremely low, and if there is, then Dawkins wants to ask it some questions about the state of the world, thus explaining the line "he is prepared to encounter it". Whatever he said, it would be in that context, where it is easy to twist his words.

Look at the nonsense the author is writing about belief and religion, it is obviously a Christian source whose aim is to discredit Richard Dawkins' position amongst his atheist fanbase, it's obviously bullshit.
That's what I thought whilst reading it. But still, slightly worrying if he is considering the possibility of a supernatural higher power. Hopefully it is just bullshit Christian propaganda and what he said was taken completely out of context.

[graffic]

why would they put Christian propaganda in the guardian?

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:37 pm
why would they put Christian propaganda in the guardian?
It was in the comments section, where writers are allowed to be subjective and give their own opinions.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Cristina Odone is on the Christian Left. So, basically, she's a hypocrite.

[Publius]

Well of course there "may be" something like that. But neither I nor Dawkins have any reason to actually BELIEVE that there is. So I'm not worried.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+May 20, 2007 12:35 pm--> (Tommy-K @ May 20, 2007 12:35 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 pm
I can't think which interview this is, I might not have seen or read it, but it is likely they totally twisted what he said, Dawkins has always said that Christians will attempt to do this.

As a guess, he may have said that there "may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there" but said the probability of it is extremely low, and if there is, then Dawkins wants to ask it some questions about the state of the world, thus explaining the line "he is prepared to encounter it". Whatever he said, it would be in that context, where it is easy to twist his words.

Look at the nonsense the author is writing about belief and religion, it is obviously a Christian source whose aim is to discredit Richard Dawkins' position amongst his atheist fanbase, it's obviously bullshit.
That's what I thought whilst reading it. But still, slightly worrying if he is considering the possibility of a supernatural higher power. Hopefully it is just bullshit Christian propaganda and what he said was taken completely out of context. [/b]
Yeah but everybody has to consider this possibility, even though it is extremely unlikely, we can never be 100% certain there is no God, same as we can never be certain there aren't invisible pixies living on Neptune (though we can on both counts conclude this is highly improbable based on evidence).

In The God Delusion, Dawkins even says he is agnostic only to the point that he is agnostic about fairies living in his garden. He is not seriously contemplating that there may be a God, but simply acknowledging the very slim chance that there may be, because of course nobody can be absolutely certain, there is no way of disproving God.
And when he points out things like this, Christians use it against him by twisting what he has said in order to fool people and discredit him. Seriously, as clichéd as it is, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 20, 2007 06:56 am

I really do hope he isn't seriously considering the possibility of some sort of God or higher power. If he is, this is frightening. For someone so vehemently atheist to become brainwashed into believing in the sky-fairy is hugely worrying.



Well, only in that there is the possibility of anthing. While the quote was probably taken out a bit out of context the things that he said do not refute his position or even weaken it.


He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it.
Right now, something of that nature is not even falsifiable by science so indeed, Dawkins would want to encounter something like that, if it existed. Which, he would most likely say, it most certainly does not.

You shouldn't be "concerned" that Dawkins would become brainwashed. He has given copious amounts of his time and energy into thinking about these things that if he was to be convinced of something "supernatural" you can bet that there would be some evidence or that it would not be mere indoctrination.


Could Richard Dwkins really have found God?
Anything is possible, right? :rolleyes: But this is highly improbable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I needn't think anyone should worry. The quoted article in the OP was a truly laughable piece of shit. "Secularist extremists"? good grief, what a load of bollocks.

[RebelDog]

But there is hope. In a recent interview, Dawkins describes a gigantic intelligence which designs the universe. He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it.

That seems a bit vague and is likely taken completely out of context. Why is there not an actual quote and not just merely anecdote. I have no doubt Dawkins remains true to his anti-theistic line. Even if Dawkins was to have some sort of religious epiphany, would he tell us? We wouldn't buy his books anymore if he did. He is a hard line materialist.

[LSD]

Am I the only one who couldn't care less?

Richard Dawkins is a political reactionary. He's certainly no ally of the left.

The fact that he's running around promoting atheism is nice, I suppose, but it doesn't make him any less wrong in his other opinions.

This is a man who, as illustrated in the article, is deeply anti-humanistic, who values ephemera like "endangered species" above flesh-and-blood human beings.

Don't kid yourselves, in a revolution, he would not be standing beside you. He'd be safe and warm in his ornate study writing letters to the editor about the "brutality" and "imaturity" of the agitating working class.

Like most celebrity intellectuals, his survival is dependent on the maintanance of the socioeconomic status quo. And he's smart enough to know that.

[Vanguard1917]

This is a man who, as illustrated in the article, is deeply anti-humanistic, who values ephemera like "endangered species" above flesh-and-blood human beings.

Good point. Atheism does not necessary mean humanism. Just because someone has rejected a God-centred perspective does not necessarily mean that they have embraced a human-centred outlook.

-------

An excellent article on Dawkins:

Monday 18 December 2006
The Dawkins delusion (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2503/)
'Catholic atheist' Michael Fitzpatrick finds himself repelled by Richard Dawkins' crass and prejudiced polemic against religion.

There is an old Irish joke, retold here by Richard Dawkins, about somebody in Northern Ireland who responded to a survey question about religious affiliation by declaring himself an atheist. ‘Would that be a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the insistent reply. Faced with a similar inquiry, I would be obliged to declare myself a Catholic atheist. By this I mean that I am an atheist by conviction, but a Catholic by upbringing and tribal affiliation.

I know that some people raised as Catholics blame the Church of Rome for their difficulties in later life, nourishing a particularly degenerate literary genre. As a child taught by nuns and brothers, I endured a fair amount of pious claptrap and casual corporal punishment and some inappropriate sexual interest. But any detriment suffered was far outweighed by a sound education and by exposure to a rich cultural heritage – of art and music, scripture and ritual. For this I retain gratitude, affection and respect.

Though as an atheist I feel I should welcome Dawkins’ diatribe against religion, as a Catholic atheist, I find myself repelled by his crass polemic – and I am not alone (1). In his comments on Catholicism, Dawkins reveals a combination of old-fashioned Protestant anti-Popery with the fashionable contempt of the liberal intelligentsia for any kind of religious faith. Thus he refers to the ‘semi-permanent state of morbid guilt suffered by a Roman Catholic possessed of normal human frailty and less than normal intelligence’ (p167). Discussing the consequences of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland, he suggests that ‘horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place’ (p317). These are statements of such unmitigated prejudice – and indeed absurdity – that it is shocking to find them in a serious book by a reputable author.

Dawkins’ patrician scorn for all forms of religion leads him to miss the essential point. Religious faith cannot be dismissed as a manifestation (or as a cause) of psychopathology or stupidity. Religion, in Marx’s words, is ‘the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality’ (2). It is ‘the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not found himself or has already lost himself again’. In a world in which human beings are estranged from themselves and from others and lack control over their own destiny, they seek refuge and consolation in the worship of divine forces. Religion provides a distraction, an alibi, an evasion, an abdication of responsibility. The persistence of religion poses a range of specific historical and political questions which Dawkins’ resolutely ahistorical approach does not even begin to answer.

Where he sticks close to the terrain of science with which he is familiar, Dawkins is at his most convincing. He shows that God is a much more improbable hypothesis for the origin of the universe than a scientific, materialist theory. He confirms that Darwin’s theory of evolution provides a more plausible account of the emergence of human life on Earth than the Book of Genesis. Yet his attempt to deploy evolutionary psychology to explain the continuing salience of religious faith in the twenty-first century is as unconvincing to me as I found Brother Alpheus’ exposition of Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God when I was 13. When Dawkins reduces diverse political conflicts – in Northern Ireland, in Israel, in the former Yugoslavia – to religious causes, he reveals the vacuity of his ahistorical approach (while confirming popular prejudices). When he seeks to explain the terrorist outrages of 9/11 and 7/7 in terms of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ he obscures the more important determinants of these events in the ideology of multiculturalism (part of the liberal consensus regarded by Dawkins as the pinnacle of evolutionary progress).

The most curious feature of Dawkins’ crusade against religion is that it is mounted at a time when the social influence of religion is at a low ebb. In the USA, Dawkins follows liberals in grossly exaggerating the influence of the religious right as a way of avoiding any reflection on the lack of popular appeal of their own agenda. In the UK, Dawkins concentrates his fire on one school in Gateshead where creationism has crept on to the curriculum (allowing him to sneer at Peter Vardy, the vulgar ‘car salesman’ millionaire who has bankrolled the school). Yet, while he happily tilts at windmills, Dawkins ignores much more influential currents of irrationality – such as the cult of environmentalism – which has a far greater influence on the national curriculum than notions of ‘intelligent design’.

While Dawkins can readily identify common features between South Pacific cargo cults and the Christian churches, he seems oblivious to the religious themes of the environmental movement. Just like evangelical Christians, environmentalists preach a ‘repent, the end is nigh’ message. The movement has its own John the Baptist – George Monbiot – who has come out of the desert (well, Oxfordshire) to warn us of the imminent danger of hellfire (in the form of global warming) if we do not repent and embrace his doctrines of austerity and restraint (3). Beware – the rough beast of the apocalypse is slouching towards Bethlehem to be born!

Far from challenging the pervasive influence of this bleak outlook, Dawkins goes so far as to endorse the abjectly anti-humanist theories of Peter Singer, one of the movement’s most fundamentalist apostles (4). Though this movement’s promotion of the anti-scientific ‘precautionary principle’ constitutes a greater threat to scientific experimentation than the pathetic attempt of a few evangelicals to return the teaching of biology to the Old Testament, it is entirely ignored by Oxford’s professor ‘for the public understanding of science’. While university theology departments are in decline, courses in various schools of ‘alternative health’ (which share only a foundation in pre-scientific thought) have grown apace in recent years – but Dawkins is too busy berating the bishops to notice.

In the turbulent years before the First World War, Jewish anarchists in London’s East End provoked riots by picketing the synagogue in Brick Lane on holy days, baiting the faithful while they fasted, by publicly eating ham sandwiches (5). In a similarly self-indulgent fashion, Dawkins seems to revel in causing offence to the devout. But this sort of posturing against religion does nothing to challenge the roots of religious faith. The Brick Lane synagogue was built as a Christian church and is now a mosque: while much else has changed around it, it is clear that the need for religious worship endures. ‘Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.’ (6)

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is published by Bantam Books (buy this book from Amazon(UK)).

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).

(1) Terry Eagleton, ‘Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching’, London Review of Books, 19 October 2006

(2) Karl Marx, Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1844

(3) George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, Allen Lane, 2006; see James Heartfield’s review on spiked: A secular version of kingdom come

(4) See The new priesthood of the kitchen, by Michael Fitzpatrick

(5) William J Fishman, East End Jewish Radicals, Five Leaves, 2004

(6) Karl Marx, Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1844


reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2503/

[Janus]

That article is also on his website so I assume that it is verified. However, there's no evidence that he's undergone some sort of conversion and it's probably nothing more than some desperate hopes from theists.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Atheists are such nerds.

And I just have to wonder? Do atheist men get girls?

"No honey, we're not going to have a wedding because...(cue the 45 min long big bang theory, evolution nerd speech)."

All the atheists that I have met (very few thankfully) have all been fat, geeky, smelly computer and science nerds who hate people.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 12:03 am
Atheists are such nerds.

And I just have to wonder? Do atheist men get girls?

"No honey, we're not going to have a wedding because...(cue the 45 min long big bang theory, evolution nerd speech)."

All the atheists that I have met (very few thankfully) have all been fat, geeky, smelly computer and science nerds who hate people.
LOL.

How dare you insult comrade Publius. He is an atheist but not a "geek" -- he's a hardcore punk rocker who listens to X, The Homosexuals, The The, and The Pink Flamingos. Just ask your local independent punk store owner if those bands are cool.

He gets mad ladies 'cause of that, but he's also super intelligent. He's a head-honcho at the community college with 2.6 GPA, a bad attitude, and a leather jacket. In fact, the only reason he's an atheist is because one of his favorite professors -- professor one-eye -- proved it to him through some community college logic. He puts the Ph.D students on this forum to SHAME.

He also keeps his dick in his pants, and his hands in his pocket. So you take that back NOW.

In fact, somebody get the thought police in here and TRASH this BS.

[IcarusAngel]

As for humanism, humanism includes a protection of the environment. If a few humans have to be uncomfortable to protect our fragile ecosystem, so be it. Humanists are naturally pro-environment. To me, environmental issues are one of the most important things, even more important than revolution, so even short term measures under a capitalist system are worth fighting for. If you don't protect the environment, there will be no "world to save" during this upcoming revolution.

[Neutrino]

Man, that OP contained one very annoying article to read. I highly doubt the Dawkins is on the verge of some kind of religious conversion. If anything, this columnist probably took something he said out of context or simply misinterpreted him. For someone who would use phrases like "secularist extremism" that's not too difficult to believe.

[colonelguppy]

aknowledging the possibilty of a divine entity is hardly the same thing as being a believer. i'm an atheist and i don't deny the possibility of anything supernatural, we don't understand it enough to make a rational assessment either way.

[Raúl Duke]

All the atheists that I have met (very few thankfully) have all been fat, geeky, smelly computer and science nerds who hate people.


Of the friends that I have that are atheist; only one could be like a "computer nerd", but is actually quite skinny and doesn't hate people.

The rest: not like what you described.


He's a head-honcho at the community college with 2.6 GPA, a bad attitude, and a leather jacket. In fact, the only reason he's an atheist is because one of his favorite professors -- professor one-eye -- proved it to him through some community college logic. He puts the Ph.D students on this forum to SHAME.


:D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Capitalist Liar
Atheists are such nerds.

A baseless generalisation. I expected nothing less.


And I just have to wonder? Do atheist men get girls?

"No honey, we're not going to have a wedding because...(cue the 45 min long big bang theory, evolution nerd speech)."


Don't be an arsehole. Of course atheists marry, they just do so without carrying around a load of theological baggage.


All the atheists that I have met (very few thankfully) have all been fat, geeky, smelly computer and science nerds who hate people.

Unverifiable anecdote =/= conclusive proof of your ridiculous assertion.

Really, this is the sort of shit I expect on www.fstdt.com than on here.

[Demogorgon]

BTW, I have never quite been able to find out What are Dawkin's politics? And I don't want o here the L-word. That can mean anything.

[Forward Union]

My bet is that this was taken out of context.


He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it.

I suspect that he was making a point, that I myself have made to people. That if we accept that there "might" be a God out there (for the purposes of debate), then im all up for meeting it. But the fact that I havent, and no one else ever has, indicates something.

At a dinner party, with wine, people say things. ;)

[Sir Aunty Christ]

In The God Delusion he gives a 7 point scale of agnosticism with 1 being a 100% believer in God and 7 being a 100% atheist. He puts himself at a 6 - a de facto atheist. De facto atheists aren't 100% certain that there's no God but take the view that it's very improbable and therefore live on the assumption that there is no God. Here's the passage with his scale and an explanation:


Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[Pawn Power]

Also, the elephant and human baby example is fairly ridiculous. If it is the last elephant alive it doesn’t matter if you kill it because it cannot procreate anyway by itself. Poor allegory.

[RevMARKSman]

Atheists are such nerds.

Yeah. Right. Uh-huh. Yup.

...and since when is being a nerd such a bad thing, anyway?


All the atheists that I have met (very few thankfully) have all been fat, geeky, smelly computer and science nerds who hate people.

Wow. The atheists I've met in person have been
1. Preppy girl from Argentina, interested in music.
2. Guy in Civil Air Patrol, funny, quiet.
3. Guy with no interests whatsoever that I've heard of. Although he likes to dance. I think.
4. Me. I really like science, appreciate people, love music.


And I just have to wonder? Do atheist men get girls?
"Hi!"

"Oh, you're here with someone?"

"No, I'm just here...I thought Xander was gonna show up."

"Oh, are you guys going out?"

"No, we're just friends. We used to go out, but we broke up."

"How come?"

"He stole my Barbie."

"..."

"Oh, we were five."


Ask someone who DOESN'T spend their free time on the Internet.


"No honey, we're not going to have a wedding because...(cue the 45 min long big bang theory, evolution nerd speech)."

What the hell does theism/evolution have to do with monogamy or marriage?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Don't be an arsehole. Of course atheists marry, they just do so without carrying around a load of theological baggage.

Many people who do get married and have faith happen to not carry "a load of theological baggage."

It must take a lot of "alone time" to become an atheist.


Someone hasn't been laid in a while, huh? Don't worry man if you stop all this bible shit you'll probably find that girls are more willing to talk to you.

Just because you declare a certain "faith" doesn't mean you're a "bible thumper".

Atheists seem to care and vividly vocal about their ideas while many believers couldn't careless if you're an atheist.


1. Preppy girl from Argentina, interested in music.
2. Guy in Civil Air Patrol, funny, quiet.
3. Guy with no interests whatsoever that I've heard of. Although he likes to dance. I think.
4. Me. I really like science, appreciate people, love music.

Don't forget the guy with 30 face piercings who works in a furniture warehouse.

Oh yeah, and he has 3 kids with 3 different girlfriends.

(true story of one fellow I know who is an outspoken atheist).


"No honey, we're not going to have sex because...(cue the 45 minute long abstinence, biblical mouthbreather speech with reference to bible verses and diagrams.)

You must be speaking of the mormons and the hardcore catholics.

Yeah, they're pretty screwy when compared to casual believers. (i.e. not bible thumpers)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm bored.


Many people who do get married and have faith happen to not carry "a load of theological baggage."
Many people who perform action X possess trait Y. Therefore, in order to perform action X, one must possess trait Y.

Is there even the slightest chance you understand why this is completely illogical?


It must take a lot of "alone time" to become an atheist.
This makes no sense. I have always considered myself to be more lenient than most when it comes to letting OIers stay, but I must say that after this I am adding my voice to those calling for your banning, troll.


Just because you declare a certain "faith" doesn't mean you're a "bible thumper".

Atheists seem to care and vividly vocal about their ideas while many believers couldn't careless if you're an atheist.
Atheists don't insist on congregating in a given place at a given time on a given day just to hear some other atheist repeat himself, at least not the majority of atheists, and not consistently.


Don't forget the guy with 30 face piercings who works in a furniture warehouse.
Or me (actually I'm an agnostic but I'm sure that it's all the same to you). Only one girlfriend, no kids (I'm only 17). Intend to marry some day. Currently studying for my leaving cert, hope to study law in university. Oh, and judging by your posts here I'd say I'm much, much smarter than you.

[Comrade J]

Hahaha there is seriously no possible way that 'Capitalist Lawyer' is indeed a lawyer :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 10:29 pm

Don't be an arsehole. Of course atheists marry, they just do so without carrying around a load of theological baggage.

Many people who do get married and have faith happen to not carry "a load of theological baggage."
Er, don't people with faith have by definition theological baggage? That's what faith is for fuck's sake.


It must take a lot of "alone time" to become an atheist.
Er, how did you come to this conclusion? Becoming an atheist pretty much involves realising how stupid your beliefs are, this often comes about after a lot of conversations with rational people or a bit of reading.


Just because you declare a certain "faith" doesn't mean you're a "bible thumper".
It does make you insufferable to most people not of your faith, as you'll be wont to proselytise.


Atheists seem to care and vividly vocal about their ideas while many believers couldn't careless if you're an atheist.
Bollocks. I meet a lot of atheists every day, well statistically speaking I will. For example where I live if I go into a shop to buy a pack of smokes chances are that the person I'm handing my money over to is an atheist, or the guy checking my tickets or the train, or the bloke who asks me for directions. Then again I do spend a lot of time near a university and they're noted for containing things that are dangerous to religion, like thought. Most people you meet don't give a shit unless you try to force your religion into them.



1. Preppy girl from Argentina, interested in music.
2. Guy in Civil Air Patrol, funny, quiet.
3. Guy with no interests whatsoever that I've heard of. Although he likes to dance. I think.
4. Me. I really like science, appreciate people, love music.

Don't forget the guy with 30 face piercings who works in a furniture warehouse.

Oh yeah, and he has 3 kids with 3 different girlfriends.

(true story of one fellow I know who is an outspoken atheist).
Guy who has face piercings vs. Violent homophobic wanker.
Looks like my example of a real life twat from which to make a hasty generalisation is much worse than yours but whilst we're playing this stupid game:
I'm going to put a star beside all the nerds and a plus next to all the "social deviants" (people with piercings/tattoos/drug habits).

An ex-creationist bibl thumper with a penchant for heavy metal.*

A varied selection of musicians +

A woman studying English at university that loves fashion and comic books +

Two schoolteachers that have been married for decades and have produced two incredibly lovely children

A university lecturer and Edinburgh university who loves science, women, motorbikes and California

The manager of the charity shop I used to work at

A farmer's son *

The current head of the BPI's anti piracy unit's legal team

An ex-butcher

A whole laundry list of others


Note that there is neither an abundance of stars or pluses. Do you know what this means? It means you can stop parroting your fallacious crap.


You must be speaking of the mormons and the hardcore catholics.

Yeah, they're pretty screwy when compared to casual believers. (i.e. not bible thumpers)
The point I was making flew right over your head, which is unsurprising given that you have a much less imposing mental stature than a person in a Persistent Vegatitive State. In the same way that I know that most of you morons don&#39;t go on about "no sex until marriage" type morality you should understand that <0.1% of atheists will talk about Big bang or evolution in reference to marriage. In fact given that neither are moral theories I don&#39;t quite see how even <0.1% of atheists would use them as arguments. My guess is that some woman said this stuff to you because she was fed up of you and your creepy voyeur-cum-sky pixie and wanted a good way to be rid of you.

Will you now fuck off?

[Mujer Libre]

I love how when someone&#39;s getting pwned they break out the old "OMGZ yous are armchair revolutionaries&#33;&#33;1&#33;"

Sorry- how the fuck would you know?

And if Dawkins is becoming a theist... I will eat my hat. Yes.
The thing is, I know he has said that he is, according to pedantry, an agnostic (because you can&#39;t disprove the idea of the existence of something- so technically we&#39;re all Tooth Fairy agnostics...) but in practice (and also within the bounds of reasonable theory- I mean, nobody would seriously refer to themselves as a Tooth Fairy agnostic, so why extend that to god/gods?)) is an atheist, and thus refers to himself as an atheist. Maybe this is the sort of statement the article was trying to hijack?

[freakazoid]

lol. You should read the whole thing. :P

[Demogorgon]

Can I break up this lovefest a moment, to ask if anyone knows the answer to my question on Dawkin&#39;s politics.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:26 pm
Can I break up this lovefest a moment, to ask if anyone knows the answer to my question on Dawkin&#39;s politics.
Mostly he is a liberal like Hawking. There really is no other way to describe him other than "progressive thinker" or "liberal." The only politics he says often and publicly is that Bush and the Christian conservatives are "bad" for trying to implement religion over science in schools. Dawkins also believes in liberal reforms like preventing parents from "brainwashing" children into religion, believing they should have a choice. I&#39;ve never heard him say anything revolutionary, and if you Google "Dawkins interview Bush" or something you should be able to find his (liberal) criticisms of Bush/Blair etc.

[Labor Shall Rule]

That quote is taken completely out of context. Dawkins even proposed in The God Delusion that some sort of intelligence might exist elsewhere, but being the Darwinist that he is, he later went on to write that "it is an advanced human; an extraterrestrial that evolved to a point of having the capability to engage in a travel to the past, or at least space travel." In other words, this &#39;god-like&#39; entity is an evolved human that went through the ongoing process of evolution.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by RedDali[email protected] 22, 2007 09:01 pm
That quote is taken completely out of context. Dawkins even proposed in The God Delusion that some sort of intelligence might exist elsewhere, but being the Darwinist that he is, he later went on to write that "it is an advanced human; an extraterrestrial that evolved to a point of having the capability to engage in a travel to the past, or at least space travel." In other words, this &#39;god-like&#39; entity is an evolved human that went through the ongoing process of evolution.
That doesn&#39;t mean that there isn&#39;t some unifying principle or intelligent stucture controlling the universe, a metaphysical force, setting the laws. Dawkins merely opened it up to questioning, and if it was taken out of context, he would have alerted people by now via the internet/media.

[Coggeh]

I would have shot the elephant tbh :confused:

[Dave B]

The following may be of interest to put it in some kind of context, the problem often referred to as the goldilocks syndrome or enigma has been around for a while and is getting worse.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article664513.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article664513.ece)

...

[tradeunionsupporter]

I respect Richard Dawkins.

[¿Que?]

Is that the whole article. I have some problems with it if it is. First, I'd like to see what exactly Dawkins said with regard to the "awe-inspiring" force, and it doesn't even tell you who did the interview, where someone could go and find Dawkins' exact words. My feeling is that this is beneath an out of context quote, that being, and out of context paraphrase. To give an example, the article equates "intelligence" with "force" which is a highly dubious assertion.

The other thing that bothered me is that it blames atheists for religious extremism. Maybe it goes the other way? "Secular extremism", if you even want to call it that, is most likely a response to religious extremism.

And what about this whole thing about America being a bunch of bible thumpers and compared to "secular" Britain. Where the fuck are those statistics coming from?

Fuck this article.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

As mentioned, there isn't enough context to make a proper judgment. There is little to no chance of Dawkins converting. The most realistic chance of it happening would involve some sort of tragedy where his weakened emotional state needed a crutch. That's about the only thing that will convert someone as atheistic as Dawkins. You don't suddenly believe the earth is flat because of the "compelling arguments for the view."

And the elephant scenario isn't as simple as people think. Assuming the elephant won't kill you afterwards, and it's simply a choice between the baby and an elephant. Well assuming the elephant can't be reproduced (given that it's the last one), you should probably get rid of it. Still maybe not.

If there was good reason to believe the last 2 elephants would continue the species for years, given scientific intervention, or maybe a "building full of the last twelve elephants." Then it's probably quite justifiable to kill the baby. Babies probably don't have full moral standing anyway.

[spiltteeth]

I'll clear it up.

During the 2nd Richard Dawkins and John Lennox debate at Oxford’s Natural History Museum Dawkin's said :


A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

He was not saying he was now a deist; he still says that belief in the personal God of the Bible is like believing in fairies.

Still, his statement does undermine his previous categorical assertion that


...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

Also, as more data comes in, it looks more and more wildly improbable that evolution could ever arise by chance, when asked about it by Melanie Phillips - a conservative British journalist and author issues Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996 - she reports :


Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

she comments :
Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?


So I think Dawkins is shifting ground a wee bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if eventually he embraced deism.
After all, Anthony Flew, perhaps the greatest and most vocal atheist philosopher of the past 100 yrs, has recently accepted Deism, saying he was forced to by following the evidence...\

Plus its telling that Dawkin's refuses to debate the top Theist apologists (William Lane Craig etc) with science degrees.

Haven't watched it, but I've heard he was demolished during the first debate with John Lennox, so he pretty much has to concede that there are good reasons for accepting Deism, he has no arguments against it...

[RedAnarchist]

As there appears to be a discussion growing, I'll leave this open, but from now on don't drag up old threads from three years ago.

[Jazzratt]

Also, as more data comes in, it looks more and more wildly improbable that evolution could ever arise by chance, when asked about it by Melanie Phillips - a conservative British journalist and author issues Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996 - she reports :

Melanie Phillips is also a lying, unscupulous woman with fuck all personal integrity. If she is all you have to back up your assertions you're doing it wrong.

That's all I wanted to add because I don't want to get into another interminable discussion with you on the subject. You can fuck off and preach elsewhere.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dawkins could become a bible-thumping Baptist and, while I would be disappointed in him personally, it would not change my own position one iota. I was an atheist long before I had even heard of Dawkins.

[Dave B]

I don’t think that there is any doubt about the process of evolution itself from any serious minded person.


However there are doubts about whether or not life originated on the planet earth. The problem appears to be, from recent evidence, that life started as soon as it was possible for it to exist. In other words as soon as the temperature was OK and there was liquid water etc.


There is a rational postulate that it may arrived from elsewhere travelling across interstellar space etc.


This kind of stuff is being discussed seriously even though perhaps at the moment mainly on inter planetary models. Eg


http://www.dlr.de/me/Portaldata/25/Resources/dokumente/publikationen/P1_04.pdf (http://www.dlr.de/me/Portaldata/25/Resources/dokumente/publikationen/P1_04.pdf)

Microbes appear to have a remarkable ability to spring back to life after being deep frozen etc.

There are other ideas.

One that an interstellar capacity for life to seed other solar systems could be an evolutionary adaptation in itself; on a galactic scale.

Two, given the perhaps insurmountable physical barriers to inter stellar travel by advanced or complex life forms, advanced life forms might spreading themselves around by a more ingenious mechanism. Bio engineering microbes specifically designed survive interstellar travel and able to kick off in the conditions likely to be found on planets destined to become compatible with it later etc.


Eg all this stuff that thrives in undersea volcanic vents and the black smokers etc.


Just for the hell of it I suppose.

I think these scientist, who have probably just lost their nerve, are contemplating the ‘designed’ universe from a philosophical viewpoint, which is beginning to whiff a bit of Plato.


I don’t think the idea of a god interacting in any kind of way with events here on earth is being seriously considered by any of them.

[spiltteeth]

Melanie Phillips is also a lying, unscupulous woman with fuck all personal integrity. If she is all you have to back up your assertions you're doing it wrong.

That's all I wanted to add because I don't want to get into another interminable discussion with you on the subject. You can fuck off and preach elsewhere.

I quoted what Melanie Klein reported Dawkins said to her about intelligent design, she is a journalist.
I also quoted what Dawkins said publicly in debate about how a case could be made for deism, even though Dakins himself is not a deist (and I highlighted NOT for you) AND I said he still thinks the God of the Bible is a fairy tale.

What assertion are you talking about?

Here is Dawkings REFUTING that he is a deist : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWsca2-BgDU

If you want me to believe Dawkins is now a believer give me yr evidence.

If you want me to back the assertion of the wild improbability of evolution, start a thread, I'll quote Dawkins himself!

Its funny atheists think science is preaching!
"Burn them books on physics and evolution - thems is preaching words!"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I quoted what Melanie Klein reported Dawkins said to her about intelligent design, she is a journalist.

And journalists are renowned the world over for their integrity! :lol:


If you want me to believe Dawkins is now a believer give me yr evidence.

Where the fuck did Jazzratt say that Dawkins was a believer?


If you want me to back the assertion of the wild improbability of evolution, start a thread, I'll quote Dawkins himself!

The universe is big enough in space and time for improbable events to be relatively probable - evolution only had to successfully get going once, and it would have had plenty of rolls of the dice.


Its funny atheists think science is preaching!
"Burn them books on physics and evolution - thems is preaching words!"

Your drivelling apologetics is not science.

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1723473]And journalists are renowned the world over for their integrity! :lol:



Where the fuck did Jazzratt say that Dawkins was a believer?


Originally Posted by Jazzratt
Melanie Phillips is also a lying, unscupulous woman with fuck all personal integrity. If she is all you have to back up your assertions you're doing it wrong.

According to Klein Dawkins told her he was NOT (yes, a third time I capitalize it) a deist, and still considers the God the the bible a fairytale.

Is THAT the assertion relating to Klein anyone wants me to back up?

I responded also:


I quoted what Melanie Klein reported Dawkins said to her about intelligent design

although he doesn't believe in it, she says he told her :


Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet.

If he wants me to further back up that....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

Again - Dawkins does NOT believe in intelligent design


The universe is big enough in space and time for improbable events to be relatively probable - evolution only had to successfully get going once, and it would have had plenty of rolls of the dice.

This yr personal opinion? Or do you have science to back it up?


Your drivelling apologetics is not science.

And yet I quote well known mainstream scientists!

Yea, Stephen Hawking and Einstein are apologists - what do they know about science! :lol:

"Stop them crazy preachers with all them numbers and math and evidence ! Git the shotgun, atheist Dr. Barrows and Tipler is preaching some darned thing called statistical probability; darned god-talk!
We don't need no mathamatitions tell'n us what's probable or not! We can figure it out without all them fancy numbers! Math don't mean nothing, black magic I tells ya!

Fuck off ya scientists!!"

If it was up to JazzRat free thought would be banned from Revleft.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again - Dawkins does NOT believe in intelligent design

I don't believe that Jazzratt has ever accused Dawkins of being a supporter of Intelligent Design. Provide quotes to that effect or shut the fuck up already.


This yr personal opinion? Or do you have science to back it up?

It is a simple argument of statistics. Even if the origin of life is a vanishingly rare event (which we do not know one way or the other), there are 80 billion or more galaxies in the universe, each of those with billions of stars. Even if we assume Earthlike conditions are the only conditions under which life can arise, that's still a vast number of potential starting points for life, plus there's the billions of years in which things can happen.

Given time and numbers, the improbable becomes probable.


And yet I quote well known mainstream scientists!

Yeah, you quote poetic soundbites, rather than data, to support your preconcieved conclusions.


Yea, Stephen Hawking and Einstein are apologists - what do they know about science! :lol:

Stephen Hawking is an agnostic and Einstein was certainly not a believer in your poky little faith with its child-like belief in a personal god. Therefore your quoting of these luminaries is fundamentally dishonest.


"Stop them crazy preachers with all them numbers and math and evidence ! Git the shotgun, atheist Dr. Barrows and Tipler is preaching some darned thing called statistical probability; darned god-talk!
We don't need no mathamatitions tell'n us what's probable or not! We can figure it out without all them fancy numbers! Math don't mean nothing, black magic I tells ya!

Fuck off ya scientists!!"

It hurts that your fellow believers are more honest in their antipathy towards science, doesn't it? That's why you're doing the typical tactic of projecting your own inadequacies onto others.


If it was up to JazzRat free thought would be banned from Revleft.

Boo-hoo. Spare me the pathetic "persecuted Christian" play-acting.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I respect Richard Dawkins.

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1724836]I don't believe that Jazzratt has ever accused Dawkins of being a supporter of Intelligent Design. Provide quotes to that effect or shut the fuck up already.

I don't believe that Jazzratt has ever accused Dawkins of being a supporter of Intelligent Design either....probably why I haven't made that assertion.


It is a simple argument of statistics. Even if the origin of life is a vanishingly rare event (which we do not know one way or the other), there are 80 billion or more galaxies in the universe, each of those with billions of stars. Even if we assume Earthlike conditions are the only conditions under which life can arise, that's still a vast number of potential starting points for life, plus there's the billions of years in which things can happen.

Given time and numbers, the improbable becomes probable.

Ok. What are your statistics?

I'd be happy to present statistics from several atheist respected mainstream mathmatitions.

For example, in their Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.

Also, look at the nessesaryu conditions to create a life permitting universe.
the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10/120.
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments,
"I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability...


Yeah, you quote poetic soundbites, rather than data, to support your preconcieved conclusions.

See above - actual numbers.


Stephen Hawking is an agnostic and Einstein was certainly not a believer in your poky little faith with its child-like belief in a personal god. Therefore your quoting of these luminaries is fundamentally dishonest.

What?! Hawking isn't a Christian apologist!? I quote them to BE HONEST - these are folks who DO NOT share my opinion, so I'm not using biased opinions.


It hurts that your fellow believers are more honest in their antipathy towards science, doesn't it? That's why you're doing the typical tactic of projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

Between the 2 of us I'm the only one giving science - you seem to believe in random assertions that have no relationship to science at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't believe that Jazzratt has ever accused Dawkins of being a supporter of Intelligent Design either....probably why I haven't made that assertion.

Then why did you say, in reply to Jazzratt:


If you want me to believe Dawkins is now a believer give me yr evidence.

When Jazzratt made no claim at all that Dawkins "is now a believer".


Ok. What are your statistics?

I'd be happy to present statistics from several atheist respected mainstream mathmatitions.

For example, in their Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.

I'm talking about life in general, not Homo sapiens in particular. Also, Barrow and Tipler aren't atheists, you fucking liar.


Also, look at the nessesaryu conditions to create a life permitting universe.
the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10/120.
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments,
And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability...

All of that is irrelevant, since we know of only one universe and for all we know there is only one way for a universe to be.


See above - actual numbers.

Which are irrelevant to the argument. The probability of a life-supporting universe is 1 - we live in one. The probability of Homo sapiens evolving is 1 - we are here.

The probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe is an open question, but exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example.


What?! Hawking isn't a Christian apologist!? I quote them to BE HONEST - these are folks who DO NOT share my opinion, so I'm not using biased opinions.

You quote them to support arguments they would not make - therein lies the dishonesty. That would be like me using the arguments of Billy Graham to make a case for atheism.


Between the 2 of us I'm the only one giving science - you seem to believe in random assertions that have no relationship to science at all.

You wouldn't know science if it blew up your house. Your fundamental belief in a personal deity is a childish projection of your own shortcomings onto a much grander and indifferent universe.

[Dermezel]

No quotes.

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1728063]Then why did you say, in reply to Jazzratt:



When Jazzratt made no claim at all that Dawkins "is now a believer".


Because he said I needed more evidence then quoting that journalist, but I only quoted her to say Dawkins was not a believer in the Christian God or in the supernatural....so, what assertion is he talking about?


I'm talking about life in general, not Homo sapiens in particular. Also, Barrow and Tipler aren't atheists, you fucking liar.

Those statists can apply to life in generaL.

Observations indicate that at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang the universe was expanding at a fantastically special rate of speed with a total density close to the critical value on the borderline between recollapse and everlasting expansion.
Hawking estimated that even a decrease of one part in a million million when the temperature of the universe was 10/10 degrees would have resulted in the universe's recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies from condensing out of the expanding matter.
At the Planck time, 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the density of the universe must have apparently been within about one part in 10/60 of the critical density at which space is flat.

So - what are your numbers for the probability of life in general?

Tipler was a provisional atheist in 1992, since then he believes in the "Omega Point" - some kind of god I suppose.
I have no idea about Barrow.
Penrose I assumed was an atheist, could be wrong.


All of that is irrelevant, since we know of only one universe and for all we know there is only one way for a universe to be.

How do you know that? Your saying these constants are necessary then - right? Why think this?

These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants.

There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,


Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.


Which are irrelevant to the argument. The probability of a life-supporting universe is 1 - we live in one. The probability of Homo sapiens evolving is 1 - we are here.

For the sake of humanity I hope your joking.

The probability that there exists a life supporting universe with humans is obviously 100% certain - since we are here.

That is not the probability of it happening.
Thats like saying the guy who wins the lottery had a 100% chaNCE OF WINNING CUZ HE DID!

1. The basic features of the universe must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers is undoubtedly false; for it is not logically or nomologically necessary that the universe embrace intelligent life. Rather what seems to be necessarily true is

2. If the universe is observed by observers which have evolved within it, then its basic features must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers within it.

But (2) seems quite trivial; it does nothing to explain why the universe in fact has the basic features it does.


The probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe is an open question, but exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example.

Interesting. Everything I've read contradicts this - but wheres your numbers? I've given mine. How do know this is true?

As the philosopher of science Ernan McMullin explains, what has been discovered instead is that in order for the universe to exist as it does today, its initial conditions had to be severely constrained. He writes,


Were a ‘chaos’ . . . sufficient to give rise to the sort of universe we now have, no question would arise about why its parameters had the initial values they had. But if the present universe severely constrains the range of possibilities for a plausible starting-point, a question about the significance of that constraint immediately presents itself.

When you compare the range of assumable values of the fundamental quantities permitted by the laws of nature with the range of life-permitting values, the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly small in comparison with the wider range of assumable values.

The probability that all of the constants and quantities would fall by chance alone into the razor-thin life-permitting range is vanishingly small.

That doesn't mean we take an infinite range of values though.
We can simply take any range of universe-permitting values, and that would be a finite range.
When gravity, for example, gets to too extreme a value, everything would simply be a single singularity.
So you can take any universe-permitting values as a kind of finite range and then compare the range of life-permitting values to that, and it is vanishingly tiny.
It is extraordinary that we should exist in so finely-tuned a universe, and this does indeed cry out for some sort of explanation.


You quote them to support arguments they would not make - therein lies the dishonesty. That would be like me using the arguments of Billy Graham to make a case for atheism.

Again for the sake of humanity I hope yr joking - one can only quote scientists that hold your beliefs right?
So you could never quote Newton about gravity?

How high are you?


You wouldn't know science if it blew up your house. Your fundamental belief in a personal deity is a childish projection of your own shortcomings onto a much grander and indifferent universe.


Oh, so you really have been supplying science, I just haven't been smart enough to notice it all.
Could you please re-post it and highlight where I've missed it?

A projection? Where's your proof? I keep on supplying rational arguments to support my beliefs. They may be wrong of course.
I know a bit of psychology - what's your argument?

Thus far you havn't given me any reasons for your beliefs - they seem built on complete fantasy - unless you can provide me with reasons for thinking otherwise....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tommy-K:


I really do hope he isn't seriously considering the possibility of some sort of God or higher power. If he is, this is frightening. For someone so vehemently atheist to become brainwashed into believing in the sky-fairy is hugely worrying.

The article is clearly written by a bible-bashing nutcase. It was in the Comments section of the newspaper so it's allowed to be biased, which I suppose is good. Freedom of speech and all that. Thankfully the actual articles are very unbiased.

Could Richard Dwkins really have found God?

And yet it is implicit in the telelogical and anthropomorphic language he uses in his work.

On that, see chapters 9 and 10 of David Stove's book "Darwinian Fairytales".

[If anyone wants a copy, I can post a PDF of this book on-line.]

[Dermezel]

Again the article presents no actual quotes from Dawkins. I could say he's considering belief in the Spaghetti Monster or Great Gawandola with the same level of credibility.

[Boru]

Plus its telling that Dawkin's refuses to debate the top Theist apologists (William Lane Craig etc) with science degrees.

Haven't watched it, but I've heard he was demolished during the first debate with John Lennox, so he pretty much has to concede that there are good reasons for accepting Deism, he has no arguments against it...

Except what would said "top Theist apologists" with science degrees offer in terms of new arguments in favour of the existence of deities?

I have a copy of the God Delusion in front of me right now, and I quote:
"The deist God, often associated with the Founding Fathers, is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible. Unfortunately, it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did. In any of its forms, the God Hypothesis is unnecessary. The God Hypothesis is also very close to being ruled out by the laws of probability."

i.e. a Deistic God is only slightly more likely than a Theistic God to exist.
That's a fairly solid answer, don't you think?
That is not the lack of arguments against Deism you claim.

Rosa, if Dawkins has found religion, the religion he has found is science.
He regards science as a devout follower of an Abrahamic religion might see their religion, though with the violent element cut out.

Accusations of him being crass etc are generally unfair, the language he uses, while direct, is always polite. He is not Christopher Hitchens. :laugh:

[spiltteeth]

Except what would said "top Theist apologists" with science degrees offer in terms of new arguments in favour of the existence of deities?

I have a copy of the God Delusion in front of me right now, and I quote:
"The deist God, often associated with the Founding Fathers, is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible. Unfortunately, it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did. In any of its forms, the God Hypothesis is unnecessary. The God Hypothesis is also very close to being ruled out by the laws of probability."

i.e. a Deistic God is only slightly more likely than a Theistic God to exist.
That's a fairly solid answer, don't you think?
That is not the lack of arguments against Deism you claim.



I'm afraid I see no argument against deism here- just an assertion that it is ruled out by probability.

Yet if you look at my above posts the probabilities favor a fine-tuned universe that suggest a tuner.

Assertions aren't arguments.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because he said I needed more evidence then quoting that journalist, but I only quoted her to say Dawkins was not a believer in the Christian God or in the supernatural....so, what assertion is he talking about?

Well, why don't you ask him?


Those statists can apply to life in generaL.

OK, let's say they do just that. Problem; Tipler and Barrow are talking about the chances of life arising on one planet. This ignores the fact that there are likely to be billions upon billions of planets in the universe, each with billions of years to come up with life.


Observations indicate that at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang the universe was expanding at a fantastically special rate of speed with a total density close to the critical value on the borderline between recollapse and everlasting expansion.
Hawking estimated that even a decrease of one part in a million million when the temperature of the universe was 10/10 degrees would have resulted in the universe's recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies from condensing out of the expanding matter.
At the Planck time, 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the density of the universe must have apparently been within about one part in 10/60 of the critical density at which space is flat.

So - what are your numbers for the probability of life in general?

I have given you the numbers already. Billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, and considering our crude instruments have managed to detect planets already, this indicates that planets are common. You yammer on about the unlikelyhood of the universe expanding at the correct rate, but that's quite literally a foregone conclusion, whatever the chances of it happening in the first place.


Tipler was a provisional atheist in 1992, since then he believes in the "Omega Point" - some kind of god I suppose.
I have no idea about Barrow.
Penrose I assumed was an atheist, could be wrong.

Tipler wrote a book in 2007 entitled The Physics of Christianity, which looks to me like strong evidence he has since changed his mind. More fool him. Barrow is a member of the United Reformed Church (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/science/16prize.html?ex=1300165200&en=dbf830e32388ec14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) and won a Templeton Prize in 2006, which is awarded to scientists and other luminaries who are prepared to say nice things about religion.


How do you know that? Your saying these constants are necessary then - right? Why think this?

I'm saying we don't know either way, and it's premature to jump to conclusions.


These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants.

That's what the maths says, but we should not confuse the model with reality. That's the lesson we should take from Newton's Laws of Motion, which were "correct" in that they are still used even today for guiding spacecraft (the maths is simpler, apparently), but Einstein found them to be incomplete.


There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,

OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that the values of the constants are indeed arbitrary. That does not mean God was twiddling the knobs. For more likely this means that we live in some kind of multiverse, or that there is some other reason for the constants of our universe to have the values we observe.

Nature is full of surprises.


For the sake of humanity I hope your joking.

The probability that there exists a life supporting universe with humans is obviously 100% certain - since we are here.

That is not the probability of it happening.
Thats like saying the guy who wins the lottery had a 100% chaNCE OF WINNING CUZ HE DID!

The chances of any particular individual winning the lottery are slim, granted, but millions of people play and as a result someone does win fairly regularly. The same kind of thing happens with planets, and perhaps even universes.


1. The basic features of the universe must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers is undoubtedly false; for it is not logically or nomologically necessary that the universe embrace intelligent life. Rather what seems to be necessarily true is

2. If the universe is observed by observers which have evolved within it, then its basic features must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers within it.

But (2) seems quite trivial; it does nothing to explain why the universe in fact has the basic features it does.

Neither does a personal God.


Interesting. Everything I've read contradicts this - but wheres your numbers? I've given mine. How do know this is true?

Because it's self-evident. We are here. Now that doesn't tell us anything except that "the probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe ... exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example".

Now to my mind, that simply points to the useless and unscientific nature of anthropic debates, which seem to be merely tools for physicists and others to play at philosophy as well as get on their religious soap box.


As the philosopher of science Ernan McMullin explains, what has been discovered instead is that in order for the universe to exist as it does today, its initial conditions had to be severely constrained. He writes,

When you compare the range of assumable values of the fundamental quantities permitted by the laws of nature with the range of life-permitting values, the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly small in comparison with the wider range of assumable values.

The probability that all of the constants and quantities would fall by chance alone into the razor-thin life-permitting range is vanishingly small.

That doesn't mean we take an infinite range of values though.
We can simply take any range of universe-permitting values, and that would be a finite range.
When gravity, for example, gets to too extreme a value, everything would simply be a single singularity.
So you can take any universe-permitting values as a kind of finite range and then compare the range of life-permitting values to that, and it is vanishingly tiny.
It is extraordinary that we should exist in so finely-tuned a universe, and this does indeed cry out for some sort of explanation.

Indeed it does, but "Goddidit" is not an explanation. It is a closing off of other possibilities.


Again for the sake of humanity I hope yr joking - one can only quote scientists that hold your beliefs right?
So you could never quote Newton about gravity?

How high are you?

You can quote anyone you damn well please, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you take arguments out of context (since atheists are unlikely to argue the case for God) and either lie about the beliefs of scientists you quote, or fail to do the research.


Oh, so you really have been supplying science, I just haven't been smart enough to notice it all.
Could you please re-post it and highlight where I've missed it?

This is exactly what I mean. You treat "science" in a totemic fashion, brandishing it in debates like this as if it's some kind of lucky charm against being wrong or making fallacious arguments, demanding of others to "show me the science", demanding evidence already supplied, making favourable reference to wackos like Tipler, and generally using the same rhetorical tactics that creationists use. All of them the marks of crackpot.


A projection? Where's your proof? I keep on supplying rational arguments to support my beliefs. They may be wrong of course.
I know a bit of psychology - what's your argument?

You claim to provide rational argument, but those claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Also, a few minute's Googling is not the same thing as knowledge of psychology.


Thus far you havn't given me any reasons for your beliefs - they seem built on complete fantasy - unless you can provide me with reasons for thinking otherwise....

What beliefs are these, precisely? I find the accusations of fantasising hilariously rich coming from the one with the Cosmic Daddy crutch.

[spiltteeth]

=NoXion;1729876]Well, why don't you ask him?

I did.


OK, let's say they do just that. Problem; Tipler and Barrow are talking about the chances of life arising on one planet. This ignores the fact that there are likely to be billions upon billions of planets in the universe, each with billions of years to come up with life.

No, the chances are of life arising on any planet.


I have given you the numbers already. Billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, and considering our crude instruments have managed to detect planets already, this indicates that planets are common. You yammer on about the unlikelyhood of the universe expanding at the correct rate, but that's quite literally a foregone conclusion, whatever the chances of it happening in the first place.

Yes, its a forgone conclusion that it happened - but we are discussing HOW could it have happened - the numbers I've presented rule out chance.

I'm afraid I still see no probabilities.
Yes, there are billions of galaxies etc
Now, you say it is therefore likely to have life evolving on one of these many planets over all these billions of years.

Again, why do you believe that?
All the numbers I've given contradicts your unfounded belief.
Where's your REASOSNs for thinking this?

Math, numbers, an argument, reasons, statistics, probabilities - Noxion, give me something unless its just blind faith!


Tipler wrote a book in 2007 entitled The Physics of Christianity, which looks to me like strong evidence he has since changed his mind. More fool him. Barrow is a member of the United Reformed Church (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/science/16prize.html?ex=1300165200&en=dbf830e32388ec14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) and won a Templeton Prize in 2006, which is awarded to scientists and other luminaries who are prepared to say nice things about religion.

Its funny, the book they wrote tries to give NATURALISTIC explanations for the wild improbabilities and is constantly being quoted by atheists so I just assumed they were atheist.
I guess they are theists!


I'm saying we don't know either way, and it's premature to jump to conclusions.

We know they are not necessary - because they could have been different.

But I thought you were saying they WERE necessary?


That's what the maths says, but we should not confuse the model with reality. That's the lesson we should take from Newton's Laws of Motion, which were "correct" in that they are still used even today for guiding spacecraft (the maths is simpler, apparently), but Einstein found them to be incomplete.

But I thought you were saying the constants had to be what they are?

Believe me, I'm very careful not to confuse math with reality - which is why I stay away from all things Quantum until we asses which physical explanation explains the math.

But this has nothing to do with math : Since laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants, these constants therefore are not determined by the laws of nature.


OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that the values of the constants are indeed arbitrary. That does not mean God was twiddling the knobs. For more likely this means that we live in some kind of multiverse, or that there is some other reason for the constants of our universe to have the values we observe.

Nature is full of surprises.

I agree, but how can you say a multiverse is "more likely" then God?

Neither God nor a Multiverse have any hard evidence - they are BOTH metaphysical explanations.

So compare them - IF a Multiverse ends up explaining it, then you STILL have to account for the Multiverse since Valenkin admits it still requires an initial singularity.

If an uncaused cause which is immaterial, personal, spaceless, timeless (God) is the explanation then that fits the data with no more needed explanation.

So God as a metaphysical explanation has simplicity AND more explanatory power since it needs no additional explanation.

How is that LESS likely?


The chances of any particular individual winning the lottery are slim, granted, but millions of people play and as a result someone does win fairly regularly. The same kind of thing happens with planets, and perhaps even universes.

The point is that EVERYONE who buys a lotto ticket is EQUALLY unlikely to win.

Imagine a vat with 1 billion red balls and one blue ball.

Whichever ball you pick will be equally unlikley.

But its like you only have one chance and randomly pick the blue one.

It's not just improbability but also a patteren.

Or - no matter which license plate you get (35g-xy-160 etc) they are all EQUALLY improbable - but add a pattern.

Say you get a license plate that exactly spells out yr name - by random chance!

But the numbers I've given are nowhere even remotely close to those improbabilities - some are SO improbable that the number of zeros required to write it would be more than the number of atoms in the universe!


Neither does a personal God.

Well, I can easily give 2 logically compelling arguments that use this data - but lets just stick t the topic of weather life could have arisen by chance.


Because it's self-evident. We are here. Now that doesn't tell us anything except that "the probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe ... exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example".

No, it ONL;Y tells us that life obviously DID arise. But how?

You say
"the probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe ... exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example"

ALL the numbers given contradict that - they DO NOT exceed zero by a sufficient margi at all!

S0....why do you belive they do exceed zero by a sufficient margin?

WHERES the proof ? Or reason? Or argument? Or inference? Or deduction?


Now to my mind, that simply points to the useless and unscientific nature of anthropic debates, which seem to be merely tools for physicists and others to play at philosophy as well as get on their religious soap box.

You yourself are making anthropic claims when you assert, wothout any evidence, that
"the probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe ... exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example"

Its important because that means scientists ought to drop darwinian natural selection for CERTAIN explanations -ie life arising - and search out another theory if the present one cannot mathematically reasonably have happened!


Indeed it does, but "Goddidit" is not an explanation. It is a closing off of other possibilities.

No one is saying Godidit - Francis Crick co-founder of the double Helix DNA thought life on earth so unlikely perhaps alien "seeded" the planet, for example.
However, Intelligent design (which I personally do NOT believ can scientifically be applied to biological science) makes predictions which can be tested.

Saying themutiversedidit is no explanation either, which I have yet to hear you give one.


You can quote anyone you damn well please, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you take arguments out of context (since atheists are unlikely to argue the case for God) and either lie about the beliefs of scientists you quote, or fail to do the research.



This is exactly what I mean. You treat "science" in a totemic fashion, brandishing it in debates like this as if it's some kind of lucky charm against being wrong or making fallacious arguments, demanding of others to "show me the science", demanding evidence already supplied, making favourable reference to wackos like Tipler, and generally using the same rhetorical tactics that creationists use. All of them the marks of crackpot.

I'm no creationist.

Again, please highlight this evidence you've given for me. It's a reasonable request.

All my arguments are done following the laws of deductive and inductive reasoning with evidence and references supplied.

Can you back up the above assertions with examples?

Although I do ask for REASONS why people belive things. I'm terrible.


You claim to provide rational argument, but those claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Also, a few minute's Googling is not the same thing as knowledge of psychology.

I noticed you did not answer any of my questions.

What claims have I made that do not stand up to scrutiny?

You make alot of assertions but seem to have no REASONS for believing in them....


What beliefs are these, precisely? I find the accusations of fantasising hilariously rich coming from the one with the Cosmic Daddy crutch.

EVEN though you cannot answer me I'll list yours, in quotes :


OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that the values of the constants are indeed arbitrary. That does not mean God was twiddling the knobs. For more likely this means that we live in some kind of multiverse, or that there is some other reason for the constants of our universe to have the values we observe.

evidence ?

since we know of only one universe and for all we know there is only one way for a universe to be.

Is this logical? Why believe this?


The universe is big enough in space and time for improbable events to be relatively probable - evolution only had to successfully get going once, and it would have had plenty of rolls of the dice.

Why believe this? evidence ?


The probability of a life-supporting universe is 1

Why believe this? evidence ?

The probability of Homo sapiens evolving is 1

Why believe this? evidence ?

"the probability of life arising on any given planet on the universe ... exceeds zero by a sufficient margin to give rise to at least one example".

Why believe this? evidence ?


Your fundamental belief in a personal deity is a childish projection of your own shortcomings onto a much grander and indifferent universe.

and on and on and on and.....

[Boru]

I'm afraid I see no argument against deism here- just an assertion that it is ruled out by probability.

Yet if you look at my above posts the probabilities favor a fine-tuned universe that suggest a tuner.

Assertions aren't arguments.

You've just made an assertion..

Simply because the universe has a certain set of parametres does not suggest that someone set up those parametres. Far from it.

Projecting artificiality onto the universe is hardly an argument.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I did.

Then stop accusing him of saying things he didn't say, it's quite simple.


No, the chances are of life arising on any planet.

No, that's not what they said:


Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, ... each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.

Here it is quite obvious that they are talking about one planet, the Earth, around one star, our sun.


Yes, its a forgone conclusion that it happened - but we are discussing HOW could it have happened - the numbers I've presented rule out chance.

They do no such thing. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. Also, you are committing the classic creationist fallacy of assuming the dichotomy of "chance" or "design".

You guys already got burned on that with regards to the origin of species; why do you insist on blundering headlong and making the same potential mistake with the origin of the universe? Why haven't you learned your lesson?


I'm afraid I still see no probabilities.
Yes, there are billions of galaxies etc
Now, you say it is therefore likely to have life evolving on one of these many planets over all these billions of years.

Again, why do you believe that?

All the numbers I've given contradicts your unfounded belief.
Where's your REASOSNs for thinking this?

Math, numbers, an argument, reasons, statistics, probabilities - Noxion, give me something unless its just blind faith!

Because it has happened at least once, cretin. We know that life and the development of the universe is an entirely natural process, so we can rule out supernatural explanations. Therefore it follows that, whatever the mechanics of the process that gave rise to life as we know it, it must be probableenough to rise at least once in a universe billions of light years across and billions of years old.


Its funny, the book they wrote tries to give NATURALISTIC explanations for the wild improbabilities and is constantly being quoted by atheists so I just assumed they were atheist.
I guess they are theists!

In The Physics of Immortality Tipler identifies the Omega Point with God, so I doubt that atheists would be quoting him favourably.


We know they are not necessary - because they could have been different.

But I thought you were saying they WERE necessary?

I'm saying they might be, but they might not, our knowledge is too limited at the moment to make a judgement either way. Physics is incomplete, and will be for the forseeable future, especially with regards to the more fundamental aspects of universal mechanics.


But I thought you were saying the constants had to be what they are?

Believe me, I'm very careful not to confuse math with reality - which is why I stay away from all things Quantum until we asses which physical explanation explains the math.

But this has nothing to do with math : Since laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants, these constants therefore are not determined by the laws of nature.

The maths says that the laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for the constants, but since we can't create a universe in the lab we have no way of checking for sure; that is what I meant by being careful not to confuse the model with reality.


I agree, but how can you say a multiverse is "more likely" then God?

Neither God nor a Multiverse have any hard evidence - they are BOTH metaphysical explanations.

So compare them - IF a Multiverse ends up explaining it, then you STILL have to account for the Multiverse since Valenkin admits it still requires an initial singularity.

If an uncaused cause which is immaterial, personal, spaceless, timeless (God) is the explanation then that fits the data with no more needed explanation.

So God as a metaphysical explanation has simplicity AND more explanatory power since it needs no additional explanation.

How is that LESS likely?

Because it doesn't explain how a universe can have a personal God and yet be mercilessly indifferent to human welfare, and arbitrarily terminates the regress at God.

There is no logical reason why a hypothetical multiverse (or simply the universe if the multiverse cannot be proven to exist) cannot be the uncaused cause, rather than God. If you're going to posit uncaused causes, why add the extra term of God? The only reason I can see for doing so is to satisfy your yearning for a gap to slot God in.

Problem; science has a tendency to fill in such gaps, and God is constantly being squeezed out of the picture. It's not only bad science, but it seems to me to be bad theology also.


The point is that EVERYONE who buys a lotto ticket is EQUALLY unlikely to win.

Imagine a vat with 1 billion red balls and one blue ball.

Whichever ball you pick will be equally unlikley.

But its like you only have one chance and randomly pick the blue one.

It's not just improbability but also a patteren.

Or - no matter which license plate you get (35g-xy-160 etc) they are all EQUALLY improbable - but add a pattern.

Say you get a license plate that exactly spells out yr name - by random chance!

But the numbers I've given are nowhere even remotely close to those improbabilities - some are SO improbable that the number of zeros required to write it would be more than the number of atoms in the universe!

Indeed, but your analogy is flawed; it's not on person picking one ball one time, but billions of billions of people (planets) picking balls (attempting to start life) for billions of years. Those sort of numbers greatly even the odds.

And returning to the matter of life in the universe, some fairly complex organic chemicals have been detected in space; indeed, carbon is the fourth most abundant chemical element in the universe after hydrogen, helium and oxygen.

I don't think the odds are as long as you think.


No, it ONL;Y tells us that life obviously DID arise. But how?

That's a question for biologists specialising in abiogenesis, not armchair hacks like you.


You say

ALL the numbers given contradict that - they DO NOT exceed zero by a sufficient margi at all!

S0....why do you belive they do exceed zero by a sufficient margin?

WHERES the proof ? Or reason? Or argument? Or inference? Or deduction?

Planet Earth is the evidence, you insufferably dense nincompoop.


You yourself are making anthropic claims when you assert, wothout any evidence, that

It's certainly a better claim than "Goddidit".


Its important because that means scientists ought to drop darwinian natural selection for CERTAIN explanations -ie life arising - and search out another theory if the present one cannot mathematically reasonably have happened!

Natural selection is a powerful explanation for many biological phenomena and your mathematical reasoning is flawed; you let yourself be dazzled by the large numbers involving life arising by chance, but fail to realise that there are also large factors that serve to ameliorate the odds.


No one is saying Godidit - Francis Crick co-founder of the double Helix DNA thought life on earth so unlikely perhaps alien "seeded" the planet, for example.
However, Intelligent design (which I personally do NOT believ can scientifically be applied to biological science) makes predictions which can be tested.

No it cannot, and you reveal yourself to be a crackpot by saying so.


Saying themutiversedidit is no explanation either, which I have yet to hear you give one.

So you admit that the "God Hypothesis" has no explanatory power?


I'm no creationist.

Yes you are. You think that neither life no the universe could arise in a naturalistic fashion. You are a creationist, you suppurating rat's arsehole.


Again, please highlight this evidence you've given for me. It's a reasonable request.

Just read my posts. I can't help you if you're too pig-headedly stubborn to accept my arguments.


All my arguments are done following the laws of deductive and inductive reasoning with evidence and references supplied.

Quotes from pop-science books and puff pieces are not "references".


Can you back up the above assertions with examples?

Although I do ask for REASONS why people belive things. I'm terrible.

You are either a dishonest shithead or thicker than a yard of lard. I've provided reasons and examples, but you simply ignore them.


I noticed you did not answer any of my questions.

What claims have I made that do not stand up to scrutiny?

Your claim that the universe and subsequently life could not arise due to natural forces.


You make alot of assertions but seem to have no REASONS for believing in them....

EVEN though you cannot answer me I'll list yours, in quotes :

evidence ?

I am assigning rough probabilities, based on what we actually know; complete and utter lack of evidence for a personal God. Your claim has as much validity as the claim that the universe was created by Mr Rainbow Spider, who coincidentally has the very same attributes as you attribute to God, which also by the way is an illustration of the lack of explanatory power for the God hypothesis.


Is this logical? Why believe this?

Why believe this? evidence ?

Why believe this? evidence ?

Why believe this? evidence ?

Why believe this? evidence ?

and on and on and on and.....

It's clear you have no interest at all in debate and have run out of ideas, hence this childish game of twenty identical questions which have either already been answered, or the answers to which are easily found by those with a clue. You have already made your mind up and whether you know it or not, you are simply here to preach.

Fuck off!

[Devrim]

Can I break up this lovefest a moment, to ask if anyone knows the answer to my question on Dawkin's politics.

Although they may have changed in the 70s and 80s he was a La our supporter.

Devrim

[spiltteeth]

You've just made an assertion..

Simply because the universe has a certain set of parametres does not suggest that someone set up those parametres. Far from it.

Projecting artificiality onto the universe is hardly an argument.

Yr right. I assume yr asking my for an argument?

Ok.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10/100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10/120.
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123).
Penrose comments,
"I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned.
So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

[black magick hustla]

i hope dawkins turns religions. maybe all the all-for-nothing atheist nerds who only define themselves by their atheism i know and their liberal millionaire masters would commit collective suicide

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1730841]Then stop accusing him of saying things he didn't say, it's quite simple.

I havent.


No, that's not what they said:



Here it is quite obvious that they are talking about one planet, the Earth, around one star, our sun.

They have numerous calculations, the one I speak of is AFTER the planet has formed.

Barrow and Tipler distinguish several versions of the Principle, the most basic and least disputable being the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP):


WAP: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.


They do no such thing. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. Also, you are committing the classic creationist fallacy of assuming the dichotomy of "chance" or "design".

They do. 1 chance out of 10^50 has a statistical chance of zero.

According to Sir Roger Penrose (he does not prescribe to any religion) the statistical probability of the universe coming to existence by chance is 10 (10) to 123 !
In mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability".
So I can not see the logic behind saying this happened by chance, it is not logical.

if something is not explicable in terms of natural law or chance, then by definition it is due to "design." To say that something is due to "design" is just to say that it exhibits a certain kind of pattern.

Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination Argument to the finetuning of the universe:

1 One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang possess certain values.

2 Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.

3 One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly finetuned for the existence of intelligent, carbonbased life.

4 The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small.

5 There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.

6 Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.

7 This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.

8 One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbonbased life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electromagnetic forces, etc.).

9 This information about the finelytuned conditions requisite for a life permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).

10 One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.



You guys already got burned on that with regards to the origin of species; why do you insist on blundering headlong and making the same potential mistake with the origin of the universe? Why haven't you learned your lesson?

Another blind assertion. How did "{us guys" get burned by the origin of the species?


Because it has happened at least once, cretin. We know that life and the development of the universe is an entirely natural process, so we can rule out supernatural explanations. Therefore it follows that, whatever the mechanics of the process that gave rise to life as we know it, it must be probableenough to rise at least once in a universe billions of light years across and billions of years old.

Another statement of blind faith. How do you know "development of the universe is an entirely natural process"?

All the data we have point to the very opposite, as I've shown. It is not probable at all that it happened naturally.

Thus far you haven't given any reason to show otherwise.


In The Physics of Immortality Tipler identifies the Omega Point with God, so I doubt that atheists would be quoting him favourably.

They quote, as do I, the Anthropic Principle, which seeks to give a naturalistic explanation to the wild improbabilities.


I'm saying they might be, but they might not, our knowledge is too limited at the moment to make a judgement either way. Physics is incomplete, and will be for the forseeable future, especially with regards to the more fundamental aspects of universal mechanics.

Science will ALWAYS be incomplete - does that mean we can NEVER draw ANY conclusions from data?

But, again, we KNOW they are not necessary BECAUSE they are contingent.


The maths says that the laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for the constants, but since we can't create a universe in the lab we have no way of checking for sure; that is what I meant by being careful not to confuse the model with reality.

How do the "maths" say this? IF something is contingent, then it is not necessary.
Are you saying the constants are necessary? If so, why do you think that?


Because it doesn't explain how a universe can have a personal God and yet be mercilessly indifferent to human welfare, and arbitrarily terminates the regress at God.

Why would it have to explain that?
And it doesn't "arbitrarily" terminate, God has ALWAYS been thought of as being uncaused.


There is no logical reason why a hypothetical multiverse (or simply the universe if the multiverse cannot be proven to exist) cannot be the uncaused cause, rather than God. If you're going to posit uncaused causes, why add the extra term of God? The only reason I can see for doing so is to satisfy your yearning for a gap to slot God in.

Well, the logical reason is that whatever begins to exist needs a cause. Both the universe AND the multiverse require an initial singularity, so they cannot be uncaused.

IF the universe were eternal - its always been here - THEN it would not need a cause : it would be uncaused. Which is what scientists said 100 yrs ago "what caused the universe?? Nothing - its always been here, it never BEGAN to exist"

BUT we know today the universe did begin - it is 13.7 billion yrs old, thus requires a cause.


Problem; science has a tendency to fill in such gaps, and God is constantly being squeezed out of the picture. It's not only bad science, but it seems to me to be bad theology also.

I only say the chances of life arising due to chance are wildly improbable, intelligent design has scientific parameters, makes predictions that can be tested and yr free to ignore all the math as well if it will protect yr blind beliefs.


Indeed, but your analogy is flawed; it's not on person picking one ball one time, but billions of billions of people (planets) picking balls (attempting to start life) for billions of years. Those sort of numbers greatly even the odds.

Ok show me the numbers. Why do you think there would be billions of planets that would be life permitting with the exact distance from the sun etc etc etc ? Or is this another statement of blind faith>?


And returning to the matter of life in the universe, some fairly complex organic chemicals have been detected in space; indeed, carbon is the fourth most abundant chemical element in the universe after hydrogen, helium and oxygen.

Yes? And this means?...


I don't think the odds are as long as you think.

They have nothing to do with what I think. Another blind statement> WHy don't you think the odds are that long? Reasons?


That's a question for biologists specialising in abiogenesis, not armchair hacks like you.

Your the one who holds this belief - are you saying you just believe it out of blind faith?
Or do you have a REASON for believing it? So many fantasies...


Planet Earth is the evidence, you insufferably dense nincompoop.

Indeed, and since it could NOT have arisen by chance, we know it was designed.
Unless you have any evidence to the contrary...


It's certainly a better claim than "Goddidit".

And yet I've shown it has LESS explanatory power and unnecessarily complicates things!
How is it better then!

You seem to have no reasons for yr beliefs - you live in a fantasy land!


Natural selection is a powerful explanation for many biological phenomena and your mathematical reasoning is flawed; you let yourself be dazzled by the large numbers involving life arising by chance, but fail to realise that there are also large factors that serve to ameliorate the odds.

Point out the flaw - tippler and Barrow are well know top scientists that take into account all the other probable life permitting planets the fact the universe is 13.7 billion yrs old etc
So your blind statement is unfounded.

I've also quoted Hawking, Davies, and Penrose - you REALLY think these people don't know how big and old the universe is!

Fine - where are YOUR numbers!


No it cannot, and you reveal yourself to be a crackpot by saying so.

As I say, I do not think ID can be applied to biology so I won't defend it, but it CAN make predictions - such as the whole junk DNA controversy over the pst decade.
ID said ther'd be little junk DNA.
Dawkins said thered be plenty.
There was plenty - Dawkings said this disproved the ID predictions.
Now we find most of the junk DNA is actually functional.

However, I don't believe in intelligent design.


So you admit that the "God Hypothesis" has no explanatory power?

As I've shown, it has MORE than the multiverse theory.


Yes you are. You think that neither life no the universe could arise in a naturalistic fashion. You are a creationist, you suppurating rat's arsehole.

If that yr def of creationist. I may be wrong but I thought they didn't believe in evolution?

I believe both the monkey in the zoo and I evolved from a common ancestor over a series of hundreds of millions of years.

APparently you think the universe and life COULD arise in a naturalistic fashion, yet you've given no reasons to think they could!


Just read my posts. I can't help you if you're too pig-headedly stubborn to accept my arguments.

There is none. Indeed you cannot highlight any because THEY DON'T EXIST!!
Prove me wrong!


Quotes from pop-science books and puff pieces are not "references".

Pop science books! They are ALL peer reviewed!!


You are either a dishonest shithead or thicker than a yard of lard. I've provided reasons and examples, but you simply ignore them.

Then highlight the reasons!
All I've heard : "The universe is big and old so its probably likely that life arised by chance. Since life DID arise it HAS to be by chance" !?


Your claim that the universe and subsequently life could not arise due to natural forces.

Ok.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10/100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10/120.
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123).
Penrose comments,

"I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned.
So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.


I am assigning rough probabilities, based on what we actually know; complete and utter lack of evidence for a personal God. Your claim has as much validity as the claim that the universe was created by Mr Rainbow Spider, who coincidentally has the very same attributes as you attribute to God, which also by the way is an illustration of the lack of explanatory power for the God hypothesis.

WHERE ARE THESE ASSIGNED ROUGH PROBABILITIES!?


It's clear you have no interest at all in debate and have run out of ideas, hence this childish game of twenty identical questions which have either already been answered, or the answers to which are easily found by those with a clue. You have already made your mind up and whether you know it or not, you are simply here to preach.

Fuck off!

You have answered none of them. If you had you could respond. You live by blind faith and have no reasons to believe what you do. You have given NO reasons, NO numbers, NO arguments.

[mikelepore]

Because he said I needed more evidence then quoting that journalist, but I only quoted her to say Dawkins was not a believer in the Christian God or in the supernatural....so, what assertion is he talking about?

I didn't read all of the earlier posts carefully, so pardon me if this is redundant or irrelavant.

Dawkins believes that "intelligent design" of life on earth may have been possible, not in the sense that there is a God, but in the sense that a technologically advanced extraterrestial race could have manufactured the first microorganisms and then deposited them on the earth. He explained his viewpoint about this in the pro-Creationist documentary movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (2008), in which Ben Stein interviewed him.