Log in

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins on Fox news



Forward Union
20th June 2007, 08:35
Interesting, they basically go over the same points we do, regularly. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1fgKXmNJrQ...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1fgKXmNJrQ&mode=related&search=)

and here, on BBC news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXEfkCFyYzA...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXEfkCFyYzA&mode=related&search=)

Cheung Mo
21st June 2007, 03:24
Dawkins? You mean that atheist free-thinking intellectual who manged to avoid the fate of Christopher Hitchens by not letting alcohol rot out 90% of his brain cells? Yep. Cool guy. :D

Tower of Bebel
21st June 2007, 18:57
Why does noone ask believers where God comes from? Because believers always blame non-believers for not knowing where the all "this" comes from.

BlessedBesse
21st June 2007, 19:03
what?

Tower of Bebel
21st June 2007, 19:23
Everytime I meet some deep religious person and talk about the excistence of God that person will propably say non believers have no explenation what so ever for the existence of space, earth, etc. Believers metion God as the creator of everything, and it is the only possible explenation. When this happens on TV, no atheists asks where God comes from.

BlessedBesse
21st June 2007, 19:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:23 pm
Everytime I meet some deep religious person and talk about the excistence of God that person will propably say non believers have no explenation what so ever for the existence of space, earth, etc. Believers metion God as the creator of everything, and it is the only possible explenation. When this happens on TV, no atheists asks where God comes from.

Believers metion God as the creator of everything, and it is the only possible explenation.

how is this different from one who who believes a scientific answer is the only possible explanation?


When this happens on TV, no atheists asks where God comes from.

that's because if there was an answer to that question, it probably wouldn't have much meaning or "prove" anything

pusher robot
21st June 2007, 22:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:23 pm
Everytime I meet some deep religious person and talk about the excistence of God that person will propably say non believers have no explenation what so ever for the existence of space, earth, etc. Believers metion God as the creator of everything, and it is the only possible explenation. When this happens on TV, no atheists asks where God comes from.
They'll simply say that either (a) God created himself, or that (b) God has existed and always will exist.

Either way, that's not a strong criticism of religion, because religion expressly disclaims scientific credibility. So scientific criticisms are only persuasive to people already disinclined to be religious.

southernmissfan
28th June 2007, 19:47
The response is that "God" is self-existent. But if "God" can be self-existent, why can't the universe?

Publius
28th June 2007, 21:57
They'll simply say that either (a) God created himself, or that (b) God has existed and always will exist.

Either way, that's not a strong criticism of religion, because religion expressly disclaims scientific credibility. So scientific criticisms are only persuasive to people already disinclined to be religious.

Quite right. Which is what is so insidious about religion.

Once people 'catch the bug', they are more than likely screwed for life. It's even likely that some people are just born to be inclined to religious belief.

pusher robot
28th June 2007, 21:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:47 pm
The response is that "God" is self-existent. But if "God" can be self-existent, why can't the universe?

The response is that "God" is self-existent. But if "God" can be self-existent, why can't the universe?

Mainly because that doesn't jibe with the known laws of physics. If you are going to postulate things that are supernatural, a god is just as plausible as a causeless, entropy-reversing cordon of space-time.

Publius
28th June 2007, 22:06
Mainly because that doesn't jibe with the known laws of physics.

Of course it does.

Let's go through some: matter cannot be created or destroyed. Simple as pie. Matter (or energy) wasn't created. Well, that neatly obviates the need for God, now doesn't it? Now you might say "Well, if it can't be created or destroyed, then how can it come into being?" First of all, this assumes that time exists 'outside of' matter, which it of course does not. Time is a consequence of matter. Spacetime, that is. So the whole idea of the universe not existing 'then' existing is just nonsense. It's incoherent.

And anyway, I sort of lied. As far as I know (IANAphysicist), matter CAN just pop into existence via quantum fluctuation. So really, the Universe COULD have 'made itself'.

And if we want to look at Newton's laws, none of them support the idea that the Universe was 'created'.

So I just don't get this idea that physics are at all antithetical to atheism, or that they somehow support, or even allow the existence of a God. As I understand it, modern physics dispenses with the God hypothesis. We simply have no need for it. We don't need to put God in our physics equations to make the math work, so we don't.



If you are going to postulate things that are supernatural, a god is just as plausible as a causeless, entropy-reversing cordon of space-time.

We all sorts of theories about how the Universe came into being.

Quantum fluctuations, branes colliding, shrink-and-expand, etc. None of these require God. None of them even really allow a God, unless by 'God' you mean 'an energy' or 'a force' or some neo-spiritualist claptrap that doesn't even mean anything.

pusher robot
28th June 2007, 22:44
We all sorts of theories about how the Universe came into being.

And how many of those theories are testable? How many of those theories are testable even in theory? How many have predictability?

Take the theory that the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. Please explain how this theory (a) allows us to predict other phenomenon or (b) is testable. I'm willing to grant you access to all the time, energy, and matter in the universe if you need it.

If you can't answer this, then this is not a scientific theory. It is conjecture.


As far as I know (IANAphysicist), matter CAN just pop into existence via quantum fluctuation. So really, the Universe COULD have 'made itself'.

Pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. Or, rather: QUANTUM FLUCTUATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

Publius
28th June 2007, 23:32
And how many of those theories are testable? How many of those theories are testable even in theory? How many have predictability?

Well, at least one that I know of, which isn't that bad considering I only actually know of 3 theories.

The Big Crunch theory made the hypothesis that the Universe should beging slowing down in its expansino and then collapse back in upon itself.

This idea is testable and it's been found incorrect: the Universe is speeding up in its expansion.

So there's one.



Take the theory that the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. Please explain how this theory (a) allows us to predict other phenomenon

Well, if we could detect some manner in which other Universes popped into being, say via black holes or some such thing (purely fictional on my part, as an example), and we could devise some means of 'seeing' this happen, we could know.


or (b) is testable. I'm willing to grant you access to all the time, energy, and matter in the universe if you need it.

Well, given all that, we could make a computer account of the entire history of the Universe, then play the tape back as it were.

And if we don't see God's beaming face at the front end, we'll know we don't need him.



If you can't answer this, then this is not a scientific theory. It is conjecture.

Scientific theories start off as conjecture.

The atom theory of matter couldn't exactly be proven by the ancient Greeks, but, lo and behold, it turned out to be right.



Pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. Or, rather: QUANTUM FLUCTUATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

I think that's what's being argued currently. We simply don't know whether or not quantum fluctuations could do something like start a Universe.

Are you a physics student/physicist? It's clear you know more about it than I do.

redcannon
28th June 2007, 23:39
hey, did anyone catch that episode of south park with Richard Dawkins fucking ms. garrison? that episode was so funny.

but back to the point: i like dick dawkins.

pusher robot
29th June 2007, 15:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:32 pm
The Big Crunch theory made the hypothesis that the Universe should beging slowing down in its expansino and then collapse back in upon itself.

This idea is testable and it's been found incorrect: the Universe is speeding up in its expansion.

True - though that theory is about the life cycle of the universe and doesn't address the question of causality or reversal of entropy.


Well, if we could detect some manner in which other Universes popped into being, say via black holes or some such thing (purely fictional on my part, as an example), and we could devise some means of 'seeing' this happen, we could know.

In other words, if we could observe it, then we could validate the theory by its ability to predict these phenomena. The problem with this is that there is no way to detect something not in our own universe, by definition. If something is detectable, it is in our universe. Black holes we can detect, but they are entirely inside of our own universe.



Well, given all that, we could make a computer account of the entire history of the Universe, then play the tape back as it were.Unfortunately not, as there are a number of phenomena, particularly relating to the event horizons of black holes, that appear to either destroy information or sequester it until the end of time. So even if we had perfect knowledge of the exact state of every molecule in the unverse, we would still be unable to go backwards and determine the starting state, leaving aside the issue of Heisenberg uncertainty.


Scientific theories start off as conjecture.

But they require testing and validation to become anything else. Testing and validation that, I posit, are impossible for questions outside our own universe. Essentially, my position is that anything outside of our own universe is axiomatically supernatural. Science therefore has nothing to say about it because science is inapplicable to the supernatural. Science can of course speak to the life cycle, the events of the birth and death of our own universe. But the question of what caused it, and where it all came from, are probably not just practically but theoretically impossible to answer.


Are you a physics student/physicist? It's clear you know more about it than I do.
I used to study physics, before I got too weirded out by the whole subject.


We simply don't know whether or not quantum fluctuations could do something like start a Universe.We have a pretty good idea. Quantum fluctuations occur entirely in our own universe, governed by the natural laws of our universe. We have no more reason to suspect that a quantum fluctuation can create a universe than to suspect that I could fart a universe after eating a chili-cheese burrito.

Eleftherios
29th June 2007, 20:20
Originally posted by pusher robot+June 21, 2007 09:39 pm--> (pusher robot @ June 21, 2007 09:39 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 06:23 pm
Everytime I meet some deep religious person and talk about the excistence of God that person will propably say non believers have no explenation what so ever for the existence of space, earth, etc. Believers metion God as the creator of everything, and it is the only possible explenation. When this happens on TV, no atheists asks where God comes from.
They'll simply say that either (a) God created himself, or that (b) God has existed and always will exist.

Either way, that's not a strong criticism of religion, because religion expressly disclaims scientific credibility. So scientific criticisms are only persuasive to people already disinclined to be religious. [/b]
That's probably true. Religious people usually rely only on blind faith in God and sometimes tend to think that rational arguments against the existence of God are only ways that God uses to test your faith.

Dr Mindbender
30th June 2007, 04:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:23 pm
Everytime I meet some deep religious person and talk about the excistence of God that person will propably say non believers have no explenation what so ever for the existence of space, earth, etc. Believers metion God as the creator of everything, and it is the only possible explenation. When this happens on TV, no atheists asks where God comes from.
Every christian or theist Ive asked this question says that 'God created himself' and when I asked 'how can he precede his own existence' they replied 'because God also created the laws of time and logic, he can manipulate them to suit his own purposes'
WTF? :blink:

Yardstick
1st July 2007, 02:12
I`wouldn't say God created himself. I'd say God has always existed.

Coggeh
3rd July 2007, 23:39
Bill was a bit nice don't ya think for once ? Probably knew if it turned into a real arguement that dawkins would have thrashed him .

"Crackpot Marxism" ..... I'm not sure if he's saying Stalin is a crackpot version of Marxism or if he thinks Marxism itself is stupid=\

I personally don't like his views on ideologies with their association with religion , Hes's saying that having an extreme or a radical thought is wrong ... anyone have thought on this ?

Jesus Christ!
3rd July 2007, 23:55
The best part is where he says Hitler was in fact Roman Catholic.

jasmine
6th July 2007, 18:40
I don't think Dawkins is a socialist. He's clearly just as opposed to marxism and anarchism as he is to catholicism. Were he to join this board he would probably be restricted as a 'cappy' reactionary. His theory of the meme, memetic engineering, has nothing to do with social conditions or class relations.

Science is not objective or neutral. It serves a culture or social order or class system not just in its uses (atomic bomb etc.) but also in its theories. Dawkins is a supporter of capitalist, liberal, so-called freedom as the highest expression of reason.

His opposition to religion is at the same time a support for capitalism.