I know I just called out Dawkins for being a dick, but I'm struggling to formulate this reply without prefacing it by drawing attention to what a profound retard you are.

This is where you're really dropping the ball (Aside from everything else of course). Yes, there is some type of axiom in the naturalistic world view, but it's specifically designed to be an non-axiomatic as possible, the assumptions made to carefully avoid contracticting anything we can observe. So while no, this cannot be absolute, there is a staggering difference between absolute and random, and the equivalence of the two is so asinine it is difficult to comprehend. Not all axioms are equal, I could claim that the earth arose from a seed and grew into a massive apple which them hardened into a molten core and rocks, and say that while that isn't how anything works these days, you can't prove that's how they did in the past. The notion that this axiom on how things functioned on the past is the equal of what we have observed and developed scientifically is beyond stupid.

Although I must commend you on turning WE JUST CAN'T KNOW! into a lengthy, intellectually superior viewpoint, nice work.

Haha, that video was pretty funny. That Cardinal was way out of his depth and seemed to no absolutely nothing about evolution (surprise surprise). It's sad these religious people don't even give science the time to learn that the selection in natural selection is non-random and is clearly evident in nature today.

In these videos it's as if one group of debaters talk of a snap shot of life at a certain point in time and then proclaim nothing deviates from that point, and that every "law" in the natural world is predetermined and static, i.e birds where always and will always be birds.

But the evidence is all around, backed up by science, that everything is constantly changing evolving, and off shoots "constantly" emerge (speciation) throughout everythings' biological evolution (allopatric speciation shows what happens when one becomes isolated ). There are 20,000 species of bees, which proves nothing remains "static".

That's why I'm interested in aspects of buddhism because it sees how the world is constantly changing and nothing remains the same for long, even our thoughts and moods, and it is open to new scientific discoveries; which never fazes them and even seems to enhance their belief system.

If people arguing their cause said everything comes from initial seeds of life, which evolve, wouldn't that be a better stance for them to present the case for a creator?

People keep saying Dawkins is a dick, or arrogant, etc, but I just don't see it. The guy is smart, well-spoken and has a well-informed argument with religion; but it seems that's just not acceptable. If you're an atheist you have to be quiet, you have to "live and let live" or you're an arrogant dick. Don't argue the case for atheism in any pro-active way, because then the religious people will get sad and den dey might cwy.

Sorry, but if people are offended by having their beliefs challenged in a blunt and factual manner, that's their problem. It doesn't make the one presenting the facts a dick.

Well Beast if you don't see it, you don't see it but I can point to several times in that video and others which I think most would call arrogant - mocking his opposition, interrupting, etc. You can be proactive without all that, surely.

Well, he is English....they're prone to being dickish.

This. Exactly this. Almost everytime I get into a discussion about the fallacies of religion (especially Christianity), people say to me "dude, aren't you afraid that you might hurt people?, Why be so blunt about it?" Granted, I sometimes get pretty heated up while taking part in these discussions, but hey, if the facts are right, and your arguments are valid, you can't be blunt enough.

From what I've read, there is a small percentage of Europeans who have a touch of Neanderthal DNA due to interbreeding tends of thousands of years ago. We definitely didn't evolve from them, but we both evolved to be genetically similar enough to interbreed, apparently. And from what I remember, the finding of Neanderthal DNA in Homo Sapiens was proven, no speculation.

Good thing to, as we are more resilient to diseases as a result. I read a while ago that people with large bones (wrist size 8" and over) was a sign that modern humans mated with Neanderthals. I don't know how true this is, but it sounds reasonable.

This. Precisely.

Also, I suspect some of the reasons he "mocks" or interrupts his opponents is because they'll bring up something he has spent a great deal of his life researching whereas they clearly have not, and because most discussions or arguments boil down to the same ones he's had thrown at him for years. You can certainly hear his anguish and disgust in his polite, gentle reply to the question, "but if we came from apes, how come...?" etc.

It's a very small percentage, anywhere from 3-5% in common with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a true race of humans and represented an evolution slightly more adapted for the frigid temperatures of Ice Age Europe such as broad noses, shorter statures, large frames etc along with all the traits shared with Homo sapiens. Asians to a lesser extent also share interbreeding as they have a 1-3% similarity with Neanderthals. However the biggest question has to do with the frequency. If humans arrived in Europe and Asia at the tail end of the Neanderthal existence it means these numbers represent a gigantic crossover over the course of just one thousand years. If humans arrived much earlier then it means crossbreeding was actually a very rare event and these hybrids were more freakish than anything. I personally find it fascinating for two reasons (one already being discussed). You can already see white supremacists turning the evidence and pointing out Neanderthal superiority over Homo sapiens (since Africans have no commonality with Neanderthals other than what was already shared in ancient times). It must be remembered that the Neanderthals died out because they lacked the innovation of Homo sapiens. There's no evidence so far to prove that Neanderthals were capable of abstract thought. Neanderthal tools incurred a significantly higher risk of death via hunting than atl-atl's invented by humans. Neanderthal reliance on big game hastened their extinction while Homo sapiens only hunted big game to supplement their dominant gathering subsistence.

However evolution is not really an issue in the Catholic church. For awhile now, the Church has declared that evolution is a valid theory for the purposes of discussing the development of the human body but not the human soul. If this Cardinal debated against it then he's contradicting the pope and the official position of the Catholic church needlessly for his own bias.

From what I understand, homo sapiens also kept going when neanderthals died simply because we out-bred them. Also, a very interesting article I read a while ago said that strength wise, a female neanderthal would be nearly as strong as arnold schwarzenegger in his prime. I thought that was pretty neat.

Who knows what kind of ban I would get myself into if I'd actually flame some of you guys back equally. Unfortunately, as a newbie I'm not in the position to call names as I could easily get punished three or four times harder than any of you. Just don't think I'm too wimpy a guy to actually talk back, because I'm not.



I lumped these two together because in a nutshell they prove to be the same line of argumentation. The problem with this is that scientifically, there is no such spectrum. Evaluating whether X is closer to truth or more far away from being bullshit ("non-axiomatic, lol) than Y is an entirely subjective matter, aside the fact that "truth" isn't even a scientific concept to begin with.
Generally, the thing with threads like these is that there are lots of people throwing words like "logical" and "real" around, trying to argue against god with these terms without even realizing that logics in itself can be questioned, making all arguments invalid. The human mind, logic or whatever you base your argumentation on aren't absolute; they're not necessarily depicting the way the world is "really" like in any way. No one guarantees that our logics or causal chains are close to the "truth", not even scientists. What we see as "real" is entirely dependent of our perception, which is a very subjective thing, and which to top it off doesn't necessarily need to be absolute or "right". All these things can be questioned, no matter how many or what kind of results they have brought so far. That's just how things are; and every scientist who studied the philosphy of art and epistemology knows this.
Whether you think it's reasonable to question them or not is up to your belief. I'm not saying you should quit bashing religion because you think god is unlikely to exist. I'm saying you should stop basing your arguments on what you think is "objective" and "scientifically proven" truth, because what you're saying isn't scientific in the least.
People who know this are therefore neither retarded nor stupid, nor do they lack common-sense. They are simply able to actually think abstractly.
That said, this'll probably be my last post regarding this. There's not much to say anymore anyway, other than the fact that it's a very difficult topic.

Yeah, other than the fact that your logic just circles around itself, proves nothing, and impresses no one.

lol

A very wise man a long time ago established that there are four fundamental truths - dukkha, samudaya, nirhodha and magga.
In Buddhism there is no particular benefit to merely believing in a doctrine. Instead, the emphasis is on living the (eight fold) path and walking the "path" - Which is the best any of us can do?

Any talk of a metaphysical nature (Greek meaning; the books after the books on nature) is pointless. Endless speculation will bring us no closer to discovering any other "truth" (as I see it).

Whether our universe is perceived as finite or infinite the problem of the human condition remains the same, so isn't it better to use our limited time working on that?



“Our scientific advances will be merely obscene unless they help the large part of our world's population emerge from miserable uncertainty and debilitating terror.”
Michael Moorcock

I suggest shinsetsu and mindshadow will keep the discussion going on forever here, while the rest of us sneak out and have a beer or seventeen. Once the almost-solipsist shinsetsu convinces his-normal-self mindshadow about something, we all win.

Hey, it's "your world as I see it!"

Solipsism is so fucking retarded.

Count me in.

Are you the Ultimate Warrior?

Our scientific advances will be merely obscene unless they help the large part of our world's population emerge from miserable uncertainty and debilitating terror, Hoak Hogan. And you will know this uncertainty and terror when I face you in the hallowed halls of Wrestlemania!

Half an hour into the video and, man is the Cardinal destroying Dawkins. However his discourse is extremely demagogic. He's just appealing to the audience's feelings and using fallacy to masquerade for intelligence. However it is working at making Dawkins look like an idiot.

Just watched about the whole thing. I'm baffled how a part of the audience cheers everytime the cardinal makes a semi-witty, but inaccurate and shallow answer or statement... Also, the best part is when the cardinal says "I remember when I was in england, we were preparing some young english boys" Priceless..... And why don't they talk about other religions? Surely it would be interesting to see the cardinal trying to justify his religion against the other 3000 +/- religions?

While Dawkins does pose a good argument, and I agree with his points, I prefer Hitchens' arguments myself. He just had this wit to him that would always make me crack a smile. Damn shame all those cigs and alcohol caught up to him.

EDIT: And this is just my opinion on Dawkins in general, although I have seen that video before.

Dawkins is great, one of the best atheists.

There is a poor argument(in my opinion) some use, "religion makes people feel good". This is an absolutely ridiculous utilitarian thing to say.

Personally I would say religion is mostly crap, but some things atheism does not explain. How does atheism explain electronic voice phenomenon? I have a weird friend that is into the occult, and I am sure there is definably something to it. I would say people need to get rid of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The other religions are far less annoying.

Decent video, though I could understand someone thinking Dawkins's reactions were a bit dickish at times. I take it his patience has been worn a bit thin over the past few years. Being a "professional atheist," at least in popular media, requires exposing oneself to tremendous amounts of idiocy.

Regarding electronic voice phenomena, there are a few things that can be said:

(1) Mundane explanations of paranormal phenomena can be found quite easily. Here's what a trip to Wikipedia tells you: "Interest in EVP surrounds claims that it is of paranormal origin, although many occurrences have had natural explanations including apophenia (finding significance in insignificant phenomena), auditory pareidolia (interpreting random sounds as voices in one's own language), equipment artifacts, and hoaxes."

Even if there is no evidence telling decisively whether some freak occurrence X has a mundane explanation or a paranormal explanation, it's still most sensible to make a presumption in favor of the mundane explanation. X entails two possibilities: (i) The natural order has been either violated or shown to require extensive reinterpretation; or (ii) This is not so, and any claims to the contrary would be either fraudulent or erroneous. I hope it's obvious that (ii) will always warrant a greater degree of confident acceptance than (i); it's hardly without precedent, after all.

(2) The question of the origins of EVP has no logical bearing on the question of whether God exists. If EVP cannot be accounted for in mundane terms, it does not follow that God exists (or doesn't exist). It's logically possible for someone to accept that EVP are supernatural in origin while either denying or withholding assent from the proposition that God exists.

(3) In response to (2), it might be urged that atheists as a matter of fact tend not to believe in the supernatural; and it might be urged that, while EVP cannot prove that God exists, they would (if they existed) entail the fact that something supernatural exists, which would render theism less implausible than it otherwise would be. I think this is also correct, but it doesn't strictly contradict (2).

Like a priest, you mean?

It makes some sense to me why he's cold, harsh, and appears dickish. For one, he's English. The educated English have a cultural trait, it would seem, to speak explicitly, exactly, and almost cruelly. Compared to American English it sounds really priggish, but when you think about it, American English is far too casual and often words are used pretty .. i dunno .. whatever or whatever.

Not that I don't understand your point. I do. I guess I look the other way when he seems snobby. He's had arguments like this for years and the obstinate density he faces regularly will grate on a person. As far as the arrogance goes, he was also part of the Four Horsemen with Hitchens. Not only does like attract like, it isn't unlikely that that group of gentlemen got off on the sheer power of their independent brains and specialized knowledge. It's likely they talked to each other in much the same way. I guess in the end I don't find him off-putting or intimidating so much as confident and convincing.

But I guess I'm more likely to listen to what someone's saying and not get so caught up in their tone. If someone's right, they're right, no matter how they say it.

ps- looking forward to the talks with Krauss. That sounds interesting.

edit:


right. this.

Atheism does not "explain", nor does it need to explain, anything. It's just a statement of disbelief towards god(s).

That said, there ARE natural and mundane explanations for EVP, and zero solid evidence of real paranormal phenomenon, so I really don't know what you're trying to say here.


Awesome use of weasel words right there.

Just a quick note on the "impatient dick Dawkins", I can kind of relate. I'm studying psychology and I end up getting irritable with people who use erroneous turns of phrase like "left brain" or "right brain" in reference to someone's intellectual or emotional predisposition (turns of phrase based on formative understandings in brain study), used most commonly in my experience among "spiritual" people who didn't do particularly well in school. I try to explain some of what I know about the brain's operation. Ignorance can be surprisingly irritating -- my own, because I don't know nearly as much as I want to, and theirs because of how stubborn they are to resist the fact that they're just plain wrong.

I hear ya. My favourite (and by that I mean my most annoying) pet peeve with that is the whole "we only use 10% of our brain" canard.

haha! Totally! The author of my text book wrote, "Doesn't that mean there's a 90% chance that a bullet will strike unused tissue?"

Isn't it funny that Dawkins (as he publicly stated) only debates "bishops, cardinals, or members of clergy?"

You would think that he would debate.. I don't know, maybe an actual philosopher, such as William Lane Craig, who has challenged Dawkins to multiple debates.

What an intellectual sophomore, picking on those weaker than him. The God Delusion? Have any of you tried READING his material? I swear this man must have been conceived anally.

Dawkins isn't a professional philosopher, and sometimes when he attempts philosophy, the results are not impressive. As far as I know, probably some of the better, if not best, philosophical defenses of atheism are J.L. Mackie's Miracle of Theism (which I should eventually reread; it was a few years ago when I read it), Nicholas Everitt's The Non-Existence of God (which I've just started), and Jordan Howard Sobel's Logic and Theism (which is on my wish-list). Graham Oppy's Arguing About Gods looks good as well, though my understanding is that Oppy is an agnostic. And there are always the classical opponents of natural theology, Hume and Kant.

That said, non-belief is basically about good sense. Craig's arguments, from what I've seen, have an air of sophistry, and it probably takes some advanced knowledge and training (e.g. in cosmology and history) to refute them. That shouldn't trouble the non-believer. Craig (not to say all theists) believes the following:

The universe was created by a supremely powerful, empirically undetectable, morally and intellectually superlative person, who decided that the only humans who don't deserve eternal torment are those who happen to assent to the core tenets of the Bible; this person is constantly monitoring our thoughts in order to see that we do so assent; and apart from having performed miracles in antiquity and "speaking to us in our hearts" and the like, this person takes no action to mitigate our actual and impending suffering.

...and all the non-believer has to do is to witness this, and similar claims, and recognize them for the obvious delusions they are. Like I said, good sense. The authors I listed are just for people who take an interest in philosophy. Dawkins's apparent lack of interest in philosophy (as evidenced, for one, by his treatment of Anselm, Aquinas, etc. in The God Delusion) isn't really something to be ashamed of, though I'd agree that he'd do well to acknowledge when he's speaking on something outside his field.

Megalowho,

Thanks for placing a few more books on my to-do list. I'll trek to the library today and skim through those.

Craig's arguments would certainly take some training to refute. According to commonsenseatheism.com,

"The reason Craig wins all his debates with atheists is not because his arguments are sound, but because he is a masterful debater." ... "Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects, and has been debating since high school."

In addition to his education, he primarily defends (with the exception of one of his popular arguments) well-known arguments.

He is a professional debater who defends antiquated philosophical arguments. These arguments have yet to be disproven (despite what common sense might dictate), which is why they are so strong.

Brief overview of his arguments:
Kalaam Cosmological Argument (beginning of universe)
Cosmological argument (from contingency)
Teleological Argument
Moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
the ontological argument (the most silly, yet difficult to refute)

In my eyes, if someone can refute these arguments, there would be a strong case against theism (or for atheism, for those that claim atheism needs no argument).

By the way, I am an agnostic.

And they haven't been proven, either. Nice word games, but that's all; no content beyond the idea that "I can't understand the world, so there must be a god", just like most religion and arguments for it.

No, those are not very strong arguments, because they have been constructed in a way that prevents disproving them. Mind games, that's all.

No problem. Happy reading.



I think what you mean is this: The arguments' conclusions - i.e. "God exists" - haven't been disproven. Arguments themselves aren't proven or disproven. They can, however, be refuted. As to whether the arguments you list have in fact been refuted, professional opinions vary, though it seems (based on the number of atheists working in the various academic disciplines) that the general opinion is slightly in favor of the view that no philosophical argument for theism deserves to be accepted.

My reasoned opinion is that there probably is no God. Theism does not warrant acceptance because none of the demonstrations of God's existence are successful. And the attitude that we should suspend judgment with respect to the God question rests on the false opinion that "God exists" and its negation are equally (im)plausible. I'm preparing a writing sample on the latter thesis as I begin applying for a PhD program in philosophy, and my argument is this:

"God exists" (for brevity, "G") and "It is not the case that God exists" (for brevity, "~G") are propositions that belong to metaphysics (or, to use Kant's qualification, "transcendent metaphysics" - metaphysics that describes a reality lying beyond all possible experience); as such, they are logically compatible with the totality of empirical truths. So whatever happens to be true about the world described by science, it is logically possible that G is true, and it is logically possible that ~G is true, but of course, it is not logically possible that both are true.

Now, G and ~G alike (based on how "God" is typically understood) require a set of logically independent metaphysical propositions to be true. If two propositions are logically independent, then neither entails the other; the truth of one does not guarantee the truth of the other. I say this so as to avoid the charge that I've made artificial additions to either of the following lists.

~G entails the following: (1) Either physicalism is true (i.e., reality consists entirely of the entities described by science) or physicalism is false.

G entails the following: (1) Physicalism is false; i.e., there exists a transcendent reality, which consists, at least in part, of a being - call it "B" - that somehow brought about the physical world. (2) B is intelligent. (3) B has a moral character. (4) There is some unknown good, the nature of which exceeds our present powers of comprehension, for the sake of whose attainment B has decided to permit all the suffering the physical world contains.

My contention is that ~G is more parsimonious, and thus more credible, than G. I base this simply on the fact that G requires a greater quantity of undecidable propositions to be true.

And notice this: Deism requires the truth of only the first two propositions entailed by G. Maltheism (the view that God exists but is evil) requires the truth of the first three propositions entailed by G. So, if we are to indulge in metaphysical speculation, here are our options on the God question, in decreasing order of parsimony (and therefore credibility): "No God," deism, maltheism, theism.

I fairly strongly suspect that the thrust of my argument is correct, but I might need to make a few minor adjustments. One of my professors (a Thomist) had no response to it other than to remind me that in order for the argument to work, any argument such as these:



...must be unsound.



I could comment on these arguments as well, if you'd like, but I'm afraid I've already taken up enough space with this post. If not, I'd just recommend you take a look at the massive literature on them, e.g. the books I listed.

Not seen this one (completely) yet:
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss: Something from Nothing, at ANU
They do refer to the Q&A with Pell in the beginning, it's interesting to get Dawkins' own reaction to that debate.

This one is from the Arizona State University. Haven't watched it either:
Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss - ASU Feb 4, 2012

Here are the old ones:
"A Universe From Nothing" - Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins
The first one, I think: Lawrence Krauss Discussion (1/12) - Richard Dawkins

I don't know about you guys - but this idea of a universe from nothing challenges my idea of the origin of the universe yet another time:
As a theist from a Hindu background: the universe is basically eternal, albeit with cycles of creation/destruction.
As an atheist teenager: Big Bang theory (the current scientific consensus).
Now, adult: Krauss comes along with his hypothesis - "a universe from nothing" and says that it is the only universe that makes sense as it would be the only one to have zero energy.

Where do you rationalists, secularists, and atheists, stand when asked the question : Where did the universe come from?
(i) Singularity from the Big Bang theory, OR
(ii) We don't know, scientists/physicists are working on it, OR
(iii) Nothing!
I used to answer (i), but now with the multiverse, universe from nothing, etc - I just answer (ii) - I feel it's more honest.

Q Continuum (fictional extradimensional plane in Star Trek)
It has been suggested by Quinn that when the Q gave up their physicality and achieved their Godlike powers, they also gave up any chance of growth or evolution, thus leading to stagnation (since change was unnecessary).

Deva realm (buddhism - first realm)
We can become addicted to pleasure here, including meditative bliss, and can become trapped, forgetting to work towards liberation, and falling into lower realms because of this forgetfulness and self-absorption.

My point is this; "here" seems a good place to learn, we're affected by the decisions we make (cause and effect). Only with an existance in a material Universe can we begin to achieve any "growth" or
progression?
Why would G stay around observing us in our primitive state if he/she is aware of the need to move on in order to avoid the above?
This is only an attempt at explaining why we (may never) have yet to find any solid proof either way. G has simply moved on, it being illogical to remain in any dimension observable by us.

Which again requires several more unprovable assumptions...