The Dawkins Delusion

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Apr 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    First off, comparing the religious Scriptures linguistics for ,The God, in a fallacious attempt to trump the Scientific proof of natural selection does not prove the religious scriptures correct on, God in Quantum Physics, just Because it says "I Am, The God". On one hand you have religious scriptures backed by no proof And on the other separate hand we have Scientific proof through Natural selection which is conducted by Studying & Observing Biology, cosmology (anthropic principle), and planetary evolution to explain the facts. Now, How do you explain the creator of God ? You can't. No Physicist can explain that one. Which is why it is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. it Obvious your reply will be intune with the Religious scripture, God is enteral. Which makes your whole Argument fallaciously based on nothing but Blind faith dogma. e.i. Default logic. And as i explained else where, Occam's razor bends towards natural selection.

    Secondly, As For an Object being in Two places at one time, means, another paralle Universe. First you have to Understand the word.... Object. An object is something tangible. However, I'll give you the scientific Natural selection Alternative based on Quantum Physics, because it works with tangibility. Instead of relying on Defult logic to base a baseless argument on Religious Scriptures linguistics for, The God, inorder to state a fallacious demagoguery Argument. You're also committing the fallacy of browbeat at this point.

    From what I recall Dawkins exclaims the best scienctific tool working on ultra unvierses is natural selection. The other diamentions (Paralle Universes) Our Universe is the by-product of others, hence our statistical Survival. However, He also goes on to exclaim from what I recall, natural selection isn't the only narrow scientistic way, (improbability just has to be done scienfitically through a Crane not through sky-hookery.) He Then mentions, Inflation as occupying some fractions of the first yoctosecond of the universe's existence will turn out, when it is better understood, to be a cosmological crane to stand alongside Darwin's Biological one. Or perhaps the elusive crane that cosmologists seek will be a version of Darwin's Idea itself: Either smolin's model or something similar. or maybe it will be the Multiverse plus anthropic principle espoused by Martin rees.LOL - Hell, It could even turn out to be a superhuman designer but, if so, it will most certainly not be a designer that just popped into existence, or that always existed. ( Which rational scientist not on templeton foundation pay roll contemplates for a Moment, except the religious and you the meme) If our universe was designed, and even more so if the designer reads our thoughts and hands out Omniscient Advice, Forgiveness and redemption, The desinger himself must be the end product of some kind of Cumlative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another Univerese.


    What he is saying is the Probability that God almost does not exist is scienfitically Evident. The more science explains, the God Gaps you worship disappear.Natural selection is based on evidence and is the Alternative to ID which is based on nothing or deflaut logic. Natural selection actually keeps explaining new evidence in slow but stead Increments up a pathway toward reaching the top of mount improbable for the much awaited peek. Natural selection is evidence in a self-bootstrapping crane, Unlike ID which is unsupported thought denying Skyhookery.

    I find your argument a redundant Ad nauseum fallacy.
    You have a class A sickness in the delusional belief of God.
    test
  3. KingMenace

    KingMenace YOU MAD.

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,001
    I haven't read the book, but it appears he is saying that time is only a human measure of space in relation to itself. We must be everywhere we can be, not 'at the same time', but within infinity.

    Well, no, there's nothing to disprove!

    Redundant in what sense?

    This seems very unreasonable, in fact, I admit it is only 'rational' When we know, we know for sure, or we don't know.

    Atheism is no contest.

    Eternity means the most to the godless! lol
    test
  4. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You haven't disproved a thing.

    You don't get it. noone like you gets it.
    Modern religion can and does lead to fanaticism.

    You keep on not getting it, Because you don't want to get it.
    You're fucking religiously delusional. You're the American taliban buddy-boy.
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    test
  7. [youtube]c8eBuDJuxfM[/youtube]
    test
  8. test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Azue, You're fucking retarded. Thought You weren't talking to me? LOL!
    That bullshit you mentioned is not what I was refering too. Jesus christ. You're hopeless. Noone called you hitler either, For one thing your not
    smart enough.
    test
  10. Thats why I dont argue with him, its like speaking in hygroglyphics to a dinosaur.
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I think your 100% right.
    test
  12. Dawkins raises an interesting point when he asks why are we so quick to cast aside notions of Zeus and the flying spaghetti monster, and fairy tales, yet we embrace a thing like God when we have just as little evidence to conclude its existence.
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I say Flying tea-pots exist, that is my belief, you are not allowed to question my belief, But you must be controlled by it. After all how can you dispove a Flying tea-pot? LOL! Indeed he does.

    He also speaks about how religious people are more afraid of dying than
    non-religious people. One would think it'd be the opposite way around.
    Honestly, The Elderly who are religious should be paying doctor kevorkians everywhere for their services. Heaven is the most sought goal after all.

    I personally agree, the God of the religiosity is a paedomorphosis. God is not real, but a man-made-mind-minisfation that works like the Imaginary friends to Christopher robbins. Chris thinks for winnie the pooh, Therefore, Winnie the pooh has thoughts. Chris speaks for winnie the pooh, therefore, Winnie the pooh speaks words. Chris can tell winnie the pooh, his deep darkest secerts. In turn Winnie the pooh being of Chris's subconscious contemplation, is listening, Only really, it is chris thinking to himself and providing the answers. That other wise his Mom, Dad, might have helped him answer. chris's Parents however, were never involved. While God, no I mean Winnie the pooh, No I meant Your MIND is. This is how I think the religious scriptures were wrote as well.

    The MIND is the key, not some fake God.
    test
  14. your winnie the pooh analogy put me in the one hundred acre wood, I was chillen with piglet for a minute.
    test
  15. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    The bombshell however is, Not a single atom that is in your body today was there, when that event took place. And rocks and stones are really just empty space we think of as hard because or minds have not evolved to see atoms.

    And because of inertia a light object and a heavier object dropped from the same height at the same time will land simultaneously.
    test
  16. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    test
  17. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Azues, You missed the point again. You're talking of the religious who strongly believed.

    What Dawkins is refering to is, Those christians who say they believe but are actually afraid of their deaths. He is saying they don't actually believe in the Placebo they are prescribed or prescribing.


    The irony is, 95% of the population of the united States believe they will survive their own death. But How many of them who claim such belief ,really, in their heart of hearts, hold it. Dawkin's made an excellent point to me, If they were truely sincere, shouldn't they all behave like the abbot of Ampleforth?

    abbot of Ampleforth E.g., Cardinal Basil hume told abbot that he was dying. the abbot was delighted for him: "Congratulations! That's brilliant news. I wish I was coming with you." The Abbot was a Sincere believer.

    In my view, Why aren't all these religioisty in a mad rush like true believers such as the abbot to get to heaven? If that is truely what 95%believe why aren't they hiring doctor kevorkians? Because most of them truely feel, life after death, is nothing more than a Placebo prescribed by religious belief.


    Thomas jefferson wrote to several of his friends that he faced the approaching end without either "hope or fear". Mark twain wrote, "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

    I can't speak for them, But I think of Death through shakespeare's seven ages of man. Man dies by slowly morphing into the next before existing.
    test
  18. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    This is actually one of the weakest parts of the atheist argument, I think.

    A basic tenet of science is that something can't come from nothing. Energy can't be destroyed or created. A traditional notion of God answers this conundrum: God did it. Now obviously this brings up the question of "what created God? How is it possible for God to come from nothing?" but any solution science can offer will suffer from the same problems. Religion doesn't deny these paradoxes, it just says we can't answer them. Science doesn't deny these paradoxes, it just says we can't answer them.

    So a traditional God is a logical answer to a very real problem. The flying spaghetti monster, as it is traditionally portrayed, doesn't offer any logical answers to said problem in any way. Therefore it makes no sense to place God and the flying spaghetti monster in the same category, just because neither can be proven. I can't prove my existence either, yet you wouldn't place that in the same category just because I believe I exist.

    See, I'm agnostic and I've never believed in God. But ask the question "how can something come from nothing? Where did the universe come from?" and a religious person will tell you God did it because He isn't a slave to the laws of this universe and that He has always been here. A scientist would tell you, I would imagine, that their best guess is that there's something outside of the universe as we know it that doesn't operate on the same laws. Or that the universe has always been here.

    From where I'm standing, there's no difference in those answers.
    test
  19. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    test
  20. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)