We "marvel at the gift" without a acknowledging the giver. Richard, you speak of understanding the reason you are here as if you had solved the mystery. How far we all are from truly understanding anything! I really appreciate the gift of having a car. I do not know the engineer, I have not seen the engineer.... What evidence is there that there even is an engineer..... well.... I suppose my car. Cars don't design themselves.
what a arrogant statement, for wanting to be different then his counterparts hes really quite like them, he has all the answers will smiling and expects u to follow in suit, why id say hes every bit as stupid as Jimmy swaggert and arrogant as Rush Limbaugh. Yet the highbrows who want to pat theriselves on the back for being like him bought his books, my religion is simple, their are endless possibilites and swaggert and the cerebral arrogant dont have the answers
@guitargold77 Dawkins is neither arrogant nor stupid. I think he feels a genuine sense of outrage when people (especially children) are encouraged to accept folk tales, 'simple' religion and other such simplistic nonsense as a substitute for searching for the truth. If he sounds arrogant, it's because he knows what he's talking about -- oh, and because he has an educated British accent. Science may excite everyone, but everyone knows it's the only game in town interested in truth.
@kelco93 I see the opposite, body movements give off signals so does his phrasing. I never hear a atheist compare the likelihood of god to that of unknown alien life, its always faires, santa, or elves. He also expresses if you are enlightened, intelligent you believe only in what you can see, that is arrogance. The fairy comment is always a sting, like body language even if you dont realize it. Atheist are as absolute as those on the other end, like creationalist, 2 sides of a coin
@guitargold77 I dont have a problem with those who teach religions I find odd, say mormonism, as long as it isnt dangerous or threating. Each child can make up their mind in time, or live with their decsion. I know religious people who unlike me question nothing, & are happier for it, maybe ignorance is bliss. The most important philosp. I use is first the universe if full of possibilites, 2nd The smartest on this planet is a fool if he doesnt see he can learn from anybody else
yeah, cause, you know, if you want to find a "random flock" of people to ask about theism, the most unbiased place to look would be outside a cathedral
@prskaloo1 The thing you need to understand is that genes don't control behavior. Genes build brains, and brains cause behavior. And developing brains are influenced by environment (you might say the whole point of a brain is to respond to the environment).
So my point is there may be a genetic component (resulting in a difference in the brain) but there is definitely a enviro component.
The key word you need is "heritability", google it with homosexuality - lots of good information.
>The thing you need to understand is that genes don't control behavior
why would you assume i don't understand that? gens hold information about us, but of course our behavior is product of our gens and environment. I think what you'r trying to tell me is that homosexuality doesn't have to be inherited at all but may be a product of an environmental circumstances only thus not violating any evolutionary rules?
theory of evolution: variety of life through random mutations and natural selection
homosexual specimens are not going to pass the natural selection obviously, so if it is genetic variation how come it occurred-it had to be somehow connected to the survival of the specie- which looks like a contradiction from my point of view. daemonowner accuses me of being narrow minded and that having more offspring is far from enough to take into consideration. So a response would be to clarify how that...
to my knowledge; homosexual behavior exists in animal world but it has never been documented where a male would behave in a homosexual manner if he had an 'available' female (only in isolationism, or due to hierarchy)- maybe you know is that not true? tnx, watched the video:)
Oh for shit's sake - here it is, the 21st century, we've got IPads, supercolliders, the internet, etc., etc., etc., - and yet we're still arguing about whether or not there's a bearded fairy up in the sky somewhere, or a boogeyman (Satan) under our beds. Sometimes I feel like Richard Dawkins is the only grown-up in the room.
@Zwemer100 According to a 2005 Eurostat Eurobarometer poll, 52% of European Union citizens responded that "they believe there is a God" - This leaves a whole lot of Europe with non believers. Society would be fine. What would we lose that we need?
9:36 "This gift of understanding. Why we exist" er... sorry, but where is there in science ANY kind of explanatn of WHY. Science ONLY evr tells us: HOW we (PROBABLY) came about. Science ABSOLUTELY &TOTALLY LACKS any explanatn of any kind of purpose othr than pure materialism. &b4 I hear "There is no reason, get over it" this doesn't negate my point, it's concurrence. Othr than religion or spirituality, I know of no othr endeavr that properly seeks to answr this. ERGO: SCIENCE IS MEANINGLESS !
I think that the word "why" may have some more down to earth uses that just the great 'bootless' empty-hearted wail to the cold uncaring and indifferent expanse of the universe for which you use it. e.g. why do fish have gills and not lungs; why do birds fly south in winter; why DO large brained primates become so infatuated with the idea of a cosmic purpose? Science answers all of these why questions quite adequately!
@kelco93 Oh u r ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!! "why" can hav more mundane uses than "why we exist", but I wasn't referring 2 th mundane of why we have formed in the way we hav formed or why we act & do th things we do, i was responding 2 th hallowed professor's statements that science gives us something greater than focus & detail of how physical entities persist i.e. that somehow science tells us for what purpose we r here & why r we as conscious & knowing as we r OTHER than th mundane
I would love to see a survey of nonbelievers like myself to determine just how many are depressed and anxious, due to the utter despair felt when witnessing so many religious zealots who've been brain-washed into hating others, denying human-caused climate change, etc.
I fear for the future of my children/grandchildren as "faithiests" fight tooth and nail to force their beliefs on everyone else.
@jonsufc A large contention is obviously The Big Bang. I wouldn't credit it as a God in the sense that we should be worshiping the experience, but I do contend that the creation of our universe is really quite magnificent. However, the theory isn't an absolute truth. The beauty of Atheism is that you don't *need* to have the answers. Atheism is the lack of belief, not the knowing of all. All in all, we don't know how we got here. But filling in the gaps with fairy tales does humanity no favors.
To anyone who thinks Theism is stupid: you believe thousands of years ago, the elite decided they were going to control everyone by telling them the guy who created the universe appeared to them and only them and everybody believed it. No one else ever saw him, the guy then kept appearing only to them, telling them stuff until they had 2000 pages worth of info from him and everybody believed the elite without proof until a few people here and there figured it out, thousands of years later.
@gymguy25 What? If you were refering to the time of Jesus, then I think that there was likely an eccentric and possibly apocalyptic jewish rabbi spreading new teachings around at the time, and he was later crucified and the legend spread, continuing to change as he did not return. If you were refering to judaism, then I don't know much about that, but it is known that judiasm parted from the earlier canaanite religions, and wasn't any more peculiar than they were.
@gymguy25 That would be a good argument if only anyone actually thought what you claim they think. No, religion is actually quite natural and nobody (rational) thinks that Christianity came about the way that you've described. You can think theism is stupid without having even heard of Christianity or the Bible. However anyone who thinks it's stupid would be quite foolish themselves.
i was referring to what RD said at the end of the interview, that science gives answer to 'why are we here' but hasn't answered it- to my knowledge it's to reproduce. i don't think that's a thrilling answer (not implying that life isn't thrilling with or without god :) )
@prskaloo1 so what if it is? It's a real answer that you have to accept. There is need to know more but until we find this out it'll be wrong to fill the void with fariytale and nonsence which is soo outdated, medevil and cultish. Regious people are mentally hypnotised and it's wrong to teach children about the creation tale. It's a dumbing down of society and also a form of brainwashing!
well why don't you read what i posted... rd was talking about how science has the answer to this question but NEVER answered it AND that's what i was talking about. wtf?
@prskaloo1 A two post answer from Bertrand Russell: if, in the course of a tramp in the mountains, you find an inn just when your thirst has become unendurable, the efficient cause of the inn is the actions of the bricklayers that built it, while its final cause is the satisfaction of your thirst. If someone were to ask 'why is there an inn there?' it would be equally appropriate to answer 'because someone had it
built there' or 'because many thirsty travellers pass that way'...
@prskaloo1 ...One is an explanation by the 'efficient' cause and the other by the 'final' cause. Where human affairs are concerned, the explanation by 'final' cause is often appropriate, since human actions have purposes. But where inanimate nature is concerned, only 'efficient' causes have been found scientifically discoverable, and the attempt to explain phenomena by 'final' causes has always led to bad science.
I think Dawkins means "why we are here" in the 'efficient' cause sense.
@prskaloo1 When I first read that a few years ago (it's from an essay called “Ideas That Have Helped Mankind” from 1950). It got me wondering how many arguments are over nothing more that the meaning of words - maybe if we all asked "what do you mean" (expecting to be surprised) before saying "you're wrong" we'd have less arguments.
Anyhow Bertrand Russell - a great thinker a great wit and much of his stuff is public domain (go to project gutenberg or just google).
i know him as a mathematician, but don't know his works in other fields, maybe you heard of russells paradox, it's quite amusing:). anyway i'v posted and corrected my self that he probably wasn't referring to purpose of our existence but rather how we came to be, but never the less i would love to hear his opinion on the purpose one without atheist jumping to conclusion that i'm a deluded worshiper of superstitious god
@prskaloo1 I had a go at some of his "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" but it went over my head pretty quickly (never really got enthused about maths - often wished I'd tried harder ... maybe one day). I enjoyed "Enquiry into Meaning and Truth" and "Problems of Philosophy" (which I downloaded from Project Gutenburg). I suspect Dawkins and Russell would have been pretty much in agreement on the subject of purpose too.
i'm a mathematician so i guess it came easy for me. As i said before answer to why we are here from an 'efficient' cause would be to pass on our genes. but you don't have to answer to the purpose question as if it would be a fact, just was curious for an opinion- because i think it's such a natural question.
> I suspect Dawkins and Russell would have been pretty much in agreement on the subject of purpose too.
if by that you mean they wouldn't want to respond to it :)
@prskaloo1 No, "to pass on our genes" would still imply a final cause. It's really hard to get free of the teleological assumptions that say everything (including us) must have a purpose or need a reason to justify our existence. If you realise that the universe is just a bunch of stuff that's happening; life is one of the rarest things in it and you're part of it - it's hard not to feel like you've one an amazing lottery! Can't understand why religios feel it's empty w'out purpose!
> "to pass on our genes" would still imply a final cause
you'r right, let me rephrase, 'efficient' cause:why are we here? we are here because of our ancestors who passed their gens to us.
> It's really hard to get free of the teleological assumptions that say everything (including us) must have a purpose or need a reason to justify our existence
#1 why is that a teleological assumption?
#2 how does being interested in possible purpose of our existence automatically mean that you...
@prskaloo1 "it is so natural for a conscious creature to be asking that" Yes exactly, you might say that teleological assumptions are kind of 'hard-wired' into us - we like to look at everything it terms of 'what's it for?'. It has probably helped to organise early social structures and win some early evolutionary ground. I think now, it is the source of most of the avoidable suffering in the world and (incidentally) religion too. (It's OK for small groups but it doesn't scale well!)
@prskaloo1 If you have the impression that I think wondering about purpose excludes admiring existence then I have somehow misled you. When I said "life is one of the rarest things in the universe and you're part of it - it's hard not to feel like you've won an amazing lottery!" that was a statement of awe and admiration!
Not theologic but teleologic- means looking at the world as tho' everything has a purpose and is fulfilling its 'destiny' (divine mind needed to provide purpose).
@prskaloo1 The real reason for life is obvioulsy to reproduce. Not Thrilling? No, more thrilling to know you'll live forever?! maybe, I personally like the fact that there's only 1 life and you have to make the most of it. We only get one shot.
@prskaloo1 are you implying that most religious reasons for existence, such as worshiping God and obeying him, are any more thrilling (or better in any way) than secular reasons?
no i'm implying that he repeats it over and over again but never answers it. since you mentioned it some religious believes: life after death, some sort of heaven, are far more appealing than to reproduce (and by that i'm not implying that they are true just that they may seem more appealing than no reason at all, or to reproduce)
@prskaloo1 oh OK. Well, for conscious beings the need for a species to reproduce itself and survive may not seem too grand and immediately relevant compared to serving whatever Gods or God they may believe in and being rewarded for their faith.
A secular justification for life might be to care for the people around you and be happy, but in the end the reason we are alive is that our forefathers passed their genes on to us, and it only follows that we continue the process.
>A secular justification for life might be to care for the people around you and be happy
well that's a religious aspect of life too
maybe i understood 'why are we here' a little bit wrong... i think he means how we are here and why do we continue to be here rather than purpose of our existence
Ask the following question from A muslim.The question: Assume a religion is made which says : Muslims are worse than animals , bastards and must pay jiziyah ( 50% extra tax of their income) , muslims must be subdued and killed. Ask them then: Is such a religion evil and must be eradicated or not ?
None of them ( Muslims)will answer this question and run like rats to hide in their holes. Why ? cuz :
The above is quranic teachings. I just changed the word non-muslim to muslim. Try it
Little comment at the title. Maybe Jesus was an atheïst and just chose not to show it but instead tries to make society better by spreading religion which is a good thing for immoral people, people who have no reason to be good or just people who are less intelligent than others (you have to excuse me for my arrogance).
Weird, the video never showed Dawkins saying that 'someone as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist'. Why the fuck is that on the title? lol
Anyone read 'The God Delusion?" What an insighful book. I believed in a personal God before I read the God delusion. Dawkins book made me rethink. Now I believe in evidence.
I would love to get the chance to speak with Prof. Dawkins. What a waste that so called 'interview' was. I'd love to talk about evolution, life. Not the god thing. True science and evolution which Prof. Dawkins knows a lot about. (This is such a waste.)
@101truthhurts I agree, Prof. Dawkins is wasting his talents talking to morons like these. There is probably no one else in the world who could teach you more about life and biology.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
@hislord1 I guess that's what I get for trying to make an intelligent observation. Mathematics is the same in all possible worlds, so therefore, with an infinite set of possible worlds, it is of a worth far beyond that of biological knowledge in one possible world. Please try to be polite in future. Maybe study more? I find people with little wisdom and knowledge resort to argumentum ad hominem far more often. Finally,as a Mathematician,if I have "s*** for brains", what does this imply you have?
I think Dawkin's meme (virus of the mind) theory is brilliant, and there is a truth in it. But I think I have an insight on it that changes all. Memes demand consciousness as their "carriers". Memes travel through consciousness, necessarily. But I think that there's a part of consciousness that memes can't access, which oversees everything, deleting bad memes, as when we tune out, withdrawal, take our rest (also holy spirit). That's why "viruses" don't rule us unless we're always on overdrive.
@Edvun7 Well dawkins has never said there is no god. It's just there's no evidence for one so thus you dont put him in. As a scientist you are useless if you put god into something you cant explain.
@dawtchins Philosophy, Mathematics and Music. They are the three most intellectual disciplines. Philosophy is far from dead- for science is not omniscient.
@JSM44677 See how far philosphy would get in the quantumn world. Philosophy was science untill we discovered everything we could while in an armchair or on a table top/
Its funny how he argues that religion is a business... but Dawkins is your rich priest. Richard Dawkins has blinded these so called atheists who are in fact agnostics due to the major argument of the lack of evidence for God. When in fact you trample yourselves to look into science rather than religion. There is evidence for God that is overwhelmingly strong. For example Chariots found in the Red Sea. Religion is exposed to look fake due to its complexity when in fact science is theory.
@rapid7fire Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be agnostic in the sense of being not absolutely sure but still unbelieving (atheist) because there is no good reason to believe, just as there is no good reason to believe in unicorns, werewolves or the loch ness monster.
@ukatam Actually you are wrong. Being agnostic is a relativist point of view thus you have no belief in a higher being yet still encourage evidence for a higher being. However being an atheist is an absolutist term why? Because it is a point of view were by a higher being does NOT exist. So yes they are most definitely exclusive.Because one excludes a higher being whilst one would prefer to believe with evidence that there is a higher.Therefore agnostics do not reject a higher being completely.
@rapid7fire actually, ukatam is right, you are wrong... gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge and atheism/theism refers to belief... So gnostic atheist means "someone who doesn't believe in/worship any gods and knows there is no such being", agnostic "someone who doesn't believe in/worship any gods but does not make any claim about their existence"
@tangelorajan Since you have defined both of them they must mean different things this actually points out that I am correct in that they are exclusive. For example Christianity and Hinduism are both religious yet they are overwhelmingly exclusive from each other. This is the same for Atheism and Agnosticism as (Atheism) is absolutist and (Agnosticism) is relativist. Thus they are exclusive as one denies a higher being and the other searches for evidence for a higher being yet is in disbelief.
@rapid7fire ATHEISM IS NOT ABSOLUTIST...........where do you get this from??? I am an atheist. I do not profess a belief in a God. However I acknowledge my fallibility by also professing agnosticism with regard to that lack of belief. For me the term 'God' cannot be defined therefore I find it silly to believe in the undefinable, let alone unprovable. Why is this such an issue anyway?
@ukatam I didn't ask for your opinion as an atheist. The actually definition of an atheist matters to me not your point of view. If you have no belief in God this is absolute (Atheist). If you believe in a higher being (God) then your are absolutist because your faith requires to believe absolutely. Otherwise religion does not exist thus Atheism does not exist. Agnosticism is therefore relativist.
@rapid7fire It's actually impossible to be an absolutist in the position of atheism.To have an absolutist position on the issue would be to have the absolute knowledge,which we both know humans cannot have,being fallible creatures.Your faith may require you believe in a God with an absolutist stance,but is that based on absolute knowledge,or subjective thoughts and authority of man-made religions?The relativistic nature of God belief is evidenced clearly by the wide variety of theist stances.
@ukatam Well according to you atheism does not exist. Also you can have an absolutist position that's why believing in God is deontological. Also absolute knowledge is not required to have an absolute belief. Religion and Atheism is a belief. Belief only requires faith not knowledge because it is a choice. Knowledge is something we only require to study what we believe so it can be justified. Accordingly this produces fact. All of what I just said falls under epistemology.
@ukatam Oh using immaturity because you've basically been battered in an argument. Thought so... thanks for showing me Atheists are ignorant and illiterate.
@rapid7fire Continue believing that. You lied about Hitler and about the definition of atheism. Why would I bother spelling this shit out to you. I don't have a mandate to proselytize every person I come into an argument with. Now with this: "Also absolute knowledge is not required to have an absolute belief" -- not when it comes to god. The undefinable god is so flexible that to no matter what level of reasonable certainty you disprove its existence, you'll never be 100% sure.
@rapid7fire Continue believing that. You lied about Hitler and about the definition of atheism. Why would I bother spelling this shit out to you. I don't have a mandate to proselytize every person I come into an argument with. Now with this: "Also absolute knowledge is not required to have an absolute belief" -- not when it comes to god. The undefinable god is so flexible that to no matter what level of reasonable certainty you disprove its existence, you'll never be 100% sure.
@rapid7fire "Belief only requires faith not knowledge because it is a choice." This is a fundamental mistake: no-one can choose what they believe. All of our beliefs are based on our experiences from infancy and, indirectly, on what we are taught. The nearest we can get to *choosing* what we believe is when we choose to look only at the evidence which supports our belief - the name for that is "intellectual dishonesty" or "religion".
@kelco93 What a weak argument. Yes we can believe in what ever we want. It even explains in this video that a man changed from Catholicism to Atheism. Also what you call "intellectual dishonest religion" yet this can be directly applied to Atheism. Why? because according to you because we are brought up in a specific environment we cannot choice thus we are "intellectually dishonest".So if one was brought up to be an atheist then they are "intellectually dishonest".Everyone is a moral agent.
@kelco93 Also you have mistakenly provided a benefit towards religion as well. According to you we cannot choose to believe due to our experiences. Therefore Christianity comes from an experience from God which was Jesus therefore due to this primary experience it is therefore real as someone must of experienced it. Therefore the teachings of Jesus must have been real as someone experienced the teachings therefore it has carried on today (the Bible).
@rapid7fire Yes, your belief comes from your 'experience of god', as you like to call it. I am happy to agree that a real subjective experience is often associated with religious activity, be it Hindu or Voodoo, Christian or Rastafarian. Altered states of consciousness--religious or drug-induced--are addictive and lead to the kind of delusional thinking and circuitous argumentation which you demonstrate in your posts. There is enough beauty in reality without mythical embellishment.
@kelco93 You said belief comes from experience not me. So you are the one who must believe in hallucination because there real images. So I'm afraid to say I do not believe in your ridiculous philosophy of everything coming from experience alone. This is your ridiculous argument. Keep it to yourself because obviously you don't know what your talking about and you have basically justified hallucinations to be reality as it is an experience. Seems like atheists are the ones who are confused.
@rapid7fire yes, I said"belief comes from experience" and you agreed "Therefore Christianity comes from an experience from God".
I can only reiterate: subjective experiences are often associated with religious activity. Altered states of consciousness--religious or drug-induced--are addictive and lead to the kind of delusional thinking and circuitous argumentation which you demonstrate in your posts. Particularly when those delusions lead you to think that you know more than science.
@kelco93 I never agreed to your argument I simply pointed the massive flaw in it. As if I would belittle my self to such standards. Is it not obscure to put a human ear on a rat in the name of science. Or are scientists normal. Oh and may I say that in doing so the scientific community uses what could of been a human. Using stem cells from left over IVF treatments. Yeah religion is so unhealthy even though we help the poor no matter what religion or circumstance.
@rapid7fire Also the drugs that you refer to that create these illusions are know created by your so called "healthy" minded scientists. You define science as the summum bonum of life yet it causes what is called the 'slippery slope'.
@rapid7fire Actually you didn't point out any flaw you just became insulting, rude and sarcastic -- as you have done in this post with the addition of moralistic yet incoherent ranting.
Resorting to such a strategy amounts a capitulation on your part with respect a rational discussion. I don't expect you acknowledge it as such, as it seems to be a common 'strategy' among the deluded to erroneously conflate many poor arguments and try to pass them off as a single good argument.
@kelco93 Actually you will find my manner as being truthful. Why? because there is obviously a massive flaw in your philosophy of experience cause you have justified religion. Yet you have said that hallucinations are relatively fake and are ridiculous but they are experiences so according to you they must be true thus real. This is not a strategy I am just simply pointing out a flaw. That is how debates work... I do apologise if I have caused distraught which tells me you are rational.
@rapid7fire You are not pointing out a flaw you are demonstrating your (deliberate?) failure to apply your mind to what I said so that you might understand what it was that I meant. You are like the scribes and Pharisees who tried to catch a man in his words so that no matter what he says you can show that he is wrong. Remember Balaam - he had to learn wisdom from the mouth of a donkey!
@kelco93 Define (Debate):To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Your philosophy of a posteriori knowledge is flawed unless your to ignorant to understand or accept that it is. If we acknowledge things from out experiences then the experience of religion must of been caused by Jesus a subject of physical experience. Therefore your so called atheist philosophy is most defiantly flawed. Also this would mean that infinite regression does not exist due to a 'prime mover' of some sort.
@rapid7fire Flaws can be pointed out in philosophy this can be seen between great philosophers such as Plato's a priori knowledge against Aristotle's a posteriori knowledge. Anselm's ontological argument against Gaunilo's perfect island. You have no clue of how an argument works and it is quite boring to repeat myself.
@rapid7fire You posted that exact comment for someone else a few days ago (spelling and grammatical mistakes and all). I can't remember who it was but they refuted you soundly as I recall. Which I thought, at the time, was rather clever because as far as I can tell your post is largely incoherent.
Before I respond could you put it into your own words so that it makes sense (and so that I can see that you understand it yourself) and explain how it relates to our previous discussion?
@kelco93 Acting like a true scientist aren't we... 'I cant remember' good evidence sounds like your acknowledgement of religion doesn't it. Selling things to someone with blank knowledge. Also you judging my grammar shows your argument is a complete failure.
@kelco93 I quote; 'All of our beliefs are based on our experiences from infancy and, indirectly, on what we are taught.' (THIS IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY). If our beliefs are based on our experiences then you are stating that Jesus exists. Why? Because for someone to believe in Christianity it must of come form an experience according to you. Therefore Christianity came into existence through the experience of Jesus. So according to you this is why Christianity is a belief. So Jesus must of been real.
2. to believe in Christianity it must [have] come form an experience: YES
None of the rest follows.
A dream (for example) is an experience, but we don't use it as a foundation for logical claims about the real world.
A religious experience in one religion is similar to any other. The conclusions drawn from each will be equally compelling but completely different according to the tradition involved.
@kelco93 I'm not implying anything upon your philosophy. Although you don't include this in your atheistic recipe it still exists in your argument because its so broad. Also you have contradicted yourself again. I quote; ("according to me") so this must mean that you believe because its your opinion not because of experience. Define (belief): Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. I don't care what you think it means this is what the actual word means.
@rapid7fire Yes I know what belief means. You missed the quotes -- well actually you copied and pasted them without noticing them -- I was referring to your comment in which you said "according to you" (when you were referring to me) so my implication when I said "according to me" was that that is what you had meant (restated to make sense from my perspective) when you said "according to you". I hope that clears it up. Oh and yes you implied my statement meant I believe in Jesus.
@kelco93 Wow that has got to be the most unclear paragraph I have ever seen. I have not implied nor did I imply that you believe in Jesus. Once again I pointed out a FLAW in your argument to which it would provide that Jesus exists. This was a flaw seeming that you are an atheist your philosophy would be based on an atheistic argument. However the flaw was it couldn't be an atheistic argument because it supports religion more than anything.
@kelco93 Also the subject of a dream cannot be comparable to God. God is something which nothing greater can exist. We can all conceive of a perfect being in our minds however we can conceive of an even greater being that exists both in our minds and in reality. Something that exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something that exists only in the mind. Therefore God must exist in reality because nothing greater can be perceived.
@rapid7fire "God is something which nothing greater can exist" That's your preferred definition. I prefer "God is something which cannot exist". Your philosophising about things 'existing' in the mind makes a mockery of any useful meaning of the word "exist" -- and yes, before you start, I know Socrates/Plato thought there was a 'higher reality' which existed in the mind of God -- in that respect they were wrong. This line of argument is not logic it's sophistry.
@kelco93 This is not my definition this is the definition of God an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. That is the definition of God. Once again I do not care what you think the definition is. I prefer to read out of a dictionary which is the factual understanding of the word. Also Plato didn't believe in a God he believed in the Demiurge which is far from God. If your mind is to exist then things must exist in your mind. The mind is contingent.
@rapid7fire "the definition of God an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being."
That definition contradicts itself. Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?
Also mankind's benevolence is more complicated than saying stealing is an adaptive behaviour. Social animals have a higher objective than that related to getting along with one another for the good of the species.
You should have studied this in high school, it's pretty basic Evolutionary theory.
@warren52nz 'That definition contradicts itself. Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?' The answer to this is that God is limitless. Also of animals are so sympathetic and work as a society then what is the evolutionary theory of Survival of the fittest? isn't this basic evolutionary knowledge. Also in what way is the definition of God contradictory. Also you must believe in adaptive behaviour if you believe in evolution.
@prskaloo1 As an evolutionist, so to speak, I can say it poses no argument against evolution as there are proposed mechanisms by which homosexuality would be selected for. I don't know how familiar you are with genetics, but homosexuality may be associated with higher fertility in females because of linked genes, if I remember correctly. I would suggest looking it up, just a google search to get an overview perhaps.
Also, evolutionists don't have a fixed moral opinion on it.
> evolutionists don't have a fixed moral opinion on it
let's leave morality out of it. I have looked at some arguments. It's a fact that there is recorded homosexuality in animal world, but the explanation is: homosexuality occurred only in those situations where there was no femails available (do to the hierarchy or isolation), but it was recorded that they 'abandon' that sort of behavior soon as there was any female accessible. So it's not a way of it was a certain behavior
... now we have homosexual behavior as a way of life, that is not documented in animal world.
> I can say it poses no argument against evolution
the number one thing is passing on the good gens for the next generation, now homosexuality is not passing on the gens at all, which is an imperative in TE so that is a contradiction
@prskaloo1 Apparently you don't have a good understanding of genetics. Look up what Linked Genes are. There is waaay more to take into consideration than the simple minded view that you would have more offspring by having heterosexual sex.
@prskaloo1 "passing on the genes ...an imperative in TE so that is a contradiction" your question is not entirely clear. Are you looking for an evolutionary basis (efficient cause) for the existence of homosexuality? Or an evolutionary justification (final cause) i.e. a way to say it is either OK or bad?
i'v posted that i'm not interested in the morality of it so obviously i'm interested in efficient cause... i'm just trying to rap my mind about it using basic logic, and ofcourse there are some factors that i'v missed, as daemonowner pointed out genetics is not my field of expertise but i do have some basic knowledge... i hoped somebody could clear it out for me... apparently no- probably do to the lack of knowledge they have to explain the mechanics of it, anyways i will look it up
Is it a result of a genetic variation or a response to an environmental factor.
It is certainly true every foetus (prior to about 10 weeks gestation) has the capacity to express male or female physical characteristics and can 'go wrong' due to disturbances in prenatal hormone balance. Hence it it is thought that maternal stress levels during gestation may also contribute to variations in developing gender preferences.
@prskaloo1 So it may be that sexual preference is not hard coded into the genes.
If there is a genetic determinant (i.e. it is heritable - which is theoretically possible), then it will be an interesting exercise to find a mechanism by which the person's genetic fitness (which includes survival/reproductions rates of parents, brothers cousins) is improved by them being a non-competitive presence in the mating game or a benefit in the survival of related young.
@prskaloo1 I think that you, being a mathematician (newly?) interested in biological systems, would really enjoy reading Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene". It was written in 1976 so there have been many developments since then, but it is a really good starting point for "wrapping your mind around" the notion of evolution as natural expression of game-theory.
@prskaloo1 Maybe you already thought of everything I said?
I actually gave you a response which contained some facts regarding foetal development and the development of gender preferences, a theoretical explanation by which to consider them and a resource which could help to further your understanding. The only assumption I have made is that my education has not led me too far astray.
@prskaloo1 Not saying you shouldn't look it up of course. Quite the contrary - YouTube is never going to be an authoritative source of scientific information.
But if its all new to you you need to think about the question you want answering and take the suggestions of people who know a bit as starting points. Dawkins is actually an excellent starting point once you see the maths it will all fall into place (I suppose that's an assumption :/ )
@daemonowner You're a straight shooter daemonowner. I wonder if you'd enjoy this bit of R18 humour on the subject of the Bible and the 10 Commandments. If gutter language offends you perhaps not. If it doesn't bother you you'll probably have a very good laugh:
@rapid7fire "God is limitless" OK So he CAN make a rock that he can't pick up. Oh wait, there's nothing he can't do so he CAN pick it up. Wait he failed at making the rock so he CAN'T do anything! 8^)
Survival of the fittest isn't an expression that Darwin used. It's much broader. Survival of the species is just as important so social behaviour is selected in a social species. Of course adaptive behaviour is a fact.
This was all covered in high school Biology, I'm not here to educate you.
@rapid7fire Also the Bible is full of stuff like "God remembered..." and "God saw how great wickedness had become and decided to wipe mankind from the face of the earth"
If he was omniscient, he would have known in advance that this was going to happen so he would have prevented it in his Mark I version of humans.
Now bring out the bullshit about free will, that's one of my favourites. 8^P
@warren52nz I don't know why you would think freewill would be a good argument. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there. Also God is only limited to what humans know. Humans remember, not God. Humans see, God doesn't. God is limited by our language therefore God is beyond to what we compare to our mere five senses. Therefore it is completely justified to say that these errors are created by limited human experience.
@rapid7fire Free will isn't my argument, Christians typically pull out the "free will" card to explain why God apparently fails to predict things, that's why he had to destroy everything in a flood. And why he had to ask where Adam & Eve were after she ate the fruit, etc, etc. According to the Bible he's not omniscient. You said it yourself:
@warren52nz Also if God is to be limitless then he would be able choose to remember and not to remember, he would be able to choose to see or not to see. Therefore he is limitless thus he is beyond our comprehension.
@rapid7fire "Also if God is to be limitless then he would be able choose to remember and not to remember"
Nice dodge, no cigar. 8^)
Look when you have to invent bullshit like that to defend something unworkable it's best just to discard the thing you're trying to defend. Try it, I did. Suddenly everything will make sense. Why did a statue of Jesus in Ohio get hit by lightning & burn to the ground? Tall metal objects attract lightning, simple. You explain it otherwise. God hates Jesus? 8^)
@rapid7fire "This is not my definition this is the definition of God an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being"? I thought you said it was "God is something which nothing greater can exist"? how come you can have two definitions but you wont let me even have one? And surely you can conceive of something greater than "an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being"?
@kelco93 Also you still haven't argued properly against my argument for the existence of God. Also who are you to say the minds does not exist. Then it is ridiculous to say that gravity exists. Gravity is immaterial like our mind. They cannot be defined by the five senses. Yet they can both be seen by its actions.You are a mockery to philosophy and Science.
@kelco93 Also you obviously do not know anything about Plato.The argument of higher reality is found in the Analogy of the Cave which is a strong argument.
@rapid7fire How very rude to begin a sentence with "you obviously do not know anything about ..." It would be far more polite to say "much" or even "as much as me" than to say "anything". If you read Plato's Republic you will find the concepts to which I refer.
My unclear paragraph? well it was perfectly coherent but I thought you would struggle with it because it was an an attempt at unravelling the circuitous spin you had put on my previous comments. Oh yes Flaw 500 chrs is too fe
@rapid7fire Just so you are clear - you are implying that I have said something which ("according to me") means any religions claims are true. That doesn't follow from my statements at all.
The point is that we learn about reality by experiencing it. Religious experiences are (possibly valuable) parts of reality but there is nothing about them which allows us to extrapolate beyond them and say: "I experienced a little green man - therefore little green men are real" (for example).
@prskaloo1 You can see that a teleological world view is at the root of nearly all unnecessary human suffering and is, incidentally, also a necessary precondition for religious belief?
> You can see that a teleological world view is at the root of nearly all unnecessary human suffering
maybe i'm missing something but no, can you give me an example?
one of the biggest suffering today is world hunger, which is totally unnecessary in the 21 century were we have some states that can produce the amount of food to feed the entire world- but evidently has nothing to do with teleological world view
@kelco93 Also your idea of religious people being delusional is in fact dangerous to society as it causes what is know as the 'slippery slope'. This is basically the eradication of others who do not classify as the preferred human who apparently do not contribute to society. Which refers back to Hitler's ideology of the Arian race. Nice to know you have the same ideology as a man that caused a war that concluded to 60 million deaths and a genocide of 6 million.
@rapid7fire You are an idiot. Quite simply, any study on this matter leads one to recognise that you don't necessarily end up on the path of eugenics and agreeing with Hitler, simply from accepting common ancestry and recognising the fact that religion is man made, created in a time when people didn't know any better.
It's amusing you label that as a slippery slope, because that's the fallacy you're committing.
@daemonowner No Richard Dawkins the man who you mimic even says religion is a disease. Not so different from Hitler's ideologies on Jews and other minorities. Also your morals in life come from religion preferably Christianity. Why? because you know it is wrong to kill otherwise your evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest would be overwhelming in your genes.Thus would cause you to survive in any circumstances such as stealing.Your morals come from Christians so you don't know any better.
0:30 hipster !!
mikesomething 4 hours ago
You don't need religion to have morals. You need God to have morals.
iluvujesus17 4 hours ago
@iluvujesus17 Nope.
Atheists comprise, in the US, the least imprisoned group per capita, except for Mormons.
The second and third richest men have donated billions, or pledged to donate tens of billions respectively and both are atheist.
Both have strong moral codes, I do as well. And none of the three of us "have God."
PaulusCunctator 3 hours ago
Interesting.
madder66mortem 5 hours ago
We "marvel at the gift" without a acknowledging the giver. Richard, you speak of understanding the reason you are here as if you had solved the mystery. How far we all are from truly understanding anything! I really appreciate the gift of having a car. I do not know the engineer, I have not seen the engineer.... What evidence is there that there even is an engineer..... well.... I suppose my car. Cars don't design themselves.
Tdubs241083 6 hours ago
what a arrogant statement, for wanting to be different then his counterparts hes really quite like them, he has all the answers will smiling and expects u to follow in suit, why id say hes every bit as stupid as Jimmy swaggert and arrogant as Rush Limbaugh. Yet the highbrows who want to pat theriselves on the back for being like him bought his books, my religion is simple, their are endless possibilites and swaggert and the cerebral arrogant dont have the answers
guitargold77 13 hours ago
@guitargold77 Dawkins is neither arrogant nor stupid. I think he feels a genuine sense of outrage when people (especially children) are encouraged to accept folk tales, 'simple' religion and other such simplistic nonsense as a substitute for searching for the truth. If he sounds arrogant, it's because he knows what he's talking about -- oh, and because he has an educated British accent. Science may excite everyone, but everyone knows it's the only game in town interested in truth.
kelco93 2 hours ago
@kelco93 I see the opposite, body movements give off signals so does his phrasing. I never hear a atheist compare the likelihood of god to that of unknown alien life, its always faires, santa, or elves. He also expresses if you are enlightened, intelligent you believe only in what you can see, that is arrogance. The fairy comment is always a sting, like body language even if you dont realize it. Atheist are as absolute as those on the other end, like creationalist, 2 sides of a coin
guitargold77 47 minutes ago
@guitargold77 I dont have a problem with those who teach religions I find odd, say mormonism, as long as it isnt dangerous or threating. Each child can make up their mind in time, or live with their decsion. I know religious people who unlike me question nothing, & are happier for it, maybe ignorance is bliss. The most important philosp. I use is first the universe if full of possibilites, 2nd The smartest on this planet is a fool if he doesnt see he can learn from anybody else
guitargold77 40 minutes ago
yeah, cause, you know, if you want to find a "random flock" of people to ask about theism, the most unbiased place to look would be outside a cathedral
supahsekzy 18 hours ago
... isn't a contradiction. yes you gave me one fact. the conclusion would be that it is a response due to stress.
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 The thing you need to understand is that genes don't control behavior. Genes build brains, and brains cause behavior. And developing brains are influenced by environment (you might say the whole point of a brain is to respond to the environment).
So my point is there may be a genetic component (resulting in a difference in the brain) but there is definitely a enviro component.
The key word you need is "heritability", google it with homosexuality - lots of good information.
kelco93 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelco93
>The thing you need to understand is that genes don't control behavior
why would you assume i don't understand that? gens hold information about us, but of course our behavior is product of our gens and environment. I think what you'r trying to tell me is that homosexuality doesn't have to be inherited at all but may be a product of an environmental circumstances only thus not violating any evolutionary rules?
prskaloo1 7 hours ago
theory of evolution: variety of life through random mutations and natural selection
homosexual specimens are not going to pass the natural selection obviously, so if it is genetic variation how come it occurred-it had to be somehow connected to the survival of the specie- which looks like a contradiction from my point of view. daemonowner accuses me of being narrow minded and that having more offspring is far from enough to take into consideration. So a response would be to clarify how that...
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 There is a video on youtube of Dawkins discussing different theories of how the gay gene survived.
watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
guywithface99 17 hours ago
@guywithface99
to my knowledge; homosexual behavior exists in animal world but it has never been documented where a male would behave in a homosexual manner if he had an 'available' female (only in isolationism, or due to hierarchy)- maybe you know is that not true? tnx, watched the video:)
prskaloo1 1 hour ago
Oh for shit's sake - here it is, the 21st century, we've got IPads, supercolliders, the internet, etc., etc., etc., - and yet we're still arguing about whether or not there's a bearded fairy up in the sky somewhere, or a boogeyman (Satan) under our beds. Sometimes I feel like Richard Dawkins is the only grown-up in the room.
Pipsqwak 1 day ago
What evidence does he have to say that a society without religion would work?
Zwemer100 2 days ago
@Zwemer100 Sweden.
stratocaster1986able 2 days ago
@Zwemer100 Japan.
stratocaster1986able 2 days ago
@Zwemer100 According to a 2005 Eurostat Eurobarometer poll, 52% of European Union citizens responded that "they believe there is a God" - This leaves a whole lot of Europe with non believers. Society would be fine. What would we lose that we need?
h3sniperman 2 days ago
Do they agree with him.
Yes, they do.
imrightyskeptical 3 days ago
9:36 "This gift of understanding. Why we exist" er... sorry, but where is there in science ANY kind of explanatn of WHY. Science ONLY evr tells us: HOW we (PROBABLY) came about. Science ABSOLUTELY &TOTALLY LACKS any explanatn of any kind of purpose othr than pure materialism. &b4 I hear "There is no reason, get over it" this doesn't negate my point, it's concurrence. Othr than religion or spirituality, I know of no othr endeavr that properly seeks to answr this. ERGO: SCIENCE IS MEANINGLESS !
m1s73r4nd3rs0n 3 days ago
@m1s73r4nd3rs0n "science is meaningless"? Define meaning.
I think that the word "why" may have some more down to earth uses that just the great 'bootless' empty-hearted wail to the cold uncaring and indifferent expanse of the universe for which you use it. e.g. why do fish have gills and not lungs; why do birds fly south in winter; why DO large brained primates become so infatuated with the idea of a cosmic purpose? Science answers all of these why questions quite adequately!
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93 Oh u r ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!! "why" can hav more mundane uses than "why we exist", but I wasn't referring 2 th mundane of why we have formed in the way we hav formed or why we act & do th things we do, i was responding 2 th hallowed professor's statements that science gives us something greater than focus & detail of how physical entities persist i.e. that somehow science tells us for what purpose we r here & why r we as conscious & knowing as we r OTHER than th mundane
m1s73r4nd3rs0n 2 days ago
@m1s73r4nd3rs0n Yes I know what you meant.
kelco93 1 day ago
Jesus is god
TheMessanjah 3 days ago
@TheMessanjah no he's not, he's a very naughty boy.
TheBlondDaemon 1 day ago
I would love to see a survey of nonbelievers like myself to determine just how many are depressed and anxious, due to the utter despair felt when witnessing so many religious zealots who've been brain-washed into hating others, denying human-caused climate change, etc.
I fear for the future of my children/grandchildren as "faithiests" fight tooth and nail to force their beliefs on everyone else.
trog69 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like to think I'm an atheist, I like to base my beliefs on evidence, and I'd also like to think I'm open minded.
I would like however, an atheist to help me with my only doubt in atheism (hence my only piece of "evidence" in god), here goes:
What was the "thing" that created everything to follow, what created the universe as we know it? Surely that must be some form of god?
If a kind, educated person would message me or reply to this comment explaining my doubt I'd be really grateful. Thanks
jonsufc 3 days ago
@jonsufc A large contention is obviously The Big Bang. I wouldn't credit it as a God in the sense that we should be worshiping the experience, but I do contend that the creation of our universe is really quite magnificent. However, the theory isn't an absolute truth. The beauty of Atheism is that you don't *need* to have the answers. Atheism is the lack of belief, not the knowing of all. All in all, we don't know how we got here. But filling in the gaps with fairy tales does humanity no favors.
zicamox98 3 days ago
To anyone who thinks Theism is stupid: you believe thousands of years ago, the elite decided they were going to control everyone by telling them the guy who created the universe appeared to them and only them and everybody believed it. No one else ever saw him, the guy then kept appearing only to them, telling them stuff until they had 2000 pages worth of info from him and everybody believed the elite without proof until a few people here and there figured it out, thousands of years later.
gymguy25 4 days ago
@gymguy25 What? If you were refering to the time of Jesus, then I think that there was likely an eccentric and possibly apocalyptic jewish rabbi spreading new teachings around at the time, and he was later crucified and the legend spread, continuing to change as he did not return. If you were refering to judaism, then I don't know much about that, but it is known that judiasm parted from the earlier canaanite religions, and wasn't any more peculiar than they were.
daemonowner 4 days ago
@gymguy25 That would be a good argument if only anyone actually thought what you claim they think. No, religion is actually quite natural and nobody (rational) thinks that Christianity came about the way that you've described. You can think theism is stupid without having even heard of Christianity or the Bible. However anyone who thinks it's stupid would be quite foolish themselves.
shiftplusone80 4 days ago
so why do we exist ? science answer (for now) to pas on are gens. not very thrilling :)
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 You could try writing in english.
Konicava 5 days ago
@Konicava
wow... excellent response to the question very enlightened and profound
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 Life is thrilling enough without the need to have a god.
timmyraa2 5 days ago
@timmyraa2
i was referring to what RD said at the end of the interview, that science gives answer to 'why are we here' but hasn't answered it- to my knowledge it's to reproduce. i don't think that's a thrilling answer (not implying that life isn't thrilling with or without god :) )
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 so what if it is? It's a real answer that you have to accept. There is need to know more but until we find this out it'll be wrong to fill the void with fariytale and nonsence which is soo outdated, medevil and cultish. Regious people are mentally hypnotised and it's wrong to teach children about the creation tale. It's a dumbing down of society and also a form of brainwashing!
timmyraa2 3 days ago
@timmyraa2
well why don't you read what i posted... rd was talking about how science has the answer to this question but NEVER answered it AND that's what i was talking about. wtf?
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 A two post answer from Bertrand Russell: if, in the course of a tramp in the mountains, you find an inn just when your thirst has become unendurable, the efficient cause of the inn is the actions of the bricklayers that built it, while its final cause is the satisfaction of your thirst. If someone were to ask 'why is there an inn there?' it would be equally appropriate to answer 'because someone had it
built there' or 'because many thirsty travellers pass that way'...
kelco93 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 ...One is an explanation by the 'efficient' cause and the other by the 'final' cause. Where human affairs are concerned, the explanation by 'final' cause is often appropriate, since human actions have purposes. But where inanimate nature is concerned, only 'efficient' causes have been found scientifically discoverable, and the attempt to explain phenomena by 'final' causes has always led to bad science.
I think Dawkins means "why we are here" in the 'efficient' cause sense.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93
agree with you
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 When I first read that a few years ago (it's from an essay called “Ideas That Have Helped Mankind” from 1950). It got me wondering how many arguments are over nothing more that the meaning of words - maybe if we all asked "what do you mean" (expecting to be surprised) before saying "you're wrong" we'd have less arguments.
Anyhow Bertrand Russell - a great thinker a great wit and much of his stuff is public domain (go to project gutenberg or just google).
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93
i know him as a mathematician, but don't know his works in other fields, maybe you heard of russells paradox, it's quite amusing:). anyway i'v posted and corrected my self that he probably wasn't referring to purpose of our existence but rather how we came to be, but never the less i would love to hear his opinion on the purpose one without atheist jumping to conclusion that i'm a deluded worshiper of superstitious god
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 I had a go at some of his "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" but it went over my head pretty quickly (never really got enthused about maths - often wished I'd tried harder ... maybe one day). I enjoyed "Enquiry into Meaning and Truth" and "Problems of Philosophy" (which I downloaded from Project Gutenburg). I suspect Dawkins and Russell would have been pretty much in agreement on the subject of purpose too.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93
i'm a mathematician so i guess it came easy for me. As i said before answer to why we are here from an 'efficient' cause would be to pass on our genes. but you don't have to answer to the purpose question as if it would be a fact, just was curious for an opinion- because i think it's such a natural question.
> I suspect Dawkins and Russell would have been pretty much in agreement on the subject of purpose too.
if by that you mean they wouldn't want to respond to it :)
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 No, "to pass on our genes" would still imply a final cause. It's really hard to get free of the teleological assumptions that say everything (including us) must have a purpose or need a reason to justify our existence. If you realise that the universe is just a bunch of stuff that's happening; life is one of the rarest things in it and you're part of it - it's hard not to feel like you've one an amazing lottery! Can't understand why religios feel it's empty w'out purpose!
kelco93 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelco93 er, 'won' an amazing lottery.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93
> "to pass on our genes" would still imply a final cause
you'r right, let me rephrase, 'efficient' cause:why are we here? we are here because of our ancestors who passed their gens to us.
> It's really hard to get free of the teleological assumptions that say everything (including us) must have a purpose or need a reason to justify our existence
#1 why is that a teleological assumption?
#2 how does being interested in possible purpose of our existence automatically mean that you...
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@kelco93
... 'must' have a purpose to 'justify' anything... it is so natural for a conscious creature to be asking that, no need for mystifying it
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 "it is so natural for a conscious creature to be asking that" Yes exactly, you might say that teleological assumptions are kind of 'hard-wired' into us - we like to look at everything it terms of 'what's it for?'. It has probably helped to organise early social structures and win some early evolutionary ground. I think now, it is the source of most of the avoidable suffering in the world and (incidentally) religion too. (It's OK for small groups but it doesn't scale well!)
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93
and sry forgot about:):
#3 why do you assume wondering about ones purpose excludes admiring existence
now lets get back to your latest response. why is 'purpose' exclusively theological jurisdiction?
> I think now, it is the source of most of the avoidable suffering in the world and (incidentally) religion too
what are you referring to eggsactly?
prskaloo1 3 days ago
@prskaloo1 If you have the impression that I think wondering about purpose excludes admiring existence then I have somehow misled you. When I said "life is one of the rarest things in the universe and you're part of it - it's hard not to feel like you've won an amazing lottery!" that was a statement of awe and admiration!
Not theologic but teleologic- means looking at the world as tho' everything has a purpose and is fulfilling its 'destiny' (divine mind needed to provide purpose).
kelco93 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 So?
timmyraa2 2 days ago
@timmyraa2
so what?
prskaloo1 2 days ago
@prskaloo1 The real reason for life is obvioulsy to reproduce. Not Thrilling? No, more thrilling to know you'll live forever?! maybe, I personally like the fact that there's only 1 life and you have to make the most of it. We only get one shot.
timmyraa2 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timmyraa2
>The real reason for life is obvioulsy to reproduce
well i must say that is pretty vain (from a perspective of an conscious being, doesn't mean that it isn't true)
> I personally like the fact that there's only 1 life and you have to make the most of it
true, but what we like or dislike is not an argument
prskaloo1 2 days ago
@prskaloo1 for no reason at all
macoronicheez 5 days ago
@macoronicheez
but he's repeating it over and over how science gives us this answer, but never answers it :)
for all we know you could be right
prskaloo1 5 days ago
Comment removed
prskaloo1 5 days ago
Comment removed
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 are you implying that most religious reasons for existence, such as worshiping God and obeying him, are any more thrilling (or better in any way) than secular reasons?
JaeEffingKae 5 days ago
@JaeEffingKae
no i'm implying that he repeats it over and over again but never answers it. since you mentioned it some religious believes: life after death, some sort of heaven, are far more appealing than to reproduce (and by that i'm not implying that they are true just that they may seem more appealing than no reason at all, or to reproduce)
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 oh OK. Well, for conscious beings the need for a species to reproduce itself and survive may not seem too grand and immediately relevant compared to serving whatever Gods or God they may believe in and being rewarded for their faith.
A secular justification for life might be to care for the people around you and be happy, but in the end the reason we are alive is that our forefathers passed their genes on to us, and it only follows that we continue the process.
JaeEffingKae 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JaeEffingKae
>A secular justification for life might be to care for the people around you and be happy
well that's a religious aspect of life too
maybe i understood 'why are we here' a little bit wrong... i think he means how we are here and why do we continue to be here rather than purpose of our existence
prskaloo1 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ask the following question from A muslim.The question: Assume a religion is made which says : Muslims are worse than animals , bastards and must pay jiziyah ( 50% extra tax of their income) , muslims must be subdued and killed. Ask them then: Is such a religion evil and must be eradicated or not ?
None of them ( Muslims)will answer this question and run like rats to hide in their holes. Why ? cuz :
The above is quranic teachings. I just changed the word non-muslim to muslim. Try it
rzadan 5 days ago
Little comment at the title. Maybe Jesus was an atheïst and just chose not to show it but instead tries to make society better by spreading religion which is a good thing for immoral people, people who have no reason to be good or just people who are less intelligent than others (you have to excuse me for my arrogance).
Limits6 1 week ago
Weird, the video never showed Dawkins saying that 'someone as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist'. Why the fuck is that on the title? lol
Dumbfoundedification 1 week ago
richard dawkins is my new grand dad.
Fergusforslipknot 1 week ago
He's not Anti-Religious
He's logical.
Secularism conjures no motif to kill or commit a crime...
Religion could give any reason
CalvinOrosaa 1 week ago 2
@neilmcintosh5150 welcome to the world of literature and science. ;)
101truthhurts 1 week ago
Anyone read 'The God Delusion?" What an insighful book. I believed in a personal God before I read the God delusion. Dawkins book made me rethink. Now I believe in evidence.
neilmcintosh5150 1 week ago
LONG LIVE REASON AND SCIENCE
101truthhurts 1 week ago
I would love to get the chance to speak with Prof. Dawkins. What a waste that so called 'interview' was. I'd love to talk about evolution, life. Not the god thing. True science and evolution which Prof. Dawkins knows a lot about. (This is such a waste.)
101truthhurts 1 week ago
@101truthhurts I agree, Prof. Dawkins is wasting his talents talking to morons like these. There is probably no one else in the world who could teach you more about life and biology.
neilmcintosh5150 1 week ago
Anyone who can defined the true essence of God is a Disbeliever.
zatoichiable 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
@hislord1 I guess that's what I get for trying to make an intelligent observation. Mathematics is the same in all possible worlds, so therefore, with an infinite set of possible worlds, it is of a worth far beyond that of biological knowledge in one possible world. Please try to be polite in future. Maybe study more? I find people with little wisdom and knowledge resort to argumentum ad hominem far more often. Finally,as a Mathematician,if I have "s*** for brains", what does this imply you have?
JSM44677 1 week ago
I think Dawkin's meme (virus of the mind) theory is brilliant, and there is a truth in it. But I think I have an insight on it that changes all. Memes demand consciousness as their "carriers". Memes travel through consciousness, necessarily. But I think that there's a part of consciousness that memes can't access, which oversees everything, deleting bad memes, as when we tune out, withdrawal, take our rest (also holy spirit). That's why "viruses" don't rule us unless we're always on overdrive.
peacewalker7 1 week ago
there is so much irony within this interview. "I despise people who believe something without evidence" hmmm....
Edvun7 1 week ago
@Edvun7 What is the irony?
SeanACampbell 1 week ago
@Edvun7 I can't stand Dawkins but he's not inadvertently fallen into irony here.
imshippyupup 1 week ago
@Edvun7 Well dawkins has never said there is no god. It's just there's no evidence for one so thus you dont put him in. As a scientist you are useless if you put god into something you cant explain.
dawtchins 1 week ago
@dawtchins Philosophy, Mathematics and Music. They are the three most intellectual disciplines. Philosophy is far from dead- for science is not omniscient.
JSM44677 1 week ago
@JSM44677 in science it is
dawtchins 1 week ago
@JSM44677 See how far philosphy would get in the quantumn world. Philosophy was science untill we discovered everything we could while in an armchair or on a table top/
dawtchins 1 week ago
@JSM44677 Oh yes, music and philosopoop has helped us understand the quantum world and biology. Lololololol, shove it up your arse, shit for brains.
hislord1 1 week ago
Comment removed
ShaggiiH 1 week ago
Its funny how he argues that religion is a business... but Dawkins is your rich priest. Richard Dawkins has blinded these so called atheists who are in fact agnostics due to the major argument of the lack of evidence for God. When in fact you trample yourselves to look into science rather than religion. There is evidence for God that is overwhelmingly strong. For example Chariots found in the Red Sea. Religion is exposed to look fake due to its complexity when in fact science is theory.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be agnostic in the sense of being not absolutely sure but still unbelieving (atheist) because there is no good reason to believe, just as there is no good reason to believe in unicorns, werewolves or the loch ness monster.
ukatam 1 week ago
@ukatam Actually you are wrong. Being agnostic is a relativist point of view thus you have no belief in a higher being yet still encourage evidence for a higher being. However being an atheist is an absolutist term why? Because it is a point of view were by a higher being does NOT exist. So yes they are most definitely exclusive.Because one excludes a higher being whilst one would prefer to believe with evidence that there is a higher.Therefore agnostics do not reject a higher being completely.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire actually, ukatam is right, you are wrong... gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge and atheism/theism refers to belief... So gnostic atheist means "someone who doesn't believe in/worship any gods and knows there is no such being", agnostic "someone who doesn't believe in/worship any gods but does not make any claim about their existence"
tangelorajan 1 week ago
@tangelorajan Since you have defined both of them they must mean different things this actually points out that I am correct in that they are exclusive. For example Christianity and Hinduism are both religious yet they are overwhelmingly exclusive from each other. This is the same for Atheism and Agnosticism as (Atheism) is absolutist and (Agnosticism) is relativist. Thus they are exclusive as one denies a higher being and the other searches for evidence for a higher being yet is in disbelief.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire ATHEISM IS NOT ABSOLUTIST...........where do you get this from??? I am an atheist. I do not profess a belief in a God. However I acknowledge my fallibility by also professing agnosticism with regard to that lack of belief. For me the term 'God' cannot be defined therefore I find it silly to believe in the undefinable, let alone unprovable. Why is this such an issue anyway?
ukatam 1 week ago
@ukatam I didn't ask for your opinion as an atheist. The actually definition of an atheist matters to me not your point of view. If you have no belief in God this is absolute (Atheist). If you believe in a higher being (God) then your are absolutist because your faith requires to believe absolutely. Otherwise religion does not exist thus Atheism does not exist. Agnosticism is therefore relativist.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire It's actually impossible to be an absolutist in the position of atheism.To have an absolutist position on the issue would be to have the absolute knowledge,which we both know humans cannot have,being fallible creatures.Your faith may require you believe in a God with an absolutist stance,but is that based on absolute knowledge,or subjective thoughts and authority of man-made religions?The relativistic nature of God belief is evidenced clearly by the wide variety of theist stances.
ukatam 1 week ago
@ukatam Well according to you atheism does not exist. Also you can have an absolutist position that's why believing in God is deontological. Also absolute knowledge is not required to have an absolute belief. Religion and Atheism is a belief. Belief only requires faith not knowledge because it is a choice. Knowledge is something we only require to study what we believe so it can be justified. Accordingly this produces fact. All of what I just said falls under epistemology.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire Do you believe a flying teapot orbits the sun?
ukatam 1 week ago
@ukatam Oh using immaturity because you've basically been battered in an argument. Thought so... thanks for showing me Atheists are ignorant and illiterate.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire Continue believing that. You lied about Hitler and about the definition of atheism. Why would I bother spelling this shit out to you. I don't have a mandate to proselytize every person I come into an argument with. Now with this: "Also absolute knowledge is not required to have an absolute belief" -- not when it comes to god. The undefinable god is so flexible that to no matter what level of reasonable certainty you disprove its existence, you'll never be 100% sure.
ukatam 1 week ago
@rapid7fire Continue believing that. You lied about Hitler and about the definition of atheism. Why would I bother spelling this shit out to you. I don't have a mandate to proselytize every person I come into an argument with. Now with this: "Also absolute knowledge is not required to have an absolute belief" -- not when it comes to god. The undefinable god is so flexible that to no matter what level of reasonable certainty you disprove its existence, you'll never be 100% sure.
ukatam 1 week ago
@rapid7fire "Belief only requires faith not knowledge because it is a choice." This is a fundamental mistake: no-one can choose what they believe. All of our beliefs are based on our experiences from infancy and, indirectly, on what we are taught. The nearest we can get to *choosing* what we believe is when we choose to look only at the evidence which supports our belief - the name for that is "intellectual dishonesty" or "religion".
kelco93 1 week ago
@kelco93 What a weak argument. Yes we can believe in what ever we want. It even explains in this video that a man changed from Catholicism to Atheism. Also what you call "intellectual dishonest religion" yet this can be directly applied to Atheism. Why? because according to you because we are brought up in a specific environment we cannot choice thus we are "intellectually dishonest".So if one was brought up to be an atheist then they are "intellectually dishonest".Everyone is a moral agent.
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@kelco93 Also you have mistakenly provided a benefit towards religion as well. According to you we cannot choose to believe due to our experiences. Therefore Christianity comes from an experience from God which was Jesus therefore due to this primary experience it is therefore real as someone must of experienced it. Therefore the teachings of Jesus must have been real as someone experienced the teachings therefore it has carried on today (the Bible).
rapid7fire 1 week ago
@rapid7fire Yes, your belief comes from your 'experience of god', as you like to call it. I am happy to agree that a real subjective experience is often associated with religious activity, be it Hindu or Voodoo, Christian or Rastafarian. Altered states of consciousness--religious or drug-induced--are addictive and lead to the kind of delusional thinking and circuitous argumentation which you demonstrate in your posts. There is enough beauty in reality without mythical embellishment.
kelco93 1 week ago
@kelco93 You said belief comes from experience not me. So you are the one who must believe in hallucination because there real images. So I'm afraid to say I do not believe in your ridiculous philosophy of everything coming from experience alone. This is your ridiculous argument. Keep it to yourself because obviously you don't know what your talking about and you have basically justified hallucinations to be reality as it is an experience. Seems like atheists are the ones who are confused.
rapid7fire 6 days ago
@rapid7fire yes, I said"belief comes from experience" and you agreed "Therefore Christianity comes from an experience from God".
I can only reiterate: subjective experiences are often associated with religious activity. Altered states of consciousness--religious or drug-induced--are addictive and lead to the kind of delusional thinking and circuitous argumentation which you demonstrate in your posts. Particularly when those delusions lead you to think that you know more than science.
kelco93 6 days ago
@kelco93 I never agreed to your argument I simply pointed the massive flaw in it. As if I would belittle my self to such standards. Is it not obscure to put a human ear on a rat in the name of science. Or are scientists normal. Oh and may I say that in doing so the scientific community uses what could of been a human. Using stem cells from left over IVF treatments. Yeah religion is so unhealthy even though we help the poor no matter what religion or circumstance.
rapid7fire 5 days ago
@rapid7fire Also the drugs that you refer to that create these illusions are know created by your so called "healthy" minded scientists. You define science as the summum bonum of life yet it causes what is called the 'slippery slope'.
rapid7fire 5 days ago
@rapid7fire Actually you didn't point out any flaw you just became insulting, rude and sarcastic -- as you have done in this post with the addition of moralistic yet incoherent ranting.
Resorting to such a strategy amounts a capitulation on your part with respect a rational discussion. I don't expect you acknowledge it as such, as it seems to be a common 'strategy' among the deluded to erroneously conflate many poor arguments and try to pass them off as a single good argument.
kelco93 5 days ago
@kelco93 Actually you will find my manner as being truthful. Why? because there is obviously a massive flaw in your philosophy of experience cause you have justified religion. Yet you have said that hallucinations are relatively fake and are ridiculous but they are experiences so according to you they must be true thus real. This is not a strategy I am just simply pointing out a flaw. That is how debates work... I do apologise if I have caused distraught which tells me you are rational.
rapid7fire 4 days ago
@rapid7fire You are not pointing out a flaw you are demonstrating your (deliberate?) failure to apply your mind to what I said so that you might understand what it was that I meant. You are like the scribes and Pharisees who tried to catch a man in his words so that no matter what he says you can show that he is wrong. Remember Balaam - he had to learn wisdom from the mouth of a donkey!
kelco93 4 days ago
@kelco93 Define (Debate):To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Your philosophy of a posteriori knowledge is flawed unless your to ignorant to understand or accept that it is. If we acknowledge things from out experiences then the experience of religion must of been caused by Jesus a subject of physical experience. Therefore your so called atheist philosophy is most defiantly flawed. Also this would mean that infinite regression does not exist due to a 'prime mover' of some sort.
rapid7fire 4 days ago
@rapid7fire Flaws can be pointed out in philosophy this can be seen between great philosophers such as Plato's a priori knowledge against Aristotle's a posteriori knowledge. Anselm's ontological argument against Gaunilo's perfect island. You have no clue of how an argument works and it is quite boring to repeat myself.
rapid7fire 4 days ago
@rapid7fire You posted that exact comment for someone else a few days ago (spelling and grammatical mistakes and all). I can't remember who it was but they refuted you soundly as I recall. Which I thought, at the time, was rather clever because as far as I can tell your post is largely incoherent.
Before I respond could you put it into your own words so that it makes sense (and so that I can see that you understand it yourself) and explain how it relates to our previous discussion?
kelco93 4 days ago
@kelco93 Acting like a true scientist aren't we... 'I cant remember' good evidence sounds like your acknowledgement of religion doesn't it. Selling things to someone with blank knowledge. Also you judging my grammar shows your argument is a complete failure.
rapid7fire 4 days ago
@kelco93 I quote; 'All of our beliefs are based on our experiences from infancy and, indirectly, on what we are taught.' (THIS IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY). If our beliefs are based on our experiences then you are stating that Jesus exists. Why? Because for someone to believe in Christianity it must of come form an experience according to you. Therefore Christianity came into existence through the experience of Jesus. So according to you this is why Christianity is a belief. So Jesus must of been real.
rapid7fire 4 days ago
@rapid7fire No you take one step too many.
1. beliefs are based on our experiences: OK
2. to believe in Christianity it must [have] come form an experience: YES
None of the rest follows.
A dream (for example) is an experience, but we don't use it as a foundation for logical claims about the real world.
A religious experience in one religion is similar to any other. The conclusions drawn from each will be equally compelling but completely different according to the tradition involved.
kelco93 4 days ago
@kelco93 I'm not implying anything upon your philosophy. Although you don't include this in your atheistic recipe it still exists in your argument because its so broad. Also you have contradicted yourself again. I quote; ("according to me") so this must mean that you believe because its your opinion not because of experience. Define (belief): Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. I don't care what you think it means this is what the actual word means.
rapid7fire 3 days ago
@rapid7fire Yes I know what belief means. You missed the quotes -- well actually you copied and pasted them without noticing them -- I was referring to your comment in which you said "according to you" (when you were referring to me) so my implication when I said "according to me" was that that is what you had meant (restated to make sense from my perspective) when you said "according to you". I hope that clears it up. Oh and yes you implied my statement meant I believe in Jesus.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93 Wow that has got to be the most unclear paragraph I have ever seen. I have not implied nor did I imply that you believe in Jesus. Once again I pointed out a FLAW in your argument to which it would provide that Jesus exists. This was a flaw seeming that you are an atheist your philosophy would be based on an atheistic argument. However the flaw was it couldn't be an atheistic argument because it supports religion more than anything.
rapid7fire 2 days ago
@kelco93 Also the subject of a dream cannot be comparable to God. God is something which nothing greater can exist. We can all conceive of a perfect being in our minds however we can conceive of an even greater being that exists both in our minds and in reality. Something that exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something that exists only in the mind. Therefore God must exist in reality because nothing greater can be perceived.
rapid7fire 3 days ago
@rapid7fire "God is something which nothing greater can exist" That's your preferred definition. I prefer "God is something which cannot exist". Your philosophising about things 'existing' in the mind makes a mockery of any useful meaning of the word "exist" -- and yes, before you start, I know Socrates/Plato thought there was a 'higher reality' which existed in the mind of God -- in that respect they were wrong. This line of argument is not logic it's sophistry.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93 This is not my definition this is the definition of God an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. That is the definition of God. Once again I do not care what you think the definition is. I prefer to read out of a dictionary which is the factual understanding of the word. Also Plato didn't believe in a God he believed in the Demiurge which is far from God. If your mind is to exist then things must exist in your mind. The mind is contingent.
rapid7fire 2 days ago
@rapid7fire "the definition of God an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being."
That definition contradicts itself. Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?
Also mankind's benevolence is more complicated than saying stealing is an adaptive behaviour. Social animals have a higher objective than that related to getting along with one another for the good of the species.
You should have studied this in high school, it's pretty basic Evolutionary theory.
warren52nz 2 days ago 2
@warren52nz 'That definition contradicts itself. Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?' The answer to this is that God is limitless. Also of animals are so sympathetic and work as a society then what is the evolutionary theory of Survival of the fittest? isn't this basic evolutionary knowledge. Also in what way is the definition of God contradictory. Also you must believe in adaptive behaviour if you believe in evolution.
rapid7fire 1 day ago
@rapid7fire
i was wondering how do evolutionist view homosexuality?
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 As an evolutionist, so to speak, I can say it poses no argument against evolution as there are proposed mechanisms by which homosexuality would be selected for. I don't know how familiar you are with genetics, but homosexuality may be associated with higher fertility in females because of linked genes, if I remember correctly. I would suggest looking it up, just a google search to get an overview perhaps.
Also, evolutionists don't have a fixed moral opinion on it.
daemonowner 1 day ago
@daemonowner
> evolutionists don't have a fixed moral opinion on it
let's leave morality out of it. I have looked at some arguments. It's a fact that there is recorded homosexuality in animal world, but the explanation is: homosexuality occurred only in those situations where there was no femails available (do to the hierarchy or isolation), but it was recorded that they 'abandon' that sort of behavior soon as there was any female accessible. So it's not a way of it was a certain behavior
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@daemonowner
... now we have homosexual behavior as a way of life, that is not documented in animal world.
> I can say it poses no argument against evolution
the number one thing is passing on the good gens for the next generation, now homosexuality is not passing on the gens at all, which is an imperative in TE so that is a contradiction
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 Apparently you don't have a good understanding of genetics. Look up what Linked Genes are. There is waaay more to take into consideration than the simple minded view that you would have more offspring by having heterosexual sex.
daemonowner 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 "passing on the genes ...an imperative in TE so that is a contradiction" your question is not entirely clear. Are you looking for an evolutionary basis (efficient cause) for the existence of homosexuality? Or an evolutionary justification (final cause) i.e. a way to say it is either OK or bad?
kelco93 1 day ago
@kelco93
i'v posted that i'm not interested in the morality of it so obviously i'm interested in efficient cause... i'm just trying to rap my mind about it using basic logic, and ofcourse there are some factors that i'v missed, as daemonowner pointed out genetics is not my field of expertise but i do have some basic knowledge... i hoped somebody could clear it out for me... apparently no- probably do to the lack of knowledge they have to explain the mechanics of it, anyways i will look it up
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 I think the first questions is:
Is it a result of a genetic variation or a response to an environmental factor.
It is certainly true every foetus (prior to about 10 weeks gestation) has the capacity to express male or female physical characteristics and can 'go wrong' due to disturbances in prenatal hormone balance. Hence it it is thought that maternal stress levels during gestation may also contribute to variations in developing gender preferences.
kelco93 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 So it may be that sexual preference is not hard coded into the genes.
If there is a genetic determinant (i.e. it is heritable - which is theoretically possible), then it will be an interesting exercise to find a mechanism by which the person's genetic fitness (which includes survival/reproductions rates of parents, brothers cousins) is improved by them being a non-competitive presence in the mating game or a benefit in the survival of related young.
kelco93 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 I think that you, being a mathematician (newly?) interested in biological systems, would really enjoy reading Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene". It was written in 1976 so there have been many developments since then, but it is a really good starting point for "wrapping your mind around" the notion of evolution as natural expression of game-theory.
Hope that was helpful.
kelco93 1 day ago
@kelco93
thanks for the info:), i'll look it up my self ... you didn't give me a response :/ just some assumptions- but tnx anyway
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 Maybe you already thought of everything I said?
I actually gave you a response which contained some facts regarding foetal development and the development of gender preferences, a theoretical explanation by which to consider them and a resource which could help to further your understanding. The only assumption I have made is that my education has not led me too far astray.
What does the word "response" mean to you?
You did see all three posts right?
kelco93 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 Not saying you shouldn't look it up of course. Quite the contrary - YouTube is never going to be an authoritative source of scientific information.
But if its all new to you you need to think about the question you want answering and take the suggestions of people who know a bit as starting points. Dawkins is actually an excellent starting point once you see the maths it will all fall into place (I suppose that's an assumption :/ )
Good luck!
kelco93 1 day ago
@daemonowner You're a straight shooter daemonowner. I wonder if you'd enjoy this bit of R18 humour on the subject of the Bible and the 10 Commandments. If gutter language offends you perhaps not. If it doesn't bother you you'll probably have a very good laugh:
watch?v=VCo6BVPGDh0&feature=related
warren52nz 17 hours ago
@rapid7fire "God is limitless" OK So he CAN make a rock that he can't pick up. Oh wait, there's nothing he can't do so he CAN pick it up. Wait he failed at making the rock so he CAN'T do anything! 8^)
Survival of the fittest isn't an expression that Darwin used. It's much broader. Survival of the species is just as important so social behaviour is selected in a social species. Of course adaptive behaviour is a fact.
This was all covered in high school Biology, I'm not here to educate you.
warren52nz 1 day ago
@rapid7fire Also the Bible is full of stuff like "God remembered..." and "God saw how great wickedness had become and decided to wipe mankind from the face of the earth"
If he was omniscient, he would have known in advance that this was going to happen so he would have prevented it in his Mark I version of humans.
Now bring out the bullshit about free will, that's one of my favourites. 8^P
warren52nz 2 days ago
@warren52nz I don't know why you would think freewill would be a good argument. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there. Also God is only limited to what humans know. Humans remember, not God. Humans see, God doesn't. God is limited by our language therefore God is beyond to what we compare to our mere five senses. Therefore it is completely justified to say that these errors are created by limited human experience.
rapid7fire 1 day ago
@rapid7fire Free will isn't my argument, Christians typically pull out the "free will" card to explain why God apparently fails to predict things, that's why he had to destroy everything in a flood. And why he had to ask where Adam & Eve were after she ate the fruit, etc, etc. According to the Bible he's not omniscient. You said it yourself:
"God is limited by our language..."
warren52nz 1 day ago
@warren52nz Also if God is to be limitless then he would be able choose to remember and not to remember, he would be able to choose to see or not to see. Therefore he is limitless thus he is beyond our comprehension.
rapid7fire 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rapid7fire "Also if God is to be limitless then he would be able choose to remember and not to remember"
Nice dodge, no cigar. 8^)
Look when you have to invent bullshit like that to defend something unworkable it's best just to discard the thing you're trying to defend. Try it, I did. Suddenly everything will make sense. Why did a statue of Jesus in Ohio get hit by lightning & burn to the ground? Tall metal objects attract lightning, simple. You explain it otherwise. God hates Jesus? 8^)
warren52nz 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rapid7fire "This is not my definition this is the definition of God an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being"? I thought you said it was "God is something which nothing greater can exist"? how come you can have two definitions but you wont let me even have one? And surely you can conceive of something greater than "an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being"?
kelco93 1 day ago
@rapid7fire I can think of something infinitely better than "an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being"
kelco93 1 day ago
@kelco93 Also you still haven't argued properly against my argument for the existence of God. Also who are you to say the minds does not exist. Then it is ridiculous to say that gravity exists. Gravity is immaterial like our mind. They cannot be defined by the five senses. Yet they can both be seen by its actions.You are a mockery to philosophy and Science.
rapid7fire 2 days ago
@kelco93 Also you obviously do not know anything about Plato.The argument of higher reality is found in the Analogy of the Cave which is a strong argument.
rapid7fire 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rapid7fire How very rude to begin a sentence with "you obviously do not know anything about ..." It would be far more polite to say "much" or even "as much as me" than to say "anything". If you read Plato's Republic you will find the concepts to which I refer.
My unclear paragraph? well it was perfectly coherent but I thought you would struggle with it because it was an an attempt at unravelling the circuitous spin you had put on my previous comments. Oh yes Flaw 500 chrs is too fe
kelco93 1 day ago
@rapid7fire Just so you are clear - you are implying that I have said something which ("according to me") means any religions claims are true. That doesn't follow from my statements at all.
The point is that we learn about reality by experiencing it. Religious experiences are (possibly valuable) parts of reality but there is nothing about them which allows us to extrapolate beyond them and say: "I experienced a little green man - therefore little green men are real" (for example).
kelco93 4 days ago
@kelco93
sry, i'm not a native speaker, i overlooked it, my bad. now it makes sense:)
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@prskaloo1 You can see that a teleological world view is at the root of nearly all unnecessary human suffering and is, incidentally, also a necessary precondition for religious belief?
kelco93 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelco93
> You can see that a teleological world view is at the root of nearly all unnecessary human suffering
maybe i'm missing something but no, can you give me an example?
one of the biggest suffering today is world hunger, which is totally unnecessary in the 21 century were we have some states that can produce the amount of food to feed the entire world- but evidently has nothing to do with teleological world view
prskaloo1 1 day ago
@kelco93 Also your idea of religious people being delusional is in fact dangerous to society as it causes what is know as the 'slippery slope'. This is basically the eradication of others who do not classify as the preferred human who apparently do not contribute to society. Which refers back to Hitler's ideology of the Arian race. Nice to know you have the same ideology as a man that caused a war that concluded to 60 million deaths and a genocide of 6 million.
rapid7fire 4 days ago
@rapid7fire You are an idiot. Quite simply, any study on this matter leads one to recognise that you don't necessarily end up on the path of eugenics and agreeing with Hitler, simply from accepting common ancestry and recognising the fact that religion is man made, created in a time when people didn't know any better.
It's amusing you label that as a slippery slope, because that's the fallacy you're committing.
daemonowner 4 days ago
@daemonowner No Richard Dawkins the man who you mimic even says religion is a disease. Not so different from Hitler's ideologies on Jews and other minorities. Also your morals in life come from religion preferably Christianity. Why? because you know it is wrong to kill otherwise your evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest would be overwhelming in your genes.Thus would cause you to survive in any circumstances such as stealing.Your morals come from Christians so you don't know any better.
rapid7fire 4 days ago