Richard Dawkins

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

Indeed. That is why I used those Einstein quotes to show the differance betwee organised religion and personal spirituality. If I have to expalin this on here one more time I will oven bake my own hair and digesty with a leafy salad.


	Logged

Roeder for England!

Kitman

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2007, 12:57:40 PM »

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

I'm curious to know what a 'digesty' is. Is it some kind of home made clothing?

Science and religion are both faiths. I expect there's some sort of universal truths in both, as well as false prophets, I prefer to keep an open mind


	Logged

Parky

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2007, 01:01:35 PM »

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

I'm curious to know what a 'digesty' is. Is it some kind of home made clothing?

Science and religion are both faiths. I expect there's some sort of universal truths in both, as well as false prophets, I prefer to keep an open mind

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes


	Logged

Roeder for England!

Invicta_Toon

Offline

It was acceptable in the 80's

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2007, 01:07:22 PM »

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes

are they bollocks


	Logged

"Comparing different races as penguins and lions is ridiculous"

Stevie v. Geordie Messiah. A battle of wits.

Optomystyc Nyt

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2007, 05:47:22 PM »

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

not true (in my opinion of course).


	Logged

ChezGiven

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2007, 05:51:07 PM »

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:07:22 PM

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes

are they bollocks

Both of them pose one fundamental question about the universe and both answers are based on theory not evidence. So


	Logged

"Power is only too happy to make football bear a diabolical responsibility for stupefying the masses"
Jean Baudrillard, Philosopher and Sociologist, died, March 6th 2007

Invicta_Toon

Offline

It was acceptable in the 80's

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2007, 05:52:42 PM »

Quote from: ChezGiven on March 27, 2007, 05:51:07 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:07:22 PM

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes

are they bollocks

Both of them pose one fundamental question about the universe and both answers are based on theory not evidence. So

would love to see the supporting evidence for the theory of religion Laughing


	Logged

"Comparing different races as penguins and lions is ridiculous"

Stevie v. Geordie Messiah. A battle of wits.

ChezGiven

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2007, 05:55:33 PM »

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 05:52:42 PM

Quote from: ChezGiven on March 27, 2007, 05:51:07 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:07:22 PM

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes

are they bollocks

Both of them pose one fundamental question about the universe and both answers are based on theory not evidence. So

would love to see the supporting evidence for the theory of religion Laughing

The Universe tbh.


	Logged

"Power is only too happy to make football bear a diabolical responsibility for stupefying the masses"
Jean Baudrillard, Philosopher and Sociologist, died, March 6th 2007

Invicta_Toon

Offline

It was acceptable in the 80's

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2007, 05:56:13 PM »

Quote from: ChezGiven on March 27, 2007, 05:55:33 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 05:52:42 PM

Quote from: ChezGiven on March 27, 2007, 05:51:07 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:07:22 PM

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes

are they bollocks

Both of them pose one fundamental question about the universe and both answers are based on theory not evidence. So

would love to see the supporting evidence for the theory of religion Laughing

The Universe tbh.

and therefore, presumably, my arse


	Logged

"Comparing different races as penguins and lions is ridiculous"

Stevie v. Geordie Messiah. A battle of wits.

ChezGiven

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #59 on: March 27, 2007, 05:59:17 PM »

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 05:56:13 PM

Quote from: ChezGiven on March 27, 2007, 05:55:33 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 05:52:42 PM

Quote from: ChezGiven on March 27, 2007, 05:51:07 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:07:22 PM

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Invicta_Toon on March 27, 2007, 01:36:08 AM

Parky I think you've misunderstood Alby the way you keep wheeling out these daft quotes when religion is mentioned.

Wondering at the complexity of a fractal pattern is not 'spirituality'

Indeed. Einstein was deeply non-religious.

possibly. i'm pretty sure darwin was atheist though.

its a stupid argument for christians anyway though, even if darwin was religious jesus was jewish. Darwin could be consisdered to be to atheism what jesus is to christianity (loose anaology only mind) so whether he was religious or not is irrelivent. jesus was not in a position to be catholic because he created the thing, in a very similar way darwin being religious would never be a solid criticism of atheism.

i personally think that eistein's one of those people who was able to think outside the box. his famous proclimation "god does not play dice" was riddiculed at the time, and is still thought totally incorrect today, but i wouldn't be suprised if in the grand scheme of things it is shown to have some truth.
DJ i concede defeat
"would add science to that....IMO the Universe becomes more complex as we become more able 'to see' its complexity." contradicts "Some things are in step with the universal reality and work and will always work....Science makes out it has discovered this" parky

They are more interconnected than people want to admit. Yes

are they bollocks

Both of them pose one fundamental question about the universe and both answers are based on theory not evidence. So

would love to see the supporting evidence for the theory of religion Laughing

The Universe tbh.

and therefore, presumably, my arse

Your arse gets used for all sorts apparently so why not Laughing


	Logged

"Power is only too happy to make football bear a diabolical responsibility for stupefying the masses"
Jean Baudrillard, Philosopher and Sociologist, died, March 6th 2007

Parky

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2007, 06:37:31 PM »

I reckon I could have him (Dawkins).. Yes


	Logged

Roeder for England!

madras

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2007, 06:53:40 PM »

All things dull and ug-ly,
All creatures, short and squat,
All things rude and na-sty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their prudish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scant and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.


	Logged

are you in your late teens,was your mam single in Newcastle around 82 to 87.....I might have shagged her!

NJS

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2007, 07:11:32 PM »

Quote from: Optomystyc Nyt on March 27, 2007, 12:09:09 AM

s**** theologan

s**** fairyologist too - theres no difference.


	Logged

Haswell

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #63 on: March 27, 2007, 07:25:21 PM »

Quote

Science and religion are both faiths

The faithful would love you to think that. Science is only interested in the real world and universe; faith is considered a virtue by those who accept anything without evidence. The more preposterous, the more you believe, the more you are 'spiritually' rewarded. Anyone can be spiritual depending upon your definition; atheists and theists alike.

Quote

Both of them pose one fundamental question about the universe and both answers are based on theory not evidence

Religion poses no such questions; it takes everything, including the universe, on Faith. Realising that the equations that gave rise to the Big Bang Theory, originated from a Catholic Priest who had no problem with its consequences, you can only say that science is attempting to answer these questions; not religion, who suddenly found itself jumping on the bandwagon. But how can it be true since it does not follow the story of Genesis?

All Dawkins maintains is that offering a God creator as the explanation for everything, is no explanation at all. As long as he is upsetting a lot of people then he's doing a good job.


	Logged

"The secret of happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible, horrible, horrible..."
- Bertrand Russell

Parky

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #64 on: March 27, 2007, 08:13:01 PM »

Haswell why do you continue to pursue this ridiculous agenda that somehow religion is the mortal enemy of Science?

Quote from: Haswell on March 27, 2007, 07:25:21 PM

Quote

Science and religion are both faiths

The faithful would love you to think that. Science is only interested in the real world and universe; faith is considered a virtue by those who accept anything without evidence.

So people who have some kind of faith or other are little more than children...Do people of faith really accept ANYTHING without evidence?

In you haughty approach to this discussion you're coming across as rather a buffoon although strangely and as I know you are actually quite intelligent.


	Logged

Roeder for England!

Keefaz

Offline

Robert on the wing

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2007, 08:34:18 PM »

People of faith will refuse to believe in something even after a 1,000 books have been written about it, but they'll gladly accept everything in the fecking Bible. We're talking about idiots, here.


	Logged

April-2005: Supporting the Toon is like asking to be kicked in the knackers.

Optomystyc Nyt

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #66 on: March 27, 2007, 08:36:16 PM »

Quote from: Parky on March 27, 2007, 08:13:01 PM

Haswell why do you continue to pursue this ridiculous agenda that somehow religion is the mortal enemy of Science?

Quote from: Haswell on March 27, 2007, 07:25:21 PM

Quote

Science and religion are both faiths

i think he's right with regards to orginised religion, and to most other beliefs (i.e. astrology). i do believe both are polar opposites, and coexistance will always be very difficult given the dogmatic and back to front approach that any religious person would have as a scientist. it is my view that christian scientists would and do start out with a preconceved opinion, and try and twist the evidence to suit that (its how they've been taught to be fair). what dawkins fails to recognise is that beneath all the lies, propaganda and dogma there could be something worth debateing, and that just because people believe in god it doesn't mean they are neccicerially irrational.


	Logged

madras

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #67 on: March 27, 2007, 08:38:16 PM »

for those of the relious bent out there can you tell me about your god,is he loving,vengeful,wrathful ? is he the type of god who would punish an innocent for the sins of its parents ? would he save one but let another die in pain ?how much of the bible/koran/torah etc do you literally believe ?is god all good and perfect ? does god always do the right thing?


	Logged

are you in your late teens,was your mam single in Newcastle around 82 to 87.....I might have shagged her!

elbee909

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #68 on: March 27, 2007, 08:38:52 PM »

Quote from: Geordiecunny on March 27, 2007, 12:04:59 AM

He makes some valid points, and in general seems an interesting bloke but I have several problems with the points he raises.

He speaks of truth, yet it seems to me that there is no more truth in his brand of atheism than in religion. He abandons religion for truth and at the same time abandons possibility - why should we abandon a world of possibili Now ty for an ounce of truth - namely that there is no God.

Probably because there's more value in an ounce of truth than a load of, well, bullshit essentially? I don't see what you're talking about when you say "He speaks of truth, yet it seems to me that there is no more truth in his brand of atheism than in religion." That's just fundamentally wrong. Atheism doesn't try to prove that the tooth fairy or similar exists, it asks you to prove that it does.

Prove 'god'. That's all.


	Logged

elbee909

Offline

Re: Richard Dawkins

« Reply #69 on: March 27, 2007, 08:41:56 PM »