The God Delusion
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
What utter drivel. You're simply making up nonsense Apollo, again.
"You can't say that stuff is pottery made by intellegent desigers. Are you crazy? did you see it being made? "
What a truly asinine analogy, we know humans create pottery, and we know how they create it, and we know this as an objective fact you clown, how is that remotely comparable to claiming things were created using inexplicable magic by an unevidenced deity? And can you please run a spell checker ffs.
" if you say intelligent people designed and made it, you have the problem of where people came from. "
No you don't, that's called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Can you really be this obtuse?
"So you can't say anything came from intelligent design says Algebe and Dawkins."
Another shameless lie, you can assert something is designed *ONLY if you can objectively evidence the claim. You are asserting there is no difference between things we objectively know are designed, and things we do not.
You're a clown, and not least because you keep lying by assigning misquotes to Professor Dawkins.
"in The Blind Watchmaker, and other works, he claims evolution is a purely natural process clearly unguided by any Creator. he fails to consider the possibility that evolutionary process were created By God."
No he doesn't fail to consider it, any more than he fails to consider leprechauns are guiding it. Why would he consider the possibility for something which there is no evidence for, he's a scientists who spent his entire life studying evolution, and was at the forefront of that field for decades.
"Personally I believe there was no single act of creation, and that creation is ongoing via evolutionary processes that God created."
Who cares what you believe, it's a superstitious belief you can demonstrate no evidence for.
There is zero evidence to support the notion that any supernatural phenomena influenced evolution, every causal link is of natural phenomena... as is everything else known in the cosmos... where there are gaps, a natural explanation is always the more rational and logical explanation and that's the path experts follow.
There is no evidence to support a supernatural deity, nor a causal link to one.
Not necessarily, if you are brought up to believe whole heartedly as many are in religion, you can shut off any critical thinking and allow 'god did it' to answer all of your questions.
Once you understand that religion has been boiled down to only being viable via logical argument (which are sketchy at best), it follows that one would move on.
Again, I would really like to see a causal link to a God demonstrated.
The very idea of evidence is anathema to Apollo.
There you go harkening back to the defunct Vienna circle.
You have a world view that you can not prove. Everybody has a world view they can not prove.
You have no evidentiary proof for your own world view. For example, in another thread you went back to your claim you were "objective", despite the fact we went over this, and your claims were subjective.
Sheldon, we know you can spell. I want to see you realize your potential and go beyond just spelling. I don't care if you or anyone is an atheist. Move your intellect up. Improve you game. Stop hanging around the bush leagues all the time.
Develope your idea of evidence more deeply. Read up on your intellectual episomological ancestors. Find out why they failed. If you do no work and just snipe, you end up being one of the "they", a bunch of inauthentic people defined by superficial slogans and sayings. so far you are no better than some uneducated fundamentalist christian. The content of your thought is different (from fundies), but the structure of your thinking is the same.
Seriously what on earth are you talking about? What world view have I claimed to have that can't be objectively evidenced? What has this to do with no one being able to demonstrate any objective evidence for your any deity?
State precisely what you think I have claimed that cannot be objectively evidenced? I have never claimed to "be objective" that's a lie, objectivity is something you strive for using methods of validation that are themselves objective.
Your second and third paragraphs are complete gibberish, I have no idea what you're attempting to say, or what relevance it has to my post.
Objectivity itself is a claim you have not objectivly proven. its just your subjective ramblings. Objectivity doesn't exist except in your overactive imagination.
You and Dawkins have double standards for what constitutes knowledge. He requires that he sees God create life as proof of/knowledge of God, but he doesn't require that he see abiogenesis to believe in that. Double standard. he doesn't have to have direct observation of what he believes, but according to him, theists must directly see God to prove it. The reality is, abiogenesis will never be seen directly. it happened long ago, and can't be witnessed. Ergo, no direct evidence for what you and he believe.
In the meantime, you ane he have this problem of regression: where did material come from? did it create itself, or did it always exist? No evidence for either, but you are stuck with one or the other.
So again your harping on "evidence" has little bearing on what you believe, only a hypocritical critique of others. Really we could call this the "abiogenesis delusion" if we applied Dawkins criteria to it. but he doesn't apply his own criteria to himslef, only to others. In some of his writing he clearly states there has to be a double epistomological standard in order to disprove God. He calls the double standard a "higher bar". since you claim to be a dawkins scholar, you should be familiar with his "higher bar" for theists vs a normal critera for himself. its laughable.
I never made any claims about abiogenesis, nor am I aware of Professor Dawkins making any such claims, so you're just making up lies again. Nor have I ever claimed something has to be directly observed in order for me to believe it, objective evidence is enough.
"Objectivity doesn't exist"
What a truly cretinous thing to say.
"In the meantime, you ane he have this problem of regression: where did material come from? "
Not true, neither I nor Dawkins have a problem with not knowing something. I just choose not to make wild unevidenced assertions based on ignorance as you and many theists do.
"So again your harping on "evidence" has little bearing on what you believe,"
I have not shared any belief with you, so again you;re simply lying. It is also clear you are going to keep lying to try and obfuscate in the idiotic hope we won't notice you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
"since you claim to be a dawkins scholar,"
Another lie from you, I have never claimed any such thing. You really are the mother of all liars.
Now one more time, what belief have I not demonstrated any evidence for? I have made no claims about abiogenesis at all.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Waving the question away tells us all we need to know about your belief, as does your relentless lying to try and obfuscate.
OK, my apologies, you are not a Dawkins scholar. Dawkins went on and on about abiogenesis in the Blind Watchmaker, and to his credit, he said he was speculating. I read that book because an athiest I know claimed Dawkins had "objectivly" proven how abiogenesis occurred, and it was in that book. Another unfulfilled promise by an over enthusiastic athiest concerning the holy Word of Dawkins.
Well, if you haven't made any claims about abiogenesis, how do you think life began? Abiogenesis, I presume. If you have an alternative, say so.
I think I read somewhere that Dawkins got his Phd in observational animal behavior, or something like that. I'm sure he is quite good at it. So my critical comments about his God stuff, doesn't apply to his actual area of expertise.
You believe in objectivity. But you have demonstrated no evidence for it. If objectivity exists, why do physical scientists not agree on everything? For example, some scientists believe in string theory, while others are skeptical, and support partical theory. If they are objective, why don't they agree with each other?
I just believe in God. The existence of God is not provable. Nor can it be disproven. I just believe it. Moreover, that belief is coherent with my other beliefs. Also, since science is about how God's creation works, I believe in science too.
Apollo: I think I read somewhere that Dawkins got his Phd in observational animal behavior, or something like that.
Still lying like a Religious Absolutist. According to the textbook I have, his Doctorate is in Philosophy. He is currently, last time I checked, the Oxford Professor of Public Understanding of Science. He did most of his research into evolutionary biology.
Thus, I still say you have NOT read any of his books because you copy paste from reviews on the WWW. I use a plagiarizer checker and allows find your descriptions of anything pertaining to Richard Dawkins word for word on another web page somewhere.
If all you wish to do is lie, go elsewhere.
The Great Hall, Oundle School
From 1954 to 1959 Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour, where he was in Laundimer house. While at Oundle, Dawkins read Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian for the first time. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and Doctor of Philosophy degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year. Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning, and choice; Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.
Apparently he got a Phd in Zoololgy. "Phd" means "Doctor of Philosophy" yes, but his Phd seems to be in Zoology.
did you ever consider looking up "Phd" to find out what it means? You are very emotional and prone to jumping to conclusions, contrary to what the scientific attitude is presumed to be. You need to improve your education. There is no evidence he got formal training in Philosophy.
You should try looking it up yourself, so you can spell it correctly.
PhD "Doctoral Degree. Ph.D. is an abbreviation for "Doctor of Philosophy," commonly called a doctoral degree. It is typically the highest academic degree awarded and requires at least four years of study and extensive original research."
Note the word original, dumbarse...
It has nothing to do with philosophy per se, Christ almighty you really are dumber than a bucket of hair.
Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society) FRSL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Literature#Membership) (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
"In 1959 Dawkins entered Balliol College, University of Oxford, where he received a bachelor’s degree in zoology in 1962. He remained at Oxford, earning his master’s and doctorate degrees in zoology in 1966 under famed ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. Dawkins assisted Tinbergen before becoming an assistant professor of zoology (1967–69) at the University of California, Berkeley. He returned to Oxford to lecture in zoology in 1970."
As I keep saying you're altogether too stupid to bother with.
@Apollo: "Phd" means "Doctor of Philosophy" yes, but his Phd seems to be in Zoology.
What we call "science" was traditionally known as "natural philosophy". Ph.D. is an abbreviation for the Latin Philosophiae doctor, which means "doctor of philosophy."
@ Null Brain Apollo
I am afraid I do not know what the hell you are talking about. What the hell is a "Phd"? I have never seen that abbreviation. Where in the fucking hell did you learn?
I have an ScD in Global Climatology. Care to guess what ScD means? I also know what PhD means. It means Philosophiae Doctor. A PhD is the highest degree obtainable in academia. ScD is the next highest. Not all universities offer this, and not all recognize it. If I were to go to home of the Tarheels, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I would have to do at least 2, maybe 3, more years research and study before they would give me a PhD.
I had to leave college to return to North Carolina for a family emergency. After the emergency was over, I got a job there and just stayed. Three years later, my MSc in Volcanology was honored, and since I had put in three years extra, the University gave an ScD in Global Climatology. Things went bad for about 1½ years in NC, but I did eventually get a job at the Yellowstone Caldera.
Of course, I imagine your degree is a PHD in Bullshit. PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper.
I find no evidence of his "doctorate in Philoosphy" He is an ethologist, apparently a brance of Zoology. Your idea that U of California would hire a Phd in philosophy as assistant profd of zoology is all in your imagination.
Your passionate and false claims as to lying is evidence of your instable jumping to conclusions. And then, of course, calling your jumping to conclusions "objectivity". If you are objective, then do it instead of just saying that you do it.
The hilarity of you being unable to properly spell PhD, and not understand what it means, whilst trying to denigrate someone who has attained one is wasted only on you it seems.
As I said, you're simply too stupid to bother with.
PhD stands for 'Doctor of Philosophy', this does not mean all doctorates are in philosophy, you cretin.
In 1959 Dawkins entered Balliol College, University of Oxford, where he received a bachelor’s degree in zoology in 1962. He remained at Oxford, earning his master’s and doctorate degrees in zoology in 1966 under famed ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. Dawkins assisted Tinbergen before becoming an assistant professor of zoology (1967–69) at the University of California, Berkeley. He returned to Oxford to lecture in zoology in 1970."
Just read the link, as you're embarrassing yourself and don't even know it.
I do not understand a damn word in the first half of what you just typed (the bold text).
What the hell is:
You are funny Apollo. I PLAYED you. And you fell completely for it without ever realizing you took it hook, line, and sinker. <:P Now shall you admit that you are as dense as a black hole? The idiocy of your mind possesses infinite density.
My calling you a liar when I point out where you are lying is not "instable." Nor is it jumping to conclusions. I have never said that my, as you call it, "jumping to conclusion" are objective. I am the first to admit they are subjective. YOU are the one lying about me saying they are objective. And I think I have just OBJECTIVELY shown how you are a liar.
Did you bother reading this post (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/christians-i-make-claim-you-probably-do-not-believe-hell#comment-123170)?
Here is the gist of its text:
Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:
And the biggest problem you have is that you have matched every last one, except number 8. But someone here may disagree. That makes you not just a Religious Absolutist, but a Religious Absolutist Apologist.
More proof you are a LIAR. Putting words into someone's "mouth" is the same as being a FUCKING LIAR. [Sorry mods]
When did I ever assent to this (and the whole post):
You know you are going to your own version of Hell for that don't you? How dare you sorry ass put words into a post and say that I was the one who posted those words AND assented to them. You sorry ass Religious Absolutist. If I had the power, I would banish you from these boards. Fortunately for you, I am neither a mod or admin. Thus, your lucky day you sorry LIAR!
This is the third time that I can remember catching you in bald-face lie about me. There may have been others I am not recalling at this time.
Again, OBJECTIVELY, I have shown you to be a Religious Absoutist because ALL Religious Absolutists do nothing but lie because they are incapable of speaking even one word of truth.
Oh, I don't know if I can think of anything that is objective. Hmm... ***tapping finger against chin*** Hmm... ***scratching head*** AHH! The celestial orb upon which you are standing? But then again, to you that is nothing more than an abstraction of my imagination, thus this planet just does not exist.
Sorry all of my AR brethren, but y'all are nothing more than a fignation of my imagiment. Damn. This is a long dream...
EDIT: fixed a blockquote
@Arakish Re: "Sorry all of my AR brethren, but y'all are nothing more than a fignation of my imagiment."
Well it's about damn time you figured that out, you ol' air-head! Took you long enough! Finally! Welcome to the (un)Real World, brother! Oh, by the way, if you have to go into the kitchen for snacks, just tip-toe quietly and ignore the huge purple dragon asleep in the corner. And if you do happen to wake him, just throw one of your shoes and yell, "FETCH!" Then run away quickly in the opposite direction.
Because you're talking about the bleeding edge, where testable predictions are hard to find. And wtf is "[particle?] theory"?
You are just rationalizing. It has nothing to do with "bleeding edge". They don't agree with each other because they hold differing assumptions. Ergo, its not "objective". One side assumes the phenomeon is "strings". Another side asumes the same phenomenon is "particles". They have no objective criterion to determine the veracity of either. Presently it seems to boil down to personal preference, apparently the enemy of objectivity.
Yes, on the bleeding edge it is not obvious which assumptions lead to results that match measurement. But your idea that science isn't objective is troublesome. For example: the proper distance between the end points of a board (length) seems pretty darn objective.
You are speaking in abstaractions. I lack belief in abstractions, as they don't actually exist. I believe that only particulars exist. Give a concrete example. Its strange that a believer in objectivity would decline to offer and actual object as an example.
Objectivity is an ideal. Classical mechanics is closest to that ideal. Outside classical mechanics, claims to truth become increasingly unreliable and prone to subjectivity. Part of the problem is inductive reasoning that science relies on.
Suppose, medical science engages in a study of the effects of some diet or drug on heart disease. 500 subjects are selected to study for some years, and some 500 others are selected for a control group. At the end of the specified years, data is studied, and conclusions are drawn. They claim the conclusions are "objective".
What's missing from this picture? What if there is a relevant medical condition/disease that occurs in one in a million and that one in a million subject is not in the sample. You see the assumption - the enemy of objectivity - is that the sample represents the entire population. Given the assumption, objectivity is not possilbe. Too, supposing this was a trial for a new drug, and the manufacturer funded the study. Would that lend itself to objectivity? What if the doctors fudged the "data" to please the manufacturer to inturn receive more funding for more research? would that be objective?
Obviously, inductive reasoning is not objective.
Now we get to what seems to be your reasoning.
"the proper distance between the end points of a board (length) seems pretty darn objective. Therefore, you imply by induction, that all of science is objective. its absurd.
You can only look at one object at a time. You don't have enough time to examine all objects. So induction is always operative if you draw a generalization.
Moreover, since you can not observe all objects, you have to select by virtue of a heuristic device, what seems to be the most relevant objects. That requires belief or faith in your heuristic device. The idea that human activity can take place without any belief, faith, orunfounded notion is kaput. Every act by a person is based on the belief in his own judgement and skill which has no clear claim to infalibility.
You folks rail away at religous "absolutists" with some foundation, in my opinion. But you are blind to your own absolutist faith in the phantom objectivity. Read the history of science. Read Kuhn, Read Mason, Read Butterfield. The history of science is littered with abandoned theories claimed to be "objectively" determined. Read the history of the Vienna Circle who wisely abandoned the search for objectivity 80 -90 years ago.
Give me a concrete example of "the proper distance between the end points of a board (length) seems pretty darn objective, and I'll discuss it, otherwise I'll have to dismiss it as yet another abstraction that actually doesn't exist.
You see the bold part? Yeah, length. You want a concrete example of length? Your threatening to dismiss the concept of length?
This is absurd.
Length is an abstraction from reality. Extension is an abstraction from reality. There is no real object that consists purely of length. Give me an example of a real (physical) object that demonstrates you idea of objectivity. Then demonstrate how that instance of objectivity exhibits itself through out science.
My best guess about why you insist on abstract examples, instead of a real physical object is you have started to realize objectivity does not exist except as an idea in the mind.
Apollo: "I lack belief in abstractions, as they don't actually exist."
Apollo has finally admitted he does not believe in any god. Congratulations.
That's silly. You already assented to the idea that its OK for science to assume a phenomenon is "strings" or alternately assume it is "particles". But other people can't assume/believe something that you disaprove of. "Strings" and "particles" in this context are also abstractions, models of apparently real phenomenon. Such abstractions and assumptions are OK due to your personal authorization, but arbitrarily, you exclude belief in a creator God. That's your personal perogative, but you have no real ground to tell other people they must do as you. You look like an authoritarian absolutist.
Give an example of a real physical thing to exhibit your idea of objectivity, and not just some abstract "length".
"it seems to boil down to personal preference, apparently the enemy of objectivity."
As opposed to your completely unevidenced bronze age superstition , you are funny.
Mon, 10/29/2018 - 06:01
Apollo "Its obvious objectivity doesn't exist."
Tue, 10/30/2018 - 09:32
Apollo " They have no objective criterion to determine the veracity of either....it seems to boil down to personal preference, apparently the enemy of objectivity."
***Well done champ, that's fucking hilarious.