Richard Dawkins reads his email

[Solaris]

I really struggle to see the point

Kayadi​

is trying to make here.

Also, was it really

necessary​

to bring '

omfg​

Zionist​

conspiracy' into this?

 

[Stigmata]

I don't need to know the detailed intricacies of a perpetual-motion device to know that it won't work, and Dawkins doesn't need to know the detailed intricacies of a religion to know that it's false and broken.

 

[Mr Stabby]

ID has been fighting a losing battle since the scopes trail. It's not something to be too concerned by.

 

[Viperidae]

 

[Kadayi]

I have no clue as to what you're talking about

Stern, I'm rapidly losing respect for you here dude, you're trying to roll me with the same 2 bit approach you use against people like nemesis. What part of I don't do quote wars didn't you quite get? I'm not going to engage in some endless line for line, tit for tat exchange on side topics that meander away from the main subject (Dawkins the man, the myth, the misanthrope). I've indulged you to a degree because I'm accommodating but the rot stops here. If you want a genuine debate, put it in a legible paragraph, anything less and frankly I'm really not interested. Though if the best you can do is attempt at this stage is to try and attack me personally (u r hyprocrite!!!) it doesn't seem to me you've really much left in store room. I've put down some solid reasons what it is I dislike about the Dawkins in previous posts, but instead of addressing/challenging them, you seem more interested in arguing over the worth of Joe Campbells Bibliography (I personally can't see the problem), and whether I've met everyone in Europe (Have you met everyone in America?).

I don't need to know the detailed intricacies of a perpetual-motion device to know that it won't work, and Dawkins doesn't need to know the detailed intricacies of a religion to know that it's false and broken.

So you're advocating presumption over actual investigation? The scientific approach is always to investigate surely?

allow me to humiliate myself

It's late, I meant 2 x 4 but you get the gist. Touche :dozey:

 

[Absinthe]

So theism possibly stops us from being beasts to ourselves through science? Is that necessarily always a bad thing? Personally I like the notion that another man might think real hard about whether to obliterate myself and my family because of some religious hangup, rather than unquestioningly following the instructions of his superiors. Magical thinking, now that is a wonderful phrase. You know it's physically impossible to demonstrate Multiplication? You just can't take 2 apples and another 2 apples and suddenly turn them into 8 apples, it just can't be done. Yet I see no one rallying against the madness of multiplication, a tenet of mathematics upon which myriad things are built and contrived. Utterly unprovable, much like the concept of Love. Yet even the mighty Dawkins believes in that delusion. :dozey:

Love is a description of a set of experiences we go through. It can be either be a sky-high, whistful concept of destiny or little more than a romantic euphemism for a bunch of chemically-fueled emotions, depending on who you ask. Either way, love is at least tangible to a certain extent, and it is primarily a conundrum of definition. And multiplication may not have its grounding in physical reality, but then it is a man-made mathematical law designed for our practical purposes, not for worship and governance of our worldviews. I've never heard of anybody denying healthcare to others or bombing a building in the name of 2x2=4.

In any case, you can disagree with his views; find them flawed, fallible, and shortsighted. Maybe that still makes him pompous. But that is different from the charge that he lacks consistency or perhaps even sincerity in his arguments. That's the only point I was getting at.

 

[Viperidae]

Alright, so you thought I was making fun of your multiplication skills. Er, no. And to answer your pre-edit post:

What kind of physical proof are you talking about? The maths pixies to come and say it? Maths is never prescribed as real, but it describes that which is real, under a certain set of circumstances, and under those circumstances is verifiable every time. It is not imaginary by any means. It is a logical system based on repeatable, observable data in the universe. We did not create multiplication because we felt so inclined. It is a way of describing a number, or the relations between numbers. It is not imaginary.

 

[Solaris]

I'd disagree.

Mathematics is not a model. It is; it exists.
1 exists. 2 exists. -1 exists. even root(-1) exists.

 

[Vegeta897]

Thread goes from religious debate to mathematical debate. How ironic.

 

[Viperidae]

I knew the second I posted it would be a mistake...

 

[<RJMC>]

mathematic is bullshit like religion

when you count mentally 2+2=4,first you are imaginating that! so is not real,no real things,just in your mind
and how come if you fuse 2 diferent stuff,one diferent will appear huh? if you fuse water whit water what you got? water!
but nooooooo people write that stuff and thats is it,a fact!
its like the bible!"its written in the bible so is fact!" well is the same whit this mathematics stuff

mathematics is bullshit like religion,they even where invented by some death dudes thousands years ago that only "proof" of existance is some writings and statues and shit like that

 

[Kadayi]

Love is a description of a set of experiences we go through. It can be either be a sky-high, whistful concept of destiny or little more than a romantic euphemism for a bunch of chemically-fueled emotions, depending on who you ask. Either way, love is at least tangible to a certain extent, and it is primarily a conundrum of definition. And multiplication may not have its grounding in physical reality, but then it is a man-made mathematical law designed for our practical purposes, not for worship and governance of our worldviews. I've never heard of anybody denying healthcare to others or bombing a building in the name of 2x4=8.

It's either fully tangible, or it's not. If you use the rationale of Dawkins it's as much a cultural delusion as religion and given the impact it has on peoples lives as dangerous a one as religion. Consider all the stupid things you've probably done over love, and myriad people have throughout the ages (including killing people).

In any case, you can disagree with his views; find them flawed, fallible, and shortsighted. Maybe that still makes him pompous. But that is different from the charge that he lacks consistency or perhaps even sincerity in his arguments. That's the only point I was getting at.

I'm wanting to see some consistency is his conduct, not his opinions. Perhaps I needed to clarify that.

What kind of physical proof are you talking about? The maths pixies to come and say it? Maths is never prescribed as real, but it describes that which is real, under a certain set of circumstances, and under those circumstances is verifiable every time. It is not imaginary by any means. It is a logical system based on repeatable, observable data in the universe. We did not create multiplication because we felt so inclined. It is a way of describing a number, or the relations between numbers. It is not imaginary.

I'm not arguing that multiplication doesn't exist as a mental construct. I'm merely using it to demonstrate that there are many concepts we as humans buy into that don't have any basis beyond agreed consensual belief. You can argue as much as you want about the theory of multiplication, but you can't take 6 apples off a tree and suddenly turn them into 8 apples in the physical world. The most you can do is to persuade me to subscribe to your way of thinking when it comes to the idea of multiplication. Does that make sense?

Thread goes from religious debate to mathematical debate. How ironic.

Actually I'm just using the act of multiplication to demonstrate a point, not the whole realm of Mathematics. Just to clarify.

I'd disagree.

Mathematics is not a model. It is; it exists.
1 exists. 2 exists. -1 exists. even root(-1) exists.

tell me of your homeworld Usul

Heh all this debating is doing wonders for my folding btw GJ

 

[French Ninja]

lol religious ppl r dum

:upstare:

 

[jverne]

Praise for what exactly? Writing a "controversial" book (God is a lie!!!) to keep the chattering classes a twitter? Or relabeling 'catchphrase' into 'meme'?

The Dawkins I want to see is the one that strides across the globe like a titan, wandering into the Amazon to educate the primitive tribes within as to the error of their ways and the foolishness of their quaint beliefs. A Dawkins that regales the conquered peoples of North America to accept their lot as losers to the whiteman and throw away their mysticism. A Dawkins that punches out the Dalai Lama for being an empty figurehead of an obsolete order and throws his support behind the authority of China in Tibet. A Dawkins that walks into Africa and drags Witch Doctors kicking and screaming from their huts into the sunlight to unmask their chicanery. A Dawkins who travels to Mecca to rally against Islam at it's very heart, with no fear of a fatwah and tell the masses that they are less than dogs to him whilst they cling to their beliefs. A Dawkins that asks under what right the Israelites lay claim to lands they long ago abandoned if there is no God?

Instead we have a Dawkins who does little more than beats the drum against Christianity, a religion, that is practically on the out and has very little fight in it, save for ire. Bravo, brave brave Sir Dawkins, bravo indeed.

So yes The Dawkins is a pompous prick imo. :dozey:

are you an idiot?

But why concentrate on just the Christians? Why not go after the Tibetians? (for example) Are their beliefs any more sacred or valid? Of course not? Is it a cultural thing? Would the Tibetan culture be inherently weaker for the lack of the Dalai Lama? How more so Christianity? I hate to play devils advocate here, but if you are against one, then you have to be against the others and with equal measure. Where in do you support a peoples beliefs because it is part of their 'culture' and not the other? Or is it that the Dawkins presumes we Westerners are somehow culturally superior enough to begin the process of removing the stain of Christian thinking from our cultural mindset? Where as others are not?

yup...you're certainly going that way...plus you're ignorant

But feigning ignorance regarding the intricacies of a subject he claims to be an expert in seems somewhat contradictory. The Jewish God is the same God as that which is worshiped by the Christians and the Muslims.

Then how much of an 'expert' on religion can he genuinely be? Joseph Campell wrote 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' back in 1949 having analyzed thousands of mythical tales from around the world to crystallize his opinions regarding the core dynamics of the eternal myth (the crux of which George Lucas used as the basis for Star Wars). If a man can do that in order to get to the root of myths, how much less so a man intending to get to the root of religion? There really aren't that many books to read. The phrase Half assed springs to mind.

ok this is getting annoying....let me say it this way...dawkins is not the only "atheist" hero. he made good arguments about Christianity and i'm sure if he'd wanted he'd do the same with all religions. and besides he also made some general ones about religion (indoctrination, child abuse,...). his arguments are firm and valid, why do you want to discard all of his work, even tough he didn't gather all possible data?

Then clearly he should stick to what he knows instead of wading into deep waters he's unclear about. Sorry to see you can't handle a spelling mistake but I suggest you get over it (I did). I'm also sorry to see that you can't see the comparison between a man whose actually an expert in his subject writing a book about it, Vs a man who isn't by his own admission. I can honestly say, hand on heart I've never yet met an avid creationist this side of the pond and certainly not any who wants to usurp the teaching of evolution in our schools.

oh...jesus. if you're gonna be a moron at least go read or watch some dawkins.

 

[Raziaar]

What separates these people from those around them save their belief systems? If you remove the culture what is the difference? Is a native American still a native American if he /she no longer subscribes to a native American belief system? Or do they merely become an American, like everyone else? When do you stop categorizing people by their ethnicity alone? Should there not be people out there calling themselves, German-Americans, Norwegian-Americans as well as African- American, or Asian - American, or perhaps European-American would be an acceptable phrase? As regards Israel, the Jews are not strictly a race, many of those in Israel carry no lineage from the time of the Exodus, without either manifest destiny/zionist desire behind them what secular rights do they really have to the lands of Israel or Palestine?

Style over content then? :dozey:

Yeah but see you're heavily mistaking religion for culture. Should people not be able to have their own independent cultures? Cultures may have different religions, but that's only a fraction of what makes a culture unique.

When the Indians were displaced from their lands, their way of life was changed. The religious aspects of it all was only an insignificant portion of what was changed for them.

Culture != Religion

And I think culture should always be allowed to be preserved. Culture is what makes us humans interesting to each other.

 

[Absinthe]

It's either fully tangible, or it's not. If you use the rationale of Dawkins it's as much a cultural delusion as religion and given the impact it has on peoples lives as dangerous a one as religion. Consider all the stupid things you've probably done over love, and myriad people have throughout the ages (including killing people).

Both love and religion are real. What religion professes (ie. existence of deities and eternal salvation) has not been proven so, or had its legitimacy or effect on the universe as we know it so much as hinted at. This is distinct from the belief in those things. Those most certainly do exist and have effect.

And I view love as distinguishing itself from religion because it is often - if not always - a force of compulsion outside of one's control. Love is an emotion, or at least an expression of some of our basest ones. It doesn't have an institution or dogma. Even if you do away with all the religious practice and rules and settle for mere god belief with no strings attached, love doesn't compare because it doesn't attempt to confirm the existence of anything outside of itself. Love as an emotional experience is not the same as the idea of a deity.

Love, for better or worse, is part of the human condition and requires no instruction. It's not subject to the same critical evaluation we can afford religion. And for that reason I think that whatever positive or negative experiences we derive from religion are far more within our control. Stupidities committed in the name of religion could be avoided if the scripture or "law" they were acting on was looked upon with a more skeptical eye. Similar actions in the name of love or some other force of passion, less so much. One requires a matter of personal restraint. While the same can be argued for religious atrocities, they also stemmed from ignoring one's own ability to examine what they believe.

Religion is an overarching umbrella that covers many emotional experiences. It's a high-level mental construction, more similar to a political ideology like Communism than things like love or hatred. It can only inspire those.

 

[Kadayi]

But Raz, do you honestly think that religion and culture are separate entities that can be easily separated? Consider how fundamentally the Islamic faith impacts daily upon the lives of all the worlds Muslims, from the manner of their dress, to their names, their laws, etc etc. Even in the west our cultures are still inherently steeped in the religious teachings that have passed down through the generations regarding what is right and what is wrong, even though we might not be practicing Christians.

Oh 12.30...time for kips. More fun and games tomorrow not doubt.

 

[Asknoone]

Anymore name calling and I'll start handing out infractions.

 

[jverne]

Anymore name calling and I'll start handing out infractions.

oh come on samon...i think these word perfectly fit the situation and they are not derogatory in a vulgar and unreasonable kind of way.

 

[Viperidae]

I'm not arguing that multiplication doesn't exist as a mental construct. I'm merely using it to demonstrate that there are many concepts we as humans buy into that don't have any basis beyond agreed consensual belief. You can argue as much as you want about the theory of multiplication, but you can't take 6 apples off a tree and suddenly turn them into 8 apples in the physical world. The most you can do is to persuade me to subscribe to your way of thinking when it comes to the idea of multiplication. Does that make sense?

You seem to think that multiplication is a concept that gives you more. Who told you that applying multiplication to apples will yield you more apples out of thin air? My grid example contains objects that are already there. You're not generating more apples. Yet it's a perfectly real world example of multiplication. All multiplication is sequential addition. All addition is putting two things together.

And putting aside the 'reality' of maths or whatever Solaris wants to debate for a moment, let's just talk about real consistency. Math, as a tool, has an amazing track record of success. Just look at its primary field of use: engineering. Engineers have ensured that your car doesn't fall apart as you drive it. That your house keeps you warm in the winter. Sure, it may be a hard swallow to understand or believe, but is a millionfold more compelling (It doesn't even need to be sold; it stands on its own merits.) as something to believe in other than religion.

What has religion given us again? Blindly following, docile people? That's going to stop people from murdering each other, as your example?

 

[jverne]

What has religion given us again? Blindly following, docile people? That's going to stop people from murdering each other, as your example?

(ok...switching to a more civil debate)

i'd like to add something to your thought. people began killing each other less not because of religion but because scientific achievements raised their individuality (trough free time and financial/social status) and thus it became less fashionable to slaughter people. religion had nothing to do with that.
my proof...look at history (hint...dark ages)

 

[PvtRyan]

Samon is a poo poo head.

This thread is laughable (and by thread, I mean Kadayi).

I'm not arguing that multiplication doesn't exist as a mental construct. I'm merely using it to demonstrate that there are many concepts we as humans buy into that don't have any basis beyond agreed consensual belief. You can argue as much as you want about the theory of multiplication, but you can't take 6 apples off a tree and suddenly turn them into 8 apples in the physical world. The most you can do is to persuade me to subscribe to your way of thinking when it comes to the idea of multiplication. Does that make sense?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in school where we learned how you can create physical objects ex nihilo through the arcane powers of multiplication. Did you have a kid in class who was called Harry Potter? It would explain a thing or two.

No, so you can't take 6 apples and turn them into 8 and thus, you claim, multiplication is a belief. Wow. Just wow.

What you can do, is take 6 apples and 8 others and say "there are 1.5x as many apples here as over there" and doing so, you have defined the concept of multiplication. You've established a relationship between the two piles of apples and called that relationship "multiplication" and defined a ratio that you call "1.5", but it could as well have been "glubglub". It doesn't matter, you're still describing the same relationship.

 

[leib10]

correct me if I'm wrong but kadayi is (practising) christian so would naturally have a bit of a problem with dawkins

It also occurs to me that 95% of the people on this forum are atheists to one degree to another, so it's no surprise that everybody is rushing to his defense as well.

 

[Kadayi]

You seem to think that multiplication is a concept that gives you more. Who told you that applying multiplication to apples will yield you more apples out of thin air? My grid example contains objects that are already there. You're not generating more apples. Yet it's a perfectly real world example of multiplication. All multiplication is sequential addition. All addition is putting two things together.

Regardless of how you word it, 2 + 4 = 6 not 8 when you deal with real world objects. Multiplication exists as a mental construct that we buy into, you must accept that surely?

And putting aside the 'reality' of maths or whatever Solaris wants to debate for a moment, let's just talk about real consistency. Math, as a tool, has an amazing track record of success. Just look at its primary field of use: engineering. Engineers have ensured that your car doesn't fall apart as you drive it. That your house keeps you warm in the winter. Sure, it may be a hard swallow to understand or believe, but is a millionfold more compelling (It doesn't even need to be sold; it stands on its own merits.) as something to believe in other than religion.

What has religion given us again? Blindly following, docile people? That's going to stop people from murdering each other, as your example?

I'm not arguing the merits of religion (far from it, it's not my bag), I'm merely demonstrating the fallibility of certain ideas when put under scrutiny.

It also occurs to me that 95% of the people on this forum are atheists to one degree to another, so it's no surprise that everybody is rushing to his defense as well.

I'm actually an atheist, but I just don't like Dawkins (I think he's a prick, a pompous one at that). Sadly the high brotherhood of the Dawkins can't handle such heresy and feel the need to lynch me for not recognizing his omnipotence

No, so you can't take 6 apples and turn them into 8 and thus, you claim, multiplication is a belief. Wow. Just wow.

Yes it is an artificial construct that we as a collective subscribe to. I'm glad you recognize it as such.

 

[15357]

I get what Kayadi is trying to say, but what I don't get is why you guys are so hostile. Richard Dawkins, while being kickass awesome, is a pompous prick, at least to religious people. It's a matter of perspective.


Personally, I'd call the man a prick if he started to attack my belief system. Or belief in the system.

 

[Solaris]

No, so you can't take 6 apples and turn them into 8 and thus, you claim, multiplication is a belief. Wow. Just wow.

What you can do, is take 6 apples and 8 others and say "there are 1.5x as many apples here as over there" and doing so, you have defined the concept of multiplication. You've established a relationship between the two piles of apples and called that relationship "multiplication" and defined a ratio that you call "1.5", but it could as well have been "glubglub". It doesn't matter, you're still describing the same relationship.

You wonderful thing.

I knew what Kaydi was saying was complete rubbish by instinct but couldn't be bothered/able to define why as well as you have.

Shows the level of thought he's put into his argument.

 

[Asknoone]

oh come on samon...i think these word perfectly fit the situation and they are not derogatory in a vulgar and unreasonable kind of way.

I don't want escalation. It was a reminder not to go overboard.

 

[PvtRyan]

I get what Kayadi is trying to say, but what I don't get is why you guys are so hostile. Richard Dawkins, while being kickass awesome, is a pompous prick, at least to religious people. It's a matter of perspective.


Personally, I'd call the man a prick if he started to attack my belief system. Or belief in the system.

Except that he isn't.

Watch the series he did on alternative medicine. He's a guy with genuinely good intentions who actually ends up defending the therapeutic/non-physical side of bogus medicine.

He actually warmed me up to the idea of alternative medicine and it not being ALL bad.

He's British, he can't help but sound pompous.

 

[15357]

Except that he isn't.

Watch the series he did on alternative medicine. He's a guy with genuinely good intentions who actually ends up defending the therapeutic/non-physical side of bogus medicine.

He actually warmed me up to the idea of alternative medicine and it not being ALL bad.

He's British, he can't help but sound pompous.

I suppose so.

I need to read/watch more of his wroks.

 

[Kadayi]

Shows the level of thought he's put into his argument.

My argument was that you can't take 2 apples and 4 apples and magically turn them into 8 apples, as a means to demonstrate the act of multiplication. Nothing Pvt Ryan says refutes that, in fact what he says supports entirely my position, that multiplication is a concept agreed upon (nothing more). Unfortunately you guys are all to hell bent on nailing my ass for alleged crimes against The Dawkins you can't see the wood for the trees. Oh for the day when someone rolls up at HL2.net who can actually argue in the abstract :dozey:

 

[Raziaar]

I don't want escalation. It was a reminder not to go overboard.

Are we set now?

 

[jverne]

My argument was that you can't take 2 apples and 4 apples and magically turn them into 8 apples, as a means to demonstrate the act of multiplication. Nothing Pvt Ryan says refutes that, in fact what he says supports entirely my position, that multiplication is a concept agreed upon (nothing more). Unfortunately you guys are all to hell bent on nailing my ass for alleged crimes against The Dawkins you can't see the wood for the trees. Oh for the day when someone rolls up at HL2.net who can actually argue in the abstract :dozey:

first...yes multiplication is a made up mathematical tool. read about mathematical axioms.

second...you got nailed (at least by me) not (only) because you speak false about dawkins but because you are an ____(word not allowed by samon) by not reasoning enough and being ignorant.

 

[Solaris]

My argument was that you can't take 2 apples and 4 apples and magically turn them into 8 apples, as a means to demonstrate the act of multiplication. Nothing Pvt Ryan says refutes that, in fact what he says supports entirely my position, that multiplication is a concept agreed upon (nothing more). Unfortunately you guys are all to hell bent on nailing my ass for alleged crimes against The Dawkins you can't see the wood for the trees. Oh for the day when someone rolls up at HL2.net who can actually argue in the abstract :dozey:

Do you understand what multiplication is?

I remember I understood the concept when my Kindergarden/reception teacher explained it to us as, 2 sets of 4 = 8. When you replace 'times by' with 'sets of' or 'lots of' it makes sense.

If you have 2 sets of 4 apples you have 8. That is multiplication in the physical world.

If you were merely arguing that mulitiplication was a concept then why bother? Surely no-one would disagree with that. When you equate it with faith in god (I don't think you were but you're making a very diluted and vague point to the extent that all I can argue with here is the mathematics) then the analgy gets silly.

All you seem to have done is shown that concepts exist to some degree, and religion and multiplication are both (but entirely different) concepts.

 

[Operational]

You just can't take 2 apples and another 4 apples and suddenly turn them into 8 apples, it just can't be done.

Yeah because that isn't how multiplication works.

2x4 (aka 2 groups of 4) (aka 4+4) (aka 2+2+2+2)

Edit: ahhh Solaris beat meh.

 

[MJ12]

The funny thing is, Dawkins is starting to get the same unrelenting, unconditional, and messianic appraisal from atheists that Jesus has gotten all these years from Christians!

Ah, everything is relative.

 

[Solaris]

The funny thing is, Dawkins is starting to get the same unrelenting and unconditional appraisal that Jesus has gotten all these years!

Ah, everything is relative.

That's not funny, nor is it true. You only need to see the vid in the OP to know what you just said is bullshit...