Richard Dawkins vs. Wendy Wright

[Tree Fingers]

[vbtube]US8f1w1cYvs[/vbtube]

Been a militant atheist i am very interested in atheism vs. Theism
I cannot persuade myself that God is real
Been new to this site i was wondering how other people feel about this?

 

[Minor Axis]

You're an Atheist??? :eek

Richard Dawkins :thumbup Wendy Wright :thumbdown

She is clearly someone who does not want any "so called" facts to interfere with her religious beliefs. She continued to say "show us the facts" when really she means, "show us the facts that we agree with." I'm imagining her as a judge at the Salem witch trials. BTW, I had the pleasure of sitting through a reenactment of a witch trial and it was an eye opener.

If you look at the beginnings of the Universe and say, God created it and let it develop, (ignoring the argument about who/what God actually is), it could have been set in motion, on purpose, and today we see what has developed, and that includes evolution. We could be floating around in someone's extravagant test tube. Why not? But then the question becomes was the human race planned or just an accident?

Religious people typically get hung up because they have a book that says God created Adam and Eve in the present day form of humans, as in poof, here they are. So, we can't have evolved and can't be related to monkeys or other creatures of the Earth, number one, because we are "special", we are created in God's image. That seems to be the primary religious delusion or to be more fair, described as a conclusion with no real basis.

If God had the ability to create us and planned to create us, why go through all the trouble manipulating the universe to allow us to "evolve" from the slime? This is the reason Creationists don't like evolution and because evolution could put some doubt on the existence of the traditionally described God or at least one who planned to create humans, his children from the start. And interesting thought, if God is all powerful, you don't need evolution to create a human, but if God (as humans describe him) does not exist, you possibly have a means of explanation of how we came to be. Devote religious people really don't want any other explanations than what is in their holy book of choice and the most devote will bend over backwards to bend/create convenient facts to support their beliefs

Bottom line, there could be a entity/commitee/unfathomable force, that mixed a bunch of ingredients in a bottle with some heat to see what sprang forth or it could be just an accident. I think this makes it less likely likely we were planned from the start, but who knows, maybe we were? But it's not the only option!

 

[Tomperi]

Damn.. That Wendy chick sure got some issues...

 

[GameCrazed]

I used to be a militant atheist. Now, I just see the funny side.

 

[Tree Fingers]

I used to be a militant atheist. Now, I just see the funny side.

I really struggle to!
I get so pissed off with theists

 

[Minor Axis]

Gosh darn it guys, how can you be so sure?? The Theists are out on one limb, but so are you.

 

[GameCrazed]

How can I be sure? How can you be sure,that's more to the point, how can you be sure?

You wanna know what's so funny about this joke? What you tell me about me tells me more about you. When I see these two people talking I can't help but get the feeling that all their really talking about is themselves. Wendy summed it all up during the argument. How we percieve ourselves is how we treat eachother.

And this Richard Dawkins guy plans to accomplish by telling people there is no God, I can't even imagine.

Evolution is not a proven fact, it's just so obvious we're compelled to believe it. Things change. Things chnage overt time but the forces that affect them. They are driven to a certain point as if being guided by a plan. A master plan. A wizard behind the curtain.

And as far as Wendy's little hang-up on "species to species" evolution: Well, Wendy, maybe you shouldn't put so much faith in man. Maybe you need a little more faith in God.

It is man afterall, who defines what a species is. It is man, who divides, categorizes and mathmatizes the world he percieves around him. There is no monkey, or chimpanzee or the number three. There just is.

That's what the theists are banking on when it comes to God anyway, isn't it? Justice?

 

[GameCrazed]

The meaning of life is a joke that always has the same punchline, it's just always told in a differen't way. But isn't that what happens to all jokes, in an amount of time?

 

[Minor Axis]

How can I be sure? How can you be sure,that's more to the point, how can you be sure?

Dude, if you've read anything I've written, thats is exactly the point- I'm NOT sure!!!

Again I ask, how can you be sure?

 

[lumpenstein]

The meaning of life is a joke that always has the same punchline, it's just always told in a differen't way. But isn't that what happens to all jokes, in an amount of time?

The whole "meaning of life" question is a canard, invented by the curious mind of humans. There is no meaning, inasmuch as you may think it existed outside ourselves and we were compelled to answer it. If there is a meaning to life it is one we impose on ourselves from within. For me? It is an un-question. Life has no meaning for me. In the end us humans, and all creatures on this planet, will die. In the mean time life is directly proportional to what we made of it for ourselves, and how that affected others.

As for the punchline, read The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe.

 

[GameCrazed]

Minor Axis- I don't try to be sure. I'm not a dickhead. I'm just waiting to be assured.

lumpebstein- Is that what you really beleive?

 

[lumpenstein]

Minor Axis- I don't try to be sure. I'm not a dickhead. I'm just waiting to be assured.

lumpebstein- Is that what you really beleive?

Yes. The answer is 42. :nod:

 

[GameCrazed]

Very funny, but unfortunately, unoriginal. And you never really answered my question.

 

[lumpenstein]

Very funny, but unfortunately, unoriginal. And you never really answered my question.

Why the fuck would I post something I didn't believe? :confused

 

[Minor Axis]

There is no meaning, inasmuch as you may think it existed outside ourselves and we were compelled to answer it.

The "meaning of life" usually is asked by humans trying to figure out the big picture of their existence and mostly wondering if there is life after physical death. Granted there is really no evidence for a spiritual existence or a mechanism to return your spirit to a physical state after physical death. But I think some scientists have postulated theories about parallel universes besides the HUGE unknowns. As I've told other Atheists, there is no supporting evidence for your view, so I'd categorize it as your faith, such as it is, talking.

Minor Axis- I don't try to be sure. I'm not a dickhead. I'm just waiting to be assured.

That is fine with me. My only point is there is no reason to believe in something until there are facts to support it. In the mean time, I remain open-minded, undecided. All true Atheists will say, it's proven that every organism dies and as there is no proof for spiritual existence, so when you die, that's it, finito. My counter is that there is so much we don't know, you really don't have the facts to make that determination.

 

[GameCrazed]

If the world ended today, we would learn no more than we have.

My point being is that you can't measure potential ignorance if you are decidedly ignorant and you certainly cannot measure ther possiblility, let alone plausibilty of future unknown truths.

Sides, if this God o' yours is so great then we'd never get a chance at peeking behind the great mystic curtain anyways. Afterall, it does go on forever . . .

: )

 

[lumpenstein]

The "meaning of life" usually is asked by humans trying to figure out the big picture of their existence and mostly wondering if there is life after physical death. Granted there is really no evidence for a spiritual existence or a mechanism to return your spirit to a physical state after physical death. But I think some scientists have postulated theories about parallel universes besides the HUGE unknowns. As I've told other Atheists, there is no supporting evidence for your view, so I'd categorize it as your faith, such as it is, talking.



That is fine with me. My only point is there is no reason to believe in something until there are facts to support it. In the mean time, I remain open-minded, undecided. All true Atheists will say, it's proven that every organism dies and as there is no proof for spiritual existence, so when you die, that's it, finito. My counter is that there is so much we don't know, you really don't have the facts to make that determination.

Speculations or opinions don't need evidence. It has been disproved logically so many times in the past that Atheism is not a belief. "You can't disprove it therefore it exists." is a fallacious argument that has no validity.

 

[Minor Axis]

If the world ended today, we would learn no more than we have.

My point being is that you can't measure potential ignorance if you are decidedly ignorant and you certainly cannot measure ther possiblility, let alone plausibilty of future unknown truths.

Sides, if this God o' yours is so great then we'd never get a chance at peeking behind the great mystic curtain anyways. Afterall, it does go on forever . . .

: )

If you are an Atheist, you believe there is no God. I'm simply saying there is no basis to believe that unless you are limiting your basis to this physical world. In contrast, I am Agnostic and won't commit to that premise as I believe there is much outside our knowledge and there could easily be something that has a bearing on continued consciousness after physical death. But that does mean I've committed to the concept. I'm only open to the possibility. Just as I admit there could be a "God" although I really doubt it is as described by the Bible. The primary difference between your view and mine is that you feel there is enough evidence to believe and I don't.

Speculations or opinions don't need evidence. It has been disproved logically so many times in the past that Atheism is not a belief. "You can't disprove it therefore it exists." is a fallacious argument that has no validity.

I've never said anything exists because it can't be disproven. You think you have enough facts to make a determination and within a certain scope you are right. I have made no determination because I don't think we have all the facts to make an informed judgement. That is my opinion.

 

[NicAuf]

I've seen this before and she just seems like a person that rejects all facts presented to her. She has that brainwashed look...

 

[lumpenstein]

If you are an Atheist, you believe there is no God. I'm simply saying there is no basis to believe that unless you are limiting your basis to this physical world. In contrast, I am Agnostic and won't commit to that premise as I believe there is much outside our knowledge and there could easily be something that has a bearing on continued consciousness after physical death. But that does mean I've committed to the concept. I'm only open to the possibility. Just as I admit there could be a "God" although I really doubt it is as described by the Bible. The primary difference between your view and mine is that you feel there is enough evidence to believe and I don't.



I've never said anything exists because it can't be disproven. You think you have enough facts to make a determination and within a certain scope you are right. I have made no determination because I don't think we have all the facts to make an informed judgement. That is my opinion.

Of course Atheists limit their basis to this physical world. Name some other world that is accessible that we can examine and shed new light on the issue. Speculation and conjecture don't count. It is also worthless to consider anecdotal evidence as it cannot be confirmed. To accept something offered as evidence we must be able to reach a consensus and that is not possible if only the person experiencing the phenomena has access to it. Just because a thing can be imagined doesn't mean it's true, or even possible.