Richard Dawkins answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College

[loco]

Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", starts off by mocking a young, stupid, ignorant creationist and makes the audience laugh at his expense.  Earlier, Dawkins had trashed Liberty University, where this kid is a student.  But once this kid asks the second and third questions, Dawkins realizes kid is not as ignorant and stupid as Dawkins thought.  Dawkins is then forced to stop mocking and get serious about answering the kid's question.

&mode=related&search=

So, in other words, for Dawkins it is "a whole lot easier to accept" that Nothing created everything out of nothing than it is to accept that God created everything out of nothing.   

Oh, and also

God, if He exists, would have to be a very very very complicated thing indeed.

   

Wow, what an observation! 

[Colossus_500]

Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", starts off by mocking a young, stupid, ignorant creationist and makes the audience laugh at his expense.  Earlier, Dawkins had trashed Liberty University, where this kid is a student.  But once this kid asks the second and third questions, Dawkins realizes kid is not as ignorant and stupid as Dawkins thought.  Dawkins is then forced to stop mocking and get serious about answering the kid's question.

&mode=related&search=

So, in other words, for Dawkins it is "a whole lot easier to accept" that Nothing created everything out of nothing than it is to accept that God created everything out of nothing.   

Oh, and also
   

Wow, what an observation! 

I loved how the cynics in the room got DEATHLY SILENT, when the student started to challenge Dawkins.  Dawkins' posture changed when he realized this young man was as every bit as deep as he is, if not deeper. 

[Colossus_500]

Dawkins stumped again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

I do applaud him for being willing to debate creationists. 

[Nordic Superman]

He's English. He's right by default.

How do you refute this:

[loco]

He's English. He's right by default.

 

So was Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, a devout Christian whom Richard Dawkins described as "the greatest of Darwin's successors."
Dawkins, Richard (1995). River out of Eden.

He was "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"
Hald, Anders (1998). A History of Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley.

"a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines." H. Allen Orr.  the Boston Review Gould on God Can religion and science be happily reconciled?

[Camel Jockey]

It leads to the question of: Who created this very complex thing know as "God"?

Beyond your comprehension, loco? How did he just come into existence? Balls in your court.

[loco]

It leads to the question of: Who created this very complex thing know as "God"?

Beyond your comprehension, loco? How did he just come into existence? Balls in your court.

God is eternal,

just like some atheists believe that the universe is eternal.

Other atheists believe that everything evolved from a very simple thing to the very complex universe we have today.  But, if matter cannot create itself, then who created this initial very very very simple thing from which all complex things evolved?

Dawkins says that "both theories are very difficult to accept".  According to Dawkins, we should accept the one which we believe is "a whole lot easier to accept". 

To Dawkins, and maybe to you, it is a whole lot easier to accept that Nothing created everything out of nothing.  And I respect that if that's what you and Dawkins choose to believe.  To me, it is a whole lot easier to accept that God created everything out of nothing.

Which do you believe, Camel Jockey?

[OzmO]

It's hard for me to accept that nothing was created out of nothing.  That in it's self should prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch

[columbusdude82]

Thanks for posting those vids, loco. I have seen them before.

If you are genuinely interested in the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, Victor Stenger elaborates on it in his book "God: the Failed Hypothesis." (I know the title is not appealing to you, but he makes some good arguments, with lots of nice references, and on this point in particular he writes from a physicist's perspective.)

As for Liberty U., may I ask if that's where you got your degree from?

[columbusdude82]

It's hard for me to accept that nothing was created out of nothing.  That in it's self should prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch

Just because you or I have a hard time understanding something doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I have a hard time understanding Shakespeare, Milton, fluid mechanics, macroeconomics, and computer science. That doesn't say anything about these fields but it does say something about me.

The wrong reasoning you display above probably explains how so many gods came about.

People didn't understand the sea, its tides and waves and storms and whims, so they invented Poseidon.

People didn't understand thunder and feared its destructive power, so they invented Thor.

People didn't understand rain, and thought they could get rain by worshiping rain gods, so they invented rain gods.

People didn't understand the germ theory of disease, so they invented "sin" and claimed that disease was a punishment for sin (whether the sick person's or someone else's).

etc

And EVEN IF this did "prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch," why does it have to be Yahweh, and not Zeus, Poseidon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[loco]

And EVEN IF this did "prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch," why does it have to be Yahweh, and not Zeus, Poseidon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

columbusdude82,
OzmO didn't say anything about Yahweh.  He said a higher power.  Many people who do not believe in Yahweh, still do believe in an intelligent, higher power or being who created everything.

[columbusdude82]

I didn't say he said anything about Yahweh.

[columbusdude82]

So was Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, a devout Christian whom Richard Dawkins described as "the greatest of Darwin's successors."
Dawkins, Richard (1995). River out of Eden.

He was "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"
Hald, Anders (1998). A History of Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley.

"a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines." H. Allen Orr.  the Boston Review Gould on God Can religion and science be happily reconciled?

About R.A. Fisher, yes he was brilliant. Yes he was religious. Why is his good science an argument for his religious beliefs being true?

You might as well argue that he was a good scientist, and that he always had bad breath, therefore bad breath and being a good scientist are somehow related.

R.A. Fisher didn't inject God into his science. If you are familiar with statistics, the "F-distribution" is named after him, and much of linear modeling follows from his work. His great work is for all mankind, just as you don't have to be a Christian to enjoy Handel's Messiah.

[OzmO]

Just because you or I have a hard time understanding something doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I have a hard time understanding Shakespeare, Milton, fluid mechanics, macroeconomics, and computer science. That doesn't say anything about these fields but it does say something about me.

The wrong reasoning you display above probably explains how so many gods came about.

People didn't understand the sea, its tides and waves and storms and whims, so they invented Poseidon.

People didn't understand thunder and feared its destructive power, so they invented Thor.

People didn't understand rain, and thought they could get rain by worshiping rain gods, so they invented rain gods.

People didn't understand the germ theory of disease, so they invented "sin" and claimed that disease was a punishment for sin (whether the sick person's or someone else's).

etc

And EVEN IF this did "prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch," why does it have to be Yahweh, and not Zeus, Poseidon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

i agree with you C-62 for the most part.  I don't believe the God identified in the Bible is  accurate and i believe the same about all those other gods and the religions that identify them.

They all have some truth in them but none has the whole truth and until we die we will never even get close to that truth.

And even though i may not understand how these things came about scientifically, it still, even with the things you and i understand about physics, biology, genetics, etc...    all point to intelligent design from a higher power.

[columbusdude82]

all point to intelligent design from a higher power.

No. All the scientific evidence points to a universe without design. In particular, the universe was not designed with mankind in mind.

If there were a god that created a universe for mankind, the universe would look very different. For one thing, such a universe would have only one planet, not BILLIONS OF BILLIONS.

There wouldn't be comets and asteroids hurtling towards that planet that may crash into it and cause mass extinction of mankind, such as what happened to the dinosaurs.

The sun wouldn't emit radiation that is harmful to man.

Life on that planet wouldn't have taken a few billion years of evolution and natural selection to produce mankind.

Life on that planet wouldn't include predators and parasites that kill or harm mankind (i.e. no lions, no viruses, etc).

That planet wouldn't contain vast oceans, vast deserts, and vast arctic regions that are uninhabitable by man (think of most of Canada, most of Russia, the African Sahara, etc) because they are useless to man.

That planet wouldn't have a turbulent weather system (tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, etc) that harm mankind, nor volcanoes and earthquakes.

The above are a few characteristics of what a world designed by a god for mankind would look like. Our world clearly is NOT like this.

Ergo, the evidence points against any intelligent design.

[haider]

so if the planet doesn't seem like it was created for mankinds survival (according to your own criterion) then it follows logically that the universe must not have been created by God? 

This is how it goes:
1, present your assumptions abt what creation is.
2, discredit these by offering evidence against these.
3, Boom! god doesn't exist!

 

[columbusdude82]

so if the planet doesn't seem like it was created for mankinds survival (according to your own criterion) then it follows logically that the universe must not have been created by God?  Huh

I am saying that it is FAR MORE LIKELY that the universe was not created by an intelligent being.

[nzhardgain]

Hard to take u seriously after all your childish spam.

[NeoSeminole]

damn, columbusdude82 is laying a whoop ass on the believers in here.

[OzmO]

No. All the scientific evidence points to a universe without design. In particular, the universe was not designed with mankind in mind.

If there were a god that created a universe for mankind, the universe would look very different. For one thing, such a universe would have only one planet, not BILLIONS OF BILLIONS.

It seems like you are debating me  from the stand point of me being a believer in the traditional religious beliefs you see with fundamental christians on this board.  That couldn't be further from the truth.

Who says god created the universe for mankind?   I don't think so, there's almost no evidence other than earth. 

There wouldn't be comets and asteroids hurtling towards that planet that may crash into it and cause mass extinction of mankind, such as what happened to the dinosaurs.

Why couldn't god have decided to create a universe with laws of physics?  why couldn't he have started with a single cell animal and developed it eventually into dinosaurs and then mammals and then humans? 

Does everything have to be either the traditional creationists view or the atheists spiritually dead conclusions?

The sun wouldn't emit radiation that is harmful to man.

Everything is harmful to man otherwise we wouldn't die.  Fact is though you can go outside right?  does it kill you? 

Life on that planet wouldn't have taken a few billion years of evolution and natural selection to produce mankind.

Life on that planet wouldn't include predators and parasites that kill or harm mankind (i.e. no lions, no viruses, etc).

Seems like you want living to be with no pain, failure or danger....  That's not life, that's not living.  Living is overcoming challenges and bettering yourself. 

Without mortality, life wouldn't mean much.

That planet wouldn't contain vast oceans, vast deserts, and vast arctic regions that are uninhabitable by man (think of most of Canada, most of Russia, the African Sahara, etc) because they are useless to man.

That planet wouldn't have a turbulent weather system (tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, etc) that harm mankind, nor volcanoes and earthquakes.

Without mortality, life wouldn't mean much.


And we can live in the arctic if we have to.   

The above are a few characteristics of what a world designed by a god for mankind would look like. Our world clearly is NOT like this.

Ergo, the evidence points against any intelligent design.

i don't see the randomness you see as lack of intelligent design.  Try looking in terms of creating something that works,  a world, universe etc that works and being able to put creature in this universe that can live strive and better itself, that can deal with adversity, triumph and failure, can love and hate etc...

Look at the human body, and it's ability to reproduce, grow, develop, problem solve, repair it's self, all the fight or flight mechanisms, adrenalin, sleep,   etc....

Looks very intelligent to me.

[columbusdude82]

First you say

Who says god created the universe for mankind?   I don't think so, there's almost no evidence other than earth.

Then you say

Why couldn't god have decided to create a universe with laws of physics?  why couldn't he have started with a single cell animal and developed it eventually into dinosaurs and then mammals and then humans? ....Try looking in terms of creating something that works,  a world, universe etc that works and being able to put creature in this universe that can live strive and better itself, that can deal with adversity, triumph and failure, can love and hate etc...

So which is it?

You say you think that the "design" of the human body is intelligent. There are many, many reasons proposed by biologists for why they believe that the human body was not "intelligently designed." Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. The human eye is actually backwards, with optical nerves going outwards then heading towards the brain.
2. A very big chunk of our DNA is useless, "junk DNA," a relic of our evolutionary past.
3. An intelligent designer would have removed our tail bones and appendices, also relics of our evolutionary past.
4. Our bodies were "designed" to walk on all fours for many millions of years. It is only in the past few million years that we have begun to stand upright. That explains why hernias, back injuries, knee and hip injuries are so common among humans. These organs were not "designed" for walking upright.
5. Whoever designed us cannot be called intelligent. The idiot intersects our respiratory tract with our digestive tract, so that we choke on things we swallow. Children, especially, are highly likely to die because of this. Also, this unintelligent designer put toxic sewage lines in our recreational areas!

The only designer of the human body is evolution, a blind designer. That does not make me "spiritually dead," as you allege. It only makes me a person who makes up his mind after carefully looking at the evidence. In fact, I am very much spiritually alive.

Finally, I should remind you that evolution is a PROBABILISTIC process, in the sense that if you think of the evolution of life on earth as a cassette tape, and you hit the rewind button into the distant past, then hit play again, things might play out very differently.

For example, if the first vertebrates, that lived in the ocean about 450 million years ago, had gone extinct, then all vertebrates today, including all of us mammals ,all reptiles, etc, would not be around today.

[columbusdude82]

Look at the human body, and it's ability to reproduce, grow, develop, problem solve, repair it's self, all the fight or flight mechanisms, adrenalin, sleep,   etc....

Looks very intelligent to me.

Any biology major worth his salt can explain to you in detail how all of these came about through the blind trial-and-error of natural selection.

[OzmO]

First you say
Then you say
So which is it?

You say you think that the "design" of the human body is intelligent. There are many, many reasons proposed by biologists for why they believe that the human body was not "intelligently designed." Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. The human is actually backwards, with optical nerves going outwards then heading towards the brain.
2. A very big chunk of our DNA is useless, "junk DNA," a relic of our evolutionary past.
3. An intelligent designer would have removed our tail bones and appendices, also relics of our evolutionary past.
4. Our bodies were "designed" to walk on all fours for many millions of years. It is only in the past few million years that we have begun to stand upright. That explains why hernias, back injuries, knee and hip injuries are so common among humans. These organs were not "designed" for walking upright.

The only designer of the human body is evolution, a blind designer. That does not make me "spiritually dead," as you allege. It only makes me a person who makes up his mind after carefully looking at the evidence. In fact, I am very much spiritually alive.

Finally, I should remind you that evolution is a PROBABILISTIC process, in the sense that if you think of the evolution of life on earth as a cassette tape, and you hit the rewind button into the distant past, then hit play again, things might play out very differently.

For example, if the first vertebrates, that lived in the ocean about 450 million years ago, had gone extinct, then all vertebrates today, including all of us mammals ,all reptiles, etc, would not be around today.

I've always believed in some sort of evolution, I'm not a creationists, however, i do believe we are a work in progress and all those things you point out are valid.  But that doesn't take away form the things i pointed out.

You seem to think if "god" created all this it should be perfect.....my point is, he created it not to be perfect, becuase that's like playing "sims" with cheats.  What's the point?


Also,  i wasn't saying you were spiritually dead.   I was pointing out an extreme.

[columbusdude82]

...But that doesn't take away form the things i pointed out.

Yes it does. I demonstrated that humans cannot be considered "intelligently designed," and that our universe was not "designed" with mankind in mind.

The god you have in mind would be a senile, incompetent, tinkering inventor who can't get anything right in the first ten million tries, has a giant pile of evolutionary junk accumulated because of all his mistakes, with 98-99% of all species he created now extinct, can't keep comets and asteroids and volcanoes and earthquakes and weather patterns from destroying his work in progress, and he still can't get it right with humans after 4 billion years of life on earth.

[OzmO]

Yes it does. I demonstrated that humans cannot be considered "intelligently designed," and that our universe was not "designed" with mankind in mind.

The god you have in mind would be a senile, incompetent, tinkering inventor who can't get anything right in the first ten million tries, has a giant pile of evolutionary junk accumulated because of all his mistakes, with 98-99% of all species he created now extinct, can't keep comets and asteroids and volcanoes and earthquakes and weather patterns from destroying his work in progress, and he still can't get it right with humans after 4 billion years of life on earth.

No.

Try looking at what I'm saying from the view point of creating life, then creating human life.  Put yourself in the position of creating this life.  How would you do it?  how would you do it in a way that makes sense and covers the things i talked about earlier live love, triumph, learning, etc...


We are incredible machines  that house our souls.