The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Discussion & Feedback
  3. Just Chat!
  4. There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?

  • 41 Replies
  • 11372 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?
« Reply #40 on: 16/07/2016 15:54:36 »
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 16/07/2016 03:33:36

We know our universe is almost unimaginable ancient when compared to our the history of our civilisation. Thus it is logical given the vast boundless universe of untold billions of stars and even more planets that there might be other civilisation a billion years in advance of ours.

And they would have absolutely no problem convincing you they were Almighty God or make you bow down and worship them as deities.
They would have all sorts of trouble convincing me of such.  I'd be intelligent enough to know that they're like, just really intelligent and stuff.  I would also probably feel more like I'm home, rather than stuck on a planet of retarded monkeys as I oftentimes feel lol.  But I bow down to no one.  Ever.  Period.

Quote
So why not go a step further and imagine an intelligence that is beyond human comprehension , that has created the universe, set its boundaries and mathematic laws in which to sustain its existence.

Wait... did you just tell me to imagine something beyond human comprehension???  Hmmmm... Paradox...

Quote
If you could go back to the middle ages, with all the paraphernalia of our modern world and demonstrate some of it on the primitives, they would bow down and worship you as God incarnate.

That's cause I'm awesome...

Quote
God is just  a huge extrapolation on that reasoning. Our universe is bound up by cause and effect, but it can't go back forever at some point the must be something everlasting  outside the confines of time an  "Uncaused Cause" of all existence and that my friend is the Almighty God  who you so passionately dispise.
This couldn't be further from the truth.  God is no such thing.  And the god you reference, the god you always speak of, the silly non existent god of established religion, is no such thing.  And I wouldn't criticize anyone for holding that specific point of view, in fact, I've even repeatedly said I make no claims to knowing that such a type of god doesn't exist, but that it would have zero to do with established religion, and it wouldn't be sentient nor able to answer prayer.  But you can't ascribe to the god of religion, try and cram it down our throats repeatedly even, then try and come off reasonable with the above as your defense.  Cause we know it's not what you truly believe.   But I would make a few points of note on the statement anyway though.  First off, yes, it can go back forever.  No, there doesn't have to be something everlasting whatsoever (that's fact).  And furthermore, though there can be an uncaused cause, if there was a specific cause it still doesn't mean for even a second that there would be a darn thing almighty about it at all.  Nor that it had to be sentient, or intelligent, or anything more than merely, well, a cause.  And no, that is not the god I despise, you are wrong there.  I would not despise such a god.  I despise the god of religion.  The fake god. The one that doesn't exist.  The one that's used for so much evil, the one with its silly laws, and contradictory rules, that supposedly decides what babies live, whose wives die (yes I'm a widower), and that considers people every bit as decent and admirable as anyone else to be sinners and worthy of contempt or death.  The little silly magic man in the sky that people give up their strength to, that they hold responsible for everything, that they thank for everything (the doctor didn't save their life right?  But god.  So ridiculous), the god that rules politics, and keeps society from so much intellectual advancement.  That is the god I so passionately despise.  The crutch of a god, the god that causes a block of true intellect and vision.  That is not the god you are referencing above, even if I still disagree with your reasoning for it.
Logged
 



Offline PmbPhy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3903
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 126 times
    • View Profile
Re: There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?
« Reply #41 on: 16/07/2016 16:47:26 »
Quote from: Alan McDougall
You do not know or could know the thoughts and minds of a sentient being from a civilisation a billion years in advance of ours so your statement is meaningless speculation. We might be like cockroaches are to us, to be stepped on in disgust?
In my humble opinion no species, regardless of how advanced they are, would ever think of stepping on a sentient intelligent being. Its the intelligence that sets us apart from cockroaches, not how advanced we are.

Its been theorized that the human race is no longer evolving so in a billion hears humans will be about the same as they are now. Evolution works by natural selection. Those beings which can't adapt to their environment die out while mutations of the species which are better adapted live on. However since we now control our environment using heat during the winter and AC during the summer and we use technology to adapt to other changes in the environment rather than relying on mutations there won't be a chance for our species to evolve. At least not according to this particular aspect of the theory of evolution. I read this in the book What Evolution Is[/] by Ernst Mayr, Science Masters Series (2002). It makes perfect sense to me.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 30 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.