Tonight - More4, The God Delusion

[Meade's Ball]

Religion to me is clearly a tool for all humans to anthropomorphosise a planet, life itself, its every beating heart being in some way to do with "us", just one species. I don't really need science to tell me how life started, to travel back in time to watch it all begin, but i "believe" in its origins story much more than do the one of the geezer with the beard and the magic son. Yes, i want to know the why of things, like any human, but there are much smallers whys of greater interest than the massive one, and in general science tends to offer those with variety.
I know we all need ritual too, a sense of purpose by thinking what we carry out has a result, a prize, a yay or nay, but my ritual is my own and doesn't really want to be sniffing incense or sitting uncomfortably in cold places nibbling on wafers.
This morning when running i came to a halt when seeing an average wooden chair outside a house upon whose seat was a giant steely pan, seemingly from a family of 18 Italians, filled with clothes, my guess was 6 items (two trouserses, a jumper, two t-shirts and a pair of briefs). I didn't root through to find out, but i stopped and liked the image and its ununderstandability. I ran on again and smiled.
That seemed my ritual and to the best of my knowledge no one was hurt or died. It seemed enough in spite of the lonliness of no one to tell it to attached.

My point is largely irrelevant and want no one else to really think it.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Dawkins Darwinian theory is based on the belief that no living organism is of irreducible complexity, and that every living thing in existence can be reduced back to the original single manifestation of life event, with no element of intelligent design. Creationist’s favorite claim is that the eye is just too complex to have evolved.

 

[Notters]

Is this a repeat? Is his schools thing on again tonight? That was fantastic.

 

[borat]

If gravity were even a fraction stronger or weaker, the planets wouldn't form. Without the nuclear forces, all matter would be nothing more than a chaotic goo. What if all elements such as oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen had no properties - and what is the source that defines these laws of chemistry? Where would humanity be without fire and electricity and why do these very specific processes even exist? Can biogenesis really explain how basic chemical components can all of a sudden emerge into an organism and begin an epic race to become complex organisms, which sole purpose seems to be to survive and advance?

Dawkins doesnt proclaim to have all the answers, however does ''God did it'' sufficiently answer any of the questions you have posed. At least Dawkins is striving to provide an explanation behind our existence.

 

[bhaexpress]

Well I admit that I'm an atheist although I don't blame religion for a lot of the things many do. There are benefits for some but Marx did get it right when he described relgion as the opium of the masses.

I'll watch this with an open mind to see what he has to say. Having said that I have a feeling that he will speak logically and not use a combination of dogma, superstition and myth to support his opinion.

 

[Don Quixote]

He can't think outside the box, that is his problem. He thinks everything he sees is real which might not even be true anyway. How does he know space is real, or his sacred scientific equations that "prove" things? He doesn't know what he is on about, he is just insane if you ask me.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Nice to see the Aussie Prime Minister coming out as an atheist – good on yer Julia. Fat chance of that ever happening in the States………………………….

 

[Stoo82]

Dawkins Darwinian theory is based on the belief that no living organism is of irreducible complexity, and that every living thing in existence can be reduced back to the original single manifestation of life event, with no element of intelligent design.

This can co-exist with 'God'. God creates thing, thing evolves.

 

[bhaexpress]

He can't think outside the box, that is his problem. He thinks everything he sees is real which might not even be true anyway. How does he know space is real, or his sacred scientific equations that "prove" things? He doesn't know what he is on about, he is just insane if you ask me.

Okay but what is belief in any 'higher authority' based on ? Fact ? Noooooo !

 

[Don Quixote]

Somebody prove to me the world wasn't created five minutes ago. This Dawkins guy doesn't know what he is on about.

 

[Stoo82]

Somebody prove to me the world wasn't created five minutes ago. This Dawkins guy doesn't know what he is on about.

Ah the old, If I cannot hear or see somthing, it does not exist theroy.

If a tree fall in the woods and NOTHING can hear it - does it make a sound?

 

[daveinprague]

Somebody prove to me the world wasn't created five minutes ago. This Dawkins guy doesn't know what he is on about.

Excllent..we didnt draw with Rochdale after all...!

Got nothing against people that believe the religeous drivel, but im afraid your arguments
amount to feck all.
I dont need Dawkins to tell me theres no god. Its a ridiculous premise anyway..

 

[Don Quixote]

Okay but what is belief in any 'higher authority' based on ? Fact ? Noooooo !

Yeah, that is what I am saying. Nothing can exactly be proved can it.

 

[Don Quixote]

Excllent..we didnt draw with Rochdale after all...!

Rochdale? Who are they? Never heard of them.

 

[Stoo82]

Excllent..we didnt draw with Rochdale after all...!

In a mad person mind we may have won. And therefor for him did we not win?

 

[Acker79]

If God was put forward as a theory to explain why everything is, it is one of our stronger ones. A lot stronger than Dawkins/atheists obscene confidence that it all was just a fortunate coincidence that's for sure...

And someone on this thread said dawkins was arrogant in his belief.

"God did it" is no stronger a theory than "it was random". There is no clear evidence for either theory, both being put forward as the theory that makes sense to the people who put them forward.

That is to say, science can't prove it is random, but it is some scientists' own deduction from what they believe about the world and it's history.
Religion can't prove it was a god, but that it some religious peoples' deduction from what they believe about the world and it's history.

Neither is stronger. For now.

 

[magoo]

Nice to see the Aussie Prime Minister coming out as an atheist – good on yer Julia. Fat chance of that ever happening in the States………………………….

I think in his book he says how the vast majority of people in power and higher status are privately atheists and have been for a long time. Which makes sense as in my opinion, atheists are generally of a higher intelligence.

 

[Wilko]

Well I admit that I'm an atheist although I don't blame religion for a lot of the things many do. There are benefits for some but Marx did get it right when he described relgion as the opium of the masses.

I'll watch this with an open mind to see what he has to say. Having said that I have a feeling that he will speak logically and not use a combination of dogma, superstition and myth to support his opinion.

Spot on. Even if you do not agree with Dawkins, he does attempt to back up every one of his beliefs with evidence, not a collection of stories, myths and hearsay.

 

[blue and white army]

The bloke's an utter joke, who cares if he doesn't believe in religion keep it to yourself. Just loves to boost his ego by trying to undermine religion and dream up some absurd lies. He's a superb advocate of marriage isn't he. Been married three times, the bloke's a deranged fool.

 

[Stoo82]

And someone on this thread said dawkins was arrogant in his belief.

"God did it" is no stronger a theory than "it was random". There is no clear evidence for either theory, both being put forward as the theory that makes sense to the people who put them forward.

That is to say, science can't prove it is random, but it is some scientists' own deduction from what they believe about the world and it's history.
Religion can't prove it was a god, but that it some religious peoples' deduction from what they believe about the world and it's history.

Neither is stronger. For now.

Quite.

And in the end, science and religion are both asking the same questions: why and how are we here?

Science may prove the existance of 'god'. Just look at the big bang theroy. Let ther be light - bang and there universe started.

I would like to point out that I am no scienstist nor priest but do like philosiphy.