Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Richard Dawkins on the Late Late
Options
Comments
-
-
Actually I have no faith in anything other that the only thing I know is that I don't know. Why do you believe in this cause?
Haisch argues that the universe is fine tuned, this is very much disputed.
As you said though it is too early to tell for sure, which is why I'm simply saying 'I don't know' is there any harm in that? Go on mate say it too:)
No there is no harm in that. A wise man knows how little he truly knows.
Why I believe in the cause of intelligent design would take me a long time to explain here, suffice to say that I don't think God was playing dice, but then again who am I to tell God what to do with his dice. haha, sorry that's taken out of context Einstein/Planck exchange. It seems more plausible and logical to me to assume an intelligent design of the universe basically.
With regard to 'too early to tell', if we rely on science, then we may never know, since it cannot go back to before the big bang. Food for thought however, I'd recommend reading some of the better intelligent design scientists.0 -
MmmmmCheese wrote: »No, I'm quite free to post my opinions wherever i want.
And I've just took a gawk at the Christianity forum and i see a lot of people from here posting their opinions on there.
I have nothing against atheists, 99.9% of my friends are atheists, I'm just challenging some of the views expressed here.
Hi mmmmCheesse
Just letting you know that the reason I post on the Christianity forum is to get a better understanding of Christian beliefs. This means that when I meet iditioc atheists (and they are a few) I can play devils advocate and make them better understand their position. I'm also here to debunk false sciences such as creationism and the like. The reason being is that I don't want some innocent moderate going on here and thinking oh wow that is amazing that is so cool and what they are being told is science is utterly not true. You need to realise that not all religious people are good, (same goes for atheists too). I just feel we have a duty to stop the spread of false facts about science.
See Laminin for example.0 -
-
Iirc, there has been some studies done on the correlation between the religiosity of a country and the average IQ in that country and again, if I remember correctly, the higher the level of religiousness, dependency on religion etc a country had, the lower the average IQ tended to be.
You can look it up if you're so inclined.
And what does that have to do with anything i said?
You're just proving my point though, trying to say that religious people are less intelligent, therefore putting them down and making yourself appear superior.0 -
Advertisement
-
No there is no harm in that. A wise man knows how little he truly knows. Why I believe in the cause of intelligent design would take me a long time to explain here, suffice to say that I don't think God was playing dice, but then again who am I to tell God what to do with his dice. haha, sorry that's taken out of context Einstein/Planck exchange. It seems more plausible and logical to me to assume an intelligent design of the universe basically.
With regard to 'too early to tell', if we rely on science, then we may never know, since it cannot go back to before the big bang. Food for thought however, I'd recommend reading some of the better intelligent design DEISTIC scientists.
Right I've fixed your post for one IMPORTANT reason, ID is a form of creationism that is RUBBISH, and comparing it to novel deism (or pantheism?) is awful. Sorry, but while you're here please don't call ID science because the creationist folk will think you are agreeing with them and judging by your posts I don't think you think the world is 10,000 years old.:)
Yeah, that cool. I'd recommend JD Barrows book on Theories of Everything:)0 -
MmmmmCheese wrote: »And what does that have to do with anything i said?
You're just proving my point though, trying to say that religious people are less intelligent, therefore putting them down and making yourself appear superior.
I would be skeptical of such a study at any rate. As it doesn't seem to factor other key variables such as standard of education or literacy in third world countries. Remember that 95.2% of all statistics are bull. 0 -
Hi mmmmCheesse
Just letting you know that the reason I post on the Christianity forum is to get a better understanding of Christian beliefs. This means that when I meet iditioc atheists (and they are a few) I can play devils advocate and make them better understand their position. I'm also here to debunk false sciences such as creationism and the like. The reason being is that I don't want some innocent moderate going on here and thinking oh wow that is amazing that is so cool and what they are being told is science is utterly not true. You need to realise that not all religious people are good, (same goes for atheists too). I just feel we have a duty to stop the spread of false facts about science.
See Laminin for example.
Thanks Malty T i really like you're open minded approach.
I'm not overly religious and as I've the said the vast majority of my friends and my boyfriend are atheist so i definately have nothing against them and above all i want to respect everyones beliefs (or lack of beliefs!)
I also agree that not all religious people are good, theres some real nutters out there. Its just that in my circles I've seen a lot more disrespect towards believers than non believers. Guess I'm just a minority in the people I'm in contact with, and that certainly seems to be the case on here aswell!
I guess in the younger generation there are a lot more atheists than believers and it just seems like believers are being ganged up on.0 -
Right I've fixed your post for one IMPORTANT reason, ID is a form of creationism that is RUBBISH, and comparing it to novel deism is awful. Sorry, but while you're here please don't call ID science because the creationist folk will think you are agreeing with them and judging by your posts I don't think you think the world is 10,000 years old.:)
Yeah, that cool. I'd recommend JD Barrows book on Theories of Everything:)
Where did I call intelligent design science? As for creationism, it's absurd to think that the world is 10,000 years old. It's not absurd to think that there is a possibility of an intelligent design being behind the universe though.
My point here is that science cannot answer the questions of why,or the philosophical questions one way or the other. It's beyond it's remit. And my main point, concordantly with that is that Dawkins is the one who is being overly smug with regard to his own belief in atheism being true and the rest of us being idiots for believing in an intelligent design. That's why I dislike the man. He's trying to instill a nihilistic, materialistic and potentially unhealthy ideology in people based on what evidence, evolution? What about the bigger picture Mr. Dawkins? 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Where did I call intelligent design science? As for creationism, it's absurd to think that the world is 10,000 years old. It's not absurd to think that there is a possibility of an intelligent design being behind the universe though. My point here is that science cannot answer the questions of why,or the philosophical questions one way or the other. It's beyond it's remit. And my main point, concordantly with that is that Dawkins is the one who is being overly smug with regard to his own belief in atheism being true and the rest of us being idiots for believing in an intelligent design. That's why I dislike the man. He's trying to instill a nihilistic, materialistic and potentially unhealthy ideology in people based on what evidence, evolution? What about the bigger picture Mr. Dawkins?
Actually Dawkins has stated on more than one occasion, that the case can be made for deism, just not a personal God like those in the ancient texts.0 -
-
-
Where did I call intelligent design science? As for creationism, it's absurd to think that the world is 10,000 years old. It's not absurd to think that there is a possibility of an intelligent design being behind the universe though. My point here is that science cannot answer the questions of why,or the philosophical questions one way or the other. It's beyond it's remit. And my main point, concordantly with that is that Dawkins is the one who is being overly smug with regard to his own belief in atheism being true and the rest of us being idiots for believing in an intelligent design. That's why I dislike the man. He's trying to instill a nihilistic, materialistic and potentially unhealthy ideology in people based on what evidence, evolution? What about the bigger picture Mr. Dawkins?
BELIEF?? What belief? Its clear cut evidence for evolution by natural selection that has led Dawkins to come to the conclusion(and rightly so) that all modern religions simply cannot be true! Now you and many others in recent posts are forgetting that RD in his latest books is not dealing with abiogenesis and the clear-cut science behind it nor the philosophical 'why' debate behind that. He is dealing with the evolution of life from then on and THAT by association debunks everything that any religion has to say in any of their scriptures.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
It's about 90% as absurd and that's the whole point of Dawkins bookWhere did I call intelligent design science? As for creationism, it's absurd to think that the world is 10,000 years old. It's not absurd to think that there is a possibility of an intelligent design being behind the universe though.
To ask the question why is to assume there is intelligence behind it. Who says there is a why? I know the how behind lightning but do I need to ask why is lightning before I fully understand its purpose?My point here is that science cannot answer the questions of why,or the philosophical questions one way or the other. It's beyond it's remit.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement