This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

I wonder if humankind will ever learn equally and to be equal.

Like the Chiefs of the tribes created the witch doctor to keep fear in the tribe and thereby control so too did the wealthy promote and prosper religion to control the masses.

Of course as I may well have expressed previously we now have the cricket, footy and the races.
 
It's true.

We see the very same thing with climate alarmism.
 
Not sure the establishment have joined your take of alarmism yet Wayne, Trump certainly has a long way to go in my view.
 
Not sure the establishment have joined your take of alarmism yet Wayne, Trump certainly has a long way to go in my view.
Yep, the mistake they made was messing wirh science. They forgot about the falsification step and that at least some people still have the faculty of critical thinking.
 

The argument in no way states he “uncaused cause” must be a god, that’s where thrust leap frog the logic and start injecting their god in.

Also, it’s could be possible the universe is infinite which renders the whole arguement bunk.

Theists then go on to claim the universe can’t be infinite, and must have begun, yet they then assume their god is infinite, which is special pleading, if they are willing to accept some things are infinite eg god, how can hey rule out the universe itself being infinite.
 

I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:

If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!

So even if I accept the possibility of the universe being infinite (and it just so happens that I do), the premise that anything which begins to exist, needing to have been caused to exist, is still sufficient to support the logical deduction that there must exist an uncaused cause!

So if there is an uncaused cause, one need only ask oneself what the attributes, or qualities, an uncaused cause, would, of necessity, possess, in order to be an uncaused cause. Amongst other things, it would, at the very minimum, have to be eternal, powerful and creative! These three qualities are often attributed to the God concept espoused in a number of belief systems. Have there been any concepts, other than God, throughout history, credited with all three of those qualities (i.e. potency, creativity, and timelessness)?

If you'd prefer to label it as something else, that is your prerogative. But do take care to resist the temptation to apply, any labels, already assigned to completely different concepts, such as purple unicorns, planet orbitting teapots or pure nonsense.

Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.
 
Last edited:
I
Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.

Dawkins (should check though) may not believe there is consciousness. If I was an atheist I think I'd drop that view as well . How things become living (creature life) is another mystery too.
 
Dawkins merely expresses with facts the inconsistencies of belief.

To believe is not to know and to know is not asserted either.
 
Dawkins merely expresses with facts the inconsistencies of belief.

To believe is not to know and to know is not asserted either.
What facts does he use to justify his anti theistic assertions?

Don't tell me! Let me guess! The "fact" of evolution perhaps!
 
What facts does he use to justify his anti theistic assertions?

Don't tell me! Let me guess! The "fact" of evolution perhaps!

I'm surprised you used that video, because it actually shows the lengths creationists will go to to discredit Dawkins. This video was actually used by Dawkins himself to show the tricks Creationists use. Check this out from the 13 minute Mark or even a bit earlier for other examples.

 
Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Out of interest, has Dawkins furnished a plausible answer to the question?

Edit: It is a pity that anyone would make the error of engaging deceit to support their position, particularly when the opponent to their position is already doing such a great job of discrediting himself.
 

I am who I am sounds like a bad Jackie Chan movie. OK, most of his latter films are pretty bad...

I think we all agree that if belief in God/s makes you happy, find peace and all that... that's a good thing.

As to trying to prove that such a God exists, for real, I give you VC
 
The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so. Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages. His book "The God Delusion" is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.
 

Just because people cannot correctly comprehend or interpret a subject or thing does not mean it does not exist.
 
Are you willing to quote some of, what you'd consider to be, his better arguments, so that I can assess the true merit (oor absence thereof) of your endorsement of Dawkins book?

The reason I ask, is that I have had the experience of having ant-theists confidently presenting me with faulty arguments which I strongly suspect tp have been sourced from that book. It has become the anti theists gospel!

So, please, hit me with the best of his arguments!
 

He does not present arguments, as a biologist he presents facts. However there is considerable material ( writings) to the examinations of these facts. You need to read the book and form your own view of his presentations.

I read it in 2010 however I'd formed my own (and a similar view to Dawkins) when I was at Uni in 1986 from the psychology of art history. Pictures tell many tales.

I am not declaring that there is no God, I just do not know. Many believe there is a God and that belief is strong and good for them. However this does not prove there is a God nor can a mountain of bibles do it either. In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins. But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough" by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...