1. Comment #63184 by RickM on August 13, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Now I know who buys those records; some stuck in 90's Brit DJ.

Other Comments by RickM

2. Comment #63190 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I agree with Hawkins that organized religions are divisive, dangerous, superstitious, illogical and extremely annoying at times. But I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God. I disagree with Dawkins who proposed that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the possibility for the existence of God is very low, almost zero. I am perplexed that scientists can actually come to this conclusion. I believe the opposite of what Dawkins says is true and that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the odds are very high, almost 100% that God, the One Surpreme Being, Designer and Creator exists. Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection. The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Other Comments by darwin2

3. Comment #63191 by Moridin on August 13, 2007 at 1:06 pm

darwin2, a space shuttle is not a biological entity. Furthermoore, complexity is not the way we see if something has been designed or not, it is its artificiality. We know that a paper clip has been designed by looking at it, but it is so far from complex as you can get, but it is artificial. Biological life is natural.

Other Comments by Moridin

4. Comment #63197 by bladesman on August 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God.

I don't ever recall anyone - certainly not Professor Dawkins - using the argument 'X number of people died or were tortured today as a result of religion therefore God does not exist.' The atrocities and stupidity are however, a damn good argument against organised religion. The simple fact of absolutely not one shred of unambiguous evidence in thousands of years of human history is all the argument against God that anyone needs.

And as for the rest of your proposals, all that needs to be said is - infinite regression. If the universe is so vastly complex that it needs a designer/creator...then that designer/creator must be vastly more complex than the universe...so who designed/created him/her?

Thats the point where you disappear in a puff of logic, I believe. :o)

Are you actually going to comment on the actual contents of this post?

Other Comments by bladesman

5. Comment #63198 by steve99 on August 13, 2007 at 1:18 pm

The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator.

You keep getting this wrong, no matter how often it is explained. The universe is NOT complicated at all. It is very simple indeed... at one point it was no more that pretty evenly distributed hydrogen + helium with slight randomness, probably imposed by quantum effects. All you need is that, combined with a large-scale attractive force (gravity) and you get concentrations of mass and energy that allows non-equilibrium thermodynamics to work and you get spontaneous generation of order and structure. This requires no creator or designer at all.

Other Comments by steve99

6. Comment #63199 by Aaron on August 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

darwin2,

The space shuttle design is the product of artificial selection process by people. The reason people designed space shuttles is because natural selection selected the genes that made our ancestors curious about their surroundings which increased their probability of survival. Working backward from there every step back to nothingness in the universe is quite understood by science and completely natural.

Other Comments by Aaron

7. Comment #63200 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 1:26 pm

darwin2,

Your trite, wishy washy, fuzzy feeling logic is embarrasing on this site.

I see you in my imagination, clenching your eyes tightly together:

"I want to believe,
I want to believe,
I want to believe"


Oh by the way, the space shuttle is a piece of Sh*t. It's out of date 1970's technology; any modern car is more complicated than that piece of crap.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

8. Comment #63204 by codexaenir on August 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Many things wrong with your argument. First of all, you have yet to claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer. Are the 99 percent of the kinds of life that have existed on this Earth all part of the "grand, perfect design?" What about failed solar systems and natural disasters?

The most fallacious part of the design argument is when the theist claims things they cannot possibly know. The theist claims to know that not only that a supreme supernatural being exists, but that the qualities of the being's design can be carried by analogy to human engineering. David Hume called this an incomplete analogy. For the design argument to carry weight, one needs to experience a variety of different universes to determine whether this one is designed or not.

Having ignored the obvious problem, theists claim, as Hitchens writes, to know "the mind of God."

Other Comments by codexaenir

9. Comment #63205 by Oliver Leif on August 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high."

The question of whether or not god 'exists' has nothing to do with science. While it is true that new discoveries in the field of science can lead to questioning of religious beliefs and supersitions, science is not going to come up with a theory that 'explains god'.

Intelligent Design is not a science, scientific theory, or anything close to it. Bertrand Russell dismissed the Designer argument very adeptly by pointing out that even if the universe was created by some being, then that being must be even more complex, and intricate- thus leading to the question, what/who created the designer?

The god/ID argument is a logical fallacy and it fails to prove anything.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

10. Comment #63206 by Zzyx1170 on August 13, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I placed an mp3 of this interview on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/48799615/Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Steve-Wright-Show.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

11. Comment #63208 by keith on August 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Darwin2,
We have actually had this scenario many times before. A believer who hasn't read much science but thinks he has most of the answers comes onto this website and tells us all about science, sometimes adding that the people on this website are arrogant. Some commenters, who actually know quite a lot about science, then take the trouble to put the (not-arrogant) believer right on various points he has misunderstood. The believer then repeats his original posting as though this were a reasonable response. After a while the polite commenters become less so and finally realise they are banging their heads against a brick wall, though some valiant souls keep trying.
Please, try to imagine for a moment how a doctor might feel if a patient starts telling him that the reading of tarot cards is a much surer way of reaching the correct diagnosis. If you can, then you'll get some idea how some of the scientifically-literate commenters here feel about your silly posting.

Other Comments by keith

12. Comment #63210 by roach on August 13, 2007 at 2:06 pm

It's obvious that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, the Sun and the Moon are essentially the same size, and god exists. Use your eyes and brains people!

Other Comments by roach

13. Comment #63214 by Elli on August 13, 2007 at 2:17 pm

darwin2, out of curiosity how old are you? you seem like a very young person, as you have misunderstood even a high school level grasp of evolution. If you are very young, as I suspect, I commend you for coming on this site to learn more about science and hope you will take the words of the wonderfully erudite contributors here to heart.

Other Comments by Elli

14. Comment #63216 by Robert Maynard on August 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

darwin2,
I wish I'd known posters like you would be so belligerent as to re-post comments you made months ago, practically verbatim, so I could keep my replies stored somewhere rather than waste time writing them again.

This has happened before, and you're still mistaken. If you're not willing to admit your version of the watchmaker analogy has been pulverised by multiple posters in the past, why should anyone give your dissonance (and senility) addled mind the time of day?

"Give me a break" indeed..

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

15. Comment #63218 by sane1 on August 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm

DARWIN2: Your reasoning that "because it is complex, it is designed" does not hold water. Once you grasp evolution, you'll find it silly. read the Selfish gene, or any number of other books explaining evolution.

Others: I missed it above, and suspect some others may as well - Richard's interview runs from around 1:34:00 to 1:41:00.

Other Comments by sane1

16. Comment #63219 by Quetzalcoatl on August 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Darwin2-

firstly, the space shuttle is crap. If we'd kept researching nuclear rockets in the 70s we'd have colonies on Europa by now. Instead we have a crappy tub less complicated than my first car (a 95 Fiesta) that has to be practically rebuilt every flight.

ANYWAY. Rant over.

The universe is not infinitely more complicated, since it all started from two basic elements and a whole lot of gravity. We know more about how our Sun works than we do about the simplest bacteria on Earth. And we have a pretty good handle on them, too. Intelligence behind the Universe is not the obvious answer, simply the one that you prefer.

I echo the sentiments of the others, you do seem to be repeating yourself a lot. (With the exception of Elli, I can't tell whether she's being ironic or not).

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

17. Comment #63220 by steve99 on August 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Some commenters, who actually know quite a lot about science, then take the trouble to put the (not-arrogant) believer right on various points he has misunderstood.

I have given up trying to explain things to this believer... I just feel that it is a good idea to counter such bad science when it is posted on a public forum; perhaps explanations might help others to explain things to believers more open to persuasion.

Incidentally, something I feel is not discussed enough in forums such as these is the importance of non-equilibrium thermodynamics (of which Chaos Theory is just a part) in explaining order and structure in the universe. It is yet another way that complexity can appear without the need for a creator. It takes natural selection on living things to produce finely detailed 'designs', but simple physics and mathematics can do a huge amount alone...

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #63230 by Ragnar0kk on August 13, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Zzyx1170

Thank you for the MP3 link! :)

Other Comments by Ragnar0kk

19. Comment #63232 by Salvatore on August 13, 2007 at 3:35 pm

I think Darwin2 has distracted us from the important comments to made here -- begun by RickM -- namely, the surprise we Americans are experiencing at how bad music is on British radio...

Other Comments by Salvatore

20. Comment #63233 by fungaljungle on August 13, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Well, I did feel the need to reply to darwin2's comment (2. Comment #63190), but then I read on to see too many beat me to it. I would still like to add my voice of support to those that made comment 3 an on...especially USA_Limey, they (NASA) have been contemplating scrapping the shuttle for some time now. Bye the way darwin2, notice how easily it's been damaged lately, even on the recent Endeavour mission?? SOME DESIGN!!

Other Comments by fungaljungle

21. Comment #63234 by keith on August 13, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Steve99,

"something I feel is not discussed enough in forums such as these is the importance of non-equilibrium thermodynamics (of which Chaos Theory is just a part) in explaining order and structure in the universe."

Okay Steve, you first. (I'll join in with any bits that relate to football).

Other Comments by keith

22. Comment #63238 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Comment #63219 by Quetzalcoatl:

Quetzy, lol - see my comment 63200, I am glad I am not the only one who had that visceral reaction to Darwin2's misguided awe of the space shuttle!
You are so right, if Nasa had been have way decently funded and/or if we hadn't wasted time to go piss on the moon we would at the very least be on Mars by now - and quite likely further as you suggest.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

23. Comment #63241 by keith on August 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Salvatore,
You made me laugh but you have brought up an interesting issue. I didn't wade through the actual music around the Dawkins interview, but this was Radio Two, which is basically for people who are no longer teenagers, more specifically, for my generation who were young(ish) and listening to music in the 1970s and 1980s. As you can imagine, anything that gives us oldies a break from the juvenile and monotone rap or techno is welcome.
This summer I worked with an American who is around my age and I noticed how American rock could be used as an argument as to why memetics is not really analagous to genetics at all, namely, while biological evolution works by small, very gradual changes in the gene pool, there has been absolutely no evolution whatsoever in American rock since the 1970s! From Tina Turner to Vonda Shepherd to Bryan Adams sound-alikes (he's Canadian, I know), nothing has really changed. Green Day sound like a band in the garage next door to me.
My colleague considered anything that varied from the macho-guitar riffs and dramatic drum beats of his hirsute and leather-clad heroes "a bit girly" or just plain weird. I realise that some groups like Talking Heads, REM and They Might Be Giants have come out of the States, but simply from the law of averages you'd expect a few more innovative groups to come through. Where, for example, is the American equivalent of Elvis Costello? What kind of music were you missing that you wanted to hear? REO Speedwagon? Sad Cafe?

Other Comments by keith

24. Comment #63243 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Comment #63216 by Robert Maynard:

"I wish I'd known posters like you would be so belligerent as to re-post comments you made months ago, practically verbatim"

Lol, that is so funny RM, please see my post on another thread, (link below) made shortly before yours in response to the same dear Darwin2 and calling him out on verbatim repetition of ANOTHER favourite point of his I have seen him repeat again, and again, and again.

Darwin2, we have your number, time to move on.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1513,Charles-Brookers-screen-burn,Charles-Brooker#63182

Other Comments by USA_Limey

25. Comment #63245 by mummymonkey on August 13, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Steve Wright's playlist from the show could be described as - "mostly harmless". It has to be said though there is some dross in there.

Title: She Drives Me Crazy
Artist: Fine Young Cannibals

Title: I Love Your Smile
Artist: Shanice

Title: You Can't Hurry Love
Artist: The Supremes

Title: Got To Get You Into My Life
Artist: Earth Wind & Fire

Title: Dear Jessie
Artist: Madonna

Title: Never Give Up On A Good Thing
Artist: George Benson

Title: The Way I Are
Artist: Timbaland

Title: Let Me Out
Artist: Ben's Brother

Title: Denis
Artist: Blondie

Title: Stronger (radio edit)
Artist: Kanye West

Title: Stumblin' In
Artist: Chris Norman

Title: Tears Dry On Their Own
Artist: Amy Winehouse

Title: To All The Girls I've Loved Before
Artist: Julio Iglesias

Title: Don't Leave Me This Way
Artist: The Communards

Title: Jump
Artist: Van Halen

Title: Rock Me Amadeus
Artist: Falco

Title: Don't Look Back In Anger
Artist: Oasis

Title: Perfect
Artist: Fairground Attraction

Title: Lean On Me
Artist: Red Box

Title: Dream Catch Me
Artist: Newton Faulkner

Title: Hold On
Artist: KT Tunstall

Title: Young Folks
Artist: Peter, Bjorn and John

Title: Big Girls Don't Cry
Artist: Frankie Valli/ The Four Seasons

Title: When Will I See Your Face Again
Artist: Jamie Scott

Title: Devil Gate Drive
Artist: Suzi Quatro

Title: I Can See Clearly Now
Artist: Johnny Nash

Title: Feel The Need In Me
Artist: The Detroit Emeralds

Title: Shut Up And Drive
Artist: Rihanna

Title: Three More Days
Artist: Ray LaMontagne

Title: Three Little Birds
Artist: Bob Marley

Title: Poison Arrow
Artist: ABC

Title: Can The Can
Artist: Suzi Quatro

Title: If You Can't Give Me Love
Artist: Suzi Quatro

Title: She's In Love With You
Artist: Suzi Quatro

Title: Tonight The Streets Are Ours
Artist: Richard Hawley

Title: An End Has A Start
Artist: Editors

Title: Sexy! No No No...
Artist: Girls Aloud

Other Comments by mummymonkey

26. Comment #63248 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Steve Wright is on Radio 2 now? Man I am getting old I remember when it was Steve Wright in the afternoon on radio 1.

But radio 1 is hosted by barely literate gangsta wannabies these days I hear.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

27. Comment #63249 by captain underpants on August 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm

darwin2 wrote: "I agree with Hawkins that organized religions are divisive, dangerous, superstitious, illogical and extremely annoying at times."

Could it be that you're confusing Richard Dawkins with somebody else? Were you homeskooled?

Other Comments by captain underpants

28. Comment #63252 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Cap'n 'pants,

You'll get used to Darwin2 he's a regular contributor from our theist contingent; rest assured he does NOT improve with prolonged acquaintance.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

29. Comment #63262 by Salvatore on August 13, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Keith,

Quite happily I am in no position to defend the development of American pop or rock music over the last, say, thirty years… though I suspect many people could vehemently attempt to convince you that something interesting has been going on over that time… Me, I just haven't been paying attention…

However, because I'm a good sport, for the category of "This doesn't sound like Led Zepplin" I'll offer some from the much-loved Wesley Willis, of Chicago, Illinois:

http://www.alternativetentacles.com/octopodes/483/dCEk14jNNa@BoYwSXmU/Wesley_Willis-Rock_n_Roll_McDo.mp3

http://www.alternativetentacles.com/octopodes/484/dCEk14jNNa@BoYwSXmU/Wesley_Willis-Outburst.mp3

http://www.alternativetentacles.com/octopodes/543/dCEk14jNNa@BoYwSXmU/Wesley_Willis-Cut_The_Mullet.mp3

Other Comments by Salvatore

30. Comment #63263 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 5:50 pm

darwin2,

You said:

I disagree with Dawkins who proposed that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the possibility for the existence of God is very low, almost zero. I am perplexed that scientists can actually come to this conclusion.

Read Physicist Victor Stenger's book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" for an indepth look at why God fails as a scientific hypothesis.

I believe the opposite of what Dawkins says is true and that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the odds are very high, almost 100% that God, the One Surpreme Being, Designer and Creator exists. Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection.

This is a false analogy. As others have pointed out, a space shuttle isn't a biological system. Evolution shows that biological simplicity begets biological complexity. Please study Evolution.

A false analogy is a logical fallacy. Please visit, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html, for more information.

The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Sometimes the obvious answer isn't the correct one. "The earth is flat" was the obvious answer in the past to questions concerning the shape of our planet.

Dawkins addressed your complexity argument in "The God Delusion". Please read and understand the book before you make a post. Your argument looks like this:

Complexity requires a designer
The Universe is complex

The Universe required a designer

Dawkins points out that any designer of the Universe must be equally, if not more, complex. By your own premise, complexity requires a designer. Thus, God must also have a designer. Moreover, God's designer must have a designer. And God's designer's designer must have a designer, ad infinitum. This leads to an infinite regress. If you can arbitrarily stop the regress at God, then Dawkins can arbitrarily stop it at the Universe.

Other Comments by lordfenriz

31. Comment #63264 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Wright's constant chuckling throughout, trying to have the audience join him in his joy ride of jocularity--as if Dawkin's views are somehow on the fringe of credibilty, gives me the impression that he doesn't really have too much respect for what Dawkins is saying to him. But as many other of his ilk are continually shown by Dawkins that their chuckling retorts reside in the province of unsupported beliefs, Wright quickly moves on to another subject.
Sadly however, I fear the viewer who embraces the beliefs that Dawkins is attacking, is reassured that there is someone of notability who also feels the Richard Dawkins of the world aren't to be taken to seriously. They hear Wright's chuckles, not Dawkins' calm and articulate responses.

Other Comments by PeterK

32. Comment #63274 by icouldbewrongbut on August 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Wow, did he nail that one.

However, yes the universe is beautiful. But I don't think that seeing the grandeur of the universe is enough to mitigate the death/annihilation terror of most folks who cling to belief in supernaturalism / personal specialness. What exactly is it that we atheists tell ourselves that causes us to be at peace with the fact that we are here for nothing and are safe only due to the luck of the stability of our surroundings? We acknowledge that we're here for no reason - why is this satisfying to us and not to others? Why are we not running around terrified of our certain annihilation? Is it because we tell ourselves that there is nothing after death? - that we depend on a particular death story / or that the fact that we just don't know what happens is thus no reason to be alarmed?

I'd like to see a detailed exposition on the common death anxiety mitigation strategies of those atheists who are successful at living outside of or with major annihilation / nothingness terror..

Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

33. Comment #63279 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:36 pm

#63191 by Moridin on August 13, 2007 at 1:06 pm

"darwin2, a space shuttle is not a biological entity. Furthermoore, complexity is not the way we see if something has been designed or not, it is its artificiality. We know that a paper clip has been designed by looking at it, but it is so far from complex as you can get, but it is artificial. Biological life is natural."

Our universe follows the laws of physics and these laws apply to both biological and non-biological forms of life. Behind the laws of physics is God.

Other Comments by darwin2

34. Comment #63280 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Comment #63197 by bladesman on August 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"I don't ever recall anyone - certainly not Professor Dawkins - using the argument 'X number of people died or were tortured today as a result of religion therefore God does not exist.' The atrocities and stupidity are however, a damn good argument against organised religion. The simple fact of absolutely not one shred of unambiguous evidence in thousands of years of human history is all the argument against God that anyone needs."

Most organized religions are atrocious and stupid but please don't blame their pathetic actions on God. The evils of organized religion are a direct product of the evil actions of humans. Humans created these evil actions and humans must take responsibility for them. History gives a great argument against organized religion but not against God.

"And as for the rest of your proposals, all that needs to be said is - infinite regression. If the universe is so vastly complex that it needs a designer/creator...then that designer/creator must be vastly more complex than the universe...so who designed/created him/her?"

As Harry Truman once said: THE BUCK STOPS HERE. We can apply this analogy to God.

Other Comments by darwin2

35. Comment #63281 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Comment #63198 by steve99 on August 13, 2007 at 1:18 pm

"You keep getting this wrong, no matter how often it is explained. The universe is NOT complicated at all. It is very simple indeed... at one point it was no more that pretty evenly distributed hydrogen + helium with slight randomness, probably imposed by quantum effects. All you need is that, combined with a large-scale attractive force (gravity) and you get concentrations of mass and energy that allows non-equilibrium thermodynamics to work and you get spontaneous generation of order and structure. This requires no creator or designer at all."

Steve99 that is your subjective opinion that "this requires no creator or designer at all." At this point in time you can't prove your contention and neither can I. Death will give us the correct answer. If consciousness survives death and hopefully it does, then we can continue this dialogue.

Other Comments by darwin2

36. Comment #63282 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Comment #63199 by Aaron on August 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"The space shuttle design is the product of artificial selection process by people. The reason people designed space shuttles is because natural selection selected the genes that made our ancestors curious about their surroundings which increased their probability of survival. Working backward from there every step back to nothingness in the universe is quite understood by science and completely natural."

Yes work it as far back as science can and science will say they can't go any further. If they open their minds and go one step further they will find God, The Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all universes that may exist.

Other Comments by darwin2

37. Comment #63283 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:43 pm

icouldbewrongbut--

As we have all more than likely heard, many theists insist they just don't know how one could deal with the death of a loved one without a belief in God.
Recently I have lost a daughter, and my father, and am almost in fear of being reprimanded by my family for being too "cold and heartless" for behaving so calm and controlled since their deaths. It's almost like I have to ACT remorseful
to show that I'm grieving--which I am--of course I miss them. All I hear is 'they are in a better place' they are 'looking down at us now'..and although I feel I can FULLY realise them being gone, I want to shout at them sometimes 'They are DEAD, dammit..that means, they can no longer 'do' things that they could when they were alive. They are like topsoil now--and this will happen to everyone. I celebrate the memories they have given me over the years, and I reflect on them positively, but for the deceased, regardless how anyone feels about it--it is over. In fact, I feel to do otherwise to in fact to dishonour them them dignity of being deceased.
Actually it is in times like this I am so happy I am an atheist. I have that ability to let go, and understand the finality of death, just so much more rationally and subsequently in a manner so obviously more healthy than they can, and dammit I will never let anyone make me feel guilty for doing so.

Other Comments by PeterK

38. Comment #63284 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Comment #63200 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"Your trite, wishy washy, fuzzy feeling logic is embarrasing on this site."

"I see you in my imagination, clenching your eyes tightly together"
"I want to believe,
I want to believe,
I want to believe"

Let me repeat a reply I sent you today at the Brookers Screen Burn thread. You complained that I repeated myself repeatedly with the exact words and here is my response to you:
Yes, I have used it and I will continue to use it. I realize my comments annoy you. But remember this. You don't have to read my comments. When you see darwin2 is making a comment, all you need to do is skip over it and go to the next comment. This will serve a dual purpose. First, it saves you the mental torture of having to read my comments and many of these comments will be word for word repeats of what I have said in other threads. Second, I feel very uncomfortable torturing you with my beliefs. If I know you are now skipping over my comments, I will feel better knowing that I am not torturing you. At the same time I can still in good conscience post my beliefs on this website.

Other Comments by darwin2

39. Comment #63285 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Comment #63204 by codexaenir on August 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

"Many things wrong with your argument. First of all, you have yet to claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer. Are the 99 percent of the kinds of life that have existed on this Earth all part of the "grand, perfect design?" What about failed solar systems and natural disasters?"

I do claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer. Yes the 99 percent of the kinds of life that have existed on this Earth are all part of the grand perfect design. Failed solar systems and natural disasters are caused by bad individual and collective Karma.

"The most fallacious part of the design argument is when the theist claims things they cannot possibly know. The theist claims to know that not only that a supreme supernatural being exists, but that the qualities of the being's design can be carried by analogy to human engineering. David Hume called this an incomplete analogy. For the design argument to carry weight, one needs to experience a variety of different universes to determine whether this one is designed or not."

I believe there are many other universes other than ours and God is behind the design and creation of all of them.

Other Comments by darwin2

40. Comment #63286 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Comment #63205 by Oliver Leif on August 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"The god/ID argument is a logical fallacy and it fails to prove anything."

See comment 36

Other Comments by darwin2

41. Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Darwin2--

Before you post again, do you think that would you be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?

Other Comments by PeterK

42. Comment #63288 by dr in the house on August 13, 2007 at 7:56 pm

"Failed solar systems and natural disasters are caused by bad individual and collective Karma."

Please just stop.... stop right there...

Other Comments by dr in the house

43. Comment #63289 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Comment #63208 by keith on August 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm

"Darwin2,
We have actually had this scenario many times before. A believer who hasn't read much science but thinks he has most of the answers comes onto this website and tells us all about science, sometimes adding that the people on this website are arrogant. Some commenters, who actually know quite a lot about science, then take the trouble to put the (not-arrogant) believer right on various points he has misunderstood. The believer then repeats his original posting as though this were a reasonable response. After a while the polite commenters become less so and finally realise they are banging their heads against a brick wall, though some valiant souls keep trying.

Please, try to imagine for a moment how a doctor might feel if a patient starts telling him that the reading of tarot cards is a much surer way of reaching the correct diagnosis. If you can, then you'll get some idea how some of the scientifically-literate commenters here feel about your silly posting."

SEE COMMENT 38

Other Comments by darwin2

44. Comment #63290 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Comment #63214 by Elli on August 13, 2007 at 2:17 pm

"darwin2, out of curiosity how old are you? you seem like a very young person, as you have misunderstood even a high school level grasp of evolution. If you are very young, as I suspect, I commend you for coming on this site to learn more about science and hope you will take the words of the wonderfully erudite contributors here to heart."

I am 66. I believe in evolution totally. I believe God chose evolution and natural selection as the method for creating all life forms. Now tell me specifically how I have misunderstood even a high school level grasp of evolution. And please tell me in any of my posts to this website when I have denied the reality of evolution.

Other Comments by darwin2

45. Comment #63292 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Comment #63216 by Robert Maynard on August 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

"darwin2,
I wish I'd known posters like you would be so belligerent as to re-post comments you made months ago, practically verbatim, so I could keep my replies stored somewhere rather than waste time writing them again."

"This has happened before, and you're still mistaken. If you're not willing to admit your version of the watchmaker analogy has been pulverised by multiple posters in the past, why should anyone give your dissonance (and senility) addled mind the time of day?"

"Give me a break" indeed..:

SEE COMMENT 38

Other Comments by darwin2

46. Comment #63293 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Comment #63218 by sane1 on August 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm

"DARWIN2: Your reasoning that "because it is complex, it is designed" does not hold water. Once you grasp evolution, you'll find it silly. read the Selfish gene, or any number of other books explaining evolution."

I believe in evolution!

Other Comments by darwin2

47. Comment #63294 by Theocrapcy on August 13, 2007 at 8:15 pm

@darwin2 : "But I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God."

I disagree. Religious atrocities are direct proof that their god is false, and their behaviour is man-made. Especially when competing deities claim to be one and only.

Religion is a vestige of our primitive tribalism, it has no place in modern world, which is where it is struggling to survive - and why it lathches on to developing world which more resembles the kind of primitivism it relies on to thrive.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

48. Comment #63296 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Comment #63263 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 5:50 pm

"Sometimes the obvious answer isn't the correct one. "The earth is flat" was the obvious answer in the past to questions concerning the shape of our planet."

"Dawkins addressed your complexity argument in "The God Delusion". Please read and understand the book before you make a post. Your argument looks like this"

"Complexity requires a designer"
"The Universe is complex"

"The Universe required a designer"

Yes! Yes! That is exactly how I think

"Dawkins points out that any designer of the Universe must be equally, if not more, complex. By your own premise, complexity requires a designer. Thus, God must also have a designer. Moreover, God's designer must have a designer. And God's designer's designer must have a designer, ad infinitum. This leads to an infinite regress. If you can arbitrarily stop the regress at God, then Dawkins can arbitrarily stop it at the Universe."

I have read Dawkins book as well as those of Harris and Hitchens. The design argument doesn't go ad infinitum. It stops at God.

Other Comments by darwin2

49. Comment #63297 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm
"Darwin2"

"Before you post again, do you think that would you be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?"

I am willing to listen openly to any arguments and am willing to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God.

Other Comments by darwin2

50. Comment #63298 by Canuck#1 on August 13, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Am I missing something here....in my previous existence as a christian my understanding was that the key was FAITH....that god loves me, that Jesus died for me, that by faith I am saved, that faith is the evidence for things not seen and not understood....the ways of god are not our ways...so tell me why christians have to (try) to PROVE the existence of god. Just relax and believe and in the end the mounting proof against his existence will be explained by god...in the meantime let us go our merry way building our case against religion.. FAITH Darwin2,FAITH...

Other Comments by Canuck#1