151. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76514 by BaronOchs on October 6, 2007 at 3:27 am

Poe's Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

152. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76506 by BaronOchs on October 6, 2007 at 2:59 am

Dubious. posts 68 and 90, both by Styrer- do not seem to be written by the same person.

153. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76078 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 4:09 pm

I think this is the thing Lennox mentions about Stephen Hawking and the Theory of Everything:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/

154. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76051 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Also Lennox used the bible passages about treating well aliens in your midst.

I think that came up in the Hitchens/Sharpton debate where Hitchens points out that alien in the bible refers to Jews from other tribes, and Samaritans are still Jews in an absolute sense.

The whole thing is probably worth listening to for RD's response at the end, when Lennox suddenly starts gushing about Jesus.

. . .

The guys at the beginning and end sounded like football pundits with slightly bizarre effect . . .

155. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76044 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Near the beginning he says something like "In this book Dawkins frees us from belief in God so we can pursue lives of unadulterated pleasure-seeking"

What a stupid thing to say, as if life is a choice between evangelical christianity or some kind of "meaningless" pleasure seeking. TGD addresses well the question of gods existence, but most readers I'm sure can find worthwhile ways to live without help from Richard Dawkins, or their local church where perhaps, pretty shallow people may be pontificating on "the meaning of life".

Lennox said that science owes its existence to a religious assumption of an ordered universe. Although of course the greeks had some science and preceded the medieval christian worldview. It is wrong again on the count that an ordered world is a natural assumption of everyday common sense, not something we needed medieval philosophy to tell us. And wrong again in that even if science did proceed from medieval christian philosophy in no sense does science therefore validate that worldview. Rather it is just one example of how running with the tenets of a system can lead to its passing away into something else. In which case science working on those assumptions proceeded to a worldview without god.

He also seemed to say belief in an ordered universe requires a belief in something to "give it" order. Leaving aside Kant who (I think) said the world is ordered because we ourselves see it as having order. Who said that, because the idea it is ordered by God was already at that time becoming untenable. Science has shown how order can emerge naturally. for instance in any instance if you have replication and variation combined with finite resources (and therefore competition) evolution will occur. And the fact that it will is a matter of logical necessity, not something that could even in principle be attributed to the volition of a designer.

I think he says towards the end that goodness is "incomprehensible" without the idea of a god. Lennox even quotes Hume that "You can't get an ought from an is". Which defeats his own position, from the is statement that god exists you can't get the ought statement that "we should be moral".

"If you're not good (or don't follow a particular, inadequate as it happens, guideline for goodness contained in a certain sacred text) you'll go to hell." is an is statement, but it still doesn't logically lead to being good.

god is not of any use to morality. I'd suggest rather life, and the common value people find in it is instead a good basis for goodness.

Also Somewhere also he says Science doesn't address the simple questions children ask like who am I, but later he dismisses the question of who made god as a "schoolboy question". ^£%*!

156. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75991 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 8:36 am

windweaver, Precisely. And just think of the squirming and resentment from theists if buddhists could display these paranormal phenomena . . .

157. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75981 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 7:54 am

windweaver those claims are certainly made. But is there any adequate evidence that paranormal phenomena are exhibited by, say, meditating buddhist monks?

Otherwise there's no point finding a rational explanation for a link between meditation and the paranormal, if there's no evidence for that link anyway!

158. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75958 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 6:36 am

mmurray yes I perhaps should take a look at that book by the Dalai Lama. To me it is quite clear that the belief in future and past lives cannot be squared with modern physics. I also think the parts of buddhism that matter can survive without that belief. I suppose the Dalai Lama would disagree!

Of course I think alleged cases of children recalling events from past lives should certainly be investigated, though I don't in the least expect any real evidence for rebirth would emerge.

159. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75944 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 6:09 am

mmurray I haven't read any books by the Dalai Lama. I was taught a little about Buddhism though by someone very keen to present it in a modern and secular manner.

I think a fair few things the Dalai Lama says are at odds with science, but my view is that they needn't be, since enough of Buddhism can survive a full acceptance of modern science.

160. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75926 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 4:55 am

mmurray said:

I don't think any of the above implies you have to buy into the whole enlightenment and guru thing or the buddhist idea that mind is some kind of entity separate from matter.

161. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75674 by BaronOchs on October 3, 2007 at 9:29 am

Jeff_Dee the claims San Harris refers to are merely that certain kinds of experience are possible. Which is different from a religious claim that, on the back of certain experiences you can conclude that god exists.

162. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74985 by BaronOchs on October 1, 2007 at 9:40 am

You can take university courses in "religious studies" that offer a critical look at religious texts and ideas, and the history of religion. Which is different from theology courses that simply present a particular religious framework as being true.

I think it is the latter that is problematic. Clergy training colleges that take in students to fit them out to propagate the teachings of a particular church are hardly models of objective study. Isn't their inclusion in universities only in virtue of historical accident?

163. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74608 by BaronOchs on September 29, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Well thanks V it is good to be back :-)

164. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74600 by BaronOchs on September 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm

I recall a similar discussion to this when the Blasphemy Challenge started. Which some thought was crude and would hurt rather than help atheism.

What seemed apparent to me was that many people posting responses to the blasphemy challenge had had terrible fear of damnation forced upon them. The challenge encouraged people to say they weren't afraid of the false and obscene beliefs about damnation and "the blasphemy against the spirit" anymore, and as such was a good thing. It wasn't/isn't necessary that every response be more refined than the BC.

I don't know for sure, but would get the impression the RRS are and will give courage to people in oppressively religious environments.

165. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74588 by BaronOchs on September 29, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Romantics might say that Buddhism is unlike other religions, more a philosophy than a faith. But this would be untrue. It has been a religion in different parts of Asia for many centuries, and can be used to justify violent acts as much as any other belief.

visionaries, romantics and true believers are driven by their beliefs to take risks that most of us would regard as foolhardy. It is, on the whole, not beneficial to be ruled by such heroes, but it is good to have them around when we need them.

166. Keeping the faith at school

Comment #74286 by BaronOchs on September 28, 2007 at 3:33 am

Even if I was convinced there is a creator god I would still say mathematics is independent of the will of any being divine or otherwise.

Do they think god could have had 2+2=anything else than 4 if he'd wanted? or simply not bothered to "create" mathematical truths?

Delusion!

167. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #73400 by BaronOchs on September 25, 2007 at 12:49 am

Dawkins recalls how at a talk in Dublin his classing religious indoctrination and labelling of children as child abuse met with applause.

Cornwell replies that a Dublin audience will applaud anything to bring a talk to a close and escape to the bar.

And that is supposed to be "deft wielding of the sword of the spirit"

168. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47928 by BaronOchs on June 6, 2007 at 4:10 am

185. Comment #46661 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:26 am
"The very idea however that atheists would go about attacking peaceful religious groups -like say, the free church of scotland- only seems to ahve even occurred in your warped mind. "

That's strange! Only this week I was called a Bible bashing bastard! And one of the windows of my church was put in. I have no doubt whatsoever that even though there are nice atheists, those who discuss philosophically, yet the language of hatred is such, that other human beings will use it as an excuse for persecution.

169. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46798 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 4:40 pm

devolved I've just remembered back on another thread (Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade I think) I did my best at explaining the overwhelming reasons for concluding the earth is more than 6000 years old.

Did you explain why I might consider a young earth? If so remind me.

All the best.

170. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46782 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm

GBile burn in the hell of poppocotatettel I may well, but e^(i*pi) will always be -1 for me I don't care what popocopatotolettle says!

171. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46775 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 2:15 pm

ok devolved I get what you mean.

You want a mechanism that can lead to an increase in information. The information in this case being how to survive and continue propagating genes.

Surely the answer is right before our eyes in evolutionary theory? you only need random variation, some organisms, without any magic input of information will varying in such a way as to increase their survival capacity. At the same time some others will vary in a way that reduces survival capacity. So at this point there is no increase in the net amount of information.

But lo and behold as a result of these variations the offspring of the organism with the beneficial variation will represent a larger proportion of the population than those of the others. Thus variation and selection really can lead to a natural increase in information.

Obviously Science wants a satisfactory account of how life originated as well as how it progressed since that point.

I'm not familiar with the current state of theory concerning the origin of life I'm afraid. Hopefully sometime this will be different. But how is it unreasonable, based on what we already know to expect variation and selection had a gradual stairway leading all the way up from the simplest level necessary. In this case the circumstances pertaining on earth in its early phases?

172. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46758 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 12:14 pm

devolved you believe in a "supernatural means of support" whatever the sod that is. I lack that belief and you're the one that needs to justify it.

It sounds like you got out of bed one morning, took one look at reality and said "there's no way this'll hold up on its own!".

So what everything requires some spooky mysterious divine presence to stop it from collapsing into nothingness. Because we all know mysterious essences -unlike stuff that really does exist- can cut it on their own without "means of support"!

173. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46717 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 9:01 am

wee flea will try to dodge anything you throw at him.

i.e:

Anyway I had better go. The rest of the posts are a waste – especially Billy's hilarioius analysis of the Bible! Billy – I missed you at Borders in Glasgow. Perhaps next time…

174. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46701 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 7:48 am

Hello stan!

I bet 50p the flea won't give you a straight answer.

175. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46698 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 7:32 am

rgpratt I'm disappointed the chief exec from AAAS and the associate editor of Evolution felt the need to be so kind to brownback. Neville Chamberlain-ism in full force.

It's not just that Sen. Brownback attacks evolution here, more generally he's saying "This is our position and f*** any evidence to the contrary". We really can do without that in potential world leaders!

176. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46683 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 4:39 am

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old

177. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46673 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:57 am

BillySands isn't a christian minister supposed to conduct himself with gentleness and dignity regardless of whether it will be reciprocated?

I ask "Reverend" Robertson wouldn't he be a bit embarassed or ashamed, if we distributed half the stuff he spews out here, amongst his congregation?

178. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46665 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:37 am

Bizarro[85] you are certain that people are rational agents capable of doing good (as well as bad), and creatures of great worth.

I agree, to me it is intrinsically obvious that that is the case. You however seem to think it is merely the consequence of certain religious doctrines about the human person (which I've left in the trash can).

So can we see now who has more respect for the human species?

179. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46661 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:26 am

Actually I was referring to quote number 88 by Yorker – "It is entirely possible that we might have to eradicate religious fanaticism by force, if that happens, it will serve as a good lesson for those who survive these wars, it will teach us never again to allow manipulators preaching nonsense, to poison the minds of uneducated people; a lesson we badly need and not just because of religion."

180. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46652 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 2:46 am

Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting?

What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

181. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46569 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm

darwin2 are you going to tell us why you believe in those things?

182. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46515 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm

BAEOZ I think it's "Begging the Question"

183. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46508 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 2:14 pm

What I like about this site is I know I can just sit back and watch this get torn to pieces :-)

184. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46428 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 7:26 am

Has David Robertson still not explained his views about homosexuality?

If he thinks we're hectoring him he should ask himself how he'd respond if he encountered someone attacking the monogamous hetoresexual marriage he thinks is a gift from god. Of course no-one, certainly no-one here would be so ridiculous. What wee flea doesn't realise is his disdain for all other lifestyles is equally ridiculous.

Call marriage a gift from God if you want then, what gives Andrew Sullivan for instance any less right to call being gay a gift from God?

185. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46416 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 6:50 am

David Robertson you have repeatedly told us here that we are dangerous and a brewing cauldron of violence against believers.

Clearly this is ridiculous, because if we actually were we wouldn't wait to be told by you and you wouldn't be repeatedly telling us either (did anyone ever waste time convincing the ku klux klan or eta or whoever that they are violent and dangerous!?).

If you knew your nextdoor neighbour was very prone to violence you wouldn't knock his door to repeatedly tell him he was bound to snap pretty soon and attack half the street would you?

The way you behave here is alarming for a christian minister.

186. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46379 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 4:23 am

Gimli, long time no see!

Even if one could find a genetic basis for morality or altruism this wouldn't provide a reason for why we should adhere to it.

187. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46274 by BaronOchs on May 30, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Welcome Hobbit, that's a cracking debut!

188. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46158 by BaronOchs on May 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Universities are supposed to be places where you learn to think for yourself. Regent and Liberty are insults to the idea of a university, they're merely grooming an army of fanatics.

189. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46145 by BaronOchs on May 30, 2007 at 11:28 am

BillySands and Steve99 I agree. All we have asked is that he explain and justify the teaching of his church. And it's his job to do that!

190. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46133 by BaronOchs on May 30, 2007 at 10:07 am

That's a good quote BillySands.

I think the question that Dawkins didn't quite grapple with in TGD is why do we have such a strong sense of beauty in the first place? Or why do we have a concept of beauty?

The argument from beauty is nonsense though, where does the leap from this to "god exists" come from?

191. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45793 by BaronOchs on May 29, 2007 at 9:41 am

Yorker think of it like St Antony preaching to the fishes.

If uhhh you can overlook the obvious irony there . . .

speaking of which wee flea perhaps your sagely counsels would be better placed at the local pond?

192. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45288 by BaronOchs on May 27, 2007 at 5:13 am

devolved you're a waste of precious oxygen. You simply absconded from the discussion on the thread "Jerry Falwell's hit parade" and you've done the same thing in other instances it seems.

What makes you think you can stroll in and out of any thread and expect people to answer your nonsense? I suppose the bible was written too long ago to contain a section on internet manners?

193. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45257 by BaronOchs on May 27, 2007 at 2:35 am

"By attacking religion Dawkins thinks he is going to eliminate the world's evils, but he is so negative, so destructive in his approach, that he is escalating the conflict between warring cultures at a time when we should be seeking common ground," she said.

194. Neil Peart cites The God Delusion in new album's liner notes

Comment #45062 by BaronOchs on May 26, 2007 at 4:32 am

earthshine this information is reposted from somewhere else. The link to the source article isn't working though, perhaps the page has been pulled for that reason?

If you want a response don't expect someone will notice your post here, you should email to:

design@richarddawkins.net

195. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #45054 by BaronOchs on May 26, 2007 at 3:38 am

BT Murtagh LOL!

196. The Blairs' Witch Project

Comment #45053 by BaronOchs on May 26, 2007 at 3:35 am

It would have been much better if Blair had had leo have the MMR jab and made the fact public.

But since he didn't disclose what he did I respect that, his son's medical history is not public property after all.

If someone who believes whatever rubbish in their personal life is a good political leader I'm not bothered. Perhaps there's a link between believing crap and bad policy decisions, might I present Blair as an example?!

197. Jerry Falwell Deconverted on Deathbed!

Comment #45043 by BaronOchs on May 26, 2007 at 2:33 am

I watched that "life and liberty for all who believe" video. It was made back in the 80's but still that is really frightening, of course all of that hasn't stopped.

Quite remarkably there the front line of faith and the front line of barbarianism are in step. It makes me a little angry at the suggestion faith in its more benign forms is so valuable and worth saving. We can live without it, and we're better off without it.

198. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44994 by BaronOchs on May 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Bonzai you're suggesting even if evolution is essentially darwinian, god, and perhaps lamarckism might have a residual role. That's a delicate hypothesis but it could be tested.

As for god intervening through mutations I think that would only be meaningful if more mutations turned out to be positive than you would expect from statistics. I do not think the evidence suggests this though.

It is concievable that the enviroment is so hostile to life that nothing get selected.

199. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44981 by BaronOchs on May 25, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I'm going to stick up for MIND_REBEL here.

ok you can believe in god and evolution, but there really is no room for divine action within the theory of evolution, it is simply random variation and natural selection. So examine closely someone who believes in theistic evolution. There is only a place for god as a sort of lord mayor of evolution, an entirely redundant and ceremonial figure.

So he's right there are really three main possibilities for the origin of life: a genuine role for god, a lamarckian process, or a darwinian process.

200. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44507 by BaronOchs on May 25, 2007 at 2:58 am

devolved, life itself is more universal and inescapable than god, life provides a better benchmark for goodness than god.

Also the fact that god is a supernatural entity removed from this world makes him distinctly inappropriate as a means of defining human goodness.