b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 6601845 (Thread)

Richard Dawkins IS the supreme being

that is all

ps woo!

(

John Barrowman's laminated buttocks, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:59, archived)

Eh?

Richard Dawkins is a prick, I think you'll find.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:00, archived)

I answered a question he couldn't answer

about 12 years ago. Problem is I've forgotten what it was. Something to do with memes.

(

mr horrible up yours, dickface, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:01, archived)

Was it something like...

"Why are you so angry about something you don't think exists or is it that really you're a bit afraid that God does exist and you're going to hell for being a twat?"

I'm all for people having their own beliefs but it annoys me when someone pretends to be a scientist or insists that science can do things which it can't.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:05, archived)

I can see why he gets frustrated

The questions being asked him by American students the other day were frightening.
And the thing about their University museum having a 3000 year old dinosaur bone is disturbing.

(

HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07, archived)

Hahahaha!

The ID brigade annoy me too. They're just feeble. They just happen to contain enough waffly bullshit to convince people who know no science.

But the people who think that science proves that God does not exist are just as stupid.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:09, archived)

I didn't think that was the point/issue

I thought it was to teach kids the science that we know first, and then let them decide if they want to be religious when their brains are capable of understanding what it means - generally just avoiding the brainwashing.

(

HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:12, archived)

Nope.

Intelligent Design is about teaching kids God made everything, using bad science.

If what I've read about God is correct, he'd probably use good science.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:14, archived)

sorry, I misread what you said

I thought you were saying that Dawkins was proving God doesn't exist.
He just isn't accepting that he does either until science proves it.

(

HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17, archived)

It's abductive reasoning

not deductive. Evolution explains the facts without invoking the supernatural, it's the most likely theory. Deducing is not possible and will never be, unless time travel is invented or God appears.

(

in vino veritas, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19, archived)

Unfortunately

Evolution explains the facts by invoking other things we have no real evidence for. The fossil record is amazingly scarce (and saying that the conditions required to fossilise and the massive time scales make finding fossils difficult, is not an argument in favour) and doesn't really show what we'd expect it to.

Which could point to either evolution being rubbish or something a lot different to what we currently imagine it to be. Either way, there's not much evidence for it as it stands.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:27, archived)

this is true

and so we have a plausible idea of what might have happened with some scant artefacts and a bit of reasoning, or a somewhat less plausible idea based on a collection of old writings.

(

mr horrible up yours, dickface, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:30, archived)

Yep.

Exactly the same thing.

Both require an act of faith to say that you know what is right and others are wrong.

As for the plausibility - how can you say one is more plausible than the other? You can say that one makes more sense to you than the other, doesn't make it more likely.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:32, archived)

www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=god&word2=science

(

Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something., Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:33, archived)

Pffft!

Hardly surprising on a technology based search.

I bet you'd get a different result if you checked the Bible.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:35, archived)

I don't think that science proves that there is no God

I think that science shows that stuff could have happened quite well without the existence of a deity.

No point complicating things unnecessarily.

(

in vino veritas, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:12, archived)

I don't think it is ever possible to prove the existence of anything

that is by its own definition outside of the bounds of rationality.

For example they've been trying for years to tell me that my friend Bobo doesn't exist, but I know he does, don't you Bobo?

What's that Bobo? No surely not, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT BOBO - NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER DESERVED IT! I CAN'T DO IT! I WON'T DO IT!

alright, alright, just let me get the axe out.

(

Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something., Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17, archived)

What, if I may ask,

is the axe in?

(

LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19, archived)

my hand currently

(

Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something., Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:21, archived)

indeed

but if Science suddenly came up with a mathematical answer to the cause of the big bang that said it seems to be a massive water buffalo with omnipresent abilities and startling control over matter, then they would possibly describe it as "godlike".

However, while religion jumps up and down and says "I worshipped the water buffalo all along, you people with your beardy bloke were always wrong and now we must have a war", the scientists would be wondering where this God thing came from in the first place and who it's creator was.

Or similar

(

HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22, archived)

I recall reading of one scientist

who was working on Big Bang theory and had worked out that matter appeared in the Universe before the Big Bang. Not very long before though. He calculated that the period of time between the appearance of this matter and the Big Bang it sparked off, was about the same amount of time to say, "let there be light," in hebrew.

It means nothing.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:25, archived)

hahahahahahah

It's also the same amount of time as it takes to say "I fancy a wank" or "that curry I had last night is really messing with me innards, hang on a sec, I'm just going to the loo" in ancient Maori.

(

HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:28, archived)

I don't think it's possible to prove the existence of anything, ever.

But it's possible to disprove things, that is, to come up with better theories than the ones that say those things exist.

(Now I have to go somewhere, I'm late. *vanishes*)

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22, archived)

I think you've got that the wrong way round.

You can prove something does exist by finding it. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist until you've looked absolutely everywhere for it (and are sure that it isn't just behind you or moving away every time you get close).

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29, archived)

Yes.

It's not the job of science (or philosophy) to prove things, but to produce better theories.
www.amazon.com/Retreat-Commitment-William-Warren-Bartley/dp/081269127X

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19, archived)

I would love to get into this conversation more

but I feel my knowledge of the various theories is too shallow.

(

mr horrible up yours, dickface, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:23, archived)

Meh, I bet you know it all already

after years of exposure to me and Leigh and Rob and other Popper fans. Gotta go, anyway, bye.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:28, archived)

You can prove something DOES exist

however it is impossible to prove that something DOESN'T. It's known as falsifiability.

For example, the statements, "All ravens are black" and "No ravens are white" are not proveable - even if you gathered up all the ravens currently in the universe, you cannot account for all the possible ravens that might spring into existence between now and the end of time, or even those that have already ceased to exist.

However, the statement "Some ravens are black" is proveable, obviously, you just have to see a black raven.

Hence I agree entirely with the sentiments above about Dawkins being an unremitting twunt.

(

Hamster Trippin' aka Mr. Titts, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29, archived)

I disagree.

I don't think science shows that at all. Not without needlessly complicating things itself to make it seem that way. It doesn't necessarily follow that there must be a God, but science is a LOOOONG way from showing that everything could have just happened like this anyway.

check out some M-theory. It just takes it back past the Big Bang still without answering any questions.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:21, archived)

He's not claiming that science can disprove the existence of god.

It's philosophy that can disprove the existence of god.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07, archived)

Erm...?

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:10, archived)

Utter utter shit

(

Hamster Trippin' aka Mr. Titts, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:30, archived)

extreme "scientists" like Dawkins are pretty much the same as extreme religious types.

Probe a little and the theories tend to be equally flawed.

EDIT: Why couldn't I think of the word philosophy? Ta Felix.

(

mr horrible up yours, dickface, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07, archived)

*looks at you funny*

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:09, archived)

I felt the need to say scientist in quotes

when philosopher would have worked better.

(

mr horrible up yours, dickface, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:11, archived)

I'm aware of the somewhat depressing shrillness of proselytising atheists.

But that's not typically due to using weak arguments. It's more to do with the failure to realise that they're attempting to saw through people's psychological crutches, and that very

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17, archived)

Oh Felix

you're so erudite! *swoons*

(

in vino veritas, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22, archived)

Pfft. My post was cut off at the word "very", but that doesn't seem to bother you.

It was something about ... very strident attacks by evangelistic atheists being pointless, but The God Delusion seeming to have some positive effect in comparison.

I have to go now, anyway. Heh.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:26, archived)

BUT HE DIDN'T FINISH!

very what??

(

mr horrible up yours, dickface, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:26, archived)

I know

but I imagined the rest. And it was good. SEXY good.

(

in vino veritas, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29, archived)

Yep.

Exactly.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:09, archived)

Dawkins isn't just a scientist

He's a scienceist.

I respect him for his work on evolutionary biology, but he should stick to what he's good at. Going after religion in general is at best psychology (not his field of expertise) and at worst bigotry.

For the record, I think that "Intelligent Design" is a load of crap, and Darwin's description of evolution is the only thing that really fits the facts.

(

Albert the Mildly Deranged purveyors of nothing much since a year or two ago, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:13, archived)

Meh.

I reckon Darwinian evolution is on it's way out. I think it's, at best, a decent rule of thumb (like the sultana pudding model of atomics or the 2,8,8,8 etc. electron shell theory).

I have no idea how it really works though. I'm more of a chemist than a biologist.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17, archived)

I think he's got a better head on his shoulders than

the majority of people that the masses look up to.
He just has to be careful not to turn in to one of the ranting people he's objecting to.

(

HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:05, archived)

FAR too late for that.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07, archived)

Indeed

He's a frothy-mouthed egotist with, ironically, a god complex.

(

Hamster Trippin' aka Mr. Titts, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:31, archived)

Hahahaha!

This^

either that or he's a closet Christian.

(

Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:37, archived)

he just

amuses the hell out of me
which is as good a reason as any to be a supreme being.

(

John Barrowman's laminated buttocks, Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:11, archived)