Quotes from Prof Dawkins

[Gob]

So Morality is nothing more than what the masses deem it to be and is therefore entirely subject to what the majority say?

Morality is the designated "good" conduct, defined by society, and filtered through years of experience, it is the product of debate and discussion on many levels.

Of course, over the centuries it has been coloured and directed by what charlatans have told us the Great Ooogah Boogah in the sky says is right for us.

But it need no longer be so.

[Crackpot]

Societies throughout history the present (and the likely future) with and without religion have decided that appalling things are acceptable. Does that make them any more or less wrong?

[Gob]

Neither, all morality is subjective and related to the current society, it is not absolute.

There is also nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by basing a societal moral framework on superstition.

[Crackpot]

So there is nothing that is right or wrong outside of Societies current moorings? Does that mean if something happens without societies knowledge it is therefore value neutral? If not why?

There is also nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by basing a societal moral framework on superstition.

You are the one bringing superstition into this conversation it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Why are so in tent on raising this red herring?

[Gob]

So there is nothing that is right or wrong outside of Societies current moorings? Does that mean if something happens without societies knowledge it is therefore value neutral? If not why?

Yes. Without subjective apraisal, events are value neutral.

There is also nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by basing a societal moral framework on superstition.

You are the one bringing superstition into this conversation it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Why are so in tent on raising this red herring?

I thought the discussion was on Dawkin's athiesm?

[Crackpot]

So there is nothing that is right or wrong outside of Societies current moorings? Does that mean if something happens without societies knowledge it is therefore value neutral? If not why?

Yes. Without subjective apraisal, events are value neutral.

So it's not immoral unless you get caught.

There is also nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by basing a societal moral framework on superstition.

You are the one bringing superstition into this conversation it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Why are so in tent on raising this red herring?

I thought the discussion was on Dawkin's athiesm?

We were discussing Morality and it's ramifications in regards to a religion or it's lack. Jumping repeatedly to "superstition" is nothing more than a sophomoric attempt to poison the well in attempt to avoid real debate.

THough I suppose your right in it does seem to relflect Dawkin's atheism.

[Gob]

So it's not immoral unless you get caught.

It's not immoral unless judged to be so.

We were discussing Morality and it's ramifications in regards to a religion or it's lack. Jumping repeatedly to "superstition" is nothing more than a sophomoric attempt to poison the well in attempt to avoid real debate.

THough I suppose your right in it does seem to relflect Dawkin's atheism.

Ok, I was using "superstition" to cover all religious or "belief" based codes of morality, I'll stick with religion if you like.

[Crackpot]

So it's not immoral unless you get caught.

It's not immoral unless judged to be so.

So you agree with my statement?

We were discussing Morality and it's ramifications in regards to a religion or it's lack. Jumping repeatedly to "superstition" is nothing more than a sophomoric attempt to poison the well in attempt to avoid real debate.

THough I suppose your right in it does seem to relflect Dawkin's atheism.

Ok, I was using "superstition" to cover all religious or "belief" based codes of morality, I'll stick with religion if you like.

You know them all? And How exactly do you know they are not based on reason or knowledge?

[Gob]

So you agree with my statement?

Nope, there's a difference between "get caught", and "being judged".

What I am saying is that no act in of itself has "morality", morality is a human concept which is based on experience and conditioning.

You know them all? And How exactly do you know they are not based on reason or knowledge?

How can a system based on "belief" or "religion" be based on reason or knowledge?

[Crackpot]

So you agree with my statement?

Nope, there's a difference between "get caught", and "being judged".

What I am saying is that no act in of itself has "morality", morality is a human concept which is based on experience and conditioning.

I'm missing the difference.

You know them all? And How exactly do you know they are not based on reason or knowledge?

How can a system based on "belief" or "religion" be based on reason or knowledge?

Gravity and Evolution have not been proven they both are lacking sufficient information in order to prove them. Are you saying that in order to believe them you are doing so without reason or knowledge?

[Gob]

I'm missing the difference.

"To get caught" implies that there is something inherently wrong happening, to "be judged" reasoned view of an event.

Gravity and Evolution have not been proven they both are lacking sufficient information in order to prove them. Are you saying that in order to believe them you are doing so without reason or knowledge?

a) I believe you are wrong, and that both have been proven to satisfactory scientific standards.

b) Gravity and evolution do not impinge on any moral judgement that I have ever made.

[Crackpot]

"To get caught" implies that there is something inherently wrong happening,....

I'm with you

to "be judged" reasoned view of an event.

Huh???

Gravity and Evolution have not been proven they both are lacking sufficient information in order to prove them. Are you saying that in order to believe them you are doing so without reason or knowledge?

a) I believe you are wrong, and that both have been proven to satisfactory scientific standards.

Both continue to be Theories by scientific standards.

b) Gravity and evolution do not impinge on any moral judgement that I have ever made.

Their morality does not matter in this case only that you believe them without being proven.

[Gob]

to "be judged" reasoned view of an event.

Huh???

Sorry, badly put. I mean't to say that I was using the term "judged" in the context of an event having been analysed and a moral jugement been made.

Both continue to be Theories by scientific standards.

Ok, but theories with enough scientific weight behind them to make them substantially more than just "beliefs".

Their morality does not matter in this case only that you believe them without being proven.

Big difference to believe that something like gravity exists with the weight of scientific evidence behind it, than to make a moral judgement in the belief that you are complying with the wishes of a benevolent supreme being for whom there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, is there not?

[tyro]

Gravity clearly exists.

The only scientific problem rests in explaining it.

[Rick]

Dawkins is intellectually dishonest.

Since Darwin came up with his idea of natural selection in 1838, there have been some difficulties.

Richard Goldschmidt recognized them as “Saltations”

George Gaylord Simpson referred to them as “Quantum Evolution”

Eldridge and Gould; “Punctuated Equilibrium”

Dawkins, “Variable Speedism”

I say that to say this, all of these fellows agree something other than the slow gradual transition that Darwin first suggested happens they just don’t agree on the mechanism, without them some problems arise.

That’s fine, however none of them have seen it 1st hand and the only evidence is anecdotal.

So Dawkins is accepting on “FAITH” a process that he cannot actually put his finger on happens. Actually it has to happen if it doesn’t you and I can’t see since the eye is one of those little problems.

Yet I’m superstitious because I believe in God. The bible was started from the time of Moses and has been in existence to it’s final form since shortly after the death of Christ.

There were witnesses to the works of Christ, enemy and follower alike they were not disputed at that time.

Sooo as a figure Christ has actually been seen as well as his works.

When has there actually been a reported case of “punctuated equilibrium”?

Certainly this is not enough to expect that anyone here is going to drop what they are doing to become a “Religious Nutter” but it doesn’t diminish Dawkins Intellectual dishonesty.

[BoSoxGal]

There were witnesses to the works of Christ, enemy and follower alike they were not disputed at that time.

Sooo as a figure Christ has actually been seen as well as his works.

Same holds true of many other prophets of various plentiful religions throughout the years (anthropologists would point out the universal human tendency to make up stories to explain life/natural experiences).

So how do you know yours is "The One" true faith? It is a truth much less provable than gravity or evolution.

[Rick]

Same holds true of many other prophets of various plentiful religions throughout the years (anthropologists would point out the universal human tendency to make up stories to explain life/natural experiences).

Muhammad?

He performed no miracles he was an epileptic that plagiarized the Jews...

Whom else did you have in mind?

Certainly there are followers of other religions, not all are going to follow Christ they didn't in the 1st century while he was alive why would I think that would change.

That doesn't (can never spell that right) change Dawkins "dishonesty"...

[Gob]

Dawkins is intellectually dishonest.


I say that to say this, all of these fellows agree something other than the slow gradual transition that Darwin first suggested happens they just don’t agree on the mechanism, without them some problems arise.

That’s fine, however none of them have seen it 1st hand and the only evidence is anecdotal.

So Dawkins is accepting on “FAITH” a process that he cannot actually put his finger on happens. Actually it has to happen if it doesn’t you and I can’t see since the eye is one of those little problems.

That's not "dishonesty" that's scientific honesty, they admit that their theories are just theories, and carry on trying to refine a hypothesis, buy experiment and exploration.

Religious faith takes belief as a proof, and empty rhetoric as process.

When people are killed by falling minarets, or buses on their way to Lourdes crash killing the sick and innocent, does god laugh?

[Rick]

When people are killed by falling minarets, or buses on their way to Lourdes crash killing the sick and innocent, does god laugh?

What kind of question is that?

OK then how does “Variable Speedism” to use the honest Mr Dawkins phrase work.

let's use the eye as the example.

Obviuosly no half formed eye gearing towards what we have in our head would be of any value. Thus rendering it an evolutionary dead end.

We have eyes like in a flat worm that distinguish light from dark.

Compound eyes like insects.

Simple like spiders.

Complex such as squid and octopus.

Now how do you get the eye that we have?

Without these great jumps?

If all of the sudden eyes form explain the mechanism.

Dawkins has "FAITH" it happens...

[Big RR]

I think what the evolutionist would say (and I agree) is that mutations occur and the fittest ones survive and proliferate. Obviously our eyes have proliferated because they suit the needs of us in an evolutionary sense.

Now what this has to do with whether or not a supreme being exists is completely beyond me. Many things in our universe occur by chance, and to ascribe them to the will of a supreme being is somewhat inconsistent with what is observed. However, just because things happen by chance is no reason to presume a supreme being cannot or does not exist. Which is, IMHO, where Dawkins' blathering fails. He wants to say that because neither he (primarily, although I guess he would concede nor anyone else) can prove the existence of a supreme being, one doesn't exist. The first is a fact, but the conclusion is something not based on fact and more based on a belief that one must rule out what one cannot prove. This may work for scientific inquiry (and I fully believe scientific inquiry should proceed from the premise that there is no supreme being, otherwise it gets too easy--anything that is difficult to understand is attributed to the will of that being, ending rational inquiry), but it is not a certainty.

We may be the only "universe" that exists, or there may be many "universes" that exst outside of our own which can neither be observed nor detected; does this make them any less real? No, because there is just no way to know whether they exist or not, so our lack of knowledge means nothing. If one says one believes they do not exist, then that is as much as statement of faith as saying they do. The same is true with a supreme being.