I hope you appreciate EugeneW that we are doing ourselves no favours here, in the minds of any readers of our current exchange! It has quickly became laboured and rather pointless. I can hear other members shout 'will you two just......' — universeness
Ok, thanks for the exchange EugeneW — universeness
I am immune to such bait EugeneW — universeness
You consider it bait? You think I'm out to getya — EugeneW
When Impasse has been reached — universeness
Pauli's exclusion principle states that an atom cannot have the same set of quantum numbers in its electronic configuration. It has scientific rigor, why do you conflate it with your subjective opinion about whether or not the atheist or theist posits can be considered beliefs or arguments?
You have demonstrated many times in your postings that you have impressive analytical abilities but you also allow that ability to be fogged by taking the direction of exchange down wasteful blind alleys at times. This is just my opinion of course. You like to wear a coat of many colours Agent Smith.
I prefer you on 'straight up' mode. Not that I ever want to dent your sense of humour. Humour remains vital to all. — universeness
we could debate until one or both of us passed out from the beer. But on a public discussion website, I like to try my best to consider other readers, — universeness
What's the argument involved in atheism? Please argue with me dear! :lol: — EugeneW
I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! — Agent Smith
Well between your blind alley's and my tangents and trips outside of the solar system, it's unlikely we will ever find ourselves on common ground. Hey ho, such is life — universeness
They would be delighted to see us both pass out at the same time! — EugeneW
I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! :smile: — Agent Smith
Look for a solitaire version of atheism vs. theism. — Agent Smith
Atheism is a rejection of free-speech — Gregory A
That's what Dawkins has reduced it to! Genes variating in order to arrive at new proteins to give them a better chance to replicate. Which is no more than an unproven, god-like dogma in biology. Even called the central dogma of molecular biology... How close to religion can you get? — EugeneW
Dawkins might have considered other titles but he didn't actually gave it another title. He might not mean litterally that genes are selfish, but he called them that. What you think people think if they hear about selfish genes? — EugeneW
This line of insult is beneath you EugeneW. It's open to easy returns such as 'The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothing.' It's pointless panto talk.He's a wolf in sheep clothes — EugeneW
But you anthropomorphise what the genes demonstrate as part of their natural functionality and you arrive at the will of the god(s). Its YOUR theistic conflations that try to nudge towards the god posit not anything suggested by Dawkins. — universeness
He would agree with you that, in hindsight, he could have chosen a 'wiser' title for the book but I think you are over-stretching the significance of this shortfall. — universeness
This line of insult is beneath you EugeneW. It's open to easy returns such as 'The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothing.' It's pointless panto talk. — universeness
The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothi — universeness
Let's talk about why YOU need the god posit. Why do you give it more credit than that of a lazy, boring, unlikely fable? — universeness
An attempt at dramatic prose, not evidence of god.The nudge to the gods is made to breathe the fire of love and hate into the matter — EugeneW
I repeat again, give Science the time and resources required to do this, meantime your are just engaging in panto talk.Matter alone can't explain. — EugeneW
Pure subject opinion, the atheist position rejects this so more panto exchange.When you have a cosmological eternal model, one cannot do other than conclude intelligences created it. — EugeneW
Like imagery from a low budget theatre show, not evidence of god.They were tired. So they created the universe. It looks like heaven! Now they watch us, laid back on the heavenly desserts... That realization gives true meaning. We're just acting like the gods. — EugeneW
Purely from your entertainment mode.But we die. And get born again. In every new universe renewed. To please the gods with our plays, be it viral or humanoid... Ooookaaaay! — EugeneW
I have listened to the audio version, it leaves optimism/pessimism to the judgment of the reader/listener. I found it factual and informative, not optimistic or pessimistic.It's not just the title. I have read the book and it's not very optimistic — EugeneW
Only on a comment by comment basis. People often assume I like/dislike someone on a personal level. I try not to slam the door shut on people I don't really know. But sure I have emotional prejudices as well, based on reports on someone or stuff I have read about them. I do hate Hitler/Thatcher/Paedo priests.I just don't like the guy. It's not an insult to science or evolution but to his interpretation. Don't you insult theists? — EugeneW
Do you really enjoy the panto exchange 'How do you know it isnt?'How do you know its woo woo? — EugeneW
But you don't, therefore, retract the source comment. You don't further justify your claim that Dawkins is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Why do you think he argues against theism, for fame? for fortune? He was already a successful scientist with good pay. You think he revels in the BS he has to deal with from theists who make a living from their storytelling.?I completely agree — EugeneW
Because it aint such a fable and the scientific fable (how interesting it might be, as we both know!) can't explain the universe, life, and consciousness. It can describe it at most — EugeneW
Sean Carroll made an interesting argument about God. He said suppose we lived in a world where children never suffered. The priests would be saying "look, clearly there is a God because we see how he protects the young ". Yet we don't live in that world. This argument for me takes down teleological arguments. What do you guys think? — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.