I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.

A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make. — Gregory A

Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, @EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine.

You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.' — universeness

I really doubt that, Dawkins would be more like myself in that respect. There are no 'gay people' in context, homosexuals don't exist in the physical sense, it is instead a condition that some people have. And yes we should do our best (and we do) to accommodate their rights, but, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree, the fundamental right of a child to have both a mother and a father should not be violated.

Am I being cruel? It sure looks like it. But then consider the biggest violation of that right is not by homosexuals but is instead being done by single parents, themselves yet another manifestation of the influence of the Left.

When it comes to stating god exists 100% that is more or less dogmatic thinking. Believing in god does not make anyone dogmatic though. Some people are more dogmatic than others.

Scientists can be fairly dogmatic too. The main difference with the scientific approach is that it is far open to dispute/question the current way of understanding the universe and the vast majority of scientifically inclined persons are actually excited when experimentation and theory leads to something new and unknown, whilst religious doctrine (although it is adjusted sometimes) takes far, far longer to reform.

Both share something in common. They are ways and means of looking at human life in the universe and have, in part, helped each other along over the millennia.

When science hits a technological wall then philosophical and theological matters try and edge back in. When scientific investigation discovers something new both philosophers and theologians benefit from it (and sometimes try to undermine the discoveries or attach their importance to their own views).

Since when has it been ‘a right’ to have a mother and father? It is a biological fact, but it certainly isn’t a universal principle that children need the ‘mother and father’ present when being raised.

It is most probably fair to say that a male and female roel model are needed for children in general, but this can exist beyond mere ‘mother and father’ roles - and does in some social structures. Levi-Strauss notes this with examples around the world. In modern cases there are families in Asia where the brother of the father/mother fulfils the role we would traditionally associate with ‘father’.

You're from 1964? — EugeneW

yes

Dawkins arrived at that value on intuition? How scientific — EugeneW

You believe in god(s) how unscientific!

It's Dawkins making meaningless claims. It means nothing to say you're 99.9% sure gods don't exist. I can say I'm 100% sure the do. That's higher than his meaningless value! — EugeneW

Yeah it is and confirms your theistic dogmatism!

Ive asked it twice! Without an answer, I might add. Chance from intuition is BS. — EugeneW

Well, let me answer it again for about the 4th time, I am confident god(s) do not exist. My confidence level is 99.9% Similar levels are stated by most atheists, Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennet/Dillahunty etc.
A lower percentage than your 100% confidence that gods do exist. The fact that insufficient evidence exists, either way, awards you the theistic dogmatist award. I will link you back to this answer if you ask the question again, as a time saver

I really doubt that, Dawkins would be more like myself in that respect. There are no 'gay people' in context, homosexuals don't exist in the physical sense, it is instead a condition that some people have. And yes we should do our best (and we do) to accommodate their rights, but, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree, the fundamental right of a child to have both a mother and a father should not be violated — Gregory A

I do not hold to this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual male but I don't see homosexuality as some kind of genetic ailment but I would prefer other homosexual people to debate you on the viewpoints you type above.

The ultimate goal for us physicists seems to be to know the basic workings of the universe. Lots of ado bout that. There are zillions of other domains to explore but Democritus already thought to have found one and Einstein kept on dreaming till his death. Currently all the blazing's about the eternal reward of a quantum gravity. Of which its the question if it even exists in the usual context of QFT (coupling to virtual graviton condensate). But what if that goal is reached? I think I have a pretty good look at that fundamentals. So what? I think that knowledge, the closed gap, so to speak, leaves only one thing to conclude. And maybe knowledge of the universe implies knowledge of heaven.

I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.

A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make.
— Gregory A

Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine. — universeness

I'm the one saying atheism's position isn't valid. It should not argue against theists or religion if it claims to simply represent 'non-belief' in a god/s. And to not have ulterior motives, politics, despite being unaware of it, one of those. Logic is part of the common language we use, atheism relates logically to theism, nothing else. A non-believer can exist in the social sense, but not logically, as we either need to believe in Nature or believe in a god.

The ultimate goal for us physicists seems to be to know the basic workings of the universe. — EugeneW

Not really. Possibly for the more megalomaniacal scientist? Generally people who like to play football are not in pursuit of the basic workings of football. In the same way physicists are just ‘playing’ and enjoy the pursuit.

Feymann stated that the universe may or may not be reducible to a singular equation. He wasn’t really bothered either way, but it is generally more interesting for us if it isn’t. The ‘exceptions to the rule’ make life fascinating not the mundane day-to-say humdrum.

Not really. Possibly for the more megalomaniacal scientist? — I like sushi

Precisely. And exactly these are the "heros" that are put forth by science. As if they know some profound truth only accessible to the "gifted" few.

You believe in god(s) how unscientific! — universeness

Precisely because of the science I believe in them.

Yeah it is and confirms your theistic dogmatism — universeness

Im not dogmatic about it. If one doesnt wanna belief it's up to them. Claiming you are 99.9% sure they dont exist is dogmatic. With a little eyewink to the possibility they do exist. Which makes him a theist. A dogmatic scientific theist!

Not really. — I like sushi

If as a physicist you dont wanna know the basic laws then you're no real physicist. Or pretending not to wanna know because you're not capable.

I'm the one saying atheism's position isn't valid. It should not argue against theists or religion if it claims to simply represent 'non-belief' in a god/s. — Gregory A

Oh for f*** sake! I KNOW! and I think YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!

Logic is part of the common language we use, atheism relates logically to theism, nothing else. — Gregory A

I fully understand that you claim that atheism is a political viewpoint. It is not, is my response, so there is no need for you to repeat this viewpoint to me.

A non-believer can exist in the social sense, but not logically, as we either need to believe in Nature or believe in a god. — Gregory A

Nonsense! A non-believer exists in the human sense and humans are not Vulcan Spock type characters who only use YOUR depiction of logic to speak to theism. They can use any aspect of their humanity they like. MY logic tells me that YOUR logic is flawed!

Precisely because of the science I believe in them. — EugeneW

I don't find this convincing but I will take your word for it.

Im not dogmatic about it — EugeneW

This contradicts your claim that you are 100% convinced gods exist. 100% belief is dogmatic unless you only accept facts that are convenient to your viewpoint EugeneW. Don't leave yourself open to the 'fake news' accusation.

Claiming you are 99.9% sure they dont exist is dogmatic. With a little eyewink to the possibility they do exist. Which makes him a theist. A dogmatic scientific theist! — EugeneW

Sorry but you leave me little choice. This is just nonsense!

Feymann and Einstein are ‘meglomaniacs’ because they admit they don’t have all the answers? Feymann because he is happy to state that there may or may not be some overarching formula to explain the universe?

I don’t quite understand what ‘hero’ you are about? Newton was a megalomaniac type. One example does not make a rule though. Just like not all theists believe the Earth was created in seven days and such.

Some people are more dogmatic than others. ‘Dogma’ is something believed in on authority regardless of investigation. In the past some took Aristotle’s view of gravity as the writ truth, but they changed their minds when an experiment showed his view to be wrong. This kind of ‘mind changing’ is more common amongst scientists because there is no written truth only a methodology that guides investigation.

Religions can, and do, also ‘change their mind’ due to social pressure. Science changes due to experimentation and discovery that often leads to social change. Both have a place as far as I can tell, but atm religion is struggling to adapt due to the speed of discovery we have been witnessing over tha past couple of millennia.

I don’t quite understand what ‘hero’ you are about? — I like sushi

The picture the media paints. The physicist that has the answers to existence because of some sacred knowledge, unattainable to "the ignorant layman", exactly as in religion.

Einstein dreamt of a final unified theory. At CERN the fundaments of the universe are probed. I can tell them what to find at higher energies without ever having experienced the ultra small directly myself.

Hawking, Einstein, Witten, Rovelli, Carroll, Wheeler, Smolin, Lederman, Teresi, Süsskind, Strominger, etc. All painted as the priests of the church of science.

only a methodology that guides investigation. — I like sushi

This methodology is a chimera, a fairy tale. Like the god particle and good and bad ghost particle fields.

So blame the media not the methods of science. There have not exactly been many physicists who are able to bridge the gap in term of public relations. Feymann was certainly one guy who really was good at putting things across well.

As an example of the explanation of QM he simply stated ‘anyone who says they understand QM is lying, because no one understands it’.

When asked about creating ‘an anti-gravity device’ he said ‘a chair works perfectly well’.

The problem with many reporters in the mainstream, non-specialised, media is that they actively try to sensationalise anything they can. There is also the issue of funding experiments. Again, scientists openly admit they do ‘pretend’ to be researching one thing whilst really collecting data for something else related.

Money plays a big part in how religion and science is portrayed. Religion gets more money though.

You are starting to sound ridiculous. How can you say it is chimera with the technological advances we have today gained by way of scientific investigation through experimentation? Medicine and communications are kind of a large reason why we are talking - I would be dead without the medical attention I’ve received and I certainly wouldn’t be able to communication with you from the other side of the planet either.

Is that a ‘fairy tale’?

The picture the media paints. The physicist that has the answers to existence because of some sacred knowledge, unattainable to "the ignorant layman", exactly as in religion.

Einstein dreamt of a final unified theory. At CERN the fundaments of the universe are probed. I can tell them what to find at higher energies without ever having experienced the ultra small directly myself.

Hawking, Einstein, Witten, Rovelli, Carroll, Wheeler, Smolin, Lederman, Teresi, Süsskind, Strominger, etc. All painted as the priests of the church of science. — EugeneW

Good ol’ Nietzsche stuff. And he wasnt much of an anti-atheist either.

Good ol’ Nietzsche stuff. And he wasnt much of an anti-atheist either. — Ansiktsburk

He wasn't an anti-a theist? Does that make him an atheìst? Or doesn't he accept the gods looking at us and announcing them to be dead? What was his image of gods?

Money plays a big part in how religion and science is portrayed. Religion gets more money though. — I like sushi

Religion gets more money? The media is almost continuously ejecting the happy message of science and technology. Just look at commercials. Did you ever see one trying to sell gods? "One of the hardest problems in AI is to understand language", the scientists claim... As if understanding it and recreating it in AI is important. But it's brought as such. "We" (the scientists) "are on the verge of...". Documentaries about the sciences flood the market and in politics religion merely plays a side role, inly in name. Science and politics are conflated like never before in history and language is reduced to scientifically rational debate with arguments, so beloved by the ancient Greek philosophers, of who the distorted ideas of Xenophanes (the omni monster god) and Plato stood at the base of modern scientific thinking, and associated so-called democratic politics, how much we might dislike it.

How can you say it is chimera with the technological advances we have today gained by way of scientific investigation through experimentation? — I like sushi

I wrote that the methodology is a chimera. The pressumed methodology is an invention of philosophers. They try to capture the processes of scientific knowledge gathering. I think that a scientist operating while obeying the methodology (and there are lots of them invented) is a chimera.

You are not worthy of my time then. Bye

Bye sushi.

Since when has it been ‘a right’ to have a mother and father? It is a biological fact, but it certainly isn’t a universal principle that children need the ‘mother and father’ present when being raised.

It is most probably fair to say that a male and female role model is needed for children in general, but this can exist beyond mere ‘mother and father’ roles - and does in some social structures. Levi-Strauss notes this with examples around the world. In modern cases there are families in Asia where the brother of the father/mother fulfills the role we would traditionally associate with ‘father’. — I like sushi

Yes to what you are saying the brother/uncle can be there as the male role model. And a substitute is still better than not having the real thing. Widows and widowers almost automatically get another opposite family member to fill that part of of the missing role.

Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine. — universeness

It's not just my poor word skills it's maybe also that my arguments are simple in their logic and go by you (rather than over your head).

If atheism is the non-belief in god/s, then it can't specify any one religion to challenge. As its position is to not accept the concept of any/all gods. Atheism vs Christianity is not valid for example.

Dawkins would believe in Nature and consequently needs to 'believe' that a god does not exist. Making it impossible to for him to 'honestly' expect evidence of God to be produced. As a scientist he can't really argue much against theism as it represents 'belief' in god/s, not scientific arguments in their favor. He also can't argue against theism from a sociological viewpoint because theism is not a religion. Dawkins would be a conservative, so wouldn't be politically motivated if atheism is another element of the Left. Dawkins therefor can only be an agent of destruction looking for a way to enhance the fame he already has. And as there is little aclaim to be had taking on obsure religions he mostly attacks the god of the Bible.

I do not hold to this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual male but I don't see homosexuality as some kind of genetic ailment but I would prefer other homosexual people to debate you on the viewpoints you type above. — universeness

It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction.

Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left — Gregory A

Conservative values are based in marriage?

Why do Liberals want to destroy these values?

If atheism is the non-belief in god/s, then it can't specify any one religion to challenge. As its position is to not accept the concept of any/all gods. Atheism vs Christianity is not valid for example — Gregory A

So for you, logically, the word "All" is not a 'term of totality,' a simple way of including each and every individual example. If I say I am against ALL racists, does that mean (according to your logic) that I forfeit the right to argue with any of them? Atheists speaking against Christianity is completely valid and to say it is not, is pure sophistry, and it smacks of something the logic of Donald Trump and his followers, would try to peddle. You show yourself in a poor light sir.

Dawkins would believe in Nature and consequently needs to 'believe' that a god does not exist. Making it impossible to for him to 'honestly' expect evidence of God to be produced. As a scientist he can't really argue much against theism as it represents 'belief' in god/s, not scientific arguments in their favor. He also can't argue against theism from a sociological viewpoint because theism is not a religion. Dawkins would be a conservative, so wouldn't be politically motivated if atheism is another element of the Left. Dawkins therefor can only be an agent of destruction looking for a way to enhance the fame he already has. And as there is little aclaim to be had taking on obsure religions he mostly attacks the god of the Bible — Gregory A

This is just more of the same flawed logic. You are trying to scratch at Dawkins armour and try to get at him and all you have is a sponge. You are wasting your time, but sponge away, all you want, every time you type about him, you make his armour look better and better to me.
Dawkins hates Maggie Thatcher and everything she stood for he has said so on camera. He does not discuss politics much but I doubt very much that he is a conservative.
Put up or shut up sir, provide actual quotes from him to support your claims about him.