Richard Dawkins, What He Did Fail To Answer?

[saeedalyousuf 0]

The questions posted on RichardDawkins(contact admin if its a beneficial link) on Aug 18, 2009 (I tried to post the link but it was not geting thru):

 

S1:

What is the real objective of the human life?

 

S2:

Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?

 

S3:

Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?

 

S4:

Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

 

S5:

Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?

 

S6:

The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?

 

 

 

Saeed H H Alyousuf

[the sad clown 3]

Are those a list of questions you posed to Mr. Dawkins that he failed to answer? It isn't entirely clear.

[saeedalyousuf 0]

Are those a list of questions you posed to Mr. Dawkins that he failed to answer? It isn't entirely clear.

 

Yes, you are right. The questions were posted on the former RDF on Aug 18, 2009 under the topic:

 

"The Six Questions For Richard Dawkins"

 

Sorry, tried to post the link but again it gets blocked.

 

 

 

Saeed

[the sad clown 3]

But if Mr. Dawkins doesn't believe in a god, it would seem impossible for him to answer many of those questions, because they presume that there is a god.

[saeedalyousuf 0]

But if Mr. Dawkins doesn't believe in a god, it would seem impossible for him to answer many of those questions, because they presume that there is a god.

 

S:

These questions expose the incompatibility of atheism with the normal and sound human life. Inability to answer these questions means that atheism lacks the means to confront serious criticsm and accommodate the essential need of the human mind.

 

Saeed

[the sad clown 3]

I thought it just meant that atheism lacks a god and other god related beliefs to ask such questions about.

[saeedalyousuf 0]

I thought it just meant that atheism lacks a god and other god related beliefs to ask such questions about.

 

S:

What can possibly believe in without the belief in the creator of the universe?

 

Saeed

[the sad clown 3]

I don't know if you can consistently believe in anything without a creator, but I am fairly sure that if you abandon attempts at logical consistency, that you can believe all sorts of things without a creator.

[Nuradin 0]

Dawkins is just a clown who makes money with provocation. He claims that religions are the cause of war and that peace and security would happen if everyone was an atheist like him (I suppose the most important is not "atheist", but "like him"). He also wanted to prosecute the Pope for "Crime against Humanity", because, as gross as it sounds, of the secret around child abuse.

 

This kind of demagogue is worse than a simple idiot, he's dangerous. He's someone who wants war in the name of peace, even if he would deny it. A truly disgusting and hypocritical man.

 

He just fails at everything.

[the sad clown 3]

You are right, he is a demagogue and a provocateur. But do you have to call him a clown? Some of us are just trying to get along in the world. No wonder I'm sad :sl:

[Nuradin 0]

I'm sorry for all the innocent clowns I could have offended.

[llogical 1]

Salamz

Well If I were to venture a guess or two as to why he didn't answer than it would prob be:

-He is too busy to defend his position or collaborate on forums against billions of people that do believe in God.

-He prob wants people to buy his book and or look up his previous statements possibly addressing the same question indirectly.

-he is getting old and forgetting to do stuff

-He is a Brits and that's what they do :sl:

 

I personally think it maybe the latter two but then again, just my opinion.

peace

[Wulfhere 0]

To an atheist, those questions are stupid and irrelevant. I'm not surprised he didn't bother answering them, he must get moronic stuff like that all the time.

[Wulfhere 0]

Let me see if I can guess what an atheist's answers might be:

 

S1:

What is the real objective of the human life?

 

A: There isn't one.

 

S2:

Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?

 

A: No one.

 

S3:

Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?

 

A: Yes.

 

S4:

Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

 

A: Because they can.

 

S5:

Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?

 

A: Yes.

 

S6:

The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?

 

A: No atheist has ever slaugtered people in the name of his belief, and do not have a litany of death totalling billions.

[llogical 1]

Salamz

 

I wanna play dawkins too [using large font size is not allowed]:sl:

 

S1:

What is the real objective of the human life?

-Unknown so far..It can be do what the heart pleases..free will or do exactly what a scripture tells you whether you like it or not

S2:

Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?

-Not sure..but by same token..who can guarantee the past , current and future existance of the creator itself?

S3:

Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?

-Does it have to be both serious and honest? if so then no..I can only be honest and honestly yes. Now can you seriously and honestly believe anything whether it make ssense or not just for sake of a guaranteed future?

S4:

Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

-No devotion or delusion required in Atheism.. it's rather lack of a belief as oppose to belief in something..Devotion maybe required when a guaranteed future exists..besides, only without a guaranteed future one can do a truly selfless deed.

ex..What's better..you doing good to get to heaven or you doing good for the sake of goodness? ( owned)

S5:

Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?

Anything conceived is possible if logical...I'm sure that ten thousand years ago, no one would thought it possible for microchips and cellphones and computers to exist or for human beings to land on moon or do organ transplants. Besides..this functional unit of so called perfect universe currently resemble a failed prototype..-

S6:

The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?

- In that sense nothing..that's the beauty of it :no: ..Only theists have killed and died and perished to defend their beliefs..Atheists just talk smack..no harm done (Owned again)

Possible four Pillars of Atheism..Fast cars,women, boos and music. Now imagine if that wasn't prohibited by any scripture..like heaven on earth :sl:

 

 

:j:

Dawkins shoud pay me for this !!

 

Peace

[the sad clown 3]

S4:

Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

 

A: Because they can.

You were so close Wulfhere. This is the only question that you slipped up on for a hard atheist. The answer should have been: "Because that is the only future available."

[Wulfhere 0]

You were so close Wulfhere. This is the only question that you slipped up on for a hard atheist. The answer should have been: "Because that is the only future available."

 

Maybe so, but an atheist also has the choice of making no comittment at all, to anything.

[the sad clown 3]

Maybe so, but an atheist also has the choice of making no comittment at all, to anything.

Sure, but my answer had the added benefit of scoring rhetorical points against the preconceptions behind the question. A committed atheist would have never passed up that opportunity.

[Wulfhere 0]

Sure, but my answer had the added benefit of scoring rhetorical points against the preconceptions behind the question. A committed atheist would have never passed up that opportunity.

 

Okay, fair point.

[Saaabz 0]

Dawkins is a shjoke. It's not surprising that prominent intellectuals like Michael Ruse, an atheist/agnostic would comment

 

“…unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.â€

 

Failkins.

[the sad clown 3]

Well, I don't think that is being entirely fair to him. He suffers from what I would call the popularizer's dilemma. Which is basically, he has to take ideas that are normally only discussed on intellectual and academic circles, and communicate them in a way that is accessible to those people who don't normally operate in those circles. There are bound to be what most intellectuals would view as gross simplifications.

 

But having said that, yes, I still don't like him, his approach, and some of his stances.

[Tim the plumber 0]

I would just like to point out that aethiests have and do regularly die and kill in wars. They are just as brave and cowardly as the religious.

 

The advantage of an aethiest perspective is that is almost always a lot more tolerant of other view points, we just think you are stupid, no need to kill you. And the ability to change our ideas when evidence comes along to change them allows us to build realy clever stuff like planes, cars and false teeth. Oh and do what we wish to do. Personally I like being nice to people.

[Skenderbeu 0]

I would just like to point out that aethiests have and do regularly die and kill in wars. They are just as brave and cowardly as the religious.

 

The advantage of an aethiest perspective is that is almost always a lot more tolerant of other view points, we just think you are stupid, no need to kill you. And the ability to change our ideas when evidence comes along to change them allows us to build realy clever stuff like planes, cars and false teeth. Oh and do what we wish to do. Personally I like being nice to people.

Most logically following God makes the most sense buddy.

 

If he exists you are safe in the afterlife.

If he doesnt exist nothing happens.

 

For an atheist....

 

If he exists you go to hell and suffer.

If he doesn't nothing happens.

 

As you can see 1 positive and 1 neutral result for the theist

1 Negative and 1 neutral for the atheist.

 

Which would you choose?

[xocoti 0]

Pascal's wager For the loss.

[xocoti 0]

Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong.

 

That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy

 

Richard Carrier