Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Absolute truth

Atheists Are Hypocrites

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

Recently scientists have made the claim that they have discovered and verified and measured gravitational waves . This is indeed a momentous discovery , confirming Einstein's prediction of their existence and proving The Big Bang Theory and consequent Inflation of the Universe . It certainly adds to the evidence of How we got here .
The scientists however got a little overzealous and understandably so , and stated this will help explain WHY we are here .

Really ?

WHY we are here will never be known by way of the Scientific Method . Why we are here is inscrutable to science and philosophers alike . And that by simple logic . How did the Primordial Singularity which exploded and expanded to the present Universe come to be ? Where did the matter that was so densely compressed come from . This will never be known . Science can only extrapolate back to a very , very short period of time after the Big Bang . That period is expressed in Plank seconds , ridiculously small and inconceivably short periods of time . Before that ? - Totally Unknown as the mathematics will not work beyond them calculating backwards . From there forward science has done an inspiring job , but is no where closer to the Why than Plato .
Enter the atheist .

The atheist too , can not answer why . The religionist has an answer but absolutely no proof . There is no scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God . Since both have no idea of what was before the Big Bang nor where the matter we observe today which is the effect of an explosion 14 billion or so years ago came from [ if one hypothesizes an oscillating Universe we are still left with the same question ]

So , the atheist in reality is an agnostic , and the religionist can claim no science and is thereby relegated to Theology . Indeed the agnostic/ atheist becomes a philosopher once the statement that " there is no God " is made . For all the agnostic can say is that there is no scientific proof that God exists . Thus the arguments between an atheist and religionist are both rendered moot , since there is an absence of evidence for either argument .
Only when the religionist embraces young earth creationism ,does his argument become foolish since there IS overwhelming , evidence which contradicts a young Earth , in addition , there is a large body of evidence that man evolved, as well as all life on this planet from the first form of living creature to appear on Earth .But no less foolish than the atheist who can not prove there is no God , based merely on a lack of evidence . Both positions are philosophical , therefore both are opinions based on intuition , myth or superstition .
The scientist INFERS the existence of Dark Matter . Why ? Because mathematics and present observation of the expansion of the Universe predicts, according to present understanding of astrophysics and known physical laws. Yet it has not been observed . Science assumes it must exist according to mathematic calculations and known physical laws . The Higgs Boson , was supposed to answer elemental questions on the origin of the Universe , instead it raised more questions . So there is a matter of intuition of sorts on where to look and what to look for . An hypothesis as it were . So too the religionist infers by taking in all that science knows and measures that against what science does not and can not answer . The UNOBSERVABLE and UNDETECTABLE .
In this sense both arguments carry equal weight .

 

Atheists are not hypocrites , they are in fact agnostics .

Edited by Aligarr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1959228_605128086244326_853378972_n.jpg
 
The megapixel count of the eye is still a rough estimate, it does not take into consideration many other factors such as the focal length, the dynamic range, light sensitivity, stability etc. Which no doubt prove the eye far superior than any other camera. Incomparable.

Glory be to Allah the creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Absolute Truth

 

Human eye’s are interesting things.  Raw data suggests that in the central area they have an equivalent Megapixel ability of around 5-15 for someone with 20/20 vision but that falls off sharply from there.  Towards the edge of our eye’s they can distinguish little more than shade and it’s only the very central area that has that equivalent pixel count.  Commercial cameras already greatly exceed that range.

 

Of course what we see is actually an interpolation of that by our brains and it contains far more detail after a longer look and some eye movement.  Our brains are actually very good at picking up details from different spots in our environment by moving our eye’s around and adding together what’s seen into a quite sharp and detailed picture but the eye’s themselves fall far short of the abilities of even quite modest cameras today.

 

  • Cameras can see well into the infra red and the ultra violet, human eye’s can’t.
  • Cameras can adaptively take an image that includes multiple exposures at varying focus and/or aperture settings combined to produce images of huge depth and over vastly different lighting regimes.  Our eyes fall far behind in this.
  • Cameras today can see the stars in galaxies our human eye’s can’t even detect.
  • Fermi Lab’s use a 570 Mega Pixel camera to look for signatures of Dark Matter in space so our technology easily outstrips human eye’s for abilities by this measure.
  • Camera’s don’t suffer from a blind spot due to their poor design.
  • Digital cameras don’t have their blood vesicles over the top of their sensitive surfaces unlike the human eye.

 

The figure you quote is calculated by working out how many megapixel’s it would take to produce an image that looks sharp to the human eye but this calculation fails to take into account the fact that only a tiny fraction of our visual field is at the eye’s top resolution and the fact that that top resolution is actually not very high but they are correct, a 500+ MegaPixel image could be printed at A3 size and look sharp all over if you paned your eyes around enough to see all of it because you’re eyes certainly would not be able to look at all of it at once.

 

If you want really good eye’s you only need to look to Nature.  Birds eye’s don’t suffer from blind spots and have higher visual acuity than humans.  Octopus’s eyes don’t have a blind spot and they have the blood supply behind the retina giving them better visual acuity and a full field of view.  Why would a god invent really good eyes and not give them to his ‘favourite’ creatures?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hand.jpg?w=660

Could you explain this comparison to me please as I don't think I'm getting it.

Are you saying that it is coincidence that some science fiction artists depict robot hands to have a similar construction to human hands?

Or is it that atheists think it is a coincidence that our hands look the way robot hands might be designed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameras can not clearly focus on near and far objects at the same time .  It is clear vision and eyes evolved to escape predation and /or to find food . Each species specialized  for their environment , through adaption and/or favorable mutation . There are creatures that have no eyes where their environment has no light . The miracle involved in life is the nature and mechanism of DNA and it's origin .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Actually todays cameras can focus from virtually touching to infinity all in one shot.  There are a number of commercially available cameras that can take multiple exposures at varying focus settings then combine the sharpest components of each image into one picture that is full in focus virtually from zero to infinity.  Another trick these cameras can do is to change aperture settings and include the in the mix so pictures can be correctly exposed even if different parts of the scene are in very different lights and at very different distances.  The human eye can’t even come close.

 

Human eye’s can’t focus on near and far objects or vastly different brightness objects at the same time while our latest cameras can do this.

 

DNA is certainly a fascinating thing, more interesting than it’s origin is how it can ‘design’ organisms in such amazingly capable ways all without intelligent input.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1959228_605128086244326_853378972_n.jpg

 

The megapixel count of the eye is still a rough estimate, it does not take into consideration many other factors such as the focal length, the dynamic range, light sensitivity, stability etc. Which no doubt prove the eye far superior than any other camera. Incomparable.

 

Glory be to Allah the creator.

Evolution has been working on the eye for hundreds of millions of years, whereas the first digital camera was only built in 1975. Taking this into account and the incredible capabilities of the latest cameras, the eye is not such a great design really, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Russel you said it , the camera  "combines " , and then reproduces , where as the eye focuses both at the same instant . The camera uses an ingeniously fast multi-focusing trick , but not simultaneously as the human eye .

 

BTW ...I am not doubting evolution one single bit . Just noting the difference . After all , satellite camera optics can resolve objects from literal miles away . Our vision evolved to be suited for our needs . Bees see ultra-violet , other creatures see infra-red , and not all  creatures see all colors .We see all in the visible spectrum .

 

And I too am "fascinated " by DNA . But even more so , I'm fascinated by the mystery of how it came to write it's program , and adopt to changing conditions . Even in view of commonly held beliefs that DNA keeps attempting changes until an optimum for surrounding conditions comes about . How did such a chemical process come into existence ?

 

Evolution is dictated by conditions on the planet , when there was plenty of food and vegetation we had long tails , when continents shifted ,   trees and vegetation became scarce in areas , and a better form of locomotion was required to reach the food sources our tails shrunk and our arms grew longer and eventually we walked upright  .

 In a Universe that is in a state of Entropy as detailed in the Laws of Thermo-Dynamics , I find it counter-intuitive , if not ironic , that evolution strives to a higher , more efficient, form of life constantly , which to me, seems to be an indication of purpose . That is purpose regarding the nature of DNA . Science proves that everything we see , is the result of the Big Bang , and I believe that . The evidence is overwhelming even if it is only traceable back to a few planck seconds after the Big Bang . But WHERE did the Primordial Atom come from ? And WHY ? or even HOW ?

 These will remain inscrutable to man and science , because we can not look beyond those few planck second and even if we could hypothesize the singularity is a result of an oscillation , then we would  still be faced with the same . Most scientists would say they just don't know or,  Nothing existed before .But that would not be logical because there is nothing that comes from "nothing " . So the scientific view is no more superior to the spiritualists view , assuming the spiritualists are cognizant of the evolutionary process from the Big Bang forward .  Now both are on common ground, and neither should claim superiority to the other , if for no other reason , than simply a lack of information .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a Universe that is in a state of Entropy as detailed in the Laws of Thermo-Dynamics , I find it counter-intuitive , if not ironic , that evolution strives to a higher , more efficient, form of life constantly , which to me, seems to be an indication of purpose . .

Evolution does not strive to anything. It is a blind and unthinking process. "Higher form" is purely subjective. It is about adapting to environment to ensure the best chance of reproduction (so "efficiency" does come into it). That is all.

If a smaller brain and less dexterity were the attributes that favoured survival, then species would "regress", but in this case regression would, in evolutionary terms, be an advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don;t know about that QED. Take vision itself .  Starting with cells that were first sensitive to light , and those cells must have had an advantage of some sort over those which weren't . And as animals evolved vision made it easier to evade or find prey , and those had an advantage . "favor survival " indeed , if conditions stay static , no evolutionary changes as with some creatures we see today such as alligators , very small brain but the equipment perfected millions of years ago , so  very little change other than size , and that no doubt commensurate with the size of the prey it needed to find . And example of regression is not uncommon , the blind fish that are found in caves show evidence of once having eyes . My fascination comes from the mechanism in DNA . Efficiency ? Yes , but what is it about DNA to drive that efficiency towards higher forms of life ? Some creatures came out of the sea from land and others returned to the sea . So in addition to efficiency , necessity must come into play . And all this from inert elements , stardust as it were .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aligarr

I agree with all of that. It is just the idea of evolution "striving" and thus having "purpose" that I disagree with.

The "drive towards higher forms of life" is merely an illusion. We are anthropomorphising a blind and purposeless* process because that is how it looks to us with our acquired perceptions. Any advancement is merely a by-product of random mutation.

 

(*apart from DNA replication)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random mutation ? Hmmm, ok but many mutations are not favorable , so DNA mutations must be favorable for the survival of the creature . So the favorable mutations survive and reproduce ergo revised creature . I understand that . You said DNA tries different things randomly , and without purpose , yet creatures we observe are highly specialized . So DNA mutations occur randomly , and the survivors of those mutations turn out to be specialized to their environment ? What is it  about DNA that brings about mutations ? Would it be changes in the environment ? Temperature changes ,  radiation etc ? You see it as purposeless , I see it as a progression from primitive life to  more advanced life .  I think we will disagree as to purposeless  . The nature of DNA seems to indicate otherwise . Is function purposeless ?

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said DNA tries different things randomly

I think we are quibbling over semantics here, possibly?

I (and the body of evolutionary biologists) do not see DNA as trying anything. They are merely mistakes occuring during the duplication process. Some lead to advantage and some don't.

 

You see it as purposeless , I see it as a progression from primitive life to  more advanced life .  I think we will disagree as to purposeless

Again, I agree with you here. It does manifest as a progression from primitive to advanced but this is a function of the process, not the purpose of the process.

Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"? I would heartily recommend it. It is a vey well presented argument for the layman (declaration of interest here: I did study evolutionary biology as part of my Environmental Science degree). On the other hand, I do find some of Dawkins' evangelical atheism a little arrogant but that should not reflect on his scientific work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give much credence to any evangelism . I understand the Scientific Method ,  Ive been studyng astronomy . cosmology and keep up to date on the discoveries on a daily basis . Theoretical physics fascinate me . I understand the signifigance of the latest discovery of Gravitational Waves and their implication as regards to INFLATION resulting from the Big Bang and subsequent hypotheses that  C  was actually exceeded in the first trillionths [ for lack of a smaller period of time ] of a second or planck seconds if you will . I buy the whole science thing , evolution included . But I do not and can not logically conclude that something comes from nothing . And that is my point . Many Universes ? Many Big Bangs ?   ok ...... but the roads lead to  the same questions Where from ? and Why ?

 I do not pretend to have those answers , nor do I think Science will ever . Occam's Razor is a double edged sword here , because if the best explanation is the one involving the least amount of assumptions and hypotheses  is to be used , then that simplest explanation can be philosophical  or scientific . Looking back towards a big bang or multiple big bangs or multiple universes , we still seek the ultimate questions . At this point the philosophical doesn't not outweigh the scientific  nor vice-versa . Evolution is part of the Universe , indeed a product of the Universe , so both lead one to again , ask  the same two questions . The Universe is an enigma as to it origin . There are however intriguing  aspects , one being the Arrow of Time , The charge of the electron , the fact that matter cannot be destroyed but only changed in form [unless of course it comes in contact with anti-matter }.and a new theory just put forward recently of Quantum Entanglement  and Pairing .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligar

 

Yes the camera combines multiple exposures just as the eye does though the eye doesn’t close it’s shutter in between and the camera is far better at it.  Whatever gave you the idea that the eye could focus on close and distant objects at the same time, like a camera it’s not capable of this though cameras certainly have better depth of field than eye’s both have to refocus depending on the distance to a target.  The autofocus on cameras is faster they eye’s but both use similar tricks to achieve this.  On all these counts modern cameras win hands down of course.

 

Humans see in one very tiny window of the electromagnetic spectrum, that tiny ability is what defines the “visible spectrum”.  As far as I know all organisms which can see have some abilities in that spectrum but, as you pointed out, some can see further into the infrared or ultraviolet.  Of course our cameras can far exceed both by orders of magnitude.

 

You say satellite camera optics can resolve objects from literally miles away, one quick question, how far away are the stars you see in the night sky do you think?

 

Yes the origins of DNA are a fascinating field but you are mixing things up a bit here.  Once DNA or some equivalent exists evolution proceeds to fine tune and we see what it can come up with all around us.  Unfortunately DNA arose so long ago and in such tiny creatures that we probably will never know how it arose.  DNA does not fossilize and the organisms were so tiny that they too do not appear in the fossil record so we have no evidence to work from here.  We can come up with theories but even produce a synthetic form of DNA potentially but we can’t get evidence of the original events.

 

You don’t seem to have grasped evolution and natural selection.  In all environments any species will multiply to fill the neiche they occupie so time’s of plenty only last from one die off event till the next.  If the available food increases suddenly, say in the spring, the animals alive will have more than enough food to go around, that will cause them to breed up and as the food is depleted they will reach a point where there is no longer enough to go around.  It is at this time, the lean time, that the less fit will fail and the more fit will succeed and it is those ‘more fit’ individuals who will make up the bulk of the breeding population next season.

 

So your characterization of a ‘time of plenty’ that didn’t require much of our ancestors is a fairy tale and not related to evolutionary theory.

 

Entropy is an interesting but unrelated question.  In a closed system entropy must always increase but have you ever seen snowflakes forming?  In that system the entropy is increasing but so is the local order, snowflakes are more ordered that water vapour.  By reducing heat snowflakes form naturally as the water freezes and so bonds together.  Entropy is much like the heat in that water vapour.  In an expanding universe the average temperature must drop.  Double the size without doubling the energy contents and the averge energy levels will reduce.  Entropy per unit volume decreases as space expands making order appear naturally.  The laws of thermodynamics applied to an expanding universe predict the appearance of more and more order not less and less, that’s only in a universe of fixed size.

 

Evolution is affected by entropy, mutations are a form of entropy and they are necessary to drive evolution, but they are fuel for it they don’t control it. The controlling factor is that survival of the fittest I mentioned above.  The earth is an open system, there is energy flowing in and out all the time so there’s plenty of energy to drive life and evolution here without breaching any laws of thermodynamics.

 

Evolution is driven simply by what works, if an organism is better at surviving then it’s more likely to do so so it’s gene’s will become more common in future generations.  You could call that a purpose but no intelligence had to assign it, that’s simply how life will work if evolution is true.  Take any population and kill of the weakest and what’s left is a non random collection of fitter animals and the gene’s that make them that way will be contained in them and passed on to the next generation so the next generation will not be like the last but will be fine tuned to be a bit fitter on average. Now do that billions of times over billions and billions of years and you can see what can happen by just looking around you.

 

You are leaping around a bit here aren’t you.  OK next is the big bang, another unrelated but interesting topic.  Firstly the big bang was neigher, that title was inveted by a reporter trying to think up a head line that would sell papers.  It worked and the name stuck but the big bang was smaller than an atom and it consisted of a very smooth expansion of space time nothing like the chaotic behaviour of an explosion.  The name doesn’t really suit it.  There are many ideas that may explain the origins of the ‘big bang’, one of those which is fully supported by the laws of quantum physics is the idea that an imaginary particle burrowed across the potential barrier from non existence into desitter space triggering the beginnings of this universe.  Now we’ve seen virtual particles appearing and disappearing out of nothing at all and we’ve seen particles burrowing across potential barriers that they did not contain the energy to cross, that’s not just a theory but an observed fact of how this universe works.  Could such an event produce the big bang, certainly the maths adds up but how do you test it.  The particle groups formed from such vacuum fluctuations have one characteristic that can be measured, they contain, in total, zero energy.  If you look at our universe and measure the energy it contains you find that gravity, which Einstein proved was a negative force, counters the positive energy of matter, radiation etc that we observe.  Add that all up and our universe contains exactly zero energy as near as we can measure it.  Interesting!

 

You say that nothing comes from nothing but we observe things coming from nothing all the time.   Have you heard of the Cassimere effect?  In these experiments quantum uncertainty produces particle groups spontaneously in a vacuum and the more perfect the vacuum the more of them you get.  Something from nothing is an every day observation in science labs though it does not occur in our everyday experience in a slow macro world.  You have to be careful not to apply the standard of our world to the entire universe because we are simply not exposed to enough of it to know how it works.  Common sense fails because it is born of short lived and limited creatures viewing a tiny fraction of the universe around them.

 

I’d have to suggest that the scientists view has a few major advantages over the spiritualist view.  We can point to any number of things science has allowed us to achieve and to understand but what actually have the spiritualists added to the sum of human knowledge?  I’ve heard wildly contradictory views from spiritualists but there does not seem to be a consensus which is hard to reconcile with the idea that they are actually seeing into some reality out there rather than just making these ideas up inside their heads.  I for one am not keen on ideas pulled from people’s heads without evidence.  I’m not sure the ideas of spiritualists should be ranked with those of scientists because of that lack.  Until they can show their credentials by proving that they are tapping into some physical source they don’t have a leg to stand on on these questions. Scientists may not have the answers but at least they’ve shown us clearly that they can find answers, valid testable answers.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are misinterpreting the Cassimere effect as creating something from nothing , whereas it does in no way indicate that .
The field involved is Quantum Electrodynamics and describes forces involving electromagnetic field of quantum photons . Reading the explanation of the experiments , I found no indication nor implication that something was created from nothing . If quantum particles or photons are involved then Matter is involved .
As far as evolution and origins if the Universe , I use spiritualists for lack of a better word ,[ perhaps philosophers ] simply because if science can not answer WHERE the Matter involved in the Big Bang came from or Why , then the questions becomes philosophical , scientific or both .

 

We can argue the mechanisms of DNA , and as you indicated, we have no information as to its origin . In that sense the questions involving the origin of the Universe are integrally connected with the same question regarding DNA . DNA is in fact a  part and product of the Universe.
Many religionsts / spiritualists do in fact "pull ideas out of their head " , and they are based in philosophical assumptions . They have a lack of information . I am not talking about Fundamentalists ,Witch Doctors ,Creationists and the like who reject scientific information , I refer to those who can understand the scientific information presently available .Scientists also have a lack of information . And they "pull ideas out of their heads " the same way but based on scientific assumptions involving the known physical laws of the Universe .

 You are assuming DNA just comes into being randomly but you cannot describe the chemical processes that brings it into existence , and you say that is because of a lack of information , and the same holds true for any event before the Big Bang , whether there may be multiple Big Bangs or Multiple Universes . You are lacking the critical information necessary to make your pronouncement that there is no purpose , and there is no Intelligent Design , First Cause or Prime Mover .

At that point your view is no more superior than the philosophical , even though you may think so . We both suffer the same lack of information . Nether one of us has any basis to pontificate to the other .

BTW Science is capable of rejecting alien views , perhaps not as barbaric as in Galileo 's time , due to modernity of the times , but just as effectively , and the greatest case for that is Tesla . Who knows where we would be today if his views and work were embraced rather than ignored and considered foolish and dangerous by the scientists of his time .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. Russel , just for referential purposes it is  Casimir Experiment/Effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

I’m not sure that I am misinterpreting the Cassimere effect as it is the physicists who conducted these experiments who explain that particle / antiparticle groups are produced and that theuy sprung up from nothing not me and I for one would have to suggest that they probably know what they are talking about.  Now that’s not to say that these effects can’t be phrased as simply field effects but, as one article puts it “the formalism of quantum field theory makes it clear that the vacuum expectation value summations are in a certain sense summations over so-called ‘Virtual Particles’”.  Virtual here is due to their very short lived, temporary nature, but they have a real though short lived existence none the less and from nothing and in an inflationary universe such particles would never be able to reach their opposite numbers to annihilate and so disappear forcing them to become real particles in the classic sense.  It was Einstein who pointed out that matter and energy were interchangeable under certain conditions, this is an example I would suggest.  There is certainly energy contained within the vacuum despite the common notion that it’s empty.

 

I think the scientists have it all over the philosophers in questions of origins, sure they don’t ‘know’ where the initial matter/energy/space time came from but they have a number of theories that draw from our deep understanding of how this universe works that show how it might have happened.  Maybe one day we’ll work out a signature for this that we will be able to detect but for the moment, apart from our universe’s energy state which matches those virtual particle / antiparticle groupings, which clearly supports the idea that this is true we simply don’t know if it is for certain.  The trouble with asking philosophers is that they have little to base their ideas on that they have not stolen from scientists and often that includes the misconceptions of those under informed about such matters.

 

I disagree that the question of the origin of DNA and the question of the origin of the universe are connected.  Sure DNA can’t exist without a universe and the universe must have certain characteristics before the formation of DNA is possible but beyond that I see no necessary link.  God could have created the universe to play with matter and it could still create and support DNA and the organisms it creates.

 

I think there’s a fundamental difference between the ideas that scientists “pull from their heads” and those that spiritualists do.  For scientists such ideas are like the mutations that feed evolution.  No one accepts these ideas until they have been tested but the ideas of spiritualists and religionists are often accepted without logic, evidence or testing.  That’s a fundamental difference here and that makes the whole game of the spiritualist and religionist flawed and so dangerous in a search for the truth.  Religions have given us the idea that our minds don’t die when we do but nothing could be clearer when we look at the science.  Religions have given us the idea, multiple times, of virgin births but science has shown us that, while turkeys produce male offspring for parthenogenesis humans do not.  This idea contradicts what we know from science but special pleading is used to suggest that the normal laws of nature that we know exist are suspended in just this one case.  That’s not a rational position and anyone who can accept it has shown themselves incapable of the truly rational approach that finding the truth really demands.  Looking just at the religiouns themselves we see that there are thousands of them and that they are contradictory so they cancel eachother out yet people hold to them, to each of them, to thousands of them religious thinkers and philosophers support all these contradictory view yet they can’t come up with any tests that will distinguish between all of these contradictory ideas.  Those tests are the meat of science, that’s what science is about discounting false ideas yet religious thinkers and philosophers can’t do it.

 

No I’m not assuming that DNA came into existence randomly, certainly we’ve seen how that might happen chemically, which is not random, but no one knows if it did.  Darwin wrote that all the forms we see around us may well have arisen from a few forms that god breathed life into or maybe just one.  The origin of DNA is irrelevant to evolutionary theory and so is studied in a separate field abiogenesis.  Once DNA exists or an equivalent because it’s not exclusive as we’ve seen in a number of experiments, evolution can occur.  If god created DNA evolution can follow on, if DNA arose by chemicals interactions alone then evolution can follow on from there, if DNA was invented by aliens and planted here then evolution can continue on from there exactly as we see it around us.  The source of DNA is irrelevant to evolutionary theory only it’s behavior matters.

 

No we can’t look at the origin of DNA and find evidence for how it arose, we may find a chemical pathway that leads inexorably to it but I doubt it and without that we have little chance of ever knowing exactly how DNA arose.  Not so the big bang though the evidence here too is sketchy.  As I said one signature of the vacuum fluctuation origin for the universe is that zero energy total which as far as we can tell is true but maybe in future we’ll find more signatures that spell out how the universe came into existence.  At the moment the most we can say is “we don’t know”.  People used to say the same things about the big bang but that theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background years before it was discovered to exist so these theories can produce evidence we didn’t expect, evidence we can use to test the theories.  Maybe the origin of the universe will too one day.

 

One thing we’ve seen clearly from the current, well tested, big bang models is that no information, no purpose, can cross the event horizon of the big bang singularity so nothing from before be that information or purpose can cross from ‘before’ into this universe.  That’s one thing we do know in my humble opinion.  If purpose was applied to this universe it would have to be added later once the universe has cooled enough to hold such information and, of course, that would make such tinkering open to our exploration.  So far no evidence of such tinkering has been found.

 

Tesla came up with some amazing ideas and he came up with some absolute rubbish.  In a good scientist that’s normal, most ideas you come up with will fail and Tesla had the means for much of his life to follow even the silliest ideas through.  He as a great man but I have never seen any reference to a general attitude against his work.  Given that many of his ideas were foolish, transmitting power across the sea by radio for instance, his treatment by other scientists was probably justified.  The inventions he could make work were accepted and it is on those that his current reputation stands.

 

Russell

 

P.S. LOL yes I know it’s “Casimir Effect”, I had to teach my last spell checker the correct spelling but this is a new computer so I’ll apparently have to do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute , did you say the "event horizon " of the Big Bang ? Isn't  an event horizon a term associated with a Black Hole ? There is no evidence that the Bing Bang has or had an event horizon .  If we beleive black holes exist , and I do , we also know what the even horizon is . It is that location where we cannot attain any further information regarding matter that is drawn into the singularity we assume is beyond the even horizon .  The term Singularity, if used in reference to the Big Bang does not mean the same thing , it is a reference to a primordial Atom or "singularity "  of an infitesimally small area with an unimaginably large [and unknown] amount of matter compressed into that area . We have no idea of what physical laws were at work .As to what they were ?, the correct answer is " I don't know " and as to where that Matter came from ?  is  "I don't know " .  

 So too as to an Intelligent Design/ Purpose / etc. ? Again  " I don't know  " .  And that is the point of my argument , YOU don't know , nor do I , and at that point Occam's Razor can be applied either scientifically or philosophically .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. Scientists of his time , considered Tesla a mad scientist . Read his biography , and you'll understand what I meant when I said he was rejected by his peers , and one of his greatest discoveries, besides many others, was the Tesla Coil , which is only NOW being investigated .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

An event horizon is a location or region in space beyond which information can’t pass.  Yes for a black hole it is the point at which the escape velocity equals the speed of light but our position in the universe today has an event horizon beyond which no information can reach us.  For us it’s that the time required is more than the age of the universe.  This is currently somewhere around 14 billion light years away but that figure is growing with time.  Any of the universe that exists beyond that distance is undetectable and so outside our event horizon.  Because of this we don’t and can’t know how big the universe is.

 

The primordial state of the universe was at maximum entropy, at that point it contained no information but with inflation came cooling and the formation of matter and information.  That point beyond which information cannot flow is the event horizon of the big bang.  Information could not flow from before that time because there was no information there.  That’s a third kind of event horizon.  If the ‘primordial atom’ was created by god its disordered state means that no structure he may have put into it could pass beyond inflation so no purpose could be encoded into it.  If its source was natural likewise nothing of ‘before’ could reach to ‘after’.  The total energy contained within it being the one exception we are aware of at this stage.

 

You are right that we can know very little about the universe at that time at the moment but who knows what we’ll work out in the future.  Yes that means I agree that we don’t know but I disagree that a scientist not knowing is equivalent to a religionist or a philosopher not knowing because science comes with a system of testing ideas to find out whereas religion does not and while philosophy has rules for this they are more open to interpretation than sciences thus the huge number of incompatible ideas that different philosophers hold to.

 

So yes apply Occam’s razor to this situation and lets all admit we don’t know but let’s remember who is most likely to find out.  Not all searchers are equal.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes , but the dissemination of information is equally absorbed by all who can understand it . Whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant and gives you  no advantage or superiority of view .

In regards to your above explanation , I can see you do not fully understand what you are talking about . The estimated edge of THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE is about 13.8 billion years , and that is because so far that is the distance at which an observer on Earth can detect radiation from an object , as time goes on due to the expansion of the Universe we are able to detect signals [ radiation ] further away .

    Present estimates of the size of the Universe start at about 47 billion light years . Since we can only place an age based on astronomical assumptions and assuming that they are correct , we arrive at that age . It is much more accurate determining the age of the Earth or our sun , but the Galaxies are only estimated [after the Big Bang of course ] . Using those assumptions we calculate that by the background radiation predicted by Einstein and physically discovered by Penzias of AT&T Labs , we determine that the Big bang took place 13 billion years ago .  Beyond that there is no information , Physical laws breakdown at about -10 to the 6th seconds .We also assume the universe is Isotropic , and that is one of the factors used in those calculations . as well as Hubbles Constant , White Dwarf and several other criteria .

      I have no degree but I have read volumes since the age of 14 and I'm 64 .I have subscribed to Scientific American since 1974 , and all of Hawking's books and have never heard or read  any reference to the beginning/ Big Bang or edge of the Universe as " an event horizon " . That is a term used only for Black Holes , it is not a generic for any other unknown  or lack of information regarding the Universe . I suggest a visit to Scientific American's website and look up "age of the Universe " , and "observable Universe .

       As far as your last sentence -  " Not all searchers are equal " ....lol....indeed ! I see you've never heard of a man named Father George Lemaitre .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell you are throwing terms around that you are either misunderstanding or misinterpreting or both .

 

The Casimir Effect has nothing at all to do with anti-matter , the use of the term Event Horizon ,  has no connection to conditions existing before the Big Bang , and your use of " maximum  entropy " as a description of the state of the primordial universe makes absolutely no sense .

 

 ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligar

 

Sure the information is available regardless of your belief in god or otherwise but I would have to suggest that a certain detachment from reality is required to accept a god belief that must count against your rational faculties.

 

Yes, I gave the figure of around 14 billion years which is that figure of 13.8 rounded for simplicity.  Even the Wikipedia article on the big bang discusses the idea that matter is passing beyond our “event horizon” as the universe expands which is clearly not talking about a black hole so the wording I’ve used may not be familiar to you but it is a standard view of this universe among cosmologists albeit maybe not all of them.

 

Yes that estimate of 47 billion light years uses information that is believed to extrapolate beyond the event horizon and to give us details of wider universe, it’s somewhat speculative but probably close the correct figure.

 

Yes 13.7 billion years is the current estimate of the age of the universe back to the big bang and it’s true we have no information beyond that.  As I said the closest we come is the energy balance of the universe that stems from the moment of initiation of the big bang.

 

I think we can view enough of the universe for it to be a reasonable assumption that it is isotropic though we certainly can’t prove it.

 

Hubble’s constant is a measurement of the speed of recession of stellar objects vs distance.  It’s certainly part of how we work out the size of the observable universe.

 

No I’m well aware of Lemaitre, he is a scientist of course so he is the sort of person you’d expect to be solving these problems.  He holds other qualifications which don’t appear to have stood in the way of him being a good scientist.  What would the old heads of the church have thought of him given their treatment of his progenitors all those years ago, such heresy!

 

 

The theological significance of inflationary cosmology is this: It shows how the universe can have formed from nothing, in complete chaos (maximum entropy), and have order form spontaneously, without violating any known principles of physics. – Victor J Stenger

That’s a short snippet written for a lay audience but Victor is an emeritus professor of physics at the university of Hawaii and an adjunct professor of philosophy at the university of Colorado.

 

 

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from Virtual Particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short to observe. They are expected to do this everywhere, throughout the Universe. Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's Uncertainly principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as Spontaneous emission, the Casimir Effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on Cosmological scale. - Wikipedia

As you can see this last discusses the idea that particle pairs annihilate soon after they come into existence, to annihilate they must be opposites, one matter one anti matter for their total energy to equal zero and so cancel out.  I can find you some more quotes on these questions if you’d like to expand you reading beyond the lay stuff.

 

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about who here knows what he’s talking about.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By russell
      Hi All
       
      One thing I’ve come across on this forum a number of times is the idea that I can’t question certain ideas, that you will be offended if I do so, and we should just steer away from those topics.  Is that really how you believe rational dialog should be conducted?
       
      I hold none of my ideas to that standard.  If you want to run down or rationally complain about anything I say please go ahead.  Question anything I say, question my lifestyle choices, my family values and my ideas on evidence, none of it is off limits and nothing you ask will offend me.  Not so it seems with Muslims.
       
      I’ve suggested a couple of times here that Muhammad was, at most, just a man and people took great offence that I could even think that.  “I love him so you shouldn’t suggest such a thing” was basically one answer to me on that comment.  Another argument was that you would not even discuss anything with me if I didn’t accept up front that Muhammad was more than a man.  The idea that he was more than just a man is incompatible with atheism of course but that was ignored at the time.
       
      Another idea I’ve expressed here a number of times that seems to cause problems is the church of Mickey Mouse.  I use that one to try to explain what an atheist sees when they walk down the street and look at all these buildings with symbols on them, crosses, moons and stars etc.  But think about it, given my view on god (I’ve already said I’m an atheist so this is no secret) how else should I see such symbols and the people who revere and worship them if atheism is the truth?
       
      Now don’t get me wrong here, it’s the ideas I’m discussing, it’s the ideas I’m complaining about.  I understand that people come to these ideas for many reasons and that many of the people who hold them are intelligent rational people, that’s not at question here, but I do think we need to rationally consider the ideas themselves.  That Muhammad was just a man or that he may even be an invention are ideas which we should be able to discuss. Now this is the crucial point here if these ideas hold water you should be able to defend them and not have to pull the “you can’t question that idea” card.  Rationally that statement is an admission of the weakness of your position.  If you are incapable of defending a position maybe you should not hold it as true.
       
      So what do you think, should rational enquiry be open to discuss any idea or are you really unwilling to truly examine the belief system that you hold to and if so why?  Does insecurity pay a part in that reluctance?
       
      Russell
    • By Aysha27
      Dear all,
      Hello and As-salamu-alaikum-wa-rahmatullah.

      I am afraid of an issue called “Atheism”. I think everybody is surrounded with a different religion. And every religion purifies human’s nature. Though human nature is really so mysterious! If so why some of the people say there is no god? It’s a matter of sorrow that many of them are famous to their work in the world! In my country (sorry to say it is Bangladesh) recently an American atheist blogger, named Avijit Roy who spoke out against religious extremism and intolerance has been hacked to death. So my question is- what about the punishment of an atheist and is it halal to hack him cruelly…? What is the declaration of Qur’an regarding the issue…? :cry:
    • By Absolute truth
      This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
       
      Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
      You need to educate yourself on biology...



      Wait !


      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html

      Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
       
      But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
    • By Saracen21stC
      Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing Detainees ‘Wake Each Day And Smile’




       
      CNN has an amazing story out of Guantanamo Bay about an American atheist prison camp guard that converted to Islam after spending extensive time talking to with some of the English speaking prisoners there.

      Army Specialist Terry Holdbrooks arrived at Gitmo 2003 as “an angry, nearly atheistic 19-year-old MP and by the time he left a year later he was a practicing Muslim. Holdbrooks was amazed at how the detainees “could wake up each day and smile” even though they were locked away in a prison camp with little hope of freedom.

      So all of this got him thinking: “Obviously there’s something more to Islam than I had been told.”

      Like anybody curious about faith he started to inquire about it. Holdbrooks, a bit disenfranchised with his superiors and fellow soldiers, started speaking for hours with detainees about Islam. One even gave him a copy of the Islamic holy book, the Quran, to study and it led him to change his way of life.

      When he approached one of the prisoners about converting he was met with a warning that it would forever change his life. “You understand that if you become a Muslim your unit is going to look at you differently, your family, your country…you understand…your country is going to look at you in a way that isn’t going to be good. It’s going to make things difficult for you,” he was told.

      Since he converted Holdbrooks has left military service and become an outspoken opponent of the camp at Guantanamo Bay.

      Listen to the clip below via CNN.

      http://www.mediaite.com/online/gitmo-prison-guard-converts-from-atheism-to-Islam-after-seeing-detainees-wake-each-day-and-smile/
    • By Saracen21stC
      Richard Dawkins’ anti-Islam/anti-Muslim propaganda exposed: The facts


      Original Guest Post

      by Jai Singh

      There is currently increasing journalistic scrutiny of the atheist
      British scientist Richard Dawkins and his ally Sam Harris’ statements
      about Islam and Muslims. In December 2012, the Guardian published an excellent article
      highlighting the acclaimed physicist Professor Peter Higgs’ accurate
      observations about Dawkins’ pattern of behaviour when it comes to
      religion in general; Professor Higgs (of “Higgs Boson particle” fame)
      has forcefully criticised Dawkins. More recently, superb articles by Nathan Lean in Salon (focusing on Dawkins), Murtaza Hussain for Al Jazeera (focusing on Dawkins, Harris etc) and Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian (mentions Dawkins but focuses predominantly on Harris; also see here)
      have received considerable publicity. Readers are strongly advised to
      familiarise themselves with the information in all of these articles.

      Before I address the issue of Richard Dawkins, it is worthwhile
      highlighting some key information about his ally Sam Harris. As
      mentioned in Glenn Greenwald’s extensively-researched Guardian
      article, Harris is on record as a) claiming that fascists are “the
      people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to
      Europe”, and b) stating “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks
      like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”. Furthermore, bear in mind
      the following paragraph from a previous Guardian article
      about Harris: “…..But it tips over into something much more sinister in
      Harris’ latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically
      unreformable because so many Muslims are “utterly deranged by their
      religious faith”. In another passage Harris goes even further, and
      reaches a disturbing conclusion that “some propositions are so dangerous
      that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”.”

      Richard Dawkins’ “atheist anti-religion” agenda has noticeably become
      increasingly focused on Islam & Muslims; his online statements
      (recently including his Twitter account )
      have now become so extreme that a great deal of them are essentially
      indistinguishable from the bigoted, ignorant nonsense pushed by the
      English Defence League leadership and the main US-based anti-Muslim
      propagandists such as Robert Spencer etc.

      In fact, as Nathan Lean’s Salon article mentioned, the following very revealing information recently surfaced: It turns out that Dawkins has publicly admitted
      that he hasn’t even read the Quran even though (in his own words) he
      “often says Islam is the greatest force for evil today”. Mainstream
      Islamic theology (including the associated impact on Muslim history) is
      not based solely on the Quran, of course, but Dawkins’ admission is
      indicative of a number of major problems on his part. So much for the
      credibility of Richard Dawkins’ “scientific method” in this particular
      subject. It goes without saying that this also raised questions about
      exactly which dubious second-hand sources Dawkins has been getting his
      information on Islam and Muslims from, if he hasn’t even taken the
      normal professional academic steps of reading the primary sacred text of
      the religion he has also described as “an unmitigated evil”. Not to mention the question of Dawkins’ real motivations for his current fixation with Islam and Muslims.

      Well, it appears that some answers are available. It certainly
      explains a great deal about Richard Dawkins’ behaviour. In the main part
      of this article beneath the “Summary” section below, I have listed 54
      anti-Islam/anti-Muslim statements posted by Richard Dawkins on the
      discussion forum of one of his own websites. (The list of quotes also
      includes embedded URL links directly to the original statements on
      Dawkins’ website).

      Summary of Richard Dawkins’ actions

      1. There is a direct connection to Robert Spencer’s inner circle. As
      confirmed by the URL link supplied by Richard Dawkins in quote #11,
      Dawkins has definitely been using that cabal’s anti-Muslim propaganda as
      a source of “information” for his own statements; Dawkins specifically
      links to the “Islam-Watch” website, which is a viciously anti-Muslim
      site in the same vein as JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna
      (both of which were the most heavily cited sources in the terrorist
      Anders Breivik’s manifesto). More pertinently, as confirmed by this affiliated webpage,
      the core founders & members of that website include the
      currently-unidentified individual who uses the online alias “Ali Sina”.
      This is the same fake “atheist Iranian ex-Muslim” who is a senior board
      member of “SIOA”/“SION”,
      an extremely anti-Muslim organisation whose leadership is formally
      allied with racist white supremacists & European neo-Nazis and has
      even organised joint public demonstrations with them. “Ali Sina” himself
      was also cited by Breivik in his manifesto.

      Note that the SIOA/SION leadership inner circle includes: a) AFDI and JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer, an ordained Catholic deacon
      who has been proven to have repeatedly made false statements about
      Islam & Muslims and has publicly admitted that his actions are
      heavily motivated by his (unilateral) agenda for the dominance of the
      Catholic Church; b) AFDI and Atlas Shrugs’ Pamela Geller,
      who is now on record as advocating what is effectively a “Final
      Solution” targeting British Muslims, including mass-murder; c) the
      English Defence League leadership; and d) David Yerushalmi,
      the head of an organisation whose mission statement explicitly declares
      that its members are “dedicated to the rejection of democracy” in the
      United States. Furthermore, Yerushalmi believes that American women
      shouldn’t even have the right to vote.

      Extensive details on “Ali Sina” are available here.
      Quite a few of the quotes in that article are horrifying. Bear in mind
      that this is the person whose website Richard Dawkins has publicly cited
      and promoted. “Ali Sina” is on record as making statements such as the
      following:


      “Muhammad was not a prophet of God. He was an instrument
      of Satan to divide mankind so we destroy each other. It is a demonic
      plot to end humanity.”

      “I don’t see Muslims as innocent people. They are all guilty as sin.
      It is not necessary to be part of al Qaida to be guilty. If you are a
      Muslim you agree with Muhammad and that is enough evidence against you.”

      “Muslims, under the influence of Islam lose their humanity. They
      become beasts. Once a person’s mind is overtaken by Islam, every trace
      of humanity disappears from him. Islam reduces good humans into beasts.”

      [Addressing all Muslims] “We will do everything to save you, to make
      you see your folly, and to make you understand that you are victims of a
      gigantic lie, so you leave this lie, stop hating mankind and plotting
      for its destruction and it [sic] domination. But if all efforts fail and
      you become a threat to our lives and the lives of our children, we must
      amputate you. This will happen, not because I say so, but I say so
      because this is human response. We humans are dictated by our survival
      instinct. If you threaten me and my survival depends on killing you, I
      must kill you.”

      “Muslims are part of humanity, but they are the diseased limb of
      mankind. We must strive to rescue them. We must do everything possible
      to restore their health. That is the mission of FFI [“Faith Freedom
      International”, “Ali Sina’s” primary website]. However, if a limb
      becomes gangrenous; if it is infected by necrotizing fasciitis
      (flesh-eating disease), that limb must be amputated.”

      [Addressing all Muslims] “But you are diseased. You are infected by a
      deadly cult that threatens our lives. Your humanity is destroyed. Like a
      limb infected by flesh eating disease, you are now a threat to the rest
      of mankind…..Islam is disease. What does moderate Muslim mean anyway?
      Does it mean you are moderately diseased?”

      “But there was another element in shaping his [Muhammad’s] character:
      The influence of Rabbis. Islam and Judaism have a lot in common. They
      have basically the same eschatology and very similar teachings…..These
      are all secondary influences of Judaism on Islam. The main common
      feature between these two faiths is their intolerance. This intolerance
      in Judaic texts gave the narcissist Muhammad the power to do as he
      pleased…..How could he get away with that? Why would people believed
      [sic] in his unproven and often irrational claims? The answer to this
      question is in Judaism. The Rabbis in Arabia had laid the psychological
      foundations for Islam among the tolerant pagans…..The reasons Arabs fell
      into his [Muhammad’s] trap was because of the groundwork laid by the
      Rabbis in Arabia.”

      “Muhammad copied his religion from what he learned from the Jews. The
      similarity between Islamic thinking and Judaic thinking is not a
      coincidence.”

      “By seeing these self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, I can understand
      the anger that Jesus felt against those hypocrites whom he called
      addressed, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will
      spit you out of my mouth.”

      “In Christianity, it wasn’t the religion that needed to be reformed but the church. What Jesus preached was good.”

      “The image portrays the words of Jesus, “the truth will set you
      free.” That is my motto…..After listening to this rabbi, I somehow felt
      sympathy for Jesus. I can now see what kind of people he had to deal
      with.”

      2. After Nathan Lean and Glenn Greenwald published the aforementioned Salon and Guardian
      articles, both “Ali Sina” and Robert Spencer rapidly wrote lengthy
      articles on their respective websites defending Richard Dawkins and Sam
      Harris. It would therefore be constructive for Richard Dawkins and Sam
      Harris to publicly clarify if they welcome or reject “Ali Sina” &
      Robert Spencer’s support. It would also be constructive for Dawkins and
      Harris to publicly clarify the nature and extent of their involvement
      with “Ali Sina” & Robert Spencer.

      3. Richard Dawkins’ anti-Islam/anti-Muslim narrative (including the
      stereotyped caricature and his own convoluted strawman arguments) is
      essentially identical to the hatred-inciting, theologically-,
      historically- & factually-distorted/falsified propaganda promoted by
      Far-Right groups such as the English Defence League and especially the
      owners of JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna. This is clearly not just a coincidence, considering Dawkins’ online sources of [mis]information.

      4. Richard Dawkins is now on record as making a series of extremely
      derogatory statements in which he bizarrely refers to Islam (a religious
      belief system) as though it were a conscious, sentient entity (see #5,
      #32, #36, #49). The nature of those statements suggests that Dawkins is
      actually referring to Muslims. (Also see #7).

      5. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly defending Sam
      Harris, including Harris’ claims about Muslims and Islam (see #42, #43).

      6. Richard Dawkins is now on record as enthusiastically praising the Dutch Far-Right politician Geert Wilders (see #50).

      7. Richard Dawkins is now on record as publicly claiming that
      “communities” has become code for “Muslims” (see #18) and that
      “multiculturalism” in Europe is code for “Islam” (see #19).

      8. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly praising &
      defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see #20, #26, #50). Hirsi Ali has been proven
      to have fabricated aspects of her background/experiences (as confirmed by the BBC). Hirsi Ali is also on record as
      revealing the full scale of her horrific beliefs, including the fact
      that she sympathises with Anders Breivik and blames so-called “advocates
      of silence” for Breivik’s mass-murdering terrorist attack.

      9. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly promoting the
      Far-Right conspiracy theory that British police avoid prosecuting
      Muslims due to fears of being labelled “racist” or “Islamophobic” (see
      #1, #24, #28, #45). Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s closest
      European allies, the English Defence League leadership, are amongst the
      most vocal advocates of this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

      10. Richard Dawkins is now on record as explicitly describing himself as “a cultural Christian” (see #54).

      11. Richard Dawkins is now on record as proposing what is basically
      an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy, specifically in terms of
      Christians vs. Muslims (see here and here.
      Also see #16). This raises questions about exactly how much support
      Dawkins has secretly been giving to certain extremist anti-Muslim
      individuals/groups, or at least how much he is personally aware that
      these groups are explicitly recycling Dawkins’ own rhetoric when
      demonising Islam & Muslims.

      12. Richard Dawkins is now on record as exhibiting very disturbing attitudes towards the British Muslim Member of Parliament Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and the British Muslim Independent journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,
      including repeatedly making highly offensive claims that they are
      “tokens” with zero qualifications for their respective jobs and are in
      positions of seniority/influence solely because they are “female, Muslim
      and brown/non-white” (See #25, #29, #30, #31, #35, #53). Dawkins
      clearly shares the EDL leadership’s noticeable hostility towards
      Baroness Warsi in particular; furthermore, note Dawkins’ sneering “open
      letter” to Baroness Warsi (see #29), and also note the fact that the EDL
      leadership recently published a similar “open letter” to Baroness Warsi on their main website, written by an unidentified anonymous author.

      13. Richard Dawkins has published a lengthy diatribe by Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller/EDL ally/SIOE co-founder Stephen Gash.

      14. Richard Dawkins has enthusiastically republished a large number of viciously anti-Muslim comments originally posted on the discussion thread of a Telegraph
      article written by Baroness Warsi. Dawkins claimed that the only reason
      he was reproducing these comments on his own website was “because the Telegraph is apparently censoring them”.

      15. Despite the claims of Richard Dawkins’ defenders that he is an
      “equal opportunity offender” in terms of his criticisms of various
      organised religions, the aforementioned 54 quotes speak for themselves
      and Dawkins’ real pattern of behaviour is self-evident. Amongst other
      things, it raises the question of whether Dawkins was already perfectly
      aware that the anti-Islam/anti-Muslim propaganda he is basing his
      statements on originates in members of Robert Spencer’s extremist inner
      circle and their respective hate websites (which would have very nasty
      implications about Dawkins himself), or whether Dawkins has been
      astonishingly incompetent about researching his sources of
      “information”.

      16. Further information on Richard Dawkins’ other activities targeting Islam & Muslims is available here, here, here, here, here, and here.

      Examples of statements by Richard Dawkins:

      #1: [Quoting: “No
      I don’t think it was racist to feel that way. If you saw a European
      mistreating his wife in public wouldn’t you feel the same? “] “Of
      course. In that case I might have called a policeman. If you see a
      Muslim beating his wife, there would be little point in calling a
      policeman because so many of the British police are terrified of being
      accused of racism or ‘Islamophobia’.”

      #2: “Religion poisons everything. But Islam has its own unmatched level of toxicity.”

      #3: “Religion poisons everything, but Islam is in a toxic league of its own.”

      #4:
      “…..But let’s keep things in proportion. Christianity may be pretty
      bad, but isn’t Islam in a league of its own when it comes to sheer
      vicious nastiness?”

      #5: [Quoting: “He blamed ‘radical stupid people who don't know what Islam is,’”]
      “They are certainly stupid, but they know exactly what Islam is. Islam
      is the religion that wins arguments by killing its opponents and crying
      ‘Islamophobia’ at anyone who objects.”

      #6:
      “This horrible film deserves to go viral. What a pathetic religion: how
      ignominious to need such aggressively crazed defenders.”

      #7:
      “Muslims seem to suffer from an active HUNGER to be offended. If
      there’s nothing obvious to be offended by, or ‘hurt’ by, they’ll go out
      looking for something. Are there any other similar examples we could
      think of, I wonder, not necessarily among religious groups?”

      #8:
      “Paula’s letter in today’s Independent (see above) will doubtless
      provoke lots of fatuous bleats of “Oh but Islam is a peaceful
      religion.””

      #9: [Quoting: “But it has nothing to do with Islam.”]
      “Oh no? Then why do the perpetrators, and the mullahs and imams and
      ayatollahs and ‘scholars’, continually SAY it has everything to do with
      Islam? You may not think it has anything to do with Islam, but I prefer
      to listen to what the people responsible actually say. I would also love
      it if decent, ‘moderate’ Muslims would stand up and condemn the
      barbarisms that are carried out, or threatened, in their name.”

      #10: “What is there left to say about Sharia Law? Who will defend it? Who can find something, anything, good to say about Islam?”

      #11: [Quoting: “needed to respect other religions”]
      “That word ‘other’ worries me and so does ‘respect’. ‘Other’ than what?
      What is the default religion which makes the word ‘other’ appropriate?
      What is this ‘other’ religion, which is being invoked in this
      high-handed, peremptory way. It isn’t hard to guess the answer. Islam.
      Yet again, Islam, the religion of peace, the religion that imposes the
      death penalty for apostasy, the religion whose legal arm treats women
      officially as second class citizens, the religion that sentences women
      to multiple lashes for the crime of being raped, the religion whose
      ‘scholars’ have been known to encourage women to suckle male colleagues
      so that they can be deemed ‘family’ and hence allowed to work in the
      same room; the religion that the rest of us are called upon to ‘respect’
      for fear of being thought racist or ‘Islamophobic’. Respect? RESPECT?”

      #12: “All three of the Abrahamic religions are deeply evil if they take their teachings seriously. Islam is the only one that does.”

      #13: “Yes, Christians are much much better. Their sacred texts may be just as bad, but they don’t act on them.”

      #14:
      “Quite the contrary. I think the problem [with Islam] is with the
      MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out
      against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to
      stand up for peace and nonviolence.”

      #15: [Quoting: “Actually
      I think linking to every video this bigot releases does look like an
      endorsement, even if it's unintentional. Why not link to some news items
      by some other right wing bigots the BNP or the EDL, they're always
      banging on about Islam so it should qualify.”] “I support Pat
      [Condell]’s stance on Islam. It is NOT based on racism like that of the
      BNP, and he is properly scathing about so-called ‘Islamophobia’.”

      #16:
      “After the last census, Christianity in Britain benefited, in terms of
      political influence, from the approximately 70% who ticked the Christian
      box, whether or not they were really believers. With the menacing rise
      of Islam, some might even be tempted to tick the Christian box, for fear
      of doing anything to boost the influence of the religion of “peace””.

      #17: [Quoting: “What
      sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the
      name of justice,” Mosammet's father, Dorbesh Khan, 60, told the BBC.] “What sort of justice? Islamic justice of course.”

      #18:
      “Just as ‘communities’ has become code for ‘Muslims’,
      ‘multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to
      their often loathsome ‘community leaders’: imams, mullahs, ‘clerics’,
      and the ill-named ‘scholars’.”

      #19:
      “Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I
      thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we
      sure it is not pandering to ‘multiculturalism’, which in Europe is code
      for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .”

      #20:
      “I don’t think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste
      of more serious things to come. They’ve already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali
      out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population
      numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice,
      decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but
      Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the
      memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children
      automatically adopt the religion of their parents.”

      #21:
      “I said that Islam is evil. I did NOT say Muslims are evil. Indeed,
      most of the victims of Islam are Muslims. Especially female ones.”

      #22:
      “Whenever I read an article like this, I end up shaking my head in
      bafflement. Why would anyone want to CONVERT to Islam? I can see why,
      having been born into it, you might be reluctant to leave, perhaps when
      you reflect on the penalty for doing to. But for a woman (especially a
      woman) voluntarily to JOIN such a revolting and misogynistic institution
      when she doesn’t have to always suggests to me massive stupidity. And
      then I remember our own very intelligent Layla Nasreddin / Lisa Bauer
      and retreat again to sheer, head-shaking bafflement.”

      #23:
      “Apologists for Islam would carry more conviction if so-called
      ‘community’ leaders would ever go to the police and report the culprits.
      That would solve, at a stroke, the problem that has been exercising
      posters here. ‘Community’ leaders are best placed to know what is going
      on on their ‘communities’. Why don’t they report the perpetrators to the
      police and have them jailed?”

      #24:
      “Presumably we shall hear all the usual accommodationist bleats about
      “Nothing to do with Islam”, and “It’s cultural, not religious” and
      “Islam doesn’t approve the practice”. Whether or not Islam approves the
      practice depends – as with the death penalty for apostasy – on which
      ‘scholar’ you talk to. Islamic ‘scholar’? What a joke. What a sick,
      oxymoronic joke. Islamic ‘scholar’!

      It is of course true that not all Muslims mutilate their daughters, or
      approve it. But I conjecture that it is true that virtually all, if not
      literally all, the 24,000 girls referred to come from Muslim families.
      And all, or virtually all those who wield the razor blade (or the broken
      glass or whatever it is) are devout Muslims. And above all, the reason
      the police turn a blind eye to this disgusting practice is that they
      THINK it is sanctioned by Islam, or they think it is no business of
      anybody outside the ‘community’, and they are TERRIFIED of being called
      ‘Islamophobic’ or racist.”

      #25:
      “Apologies if this has already been said here, but “Baroness” Warsi has
      no sensible qualifications for high office whatever. She has never won
      an election and never distinguished herself in any of the ways that
      normally lead to a peerage. All she has achieved in life is to FAIL to
      be elected a Member of Parliament, twice (on one occasion ignominiously
      bucking the swing towards her party). She was, nevertheless, elevated to
      the peerage and rather promptly put in the Cabinet and the Privy
      Council. The only reasonable explanation for her rapid elevation is
      tokenism. She is female, Muslim, and non-white – a bundle of three
      tokens in one, and therefore a precious rarity in her party. You might
      have suspected her lack of proper qualifications from the fatuous things
      she says, of which her speech in Rome is a prime example.”

      #26: [Quoting: “Muslim
      extremists have called for Aan to be beheaded but fellow atheists have
      rallied round, and urged him to stand by his convictions despite the
      pressure.”] “For one sadly short moment I thought the ‘but’ was
      going to be followed by ‘moderate Muslims have rallied round . . .’ Once
      again, where are the decent, moderate Muslims? Why do they not stand up
      in outrage against their co-religionists? Maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
      right and “moderate Muslim” is something close to an oxymoron. How can
      they not see that, if you need to kill to protect your faith, that is a
      powerful indication that you have lost the argument? It is impossible to
      exaggerate how deeply I despise them.”

      #27:
      “There are moves afoot to introduce sharia law into Britain, Canada and
      various other countries. I hope it is not too “islamophobic” of me to
      hope that the “interpretation” of sharia favoured by our local Muslim
      “scholars” will be different from the “interpretation” favoured by
      Iranian “scholars”. Oh but of course: “That’s not my kind of Islam.””

      #28: [Quoting: “Richard,
      I really dislike disagreeing with you. However, female genital
      mutilation is not really based on Islam. My wife is from Indonesia and I
      have asked around and none of them know of anyone who does that in
      their country. From all that I have read and seen, it seems like it
      predates Islam and is mostly found in Africa and to a lesser extent the
      Middle East.”] “Even if you are right (and I am not necessarily
      conceding the point) that FGM itself is not based on Islam, I strongly
      suspect that the British police turning a blind eye to it is very
      strongly based on Islamophobophobia – the abject terror of being thought
      islamophobic.”

      #29: “Dear Lady Warsi

      Is it true that the Islamic penalty for apostasy is death? Please answer
      the question, yes or no. I have asked many leading Muslims, often in
      public, and have yet to receive a straight answer. The best answer I
      heard was from “Sir” Iqbal Sacranie, who said “Oh well, it is seldom
      enforced.”

      Will you please stand up in the House of Lords and publicly denounce the
      very idea that, however seldom enforced, a religion has the right to
      kill those who leave it? And will you stand up and agree that, since a
      phobia is an irrational fear, “Islamophobic” is not an appropriate
      description of anybody who objects to it. And will you stand up and
      issue a public apology, on behalf of your gentle, peaceful religion, to
      Salman Rushdie? And to Theo van Gogh? And to all the women and girls who
      have been genitally mutilated? And to . . . I’m sure you know the list
      better than I do.

      Richard Dawkins”

      #30: [Quoting: “Blimey
      Richard! This really has got up your nose, hasn't it? Your comments are
      usually a great deal more measured. It's not exactly uncommon for a
      Minister to “rise without trace”. I think we can all agree that our
      political system is “sub-optimal” to put it politely. Tokensim is one
      possibility (though if the Tories were really just after the muslim vote
      its interesting that they opted for a female muslim token).”] “I
      didn’t mean to suggest that the Tories were after the Muslim vote. I
      think they know that is a lost cause. I suspect that they were trying to
      live down their reputation as the nasty party, the party of racists,
      the party of sexists, the Church of England at prayer. More
      particularly, the ceaseless propaganda campaign against “Islamophobia”
      corrupts them just as it corrupts so many others. I suspect that the
      Tory leadership saw an opportunity to kill two, or possibly three, birds
      with one stone, by elevating this woman to the House of Lords and
      putting her in the Cabinet.

      I repeat, her [baroness Sayeeda Warsi’s] qualifications for such a
      meteoric rise, as the youngest member of the House of Lords, are
      tantamount to zero. As far as I can see, her only distinction is to have
      stood for election to the House of Commons and lost. That’s it.

      Apart, of course, from being female, Muslim, and brown. Like I said, killing three birds with one stone.”

      #31:
      “Baroness Warsi has never been elected to Parliament. What are her
      qualifications to be in the Cabinet? Does anyone seriously think she
      would be in the Cabinet, or in the House of Lords, if she was not a
      Muslim woman? Is her elevation to high office (a meteoric rise, for she
      is the youngest member of the House of Lords) any more than a deplorable
      example of tokenism?”

      #32:
      “I too heard Paul Foot speak at the Oxford Union, and he was a
      mesmerising orator, even as an undergraduate. Once again, Christopher
      Hitchens nails it. It is the nauseating presumption of Islam that
      marks it out for special contempt. I remain baffled at the number of
      otherwise decent people who can be seduced by such an unappealing
      religion. I suppose it must be childhood indoctrination, but it is still
      hard to credit. If you imagine setting up an experiment to see how far
      you could go with childhood indoctrination – a challenge to see just how
      nasty a belief system you could instil into a human mind if you catch
      it early enough – it is hard to imagine succeeding with a belief system
      half as nasty as Islam. And yet succeed they do.”

      #33:
      “Orthodox political opinion would have it that the great majority of
      Muslims are good people, and there is just a small minority of
      extremists who give the religion a bad name. Poll evidence has long made
      me sceptical. Now – it is perhaps a minor point, but could it be
      telling? – Salman Taseer is murdered by one of his own bodyguard. If
      ‘moderate’ Muslims are the great majority that we are asked to credit,
      wouldn’t you think it should have been easy enough to find enough
      ‘moderate’ Muslims, in the entire state of Pakistan, to form the
      bodyguard of a prominent politician? Are ‘moderate’ Muslims so thin on
      the ground?”

      #34:
      “It is almost a cliché that people of student age often experiment with
      a variety of belief systems, which they subsequently, and usually quite
      rapidly, give up. These young people have voluntarily adopted a belief
      system which has the unique distinction of prescribing execution as the
      official penalty for leaving it. I have enormous sympathy for those
      people unfortunate enough to be born into Islam. It is hard to muster
      much sympathy for those idiotic enough to convert to it.”

      #35:
      [Quoting: “Why do any media outlets keep repeatedly inviting her
      [Yasmin Alibhai-Brown] (excluding more capable, intelligent, qualified
      guests) as if she is some kind of authority or expert on anything at
      all?”] “Do you really need to ask that question? Media people are
      petrified of being thought racist, Islamophobic or sexist. The
      temptation to kill three birds with one stone must be irresistible.”

      #36: [Quoting: “I'm
      surprised nobody has acknowledged the elephant in the room -- namely,
      multicultural appeasement of Islam. The fact that (a) the paper was
      accepted, and (b) it took only five days to get accepted, suggests that
      there's something funny going on here. Could it be that the referee of
      the paper was a subscriber to the popular opinion in Britain that
      anything associated with Muslims short of murder in broad daylight is
      somehow praiseworthy and something to be encouraged?”] “Yes, I’m sorry to say that is all too plausible. Perhaps the Editor decided it would be “Islamophobic” to reject it.”

      #37: [Quoting: “I seem to remember a very bright young muslim lad”] You mean a bright young child of muslim parents.

      #38:
      “Oh, small as it is, this is the most heartening news I have heard for a
      long time. What can we do to help these excellent young Pakistanis,
      without endangering them? If, by any chance, any of them reads this web
      site, please get in touch to let us know how we might help. If anybody
      here has friends in Pakistan, or elsewhere afflicted by the ‘religion of
      peace’ (it isn’t even funny any more, is it?), or facebook friends,
      please encourage them to join and support these brave young people.”

      #39: [Quoting: “The obvious question is: who cares, are we saying when it was a catholic school it was ok and a Muslim school is worse.”] “Yes. It is worse. MUCH worse”

      #40: [Quoting:
      “I was even accused of having converted and married into another
      religion. But I wasn't worried as I'm a true Muslim," says the feisty
      young woman.”] If only she were a bit more feisty she would cease to
      be a Muslim altogether – except that would make her an apostate, for
      which the Religion of Peace demands stoning. Indeed, you’ll probably
      find she’d be sentenced to 99 lashes just for the crime of being
      feisty.”

      #41: [Quoting: “Disgusting
      and hideous as this practice is, I think the article makes it quite
      clear that it's not limited to any one religion or community. It's
      common to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, yezidis and many others.”] I just did a rough count (I may have missed one or two) of the named victims Robert Fisk mentioned. As follows:

      Muslim 52

      Hindu 3

      Sikh 1

      Christian 0

      But of course, Islam is the religion of peace. To suggest otherwise would be racist Islamophobia.”

      #42:

      “Whatever else you may say about Sam Harris’s article quoted above, and
      whether or not he is right about the NY Masjid, the following two
      paragraphs, about Islam more generally, seem to me well worth repeating.

      Richard”


×