Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Absolute truth

Atheists Are Hypocrites

Recommended Posts

Science is superior only in that it can better describe what we observe , and make predictions and calculations  which are extremely accurate.

And this is precisely why their opinions should carry more weight that those of philosophers and theologians.

If you were suffering from a previously unknown desease, would you consult a doctor, a philosopher or a priest? Would you rather they carried out tests, discussed the meaning of the illness, or prayed for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Gee QED , there is a difference between Medicine and Cosmology .

 Theoretical Physics as it pertains to the Origin of the Universe is in no way settled , not even close .

 I distinctly mentioned I am a Deist as a subjective personal view . As to Cosmology , I used the philosophical explanation which does not assume Theism .

 

As for the terms Philosopher /Theist  / Deist  , you both have been quite liberal with the words , since I mentioned the distinction as put forward in Occam's Razor .

 

In view of what is known , I find it rather presumptious to hold the notion that the scientific view carry's more weight than the philosophical when dealing with a total unknown . Quantum Theory gets better at explaining what we live in , the physical laws that govern what we observe , but as to it's origin , they are no further advanced than Plato or Aristotle . And that is because when it comes to explaining the Big Bang quantum theory can not explain it . If and when it does then you can come back and tell me  the scientific has a superior guess . Hypotheses are a dime a dozen and no theory has been proven . And that goes for me as well .

 To think otherwise is simply a matter of opinion . Both the philosopher and the Physicist have the same information and both know to what extent it is understood . Russel has brought up more than once " a choosing of thousands of gods " and that really isn't the case .There are only two choices - purpose or no purpose .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee QED , there is a difference between Medicine and Cosmology.

Don't doubt it, but if you are faced with a problem in a specific field, you consult those with the greatest experience of solving problems in that field. The question of what happened before the big bang may not have been settled but many other problems in the field of cosmology have been, and all of them by scientists, not philosophers or theologians, so, gee, my argument still stands.

 

As for the terms Philosopher /Theist  / Deist  , you both have been quite liberal with the words , since I mentioned the distinction as put forward in Occam's Razor .

You need to expand on this point, it is a little confused/confusing. Occam's Razor makes no distinction between the philosopher, theist and deist.

 

In view of what is known , I find it rather presumptious to hold the notion that the scientific view carry's more weight than the philosophical when dealing with a total unknown .

It is precisely because of what is known, and how we came to that knowledge, that the scientific view carries more weight when considering scientific problems. Over the history of science there have been many occasions where we were dealing with the "unknown" and in each case the problems were solved by Science, not Philosophy or Religion. However, in your view, everything we know about how we have acquired all our knowledge of the physical world is irrelevant and we must address the latest problem as if it were the first!

 

but as to it's origin , they are no further advanced than Plato or Aristotle

Now you are just being silly! You are again assuming that none of our existing knowledge of the universe can be applied to the problem. None of our methods of research and problem solving are relevant. All the observations and measurements of the universe and physical signs of the big bang contribute nothing?

 

Both the philosopher and the Physicist have the same information and both know to what extent it is understood

I would dispute this. I would not expect your average philosopher to have the same understanding of quantum physics as a quantum physicist.

 

There are only two choices - purpose or no purpose .

True, but the choice should not be made until after the results are in otherwise we are begging the question.

 

As I have stated before, I have no opinion on the origin of the universe because we do not have enough information. However, I consider quantum physicists as the most likely source of such information in the same way as I consider biochemists the most likely source of the solution to the abiogenesis problem, rather than philosophy or religion. To maintain that one or both of these disciplines are equally as likely to solve these problems as are the relevant sciences is simply delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russel and QED , may I suggest you both visit the website New Scientist . A very relevant discussion going on debating the exact subject we are talking about , and oddly enough , several confirming what I guess I failed to express clearly [ or maybe I did but you simply reject it ]
Some great questions and answers , especially that the " nothing " theoretical physicists " so constantly refer to , is really a " something " that can not be explained or known .
Some interesting views on the philosophical also .


Hope you are open minded enough [ not gullible ] to take a look .

I'm going fishing now , to try and catch and release another alligator gar , darn things amaze me .

Cheers , Aligarr

p.s. No Qued , I'm not being silly at all .And again , both you and Russel have made far more mention of religion than I have . Do take a look at that website QED , it will BROADEN your horizons . Your accusation of delusion is .....simpley narrowminded .And I might add a bit funny . :cool:

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would submit QED, that your understanding of quantum mechanics is not much greater than mine or Russel's for that matter . Since none of us three are theoretical physicists . An informed laymen or philosopher is at no disadvantage .

 Check that website QED . Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from  before you make anymore presumptious statements . And lol   "  there you go again " ....mixing philosophers with theologians . :yes:

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russel and QED , may I suggest you both visit the website New Scientist . A very relevant discussion going on debating the exact subject we are talking about , and oddly enough , several confirming what I guess I failed to express clearly [ or maybe I did but you simply reject it ]

Some great questions and answers , especially that the " nothing " theoretical physicists " so constantly refer to , is really a " something " that can not be explained or known .

Some interesting views on the philosophical also .

 

Hope you are open minded enough [ not gullible ] to take a look .

I don't know if you have noticed but I have not been making comment on the various hypotheses.  I watch with interest but take no position.

My issue has been with your insistence that philosophy is just as likely to come up with solutions as science is.  This position is simply unsupportable as I have shown on more than one occasion.

 

p.s. No Qued , I'm not being silly at all .And again , both you and Russel have made far more mention of religion than I have

I don't wish to appear rude but your replies seem somewhat confused. I said that you were being silly in saying that today's quantum physicists are no further advanced in solving the problem of the origin of the universe than were Aristotle and Plato. Your reply accuses me of mentioning religion more than you but does not address my point. As my point did not mention religion at all, your resonse would seem to be a non sequitur.

 

Your accusation of delusion is .....simpley narrowminded .And I might add a bit funny .

As you have failed to address my point raised above, it would seem that you hold that view despite all evidence to the contrary. That is "delusional" behaviour.

In what respect is that narrow minded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would submit QED, that your understanding of quantum mechanics is not much greater than mine or Russel's for that matter . Since none of us three are theoretical physicists . An informed laymen or philosopher is at no disadvantage .

I have made no claims regarding my knowledge of quantum physics (all the physics I studied at university was of the classical variety). I defer to the experts in the field (those experts who you consider to be no better qualified than philosophers to make predictions based on quantum theory!) We are not talking about informed laymen vs philosophers, but quantum theorists on the cutting edge of research vs philosophers! There is no equivalence.

 

Check that website QED . Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from  before you make anymore presumptious statements

Which presumptious statements would those be?

 

And lol   "  there you go again " ....mixing philosophers with theologians .

I am not "mixing" philosophers with theologians (do you mean confusing or conflating?) I am placing them both (albeit different disciplines) on the other side of the evidentially supported threshold from science. My argument stands whether you consider one, the other or both together. It makes little difference as neither make testable predictions based on observations and neither have any history of explaining physical phenomena within the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well , no gar today , to many gators waiting to see what I hook .

 

Well QED , you seem to be in agreement with the nothing from nothing hypothesis , as I can't  detect any disagreement on your part , or do you just reserve debate for  those who present a philosophical view when there is no information  ?

 I never said or implied that philosophy would supply a solution , I indicated that at present , with the present knowledge in hand , the application of Occam's Razor is not so irrational , no more than the Universe appearing from nothing . That is what Russel and I have been debating .  Science has made no testable prediction either when it comes to the nature of the Big bang beyond a few Planck seconds after the event ,  or it's origin . At that point ....Science guesses not based on any math , because there is no math or equation to describe what they assume may  have occurred . The variance in hypotheses put forward glaringly shows that .

 

As far as any history of philosophy explaining physical phenomena within the universe , I will have to check that , you may be right . May I remind you again , that I've already stated that science has done a great job describing that part of the Universe which is observable and obeys physical laws , even quantum laws , but as to it's origin , that's just not so . Quantum mechanics provides nothing in that area .

 Yes , your argument stands , as does all opinion , because that is all that can   be expressed , when faced with a brick wall and absolutely no knowledge of what is on the other side , no means of measuring it or testing it . I have no doubts science may figure out what black holes are and even extrapolate what effects Dark Matter has on  the Universe , that too is inferred . But as to the origin ?

Mathematical equations are arrived  to explain what is observed . And then tested  .Do they match and predict what is observed , is what they predict discovered ?  Not at all , it is unobservable . So far there is no equation that describe the origin of the Big Bag nor  the .  Universe 

 

 

 If it makes you feel better to cast your lot with science over the philosophical on that question, go right ahead , base your world view and concept of reality on it too .

   However no need to use the adjectives - "delusional" or" silly" to the purely philosophical , and yes you have in fact mentioned religion more than I , and your presumptious statements are those which use those adjectives , no matter how facetious you attempt to be . I am not seeking any validation from you or Russel , just stating that Science is just as much in the dark as the philosophical when it comes to the origin of the Universe .  If science had facts as to it's origins, then science as well as philosophers would no doubt be in a better position to make a guess . But that has not happened . And I do not expect it to . There is simply no information beyond the point at which Quantum mechanics falls back to speculation .

  Since nothing is impossible [ except something coming from nothing ] if science does in fact gain some insights , I'll reconsider my position .  Until then , if your comfortable with your position ....good for you , I am with mine .

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well QED , you seem to be in agreement with the nothing from nothing hypothesis ,

  Since nothing is impossible [ except something coming from nothing ]

We are not in agreement about this! I have repeatedly stated that I have no opinion on the origin question. In the absence of definite answers, all hypotheses are possible (with varying degrees of likelyhood).

You, however, have ruled out at least one possibility (something from nothing) and have done this, on your own admission, on no evidence whatsoever. Moreover, you have asserted that you favour a supernatural creator!

 

To recap:

My position: we have no solid information about the origin of the universe but on previous performance, science is more likely to come up with the answer (whatever that may be) than any other school of thought.

Your position: we have no solid information about the origin of the universe but you have ruled out at least one possibility and favour another which relies on something for which there is no evidence.

Which of the two is the more reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have ruled it out , because it is illogical and that has nothing to do with the "something from nothing " of a DeSitter Model or the assumed [ not tested ]vacuum fluctuations of quantum mechanics,and because it has been ruled out by greater minds than yours or mine and for very logical reasons .There are several possibilities all within logic and all within rationality .All incorporate eventually , the philosophical to some degree . You may choose the one you are comfortable with , Just as I , but yours is in no way superior nor provable nor testable .Nor will they ever be testable .

 

But hey don't take my word for it , check out the lecture given by Ellis at the Copernicus Center , attended by the greatest minds on the subject.

 

I'll type the link , unfortunately , it can't be cut and pasted on this website , don't know why .

 

philosophy.of.cosmology.ox.ac.uk/events/category/multimedia

 

 

 

Or Google- George F.R. Ellis and you will find the 2012 Copernicus Center Lecture

 

 

 

 

A lecture by George F.R. Ellis on - Philosophy of Cosmology .

 

If you have an hour or so to kill . You'll find his 2012 Lecture enlightening to say the least .It will certainly dispel your misconstrued predisposed bias against the importance of Philosophy in Cosmology , Quantum Theory and Theoretical Physics , and will show that nothing comes from nothing ....which is what I've been saying all along . And that several of the things you thought testable are simply NOT .

 

BTW there are according to Ellis several possible LOGICAL conclusions about the Universe , PURPOSE is one of them .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 and will show that nothing comes from nothing ....which is what I've been saying all along.

Haven't watched the lecture yet.

But, as you repeatedly and correctly state, as we have no information on pre-big bang conditions, how can he possibly know? Surely it is (as you keep telling us) just his opinion and therefore no more valid than anyone else's?

 

This is exactly the point I make to the Quranic Miraclists. You dismiss science as "just opinion" until you find one that agrees with your position and then say "Look! Science agrees with me!"

Edited by QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're good at spin QED , where does Quranic Miracles come in on this discussion ??? I do not and Have not dismissed science , you have a reading comprehension  problem or you're just seeing what you want to see .

 The whole point of my argument was not "dismissing science " , it's  more like defending against YOU dismissing the philosophical ,as "silly " or "delusional " , in the absence of information . I have stated on several occaisions in this discussion that Science has made great strides ,  and I insinuate that as to the origin of the Universe it comes to a place where the philosophical and scientific are both logical . Opinion comes into play , because it is not based in testable hypotheses but assumption .  

 

 Listen to the lecture QED , you might learn something about the view you claim you are not defending .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have regularly and categorically stated that, on the subject of origins, nobody's opinion is worth more than anyone else's.

You then insist that some hypotheses can be ruled out because of a particular opinion.

You can't have it both ways. If you can rule out a possible by using arguments from authority or incredulity, then so can everyone else and we are in exactly the same position as before.

I personally find the supernatural explanation illogical but is is still amongst the list of possibles due to our lack of knowledge of pre-big bang conditions. The "understanding quantum mechanics" quote you used was referring to this very situation. It is so counter intuitive that we cannot dismiss an explanation just because it seems illogical to us.

 

The only logical position to take is to reserve judgement until we have more conclusive evidence. This is a position that I will happily continue to defend.

 

BTW, you accuse me of having a "reading comprehension problem" but if you read all the posts carefully you will see that everything follows logically.

I did not say that you "dismiss science" but that you "dismiss science as just opinion" (in the context of this discussion), which you have done, on more than one occasion.

I did not "dismiss the philosophical ,as silly or delusional", I claimed that to give them equal weight when solving scientific problems was silly or delusional.

I mentioned the Quranic Miracles mindset as it seemed analogous to your variable position on the validity of scientific opinion, and the subject has been discussed at length on this forum. No"spin" there.

You really need to reply to what I actuall say, not what you would like me to have said. Also it would help if you responded to points that I do make rather than ignoring them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold the blather QED and listen to the lecture , you'll learn something about the nature of reality . I don't need to know what motivates your words , I already know that . I have not ignored any of your points , I have addessed them all , but  when done you change gears .  Atleast you've proven you don't have a reading comprehension problem , it is the blatter, you see only what you want to see . Unfortunately you are still ignorant to the matters regarding the origin of the Universe in as much as what is known and not known, and to the large degree in which philosophical views are used by the theoretical physics putting forth their hypotheses .

 

Listen to the lecture , or try to get andalusi back here so you can play semantics with him .

 

If you're too lazy for a bit of enlightenment or your attention span not long enough to absorb the lecture ...oh well . I can only conclude that you shouldn't be discussing this subject , the origins of the Universe and the  several  possibilities, their likelihood , and the logics involved in them .

 

We have  all digressed from the title if this thread Atheists are Hypocrites , I have made my comment on that  statement and gave the reasons why ...which I stand by . Although you and Russel disagree .  In any such argument , discussion on the nature of Reality and the Origins  of the Universe are inevitable . I'm not interested in your views of religion , as I'm not interested in religion period . I'm interested in the Science as far as it can be logically and rationally and philosophically taken , because that is where , or should be where your atheism originates , not from the estimation and mockery of religionists who reject or contort science . Your statement regarding discussions with andalusi as any cause for your self confirmation of atheism  is childish on it's face .

 

Get informed on the whole subject and listen to the lecture . Then come back and argue from a position of greater information .

Until then don't waste my time or yours , and save any egotistical rebuts , lets stick to science and what science know and what science estimates . If you are afraid to discover that philosophical views are used in Science , then you're spitting in the wind my friend ....good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

If you’ll read what I wrote I think you’ll find that I suggested you follow the evidence, only you mentioned ‘proven theories’.

 

No I never suggested that you search through ‘thousands of gods’ I pointed out that there were thousands of god ideas out there.  If you choose purpose supposedly driven by one of them but choose the wrong one you are still heading to hell or equivalent according to most religious ideas.  Of course your interest in these ideas may be purely intellectual in which case the point of choosing the right god is moot.

 

The power of science isn’t that it can accurately describe what we observe, that’s a doddle really, what science’s true power is in these questions is the power to extrapolate beyond what we can observe, to predict the existence of the cosmic microwave background or gravity waves.  They were not observed and then described rather they were observed because they were predicted by science.  Science has shown, time and again, that it can correctly describe things we have not seen and that it can show us where to look to find such things.  Have philosophers been as successful in anything?

 

No I agree that quantum theory has no definitive answers here just rationally consistent answers that agree with all theory and observation to date, valid solutions to the quantum mechanical equations that describe a plausible scenario for the beginning of the universe.  It’s quite plausible that several of the current theories are simultaneously correct with this theory describing one level of the occurrence while another theory describes what happened at another level or that none of them are correct even that a the truth is a ‘god did it’ type of deal but only time will tell, none of these theories are currently testable beyond the very limited stuff that has already been done so it is an open question.  All of these theories, to be considered still, must at least be consistent with all observations and theories and they are.

 

Show me, throughout history, where philosophy has ever produced correct descriptions of the physical world?  Why then should we trust it to provide answers here?

 

Actually you have very much misjudged the maths that science uses here.  Sure the maths is used to describe the universe we observe at all levels but once that’s achieved the maths can take us to places that we have never visited or even imagined and show us gravity waves or the cosmic microwave background for example.  Maths does not just follow it follows and it leads and that’s crucial here.  Philosophy does not generate maths that can lead us into future discoveries or theories that can, only science can do that.  The paradox that you describe as breaking maths, at the quantum level, are encompassed in the maths, the maths describes how the matter will behave including the paradox’s that you will observe if you do the experiment that you worked out with the maths.  That’s its true power, we call it paradox, where common sense breaks down but maths makes no such distinction and it continues to work beyond the paradox’s that common sense can’t handle.  That’s why philosophy fails unless it follows science.

 

Yes when you described the roulette wheel you did qualify it by stating that you could bet on black or red to get a 50 / 50 shot.  As I tried to explain last time this is actually wrong.  The 00 etc does not have a colour so there are actually one or two slots not included so the odds are always stacked against you, on average the house always wins a few percent of all money bet, that’s why they are in the game.  Sure the odds against you are small but on average you will always loose no matter which game you play.  Those odds may seem close to 50/50 to you but odd of that order will bankrupt you in a night if you keep playing.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

George F R Ellis is an Emeritus Professor of Complex Systems in Mathematics.  He’s also a Quaker and winner of the Templeton Prize for contributions to religion.  His views are contradicted by many including Victor Stenger who is also an emeritus professor of physics and an adjunct professor in philosophy and has been for a long time a researcher in quantum physics and cosmology.

 

But here we see the real problem with this field.  Sure the religiously biased George Ellis claims that the solution that the atheistically biased Victor Stenger supports is implausible but in the end Victor is better qualified because quantum physics is his field and it is not Ellis’s whose field is mathematics.

 

The particle claimed to have started it all in the ‘De Sitter model’ as you are calling it jumped from exactly nothing, that’s the point.  Vacuum fluctuations are appearing within space time but that event is modelled as a particle crossing a potential barrier from nothing at all into De Sitter space and they are very specific about this.  Many models do exist within a pre-existing framework of space time so the space time must have existed first but not this one, this event created the space time as part of the initial event.  The space time thus created expanded fast enough that the vacuum fluctuations created within it could not get back together and annihilate each other, they were pulled apart by inflation faster than light, thus they became real matter, the matter you and I and the universe we see around us are made of.

 

As Bell showed us the quantum mechanical mathematics are complete, they contain no hidden variables so when they explain that vacuum fluctuations appear uncaused from nothing within space time then we are lead to believe them until we can find a flaw in all that theory and evidence.  When they explain that a particle is climbing past a potential barrier that it does not contain the energy to cross by the law of uncertainty to trigger a radioactive decay for no reason at all again we have to take that a face value until we can find some evidence to contradict it.  The results of the experiments predicted by that maths are so amazingly precise that it’s hard to imagine how it could be unfounded.

 

So which ‘expert’ do you want to believe?  Or do you rather just admit that we don’t know, that the theories presented are plausible till evidence tells us otherwise and leave it at that.  I accept that the ‘purpose’ idea is not ruled out by what we know of the universe whatever Occam’s Razor may say about such heavily weighted ideas but only time may tell for certain.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel, I give you the same suggestion . Listen to the lecture . You been taking license with what you claim are the rational estimations of the Origin of the Universe ,and various views of Reality according to Cosmology and Quantum Theory .

As with QED , stop wasting your time with word games and listen to what men better informed than you or I have to say . We are in a circular argument here with the root being the Scientific vs. the philosophical in the most recent hypotheses put forward by the leading edge of science .

 If the knowledge of George  Ellis and the other noteworthy Physicists and mathematicians carry no weight with you , then don't bother with listening to the lecture , then you too, as QED will be arguing out of a position of ignorance as to what Science has to say about this subject . The arguments you put forth so far are flawed to a degree  and misinformed .  If I was able to fully understand the conclusions of Ellis and others , atleast to the degree of understanding that the Five main  hypotheses on the nature and origin of the Universe  then it should be a walk  in the park for you .

 I accept their conclusions and hypotheses as to what is known , what is tested ,and what can never be tested over yours . You will quickly see that philosophical views are incorporated in several of the models , and again so I make myself clear , philosophical in the sense of Occam's Razor , PROPERLY APPLIED , not in the sense of any dispute of a god or no god . This is expressed by use of the word purpose ,because that supposes some type of intelligence . And purpose is included in those 5 or so estimations for the reason or mechanism of how the Universe came into existence .

 

 As for the roulette wheel let me make it simple for you . You and I walk into a Casino with one chip apiece to play at the roulette table . You place your chip  on black and I on red .  Our odds on that one play, if the numbers end in an even digit then they are 50/50 / if on an odd number then obviously the odds will be 51/49 in favor of whichever color the odd . Even simpler flip a coin - 50/50 , toss the coin several times and then the odds obviously change for a number of reasons .One toss =50/50 heads or tails .But again we digress , and perhaps my example does not satisfy you .

 

 So why waste my time or yours any further  Listen to the lecture . If you reject what's been  espoused by Ellis , then you have an argument with a mind  much greater than your own on this subject . So listen and learn ....good luck .

 

BTW , just a refresher as to the discussion and it's content as it relates to our back and forth discourse .

 

The thread title - Atheist are Hypocrites -  I disagree    Atheists are in fact agnostics who have made a philosophically based conclusion .

 

Can something come from nothing ?   NO [ and the lecture will illuminate that ]

 

Purpose a.k.a. God ,a.k.a. Intelligence design or direction   - Science incorporating the philosophical .Both choices are valid since that will be based on what is not known and what will never be known .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aligarr

Why is it so difficult for you to understand? I am not talking about the validity of different hypotheses for the origins of the universe. I am challenging you on your position that science is no more suited to finding the answers than is philosophy (a challenge that you have failed to respond to). I am also asking you to clarify your contradiction that, on the one hand no one's opinion carries more weight than any one else's, but on the other you keep barking on about Ellis' lecture which you imply trumps all others and will "teach me about the nature of reality".

You also appear to be getting more and more rude and unreasonable as this goes on. Is it because you find your own position internally contradictory? Something seems to be bothering you. To misquote Johnson "Ad homs are the last refuge of a failed argument".

BTW, I watched the lecture and there was nothing in there that was at all surprising considering that it was given by a theist who is obviously trying to reconcile his knowledge with his beliefs. I can see why you think it is so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult for YOU to understand that I'm through playing your game ?  Either go listen to the lecture and educate yourself , or try going to the Quranic Miracles thread and thrash your view out with andalusi .

You don't see anything QED, but your own ego getting deflated .  I'm no longer going to patronize your useless words . And I'm not interested in your attempt at psychology .

 Either you're going to debate this from a position of knowledge or from a position of ignorance . So far you chose ignorance . I left a suggestion so you could better see the faults in your position , I didn't "bark " anything . Now stop behaving like an impetuous child and educate yourself . You challenged and got your answer but were not satisfied , you challenged again and I explained , you challenged again and I gave you a valuable reference to remedy your ignorance . I listed the points of our discussion , and have given you a credible reference to validate my position on them .

 

If you refuse to get the answer I gave you verified from a very credible and respected source ...that is YOUR problem .

 

cheers

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and Russel , you did not view the lecture , and that can \be concluded by simply reading your own words .And it is not a question of who I choose to believe . In the lecture , which I'm sure you didn't bother to watch , you maybe checked out Ellis on Wikepedia . But that's the extent you chose to investigate . Through the lecture at no point did Ellis express a theistic view , only in listing five possibilities  that at present, there are to choose from .

 So then you admit that we don't know [agnostic ] and according to Ellis , no one in the audience objecting , he went on to state that quantum physics are in no way settled and can not be , if you listened to the lecture as QED pretends to have done , you would  understand why . If you disagree please point out at which point in the lecture that you claim to have watched , contradicting that statement and why .

Nothing comes from nothing , and that concept was clearly explained . Philosophical views have been used by theoretical physics specially in quantum theory and equations , but I guess you missed that part .

  You call him a Theist , because he offers a logical possibility of purpose  , so that automatically discounts his views ? Well Russel , I think he's quite a bit smarter than you when it comes to Mathematics , Cosmology , Quantum Theory and Theoretical physics , and far more objective . You come with the baggage of preconceived bias .

     Denial does not help your argument .And Ellis has co -wrote books with Hawking , they are both  way above your knowledge and mine , but understandable in his explanations . But you took Physics in college .

  And I guess you know more huh ?  I sincerely doubt you listened to the lecture ./

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aligarr

I have looked back through your posts for a response to my questions and while none are explicit, it would appear that you positions are explained thus (please correct me if I am wrong):

1. You think science is no better suited than philosophy to the solving of quantum physics problems because you expect to find the hand of god behind the origin of the universe.

2. All opinions are equal but some are more equal than others (especially if they invoke the "spiritual").

 

You say it was explained that nothing comes from nothing. It was not. Ellis explained that he did not like that particular hypothesis (an opinion). Yet there are several lectures where Prof Lawrence Krauss explains how it can happen (another opinion). As you state that neither of them have sufficient information to make more than a guess, how do we decide? I favour reserving judgement until there is sufficient evidence to make an informed choice (yet another opinion) but you would rather rule out certain possibilities on the strength of someone else's opinion (more opinion).

The first part of the lecture was just "Cosmology 101", although he makes the schoolboy error of claiming that the universe is fine tuned for life. He also later claims that purpose is known to exist, he needs to expand on this as I was not aware that this had been proven. However, it then slowly descends into a kind of apologia for theism (his sets of "possibility spaces" are just a new way of sneaking god into the argument). It is ironic that he spends some time explaining why various hypotheses are unsatisfactory because they are untestable (a valid point, but hardly ground breaking), and then sets up one of his own which is also completely untestable. I have now watched it twice, once skimmed and once in full, with rewinds and taking notes and I can find nothing in there to get exited about unless you presuppose the existence of a creator. He also spends an inordinate amount of time attacking the views of Dawkins and Krauss, even to the point of reading out a whole critical book review! (As he did not read out one of the many supportive reviews, this does not seem to be a particularly balanced or scientific approach). Obviously mere coincidence that they are currently the two foremost atheist scientists.

 

I expect another reply attcking my percieved lack of knowledge of specific hypotheses as well as general lack of education plus more instructions to watch a video that I have already viewed. (There really is nothing therein to justify your unbridled adulation, except possibly his beliefs. Remember, all his ideas are just opinions - or is that just your opinion?)

 

BTW, you are starting to sound a little ranty now, even accusing us of lying about watching your video because we didn't find it as revelatory as you did!  Any chance that you could address points raised rather than another descent into ad homs borne of desperation (not holding my breath).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call him a Theist , because he offers a logical possibility of purpose/

I call him a theist because he is a Quaker and believes in the God of the Bible,  creation and theistic evolution.

 

one can feel quite comfortable with belief in a creative God underlying the existence of the Universe, whether it had a beginning in time or not. God could have created the universe in many different ways: it could have been ex nihilo, or ex eternitas; and the physical way he or she chose to create it is a matter of scientific interest but has no real theological substance.

 

From the modern viewpoint, if God chose to create humans by the process of designing laws of physics which then make the coming into being of life inevitable, well, that’s a wonderful way of doing it.

FAITH, HOPE, AND DOUBT IN TIMES OF UNCERTAINTY: COMBINING THE REALMS OF SCIENTIFIC AND SPIRITUAL INQUIRY

Hardly the basis for an objective approach the the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you have in fact watched it , then I 'm sorry that it was beyond your understanding . Your estimation that it was unbridled adulation is just another example of your subtle way of slipping in your own facetious ad homs . Like I said go back and argue with andalusi , he 's more on your level of discourse .

I tend to accept the conclusions reached by Phd's , professors and those who are on the leading edge of Science rather than from stranger , with the same credibility as any other blogger found on the internet . I question your education , only because of your expressed ignorance in the fields in which this discussion resides .

Address points ? Which ones QED ? What science knows at the moment , and what it does not know , how conclusions are reached by scientific and philosophical views incorporated even by those theoretical physicists who claim no attachment to theistic views ?

That is , I think was clearly laid out in the lecture , so don't blame me if that surpasses your understanding , leading me to conclude that either you didn't bother to watch it , or you just plain did not understand it . That is an objective observation , if you take it as an ad hom , so be it . You are by no means a paragon of any of the sciences discussed , nor am I .That is why I referred you to that lecture .
I approached that lecture unbiased and with an open mind , which you seem to be incapable of . You have expressed a predisposed bias against religion , which blinds you to the objective reasoning found in Ellis' arguments . I have no bias against religion , for I consider it a non-sequitur as it pertains to emotion rather than science . I don't think you are familiar at all with the sciences involved nor the means by which they put forward their hypotheses , nor do you understand them , if you were in fact exposed to them .
I've never claimed to be right or wrong , but only to be aware that there are possible conclusions , all logical , and that they have been reached by scientific AND philosophical means . YOUR problem as well as Russel's is that as soon as you here the word philosophical you automatically assume deism . Quantum Theory and hypotheses have been reached by both , but you would have known that had you listened to the lecture , and if you did , you would easily understand why .
The Universe and the reality we perceive as expressed by Science has these possibilities.

Pure Chance / Probability / Necessity / Purpose

If you find that hard to accept , then you are wasting my time and yours in further discussion on this subject . Be happy with your atheism and don't delude yourself into thinking your position is superior , because it is not . For mine is no more or less superior to yours , and that was laid out plainly and btw in quite an unbiased way by Ellis . I would tend to give more weight to such a scientist , who has 50 or so years of mastering Mathematics , Quantum Mechanics , Astronomy and Cosmology . If that doesn't do it for you QED than your only purpose on this blog is to evoke argument with folks like andalusi , and I expect you will have many , to laud your superiority over . The obvious advantage you have , and I think you enjoy exploiting , is that they are locked into their religious dogma in a very absolute manner . So you are dueling with opponents who have one hand tied behind their backs . So go take your pick , choose you're "atheist scientists " [ no denigration implied ] and listen to their Lectures , I have ,and as I said , I haven't just started studying these things yesterday , after all one of my favorites - Hawking , is an avowed atheist . I do find it curious though , that you usually chime in after Russel wit the same arguments ? Coincidence ? ....LOL or are you simply waiting on his relpies to fashion yours ? LOL...but hey that's subjective .

Good luck in your endeavor .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

You really need to stop with all the blather.  I stated that Ellis was a theist not because he offered a logical possibility of purpose but because he is an active quaker, a theistic position.  In other words I pointed out that he was a theist because he is a theist.  Yes I believer that bias undermines his position but it is not fatal to his abilities here.  No I have not watched the lecture in full, it goes for almost two hours and so far I’ve only reached about 1 hour into it but it is interesting so far though mostly he drones on and on with stuff I already know.

 

I pointed out not only that he’s a theist but that he’s a mathematician, a mathematician who disagrees with a quantum physicist on quantum physics which is out of his domain and training though I understand that he has dabbled and has written with the likes of Hawking so he’s no slouch here.

 

Another serious flaw in his world view is that he holds to the view that there must be a platonic realm predating the universe, this is an idea that the majority of those trained in philosophy and science have rejected though it does still have adherents, but it is a religious / philosophical idea not a scientific one.  Let me explain. According to this view espoused by Ellis, there is a platonic realm that holds the blue prints for everything before it can be created, a realm of designs and rules under which everything that comes into existence must operate.  He further states that this rule set must predate the universe.  That would mean that there must be a connection of some kind between that realm and this universe that allows the platonic realm to control this universe, no such has ever been found, not even a hint.  Plato took this as far as suggesting that animals were bound by forms to a ‘perfect form’ and all earthy creations were imperfect attempts to reach that perfect form.  Of course science, especially evolutionary theory, has destroyed that idea and Ellis does not claim that his forms are as restrictive as that.  Ellis claims that there is a possibility space that encompasses this reality which means there is a platonic ideal that defines that 1+1=2.  Yes that’s a simple example and the fact is that any mathematical formula, no matter how complex, could be substituted with the same result but a simple one will suffice.  Firstly imagine the alternative, what if the platonic realm defined that 1+1=3.  Now count the animals in my back yard pen, there’s one elephant (I live for the sake of argument in Africa) and one ant, that makes 3 creatures but what is the extra one?  Is it half elephant and half ant?  The platonic realm idea is foolish, such things are true because the alternative is absurd, illogical, irrational and so impossible.

 

So we know that Ellis holds to at least two evidentially unsupportable positions, Quakerism and the platonic realm.  He also suggests that for all quantum mechanical solutions to the origin of the universe there must pre-exist a substrate, an underlying structure of some kind but remember here that he’s a mathematician not a quantum physicist, the quantum physicist who forumalted the tunnelling model I have been describing presented a model in which the tunnelling event occurred from nothing and was the first activity involved in the creation of our universe. It was created by applying the well understood rules of quantum mechanics to nothing at all.  There was no substrate even though Ellis claims that all such formulations have one.  Maybe Ellis is just a bit out of date here.  It was specifically created to overcome this very argument.  Yes it’s not tested and it may well be false but the maths works from nothing at all so Ellis is simply wrong when he claims that this is not possible.

 

I’ll keep watching and see what else he comes up with but so far he’s not very impressive because some of the things he is espousing are well known to be false or at least deeply suspect.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to accept the conclusions reached by Phd's , professors and those who are on the leading edge of Science .

So you accept the conclusions of Professor Krauss (PhD, the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies, plus a long list of other awards from genuine scientific bodies) to name but one, as well as those of Ellis (received the Templeton Prize for Attempting to Make Religion Sound Scientific.)

I can't remember what Krauss' conclusions were but as you say you accept them, perhaps you could remind me?

 

BTW, I hope you don't suffer from hay fever because the number of straw men you had there would set anyone's allergies off.

 

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”


×