Instagram

Sohail Speaks Ponty''s Blog Fountain's Pen

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread: Religion and Meme Theory

Results 1 to 80 of 145
  1. #1
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    14,445
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Religion and Meme Theory

    Hello Namak_Halaal,

    The Lut thread is going to get confusing if I post a reply to you on there, so here is a seperate thread for it.

    I'm happy to play the pure Materialist for a bit if you like, to see where it takes us......


    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    I just don't understand how chance can program humans; it sounds absurd.

    Anyway, you claimed Good/Evil are human concepts and that rape is evil only because humans say so. [Post #173]

    How does that fit in with the Meme theory?
    The UltraDarwinist position is that the Abrahamic religions can all be desribed as memeplexes i.e. aggregrations of memes, which are self-replicating information-viruses. These memeplexes are more successful than the Pagan systems which they replaced, having been selected out by a system of controls similar to natural selection.

    The Christianity memeplex has become aggregated further with Pagan memes, though the Islam memeplex appears to me to resist such aggregation.

    These memeplexes form the basis of the morality of our cultures.

  2. #2
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello Robert

    What is this? Is this established science or another yet to be established theory? Do you have a link explaining this because you haven't in your OP?

  3. #3
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    14,445
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Hello Robert

    What is this? Is this established science or another yet to be established theory? Do you have a link explaining this because you haven't in your OP?
    Here you go KK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

  4. #4
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Venue
    Lala Land- COAS
    Runs
    23,694
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One word comes to mind after reading this theory. SATAN alias IBLEES

  5. #5
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Thanks Robert.

    So it's some hogwash theory mainly composed by an extremist atheist Richard Dawkins which doesn't hold any scientific basis?

  6. #6
    Debut
    Nov 2010
    Runs
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Its a joke you are using wikipedia as your SOURCE as wikipedia is not RECOGNIZED as a reliable trust-worthy site. Post some other sources to back up your claims.

  7. #7
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    extremist atheist Richard Dawkins
    What do you mean by 'extremist atheist'?

  8. #8
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jzdanish View Post
    Its a joke you are using wikipedia as your SOURCE as wikipedia is not RECOGNIZED as a reliable trust-worthy site. Post some other sources to back up your claims.
    Robert was merely using Wiki to show what Meme is and how it came about, I'm sure he knows it's not a recognised source. I doubt any respected scientific source would accept this theory.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    What do you mean by 'extremist atheist'?
    Well I've watched a lot of his shows and read some of his material. He is not happy with just being an athiest he is on some personal mission to attack established religions. He obviously has his reasons but to me this is extreme. I'm a Muslim and thefore believe other religions are not correct since there could only be one true way of life from God but if I spend a lot of time attacking other religions and beliefs people would rightly call me an extremist wouldn't they?

  10. #10
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Well I've watched a lot of his shows and read some of his material. He is not happy with just being an athiest he is on some personal mission to attack established religions. He obviously has his reasons but to me this is extreme. I'm a Muslim and thefore believe other religions are not correct since there could only be one true way of life from God but if I spend a lot of time attacking other religions and beliefs people would rightly call me an extremist wouldn't they?
    Actually, I don't think he 'attacks' anyone. Mostly he debunks creationists, but as an atheist he obviously would deny the existence of god and take part in debates. When people asks questions about god, he would obviously present his viewpoint.

    And he has said that he would be much happier if people believe that god created humans through evolution (though he himself does not believe in god) instead of promoting pseudoscience IIRC.

    And finally your analogy does not apply here because atheism isn't a belief,. It is lack of belief.

  11. #11
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Actually, I don't think he 'attacks' anyone. Mostly he debunks creationists, but as an atheist he obviously would deny the existence of god and take part in debates. When people asks questions about god, he would obviously present his viewpoint.

    And he has said that he would be much happier if people believe that god created humans through evolution (though he himself does not believe in god) instead of promoting pseudoscience IIRC.

    And finally your analogy does not apply here because atheism isn't a belief,. It is lack of belief.
    Wrong, atheism may be a lack of belief of an all powerful creator but it's still a belief that there is NO creator. Atheists don't keep an open mind they feel they are certain there is no creator.

    Dawkins has produced books such as 'The God delusion' so for him to suggest people who believe in God are deluded is extreme and is attacking people of faith. If a Muslim was to write a book called 'The Hinduism delusion' he/she would be seen as extreme so I'm just applying the same fairness to Mr Dawkins. Penty of writers have wrote against 'The God delusion' you should try and read some.

    I'm not sure how many people of faith would waste their time with Dawkins, he usually gets questions from fellow deniers of God.

    At the end of the day Dawkins or any other atheist fall to the same line 'it came about by chance' while others believe'it came about because of an all powerful creator'. The second one is makes more season with logic.

  12. #12
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Wrong, atheism may be a lack of belief of an all powerful creator but it's still a belief that there is NO creator. Atheists don't keep an open mind they feel they are certain there is no creator.
    Wrong. Athiests cease to believe in god because there is no scientific evidence to believe that there is a god. But still fwiw, Dawkins calls himself an agonostic.

    Here is how he describes himself according to the belief chart

    Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
    Dawkins has produced books such as 'The God delusion' so for him to suggest people who believe in God are deluded is extreme and is attacking people of faith. If a Muslim was to write a book called 'The Hinduism delusion' he/she would be seen as extreme so I'm just applying the same fairness to Mr Dawkins. Penty of writers have wrote against 'The God delusion' you should try and read some.
    Actually, god delusion is not an attack, he refutes the popular claims of theists rationally. If you can write 'Hinduism delusion' with such reasoning and intellectual honesty sure. But since you 'believe' in your religion, it would be hypocritical of you to do so.



    I'm not sure how many people of faith would waste their time with Dawkins, he usually gets questions from fellow deniers of God.

    At the end of the day Dawkins or any other atheist fall to the same line 'it came about by chance' while others believe'it came about because of an all powerful creator'. The second one is makes more season with logic.

    I don't know what his views has got anything to do with atheism. While he debates scientific matters, he tries to stay on topic. His views are just what are shared other scientists who studies and researches the topic of evolution and it's evidence. Please watch his videos on science and tell me what problem you have with them.

  13. #13
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Hello Namak_Halaal,

    The Lut thread is going to get confusing if I post a reply to you on there, so here is a seperate thread for it.

    I'm happy to play the pure Materialist for a bit if you like, to see where it takes us......




    The UltraDarwinist position is that the Abrahamic religions can all be desribed as memeplexes i.e. aggregrations of memes, which are self-replicating information-viruses. These memeplexes are more successful than the Pagan systems which they replaced, having been selected out by a system of controls similar to natural selection.

    The Christianity memeplex has become aggregated further with Pagan memes, though the Islam memeplex appears to me to resist such aggregation.

    These memeplexes form the basis of the morality of our cultures.
    Hey dude!

    Thank you for taking time out to answer my post.

    My obvious questions would be the following, the notion of Rape being evil is not exclusive to Theism. Athiests and Agnostics also believe Rape is evil. This leads me to the question, if Meme theory is true, then how is it that a unit of information/culture that is passed on to the next generation, possible to ignore or subscribe? For example, if I am not mistaken, you were once a Christian and now an Athiest, but devoid of Meme theory, you still believe Rape is evil. Doesn't freewill falsify Meme theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Wrong, atheism may be a lack of belief of an all powerful creator but it's still a belief that there is NO creator. Atheists don't keep an open mind they feel they are certain there is no creator.
    Exactly, an Agnostic is open minded in that an Agnostic isn't sure and simply follows where the evidence takes them. An Athiest however holds the belief there is no God, meaning they are 100% certain of the notion in the same way Theists are 100% certain that there is a God.

    Atheism and Theism are two opposities - opposites of faith based initatives - whereas Agnostics sit in the middle. I have found that many of the Athiests I speak to are not Athiests at all, but Agnostics.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 19:21.

  14. #14
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post

    Exactly, an Agnostic is open minded in that an Agnostic isn't sure and simply follows where the evidence takes them. An Athiest however holds the belief there is no God, meaning they are 100% certain of the notion in the same way Theists are 100% certain that there is a God.

    Atheism and Theism are two opposities - opposites of faith based initatives - whereas Agnostics sit in the middle. I have found that many of the Athiests I speak to are not Athiests at all, but Agnostics.
    Yeah I have to agree with the part that agnosticism is the more apt term than atheism.

  15. #15
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Wrong. Athiests cease to believe in god because there is no scientific evidence to believe that there is a god. But still fwiw, Dawkins calls himself an agonostic.

    Here is how he describes himself according to the belief chart
    He only comes to this definition because he cannot prove God doesn't exist.

    He says "I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

    Agnostics keeps an open mind either way, Dawkins clearly doesn't.



    Actually, god delusion is not an attack, he refutes the popular claims of theists rationally. If you can write 'Hinduism delusion' with such reasoning and intellectual honesty sure. But since you 'believe' in your religion, it would be hypocritical of you to do so.
    The title itself shows he is an extremist atheist. Why do people who believe in a creator have to be deluded? There are people who believe in a creator who are proffesionals and educated people in all walks off life.

    Dawkins believes there is no God so he does have stance on my religion it's the same thing if a person of one belief attacks another calling followers deluded, both are extreme. You seem to be saying an athiest can't be extreme?



    I don't know what his views has got anything to do with atheism. While he debates scientific matters, he tries to stay on topic. His views are just what are shared other scientists who studies and researches the topic of evolution and it's evidence. Please watch his videos on science and tell me what problem you have with them.
    I have done and as I've said him and all athiests end up at the same point, something along the lines of 'we don't know how everything came about and it must be chance.'

    From a rational point of view I would rather accept we came from an all powerful creator rather than by chance.

  16. #16
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Yeah I have to agree with the part that agnosticism is the more apt term than atheism.
    Yet Dawkins is an Athiest since he uses his POVs in an attempt to disprove the notion of God and attacks religion. That's the difference. An Agnostic would not use their POVs to disprove or prove the existence of God.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 19:44.

  17. #17
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    He only comes to this definition because he cannot prove God doesn't exist.

    He says "I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

    Agnostics keeps an open mind either way, Dawkins clearly doesn't.
    Yeah, we can't disprove anything. I mean anything. I can't disprove sphagetti monster. I can't disprove unicorns either.

    And I don't see what's wrong with that statement. Since there is no proof for the existence of good, he choose to live the life on the assumption that it isn't there.




    The title itself shows he is an extremist atheist. Why do people who believe in a creator have to be deluded? There are people who believe in a creator who are proffesionals and educated people in all walks off life.


    He explains why he chose the term delusion in the book itself:

    The word ‘delusion’ in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: ‘relusion’.2 Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with ‘delusion’, and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as ‘a false belief or impression’.
    Dawkins believes there is no God so he does have stance on my religion it's the same thing if a person of one belief attacks another calling followers deluded, both are extreme. You seem to be saying an athiest can't be extreme?
    Atheists can be extreme, as any other human beings. And again dawkins is an agnostic and accepts that there may or may not be a god.

    I have done and as I've said him and all athiests end up at the same point, something along the lines of 'we don't know how everything came about and it must be chance.'

    From a rational point of view I would rather accept we came from an all powerful creator rather than by chance.
    What? That means you have not seen the videos surely. 'It must be a chance' - thats oversimplification at its best.

    And how is it more rational to believe the creator, since you are required to believe that the creator always existed?
    Last edited by hipster; 26th April 2011 at 19:48.

  18. #18
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Yeah, we can't disprove anything. I mean anything. I can't disprove sphagetti monster. I can't disprove unicorns either.
    Horse manure! One can disprove the existence of God, simply by creating life from nothing using natural processes and elements (Materialism), thereby proving life is the result of natural processes and not supernatural processes.

    Why do you think the most vehement subscribers of Materialism and Darwinism are Athiests? Materialism is the cornerstone of Atheism.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 19:51.

  19. #19
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    Yet Dawkins is an Athiest since he uses his POVs in an attempt to disprove the notion of God and attacks religion. That's the difference. An Agnostic would not use their POVs to disprove or prove the existence of God.
    Attempt to disprove? What's there to disprove? And what do you mean by 'attack'?

    Agnostics take a skeptical approach which is exactly what Dawkins do. I have never heard him deny the possibility of god.

  20. #20
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Yeah I have to agree with the part that agnosticism is the more apt term than atheism.
    This proves to me that you have no idea of what you susbcribe to! One minute you're an Athiest, and the next, Agnostic. Reeks of mental insecurity.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 19:56.

  21. #21
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Attempt to disprove? What's there to disprove? And what do you mean by 'attack'?

    Agnostics take a skeptical approach which is exactly what Dawkins do. I have never heard him deny the possibility of god.
    You've changed your tune, you were harping on about Athiesm and now all of a sudden every Athiest is an Agnostic, including yourself and Dawkins.

    Dawkins is no Agnostic, to quote you

    Dawkins believes there is no God so he does have stance on my religion it's the same thing if a person of one belief attacks another calling followers deluded, both are extreme. You seem to be saying an athiest can't be extreme?
    I thought Agnostics were unsure yet Dawkins is sure to the point he believes there is no God.

    You are chasing your own tail.

  22. #22
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Since there is no proof for the existence of good, he choose to live the life on the assumption that it isn't there.
    Since there is no proof that Materialism can give rise to life, I choose to live life on the assumption that there is a supernatural entity that is responsible.

  23. #23
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    Horse manure! One can disprove the existence of God, simply by creating life from nothing using natural processes and elements (Materialism), thereby proving life is the result of natural processes and not supernatural processes.

    Why do you think the most vehement subscribers of Materialism and Darwinism are Athiests? Materialism is the cornerstone of Atheism.
    One could argue that god blessed humans with skills to create life forms. One guy yesterday argued me that god gave humans intellect to invent medicines.

    And the concept of 'god' differs in every religion, so.

  24. #24
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    This proves to me that you have no idea of what you susbcribe to! One minute you're an Athiest, and the next, Agnostic. Reeks of mental insecurity.
    Where did I say I'm an Atheist? And not that a term would make a big difference anyway. What are you trying to prove?

  25. #25
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Yeah, we can't disprove anything. I mean anything. I can't disprove sphagetti monster. I can't disprove unicorns either.
    We can disprove most things and if it was true there is no creator this would have been disproved by now but all the scientific evidence regarding how the univerese was created shows the complex and control of how things came into being and evolved. You tell me you believe in the sphagetti monster and we will see if this can be disproved.

    And I don't see what's wrong with that statement. Since there is no proof for the existence of good, he choose to live the life on the assumption that it isn't there.
    There is a difference between proof and evidence. If the Creator wanted to provide certain proof he would have but he has provided plenty of evidence of him existing including the Quran.



    He explains why he chose the term delusion in the book itself:
    lol. He uses a definition from a certain dictionary which is not so offensive. A cheap shot from Dawkins which isn't nothing new.

    Here is the oxford definition.

    noun

    an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:
    Now if I say athiests are deluded meaning they have some sort of mental disorder then I would rightly be described as extreme.


    Atheists can be extreme, as any other human beings. And again dawkins is an agnostic and accepts that there may or may not be a god.
    No he's not. He doesn't accept there could be a God, he just can't prove their isn't so that's why he makes such statements. Dawkins clearly believes there is no God/Creator and people who believe such a thing are deluded.


    What? That means you have not seen the videos surely. 'It must be a chance' - thats oversimplification at its best.

    And how is it more rational to believe the creator, since you are required to believe that the creator always existed?

    It maybe but this is where the atheist ends up. Dawkins himself has admitted he doesn't know who matter came into existance but at the same time doesn't believe it came from an all powerful creator, only leaving chance as an explanation.

    It's very easy to believe in a Creator and it is more rational since we know the complex and controlled way the universe came into existance.

  26. #26
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    One could argue that god blessed humans with skills to create life forms. One guy yesterday argued me that god gave humans intellect to invent medicines.

    And the concept of 'god' differs in every religion, so.
    Irrelevant. When Muslims, Christians, and Jews talk of God they mean a creator - you know this. Quit hiding behind semantics. There's no argument here, Materialists can falsify the notion of god (A supernatural creator) by creating life through natrual processes. This is a fact, accept it.

  27. #27
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Where did I say I'm an Atheist? And not that a term would make a big difference anyway. What are you trying to prove?
    OK - what ever you say.

  28. #28
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    You've changed your tune, you were harping on about Athiesm and now all of a sudden every Athiest is an Agnostic, including yourself and Dawkins.

    Dawkins is no Agnostic, to quote you
    I can't bother to check all this minor things up. Dawkins believe that there might be a god but it's extremely improbable that such a god exists. I can't type all that stuff up, so I say dawkins believe in no god. Is that okay for you? Or should I write all that up to make you happy?


    I thought Agnostics were unsure yet Dawkins is sure to the point he believes there is no God.

    You are chasing your own tail.
    Don't take my words, I have quoted dawkins himself and he makes his stance quite clear.

  29. #29
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    Irrelevant. When Muslims, Christians, and Jews talk of God they mean a creator - you know this. Quit hiding behind semantics. There's no argument here, Materialists can falsify the notion of god (A supernatural creator) by creating life through natrual processes. This is a fact, accept it.
    So what you imply by this - that you don't care about what non Abrahamic religions say?

    Just because you try to shove your statements down my throat doesn't make it necessarily true. I have given you example where the guy said during a debate yesterday, that god gifted us the intellect to invent medicines and kill the pathogens which are his own creations.

  30. #30
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post

    Don't take my words, I have quoted dawkins himself and he makes his stance quite clear.
    His stance his clear, he doesn't believe in a God, thus is an Athiest. He doesn't claim he is unsure of a God which would make him an Agnostic.

    Give up on this point.

  31. #31
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    So what you imply by this - that you don't care about what non Abrahamic religions say?

    Just because you try to shove your statements down my throat doesn't make it necessarily true. I have given you example where the guy said during a debate yesterday, that god gifted us the intellect to invent medicines and kill the pathogens which are his own creations.
    You tried to wriggle yourself out of a corner by claiming God could mean something else when I stated that Materialism could falsify the notion of God. Clearly God means creator in the context of this thread. meaing the existence of God can be disproved.

  32. #32
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    We can disprove most things and if it was true there is no creator this would have been disproved by now but all the scientific evidence regarding how the univerese was created shows the complex and control of how things came into being and evolved. You tell me you believe in the sphagetti monster and we will see if this can be disproved.
    Yeah I do believe that an invisible spaghetti monster controls the earth. Prove me wrong.



    There is a difference between proof and evidence. If the Creator wanted to provide certain proof he would have but he has provided plenty of evidence of him existing including the Quran.
    Circular logic. God exists because quran says saw. Quran is true because it is the word of god. Evidence here means scientific evidence, there is none.




    lol. He uses a definition from a certain dictionary which is not so offensive. A cheap shot from Dawkins which isn't nothing new.

    Here is the oxford definition.



    Now if I say athiests are deluded meaning they have some sort of mental disorder then I would rightly be described as extreme.
    You wont be. If you can back your claims up with some good reasoning and logic. The content is what matters afterall.




    No he's not. He doesn't accept there could be a God, he just can't prove their isn't so that's why he makes such statements. Dawkins clearly believes there is no God/Creator and people who believe such a thing are deluded.
    He doesn't accept there could be a god? I would rather take his word on this than yours.




    It maybe but this is where the atheist ends up. Dawkins himself has admitted he doesn't know who matter came into existance but at the same time doesn't believe it came from an all powerful creator, only leaving chance as an explanation.

    It's very easy to believe in a Creator and it is more rational since we know the complex and controlled way the universe came into existance.

    No it isn't. If creation is complex, creator is even more complex. And many times I see theists saying we don't know the reason but god knows the best.


    How does that make things any simple?

  33. #33
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    We can disprove most things and if it was true there is no creator this would have been disproved by now but all the scientific evidence regarding how the univerese was created shows the complex and control of how things came into being and evolved. You tell me you believe in the sphagetti monster and we will see if this can be disproved.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a classical retort to ID with respect to the intelligent creator, commonly invoked by Athiests. The real sadness stems from the fact that Athiests rather believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster than in a God, for the puporse of making a point, what they do not realise is that whether it is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or God, both must sit in supernatural dimension.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 20:29.

  34. #34
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    It's very easy to believe in a Creator and it is more rational since we know the complex and controlled way the universe came into existance.
    Spot on.

    Cause is the point.

    Based on chance the creation of the universe has probablilty that is astronomical; close to improbable.

    Based on a supernatural creator the creation of the universe has a probability of 1.

    Probability of 1 is far more simpler compared to a probability close to 0.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 20:32.

  35. #35
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Yeah I do believe that an invisible spaghetti monster controls the earth. Prove me wrong.
    Why?


    Circular logic. God exists because quran says saw. Quran is true because it is the word of god. Evidence here means scientific evidence, there is none.
    No it's not. I'm simply saying the Creator has given us some evidence of his existance and one of those the Quran.



    You wont be. If you can back your claims up with some good reasoning and logic. The content is what matters afterall.
    So you accept his use of the world deluded was a pathetic attack on those who believe in God?


    He doesn't accept there could be a god? I would rather take his word on this than yours.
    So would many others. Dawkins is an athiest and to suggest he is not is delusion.




    No it isn't. If creation is complex, creator is even more complex. And many times I see theists saying we don't know the reason but god knows the best.


    How does that make things any simple?
    If the creation of the univerise was a complex and controlled event this merely points to a Creator or something powerful which has made this to happen. It doesn't point to random chance as athiests end up at. I don't see why the Creator can't be complex if he is so powerful. This doesn't prove anything.


    NH


    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a classical retort to ID with respect to or the intelligent creator, commonly invoked by Athiests. The real sadness stem from the fact that Athiests rather believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster than in a God, for the pruporse of making a point, what they do not realise that whether it is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or God, both must sit in supernatural dimension

    Sure it's an old response. Personally I feel there is no such as an athiest, ie someone who truly believes there is no God. Lock up 10 atheists in a single dark room and before they die I'm sure every single one of them will ask for help from an outisde power ie God. Don't try this at home.

  36. #36
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    His stance his clear, he doesn't believe in a God, thus is an Athiest. He doesn't claim he is unsure of a God which would make him an Agnostic.

    Give up on this point.
    Should I take his word or your word on his viewpoints?

  37. #37
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Should I take his word or your word on his viewpoints?
    Take his word.

    Are you resorting to semantics again? Dawkins believes there is no God - Athiest.

    One who is unsure is an Agnostic.

    End of.

  38. #38
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a classical retort to ID with respect to the intelligent creator, commonly invoked by Athiests. The real sadness stems from the fact that Athiests rather believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster than in a God, for the puporse of making a point, what they do not realise is that whether it is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or God, both must sit in supernatural dimension.
    LOL atheists don't 'believe' in the sphagetti monster. Being sarcastic to prove a point means they 'believe' the concept? That's some assertion.

  39. #39
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post

    Sure it's an old response. Personally I feel there is no such as an athiest, ie someone who truly believes there is no God. Lock up 10 atheists in a single dark room and before they die I'm sure every single one of them will ask for help from an outisde power ie God. Don't try this at home.
    Very interesting point!

  40. #40
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    LOL atheists don't 'believe' in the sphagetti monster. Being sarcastic and proving a point means they 'believe' the concept? That's some assertion.
    No, read what I said, I never claimed Athiests believe in the FSM, I'm saying when you resort to the FSM to make a point against God you fail to realise that the FSM must also live in a supernatural dimension; hence, FSM is a MOOT POINT!

  41. #41
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hipster, forget everything, does freewill falsify Meme theory?

  42. #42
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    Very interesting point!
    There is a verse in the Quran which basically states the human in times of desperation will call out to Allah(swt). I know of athiests in times of need turned to God.

    There was this guy who recently was lost in the Australian bush.

    The British backpacker who survived 12 days after getting lost in the Australian bush todayrevealed how he had prayed to God for help, written goodbye notes to his family and thought he faced a "long, painful starvation death" during his ordeal.

    "I am not a particularly religious person but I started thinking about God and was praying, saying surely, surely you can move the helicopter an inch and find me. I was thinking that I might die on the mountain and in the notebook I had, which I later lost, I had actually written some goodbye notes, things to family, saying sorry and explaining how I got lost and things like that. I thought I was going to have a long painful starvation death where I could just really think it over and over and over again."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/australia

  43. #43
    Debut
    Nov 2010
    Runs
    1,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Yeah I have to agree with the part that agnosticism is the more apt term than atheism.
    i think there is a clear difference there.an agnostic is open to the possibility of a Superior Intelligence which was responsible for giving rise to ''life''.an atheist on the other hand rejects the notion alltogether.

    Both religious people and atheists have problems..the problem i have with the atheist stance is that it rejects the possibility of a Creator because there is no scientific evidence to support that.fine..but then have we succeeded in demostrating ''abiogenesis''..no.we havent even come close and there is nothing to suggest that we'd be able to do that in the recent future.

    so what we can state as fact right now based on evidence is that ''life'' gives rise to ''life'..that may not be true some 500 years later when we know more on the subject but that is what it is right now...we cant reject the possiblity of a Creator giving rise to the first form of life on earth.

    the problem with religious view is probably bigger..even if one ''assumes'' a Creator is responsible,then which one is it.The Muslim God,the Christian God or anyone of the dozen or so entities worshipped all over the world.whos to tell which one is it?.
    and whos to say it must be one of those stated above.it could very well be some Entity that none of us is aware of right now.

    so all in all i think an agnosticism offers the most reasonable view at this point of time in Science.he is open to all possiblities.

  44. #44
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Where did I say I'm an Atheist?
    You do not have to.

    When I asked you to explain why Creationism and Evoutionary principle cannot co-exist with each other you couldn't answer. Instead you claimed one cannot cherry pick Darwinian evolution and believe in God, meaning you believe Darwinian evolution fasifies Creationism, thus the two contradict each other - Creationism - the belief God created the universe et al.

    Mate, everypost I have read of yours has anti-religious overtones, including the posts in the Rani Mukherjee thread.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 20:54.

  45. #45
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Why?
    Okay since clearly some fail to grasp sarcasm, just to make clear I don't really believe in any god, including spaghetti monster.

    Now how can you disprove a spaghetti monster? Do you agree that the existence of spaghetti monster is plausible to the same degree as of the existence of Allah/Jesus?

    No it's not. I'm simply saying the Creator has given us some evidence of his existance and one of those the Quran.
    What are the evidences?




    So you accept his use of the world deluded was a pathetic attack on those who believe in God?
    Well, I think that might have been a wrong choice of word, despite what his intentions were. But as I said, I don't give a damn about the title, the content is all what matters. If I write an anti Islamic book with the title of Islam is the true religion, would that make my book any more authentic?


    So would many others. Dawkins is an athiest and to suggest he is not is delusion.
    No, he isn't. It's his viewpoint not yours. So I'd take his word, thanks.





    If the creation of the univerise was a complex and controlled event this merely points to a Creator or something powerful which has made this to happen. It doesn't point to random chance as athiests end up at. I don't see why the Creator can't be complex if he is so powerful. This doesn't prove anything.


    NH
    Whaaat?

    Creation = Complex
    Creator = More complex

    And you have to assume that the creator existed in the first place.





    Sure it's an old response. Personally I feel there is no such as an athiest, ie someone who truly believes there is no God. Lock up 10 atheists in a single dark room and before they die I'm sure every single one of them will ask for help from an outisde power ie God. Don't try this at home.
    Get 10 theists in a room and they'll all will deny the existence of god before they die because the all powerful god didn't help them from getting locked in a room.
    Last edited by hipster; 26th April 2011 at 20:54.

  46. #46
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Get 10 theists in a room and they'll all will deny the existence of god before they die because the all powerful god didn't help them from getting locked in a room.
    KingKhanWC substantiated his point with evidence, now it's your turn.

  47. #47
    Debut
    Nov 2010
    Runs
    1,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On Dawkins,well after the death of Gould,he is unarguably the brightest evolutionary biologist on the planet.i dont have a problem with his stance either.Its his opinion and he is honest enough to express it openly everywhere.

    The only issue i have with him is when he jumps to religion/history/philosophy.he simply doesnt have the knowledge to be an expert on these topics..

  48. #48
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    You do not have to.

    When I asked you to explain why Creationism and Evoutionary principle cannot co-exist with each other you couldn't answer. Instead you claimed one cannot cherry pick Darwinian evolution and believe in God, meaning you believe Darwinian evolution fasifies Creationism - the belief God created the universe et al.

    Mate, everypost I have read of yours has anti-religious overtones.
    Creationism is a broad term, first lets be clear on what's your view this?

    It's not my fault that you feel my posts have anti religious overtones. I give enough respect for posters like shaykh, who holds the viewpoint that everything can't be explain and doesn't use pseudoscience to justify religion.

  49. #49
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grunge View Post
    i think there is a clear difference there.an agnostic is open to the possibility of a Superior Intelligence which was responsible for giving rise to ''life''.an atheist on the other hand rejects the notion alltogether.

    Both religious people and atheists have problems..the problem i have with the atheist stance is that it rejects the possibility of a Creator because there is no scientific evidence to support that.fine..but then have we succeeded in demostrating ''abiogenesis''..no.we havent even come close and there is nothing to suggest that we'd be able to do that in the recent future.

    so what we can state as fact right now based on evidence is that ''life'' gives rise to ''life'..that may not be true some 500 years later when we know more on the subject but that is what it is right now...we cant reject the possiblity of a Creator giving rise to the first form of life on earth.

    the problem with religious view is probably bigger..even if one ''assumes'' a Creator is responsible,then which one is it.The Muslim God,the Christian God or anyone of the dozen or so entities worshipped all over the world.whos to tell which one is it?.
    and whos to say it must be one of those stated above.it could very well be some Entity that none of us is aware of right now.

    so all in all i think an agnosticism offers the most reasonable view at this point of time in Science.he is open to all possiblities.
    Yeah pretty much agree. I was just concurring to NH's post that most atheists are in fact agnostics. Which I find true.

  50. #50
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Creationism is a broad term, first lets be clear on what's your view this?
    Mate you were the one who Googled the definition of creationism since I mentioned it was a broad term, but no, you cited a Wiki definition which I'm using now! I am using the definition you supplied! LOL!


    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    It's not my fault that you feel my posts have anti religious overtones. I give enough respect for posters like shaykh, who holds the viewpoint that everything can't be explain and doesn't use pseudoscience to justify religion.
    I've used science to challenge Darwinism, nothing more.

    Like I said you couldn't answer your own assertion in the first place. Anyway, that's history.

    Back to the OP. Does freewill falsify Meme theory?
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 21:21.

  51. #51
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    There is a verse in the Quran which basically states the human in times of desperation will call out to Allah(swt). I know of athiests in times of need turned to God.

    There was this guy who recently was lost in the Australian bush.



    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/australia
    I am not a particularly religious person
    Doesn't mean that atheist or an agnostic. Regardless, one might do a lot of things out in desperation, including cannibalism for survival. That doesn't account for the existance of god.

  52. #52
    Debut
    Nov 2010
    Runs
    1,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Doesn't mean that atheist or an agnostic. Regardless, one might do a lot of things out in desperation, including cannibalism for survival. That doesn't account for the existance of god.
    true that..plus it also works vice versa ..i know of several religious people that turned to atheism when faced with intense grief.

  53. #53
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Doesn't mean that atheist or an agnostic. Regardless, one might do a lot of things out in desperation, including cannibalism for survival. That doesn't account for the existance of god.
    I don't know about you guys, but I can tell that Hipster doesn't have a leg to stand on. When asked to substaniate his point with evidence, he criticises the 'quality' of KKWC's piece instead. What a beauty.

    What's up Hipster? Evidence not from an authentic source? ;)
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 21:18.

  54. #54
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Okay since clearly some fail to grasp sarcasm, just to make clear I don't really believe in any god, including spaghetti monster.
    Shocking!

    Now how can you disprove a spaghetti monster? Do you agree that the existence of spaghetti monster is plausible to the same degree as of the existence of Allah/Jesus?
    No I don't. The spaghetti monster is an argument from atheists to ridicule while the Creator is accepted by the majority of the planet backed up by scripture and by people who have been sent as Prophets and Messangers.


    What are the evidences?
    The Quran itself is a major one if the the main evidence. I you are geniune in your interest please read part two and three.

    http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55684



    Well, I think that might have been a wrong choice of word, despite what his intentions were. But as I said, I don't give a damn about the title, the content is all what matters. If I write an anti Islamic book with the title of Islam is the true religion, would that make my book any more authentic?
    The problem is people such as Dawkins have only one agenda to insult/ridicule people who believe in God and to push their version of extremist atheism. Surely a more neutral and less derogartry point of view would be more reasonable?



    No, he isn't. It's his viewpoint not yours. So I'd take his word, thanks.
    I don't think you understand his viewpoint but we will agree to disagree on this.




    Whaaat?

    Creation = Complex
    Creator = More complex

    And you have to assume that the creator existed in the first place.
    There is no contradiction here. All we know is the space and time from the creation of the universe and how complex and controlled the beginning was. We can't try to understand the complexity of the Creator since we have never known it.




    Get 10 theists in a room and they'll all will deny the existence of god before they die because the all powerful god didn't help them from getting locked in a room.
    lol. Good one but it falls apart. A believer will not deny the existance of God because he/she finds themselves in a troubled situation, infact if these ten theists are true believers their faith will increase in such a situation.

    I hope you don't mind me asking you this? I think you are good poster even though you have different views.

    Have you ever asked for God's help throughout your life, ever?

  55. #55
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    Mate you were the one who Googled the definition of creationism since I mentioned it was a broad term, but no, you cited a Wiki definition which I'm using now! I am using the definition you supplied! LOL!
    So you don't have a clear stance or what? There are a lot of them and I don't bother researching what nonsense they say. One that I know of is young earth creationist. Since I presume you are not that:



    I've used science to challenge Humpty Dumpty Darwinism, nothing more.

    Like I said you couldn't answer your own assertion in the first place. Anyway, that's history.
    1. I have given you evidence of NS & RM. How surviving bacteria developed mutations after being exposed to penicillin.

    2. And the 'missing links' you have asked for. Lots of them. Since you weren't convinced by wiki, I gave you authentic sources.



    Back to the OP. Does freewill falsify Meme theory?
    I'm not much familiar with it actually, so I'll leave that to rob.

  56. #56
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Doesn't mean that atheist or an agnostic. Regardless, one might do a lot of things out in desperation, including cannibalism for survival. That doesn't account for the existance of god.
    Good try but a very big difference.

    If you're hungy and need to survive you will eat, no doubt about that. Even Muslims are allowed to eat pigs in such circumstances.

    Asking for God's help is not the same since a true athiest will not do this knowing it won't make a slightest difference (such as eating food will stop the hunger).

    Asking for Gods help is down to a matter of faith from inside the human being. Some who is truly an athiest would never do this so if so called athiests do this they are not athiests after all.

    This is the magnificence of the God's creation of the human being, he has given all humans the need for him at one point or at all times in our lives. This is why you find lost tribes with beliefs of an all powerful being even if they are wrong in the way they recognise him.

  57. #57
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    So you don't have a clear stance or what? There are a lot of them and I don't bother researching what nonsense they say. One that I know of is young earth creationist. Since I presume you are not that!

    1. I have given you evidence of NS & RM. How surviving bacteria developed mutations after being exposed to penicillin.

    2. And the 'missing links' you have asked for. Lots of them. Since you weren't convinced by wiki, I gave you authentic sources.
    To be honest, this thread is a belter, I rather not dicsuss the fallacy behind RM+NS or your inability to defend your assertions in this thread. Feel free to continue in the relevant thread but you know the deal, you need to explain to me why Creationism and Evolutionary principle contradict each other before I entertain your posts on RM+NS.

    I kind of like the idea that we're discussing mindsets/ideologies in this thread opposed to the specific details.



    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    I'm not much familiar with it actually, so I'll leave that to rob.
    OK fair enough, though I thought as a Dawkinist you'd be embracing the Meme theory.

  58. #58
    Debut
    Nov 2010
    Runs
    1,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    to be honest Rational thinking based on scientific evidence alone will never cause anyone to accept a certain religion..thats what ive come to believe in recent times.

    Religion is always part logic and part ''blind faith''...

  59. #59
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Shocking!



    No I don't. The spaghetti monster is an argument from atheists to ridicule while the Creator is accepted by the majority of the planet backed up by scripture and by people who have been sent as Prophets and Messangers.
    More circular logic. Your religion is true because the scripture says so.


    The Quran itself is a major one if the the main evidence. I you are geniune in your interest please read part two and three.

    http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55684
    I see the first one itself is a 24 minute video. Could you just summarize what those evidences are? It shouldn't be hard to point out should it?



    The problem is people such as Dawkins have only one agenda to insult/ridicule people who believe in God and to push their version of extremist atheism. Surely a more neutral and less derogartry point of view would be more reasonable?
    Well, as far as he doesn't propagate lies and baseless allegations, I don't think why one should be bothered. It's his opinion. And it's not extremist atheism, he's just more critical of religion, that's all.




    I don't think you understand his viewpoint but we will agree to disagree on this.
    As you say, but I don't think you have psychic powers to read his mind either. From that source, there's nothing conclusive as such. So yes, whatever you wanna believe.





    There is no contradiction here. All we know is the space and time from the creation of the universe and how complex and controlled the beginning was. We can't try to understand the complexity of the Creator since we have never known it.
    Yeah so why not apply the same logic and say universe always existed and we can't understand the complexity of it? The complexity was the reason proposed for a need of creator in first place.


    lol. Good one but it falls apart. A believer will not deny the existance of God because he/she finds themselves in a troubled situation, infact if these ten theists are true believers their faith will increase in such a situation.
    I didn't say so, but I could say my point is as valid as yours unless you have proper evidence to back your claim.

    I hope you don't mind me asking you this? I think you are good poster even though you have different views.

    Have you ever asked for God's help throughout your life, ever?
    Thanks mate, glad that you felt so.

    I used to believe god, since I my parents were believers (surprise surprise!) But once I started to grow up and think about it, all I could find was contradictions (between religions) and within religion. And hell, I'm not doing bad without religion either. In fact, that has made me learn a lot more about both science and religions. So I'm doing better in a way!

  60. #60
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    To be honest, this thread is a belter, I rather not dicsuss the fallacy behind RM+NS or your inability to defend your assertions in this thread. Feel free to continue in the relevant thread but you know the deal, you need to explain to me why Creationism and Evolutionary principle contradict each other before I entertain your posts on RM+NS.

    I kind of like the idea that we're discussing mindsets/ideologies in this thread opposed to the specific details.
    Okay since you didn't clear what sort of creationist you are, that's not possible. If you subscribe to Theistic or Evolutionary creationism, then there's not much of an issue.




    OK fair enough, though I thought as a Dawkinist you'd be embracing the Meme theory.
    What? Just because I respect him as a biologist (and he's damn good at it), doesn't mean I agree with all of his views.

    And what is dawkinism?

  61. #61
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grunge View Post
    to be honest Rational thinking based on scientific evidence alone will never cause anyone to accept a certain religion..thats what ive come to believe in recent times.

    Religion is always part logic and part ''blind faith''...
    Perfik.

  62. #62
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9...el_video_title


    About the complexity and chance - watch from: 10:08. Excellent video - explains it with a simple analogy. I would recommend everyone to watch it.
    Last edited by hipster; 26th April 2011 at 21:55.

  63. #63
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    14,445
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Thanks Robert.

    So it's some hogwash theory mainly composed by an extremist atheist Richard Dawkins which doesn't hold any scientific basis?
    I knew I shouldn't have posted a link with the words Richard Dawkins near the top.

    It's an idea about cultural evolution which he came up with in 1976. Others have developed it since, for example The Meme Machine by Professor of Psychology Susan Blackmore of Plymouth Uni.

  64. #64
    Debut
    Nov 2010
    Runs
    1,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Perfik.
    i also wonder sometimes about the part ''fear'' plays in an individual's decisions to stick to his/her faith.the fear of afterlife that seems to be incorporated in our minds since childhood.

  65. #65
    Debut
    Feb 2011
    Runs
    2,228
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njamal574 View Post
    One word comes to mind after reading this theory. SATAN alias IBLEES
    That itself is a powerful meme used to distance oneself from doing any thinking.

  66. #66
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    24,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    More circular logic. Your religion is true because the scripture says so.
    No it;s not like that with. I question my religion more than most but all those questions have been answered which has only made the faith grow stronger. Islam is not against questioning anything.


    I see the first one itself is a 24 minute video. Could you just summarize what those evidences are? It shouldn't be hard to point out should it?
    I would love to but there is written text of the videos further down the link. It's up to you but only reading it in full will give you a better understanding of the point of view. If you get round to reading the text or watching the videos let us know how you get on.


    Well, as far as he doesn't propagate lies and baseless allegations, I don't think why one should be bothered. It's his opinion. And it's not extremist atheism, he's just more critical of religion, that's all.
    Again we will agree to disagree on this, fair enough you know how I feel about him.


    Yeah so why not apply the same logic and say universe always existed and we can't understand the complexity of it? The complexity was the reason proposed for a need of creator in first place.
    Because we know it didn't and it started from a single point and is expanding. Muslims knew this before science discovered it as a fact.

    Quran 51:.47

    "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."


    I didn't say so, but I could say my point is as valid as yours unless you have proper evidence to back your claim.
    Some theist may lose faith in such a situation but I know many people who found themselves in troubled situations only to grow stronger in faith. For an athiest to again any faith in such a situation would deem them not to be an athiest in the first place.



    Thanks mate, glad that you felt so.

    I used to believe god, since I my parents were believers (surprise surprise!) But once I started to grow up and think about it, all I could find was contradictions (between religions) and within religion. And hell, I'm not doing bad without religion either. In fact, that has made me learn a lot more about both science and religions. So I'm doing better in a way!

    Many thanks for the above. I wish you all the best and as a Muslim I hope you find peace and one day believe in the Creator. This is not a digg but I you think something is true and good then you should hope for it for others.

  67. #67
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9...el_video_title


    About the complexity and chance - watch from: 10:08. Excellent video - explains it with a simple analogy. I would recommend everyone to watch it.
    I've already seen this, fact is analogies prove squat, also Myers has been refuted a number of times. I can present zillions of analogies in articles/vidz/discussion in an attempt to explain how complexity cannot rise through chance, but there's no point. This is precisly why I disagree with Dawkins, he too depends on analogies and wishy washy thinking when trying to palm off his view as truth - The Blind Watchmaker being the classic.

    We need empirical evidence.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 26th April 2011 at 22:08.

  68. #68
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grunge View Post
    i also wonder sometimes about the part ''fear'' plays in an individual's decisions to stick to his/her faith.the fear of afterlife that seems to be incorporated in our minds since childhood.
    Exactly. This is one of the major reasons that drove me away from religion. I should admit that I find the concept of karma by buddhism/hinudusm better in that regard tbh. (That doesn't mean that I believe in those religions of course)

  69. #69
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    Many thanks for the above. I wish you all the best and as a Muslim I hope you find peace and one day believe in the Creator. This is not a digg but I you think something is true and good then you should hope for it for others.
    Well, thanks and good luck to you too mate

  70. #70
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    I've already seen this, fact is analogies prove squat, also Myers has been refuted a number of times. I can present zillions of analogies in articles/vidz/discussion in an attempt to explain how complexity cannot rise through chance, but there's no point. This is precisly why I disagree with Dawkins, he too depends on analogies and wishy washy thinking when trying to palm off his view as truth - The Blind Watchmaker being the classic.

    We need empirical evidence.
    Evidence has already been presented. That was merely explaining how such phenomenon is possible logically.

    Once again, I'm paraphrasing the empirical evidence for you:

    1. The mutations developed in bacteria that survived the penicillin exposure and lice which get resistant to shampoos.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_07

    2. 'Missing links' - there are lots and lots of transitional fossils. Like aetiocetus.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...sitional.shtml

    Those are the most simplest of examples, but not the only ones.

  71. #71
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Venue
    Lala Land- COAS
    Runs
    23,694
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If any one is having any doubts about the presence of SATAN then read this thread.

    Verily Satan is an enemy to you: so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his adherents,that they may become Companions of the Blazing Fire. (35: 6)


    If a suggestion from Satan assail thy (mind), seek refuge with God; for He hears and knows (all things). Those who fear God, when a thought of evil from Satan assaults them, bring God to remembrance, when lo! They see (aright)! But their brethren (the evil ones) plunge them deeper into error, and never relax (their efforts). (7: 200–02)

  72. #72
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    Evidence has already been presented. That was merely explaining how such phenomenon is possible logically.

    Once again, I'm paraphrasing the empirical evidence for you:

    1. The mutations developed in bacteria that survived the penicillin exposure and lice which get resistant to shampoos.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_07

    2. 'Missing links' - there are lots and lots of transitional fossils. Like aetiocetus.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...sitional.shtml

    Those are the most simplest of examples, but not the only ones.


    Paraphrasing evidence to suit a bankrupt concept is akin to committing fraud and quite frankly reeks of utter desperation and ignorance.

    Let’s see. So random mutations develop allowing the bacteria to survive penicillin exposure and lice become resistant to shampoos. This is meant to be an example of RM + NS according to Darwinists. What horseshit.

    The bacteria are ‘purposefully’ responding to the exposure to shampoo etc (environment), the bacteria ‘activate’ a DNA sequence which enables resistance towards shampoo etc. The resistance is already encoded within DNA (information) but not activated, certainly not activated through chance but by choice (intelligence) with respect to the environment. (There was no need for the bacteria to activate resistence since it was never expose to shampoo before). Shampoo is the cause, organism inducing change with respect to the environment is the effect – this is not random but a telic process.

    As for NS, well, NS doesn’t select which bacteria survives and which does not, but rather certain bacteria posses the ability to induce change over other bacteria, it’s a simple case of death within bacteria that have yet to activate the DNA sequence that is responsible for resistance.

    Darwinism is the study of effect not cause - the simplest example you cite falsifies NS+RM and most certainly doesn’t prove the humpty dumpty mechanics of Darwinism.

    Cause + Effect, EAM, Teleology – look em up.

    Now, tell me why Creationism contradicts Evolutionary principle or STFU.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 27th April 2011 at 09:06.

  73. #73
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post


    Paraphrasing evidence to suit a bankrupt concept is akin to committing fraud and quite frankly reeks of utter desperation and ignorance.

    Let’s see. So random mutations develop allowing the bacteria to survive penicillin exposure and lice become resistant to shampoos. This is meant to be an example of RM + NS according to Darwinists. What horseshit.


    The bacteria are ‘purposefully’ responding to the exposure to shampoo etc (environment), the bacteria ‘activate’ a DNA sequence which enables resistance towards shampoo etc. The resistance is already encoded within DNA (information) but not activated, certainly not activated through chance but by choice (intelligence) with respect to the environment. (There was no need for the bacteria to activate resistence since it was never expose to shampoo before). Shampoo is the cause, organism inducing change with respect to the environment is the effect – this is not random but a telic process.


    As for NS, well, NS doesn’t select which bacteria survives and which does not, but rather certain bacteria posses the ability to induce change over other bacteria, it’s a simple case of death within bacteria that have yet to activate the DNA sequence that is responsible for resistance.


    Darwinism is the study of effect not cause - the simplest example you cite falsifies NS+RM and most certainly doesn’t prove the humpty dumpty mechanics of Darwinism.

    Cause + Effect, EAM, Teleology – look em up.

    Now, tell me why Creationism contradicts Evolutionary principle or STFU.
    Stop the press!

    Please provide sources for this - as I would immediately like to mail the 'evidence' to Standford, Oxford, Berkeley etc. as they are teaching students this horseshit.

    Swearing and insulting helps to get your points across, yeah.

  74. #74
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post

    Swearing and insulting helps to get your points across, yeah.
    I'll insult Darwinism as much as I want; it's a bankrupt hypothesis that attempts to palm itself off as science; does it offend you? Upset you?

    Yes, it annoys me that you want all the answers yet cannot explain your simple assertion. I did you a favour by entertaining your crap. I'll do the same with any piece of evidence you cite with respect to RM+NS once you grow a pair and actually demonstrate to me that you understand the information you cite.

    RM+NS humpty dumpty evolution my butt!
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 27th April 2011 at 09:25.

  75. #75
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now, tell me why Creationism contradicts Evolutionary principle or STFU.
    This is getting irritating. I have asked you a thousand times what sort of creationist are you. Some of the creationists believe that theory of evolution is true.

  76. #76
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    I'll insult Darwinism as much as I want; does it offend you?

    RM+NS evolution my butt!
    Yeah lets make mumbo jumbo theories up with ZERO evidence and bingo, it's been proven wrong!

    And thanks for acknowledging that what they teach in all those universities are just pure horseshit.
    Last edited by hipster; 27th April 2011 at 09:25.

  77. #77
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hipster View Post
    This is getting irritating. I have asked you a thousand times what sort of creationist are you. Some of the creationists believe that theory of evolution is true.
    Go and read the thread on discussing evolution without fear, I have no intention of rehashing, reposting, repeating myself.

    Would you like me to hold your hand too? You want evidence of purposeful mutations? - Click Here - let me know when the penny drops.

    Last 'chance' or I will simply refuse to entertain your posts on any topic - period.
    Last edited by Namak_Halaal; 27th April 2011 at 09:31.

  78. #78
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    Go and read the thread on discussing evolution without fear, I have no intention of rehashing, reposting, repeating myself.

    Would you like me to hold your hand too?

    Last 'chance' or I will simply refuse to entertain your posts - period.

    You: Tell me how evolution contradicts creationism or STFU

    Me: Which of the creationist ideologies do you subscribe to?

    You: I have said that before, go find it.

    And yet I fail to see where you said what type of creationism you support. Instead of saying that you resort to more insult.

  79. #79
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    11,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grunge View Post
    i also wonder sometimes about the part ''fear'' plays in an individual's decisions to stick to his/her faith.the fear of afterlife that seems to be incorporated in our minds since childhood.
    I would suggest watching a BBC documentary called - The Power of Nightmares.

  80. #80
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Runs
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Namak_Halaal View Post
    I'll insult Darwinism as much as I want; it's a bankrupt hypothesis that attempts to palm itself off as science; does it offend you? Upset you?

    Yes, it annoys me that you want all the answers yet cannot explain your simple assertion. I did you a favour by entertaining your crap. I'll do the same with any piece of evidence you cite with respect to RM+NS once you grow a pair and actually demonstrate to me that you understand the information you cite.

    RM+NS humpty dumpty evolution my butt!
    Just provide some credible links for your theory that resistance to shampoo in lice for instance is hidden in the DNA and needs to be "activated".

    How come the idiots at Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge know less than you do?

    Just some links please, enough with the name calling.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

:: Cricket-Blog:: Saqlain Mushtaq Academy:: wasimakramlive.com:: Sri Lanka Cricket News:: Bouncer Sports:: Cricket Heroes::