The Meaning of Life next week

realdanbreen wrote: »

You do know of course that non practicing does not mean that those people are atheist, don't you?

Hi Dan! Are you ready to answer the question I put to you a few pages back?

And do YOU know that not non-practicing also does not not mean that those people aren't atheists?

I doubt it takes many people to talk to - to find one that acknowledges that no miracles happen at Lourdes. Especially given there is not a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest anything out of the realm of natural experience has happened or is happening there. Much less from any theists on this thread.

There are of course a few wishy washy people who re-define "miracle" to suit themselves and they will say things like "Oh I saw people arrive here and leave happier and fulfilled and that is a miracle to me". Sure, fair enough, hard to argue with someone who redefined terms to match reality rather than describe reality with known terms.

In my opinion that is the answer he gave. He went on to describe exactly that, how the priest in question thought the people faith was the real miracle at Lourdes and so on and so forth, and how even he himself was moved by their faith. So nice to hear he actually gave the answer you wanted after all despite your pretense he did not.

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you had started a game of No Nonny Not Not. My bad.

But I see that you have responded to the question put to you earlier! Thank you. At last we can know why you have decided that Dawkins was an even bigger crock of nonsense than you thought him to be, a complete naval gazer who knows naught of what he speaks etc etc



This is what leads you to say 'crock of nonsense', 'naval gazer', 'bluffer', etc? I must admit, I'm disappointed; I had expected something meatier.

Thanks for your reply, though.

I guess that's how it goes Paul, my 'crock of nonsense' is your 'awesome insight from the Professor'

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are clearly a person of extremes. If it is not one, it must be the other. How about some middle ground? How about a simple acknowledgement that the interview did not contain anything particularly meaty or useful or informative. But that none of it was "nonsense" either and aside from asserting it to be so, you have not shown any of it to be so?

You very clearly said in post 38 that it was a crock of nonsense, two people very clearly asked you to explain this claim in posts 39+40, and you have very clearly dodged those two requests in every post subsequent to this.

I see nothing insightful OR nonsense in the interview in question myself. I see a series of questions, with a series of answers, and I find little if any fault with either at this time. So by all means, enlighten us rather than dodge.

Fair enough, nonsense was a bad choice of word. Nothing insightful, as you say yourself, is more appropriate. But that is par for the course with Dawkins and is why he only engages face to face with showbiz hosts like Uncle Gaybo.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess that's how it goes Paul, my 'crock of nonsense' is your 'awesome insight from the Professor'

I can link to your 'crock of nonsense' comment, Dan; you will not find any by me that refers to 'awesome insight from the Professor', as I did not make any such comment. I will thank you not to attribute false quotes to me; it is said your religion prohibits false witness. Or are the tenents of your faith as unknown to you as the sciences?:p

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fairness you did not just call it nonsense. You called it "an even bigger crock of nonsense" than you expected and suggested Dawkins "does not even know himself what he is talking about". That is a lot more than a simple bad choice of a single word. It itself appears to be the crock of nonsense not knowing what it was talking about, that it was presuming to accuse another of.

That said however perhaps expectations are to blame more than anything else. I have watched 5ish episodes of this program across it's duration, the stephen fry one and the two with farrel for example, and I did not find anything too insightful in any of them. So I am not sure what insightful or moving content you might have been expecting. The show itself in general does not appear to be that deep or cutting or interesting.

The interviewer merely asked him some simple questions about his history, his upbringing, his famous book, and a little bit about his path to Atheism. Answers can only be about as good as the questions asked really, and I did not see much questioning that was going to lead to anything insightful.

As I said in an earlier post too, the format of this show appears to be one of "short questions, short answers" and that too should curtail any expectations you might have. Several of the questions I have heard Dawkins asked before, and answered at much greater length. But this particular show does not appear to allow for answers of that sort.

So I think your evaluation of this interview is heavily colored by unwarranted expectations, and your clear dislike for the man himself. And your evaluation in post 38, which you were questioned on and still have not actually answered anything about, appears to be menial tosh at best.

TBH Nozz, the chances of me having much in common with someone who uses the term 'menial tosh' in a discussion is fairly slim. Nonetheless I respect your non beliefs as I am sure you respect my beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.



Well that was a complete ad hominem deflection non-reply from you, which certainly fits the MO of deflection non-replies you have given peoples direct questions and points so far. If that is the reputation you intend to build for yourself, then so be it. Not my problem, though I fail to understand the utility of doing so.

That said, no, I do not respect beliefs, I respect people. The two are not the same at all, though many appear to move, sometimes willfully, towards conflating the two. And many people take offence vicariously on behalf of their beliefs as if attacking the latter is a direct attack on the former.

But no I do not respect beliefs, I evaluate reasoning. I respect your right to HAVE a belief, but I do not respect the belief itself. I evaluate it. And the belief, for example, that there is a god.... that is to say a non-human intelligent and intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe..... is entirely unsubstantiated, least of all by you, and is not one I respect on any level therefore.

Ah here nOZZ, I mean 'meniel tosh' put some doubt on us having a relationship but 'ad hominen' ? .
While I have no wish to deflate you, it is entirely insignificant(to me at any rate) whether or not you have respect for me or anyone else.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet you feel the need to reply to say nothing at all all the same, even though I never requested a "relationship" with you nor have I or would I seek one.

Rather I have merely added my voice to where we were a number of posts ago. The point where you declared the man in the interview to have been a "crock of nonsense" who does "not know what he is talking about". And I, like at least two others, are merely wondering if this is a position you wish to, or are capable of, substantiating in any way.

You appear now to have back-pedaled from that position to one where nothing he said was overly insightful. So I merely wondering therefore is that a formal retraction of your previous menial tosh, or is substantiation of that menial tosh still forthcoming?

Nozz, I have to hand it to you. You have established your credentials as a fully fledged atheist by managing to bore me into submission.Adios for now as I have to rejoin the real world.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If by bore you you mean I have requested you substantiate your position and have not let your personal comments and irrelevancies derail me from that request, then sure I am happy to bore you You will find I am not easy trolled, deflected or derailed like many can be.

If it helps you any, I do not actually identify myself using the terms atheist or atheism. Many others, like yourself, feel the need to identify me with those terms. It is not a need I share myself.

If you do decide to return at any time from this retreat, then I am here for you with the same question: Which is whether or not you plan to substantiate the comments you made and not one, but at least 3, people have asked you directly about.

My guess at this time is "not" but I have often been surprised on forums such as this.

You hang up nozz, no you hang up Dan,no you hang up.... bye,bye bye bye bye,bye........

I'm afraid to ask but curiosity has, as it so often does, gotten the better of me.

What's 'post biological'?

Not seeing much to smoke there. The user is merely rehashing a very old hypothesis that god is not a supernatural agency at all, but the more advanced than us product of natural evolution. The user is simply mis-using the term "god" therefore. Such beings would not be gods, but might appear so to us. As the old adage goes "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

What the majority of theists mean by a "god" however is an entity that created, maintains, or both.... our universe. And the user above admits that this is not what he is talking about. The user above is not correcting or rebutting Dawkins, atheism or atheists.... but is instead talking past them by talking about something entirely different.... but calling it "god" all the same.

It is about as meaningful or useful as me merely calling my Banana Muffin "god" and saying "Therefore god exists, and atheism is falsified". It is linguistic trickery and little more.

That is all before you point out the assumptions in the users tirade. The assumption that evolution could or would produce a being "infinitely" more intelligent or capable than we are. This is a baseless assumption, even if it was not further tinged by such a meaningless use of the word "infinitely". Sure, it is not just possible, but likely, that the processes of evolution could produce beings orders more intelligent and capable than we are. But they are still constrained by the limits of the universe and its "laws". So there is going to be an upper limit on that evolution.

But to repeat, this is not necessarily a "god" or "gods". Just a more advanced product of evolution, existing in, and constrained by, the same universe that we are.

So keep the pipe, the coughing and sputtering sucking on it has led you to does not make it very appealing for my usage.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Nozz!

Will you retract the false comment you attributed to me please, Dan?

pauldla wrote: »

Will you retract the false comment you attributed to me please, Dan?

Forgive me Paul but I had completely forgotten about you, remind me again which comment you have a problem with.