If the simple living of life was enough then people would not feel impelled to seek further meaning of significance. Simply living life is enough for some, but others seem to want more. No problem with that is there? — Mike Radford

No problem at all, I just have a problem with the theistic lazy, easy, and rather simplistic solution of a
supernatural superhero labeled god. I think to achieve the 'more' you are talking about we need to at least have the ability to leave our little pale blue dot nest and learn how to exist outside of it,
We are still at the infantile stage of territorial wars Mike! We are still impressed by celebrity! Most of our species are more interested in sports, immediate self-gratification and sex rather than global politics.
I do not reject sports or sex, they just need to be prioritised properly.
From the perspective of understanding the true origins of the Universe, we have hardly began!
Dont burden us with 'quick fix', fake solutions such as god.

The Magic Bullet Theory is the single-bullet theory. One bullet no magic needed — Gregory A

So how did it manage to stop and change direction in mid air?

You're not stupid. It's that arrogance has caused you to not think over your own position properly — Gregory A

Well, I appreciated your attempt to reduce your level of provocation.

is trying to indoctrinate children at the same time — Gregory A

You have conflicting standards Gregory A. Religions have been doing this for the whole of our past 10000 years of tears and you try to lay this accusation at Dawkins door! Shame on you. That is just outrageous, especially when he states at almost every opportunity that one of the most pernicious acts of religion is how they manipulate and terrify children. He is absolutely correct and you are wrong with equal intensity.

And, how could God submit 'himself' to scientific scrutiny and then still be a god. A god that submits to anything is not a god. If we knew there was a god what would that do for our freewill — Gregory A

Oh come on Gregory A, you forget your own claims, you claim it is omnipotent, it can do anything it chooses to, according to you. Your first sentence above completely contradicts the previous claims you have made about what omnipotence means. Your incoherence is on display!

Even if it turned out we are subject to a Natural universe where everything is decided by chance, these books would still have value. — Gregory A

Yes, as historical fables which were once believed by some to be the literal word of a (by then) debunked creator. As a TV series, the bible would be a bigger hit than Game Of Thrones, as the bible has much more sex, mindless violence, supernatural content and artistic license.

The OP does full justice to atheism! At first I was thrown off by the word "invalidity". I found out, the hard way, that "valid/invalid/validity/invalidity" are technical terms in philosophy and shouldn't be used in a carefree manner.

Anyway, to get right to the point, yep, atheism is an argument and ergo, can be valid/invalid unlike theism which isn't an argument and so is neither valid nor invalid. Theism is, as Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong invalid!

:grin:

He litterally writes that he was overwhelmed by the realization (which he calls an absolute truth) that organisms are machines made and ordered by genes with the purposes of procreating them, pass them on. Or memes, in the case of humans. Now what kind of meme is that? Can't he do better? The meaning, purpose of life is to pass on life. It's circular and devaluating. If you see people as machines programmed by selfish genes, what has gone wrong in your life? — EugeneW

I don't see your issues here. You quote the word 'machines,' which have mechanisms, which is what I typed, no reasons, just natural mechanisms. Dawkins does not talk about genes 'procreating.' I listen to his audiobook versions from time to time, they are free on YouTube. He talks about gene replication not procreation. You inserted the imagery of that word for your own purposes. You have to play fair EugeneW!

Meme just means fast replication. You use the term 'Passing on life,' to deliberately invoke an emotional response in others. You do this as an attempt to subtract from Dawkins's argument that there is no reason behind the EMERGENCE of life. He does not deny the emotional capacity of lifeforms such as humans, he celebrates it. You are using stealth to accuse him of things he is not guilty of. Play fair!
A human is more than the sum of its mechanisms due to the fact that consciousness demonstrates other aspects such as emotional ability.

But these are the tactics used very often to declare opposing positions as something else going on (if taken seriously). You can say the same of Dawkins' "realization" that we are gene-driven machines... — EugeneW

So we each layout or claims EugeneW and let the readers of such be our arbiters!

He talks about gene replication not procreation. You inserted the imagery of that word for your own purposes. You have to play fair EugeneW! — universeness

Yes. But how do they replicate? By procreation. Unless procreation means something different than I think

You do this as an attempt to subtract from Dawkins's argument that there is no reason behind the EMERGENCE of life. — universeness

On the contrary. The reason, according to our friend, about the emergence of life is the selfish gene gene wanting to replicate. Likewise for human life and memes. I don't agree with this. Life just used genes and memes to its advantage. This goes against the central dogma (!). Information is supposed to flow in one direction, which hasn't been proven but taken as dogma, to protect the gene based view on evolution.

yep, atheism is an argument and ergo, can be valid/invalid unlike theism which isn't an argument and so is neither valid nor invalid, it's as Wolfgang Pauli put it — Agent Smith

Pauli's exclusion principle states that an atom cannot have the same set of quantum numbers in its electronic configuration. It has scientific rigor, why do you conflate it with your subjective opinion about whether or not the atheist or theist posits can be considered beliefs or arguments?
You have demonstrated many times in your postings that you have impressive analytical abilities but you also allow that ability to be fogged by taking the direction of exchange down wasteful blind alleys at times. This is just my opinion of course. You like to wear a coat of many colours Agent Smith.
I prefer you on 'straight up' mode. Not that I ever want to dent your sense of humour. Humour remains vital to all.

A human is more than the sum of its mechanisms due to the fact that consciousness demonstrates other aspects such as emotional ability. — universeness

Yes. But Dawkins-based evolutiin tries to explain them all in that context of replicating genes. There undeniably is evolution. But his interpretation is rather confused and disjoint.

Yes. But how do they replicate? By procreation. Unless procreation means something different than I think — EugeneW

Procreation can be taken as 'producing offspring' or 'reproducing,' this is not the same as replication.
Would your clone be your offspring?, I think not!
You are trying to invoke the image of humans procreating, with god(s) procreating and conflate that to have an association with the natural mechanisms Dawkins writes about in the selfish gene.
You are trying to use this conflation as some kind of contrived evidence for the existence of god(s).
In my opinion EugeneW and with all due respect, the hypothetical paper you write such suggestions on is wet through and soggy and won't hold the words you want to write on it.

Anyway, to get right to the point, yep, atheism is an argument and ergo, can be valid/invalid unlike theism which isn't an argument and so is neither valid nor invalid. Theism is, as Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong invalid! — Agent Smith

What's the argument involved in atheism? Please argue with me dear! :lol:

On the contrary. The reason, according to our friend, about the emergence of life is the selfish gene gene wanting to replicate — EugeneW

The selfish genes are the genes that won through, within the rules of natural selection. To me, 'selfish' just points to the idea that our genes don't care about the fact that the genes of the neanderthals (for example) didn't take the top spot, that's all. It does not suggest our genes made a conscious decision to replicate and prevented any other competing genes from doing so. There is no suggestion that they have any such inherent cognitive ability (that would be panpsychist!). Replication of DNA/RNA happens because it can!

You are trying to invoke the image of humans procreating, with god(s) procreating — universeness

Stephen my man, gods don't procreate. They are eternal beings. They created the universe(ness) to watch us playing the game of life. The view that we make love to replicate genes (though this obviously happens) is a deceptive one. But it's precisely the view our friend want to impart on the world.

The selfish genes are the genes that won — universeness

Can genes win?
That's an assumption as silly as the gods...

Yes. But Dawkins-based evolutiin tries to explain them all in that context of replicating genes — EugeneW

Yes but not the resulting phenomena of human consciousness!
Those answers are still being sought.
Dawkins speaks towards how the brain formed genetically but he speaks little about its functionality and its demonstrated or potential ability.

To me, 'selfish' just points to the idea that our genes don't care about the fact that the genes of the neanderthals (for example) didn't take the top spot, — universeness

So human genes stand on the top? Why?

Yes but not the resulting phenomena of human consciousness!
Those answers are still being sought — universeness

Consciousness is necessary for life. It's present in all forms of life. The gods put this mystic ingredient even in elementary matter fields, with corresponding gauge fields to express it. An explanation in scientific terms will be a vacuous attempt as it misses the necessary ingredient.

gods don't procreate — EugeneW

Many ancient writings would disagree. Zeus was forever shapeshifting to seduce mortal and immortal females. You have made many somewhat inappropriate suggestions of gods producing, shall we say 'the seeds of life'

They created the universe(ness) to watch us playing the game of life. The view that we make love to replicate genes (though this obviously happens) is a deceptive one. But it's precisely the view our friend want to impart on the world. — EugeneW

Now you are off again wearing your 'entertainer' hat. which is fine, but there remains nothing in your words that provide any evidence of the god posit.

Can genes win? — EugeneW

Become dominant or the most common if you don't like 'win.'

So human genes stand on the top? Why? — EugeneW

I already told you, as did Darwin, natural selection.

Dawkins speaks towards how the brain formed genetically — universeness

That's exactly how it can't be explained. Genes are just an aid for organisms. Once there were proteins only. Then ribosomes were formed to make new proteins with, in combination with DNA. The proteins (chicken) came before DNA. The chicken came before the egg, in this case.

Become dominant — universeness

Genes don't dominate.

An explanation in scientific terms will be a vacuous attempt as it misses the necessary ingredient. — EugeneW

Let's get there first. The scientific explanation will come but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

already told you, as did Darwin, natural selection. — universeness

But there also viruses.

Genes don't dominate — EugeneW

So your happy with 'most common' then!

But there also viruses — EugeneW

So?

Let's get there first. The scientific explanation will come but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime. — universeness

The scientific explanation never comes. Like I said, it misses the key ingredient.

So? — universeness

Why don't they stand on top?

So your happy with 'most common' then! — universeness

Most common?

I hope you appreciate EugeneW that we are doing ourselves no favours here, in the minds of any readers of our current exchange! It has quickly became laboured and rather pointless. I can hear other members shout 'will you two just......' I think we should end it for the sake of their tolerance levels.

For an easy Wednesday morning, we're going pretty deep!