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......' — universeness

For the sake of members? What favour do they need?

Ok, thanks for the exchange EugeneW. :smile:

Ok, thanks for the exchange EugeneW — universeness

Ran out of ammunition? I hear that all the time. "Im off for a walk" "Got things to do", "Good day", and now "for the sake of the members we should stop the conversation". Sorry universeness. A weak excuse!

:rofl: I am immune to such bait EugeneW.

I am immune to such bait EugeneW — universeness

You consider it bait? You think I'm out to getya? :lol:

You consider it bait? You think I'm out to getya — EugeneW

Not at all, you misunderstand. I am just being considerate of others. When Impasse has been reached, the exchange becomes fruitless. Face to face, over some beers, we could debate until one or both of us passed out from the beer. But on a public discussion website, I like to try my best to consider other readers, I can be completely blinkered and self-indulgent but I try to stop being so when I realise that's the direction of play.

When Impasse has been reached — universeness

Why you think impasse has been reached? We only warmed up a bit...

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. — universeness

I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! :smile:

we could debate until one or both of us passed out from the beer. But on a public discussion website, I like to try my best to consider other readers, — universeness

They would be delighted to see us both pass out at the same time! :lol:

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

There are many games you can play against yourself. Look for a solitaire version of atheism vs. theism.

Why you think impasse has been reached? — EugeneW

Because You had reduced the exchange to:

Can genes win? — EugeneW

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

Genes don't dominate — EugeneW

Most common? — EugeneW

I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! — Agent Smith

Well between your blind alley's and my tangents and trips outside of the solar system, it's unlikely we will ever find ourselves on common ground. Hey ho, such is life.

Well between your blind alley's and my tangents and trips outside of the solar system, it's unlikely we will ever find ourselves on common ground. Hey ho, such is life — universeness

:lol:

They would be delighted to see us both pass out at the same time! — EugeneW

I wouldn't blame them!

I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! :smile: — Agent Smith

A blind alley and a trip outside to the universe? But that's exactly what this thread is about. Blind watchmakers and/or gods.

Im still working out the story. Looking for fine English without translation machines. These things suck for poetic prose! The great story will be revealed on this very forum! Consider yourself lucky to life witness the event of the new millenium. Already now! The future will never be the same again!

It's getting philosophical finally! :lol:

Look for a solitaire version of atheism vs. theism. — Agent Smith

God playing hide and seek with himself? :lol:

I wouldn't blame them! — universeness

I would never forgive them! :lol:

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech — Gregory A

Eh? Atheirsm is the view that there are no gods. What has it got to do with free speech? It's nothing to do with politics, it's not a political movement or anything of the sort.

When you say 'invalid' what I think you mean is 'false'. Atheism is not an argument but an assertion/proposition about the way things are. Only arguments can be valid or invalid. Beliefs, assertions etc, can be true or false.

That's what Dawkins has reduced it to! Genes variating in order to arrive at new proteins to give them a better chance to replicate. Which is no more than an unproven, god-like dogma in biology. Even called the central dogma of molecular biology... How close to religion can you get?

Dawkins might have considered other titles but he didn't actually gave it another title. He might not mean litterally that genes are selfish, but he called them that. What you think people think if they hear about selfish genes? He employed sleazy tactics in "enriching" the world with his reductionist bs. He's a wolf in sheep clothes, talking high English, while being contemptuous towards religion, which in his eyes is just a collection of memes ordering us to propagate them to survive, to cope with life, so without any reality value. That thought is a meme too. A meme he uses in order to wipe religion from the table because he fears religion as he cant explain it, so he rationalizes it...

That's what Dawkins has reduced it to! Genes variating in order to arrive at new proteins to give them a better chance to replicate. Which is no more than an unproven, god-like dogma in biology. Even called the central dogma of molecular biology... How close to religion can you get? — EugeneW

But you anthropomorphise what the genes demonstrate as part of their natural functionality and you arrive at the will of the god(s). Its YOUR theistic conflations that try to nudge towards the god posit not anything suggested by Dawkins.

Dawkins might have considered other titles but he didn't actually gave it another title. He might not mean litterally that genes are selfish, but he called them that. What you think people think if they hear about selfish genes? — EugeneW

He would agree with you that, in hindsight, he could have chosen a 'wiser' title for the book but I think you are over-stretching the significance of this shortfall.

He's a wolf in sheep clothes — EugeneW

This line of insult is beneath you EugeneW. It's open to easy returns such as 'The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothing.' It's pointless panto talk.

Let's drop the discussion of the fabulous Richard Dawkins. I'm a big fan. you are not, who cares?
Let's talk about why YOU need the god posit. Why do you give it more credit than that of a lazy, boring, unlikely fable? Try to give me a response without engaging your entertainment mode on or your poetic prose mode or your storytelling mode. You 'hop' from your science mode (your best and most relevant mode), in my opinion, to your god posit in a surreal jump into a fantasy fog of non-thinking.
You throw away your empiricism and naturalism and replace it with woo woo!
Why do you need the woo woo?

But you anthropomorphise what the genes demonstrate as part of their natural functionality and you arrive at the will of the god(s). Its YOUR theistic conflations that try to nudge towards the god posit not anything suggested by Dawkins. — universeness

That's more like it, Scotsman! It's not me anthropomorphizing, it's Dawkins. He calls them selfish. All organisms use genes. The first protein life evolved better means by ribosomes. All different organisms did it their wag, jn mutual stimulation. The nudge to the gods is made to breathe the fire of love and hate into the matter. Matter alone can't explain. When you have a cosmological eternal model, one cannot do other than conclude intelligences created it. The gods were bored. Eternally playing the love game was simply too much. They were tired. So they created the universe. It looks like heaven! Now they watch us, laid back on the heavenly desserts... That realization gives true meaning. We're just acting like the gods. But we die. And get born again. In every new universe renewed. To please the gods with our plays, be it viral or humanoid... Ooookaaaay! :lol:

He would agree with you that, in hindsight, he could have chosen a 'wiser' title for the book but I think you are over-stretching the significance of this shortfall. — universeness

It's not just the title. I have read the book and it's not very optimistic!

This line of insult is beneath you EugeneW. It's open to easy returns such as 'The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothing.' It's pointless panto talk. — universeness

I just don't like the guy. It's not an insult to science or evolution but to his interpretation.Dont you insult theists?

Why do you need the woo woo? — universeness

How do you know its woo woo?

The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothi — universeness

I completely agree!

Let's talk about why YOU need the god posit. Why do you give it more credit than that of a lazy, boring, unlikely fable? — universeness

Because it aint such a fable and the scientific fable (how interesting it might be, as we both know!) can't explain the universe, life, and consciousness. It can describe it at most.

Sean Carroll made an interesting argument about God. He said suppose we lived in a world where children never suffered. The priests would be saying "look, clearly there is a God because we see how he protects the young ". Yet we don't live in that world. This argument for me takes down teleological arguments. What do you guys think?

The nudge to the gods is made to breathe the fire of love and hate into the matter — EugeneW

An attempt at dramatic prose, not evidence of god.

Matter alone can't explain. — EugeneW

I repeat again, give Science the time and resources required to do this, meantime your are just engaging in panto talk.

When you have a cosmological eternal model, one cannot do other than conclude intelligences created it. — EugeneW

Pure subject opinion, the atheist position rejects this so more panto exchange.

They were tired. So they created the universe. It looks like heaven! Now they watch us, laid back on the heavenly desserts... That realization gives true meaning. We're just acting like the gods. — EugeneW

Like imagery from a low budget theatre show, not evidence of god.

But we die. And get born again. In every new universe renewed. To please the gods with our plays, be it viral or humanoid... Ooookaaaay! — EugeneW

Purely from your entertainment mode.

It's not just the title. I have read the book and it's not very optimistic — EugeneW

I have listened to the audio version, it leaves optimism/pessimism to the judgment of the reader/listener. I found it factual and informative, not optimistic or pessimistic.

I just don't like the guy. It's not an insult to science or evolution but to his interpretation. Don't you insult theists? — EugeneW

Only on a comment by comment basis. People often assume I like/dislike someone on a personal level. I try not to slam the door shut on people I don't really know. But sure I have emotional prejudices as well, based on reports on someone or stuff I have read about them. I do hate Hitler/Thatcher/Paedo priests.
But I used to be a fan of Lenin until I read a lot more about him. Now I think he was just as bad as Stalin.

How do you know its woo woo? — EugeneW

Do you really enjoy the panto exchange 'How do you know it isnt?'

I completely agree — EugeneW

But you don't, therefore, retract the source comment. You don't further justify your claim that Dawkins is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Why do you think he argues against theism, for fame? for fortune? He was already a successful scientist with good pay. You think he revels in the BS he has to deal with from theists who make a living from their storytelling.?

Because it aint such a fable and the scientific fable (how interesting it might be, as we both know!) can't explain the universe, life, and consciousness. It can describe it at most — EugeneW

Ok, contemplate your gods for me. Tell me about your feelings? Compare them with your feelings for those humans and or animals in your life that are precious to you. Which do you prioritise and why?
Tell me about your personal relationship with YOUR god(s)
If you have no such perceptions of god(s), then your god means very little indeed to your existence.

Sean Carroll made an interesting argument about God. He said suppose we lived in a world where children never suffered. The priests would be saying "look, clearly there is a God because we see how he protects the young ". Yet we don't live in that world. This argument for me takes down teleological arguments. What do you guys think? — Gregory

I'm with Sean! I think if humans created what is badly labeled or proposed as a human goal, 'Paradise on Earth,' If there was no more poverty/war/racism/territoriality/economic or power-based elites etc.
The remaining theists or at least the remaining Christians would claim;:
"But all that good stuff has happened only because humans started to learn the lessons our good god has been trying to teach them since Adam and Eve fell from grace," After that, they would most likely sing some song that repeats the word god, jesus and hallelujah a lot.