Monday, March 17, 2008

Dawkins is Dead

I hope that this interview will settle the issue. Although most people insist otherwise, there clearly is no Richard Dawkins. The belief in a dawkins is an unnecessary hypothesis; an Iron Age myth which is completely baseless. I know this idea will upset many people. I apologize in advance. However, we must stop repeating dangerous fairy tales and we must create a society based on rational inquiry only.



The point of this mock interview, of course, is that if one is going to consider the common atheistic arguments against belief in God to be valid, then one should equally deny the existence of all other people whom one has not met personally. That is obviously absurd and therefore these arguments are clearly fallacious.

19 comments:

Enigma HP said...

HAHAHAHA!
Oh, Jacob, your silliness is so random!

jewish philosopher said...

From a purely philosophical point of view, there is no difference between God and Dawkins. Both are unseen intelligent designers. There is no more reason to say that "The God Delusion" is intelligently authored than there is to say that my eye is intelligently designed. A book could merely be the result of random typographical errors and reader selection (purchasing good copies and discarding unreadable ones) over an immense time.

From an emotional point of view, however there is a huge difference. No one cares if Dawkins exists, so we all believe in him. The existence of God, however, would mean having to obey all sorts of rules. Therefore a growing community of moral degenerates denies His existence.

Henry Paine said...

Last time I checked no interviews of Yahweh were available on Youtube but there are a number featuring Dawkins.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm sure there are videos of people claiming to be God. Keep looking.

000646 said...

jp,

You are a total idiot,

there are videos of
dawkins there are none of god,

dawkins routinley shows himself to hundreds of people in person god does not,

dawkins has a website were he posts things in person god does not,

there are hundreds of recordings of debates and lectures given by dawkins in person there are none by god,

dawkins is a human being who's exsistence itself is explainable god is not,

A book could not come about by "Reader selection" because if a book is just a mix of random letters no small changes will make it more readable, small benefits to an eye however would help an organisim survive.

jewish philosopher said...

There are books which people claim where written by the dawkins, and videos which supposedly are of the dawkins however we have know way of knowing if that is truly the case or the result of an elaborate hoax.

So small random changes cannot improve something? Good point.

000646 said...

J.p.,

Small random changes for the better to an eye would and can improve it, an eye does not either see or not see, it can see better or worse a book is either readable or not.

As far as Dawkins the only thing that is possible is that the person who is appearing in public and making vidieos ect.'s name is not dawkins but HE (whoever is appearing) is real, or that there are hundreds of people or (one person) that routinley dress up in the same costume and speak with the same voice, his wife lalla ward is also well known so i guess you would have to say the same thing about her.



If you could provide a good enough reason as to why someone would do somthing like this then maybe it would be beleivable untill then there is a much greater chance (to the point were it is illogical to say he dosnt) that dawkins exsists then that he dosnt.


As a jew you must beleive that 99.9 percent of people claiming to have seen or spoken to god are delusional, why do (& should) you assume you or the people you follow are any diffrent? if anything there is a greater chance that you are wrong then you are right.

Natrual selection and evolution on the other hand are undeniable facts of life you can see it happens (such as by domestic dogs) and there is a tremendous amount of evidence it has happened alot in the past, however this is besides the point that once you know that evolution could have formed all life on earth the argument from design completley falls apart

jewish philosopher said...

The creation of the universe at the Big Bang proves a creator. The fine tuning of the universe proves an intelligent designer. The existence of life proves an intelligent designer. The revelation at Mount Sinai proves the existence of God.

"Natrual selection and evolution on the other hand are undeniable facts of life you can see it happens (such as by domestic dogs)"

The limits of animal breeding prove undeniably that evolution could not happen.

"tremendous amount of evidence it has happened alot in the past"

There is actually a tremendous amount of evidence it has never happened in the past, for example the Cambrian Explosion.

000646 said...

J.p.

The revelation at sinai, proves nothing as there are other relgions and cultures that have public rvelation stories (the aztecs and the cult of fatima are the first that come to mind.)

you said

"The limits of animal breeding prove undeniably that evolution could not happen".

To say that micro changes (such as those that happen in domestic dogs) would not or could not turn into macro changes if enough millions of them are made is the logical equivelent of saying
that years can only go up to the "decade level" but not to the "millenium level" because noone alive has actualy seen it happen in person.

The existence of life does not prove an intelligent designer as evolution could (and the evidence points towards the fact that it did) make it

The fine tuning of the universe does not prove an intelligent designer as the only reason why we see it as fine tuned is because we happend to develop in it. (this would be like a puddle waking up in the hole that it formed in and thinking the hole was formed especially for it.)

the cambrian "explosion" actually does not disprove anything at all because the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals it also just so happens that in that 10-30 million years hard body parts evovled wich aid tremendousley in making fossils form, among other reasons.

jewish philosopher said...

And likewise, the books and videos about Dawkins could all be a hoax or the result of random chance.

000646 said...

I clearly answerd your post a couple of posts ago (i dont think you are even intellectualy honest enough to even put this post up.) do you honestly beleive the stupidity you pst here?

jewish philosopher said...

The point of this video clip is that atheists are guilty of employing a double standard. If I told you that God spoke to me, you would not believe me. If I told you that Richard Dawkins spoke to me, you would believe me. If I told you that God wrote the DNA code, you would not believe me. If I told you that Richard Dawkins wrote a book you would believe me.

There is no logical reason for this double standard and it is only created because believing in God may impose some burdens on the atheist, while believing in Dawkins does not.

000646 said...

Yes, as I explained before a dawkins hoax would be extremeley costly and hard to put together without any apparent benefit to the one making it.

If you could explain a reasonable reason why someone would wish to do this there would be possibilty of it being a hoax untill then it is unreasonable to assume it is.


Now as i said before by your own addmission (as a jew) 99.9 percent of the people who claim to have spoken to god are delusional so if anything there is a much greater chance you are wrong then you are right.

jewish philosopher said...

Can you provide any detailed, plausable, natural explanation for the origin of Judaism?

000646 said...

I dont need to (although i could if i had the time and patience.)

There are other cultures and religions with public revelation stories (again i have to look around more but the Aztecs had a good one as well as the Cult of Fatima )

Also just out of curiosty does it say an exact number of people who stood at sianai in the text of the 5 books of the old testament, or is it mentioned only by the sages of the Talmud?

jewish philosopher said...

"I dont need to (although i could if i had the time and patience.)"

I'll take that as a no.

"i have to look around more but the Aztecs had a good one as well as the Cult of Fatima"

No they don't.

jewish philosopher said...

So basically you believe in Dawkins because a lot of people have seen him. You don't believe in God, although a lot of people saw him.

You don't believe that books could be written by random typing errors. You do believe that DNA was created by random mutations.

On top of that, you know almost nothing about religion or Judaism. Yet you call me an idiot.

And then people wonder why I moderate comments.

000646 said...

Jp,

Denying a fact (that there ARE other religions and cultures with public revelation stories)

and refusing to post the websites that i gave you wich say both the cult of fatima and the aztec's stories just proves that you are intellectualy dishonest,

and that despite what you claim you arnt confident enough in your own beleifes to properly address the problems that there are with them.

jewish philosopher said...

Regarding the Aztecs, there is no reason to believe that the Aztecs believed their ancestors heard a god speak. They claimed they were led to Mexico City by a god, whatever that means. Or at least one Aztec told a Catholic priest that.

By the way, how do I know you exist? Because your comments show evidence of complexity and purpose? Well so does my eye and my hand.

About Fatima, I don't think anyone doubts that thousands of people saw some sort of illusion in which the sun appeared to dance for ten minutes. So? Deut. 13:2 states that a false prophet may give a sign.