A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[John]

We can and have proven it impossible for there to be a dinosaur living in Loch Ness , but you say this is not proof ,,????

We haven't actually proven that at at all. We're aware that there is no way to explain the presence of such a creature given our understanding of the loch's ecosystem and what sort of creature Nessie is claimed to be based on the different descriptions people have given. We also know that there are a number of known phenomena that offer reasonable explanations for the reported sightings, and we also know that some of the sightings have been fraudulent rather than mistaken, so it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that people are witnessing the explainable phenomena rather than a monster.

Do I believe Nessie exists? No. Can I prove it? No, but I can offer explanations that don't need it to exist.

John ,,,there has been so much done to try and find this thing , this Nessy
that yes we can say we have proven it does not exist ,
they have used sonar to scan the whole lake ,
there is not enough fish in the Loch to support a large animal ,!!!
the last dinosaur was millions of years ago ,
if you can't accept that we have proven Nessy is not there ,
then there is no proof good enough for you ,
if that isn't sufficient proof for you , I would say your expectations are
unrealistic and beyond looking at the facts and more about
intellectual exercise , arguing about definition of terms ,
more than getting to know reality ,
I saw a woman who was biologist or similar ,
She could easlily say we have proven Nessy does not exist ,
and she didn't need sonar or eye witness accounts to draw her conclusions,
just the knowledge about dinosaurs was more than enough ,

I holidayed at Loch Ness this year and I paid a visit to the excellent Visitor Centre where there told me all this so I already know it. I also recall that they said that whilst no one can really prove that Nessie doesn't exist there's no good reason to say that it does exist and the odds are certainly stacked against it. Which is what I do.

And even if there was a "creature", which I don't believe there to be, and who said it was a dinosaur? Who said it lived in the Loch and didn't just visit regularly?

Incidentally, I usually find that people who think "arguing about definition of terms" have a tendency to indulge in sloppy thinking which is why they want to use definitions loosely. Philosophical thinking should not be sloppy.

[chaz wyman]

What is "Nessy" if it does not exist? A thing that does not exist can have no value. SO saying that you have proved it, is self refuting.[/color]
and if so why is that methodology not equally relevant to the god question ,
god is simply not possible , PROVE ME WRONG ,,!!!!!

There is a difference between saying 'we can prove it' , and you actually doing it.
You can prove that a photo is a fake, that is true. But you cannot prove that god does not exist.

"absence of evidence is proof there is no evidence"

It is thought that there have been trillions of extinct species on planet earth, as compared to the thousands of fossil species that we have evidence of. Unfortunately there in NO EVIDENCE of these species. By your statement, you are saying that they did not exist. Try and get yourself a brain!
Now, Prove to me that god does not exist.
But your money where your mouth is!

Chaz ,,,could you try that one again ,
and maybe quote my reference to this trillions of extinct species ,

Are you doubting that there have been trillions of extinct species?
Let's take the Jurassic for example. We might have maybe 500 known species.
It is impossible that these were the only species alive. We know very little about the vegetation upon which the herbivorous dinosaurs relied, but under that we know next to nothing about the trillions of single celled, fungi, bacteria, and viruses which had to have inhabited the world. As new species in these taxonomies can appear and become extinct nearly daily - saying there are trillions of unknown extinct species in an under statement. And yet there is no evidence of these species.


I know the earths history very well ,

If that were the case and you were not such a donkey you would know what I mean immediately.

I have been interested in the evolution of species for most of my life
I'll give you a short version ,
Neuclaic acid , excuse the spelling ,
NO
The first thing they believe could reproduce was neuclaic acid ,
NOPE. The Miller experiment demonstrated that amino acids could be the result of earth's primitive atmosphere and lightning. There is still a gap between them and nucleic acids, in our knowledge.
an experiment they did in the fifties was able to reproduce the conditions of the early earth and make lots of this stuff ,
Donkey that was the Miller experiment that demonstrated amino acids which do not reproduce
When I was in university in 1981 we were able to reproduce that experiment.
it's easy to make ,you just need the right gases and electricity,
from there life just slowly got more complicated with each mutation .....,
Allow me to delete the rest as it is completely irrelevant.
![/quote]

My claim was that we know there have been trillions of extinct species even though there is not evidence for them.
Let's look back to see what I actually said.

You said:
"absence of evidence is proof there is no evidence"

It is thought that there have been trillions of extinct species on planet earth, as compared to the thousands of fossil species that we have evidence of. Unfortunately there in NO EVIDENCE of these species. By your statement, you are saying that they did not exist. Try and get yourself a brain!

So- absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Because we do not have evidence of all possible species does not mean that amounts to evidence that those species did not exist

[Godfree]

What is "Nessy" if it does not exist? A thing that does not exist can have no value. SO saying that you have proved it, is self refuting.[/color]
and if so why is that methodology not equally relevant to the god question ,
god is simply not possible , PROVE ME WRONG ,,!!!!!

There is a difference between saying 'we can prove it' , and you actually doing it.
You can prove that a photo is a fake, that is true. But you cannot prove that god does not exist.

"absence of evidence is proof there is no evidence"

It is thought that there have been trillions of extinct species on planet earth, as compared to the thousands of fossil species that we have evidence of. Unfortunately there in NO EVIDENCE of these species. By your statement, you are saying that they did not exist. Try and get yourself a brain!
Now, Prove to me that god does not exist.
But your money where your mouth is!

Chaz ,,,could you try that one again ,
and maybe quote my reference to this trillions of extinct species ,

Are you doubting that there have been trillions of extinct species?
Let's take the Jurassic for example. We might have maybe 500 known species.
It is impossible that these were the only species alive. We know very little about the vegetation upon which the herbivorous dinosaurs relied, but under that we know next to nothing about the trillions of single celled, fungi, bacteria, and viruses which had to have inhabited the world. As new species in these taxonomies can appear and become extinct nearly daily - saying there are trillions of unknown extinct species in an under statement. And yet there is no evidence of these species.


I know the earths history very well ,

If that were the case and you were not such a donkey you would know what I mean immediately.

I have been interested in the evolution of species for most of my life
I'll give you a short version ,
Neuclaic acid , excuse the spelling ,
NO
The first thing they believe could reproduce was neuclaic acid ,
NOPE. The Miller experiment demonstrated that amino acids could be the result of earth's primitive atmosphere and lightning. There is still a gap between them and nucleic acids, in our knowledge.
an experiment they did in the fifties was able to reproduce the conditions of the early earth and make lots of this stuff ,
Donkey that was the Miller experiment that demonstrated amino acids which do not reproduce
When I was in university in 1981 we were able to reproduce that experiment.
it's easy to make ,you just need the right gases and electricity,
from there life just slowly got more complicated with each mutation .....,
Allow me to delete the rest as it is completely irrelevant.
!

My claim was that we know there have been trillions of extinct species even though there is not evidence for them.
Let's look back to see what I actually said.

You said:
"absence of evidence is proof there is no evidence"

It is thought that there have been trillions of extinct species on planet earth, as compared to the thousands of fossil species that we have evidence of. Unfortunately there in NO EVIDENCE of these species. By your statement, you are saying that they did not exist. Try and get yourself a brain!

So- absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Because we do not have evidence of all possible species does not mean that amounts to evidence that those species did not exist
[/quote]
I have the Carl Sagan tape of him and another chap doing it ,
yes the Miller experiment ,and that is what I'm quoting from ,
I havn't seen the tape in years , so I might get a little forgetful ,
but I maintain Sagan claimed this experiment made the first thing ,
that could reproduce , or as he said "make crude copies of themselves"
I accept there has been many species go extinct ,
and if you want to include all forms of life , all the way down to single celled things , you may be right about it adding up to trillions,
I don't see the exact number as relevant or important ,
I think your point was we have no real evidence of these things , but you accept this as real..?????????
cos it seems your very reluctant to accept things without proof ,,???
your telling me you accept this on faith maybe ,,???
or why is it ok for you to take this on faith but require solid proof of any claim I make,,???
so it's ok for your belief system to rely on faith when it suits you,,???
Logic is a very powerful tool , I find it easy to see logically ,
that change is the only constant , the animals that exist will be ,
no different , they will be constantly changing ,
I believe the average life span of a species is not that long ,
I can't recall wether its 15 million years or more ,
but it's not that long compared to how long life has been on earth

[chaz wyman]

I have the Carl Sagan tape of him and another chap doing it ,
yes the Miller experiment ,and that is what I'm quoting from ,
I havn't seen the tape in years , so I might get a little forgetful ,
but I maintain Sagan claimed this experiment made the first thing ,
that could reproduce , or as he said "make crude copies of themselves"

If you don't remember then maybe it is better not to rely on it.
You have also misjudged the difference between amino acids and nucleic acids, which are way different.

I accept there has been many species go extinct ,
and if you want to include all forms of life , all the way down to single celled things , you may be right about it adding up to trillions,

And yet there is no evidence for them; hence absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just because there is no evidence for a thing is no reason to say that it does not exist, or did not exist.
Bertrand Russell used the idea of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. He used that to demand of Theists that they drop the idea that if you cannot prove a thing, such a thing is not proved to exist. You are doing the same thing in reverse. you cannot prove a thing not to exist. You cannot prove if such a teapot exists or not. You cannot prove god does not exist.

I don't see the exact number as relevant or important ,

One would be enough to prove my case. I'm not insisting on an exact number.

Nothing of the ongoing stuff you type is relevant to the discussion.


<snip>

When are you going to prove god does not exist?

[xenuwonder]

I have the Carl Sagan tape of him and another chap doing it ,
yes the Miller experiment ,and that is what I'm quoting from ,
I havn't seen the tape in years , so I might get a little forgetful ,
but I maintain Sagan claimed this experiment made the first thing ,
that could reproduce , or as he said "make crude copies of themselves"

If you don't remember then maybe it is better not to rely on it.
You have also misjudged the difference between amino acids and nucleic acids, which are way different.

I accept there has been many species go extinct ,
and if you want to include all forms of life , all the way down to single celled things , you may be right about it adding up to trillions,

And yet there is no evidence for them; hence absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just because there is no evidence for a thing is no reason to say that it does not exist, or did not exist.
Bertrand Russell used the idea of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. He used that to demand of Theists that they drop the idea that if you cannot prove a thing, such a thing is not proved to exist. You are doing the same thing in reverse. you cannot prove a thing not to exist. You cannot prove if such a teapot exists or not. You cannot prove god does not exist.

I don't see the exact number as relevant or important ,

One would be enough to prove my case. I'm not insisting on an exact number.

Nothing of the ongoing stuff you type is relevant to the discussion.


<snip>

When are you going to prove god doe not exist?

Yes. I am also waiting for that. When Godfree?

If you could also take the time to present your findings on the origins of HIV that would be good to. Perhaps God invented it?

Xenuwonder out....

[chaz wyman]

I have the Carl Sagan tape of him and another chap doing it ,
yes the Miller experiment ,and that is what I'm quoting from ,
I havn't seen the tape in years , so I might get a little forgetful ,
but I maintain Sagan claimed this experiment made the first thing ,
that could reproduce , or as he said "make crude copies of themselves"

If you don't remember then maybe it is better not to rely on it.
You have also misjudged the difference between amino acids and nucleic acids, which are way different.

I accept there has been many species go extinct ,
and if you want to include all forms of life , all the way down to single celled things , you may be right about it adding up to trillions,

And yet there is no evidence for them; hence absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just because there is no evidence for a thing is no reason to say that it does not exist, or did not exist.
Bertrand Russell used the idea of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. He used that to demand of Theists that they drop the idea that if you cannot prove a thing, such a thing is not proved to exist. You are doing the same thing in reverse. you cannot prove a thing not to exist. You cannot prove if such a teapot exists or not. You cannot prove god does not exist.

I don't see the exact number as relevant or important ,

One would be enough to prove my case. I'm not insisting on an exact number.

Nothing of the ongoing stuff you type is relevant to the discussion.


<snip>

When are you going to prove god does not exist?

Yes. I am also waiting for that. When Godfree?

If you could also take the time to present your findings on the origins of HIV that would be good to. Perhaps God invented it?

Xenuwonder out....

Why do you ask about HIV?

[Godfree]

Xenu ,,do you have a reason why you want to discuss HIV
and if so I would suggest you start a thread on that subject,
I always felt the cruelty of life , was it's self proof there was no god ,
HIV was just like everything else on this planet ,
it was evolving and spreading around the globe ,
are we a virus , have we done more damage to the earth than HIV has to the human population ,??????
how many species have we wiped out ,??
the humans are responsible for the demise of the mega beasts ,
I have offered many proofs ,
but I challenge you Xenu ,
to give me an example of what you would consider proof ,
that god does not exist ,,!!!!

[osgart]

arguments are never won as each arguer employs their own logic to their justifications and is only satisfied with that. All other or contrary justifications are disregarded because each doesnt hold the others logic as regardable. So everyone makes their own truth. And as long as reality doesnt destroy their truths they are content with theirs and denying any contrary truths.
Its called ignore and denounce and any possible validity contrary to theirs is scorned with fancy words. Atheists and the religious will always claim victory in the defiance of fact adding mockery to the defiance. Neither side being fully right.

[attofishpi]

arguments are never won as each arguer employs their own logic to their justifications and is only satisfied with that. All other or contrary justifications are disregarded because each doesnt hold the others logic as regardable. So everyone makes their own truth. And as long as reality doesnt destroy their truths they are content with theirs and denying any contrary truths.
Its called ignore and denounce and any possible validity contrary to theirs is scorned with fancy words. Atheists and the religious will always claim victory in the defiance of fact adding mockery to the defiance. Neither side being fully right.

You dug this thread from its peaceful slumber for that? Surely you have something more poignant to say regarding the actual thread title..?

[Lacewing]

arguments are never won as each arguer employs their own logic to their justifications and is only satisfied with that. All other or contrary justifications are disregarded because each doesnt hold the others logic as regardable. So everyone makes their own truth. And as long as reality doesnt destroy their truths they are content with theirs and denying any contrary truths.
Its called ignore and denounce and any possible validity contrary to theirs is scorned with fancy words. Atheists and the religious will always claim victory in the defiance of fact adding mockery to the defiance. Neither side being fully right.

Good points. In addition to logic and justifications, I think there is "self-protection" -- meaning, even when one suspects they are making up stuff to suit themselves, and that something ELSE is actually true, they may choose denial as a way of protecting themselves from facing how "wrong" they may have been for a long time. Perhaps that's because they don't know how to easily love others or themselves who are "wrong". When we can love those who we think are "wrong", we free OURSELVES from having to be "right". Then it doesn't really matter what one believes/thinks... because we allow ourselves and others to remain in motion and expansion. And we can PLAY a lot more.

[Immanuel Can]

When Dawkins point out that Atheists can have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not believe in any Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system!

This is a very good point, and one that Atheists almost invariably attempt to misunderstand, so they don't have to answer it.

They pretend that the question is, "CAN an Atheist be good?"

instead of "MUST an Atheist be good?"

The answer to the latter is, of course, "No." One may be a complete Atheist and at the same time completely evil. Of course, a religious person can choose to be evil as well, but not, in many cases, without total contradiction of the ideology one professes. With Atheism, however, one can be a total moral wreck, an utter pervert or a walking slaughterhouse if one wishes -- with no contradiction at all.

But the meta-question to all this is as follows: "What IS 'good,' from an Atheist perspective?"

From a perspective of Atheism, nothing at all needs to be called "good" or "evil." All is just another choice or option. Give to the poor? Sure. Eat their children? Sure. Whatever you want. Nothing inherent to being an Atheist favours either option: potato, potahto. Same thing.

If there is no God -then "everything is permitted." -- Dostoevsky.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When Dawkins point out that Atheists can have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not believe in any Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system!

This is a very good point, and one that Atheists almost invariably attempt to misunderstand, so they don't have to answer it.

They pretend that the question is, "CAN an Atheist be good?"

instead of "MUST an Atheist be good?"

The answer to the latter is, of course, "No." One may be a complete Atheist and at the same time completely evil. Of course, a religious person can choose to be evil as well, but not, in many cases, without total contradiction of the ideology one professes. With Atheism, however, one can be a total moral wreck, an utter pervert or a walking slaughterhouse if one wishes -- with no contradiction at all.

But the meta-question to all this is as follows: "What IS 'good,' from an Atheist perspective?"

From a perspective of Atheism, nothing at all needs to be called "good" or "evil." All is just another choice or option. Give to the poor? Sure. Eat their children? Sure. Whatever you want. Nothing inherent to being an Atheist favours either option: potato, potahto. Same thing.

If there is no God -then "everything is permitted." -- Dostoevsky.

I knew I could depend on you to write some utter bullshit. A so-called 'atheist' isn't anything other than someone who doesn't share your particular superstition. It's a meaningless word. And I don't see anything in the 'commandments' that says 'thou shalt not be a pervert' (which must be why so many kristians are perverts). In fact the '10 commandments' are a joke--talk about screwed up priorities.
Could you just answer one question? It's always puzzled me why kristians are generally so hateful towards non-kristians. It has never made any sense to me. What's it to them? Non-kristians have far more reason to hate kristians than the other way round. I expect you won't answer, or you will deny it. Par for the course with you lot.

[thedoc]

John ,,,there has been so much done to try and find this thing , this Nessy
that yes we can say we have proven it does not exist ,
they have used sonar to scan the whole lake ,
there is not enough fish in the Loch to support a large animal ,!!!
the last dinosaur was millions of years ago ,
if you can't accept that we have proven Nessy is not there ,
then there is no proof good enough for you ,
if that isn't sufficient proof for you , I would say your expectations are
unrealistic and beyond looking at the facts and more about
intellectual exercise , arguing about definition of terms ,
more than getting to know reality ,
I saw a woman who was biologist or similar ,
She could easlily say we have proven Nessy does not exist ,
and she didn't need sonar or eye witness accounts to draw her conclusions,
just the knowledge about dinosaurs was more than enough ,

If these are aquatic animals they could also have sonar just like other aquatic animals, and heard the scan coming and ran away or hid from it.

There is no reason to assume that Nessie eats fish, it could be a vegetarian or an omnivore, and there is no data to determine how much food it needs to survive. Alligator and crocodiles can survive for a long time with only a little food.

There is no reason to believe that Nessie is a dinosaur.

You have not proven anything, you have only presented some negative speculation.

Similar arguments can be applied to the question of Gods existence, there is no reason to expect that God will be bound by human limits and logic.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

John ,,,there has been so much done to try and find this thing , this Nessy
that yes we can say we have proven it does not exist ,
they have used sonar to scan the whole lake ,
there is not enough fish in the Loch to support a large animal ,!!!
the last dinosaur was millions of years ago ,
if you can't accept that we have proven Nessy is not there ,
then there is no proof good enough for you ,
if that isn't sufficient proof for you , I would say your expectations are
unrealistic and beyond looking at the facts and more about
intellectual exercise , arguing about definition of terms ,
more than getting to know reality ,
I saw a woman who was biologist or similar ,
She could easlily say we have proven Nessy does not exist ,
and she didn't need sonar or eye witness accounts to draw her conclusions,
just the knowledge about dinosaurs was more than enough ,

If these are aquatic animals they could also have sonar just like other aquatic animals, and heard the scan coming and ran away or hid from it.

There is no reason to assume that Nessie eats fish, it could be a vegetarian or an omnivore, and there is no data to determine how much food it needs to survive. Alligator and crocodiles can survive for a long time with only a little food.

There is no reason to believe that Nessie is a dinosaur.

You have not proven anything, you have only presented some negative speculation.

Similar arguments can be applied to the question of Gods existence, there is no reason to expect that God will be bound by human limits and logic.

You could use similar arguments for fairies and anything else you can think of. There comes a time when common sense has to prevail. Some things aren't worth investigating because they just silly and only believed in by obvious nutters.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course, a religious person can choose to be evil as well, but not, in many cases, without total contradiction of the ideology one professes.

Which doesn't stop anyone.