Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"

Religions > Atheism > Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"John Jones"
Date:	16 Jul 2006 07:51:28 AM
Object:	Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.
He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.
So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 10:53:06 AM

"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153054288.174555.36050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.

Pure ignorent claims by someone buried in their religion.
You have quite obviouslly not read Dawkins with ANY degree of discernement
if you read him at all!
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 11:33:39 AM

Bill M wrote:

You have quite obviouslly not read Dawkins with ANY degree of discernement
if you read him at all!

No.., I haven't made a god out of him. I haven't been swindled and
hoodwinked. Dawkins is supposed to be a materialist, but he can't even
keep up with that idea in the selfish gene.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 02:55:06 PM

In article <1153054288.174555.36050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
jonescardiff@aol.com says...

So you feel the pains of the worms now. Do you support a ban on fishing?
I take it you must be a staunch vegan and animal rights activist.
BTW, you left out the fact that Dawkins is an opponents of things like
fox hunting. A worm, like yourself, cannot begin to have meaningful
cognitive experiences, and thus, it's not worth as much as higher
organisms, such as foxes, for example.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 06:12:05 PM

John Jones wrote:

You will experience less pain if you do it like Dawkins tells you.

Let me question your claim about what Dawkins did and said.
Prove it. Cites?
--
"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom
.

User: "Pastor Kutchie"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 07:57:47 AM

John Jones wrote:

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.

Dawkins: Biologist with a huge litany of research and dissertation to
his name.
Jones: Dissolute dropout with a litany of difficult behaviour episodes
leading to clashes with authority.
Which lifestyle requires more faith to sustain? (The answer lies in the
need to cast aspersions on reality).
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 08:52:33 AM

Pastor Kutchie wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.

Dawkins: Biologist with a huge litany of research and dissertation to
his name.

Jones: Dissolute dropout with a litany of difficult behaviour episodes
leading to clashes with authority.

Which lifestyle requires more faith to sustain? (The answer lies in the
need to cast aspersions on reality).

Indeed there are money-chasing public image prostituting 'academics'.
But the world I live in is a rational, human world, and I pay no regard
to the wild, ethically suspect mouthings of snake-oil salesmen.
Oh. By the way. I get my MA next year in analytic philosophy, and I can
tell you now that Dawkins does not get any rating in the field. He is
strictly exoteric sci-fi, a shilling-shocker, popular within some
limited, suspect disciplines, but no thinker.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 10:51:03 AM

In article <1153057953.723231.94220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
jonescardiff@aol.com says...

Oh. By the way. I get my MA next year in analytic philosophy,

One shudders to contemplate the utter incoherence of your dissertation.
and I can

tell you now that Dawkins does not get any rating in the field. He is
strictly exoteric sci-fi, a shilling-shocker, popular within some
limited, suspect disciplines, but no thinker.

He's more of a philosopher than you'll ever be, but of course, so is an
amoeba.

--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 11:31:33 AM

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins
It's looking a bit sad now.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 02:36:16 PM

In article <1153067493.610515.102670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
jonescardiff@aol.com says...

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins

It's looking a bit sad now.

Religion and the impairment of the intellect that comss with blind faith
certainly is sad. What religion really worships is blind obedience
itself. This automatic acquiescence to religious authority is highly
conducive to evil and it is no surprise that so much evil is done under
the religious guise.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 06:19:55 PM

John Jones wrote:

quibbler wrote:

In article <1153067493.610515.102670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
jonescardiff@aol.com says...

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins

It's looking a bit sad now.

What are you telling me for poltroon? Tell Dawkins once you get off his
knob.

DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it. All that is, was, and
shall be and can be. All we know of and much physics
we do not as yet understand. And this god creates,
at higher levels, emergent qualities arising from these
basics create our physical world and us. This god creates us,
our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
and all of this and all men's actions and existance
to the smallest details. All we are and all we do to
the smallest detail possible is created knowingly,
and purposefully to the smallest possible degree.
Omnigenesis removes all possibility of free will.
2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.
God at the start of creation must look at what his
considered creation will create and decide, do I allow
this or that to happen?
Do I make John Smith 13 billion years into the future
a man who is evil and damned or good and saved to life
eternal in heaven? All acts Smith does are decided by god.
Does Smith at 10:23 June 24, 1999 commit murder or not?
God must look at that future and say yes, or no and then
create the world that will generate that future he has
personally and purposefully decided on. All acts of all
sentient beings are decided on and created in the smallest
possible detail, knowing, and purposefully by this omniscient
creator God from the begining of creation.
3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.
This destroys compatibilism, the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.
But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
have no sort of free will at all in god creates all to
the smallest detail,and thus no sort of compatibilism
can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant and meaningless
as a dodge to explain way free will vs God's foreknowledge
of the future. God knows the future because he knowingly
creates its every tiniest detail.
4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge
This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner, the
Deist god. The God of some natural theologies.
Laplace's demon is a thought experiment, a conceptual idea
invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French Astronomer in
his work "Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilit'es" in 1820.
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on the Universe's explicit determinism to know
the future. God is theorized as just a sort of Laplacian
demon here. This god created a determinate Universe and
knows the future since he can calculate the future state
of the Universe from a starting state due specifically
to the determinate quality of the Universe.
Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will.
Omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
that unfolds, the Deist style great clock maker or
Aristotelian prime mover/creator. All is created to
the smallest detail in a detailed and totally,
purposefully, decided manner. Every atom of the Universe is
is created in a set position in time, all atoms,
and all that derive from them are set at creation.
Omnigenesis is totally determinate in a different
manner, this sort of determinism of all is created at
once, the fate of all in the Universe is decided at
one and in all particulars even before creation actually
commenced. God here knows the future because he knowing
and personally created every aspect of the future, not
because it unfolds in a determinate manner from a known
starting point.
B. God and omnipotence and time.
If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
things. Time does not affect god, he created time and
God controls time, time does not control or affect
God. For God there is no past, present, future, just now.
This is God as claimed by Augustine and Boethius.
God out of time, transcendent to time is a standard
theological claim because of these men.
But again it's omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
omnigenesis as above.
We are driven there starting with claims god is
omnipotent and considering an omnipotent god who
created all and that god's relation to mundane time.
C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
be creator of all and omniscient even with no
particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
or creates a determinate word that unfolds, a God
with no explicit theory as to how he knows all,
also dooms free will in the strongest manner possible.
Just the fact this god is omniscience and creates all
is sufficient to create omnigenesis and doom all free
will even if we attempt to avoid mentioning how
god is theoretically omniscient to avoid being pinned
down by making an overt claim. Its no less destructive
to free will despite lack of specifity.
D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omniscient - creator god.
3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
All 3 theories destroy any possible free will
totally in the strongest manner possible.
5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
A. God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.
B. These specific attributes
are to be found in various revelations, Quran, Bible
et al. Proof texts are used to make specific claims,
god is merciful, just, he wants us to be saved and
other similar claims.
C. God is just, merciful, he loves us and wants us to
be good and to be saved. God hates sin, evil and
punishes evil men for their acts, including eternal
damnation. And so on. Different religions may have
slightly different variations and emphasis on this
or that aspect of their god's abilities. Also involved
are more metaphysical considerations. God's perfection,
God as source of all morality.
But omnigenesis destroys all of this. Since God
creates all to the smallest atom, act, and inclination,
there is no room for love or mercy. Why create one
man good, saved and to have eternal life in heaven,
and the next man evil, damned and tortured in eternal
torment in the flames of hell for all eternity for
acts that god decided, planned and created in all
their minute details to the lowliest quark?
Why that if god loves us all is just and merciful?
Since free will means nothing in the strongest manner
imaginable, a god that loves us would create us all
saved, and good and to have life eternal in heaven
if that god is as claimed merciful, just and loving
and omnibenevolent. Since we have no free will its
all one and the same.
Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and many his victims?
How can that be loving, merciful or just?
All dissolves into a meaningless, incoherent nihilism,
a bewildering meaninglessness far beyond the supposed
meaninglessness of a materialistic, Atheistic world
without godm which many theists assert is the logical
end point of Atheism.
Here god is creator of grotesquely meaningless chaos.
A world without any meaning, a surreal Hieronymus
Bosch world of demons and angels and the damned,
heavens and hells with lakes of molten sulfur and
fiery flames and unrelenting torture for men who
were only toys of a relentlessly mad, and meaningless
monster god who created them damned, for reasons unknown,
and unknowable, and irrational to nihilistic extremes.
6. SOULS
And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow,
are attached to our physical bodies and minds and
are part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,
along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations,
god must have created these souls. But he also must have
created them in relationship to our physical body and its
created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details.
It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives
for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are
created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also
creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel.
Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic,
senseless, irrational system?
The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes
impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense
in a physical world that is determinate to the most
exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit
into that world?
With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge
is impossible and incoherent to extremes.
7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
God is mad, and nothing in reality, or metaphysics or any possible
afterlife can be trusted. All supposed systems of metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, theology and reality are destroyed until
the rubble of it all is sucked into a chaotic surreal abyss of
irrational metaphysics undreamed of by thinking man.
Good, evil, sin, salvation, damnation, sin, souls, heaven,
hell, love, mercy, justice, theodicy, teleology, ontology,
all makes no sense in the strongest terms. the class of
omni-everything, creator Gods destroys everything
with corrosive finality.
Theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy,
science, nothing makes the slightest sense in an omnigenesistic
world, with a god that destroys all it touches if we claim
this personal, concious god is all knowing and creates all.
God then is perfect intellectual nihilism.
This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve. Utter madness
and total incoherence. Compared to this atheistic
materialism is mankind's only rational hope.
Materialism must be true, the only truth possible. The Grand
Gods of Grand Theologies not only self destruct, but destroy
everything else with such incredible thoroughness and totality
that they cannot possibly be truth or reality.
There is no comparison, only with metaphysical materialism
and utter lack of these classes of gods can we find reality
reason and sanity. Systems that work and are rational. Creative
rather than nihilistic to the extreme that theology can be
show to be nihilistic and thus in teh end, irrelevant to all
things.
This doctrine of omnigenesis destroys all and cannot possibly
be true. But all theology of omnipotent, omniscient creator
gods drive us to omnigenesis with logical and unrelenting
thoroughness. Those doctrines and claims that create a
omnigenetical god, omniscience, and creatorship of all,
omnipotence, time, foreknowledge of the future, combine to
create total total metaphysical nihilism. Multiple, overlapping
problems that cannot be fixed or explained away. Religion can never
be more than nihilism unless it abandons totally the doctrines
of omniscience, omnipotence, and creatorship of all things
by god. This utterly destroys the class of omni-everything
gods and all religions, Islam, Christianity, Brahmanistic
Hinduism, Judaism and all other religions built on the
doctrine that there is an omni-everything, creator god.
In the end, we have two stark and plain choices, sane
materialism, or total theological/metaphysical nihilism.
There is really then, only one choice to which we are driven
by logic and rationality.
(End)
--
"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom
.

User: "Gandalf Grey"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 08:42:30 PM

"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12bo6orqe9oeq74@corp.supernews.com...

John Jones wrote:

quibbler wrote:

In article <1153067493.610515.102670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
jonescardiff@aol.com says...

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins

It's looking a bit sad now.

What are you telling me for poltroon? Tell Dawkins once you get off his
knob.

Actually it doesn't. It means simply all creation. As thus, it doesn't
imply a god per se.
Also it doesn't imply anything beyond creation. Many native myths and
religions are also based on a creator god who is not omnipotent, omniscient,
and so on.

If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all

Translation: If god creates all, god creates all.
Not terribly insightful, Mr. Barwell.

, omnigenesis,
to the smallest detail,

Non sequitur. God does not have to create the smallest detail of all things
in order to "create all." Even taking god completely out of the picture,
the big bang is one theory on how initial conditions could begin a process
that includes the present condition of the universe. It would be absurd to
assert that the big bang created all in the finest detail, although it would
not be absurd [if the big bang existed] to assert that the big bang created
all.
Your argument therefore fails at this point in the following manner.
1. God creates all.
2. God is omniscient.
3. If god creates all, god must create every detail of everything created.
The argument above does not follow logically.
all of creation to the smallest

quantum level material, to the smallest Planck quantum
distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions, fields,
everything, all of it. All that is, was, and shall be and can be.
At higher levels emergent qualities arising from these
basics create our physical world and us. It creates us,
our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
and all of this and all men's actions and existance
to the smallest details.

Since I've already demonstrated that the above is not a logical implication
of 'creation' as creation, the only thing you're left with is the "argument
by assertion," the fallacy that contends that an argument consists of merely
repeating unsupported or illogical assertions.
In other words, what you're really saying is God created everything down to
the finest detail because Barwell says that god created everything down to
the finest detail.

It removes all possibility of free will.

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't remove all possibility of free will,
because it is not a logical consequence of creation.
At this point you're tacking free will as another assertion onto your
original argument by assertion.
Since your original argument is illogical and does not follow from the
initial premise, this additional conclusion does not follow either.

2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD

God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.

No it's not. Hard determinism does not require god at all.

3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.

As I've shown, that does not follow from your initial premise. A god that
creates all does not logically imply a god that creates every detail.

This destroys compatibilism,

This could only be written by someone who has no understanding of
compatibilism. Even if your argument were valid, which it is not, classic
compatibilism does not deal with anything other than external constraint.
Unless your creator god restrains his creation physically from performing
actions, this god does not undermine classic compatibilism.
Therefore free will does not mean what you evidently believe it means,
because "will" is not effected by classic arguments of compatibilism and
determinism.

the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.

Another argument by assertion. "Many people" hold many things to be true.
Interested students should note that this is a recurring theme in weak
arguments. The proponent of the argument states that many people assert
that something is true and then attempts to move on, hoping that the
objection has been dealt with. It is in effect the Appeal to Popular
Opinion in one of its forms. Mr. Barwell, would have to actually explain
how these "many people" have made a valid argument to uphold his assertion.
As always, assertions are not arguments.

But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
have no sort of free will at all and thus no sort of
compatibilism can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant
and meaningless as a dodge to exlain way free will
vs God's foreknowlege of the future.

But, as has been demonstrated before,
1. God or no god, compatibilism is problematic to modern notions of "free
will." Hence, god need have nothing to do with "free will"
2. Your entire argument to this point is flawed, hence, your so-called
"omnigenesis" has nothing to do with free will because there is no such
thing as omnigenesis as you've described it.

God knows the future because he knowingly creates its every
tinyest detail.

Unsupported and uncalled for assertion based on your own initial premesis.

4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.

Since omnigenesis as it occurs in your argument is a fallacious concept, it
doesn't "force us" to consider anything.

A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge

This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner.
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on determinism like this. God is theorized
as just a sort of Laplacian demon here. This god created a
determinate Universe and knows the future since he can
calculate the future state of the Universe from a starting
state due specifically to the determinate quality of
the Universe.

But omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
that unfolds,

And omnigenesis is unproven because your argument is flawed, hence the
'deist' god of the clockwork universe is quite possible.

B. God and omnipotence and time.

If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
things. Time does not affect god,

What forces "Time" to be a "mundane thing" ?
If time is not a mundane thing, how is it that you can know that time cannot
effect God?

But again its omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
omnigenesis as above.

And omnigenesis cannot be true according to your own initial premises.

We are driven there

Only by your repeated assertions, not by logical necessity. That is why
your argument fails.

C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
be creator of all and omniscient even with no
particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
or creates a determinate word that unfolds, no
theory as to how he knows all, also dooms free will
in the strongest manner possible. Just the fact this
god is omniscience and creates all is sufficient
to create omnigenesis and doom all free will.

But the doom of free will isn't necessitated by the existence of any kind of
god.
Here again, your argument fails to account for how god directly needs to be
involved in the failure of free will in a logical sense. Since it is not
necessary for god to create all particulars in order to create all, it is
not necessary for god to have anything to do with free will.

D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omniscient - creator god.
3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.

All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.

Of course they don't. Your theory of omnigenesis is flawed. Therefore
nothing but your own flawed thinking "leads to it."

5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM

God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.

1. Your class of gods has already been proven not to exist in anything other
than your mind in many other essays.
2. Significant differences exist in the beliefs you list as to the
attributes of god.
3. Since your theory doesn't work concerning "omnigenesis," if follows that
your theory won't work for a class of gods anymore than it works for a
single god. It does not work for any single god, even the one you've
attempted to invent. Therefore, it does not work for any class of gods
other than the class of gods that contains exactly one god, which is the god
you invented.

Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and many his victims?
How can that be loving, merciful or just?

The above is a pale attempt at summoning the ghost of the Argument from
Evil. Nothing you've written above is implied by your flawed theory of
'omnigenesis' even if your theory was correct.
Again, you've essentially constructed an argument by assertion alone.
Arguments consist of more than assertion, Mr. Barwell.

6. SOULS

And supposedly this god creates souls,

Which is also unnecessary from the premises leading to 'omnigenesis.'
Hence your remarks on souls do not follow from your premises.

7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL

We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.

Not in any fashion you've described.
1. Your argument does not imply nihilism as a conclusion.
2. God is not necessary for nihilism to exist.

This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve.

Actually, nothing that you've written implies these ends. Furthermore,
quite a few atheists end up embracing nihilism, Mr. Barwell. Your argument
does not speak to the rather evident truth that the emergence and growth of
nihilism parallels the historical lapse of belief in god in both Europe and
the United States.
Though I do not consider this historical fact an argument for religion in
general, it certainly cannot be construed as an argument for the salutory
benefits of anti-theism.

Materialism must be true, the only truth possible.

You have not even begun to demonstrate that the above is true, Mr. Barwell.
Your omnigenesis argument, is hopeless flawed on its face. And you
certainly have not shown that materialism is the only alternative to a
belief in the god you've created for your argument.
In summary.
1. Your argument is flawed due to non-sequiturs [creation does not imply
creation of each and every particular element of reality] and the argument
by assertion [the assertion of omniscience, the assertion of freedom from
time, the assertion of the necessity of souls, and so on...none of which
have you supported with logical arguments].
2. Materialism is not the only alternative to your argument.
Hence, omnigenesis leads to nothing because omnigenesis as you've described
it does not exist. And materialism is not the only alternative to your
argument, hence it is not the only possible truth.

In the end, we have two stark choices, sane materialism, or
total metaphysical nihilsm. There is really then, only one choice.

A crowning end to your typical lack of rationality.
If we have indeed only one choice, we do not logically have a choice.
.

User: "JPG"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 01:10:07 PM

On 16 Jul 2006 09:31:33 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins

It's looking a bit sad now.

You are the sad *****, Jones the pseudo-philospher.
Academically, you are not fit to wipe Dawkins' arse.
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 01:21:56 PM

JPG wrote:

On 16 Jul 2006 09:31:33 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins

It's looking a bit sad now.

You are the sad *****, Jones the pseudo-philospher.

Academically, you are not fit to wipe Dawkins' arse.

Fraid not idjit. I showed Dawkins in the right light. Hmm.. perhaps
atheists are people who simply don't pay attention.
.

User: "JPG"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 04:31:19 PM

On 16 Jul 2006 11:21:56 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

JPG wrote:

On 16 Jul 2006 09:31:33 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

quibbler wrote:

but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

-- Richard Dawkins

It's looking a bit sad now.

You are the sad *****, Jones the pseudo-philospher.

Academically, you are not fit to wipe Dawkins' arse.

Fraid not idjit. I showed Dawkins in the right light. Hmm.. perhaps
atheists are people who simply don't pay attention.

I don't give a toss what light you showed Dawkins in, you are still
not fit to wipe his arse and I am certainly not going to pay any
attention to your incoherent ramblings.
.

User: "I KILLED YOUR GOD---IT WAS EASY!"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 09:53:14 AM

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	16 Jul 2006 11:30:32 AM

I KILLED YOUR GOD---IT WAS EASY! wrote:

You are very, very naughty boy.
Naughty person. Naughty atheist. Naughty nunia. Naughty botty.
I think you need a corrective botty spank for a very naughty botty. Oh
yes I think you do.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 11:49:05 PM

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

OK so you dont like him.
I dont agree with him 100% on religion (my views on religion go well
beyond my views on God/s ) , but he knows and can explain complex ideas
in evolutionary biology very well. I learned a great deal from his
books.
I feel proper respect for those that teach me things.
I admire his intelect and his ability to convey complex ideas clearly.

Your dislike for him doesn't change any of that.

I dont know him - but I strongly suspect i would like him if I knew him

Mark.

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

Idiots like you
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 07:25:43 PM

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

This question can be answered on different levels of abstraction.
All the answers would be true at their particular level.
1) Patterns/arrangements of nucleic acids in DNA.
2) Pattens/arrangemnets of expression/ timing of development of an
organism.
..
..
..
N) Physical and behavioural characteristics of organisms.
When we say an organism inherits its Big Nose from its Big Nosed
ancestors - there is no actaul passing on of noses - ultimately the
current organism has inherited a particular sequence of DNA which when
expressed through the development of an organism results in having
features resembling the features of its parents.
He doesn't have to have inherited any material substance from its
parents - there is some substance passed along but it is incidental -
the important thing that is passed along is the pattern - the "design".
Dawkins knows this very well.
Mark.
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 04:12:34 PM

Richo wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

This question can be answered on different levels of abstraction.
All the answers would be true at their particular level.
1) Patterns/arrangements of nucleic acids in DNA.
2) Pattens/arrangemnets of expression/ timing of development of an
organism.
.
.
.
N) Physical and behavioural characteristics of organisms.

When we say an organism inherits its Big Nose from its Big Nosed
ancestors - there is no actaul passing on of noses - ultimately the
current organism has inherited a particular sequence of DNA which when
expressed through the development of an organism results in having
features resembling the features of its parents.

He doesn't have to have inherited any material substance from its
parents - there is some substance passed along but it is incidental -
the important thing that is passed along is the pattern - the "design".

Dawkins knows this very well.

Mark.

As it is not the substance of a creature that is passed on, or the
creature itself that survives, it can only mean that a 'pattern
survives', which is a rather forced, but necessary interpretation of
Dawkins 'survival of the gene'.
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 01:59:07 AM

Richo wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

This question can be answered on different levels of abstraction.
All the answers would be true at their particular level.
1) Patterns/arrangements of nucleic acids in DNA.
2) Pattens/arrangemnets of expression/ timing of development of an
organism.
.
.
.
N) Physical and behavioural characteristics of organisms.

When we say an organism inherits its Big Nose from its Big Nosed
ancestors - there is no actaul passing on of noses - ultimately the
current organism has inherited a particular sequence of DNA which when
expressed through the development of an organism results in having
features resembling the features of its parents.

He doesn't have to have inherited any material substance from its
parents - there is some substance passed along but it is incidental -
the important thing that is passed along is the pattern - the "design".

Dawkins knows this very well.

Mark.

Then if animals fight for 'survival' it is for the survival of
something that belongs to none of them. For what then, would the gene
be selfish?
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 07:24:54 PM

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

This question can be answered on different levels of abstraction.
All the answers would be true at their particular level.
1) Patterns/arrangements of nucleic acids in DNA.
2) Pattens/arrangemnets of expression/ timing of development of an
organism.
.
.
.
N) Physical and behavioural characteristics of organisms.

When we say an organism inherits its Big Nose from its Big Nosed
ancestors - there is no actaul passing on of noses - ultimately the
current organism has inherited a particular sequence of DNA which when
expressed through the development of an organism results in having
features resembling the features of its parents.

He doesn't have to have inherited any material substance from its
parents - there is some substance passed along but it is incidental -
the important thing that is passed along is the pattern - the "design".

Dawkins knows this very well.

Mark.

Then if animals fight for 'survival' it is for the survival of
something that belongs to none of them.

The animal is just going about its business - it doesnt *know* that it
is fighting for the survival of its traits - it just gets hungry or
scared or agressive or horny.

For what then, would the gene
be selfish?

The gene is simply a replicator - a machine that copies itself - it has
no awareness that it is making better whales or eagles.
Dawkins was using the term "selfish" to convey that idea - to attack
the false idea of "teleology" that the gene was serving some greater
purpose - that giraffes (or their componemt parts) were struggling to
grow longer necks etc.
The function of genes is to get themselves copied - that faster fish of
more aerodynamic eagles result from that is the wonder and power of the
idea of natural selection.
Mark.
.

User: "Gospel Bretts"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 02:35:11 PM

On 17 Jul 2006 23:59:07 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

Richo wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richo wrote:

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

This question can be answered on different levels of abstraction.
All the answers would be true at their particular level.
1) Patterns/arrangements of nucleic acids in DNA.
2) Pattens/arrangemnets of expression/ timing of development of an
organism.
.
.
.
N) Physical and behavioural characteristics of organisms.

When we say an organism inherits its Big Nose from its Big Nosed
ancestors - there is no actaul passing on of noses - ultimately the
current organism has inherited a particular sequence of DNA which when
expressed through the development of an organism results in having
features resembling the features of its parents.

He doesn't have to have inherited any material substance from its
parents - there is some substance passed along but it is incidental -
the important thing that is passed along is the pattern - the "design".

Dawkins knows this very well.

Mark.

Then if animals fight for 'survival' it is for the survival of
something that belongs to none of them. For what then, would the gene
be selfish?

You really aren't that dumb, Jones.
------------------
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 11:48:04 PM

John Jones wrote:

bob young wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.

No smaller than you for using this one man
to try to justify your primitive mythology

Does it ever occur to you that
were this god of yours 'real'
there would be no need to descend to these depths
with pathetic attempts to justify your belief

Bob
humanist Brit.

The stronger the supernatural beliefs, the worse the inhumanity.
[James A. Haught]

My gosh, a humanist is telling me what is real. Hey sunshine, did you
have a revelation about it? Are you a prophet? 'm npt a glib fool like
you.

FYI All prophets were/are charlatans as they stood/stand in front of admiring
crowds and lie through their teeth about a god they claim to be in touch
with. Rather like you do.
Grow up and post something positive instead of glib remarks,
they lower your standing [you will never a prophet make]
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 06:11:01 PM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<12bmaf71u7fgo2c@corp.supernews.com>...

bob young wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.

No smaller than you for using this one man to try to justify your
primitive mythology

Does it ever occur to you that
were this god of yours 'real'
there would be no need to descend to these depths with pathetic attempts
to justify your belief

I will have to agree here, Dawkins is an idiot.

Provided he ever actually said such a thing. "Jones" is not what I'd call
a reliable source...

I will agree with you. I suspect that he may
not have done so considering the source and tendency
for people of that ilk to create FOAFtales later
debunked by Snopes.
I do remember sitting in the Rice University library
25 years ago and reading a nature article on the
pain receptors et al of Earthworms and noting that
obviously, pain is something all creatures with
nervous systems, no matter how primitive, have.
All feel pain. This also shows that ideas that animals
are just souless automatons, a bad idea from the
era of Descartes is indeed a bad and foolish idea.
I would think Dawkins would be aware of all of
this.
I will then hold Dawkings blameless in this regard
unless somebody can prove otherwise, which it seems
is not likely considering the sources.
This obvious fact that even lowly animals can feel
pain, probably as strong to them as to us, should be
made known to all school children in 6th grade
biology classes in no uncertain terms.
Maybe would have less problems with people
like Bush blowing up frogs with fireworks
as a lad, or Cheney's canned hunts, killing
hundreds of small birds in a day, for "fun".
I don't see much fun my self in causing
pain and death to many small creatures.
--
"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 06:53:33 AM

Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<12bo686jivgm2f1@corp.supernews.com>...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<12bmaf71u7fgo2c@corp.supernews.com>...

bob young wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was
remarkable. He stated that as there was no evidence that most
animals felt pain he could quite easily put a hook in a worm without
misgiving, which he proceeded to do on camera. While the worm
squirmed he viewed it calmly with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment
to act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief.
Quite probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the
matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins
says he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite
with no judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that
everything he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He
is a very sad, small man.

No smaller than you for using this one man to try to justify your
primitive mythology

Does it ever occur to you that
were this god of yours 'real'
there would be no need to descend to these depths with pathetic
attempts to justify your belief

I will have to agree here, Dawkins is an idiot.

Provided he ever actually said such a thing. "Jones" is not what I'd
call a reliable source...

I will agree with you. I suspect that he may not have done so
considering the source and tendency for people of that ilk to create
FOAFtales later debunked by Snopes.

Yeah without a serious citation that can be verified, I'm not going to buy
into anything a theist (particularly a kook like this "John Jones") says
about Dawkins. Theists just hate the man. About as bad as they hate MMOH.

I do remember sitting in the Rice University library 25 years ago and
reading a nature article on the pain receptors et al of Earthworms and
noting that obviously, pain is something all creatures with nervous
systems, no matter how primitive, have. All feel pain. This also shows
that ideas that animals are just souless automatons, a bad idea from the
era of Descartes is indeed a bad and foolish idea.

I would think Dawkins would be aware of all of this.

I will then hold Dawkings blameless in this regard unless somebody can
prove otherwise, which it seems is not likely considering the sources.

This obvious fact that even lowly animals can feel pain, probably as
strong to them as to us, should be made known to all school children in
6th grade biology classes in no uncertain terms.

Maybe would have less problems with people like Bush blowing up frogs
with fireworks as a lad, or Cheney's canned hunts, killing hundreds of
small birds in a day, for "fun".

I don't see much fun my self in causing pain and death to many small
creatures.

Interesting thing about the whole matter--at least to me--is what it
reveals about the *person more than about the animal in question. If it
*looks like a pain reaction, I'm not sure it matters whether the
particular animal has a complex enough nervous system to "feel pain" or
not. I think it says something about the person whether the *appearance of
pain triggers their empathy or not.
When I lived in the back of beyond of the swamps, we had trouble with
field mice. It was like a damn invasion. And considering the disease risk,
something had to be done. But they'd get stuck in some trap or other,
injure themselves trying to get free, and it was *awful. Whether they
"felt" anything or not wasn't relevant. It *looked (and sounded for that
matter) like pain and terror.
I can recognize the necessity of such things but I do *not like it. I
can't imagine how anybody can "enjoy" such a thing. And I'm glad I can't
imagine such. There are very clear indications that people who "enjoy"
tormenting small animals are capable of enjoying abusing people.
It's one reason I find Cheney's canned, fake "hunts" to be a mark of a
questionable personality.
I don't actually have anything against hunting per se. I was raised rural.
Hunting was common. But, then, subsistence hunting (there are actual
licenses for that mind you) still exists in rural parts of Texas and
Louisiana. Particularly the latter being a poor state. But even the people
who didn't need to hunt to supplement their family's food supply ate what
they killed (venison, by the way, is actually very, very good).
The "sports" thing leaves me cold. City types tramping around idiotically
in the woods, shooting at each other half the time, trying to get a
"trophy" is just bizarre. And what on earth Cheney could get out of farm
raised birds being planted so he can blow them away is beyond me. That's
not hunting, that's barely target practice.
And I'm deeply suspicious of someone that can get some kind of emotional
charge out of something that idiotic...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 07:14:25 PM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<12bo686jivgm2f1@corp.supernews.com>...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<12bmaf71u7fgo2c@corp.supernews.com>...

Snip>

Excellent point - well made.
I wish I had said that!
Mark.
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 08:11:50 PM

wbarwell wrote:

Organisms all have mechanisms for avoiding damage - they sense
heat/cold/mechanical damage - I dont think that is the same as feeling
pain.
If I made a little toy robot that could sense heat and move away from
it would that mean that my little robot felt "pain"?
When we say we "feel pain" - we are conflating two seperate things -
the detection of damage and our awareness of the detection of damage.
A human, ape or dog has a brain where this awareness can take place -
where would the worm have this awareness?
Mark
.

User: "Jos Flachs"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	18 Jul 2006 04:20:18 AM

On 17 Jul 2006 07:15:32 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

Richo wrote:

Answer me this: What gets passed on in the processes of evolution?

You. On board the express train to Plonkville. Have a nice trip.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Dawkins "evil-less world without Faith"	17 Jul 2006 08:02:01 PM

wbarwell wrote:

bob young wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Richard Dawkins appearance on television some years ago was remarkable.
He stated that as there was no evidence that most animals felt pain he
could quite easily put a hook in a worm without misgiving, which he
proceeded to do on camera. While the worm squirmed he viewed it calmly
with a scientists watchful disdain.

He believed that most animals did not feel pain, and his commitment to
act on that belief was the measure of his faith in that belief. Quite
probably, his actions were at odds with his feelings on the matter.

So, welcome to Dawkins evil-less world without faith, and the
subordination, if not irrelevance of feelings presumably. Dawkins says
he does not have faith. We can presume that he is a hypocrite with no
judgement on the matter of faith either way. It seems that everything
he comes up with is suspect ethically and logically. He is a very sad,
small man.

I will have to agree here, Dawkins is an idiot.

Even Einstein made a couple of mistakes

Worms and insects in fact, do have primitive
nervous systems with the same pain receptors
in their bodies hooked up to their brains the
same way ours are. They have the same systems we
have, the same systems that are blocked by opiates et al.

Its obvious that pain sensations are suffered even
by lowly creatures.

--

"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom