This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

chbg21808's Profile

chbg21808's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by chbg21808

More Discussions by chbg21808

Latest Comments by chbg21808

Go to: Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

chbg21808's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by chbg21808

I think this story is lightweight and I found it utterly boring.

Why do theists believe that atheism equates with belief in nothing... lol.

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:14:00 UTC | #90254

Go to: Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

chbg21808's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by chbg21808

I never claimed it has scientific context... There is no evidence for it... It is no more than a hypothesis. But every claim has to start somewhere even scientific ones. For example, physicists talk about multi-universes... But there is no evidence for them. But if physicists were not able to develop these metaphors as models, whether true or false, they would never get anywhere.

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:44:00 UTC | #89961

Go to: Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

chbg21808's Avatar Jump to comment 67 by chbg21808

We seem to be arguing from two different places... you are talking philosophy and I am trying to look at it from a scientific perspective... I'm a bit like Atkins I'm afraid... I think philosophy just gets in the way.

Well, for me personally it was brilliant in the sense that it got me thinking about the universe in a way I had never thought before... So perhaps I should of said personally brilliant.

I certainly cannot debate with you on philosophical grounds... You seem to know a lot more than I do... Apart from the odd philosopher like Dan Dennett who is one of those rare philosophers who actually attempts the science... for the most part I find philosophers boring.

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:32:00 UTC | #89951

Go to: Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

chbg21808's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by chbg21808

"Because it tries to hand-wave away the fact that there is something to explain."

Nobody has claimed it is nothing more than a hypothesis... not even me... so what? And what about physics... How far do you think physicists would get if they did not ask these kinds of questions. Would they say such a statement is glib... Never.

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:19:00 UTC | #89946

Go to: Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

chbg21808's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by chbg21808

"I think what Atkins said was a bit glib. "Nothingness" and "stuff" may be fundamentally the same thing, but when we deal with "stuff" we are in that case dealing with structured and organised "nothingness". It is reasonable to wonder how that structure (which is not nothing) arose."

Indeed, we are dealing with structured 'stuff' ...But what did Atkins say at the start... He said "I'm a reductionist" ...Well, what could be more reductionist than 'nothing' if it really does exist as something... Surely that would be a noble scientific pursuit and I don't see in what sense that is glib.

Of course it is another thing to say we could find such 'stuff' - at our current level of technology... Probably not. But perhaps in the future we will have instruments sensitive enough to find such 'stuff' ... Perhaps there is a fundamental particle or wave or whatever it may be, that only looks like nothing to our 'big brains' it's just that we cannot directly see this small stuff... Rather analogous to the comment Dawkins makes about 'middle world' ...evolved humans having trouble grasping quantum effects.

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:07:00 UTC | #89944

More Comments by chbg21808