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

Isaksson's Profile

Isaksson's Avatar Joined about 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Isaksson

More Discussions by Isaksson

Latest Comments by Isaksson

Go to: Refuting supernatural

Isaksson's Avatar Jump to comment 140 by Isaksson

People say we cant investigate the existance of the supernatural.

For example: Comment 26 by jay29 Friday, 13 July 2012 at 8:05 PM | #949086 “However, we cannot scientifically investigate whether He exists or not.”

I would say we can.

We just need something to investigate. We need criteria, proposals for study topics, something to say what we are to study and search for. I have been asking my religious friends what we were to look for and examine in order to find their god, and you know what? They didn’t know where to begin. Not too surprising though, as there isn’t yet (and probably never will be) any evidence for any gods existence to get us started.

There are investigations ongoing about Jesus and the bible and so on, but in this case we had someplace to start. For example an old dusty book.

My point is, science can investigate just about anything you can think of. The question is, can science get any results that indicates that the item of investigation exists? If the item of investigation does not exist. I would have to say no. If the item exists, yes. Its only a matter of time and patience. We get better and better at science every day as technology gives us new and improved tools. The question is, if there is no proof either way, how long do we search before we say its nonsense?

Sorry for bad grammar, spellings and what not, its early and im not terribly "English" today.

Regards Isaksson

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:29:08 UTC | #949487

Go to: How to handle the God issue with my five-year-old son

Isaksson's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Isaksson

Hi Vitor!

” Science doesn't had never proved that God doesn't exist, neither the opposite.”

This is to my knowledge true. The criteria offered by different religions for their deities makes it very hard to scientifically test if their god exists or not. If, for example, Christianity would come up with a clear cut definition of what god is, then we probably could start exploring options on how to proceed to do some searching and testing.

“So, science is not a good criteria. If science has no answer, each one of us have only a personnel opinion.”

It is also true that each of us is free to believe whatever we fancy. There is however a big difference, in my opinion, about the validity of ones opinions. If someone argues a case where that said person can not produce a logical argument based on observation and fact, then I´m for one are less likely to take that opinion as my own.

Science is the best tool we have to understand the world around us as it gives us the best way to test, experience and validate our ideas. It’s a tool that has been developed a very long time, and only gets better as time goes on.

“I think you must present the facts and different opinions. Who must decide are each one of your children, along his life. More important is to learn tolerance with people who think different, otherwise you can transform your suns in fanatic men. Our suns have the right and duty to think by themselves.”

With this I whole heartedly agree with you! We have an obligation to give the very best of us to our kids, and teach them about all we can about the world. About the good and bad, fun and boring. About the nice times, and the hard times, and maby the most important, about our own mistakes.

“Jesus gospel learns that a man must proceed with other men like he proceed with his loved ones. And we mustn't proceed like people we don´t approve. We can read yourself. I can´t understand why this principle is wrong or dangerous.”

I think the idea of treating others like you yourself would like to be treated is a very good one, and well worth trying to live by as best you can. I don’t really care who came up with this idea in the first place, it’s a good one and I clearly see the logic and merit it contains. I think most of us do.

“Religion isn't dangerous,”

To this I strongly disagree. Religion is quite dangerous as it is a great tool to keep people ignorant of the world around us and to place our trust in people without having the option to demand proof.

Religion demands that you put your trust in something without any good reason at all. Why? Because your priest tells you to, or that your scripture tells you too, or your shaman, or some other authority.

Personally I think that ignorance about the world around us is far more dangerous than not believing in some god or another. Likewise is placing your trust in something or someone utterly without reason, as if you are taught to do this as a child, then you have one less strength to deal with a very hard existance on this little speck of dust.

“Atheism is a doctrine like others and can be used as justification to do bad things”

I haven’t seen any evidence for this as of yet, but yes. Someone could probably kill someone in the name of “atheism”. This person would be greatly misguided though, and probably criminally insane. Atheism isn’t a doctrine. It doesn’t have a set of rules to live by in itself. It isn’t a book, or a filosofy. It is simply just a word to define a persons lack of belief in a diety or the supernatural. Nothing more, nothing less.

It’s just as you say:

“A Man is always responsible by his own acts.”

But to this I would like to add, that we also have a measure of responsibility towards our fellow man and what he does to, and with, the rest of us.

Regards /Isaksson

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:03:42 UTC | #875116

Go to: How to handle the God issue with my five-year-old son

Isaksson's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Isaksson

This reminds me of something I heard on the radio a while back. The woman anchor told this story about her friends conversation with her kid.

Kid: Hey Mum, what happens when we die?

Mum: Well, some think we go to heaven, but actually no one knows for sure. I think It’s just like falling asleep.

Kid: But what about the body?

Mum: Do you remember when Grandpa died? He was buried. After a while there is nothing left but soil, and who knows? Perhaps some part of him is a potato now.

After the kid had soaked this for a bit he started to cry like, well, a crying kid actually.

Mum: Hey, what’s wrong?

Kid: I don’t want to be a potato!

This just goes to show that you never, ever know how kids will react.

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:01:22 UTC | #874754

Go to: Calling all foxhole atheists – fill out THIS version of the Spiritual Fitness test.

Isaksson's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by Isaksson

I was interested to see what this test looked like, so I promptly agreed to take the test. I was a bit annoyed as i realized that i simply could not answer any of the questions posed to me.

The reason for this is simply that i cant answer a question like: "Do you feel connected to humans and other living things on the earth?" without context and reference. (I made up this particular question, but it closely resembles one of them.)

On one hand, if the context is in a theological sense, I´d have to say no. I don´t feel some spiritual, or in most cases even emotional, connection to beings and other objects in the world around me.

On the other hand, I do know that we are all connected through what we call "life". Not, as I have said, in some supernatural way, but due to the fact that the one thing we do share is that we are alive, and atleast I personally value my life very much.

We also share a connection due to natural prossesees. One thing that connects us is that we for millions and millions of years have survived due to our parents naturally honed skills to survive, and probably a bit of old fashioned portion of good luck, and thus gives us through evolution a family bond as we get closer and closer to our common ancestors.

In light of this, I simply cannot just simply say that "This is a bit like me" in respect to the question, as if i do, I would lie just as much as i told the truth.

Oh, and I do apologize for my bad language skills. I´m a tad out of practice.


Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:45:34 UTC | #866826

Go to: Can Science and Religion Get Along?

Isaksson's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by Isaksson

"Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science."

To this I can agree. With that said, would you please, please, use the same method and rationale to examine your religion. Please.


Yet 30% of American voters describe themselves as evangelicals, and the voices of this massive segment deserve to be heard

If you are referring to freedom of speech, then yes. They do have that right. But you know what? I have the right to NOT LISTEN!

Or are those who build creation museums hopeless ideologues whose Stone Age ideas should be buried once and for all?

Yes, yes, YES!

Well, that´s it for me tonight. Buggering off now.

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:15:42 UTC | #593792

More Comments by Isaksson