|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2011 : 08:10:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I watched Dawkins on The Fox News debating Bil O'Reilly( Dawkins failed miserably). Dawkin's 4 horsemen with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and his The God Delusion.
The problem with Dawkins position is trying to explain everything through Darwinism.
Dawkins is against a personal god but admits Einsteins reference to god is acceptable.
I don't know if just an attack on creationist is really an attack on God, religion, Christianity. especially if when the answer is Darwinism which is just an Evolution Theory.
Dawkins respects the laws of physics but cannot explain why or who created it. Dawkins sees religion as having most successfully evolved with human evolution and yet cannot answer why Natural selection played a part in this.
Dawkins sees religion as mostly good, that it frees us from pure Darwinism but is against the fanatics and extreme aspects of religion which he admits is a small portion of what religion teaches.
Dawkins cannot explain the Altruism that human society exhibits a quality which only applied to kinship in pure Darwinian evolution. Yet Altruism is more prevalent in modern societies even among strangers.
Dawkins rejects the purposeful life that religion teaches and is rather comfortable finding purpose in writing books. So there is no higher purpose in Dawkins life or aspiration. Just selling books is the most one can see in this self directed atheist.
|
Bill O'Liely always edits the debates so his opponent looks foolish or looks like he lost. He also is master of the Gish Gallop and any long answer gets cut off with an impatient "answer the question" unless the person he is "debating" is making an error. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 09:38:20 [Permalink]
|
moakley wrote: | And I too am waiting for the answer to DaveW's question which has now been asked for the third time. |
Don't hold your breath.
justintime wrote: | I don't know if just an attack on creationist is really an attack on God, religion, Christianity. especially if when the answer is Darwinism which is just an Evolution Theory. |
Dawkin's arguments are sufficient since he's appealing to scientific fact. Dismissing it as "just...theory" is flawed. If you disagree, form a rebuttle. Instead you just dismiss with a bunch of vague rhetoric and non-sequiters.
| Dawkins respects the laws of physics but cannot explain why or who created it. |
Not necessary to what he's refuting. Also no evidence that there even is a why or who. Irrelevant to the debates/criticism he is involved with.
| Dawkins sees religion as having most successfully evolved with human evolution and yet cannot answer why Natural selection played a part in this. |
Why? I think you mean how. Either way, irrelevant. Dawkins does not need to explain every minute detail about how natural selection has lead to humans in our current form and with our current nature. He merely needs to provide amble evidence that evolution happened (which he has) and that there is no evidence which refutes the theory (which there isn't.) Questions about natural selection's role in forming specific behaviors is irrelevant.
| Dawkins cannot explain the Altruism that human society exhibits a quality which only applied to kinship in pure Darwinian evolution. Yet Altruism is more prevalent in modern societies even among strangers. |
Wrong. Dawkins has been addressing altruism and how it is often beneficial to the survival of humans since the 70's.
| Dawkins rejects the purposeful life that religion teaches and is rather comfortable finding purpose in writing books. So there is no higher purpose in Dawkins life or aspiration. Just selling books is the most one can see in this self directed atheist. |
You are full of shit. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/20/2011 09:39:34 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 10:31:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
moakley wrote: | And I too am waiting for the answer to DaveW's question which has now been asked for the third time. |
Don't hold your breath.
justintime wrote: | I don't know if just an attack on creationist is really an attack on God, religion, Christianity. especially if when the answer is Darwinism which is just an Evolution Theory. |
Dawkin's arguments are sufficient since he's appealing to scientific fact. Dismissing it as "just...theory" is flawed. If you disagree, form a rebuttle. Instead you just dismiss with a bunch of vague rhetoric and non-sequiters.
| Dawkins respects the laws of physics but cannot explain why or who created it. |
Not necessary to what he's refuting. Also no evidence that there even is a why or who. Irrelevant to the debates/criticism he is involved with.
| Dawkins sees religion as having most successfully evolved with human evolution and yet cannot answer why Natural selection played a part in this. |
Why? I think you mean how. Either way, irrelevant. Dawkins does not need to explain every minute detail about how natural selection has lead to humans in our current form and with our current nature. He merely needs to provide amble evidence that evolution happened (which he has) and that there is no evidence which refutes the theory (which there isn't.) Questions about natural selection's role in forming specific behaviors is irrelevant.
| Dawkins cannot explain the Altruism that human society exhibits a quality which only applied to kinship in pure Darwinian evolution. Yet Altruism is more prevalent in modern societies even among strangers. |
Wrong. Dawkins has been addressing altruism and how it is often beneficial to the survival of humans since the 70's.
| Dawkins rejects the purposeful life that religion teaches and is rather comfortable finding purpose in writing books. So there is no higher purpose in Dawkins life or aspiration. Just selling books is the most one can see in this self directed atheist. |
You are full of shit.
|
All these point were taken directly from a interview with Dawkins. Even the last bit about his purpose in life he found is selling/writing books.
You get too excitable in debates(by your own admission to bngbuck in Skeptically quitting). You will do much better if you picked off days to debate or slap on an extra pair of diapers.
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 10:39:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
All these point were taken directly from a interview with Dawkins. Even the last bit about his purpose in life he found is selling/writing books. |
Yet still, you haven't said anything about any aspect of Christianity about which Dawkins might be ignorant that would make a case for faith.
Will you? Ever? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 11:33:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by marfknox
moakley wrote: | And I too am waiting for the answer to DaveW's question which has now been asked for the third time. |
Don't hold your breath.
justintime wrote: | I don't know if just an attack on creationist is really an attack on God, religion, Christianity. especially if when the answer is Darwinism which is just an Evolution Theory. |
Dawkin's arguments are sufficient since he's appealing to scientific fact. Dismissing it as "just...theory" is flawed. If you disagree, form a rebuttle. Instead you just dismiss with a bunch of vague rhetoric and non-sequiters.
| Dawkins respects the laws of physics but cannot explain why or who created it. |
Not necessary to what he's refuting. Also no evidence that there even is a why or who. Irrelevant to the debates/criticism he is involved with.
| Dawkins sees religion as having most successfully evolved with human evolution and yet cannot answer why Natural selection played a part in this. |
Why? I think you mean how. Either way, irrelevant. Dawkins does not need to explain every minute detail about how natural selection has lead to humans in our current form and with our current nature. He merely needs to provide amble evidence that evolution happened (which he has) and that there is no evidence which refutes the theory (which there isn't.) Questions about natural selection's role in forming specific behaviors is irrelevant.
| Dawkins cannot explain the Altruism that human society exhibits a quality which only applied to kinship in pure Darwinian evolution. Yet Altruism is more prevalent in modern societies even among strangers. |
Wrong. Dawkins has been addressing altruism and how it is often beneficial to the survival of humans since the 70's.
| Dawkins rejects the purposeful life that religion teaches and is rather comfortable finding purpose in writing books. So there is no higher purpose in Dawkins life or aspiration. Just selling books is the most one can see in this self directed atheist. |
You are full of shit.
|
All these point were taken directly from a interview with Dawkins. Even the last bit about his purpose in life he found is selling/writing books.
You get too excitable in debates(by your own admission to bngbuck in Skeptically quitting). You will do much better if you picked off days to debate or slap on an extra pair of diapers.
|
Perhaps you could tear yourself away from being sexist long enough to actually answer Dave W's fucking question that he has asked for the fourth time. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 12:02:39 [Permalink]
|
I have gone through dozens of interviews given by Dawkins. It is obvious he is not a biblical scholar nor has he ever used a quote from the bible to point to contradictions which support his position in The God Delusion.
He maintains the standard secular reasoning with Darwinism as fundamental in disputing Christianity and yet fails in critical areas where apologetic's have challenges Darwinism.
Christianity as a religion is based on the Historical Jesus. Declaring himself as an Atheist but unable to explain why millions are inspired, aspire to reach out to humanity when all we are by evolutionary theory or Dawkins theory a conglomerate of deterministic self serving selfish genes.
In senility we will receive an apology for his human shortcomings. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 12:11:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
He maintains the standard secular reasoning with Darwinism as fundamental in disputing Christianity and yet fails in critical areas where apologetic's have challenges Darwinism. |
What areas are those, in particular? How can apologetics - which are often based on nothing more than peculiar interpretations of Bible verses - challenge science in any way? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 12:35:35 [Permalink]
|
Apologetic's is a period in Christianity when science (evolution theory) was overwhelmingly creating problems for the rational discourse of Divine Knowledge. Biblical scholars were forced to meet this challenge to prove evolution did not offer explanations that contradicted the Bible.
Monkey Theories are strong and fit the stereo types of many known low life humans forms. But to apply that as a general theory to all of human aspirations and achievements really put the evolutionist scientist quite out of his league and most relented.
Monkeys are monkeys, apes are apes. Humans build skyscrapers and fly F-16. Monkeys climb tress and apes gape at what could have been. |
| Edited by - justintime on 10/20/2011 12:40:26 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 13:32:20 [Permalink]
|
Anyone who states "it just a theory" toward any theory of science shows their literary ignorance as to the definition and usage of the word "theory". Look it up yourself or stay as you are. Although you continually drop your shit, like that, I won't waste my time pushing your nose in it. Your showing yourself to be a moron by publicly displaying your ignorance of the meaning and proper usage of the word. Originally posted by justintime
I have gone through dozens of interviews given by Dawkins. It is obvious he is not a biblical scholar nor has he ever used a quote from the bible to point to contradictions which support his position in The God Delusion. |
What value is there in referencing fictional writing to support anything? Oh I'm sorry. I forgot who I was asking. Look at me, I asking that of someone who can't tell fiction from fact. Even when he reads it from know sources of fiction. Anyway, that's like trying to claim that comic books about superman are proof of his existence. I don't think you know but the Bible is a fictional book. Read Genesis, it's evident in the opening pages.
Christianity as a religion is based on the Historical Jesus. |
WRONG! Christianity is based on and defended by the Bible we have here today not on historical writings. The version we have today is so far removed from the earliest known version it's differences are numbered in the thousands.
I'm referring to Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript the oldest substantial book to survive antiquity. It is of supreme importance for the history of the Bible. |
by justintime
Declaring himself as an Atheist but unable to explain why millions are inspired, aspire to reach out to humanity when all we are by evolutionary theory or Dawkins theory a conglomerate of deterministic self serving selfish genes. |
Based on your inability to know or use the proper definition of "theory", I'm not surprised you fail to understand his words and his writings.
In senility we will receive an apology for his human shortcomings. |
Oh please. I have no doubt that when comparing your accomplishments to his, you are not qualified to lick his shoes. Makes you feel his equal or superior saying that? Your not. SS
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 10/20/2011 13:40:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 14:21:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Apologetic's is a period in Christianity when science (evolution theory) was overwhelmingly creating problems for the rational discourse of Divine Knowledge. |
No, that's completely false. Apologists for Christianity have existed since the inception of the religion, some eighteen centuries before On the Origin of Species. Different apologists exist today, still trying to defend the faith (which is basically what "apologetics" means).| Biblical scholars were forced to meet this challenge to prove evolution did not offer explanations that contradicted the Bible. |
That's one particular type of apology, and it generally fails to be convincing to anyone but people who are already deeply Christian. Surely you're not faulting Dawkins for failing to address that crap?| Monkey Theories are strong and fit the stereo types of many known low life humans forms. But to apply that as a general theory to all of human aspirations and achievements really put the evolutionist scientist quite out of his league and most relented. |
Quote Dawkins doing so. He's not a strict adaptationist, you know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 23:45:18 [Permalink]
|
| If bible scholars have proved that "evolution did not offer explanations that contradicted the Bible", doesn't that mean the biblical scholars have accepted evolutionary theory? |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2011 : 00:25:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Apologetic's is a period in Christianity when science (evolution theory) was overwhelmingly creating problems for the rational discourse of Divine Knowledge. Biblical scholars were forced to meet this challenge to prove evolution did not offer explanations that contradicted the Bible.
Monkey Theories are strong and fit the stereo types of many known low life humans forms. But to apply that as a general theory to all of human aspirations and achievements really put the evolutionist scientist quite out of his league and most relented.
Monkeys are monkeys, apes are apes. Humans build skyscrapers and fly F-16. Monkeys climb tress and apes gape at what could have been.
|
You still haven't managed to produce one single concrete example. Just word salad. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2011 : 00:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Declaring himself as an Atheist but unable to explain why millions are inspired, aspire to reach out to humanity when all we are by evolutionary theory or Dawkins theory a conglomerate of deterministic self serving selfish genes. |
Since when did he introduce determinism?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2011 : 00:55:01 [Permalink]
|
| I'm sure we shouldn't think of Bible scholars as being capable of agreeing on anything with the Bible, as a group, podcat. That goes with any other group on anything. The Bible says Eve was made from Adam's rib, I know that's not what evolution claims. No fossil evidence show's that. Let's face it, the Bible stumbles all over reality right out of the gate with Genesis. It's got a talking snake for Pete's sake! What? Snakes gave up talking because it was to difficult with their cleft palate? Maybe the first snakes didn't like the other animals laughing at them mispronouncing words. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2011 : 01:16:42 [Permalink]
|
| Don't forget the talking burning bush. And maybe the snakes had too much of a lissssssssp.... |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
 |
|
Richard Dawkins Victim of Discrimination
