The real question.

So, why can't people like Dawkins actually address religious issues? Why can't the scientific community.

Today, Michael Ruse suggested that the answer was simple. Idiots (my own terminology) like Dawkins focus on a series of issues, taking down one after the other, saying "This is why religion is false."

The issue is, religion doesn't care, and it won't becuase the question that religion really tries to answer is this.

"Why something, rather than nothing."

I'm sorry but thats f*cking brilliant.

Do you feel Ruse is correct in his analysis? Is that actually the ONE question religion tries to answer? Have nonreligious views failed to answer it?

I think you worded that poorly. Quick!! to the edit button.

But if I understand you correctly, I'd say yes, that is a question religion tries to answer, not necessarily the only one. And yes, non-religious (you mean science right?) views fail to answer it because they aren't concerned with it.

I'd hardly call Dawkins an idiot.

Dawkins is one of the biggest idiots I have ever witnessed. Naturally, Phelps is worse...

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think you worded that poorly. Quick!! to the edit button.

It was hard for me to do the mental switch from stats to Philosophy...but I couldn't hold it in.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But if I understand you correctly, I'd say yes, that is a question religion tries to answer, not necessarily the only one. And yes, non-religious (you mean science right?) views fail to answer it because they aren't concerned with it.

My non-religious, I mean ANYTHING, non religious.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Dawkins is one of the biggest idiots I have ever witnessed. Naturally, Phelps is worse...

Interesting choice of the word "naturally"

Originally posted by Boris
I'd hardly call Dawkins an idiot.

Nah, I stand by my new opinon.

LOL!

Dawkins and Phelps are nothing alike, of course Phelps is worse... jesus, Phelps is a racist, insane, homophobic, evil bigot, many will rejoice when that man dies. Dawkins is a great scientist bringing Atheism to the for front and challenging religion the way it should be challenged.

No, infact, Dawkins used to be a brilliant scienist who now ENDANGERS science by involving it in the frivolous public debates.

No, not really. What debates? The only 'debates' I've seen, if you can even call them that, is him promoting his book, talking to mostly, idiotic Christan freaks who will not hear him out.

He is just as idiotic. His arguments are not based on science. They are based on faulty logic and he refuses to be mature or judicious in his decisions.

He then co-opts science as mysteriously supporting his views which it simply does NOT.

And he does go around, interview religious this, and religious that, saying how stupid it all is.

His arguments ARE based on science, he is an evolutionary biologist for Christ sake! They are based on the scientific evidence that we have on the world around us, he is quite mature but does get frustrated I think, and I can hardly blame him.

Some of the people he talks to are total psychos. Scientific facts support his views. And of course he goes around saying how stupid it all is.. well, because it is.. .he's telling the truth.

I think my *bullshit* alarm not only went off, but subsequently exploded.

Have you actually READ his work? He bastardizes science and maks unscientific conclusiongs of the world on false logic that can be as dumb as the "psychos" he talks to.

His work is to the detriment of the credability of science. He subsequently achieves nothing positive. And he doesn't actually address the issue, notably the one I gave above.

Examples?

Of what?

Dawkins is the farthest thiung from an idiot I've ever seen.

Get out much?

I don't have to sit here and be insulted because you treat your oipinions as facts.

And I don't have to listen to your unbased opinons. SO this is real productive. Try logic. Dawkins doesn't have much.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm sorry but thats f*cking brilliant.

I'm sorry, but that's not brilliant. It's lazy.

Why? I think its a wonderful summation of a very key issue.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why? I think its a wonderful summation of a very key issue.

It is a key issue. I don't argue that. But what they want to do is say "this can't be argued. I consider that lazy. That is what "religion" does. It finds issues that can't be argued and claims their answer as their own. God might no be argued with, but his actions and rules are up for debate. This is what is not considered.