why the hell do I keep getting name dropped? My name's in a bunch of bardock's posts and alliance's as well, and I haven't taken part in this thread since about page 3...mainly because too many people think it's better to call others idiots and insult their debating, rather than converse like normal human beings. And beyond that, "Even Digimark thinks that...." ...Wtf is so insulting about me thinking something?!
Originally posted by DigiMark007because they are internet bullies.
why the hell do I keep getting name dropped? My name's in a bunch of bardock's posts and alliance's as well, and I haven't taken part in this thread since about page 3...mainly because too many people think it's better to call others idiots and insult their debating, rather than converse like normal human beings. And beyond that, "Even Digimark thinks that...." ...Wtf is so insulting about me thinking something?!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
why the hell do I keep getting name dropped? My name's in a bunch of bardock's posts and alliance's as well, and I haven't taken part in this thread since about page 3...mainly because too many people think it's better to call others idiots and insult their debating, rather than converse like normal human beings. And beyond that, "Even Digimark thinks that...." ...Wtf is so insulting about me thinking something?!
You can just read my post then you know why your name has been dropped.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You can just read my post then you know why your name has been dropped.
...which is about what I expected your response to be. Problem is, the thing you're referring to originated pages ago, and even when I traveled back there it was hard to glean the context of it....I can't tell whether my comments are just being used a debating point or if I'm being insulted.
So you can write small novels responding to others, but I've asked this question twice now and can't get a straight answer. Hell, even Alliance apologized to me in private for whatever perceived slight there was, even if it was just a misunderstanding.
I can't imagine how it could still be a valid topic of discussion at this point though, so I'll ask you to please stop so that I don't have to travel back to this thread again and we don't need to belabor this any longer than we have already.
Originally posted by Bardock42
See, you idiot, if you could understand what I write you would realize that I did not deny either of those...but you can't.
This is how 4 years olds argue. Please drop the names. NOW.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Not saying you are wrong but you might want to provide examples in which Dawkins does the things you claim he does.
Then please read my posts that
1. Provide examples.
2. Explain my general feelings based on my interaction with his work.
3. Explains my current limitations in providing answers.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I just realized I made the greatest post ever and no one will read it. Frustrating..
Go find a mirror. There's someone who really wants to see you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Alliance, if you feel the need to reply to this again, knock yourself out, I probably won't though.
Here’s my self-involved introduction. I’ll simply respond to where you can’t understand argument my arguments about Dawkins. Dance all you want, I’m simply enjoying the show.
1. “He [Dawkins] damages the credibility of science by claiming that science actually disproves religion. This is a blatant fallacy."
Science studies the natural world. God is supernatural. Real science makes no statements about the supernatural EVER.
Dawkins clearly states that the existence of God is, to him, a scientific question. That damages the credibility of science, dragging through his own personal mud: "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."
2. “Dawkins is an atheist.”
What Dawkins describes as, does not necessarily reflect his actuality. He is atheist in practice. He can call himself a Jew for all I care...it is false. He repeatedly and flatly denies God. That is the most extremist form of atheism.
3. He is rabid and ruthless in his attacks, constantly failing to account for nuances and diversity. He paints all those who are religious as though they are Christian fundamentalists."
This quote should help you. You’ll see grievances #1 and #3 addressed here: “But, they are carrying a virus of faith with them, that they transmit from generations to another, and could create a 'epidemic' of faith any time. As I said, I am a kind of person who cares about the truth and also want to see people following the truth. The truth is not a revelation, but truth that has been established though evidences and repeated experiments.” Sat Jun 2 2007
4. “He ignores flaws in his own argument, globalizing it to the point where it is no longer supported by the "facts" he provides, making him as guilty of religious zealotry as other fundamentalists who claim that they have a monopoly on "truth."”
Dawkins consistently claims that he is against “ideology,” but wants “Atheists to come together and establish a God-neutral political view, a view of their own, for a better balanced world.”
Dawkins wants to end all religion. He treats religion as a disease or a clinical condition, an analogy on which there are no grounds to make.
Some people think that science should take a position on God, others don't. Just because you think it shouldn't, doesn't make it unscientific. In my opinion, on the other hand, Science should try to consider and explain all facts of life. The existence or non-existence of a God is certainly one of those.
5. Mabye you didn’t put it together, but this statement: "No, it simply compounds the fact that he's a menace to civilized society." was simply a summary of my previous posts. It also give me a point to address this comment: “Some people think that science should take a position on God, others don't. Just because you think it shouldn't, doesn't make it unscientific. In my opinion, on the other hand, Science should try to consider and explain all facts of life. The existence or non-existence of a God is certainly one of those.”
I am a scientist. That is what I do every day of my life. It will play a large part in my career. I am also a biologist and I spend far to much of my time defending the Theory of Natural Selection form outrageous attacks. Maybe you don’t know how personal attacks against science can be to someone, but I assure you they can. This is a personal issue for me and I take the public defense of evolution to be a serious part of my societal role as a biologist.
Science takes no stance on supernatural issues, despite your lame and eunuchiod attempt to redefine it. This is not my position. This is the position of the scientific community. Get over it.
Dawkins blurring of religion and science destroys scientific credibility (ironically, just like ID). If Dawkins wants to claim that science disproves religion, he opens the backdoor to ___(insert religion here)___ pseudoscience as well. That would be disastrous to modern science.
Combine that with his totalitarian bent on making the world 100% atheist, that seems to be a threat to a civilized, free thinking society.
So...if you have something to ACTUALLY disprove (not distract, dilute, redefine, or distort) those points...please leave a message after the tone...*beeep*
More lies.
Also, you are not a scientist. At most you study science in college at the moment.
Anyways, I read the Collins - Dawkins interview, I would say Dawkins was certainly the most reasonable of the two. I liked that it was very civil but there are a few points of Collins that are just flat out retarded...I would say Dawkins was the winner in that.
Originally posted by Alliance
[b]2. “Dawkins is an atheist.”
[/B]
Oh, while we are at catching Alliance making up shit, lets read Dawkins last statement in the interview Alliance was talking about
DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
Well...no idea how Alliance is going to lie about that one, but I guess he will find something in his unreasonable hate for Dawkins.
Originally posted by Bardock42DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
I now have respect for Dawkins. This shows really and truly that he is an open minded person. Its just the fundies that make him seem like a **** sometimes.
👆
Originally posted by Bardock42
If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.[/i]
This is also ironic. This is what true religon says, God is incomprehensible the whole reason why you have stories, idols etc is to help you gain SOME understanding of what God is, but through contemplation and study we are trying to transcend human logic. Its the stupid findies who come along and try to intepret religion literially when thats not what you are supposed to do and this is what is causing alot of problems.
I dont think Dawkins understand that really religon agrees with what he has just said in the above quote, but again thats because of the fundies. The give religon a bad name.
Dawkins sound agnostic to me.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I could make Adolf Hitler look like a Jew lover with just one quote.
Well ok thats true until I see more debates and inteviews with him I wont make an opinion, but in all fairness I have seen some debates were he is really polite.
Seriously I just think fundies set him off, he seems to be ok with more open minded religous people