Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Presumably you were asking "Do unicorns exist?" because they are mentioned in the Bible.
smh. Is this for real? I'm making a point about believing things with no evidence and you're linking me to Narwhals?
No, I didn't mention them bc they're in the Bible. I made that abundantly clear when I used other more obvious examples after you butchered the unicorn response, and I also spelled it out explicitly in the post you quoted.
Let's try one more: Forget Santa, unicorns, God, etc. Do you believe there's a lifelike Fathead poster of Mamma Cass in the heart of the nearest neutron star? I'm telling you it's there. I even wrote it down in this notepad on my desk. God inspired me to write it.
We know your answer. It's a rhetorical question. It lacks all evidence. As does God, or the supernatural memeplex that is most religious belief. Provide any evidence - direct, empirical, logical, etc. - that holds up to scientific and logical scrutiny, and you'll have made progress.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
We have no empirical evidence for a lot of things in the past.I'd be hard pressed to prove that a lot of thing in my life happened.
Doesn't mean they didn't happen, though.
There are multiple forms of valid evidence. Empirical is just the most easily repeated. You also believe the Earth is round. Have you seen it from space? Yet we have numerous ways of knowing its actual size and shape.
Are you saying that you have reason to believe Jesus turned water to wine, and the proof is as tangible and explainable as telling us what you had for dinner last night?
Also, side note, much of what you remember didn't actually happen. Our memories are incredibly - and testably - fallible.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It matters a great deal which.There is no reason to suspect, beyond Saint Nicholas of Turkey, that Santa Claus ever existed in anything remotely resembling the form he takes in modern American mythology.
I'd be very surprised, what with all the space junk now orbiting Earth from previous missions, if there actually was NOT a teapot floating around somewhere. We could probably detect it now, though.
I don't think that would have been true in Russell's day, of course.
😐
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The reviews I saw on that linked page of yours suggest it is a good book.
Thank you for the recommendation.
Well, that's something at least. I'm baffled by your debating, and think it's often incoherent, but I do hope you realize all this is an attempt to get closer to the truth.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This is another thing: Where exactly have I made these "positive statements" you're trying to ascribe to me?Please show me if you can; I'd genuinely like to know.
He listed two in the post you quoted of him. And don't try to get out of saying you said some form of those statements. Have you not been defending a belief in God and the Bible for pages? And if you haven't, what the hell are we talking about instead?
Originally posted by DigiI try to respond to everything I can. But there's a difference between, say, a debate subsiding or remaining unresolved and deliberately removing a sentence from a quote that isn't convenient to your rebuttal. One is the product of shifting forum debate. The other is a direct choice to take only that which seems incriminating to me and helpful to you.
If you're this upset, though, and not just trying to shift blame for trying to change my point, point me to a debate I left hanging. I'm sure some exist, though none were intentionally malicious. I'll be happy to respond.
I'm referring to the "Heralds ... " thread which you said you'd respond to if I gave a response to your own questions, which I did. I also asked if you had power to help me with editing, but the latter wasn't a direct question in that thread. The others were.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm referring to the "Heralds ... " thread which you said you'd respond to if I gave a response to your own questions, which I did. I also asked if you had power to help me with editing, but the latter wasn't a direct question in that thread. The others were.
I have a terrible KMC memory. Link? As mentioned, I'll be happy to respond. Also as mentioned, it wasn't intentionally malicious. While I don't think your earlier omission was either, it's certainly a cheap debate tactic.
Originally posted by NemeBro
The only thing NemeBro sells is merchandise.
Yeah, that I'm not buying. Are you catching on yet?
Thank you.
Egad, don't be awkward. I was being facetious.
Correct. 👆
Negative.
What have you added?You railed on Robtard because of perceived vagueness (And sure, it was vaguer than it could have been) and have been mindlessly biting our bait for several pages. Yes, you may not have known this, but you've been being trolled. Because you're a coward.
Perceived? No, it was vague. He meant Christianity and instead referenced religion entirely. I don't care what you "understood" with your assumption.
Yeah, it was "vaguer" than it could have been. Congratulations for partially catching on. Finally.
Don't be one of those "Oh, I interjected and wasn't entirely confident so the WHOLE ordeal was my comrades and I definitely trolling!"
I mean, if we're discussing cowardice? Being a pussy about your intentions is up there resoundingly.
I win again.
No, nor have you before, especially not with me.
You're obviously upset. It is an assumption, but a well-founded one.
Well founded? How so? I haven't displayed anything that would imply I'm upset at all. Post length? Profanity? None of these are indicators that I'm "upset." You're a walking box of assumptions and inaccuracies.
Now, have a seat.
Originally posted by DigiThe popular portrayal of Dawkins ... is a pet peeve of mine.
He's amazingly compassionate.
He just doesn't pull punches where he sees ignorance ...
And to be clear, it's not a pet peeve because he's my boy.
It's a pet peeve because it's wrong ...
Originally posted by Digi
It's a shame that we've had to default to laughing trollishly at ignorance. In reality, it's sad that something so misguided could make it to print, but we'd quickly become depressed if we thought for long about it. I do the same thing...just enjoy it for the lulz...but I feel like there's a darker defense mechanism at work there as well.
Digi, Dawkins "sees ignorance" even where he himself is at fault.
He has been found to misrepresent the statements of others in his rebuttals.
Here is one case in point caught on video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhVQcs4ZqwA
As you watch the clip, though, please pay attention to the following statement, made beginning at the 2 minute 30 second mark:
"The discovery of the Halocline with our advanced modern technology marks the Qur'an the word of God without any dispute ...
... but of course you can also prove the Qur'an wrong without any dispute ...
... all you have to do is see the two seas in the Qur'anic verse as two glasses of water, just like Dawkins did."
Note that I am NOT defending the statement:
"The discovery of the Halocline with our advanced modern technology marks the Qur'an the word of God without any dispute ... "
That would be wrong if for no other reason than that there IS dispute regardless of anything else that might be said in there.
Note that if I came across the text equivalent of the information in this video, I would ellipse out such while preserving the part of the video that IS fully defensible.
I suspect you would to, and that you would further find nothing wrong with doing so if you did.
Originally posted by DigiThe popular portrayal of Dawkins ... is a pet peeve of mine.
He's amazingly compassionate.
He just doesn't pull punches where he sees ignorance ...
And to be clear, it's not a pet peeve because he's my boy.
It's a pet peeve because it's wrong ...
Originally posted by Digi
It's a shame that we've had to default to laughing trollishly at ignorance. In reality, it's sad that something so misguided could make it to print, but we'd quickly become depressed if we thought for long about it. I do the same thing...just enjoy it for the lulz...but I feel like there's a darker defense mechanism at work there as well.
The following is a clip from the original BBC series that "halocline" excerpt was featured from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHn80f3lAUs
(1 min 7 seconds)
Note that it reinforces what the girls were asserting and contradicts Dawkins' ... strawman ... of their original relating of the verses.
Click-able links for the video URLs given above:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins strawmans the argument of 2 girls ... (the halocline versus Qur'anic verse)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhVQcs4ZqwA
(3 min 50 seconds)
BBC Caves: Halocline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHn80f3lAUs
(1 min 7 seconds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's worth making the point that pure theory is often a poor substitute for research.
Dawkins' misbelief that fresh water cannot be kept separate from salt water fails to take into account that something as simple as sheer scale can vastly change the physics of any object we observe, let alone scale, temperature, and location ...