Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What you're telling me is that science can answer very few questions posed by religion.Which means that if did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?
What [b]is
the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence, then?Granted.
Disagree, unless you make an allowance for subject-dependence or can explain how the scientific method can be used to educate us about the world of 2000 years ago, or even the world of 200 years ago.
I grant you science is REALLY good for a lot of things.
I DON'T see where science has such a great application for determining ancient historical events with any true authority. [/B]
Originally posted by NemeBro
Stop projecting.Just admit that you overreacted and have been behavior illogically my simple-minded friend. It will be easier on you.
Yeh I do.
Good lord, you people throw around words like "confusion," "logic," and others like it's confetti but don't really know what they mean, as shown here. Also, did you mean to say I was BEHAVING illogically?
You ought to stop patronizing me. Like your friend Dramatic Gecko, you've f*ck all to contribute and address about as much as you add to the conversation.
Easier on me? NemeBro, don't make me f*cking laugh.
Originally posted by The Renegade
Good lord, you people throw around words like "confusion," "logic," and others like it's confetti but don't really know what they mean, as shown here. Also, did you mean to say I was BEHAVING illogically?You ought to stop patronizing me. Like your friend Dramatic Gecko, you've f*ck all to contribute and address about as much as you add to the conversation.
Easier on me? NemeBro, don't make me f*cking laugh.
Lol, its getting angry. But lets get one thing straight, I am not NemeBro's friend.
Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Lol, its getting angry. But lets get one thing straight, I am not NemeBro's friend.
I'm so glad we got that straight because, boy oh boy, was I ever being completely literal when I said he was your friend.
Are you one of those yappy little puppies that sit on the sideline, haphazardly trying to figure out who all of the "really good debaters" are so you can talk about that and then occasionally chime in, adding a dash of your simplistic, deficient perspective?
Originally posted by The Renegade
I'm so glad we got that straight because, boy oh boy, was I ever being completely literal when I said he was your friend.Are you one of those yappy little puppies that sit on the sideline, haphazardly trying to figure out who all of the "really good debaters" are so you can talk about that and then occasionally chime in, adding a dash of your simplistic, deficient perspective?
No I argue in Versus Forums. That's where I thrive. I'm not giving my actual opinion in this thread because it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And I've changed my mind. You really suck. Stop defending yourself and attacking people like a child and argue your argument. If I'm getting to you that's sad because I'm just on here for lolz, and am an average debater at best (however that puts me leagues over quan heheh).
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What you're telling me is that science can answer very few questions posed by religion.
Not even close. Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Which means that if did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?
On that specific line of thought, yes, I would. As it is, it's a strawman when talking about any credible atheist literature.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What [b]is the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence, then?[/B]
Utter lack of evidence. Do you believe that unicorns exist?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Disagree, unless you make an allowance for subject-dependence or can explain how the scientific method can be used to educate us about the world of 2000 years ago, or even the world of 200 years ago.
It does both remarkably well. I could provide some resources to begin your reading.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I DON'T see where science has such a great application for determining ancient historical events with any true authority.
And the Bible does?
The popular portrayal of Dawkins as an ass 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. Christopher Hitchens was the acerbic ******* (awesomely so, imo) that everyone thinks Dawkins is. Dawkins is just passionate about a polarizing subject.
...
On a note related to BWR's strawman (detailed earlier), here's a book that is guilty of the same fallacy: http://www.amazon.com/dp/006223059X/?tag=saloncom08-20
The synopsis calls out those like Dawkins and Hitchens for making the claim that science disproves God, which they don't. I remember reading Dawkins's God Delusion and seeing his atheistic/theistic spectrum, where the final level of atheism - "I know there is no God" - was a category even Dawkins wouldn't put himself in. He admitted he was close to that category, but on intellectual integrity had to default to the next, slight less extreme, position.
One would think that a book purporting to refute someone would manage at least a cursory reading of their work. As it is, having read a vast amount of literature in the atheist community, the only ones I see invoking the "Science proving or disproving God" debate are theists. In fact, it's the most frequent rebuttal I encounter when people find out I'm an atheist. "Well, you can't prove a negative," or something similar. The misunderstanding of the position is epidemic.
Victor Stenger is perhaps the only respected atheist figure I've seen make the claim, but even that comes with a heavy set of contextual factors that make it a more reasonable position. His conclusion ends up amounting to "there's no evidence" rather than "there is proof of nonexistence." The misleading title of his book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis-How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," turns out to be more a marketing tool than a thesis statement.