Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[Atom]

He does a lot of speculation, but when he does that sort of thing, he is normally very explicit about it being mere speculation. He likes to talk about ideas and think about stuff. So do I. But he's usually explains it's speculation and he won't give it much bearing unless it's backed up. When he's talking about scientific claims, I find they're usually backed up with experimental/empirical data... can you give some examples of massive fallacies he's made?

Err...can you show us the experimental data that provided evidence of 'memes', francois.

Don't hold your breath, guys!

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


What the hell are you babbling about?

This is the comment of yours that I was responding to:



Your comment makes no sense. It's clear that anti-theists are opposed to a belief in God, not God per se. Beliefs are far from being imaginary.

Er right, which is in itself a belief. With which they are actively opposing another belief, hence my statement

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheism has a rational basis, grounded in evolution and cosmology. Theism does not. You would have them deny objective truth because it offends?

Hmm, please explain the rational basis to me.

 

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

With which they are actively opposing another belief,

They are opposing a belief in God, not 'belief' in general. Hardly anything contradictory there. You're just twisting and turning like a pre-teen Swedish gymnast.

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


They are opposing a belief in God, not 'belief' in general. Hardly anything contradictory there. You're just twisting and turning like a pre-teen Swedish gymnast.

And you're apparently wallowing in incomprehension.

 

[mountainhare]

Troll.

 

[(Q)]

There speaks an oasis of rationality entwined with wisdom...in a desert full of scientific fundamentalism.

Always on any forum I can spot the talent..a kind of mystic Simon Cowell..SAM is a true Star..head and shoulders above the rest.

Hey sam, you've got a big fan in Billy. High praise indeed. You must be so proud. The nutters follow you as if you were a... god.

 

[S.A.M.]

The nutters follow you as if you were a... god.

Can you spell i-r-o-n-y?

 

[GeoffP]

Hmm, please explain the rational basis to me.

That the explanation of evolution and the formation of stellar bodies does not require the input of any deity to proceed. That is, that it's naturalistic, not magical.

 

[S.A.M.]

That the explanation of evolution and the formation of stellar bodies does not require the input of any deity to proceed. That is, that it's naturalistic, not magical.

Hmm, and what is "natural"?

 

[GeoffP]

Proceeding from exigent, integral characteristics of i) genetic systems or ii) matter or energy. Not requiring intelligent direction of any kind.

 

[S.A.M.]

Proceeding from exigent, integral characteristics of i) genetic systems or ii) matter or energy. Not requiring intelligent direction of any kind.

There is evidence of spontaneous undirected emergence of genetic systems, matter and energy? Why exigent?

 

[GeoffP]

There is evidence of spontaneous undirected emergence of genetic systems, matter and energy?

I'm no expert on matter and energy, but I believe you're looking for something called the "Big Bang".

As for genetic systems: yup. Does evolution require magical assistance? Harry Potter?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm no expert on matter and energy, but I believe you're looking for something called the "Big Bang".

As for genetic systems: yup. Does evolution require magical assistance? Harry Potter?

So the evidence is

Nothing known or unknown --->A miracle happens--->the big bang--->laws of matter and energy----> a second miracle happens--->genetics, evolution et al.

Darling, everything becomes so clear once you explain it.

 

[(Q)]

Hmm, and what is "natural"?

You can't be serious? You can't possibly NOT know the meaning of 'natural.'

You are baiting, again, sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can't be serious? You can't possibly NOT know the meaning of 'natural.'

You are baiting, again, sam.

I know what natural means; it means not artificial. However, given that everything ultimately arises from nature, I am curious to hear what the scientific definition is.

 

[(Q)]

So the evidence is

Nothing known or unknown --->A miracle happens--->the big bang--->laws of matter and energy----> a second miracle happens--->genetics, evolution et al.

Darling, everything becomes so clear once you explain it.

Sam, stop the nonsense. No one said anything about miracles. You are, once again, NOT trying to have a discussion but are merely baiting, again.

Please stop.

 

[(Q)]

I know what natural means; it means not artificial. However, given that everything ultimately arises from nature, I am curious to hear what the scientific definition is.

Complete BS. You KNOW the definition.

 

[S.A.M.]

Complete BS. You KNOW the definition.

Well apparently the system of epistemology has been redefined by the atheists.

e.g. what is naturalistic? Atheistically speaking?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, stop the nonsense. No one said anything about miracles. You are, once again, NOT trying to have a discussion but are merely baiting, again.

Please stop.

Okay, you give me the correct sequence of evidence that determines the "naturalistic (atheistic definition applies here)" basis of the atheist dogma.