Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.

Enmos said:
Well, you see people on both 'sides' get into fights on a regular basis. I don't think that brings them closer together.
Click to expand...


Probably not the people fighting, but awareness is a good substitute for ignorance.
 
Gustav said:
this is sciforums, you, you.....
we take nothing for granted
least of all...appearances

can the goddamn prevarications
you visibly deflate
Click to expand...

I'm not responsible for your inability to see the nose on your face.

You said you're smarter than me, why not strip everything of the bells and whistles and propaganda and see how much of it still stands up to critical appraisal?
 
S.A.M. said:
Only in the sense that he polarises the people, the same way all extremists do. I consider him as more of a danger to the future of science than anything else.
Click to expand...

you consider one person's influence to be more damaging to science than the entire culture built around the assumtion that some things are not for us to know and understand?

By creating such extreme fissures in society, all he has done is cultivate an anti-science attitude among theists, merely by projecting science as an atheistic enterprise.
Click to expand...

the anti-science attitude has always been pedominant among theists, much before Dawkings. And it's not caused by science or by atheits, it's caused by the theists themselves. The second you let it slip that you take the scientific stance over the biblical stance in a point, you are automatically the fucking antichrist. The fact that people can live in the modern world and have such disdain for science pisses me off, and that has always been around.

Moreover, his re-definitions of genetic concepts (through sociobiological and psychological interpretations of biology, sounds kooky even as I say it) has damaged the approach that people have towards biology, as least among those who favor popular science over peer reviewed articles.
Click to expand...

oh well, behavioural science is all about speculation, I think that is always left clear. But Dawkings is not different from any other behaviourist. The problem is not in the speculations itself, but in the minds of the people who take them for facts.
 
Varda said:
oh well, behavioural science is all about speculation, I think that is always left clear. But Dawkings is not different from any other behaviourist. The problem is not in the speculations itself, but in the minds of the people who take them for facts.
Click to expand...

Can you even hear yourself?:rolleyes:

Now apply that to theism and science.
 
Enmos said:
Perhaps, mostly people are holding on to their ignorance for dear life though ;)
Click to expand...

But they cannot pretend to be unaware of what the other position implies, can they?

Unlike the parade of fools that atheists are so fond of using as "examples"
 
S.A.M. said:
But they cannot pretend to be unaware of what the other position implies, can they?

Unlike the parade of fools that atheists are so fond of using as "examples"
Click to expand...

They can pretend sure.. some of them do. Or they are genuinely stupid, that's a possibility as well of course.
 
What I mean is that some people just are never going to let go of their ideas, no matter what evidence against it.
 
S.A.M. said:
I'm not responsible for your inability to see the nose on your face.

You said you're smarter than me, why not strip everything of the bells and whistles and propaganda and see how much of it still stands up to critical appraisal?
Click to expand...


why would i argue when i do not hold you responsible? where do i call you into account and saddle with alleged responsibility

you appear to have an affinity for symbols. unfortunate. you further complicate and muddy. what does this "nose" represent?

pardon, the humanity occasionally leaks thru. the claim of superiority was merely prompted by, a reaction to, your accusations of stupidity

i am working on that
pardon
 
Gustav said:
why would i argue when i do not hold you responsible? where do i call you into account and saddle with alleged responsibility

you appear to have an affinity for symbols. unfortunate. you further complicate and muddy. what does this "nose" represent?

pardon, the humanity occasionally leaks thru. the claim of superiority was merely prompted by, a reaction to, your accusations of stupidity

i am working on that
pardon
Click to expand...

Alright, let me make it clearer

Claim: religion is bad

Just provide evidence that:
no religion is better
 
Varda said:
actually, his answer is almost certainly no
Click to expand...

Thats not the unscientific part. And even if it were, whats his evidence for his claim regarding this scientific question?

I shall consider the empirical observations as he defines them.
 
S.A.M. said:
Thats not the unscientific part. And even if it were, whats his evidence for his claim regarding this scientificquestion?
Click to expand...

improbability... an infinitely complex being just popping out of nowhere
 
I'm pretty sure that his criticism is against christianism/judaism/islamism

but in the end, what he is doing is refute the creationist argument, so i suppose that can be applied to any religion that believes a god created everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top