Just another evangelist
Richard Dawkins said:
He's a poor philosopher and as such his arguments appeal only to those who are as ignorant as he is.
The Evangelical Atheist
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Just another evangelist
He's a poor philosopher and as such his arguments appeal only to those who are as ignorant as he is.
The placebo effect can be accounted for by not telling a patient that they were being prayed for. Then tell another group that they were being prayed for as a control. This test has already been performed.
When you know you are being prayed for, you recover from surgery more slowly, because the impression is that your illness is more serious. There is no statistical difference between the recovery times of people that are prayed for by a congregation of sincere believers and people that aren't.
When you know you are being prayed for, you recover from surgery more slowly, because the impression is that your illness is more serious. There is no statistical difference between the recovery times of people that are prayed for by a congregation of sincere believers and people that aren't.
Resorting to personal attack already? He must have ruffled some feathers.
No, his argument for religion sounds to me like this:
The one who prepares the petridish is limited by the conditions within a petridish.
Wtf? This is a scientist?
Equivalence fallacy, projection.
No, its the thread topic. And yeah, you meet one clueless fundie, you've seen them all.
Uh please do not insult those people.
None of them wrote a book which can be summed up in one sentence.
evolution = hurrah, religion = boo!
and called it scientific.
The irony of course is that Dawkins had himself exploited religion to make his millions.
Uh please do not insult those people.
None of them wrote a book which can be summed up in one sentence.
evolution = hurrah, religion = boo!
and called it scientific.
The irony of course is that Dawkins had himself exploited religion to make his millions.
I'm guessing you haven't read Russell's Religion And Science.
All atheists have one thing in common, they believe all they know now should explain all that was, all that is and all that will be.
The fundie atheist has the additional handicap of forgetting that evidence in science is not proof, that it is not unchallengeable, immutable or unchanging. How then can you use it to debate faith?
No, they don't.
The fundie atheist has the additional handicap of forgetting that evidence in science is not proof, that it is not unchallengeable, immutable or unchanging. How then can you use it to debate faith?
The only thing you can do to "debate faith" is show that certainty is never really warranted.
All atheists use presentist arguments to debate religion.
But faith most certainly is. Not even an atheist will be content with a faithless existence.
Personally, I find it amusing how people pay such close attention to a biologist speaking about quantum mechanics, religion, and astrophysics.
Not all atheists debate religion.
Faith in what? Your senses? That there is some purpose to life? That there is some sort of justice after death to balance out all of the injustice in life? How do you know no atheists will be content with a faithless existence?
Yes, it is better to listen to theologians expound on those subjects, rather than a scientist who is acting as a popularizer when speaking outside of his particular field of scientific expertise.
So, tell me the logic in listening to a biologist discuss physics. Go ahead.
In a book meant for laypersons covering the basics? It makes perfect sense. If he were trying to teach an advanced course at a university? It would make no sense at all. Neither Asimov nor Sagan were expert researchers in any field. But they excelled at teaching the basics of many fields to interested laypersons. Cosmos didn't bring much to the table for advanced students in any field of scientific study. But for making science both better understood and more popular, it was unsurpassed.
What the hell are you going on about? Only an idiot would use a biologist as a source of information concerning physics. He should stick to the topic he's educated in - biology. Anything else, and his opinion is reduced to two things: jack and squat.
I'm unaware of anywhere Dawkins has discussed physics beyond his understanding.
Why should anyone listen to Chomsky's social critiques? He should stick to linguistics. Why should anyone have listened to Russell's social protests, against such things as nuclear proliferation, WW-1, Stalin's purges, or the Vietnam war? He was a mathematician and philosopher, not a diplomat.
Why should anyone listen to Chomsky's social critiques? He should stick to linguistics. Why should anyone have listened to Russell's social protests, against such things as nuclear proliferation, WW-1, Stalin's purges, or the Vietnam war? He was a mathematician and philosopher, not a diplomat.
Guess we should also listen to creationists stance on evolution then.
Dawkins like many fundamentalists, is a polariser who does more harm than good. His polemic has been accompanied by the building of a creationist museum in the US and a creationist park in the UK.
What he has done is drive a wedge between the religious and atheists, has contributed little to the advancement of science except the notion that it must be opposed by the religious and generally created confusion all around by creating false paradigms that bear no resemblance to science or reality.