Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[McBell]

Do we really have anyone who suggests that they believe in c and d? Ah, an appeal to ridicule is one of the oldest fallacies around. Surely you could do better than this.

I was thinking the same thing when you presented your appeal to numbers...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh, I know the difference.

Prove it.

Or, interpretation C: We do not have any reason to think that any god or gods exist yet since there is no evidence for it, thus we do not believe that until such evidence can be found and presented.

Aren't the Bible, the Quran as well as other Holy Scriptures evidence? Of course they are. Just because you have seen fit to discount them does not make them any less admissible. Now how about those who claim to have spoken to God or have had God revealed to them? These are also evidences and you have faith that they are fraudulent. Unless of course you have any evidence to the contrary. Are you SURE you understand the difference between evidence and proof? Your actions tell us otherwise.

Look, the 'faith' in scientific results and conclusions is nothing like the faith people have in god or gods.

Denial: not just another river in Egypt! So, you're suggesting that "YOUR" faith is superior based on the fact that it's "YOUR" faith? That just makes me Giggle! How preposterous.

Like I pointed out earlier: the biggest draw for atheism is the intellectual superiority. I have seen nothing in the last few posts to change my mind about that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I was thinking the same thing when you presented your appeal to numbers...

Change "many" to "any" and my logic still holds true. No appeal to numbers was needed there.

 

[McBell]

So, you're suggesting that "YOUR" faith is superior based on the fact that it's "YOUR" faith?

Except that is NOT what was said.

Interesting how you just showed yourself as guilty of " putting words into the mouths of others and then get all smug about it?"

 

[mycorrhiza]

Do we really have anyone who suggests that they believe in c and d? Ah, an appeal to ridicule is one of the oldest fallacies around. Surely you could do better than this.

Believing it doesn't make it more probable. There are several people that believe that reptilian aliens are in control of politics, but that isn't evidence that there are.

You're confusing the evidence (society exists) with the interpretation (God exists). Do you deny that society exists? Of course not, so the evidence stands as it is. Now you have to apply your faith to determine if God exists or not.

There is no evidence. Society exists, there is evidence of that. That society does exist is NOT evidence of God anymore than it is evidence of unicorns.

Agnostics are the only ones who can claim to be without faith in this respect. Of course, they rely on faith for other things so they are not intellectually superior either. To state that God does or does not exist requires the same amount of faith and is usually based on the very same evidence. Neither side has an intellectual or even moral advantage.

Being an atheist is being without faith in God. You don't need to claim "God doesn't exist" to be an atheist. It takes more faith to believe in something unsubstantiated than it takes to not believe in it. The side that says something is true must be the ones to provide the evidence.

 

[McBell]

Change "many" to "any" and my logic still holds true. No appeal to numbers was needed there.

It is still nothing more than an appeal to numbers.

The number of people believing something has absolutely no bearing on that something being true or false.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Aren't the Bible, the Quran as well as other Holy Scriptures evidence? Of course they are. Just because you have seen fit to discount them does not make them any less admissible. Now how about those who claim to have spoken to God or have had God revealed to them? These are also evidences and you have faith that they are fraudulent. Unless of course you have any evidence to the contrary. Are you SURE you understand the difference between evidence and proof? Your actions tell us otherwise.

Me writing "the moon is made of cheese" isn't evidence that the moon is made out of cheese. Conceiving an idea is not evidence for that idea.

 

[Sunstone]

Me writing "the moon is made of cheese" isn't evidence that the moon is made out of cheese. Conceiving an idea is not evidence for that idea.

Spot on.

 

[Sunstone]

The fact I exist does not logically imply the existence of deity.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The fact I exist does not logically imply the existence of deity.

Well it proves the existence of da Debil!

Evidence is evidence. You can question it's validity all you want, but it's still EVIDENCE. You can produce evidence contrary to it (which you have yet to do), but in the end: it's still evidence.

The evidence may not be clear to you but it's still evidence. It may provide no proof as far as you're concerned but that does not stop it from being evidence.

I see no evidence that you are sitting in a chair reading this. By your submission, the chair should cease to exist and your can should be on the floor. Take a picture of the chair, and I will cry "PHOTOSHOP" and your can will remain on the floor. You can tell me that you are sitting in it, and I will point out that you might as well say that the moon is made up of cream cheese. Is your can in the chair or on the floor? BUT I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR EVIDENCE! You can smugly smile at my inability to comprehend that your butt is still snug in your chair. Go ahead. Now you know how many theists feel when you blithely claim that there is no God. It's a matter of faith!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Prove it.

*sigh*
Evidence is what we use in science.
Proof is what we use in math and for alcohol.
One makes a proposition more likely in what we call substantiation.
The other makes the proposition absolutely certain with that framework.

Happy?

Aren't the Bible, the Quran as well as other Holy Scriptures evidence?

Evidence of what?
The existence of a god?
No.

Now how about those who claim to have spoken to God or have had God revealed to them? These are also evidences and you have faith that they are fraudulent.

They are not evidence.
They are anecdotes.

Are you SURE you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Fairly certain, yes.

Your actions tell us otherwise.

Really?
Do explain.

Denial: not just another river in Egypt! So, you're suggesting that "YOUR" faith is superior based on the fact that it's "YOUR" faith? That just makes me Giggle! How preposterous.

So, now you are down to misinterpreting what I've said and not.
How novel.

Like I pointed out earlier: the biggest draw for atheism is the intellectual superiority. I have seen nothing in the last few posts to change my mind about that.

*shrug*
Not my problem.
None of this changes the fact that you have no evidence for the position that there is something supernatural.

 

[Scuba Pete]

*sigh*

You just had to miss that smiley, didn't ya? What's the world coming to today when the atheists are the ones who lack humor?

They are not evidence.
They are anecdotes.

Did you type this with a straight face??? Anecdotes are considered evidence. Again, I want to giggle at the naivete here. From Dictionary.com:

an·ec·dote   [an-ik-doht]
noun, plural an·ec·dotes or, for 2, an·ec·do·ta [an-ik-doh-tuh] Show IPA.
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Fairly certain, yes.

In spite of your anecdotal evidence to the contrary I should point out.

Really?
Do explain.

Just did. You're welcome.

I would continue, but this isn't much of an argument: it's just more of your denial without any evidence to support it. I am completely underwhelmed.

 

[McBell]

I am completely underwhelmed.

As was your "evidence".

 

[Scuba Pete]

As was your "evidence".

All jab and no substance. I guess it works for you. If you don't have anything to contribute just snark at what others say. Well done, I guess.

 

[A Troubled Man]

O rly? Then why do so many people believe in the Super Natural?

They've been indoctrinated by religions, which has produced in them the characteristic to believe in all kinds of things without question while suppressing their ability to think critically.

 

[A Troubled Man]

There is a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God. None that I know of are Scientific in nature. That does not stop them from being evidence, that only demonstrates that they can be interpreted in more than one way.
Fact: we exist.
Interpretation: God exists and is responsible for our existence.

That is one of millions of similar assertions we can easily make when there isn't a shred of evidence to support it, here's another...

Fact: we exist.
Interpretation: A giant lizard sneezed the universe out of it's nostrils.

Interpretation b: We just "are" and God does not exist.

That is what all the evidence suggests, but more along the lines that we just "are" and it does not appear that any gods or giant lizards were required for us to be here.

See how that works?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Prove it.

Aren't the Bible, the Quran as well as other Holy Scriptures evidence? Of course they are.

No, they aren't any more evidence than Aesop's Fables are evidence for talking animals.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Evidence is evidence. You can question it's validity all you want, but it's still EVIDENCE. You can produce evidence contrary to it (which you have yet to do), but in the end: it's still evidence.

The evidence may not be clear to you but it's still evidence. It may provide no proof as far as you're concerned but that does not stop it from being evidence.

Sorry, but that's not how critical thinking works, but is almost spot on how pseudoscience works.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Redefining evidence so that it points to any random conclusion is a self-serving tactic that eliminates any need for rational thought.

 

[Scuba Pete]

while suppressing their ability to think critically.

Show me an atheist that can think critically and I'll show you a theist! :run:

I mean really... did you really believe all that drivel you just wrote? Holy poppycock, Batman. Even creationists do a better job than that.

In the end, this is ample proof that there is no intellectual distinction between a theist or an atheist. Both are equally deluded into believing their own schtick.