Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Scuba Pete]

So, are you lieing now, or when you said that there is "a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God"?

Wow. I don't remember you ever being this unfriendly, but there ya go. This will be my last answer to you and I will simply put you on ignore.

Yes, there are butt loads of evidence and the scriptures are a great beginning. However, since you are bent on just flaming those who disagree with your view point, you won't accept the scriptures as being evidence.

Now you ask for "objective empirical evidence" and I don't know of any. That's in the realm of the natural and God is super natural. It's not my fault that you don't get this rather simple concept. Goodbye.

 

[PolyHedral]

Wow. I don't remember you ever being this unfriendly, but there ya go. This will be my last answer to you and I will simply put you on ignore.

Yes, there are butt loads of evidence and the scriptures are a great beginning. However, since you are bent on just flaming those who disagree with your view point, you won't accept the scriptures as being evidence.

Now you ask for "objective empirical evidence" and I don't know of any. That's in the realm of the natural and God is super natural. It's not my fault that you don't get this rather simple concept. Goodbye.

The scriptures are hardly evidence; they get contradicted by reality numerous times, especially when they describe physics, geology or biology.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The scriptures are hardly evidence; they get contradicted by reality numerous times, especially when they describe physics, geology or biology.

They are perfect in their deficiencies. God has always worked through weaknesses, not strengths.

 

[PolyHedral]

They are perfect in their deficiencies. God has always worked through weaknesses, not strengths.

IOW, because they're wrong, they're right?

...You can't see a problem with that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is ridiculous.

That the world exists is not evidence for the existence of God. It is evidence that the world exists.

Actual objective empirical evidence is not something that points to whatever the observer decides it should, it leads to logical naturalistic explanations.

One can look at nature and emotionally decide that God exists, but nature itself is not actual evidence of God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

IOW, because they're wrong, they're right?

...You can't see a problem with that?

That's not what I said now, is it?

It seems everyone wants to give the other person an emotional black eye here. I guess it's all done in the name of good fun, but I find the twisting of words and concepts tiring and nothing but pseudo-intellectual. I have no problems that you reject all the evidence that I accept. That's why you don't believe in what I do. However, I refuse to be a prick to make my point though.

 

[mycorrhiza]

That's a big "if", but then the entire atheistic premise in this thread has been based on big "ifs".

That doesn't answer my question and was just a pointless insult.

I follow God just as surely as he is sitting in his chair. Actually, I still don't have any evidence for the latter.

Still not answering what I wrote.

Of course there is! That's why God is Super Natural. If you could do the same in your chair, then I would be following you. You can't and God did, so that settles it quite nicely from this perspective.

I meant that one thing was something very regular and plausible that happens all the time, while the second is something that has never been observed.

Is it Halloween yet? They've sure ensconced themselves in disguises sure to throw the best gum shoe off their trail! You, in particular, have been brilliant at disguising any semblance of sentience. I fruballed you for this!

And another pointless insult instead of answering.

 

[lunamoth]

Dawkins will not likely be remembered as an outstanding scientist; sadly many outstanding scientists are not known or remembered outside their specific fields.

I wonder what his legacy will be.

 

[micrurus]

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 claim is gods existence, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. saying "I don't accept the existence of god" requires no 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.

logical fallacies usually aren't accepted as 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!

I am not sitting in a chair at all.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's not what I said now, is it?

It seems everyone wants to give the other person an emotional black eye here. I guess it's all done in the name of good fun, but I find the twisting of words and concepts tiring and nothing but pseudo-intellectual. I have no problems that you reject all the evidence that I accept. That's why you don't believe in what I do. However, I refuse to be a prick to make my point though.

What did you mean, then? Because that's certainly what it looked like you said.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I wonder what his legacy will be.

I think his legacy will be as someone who synthesized neo-Darwinism in The Selfish Gene, popularized evolutionary biology, and brought attention to atheists in the great religion debate with The God Delusion.

I have quite a few former theist friends who were influenced by The God Delusion. I think for a lot of people who were already moving away from religion on their own, that book provided encouragement by proudly articulating what they had been privately suspecting.

 

[McBell]

I find the twisting of words and concepts tiring and nothing but pseudo-intellectual.

yet here you are, in this very thread, doing just that....

However, I refuse to be a prick to make my point though.

:biglaugh:

 

[McBell]

I will simply put you on ignore.

:help:

Yes, there are butt loads of evidence and the scriptures are a great beginning. However, since you are bent on just flaming those who disagree with your view point, you won't accept the scriptures as being evidence.

So why insist on presenting evidence you have convinced your self no one out side your choir accepts as evidence?
Or are you still convinced by your appeal to numbers?

Now you ask for "objective empirical evidence" and I don't know of any. That's in the realm of the natural and God is super natural. It's not my fault that you don't get this rather simple concept. Goodbye.

Did you not see or did you simply ignore where it was explained that they were talking about objective empirical evidence?

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Yes, there are butt loads of evidence and the scriptures are a great beginning. However, since you are bent on just flaming those who disagree with your view point, you won't accept the scriptures as being evidence.

Now you ask for "objective empirical evidence" and I don't know of any. That's in the realm of the natural and God is super natural. It's not my fault that you don't get this rather simple concept. Goodbye.

Then would you mind, presenting me with this evidence? I'd really like to see it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Belief in the one true God is very natural;needs no back up.

If you are correct then the belief in any of the myriad of gods thought to be true are on equal footing with your belief in your one true god....So in essence your answer is really no answer.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you are correct then the belief in any of the myriad of gods thought to be true are on equal footing with your belief in your one true god....So in essence your answer is really no answer.

The one true creator God has conversed with many truthful people in almost all regions of the word so it proves his existence.

We have never met with one another but since we exchange written conversation with one another; we cannot deny existence of one another.

Then we have now His Converse in writing also; its systems match with the universe we find in nature.

If we can believe in sun naturally, why cannot we believe in Him very naturally.

Innumerable good reasons to believe in Him; but no compulsion whatsoever

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No need to get upset. I'm simply postulating that Dawkins' is more popularly known for his anti-religious views and books as opposed to his science books. How often is "The Extended Phenotype" quoted here as opposed to "The God Delusion", for example?

Secondly, just writing books doesn't make a person a "good educator". Rush Limbaugh wrote two books and both were #1 on the New York Times list. Ann Coulter has written 8 books with over 3 million copies sold. Are you saying they are "good educators" too?

This argument is dumb on so many levels. Who cares how many times people on this forum quoted from "The God Delusion"...? They obviously quoted from it because the subject matter warranted it.

As far as writing books...You'd have to admit Dawkins writing his science books is on a subject he has extensive knowledge of. Obviously not all can write books. Can Limbaugh or Coulter write books on science on the level as Dawkins..I doubt it. His books are educational books.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He's a good scientist and a great bigot.

Anyone who tries to prove/disprove God with Science has an agenda that has nothing to do with science. On the other hand, the converse is just as true.

How is he a bigot for stating the obvious.....and for the record he never tries to use science to disprove the existence of "God"....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

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.

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.

:clap......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Atheist feel shy to give any evidence ; that they demand from others, always?!

We don't make the claim...so you start first with your testable evidence and we'll go from there.