Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[1robin]

Unfortunately for you, not everyone holds your beliefs as any standard, let alone "the" standard...

No that is unfortunate for them and humanity. I have no idea what this statement was in response to or why you thought it relevant. So by all means let the personal rhetoric begin, however I will not respond to it.

 

[1robin]

That is projection on your part.

Nope, it was an educated guess.

I made a comment which is self-evidently relevant to the subject, a point you admit is true: man, not God, wrote the Bible, and indeed God has not written anything. This of course does not resolve the question of whether the man-made collection of books that is called the Bible was inspired by God. I do not pretend otherwise. But it's indisputably a relevant fact to consider.

Who recorded the words is not in any way what so ever the point. When a PhD gives an intern dictation on string theory, the intern is not given the Nobel. Only by dismissing the existence of God up front without any justification is it not meaningful to say God is responsible for the Bible's content no matter who put ink on paper. String theory was a bad example because it has no evidence and almost defunked but the principle was the point.

Interestingly, although you dismiss the fact that man (not God) wrote the Bible as being insignificant, none other than Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, thought it a most significant fact. So did Thomas Paine, whom Jefferson greatly admired. It's quite remarkable how different your values are from those men,

You think it meaningful that a Christian's views are different from an indifferent theist and an indifferent atheist. (Actually both were theologically chaotic.) Why? I do not. What is telling is that even a man who chopped the Bible up into parts he liked and threw the rest away could not justify rights without the maker he denied. That is called the principle of embarrassment. In historical and legal circles a man who admits an inconvenient truth has made a more meaningful statement because it was inconvenient.

considering that earlier in this thread, you accused Richard Dawkins (and atheists in general) of being unable to justify their natural rights on the grounds laid out by such thinkers as Jefferson. One is tempted to reverse your argument and level the same charge at Christians. I wouldn't credit such a charge, of course ... but it would be as plausible as the original one you put forward.

I am not sure what you were trying to say here.
My claims are:
1. Without God morality cannot possibly have a better justification than preference
and opinion of its subjects.
2. Only God allows for value judgments to be made because only God can justify human value and worth as an actual truth.
3. In fact actual good, evil, worth, sanctity, rights etc... have no basis in fact without God.
That does not prove God exists. It is a hypothetical argument.
The official argument goes like this.
1. If God exists then objective morality exists.
2. If he does not it can't.
3. Objective morals exist. (This is a hard one to prove but most likely a fact)
4. Therefore God exists.
I will not defend this argument specifically because the only way out for atheists is to argue semantic technicalities. I will argue that God produces morality that is objective in effect. I believe it is objective in reality but a semantically argument is boring, un necessary, and a waste of time.

 

[PolyHedral]

2. If he does not it can't.

Prove it.

 

[1robin]

Prove it.

If you will review my disclaimer at the bottom of that section. I indicated that I would not defend that argument. It was only an indication of what the official argument is on the debate circuit. I will however give you a fragment of what I remember from the debates but still reserve the right to bail at anytime as I said I would not defend it. Without God no actual or objective value can be assigned to human life or wellfare. That is the foundation of all morality. The word objective is so ambiguous or has been portrayed that way, that the issue is hard to resolve. I would put it like this. Without God you can say what you prefer to be moral or not however you can't suffeciently justify why anyone should agree. If aliens declare us their food source what would be your counter argument. Most likely you would act but you could not justify the action within your system.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Who recorded the words is not in any way what so ever the point.

It's not the point but it is relevant to the point. If it was asserted by Christians that human hands did not write the Bible, then the course of the debate would be quite different. By correcting your accidental suggestion that God wrote the Bible, I am merely keeping the debate on course.

 

[1robin]

It's not the point but it is relevant to the point. If it was asserted by Christians that human hands did not write the Bible, then the course of the debate would be quite different. By correcting your accidental suggestion that God wrote the Bible, I am merely keeping the debate on course.

Are you arguing against the accuracy of a statement I made? In that case you might have just discovered the well hidden carefully guarded secret that I am not omniscient or perfect. Let me end this tired line of reasoning. God is the hypothetical source of the information in the Bible however human hands recorded the words. The truth of the hypothesis is indicated by much evidence in amounts and quality light years beyond any competing abstract concept of a supernatural being. I thought you were arguing against a theological doctrine not my statement. Will this do? I need to get off this sad train somewhere.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1robin I was quite clear that I was correcting the accuracy of your statement in post #1554:

When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by fairies then that would be a start.

Actually, even Christianity concedes that fairies have written as many books as God, and Jesus--that is, zero. A more appropriate and fair challenge would be for you to say, "When the most studied and cherished book on earth is written by men, about fairies, then that would be a start."

 

[1robin]

1robin I was quite clear that I was correcting the accuracy of your statement in post #1554:

I do not doubt that however I sincerely did not catch it. Have we dispensed with the issue no matter when it was brought up nor how long long it took me to catch up?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes 1robin you already conceded the point and I have nothing further to add.

 

[1robin]

Yes 1robin you already conceded the point and I have nothing further to add.

I guess your intention was to show that I make mistakes. You should have simply asked up front. As far as I know I am the polar opposite of omniscient but maybe I am wrong about that as well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As far as I know I am the polar opposite of omniscient but maybe I am wrong about that as well.

Nope, that's the one thing you've clearly been right about.

 

[1robin]

Nope, that's the one thing you've clearly been right about.

That fruit was hanging way too low for it to be honorably picked. There was no challenge it the minimal effort. Have you adopted an aversion to substance and instead rely on sarcasm alone as well? Must be an epidemic on your side of the fence.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I guess your intention was to show that I make mistakes.

No my intention was simply to correct a mistake. I make mistakes too, and I welcome corrections.

 

[1robin]

No my intention was simply to correct a mistake. I make mistakes too, and I welcome corrections.

Very well. BTW I actually went back and researched Dawkins a bit last night and there are some extraordinary things I will mention that should end the debate concerning my claims anyway. They center on the fact that the most prominent debater on my side said this about Dawkins."Dawkins has made the worst argument against God in the entire history of western thought" What makes it so funny is that I had never heard this before and it turns out to be the exact argument I claimed as evidence concerning Dawkin's incompetance in theology. I will get into who said it but he is so feared by atheists that Sam Harris who debated him said he got a hundred e-mails from atheists pleading with him not to blow the debate. He said about this man that he is the one theistic debater that can put the fear of God into an atheist. So impugning the source will not help. I have more to add and will do so officially soon.​

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That fruit was hanging way too low for it to be honorably picked. There was no challenge it the minimal effort. Have you adopted an aversion to substance and instead rely on sarcasm alone as well? Must be an epidemic on your side of the fence.

It's like the minnow thinking the whale can't swim because he doesn't see him in the pond.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Dawkins has made the worst argument against God in the entire history of western thought"

Spoken by W. Lane Craig in "The Dawkins Delusion", 2007.

incompetance

Spelled "incompetence."

 

[1robin]

Spoken by W. Lane Craig in "The Dawkins Delusion", 2007.


Spelled "incompetence."

If I am in a grammer test without my knowledge I surrender up front. I hate grammer and have never been good at it. I will give the names, context, and details very soon. That was just a quick illustration as it was related to my earlier claims.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now this is a real news flash. I can see the headlines now: "Famous Sophist Claims Dawkins Argument 'Worst Ever', Declares Self Winner: Atheists Declare Day of Mourning"

 

[1robin]

Now this is a real news flash. I can see the headlines now: "Famous Sophist Claims Dawkins Argument 'Worst Ever', Declares Self Winner: Atheists Declare Day of Mourning"

At least wait for the claims before you arbitrarily dismiss them without justification. That is not fair. You can't preemptively reject things for no good reason before they are even given. Or if you are going to do it, just say no Christian can possibly be professional no matter how many degrees he has nor how respected in the field. If he ever claims anything in the future you find inconvenient you preemptively declare bias and pre dismissal.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You can't preemptively reject things for no good reason before they are even given.

I'm just poking a little fun at what you described as "extraordinary things that should end the debate". I confess, as I await your reasons I do not hold my breath; but I do not preemptively reject anything, either.