Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[1robin]

The difference between the two theories is that only one can be tested. Guess which?

What is the other theory? If you mean that there is no exception known to life only comes from life then I agree. Every single attempt, even when cheating has failed.

The fact that you can find some outdated author who did not know something is not evidence that it will never be known. That style of arguing by quotation is inane.

Then you should easily be able to prove it wrong. Why does that never happen? It is always get rid of the messenger by any means necessary and then dismiss the message. The confidence of your side ought to allow more honorable and effective rebuttal than that. Where has life ever been shown to originate on its own? The odds against it are inconceivable given a virtually eternal universe which we do not even have. I do no care if he existed in the stone age his claims are just as undeniable as if they were said yesterday.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, the thread is called “Is Dawkins a good scientist?” The question is not is he a good theologian and/or philosopher. So why always try to argue that non-point?

So unless my entire post is either "yes" or "no" it does not belong in this thread. If you will review I began by saying he is a good scientist. Am I to dutifully not post any further. The majority of context in this forum is theological and so I related a field he ineffectively operates in with his professional status.

In his books and his talks he debates issues from the scientific perspective, he does not argue from faith. That’s the difference you don’t seem to get.

Yes he does. He grants life coming from non-life as a fact yet there is not one single example of that occurring ever observed. That is by definition faith. The same can be said for about 90% of what he uses to attack the Bible.

He does not try to make any arguments about theology, he merely defends his position that as long as there is no proof that a god exists, it is not on him to prove the negative, since it is already in evidence.

Yes he does. What is biological about "The God delusion" or "A devil's Chaplain"? He makes ridiculous theological conclusions not derived from biology continuously. I even gave one very bad example.

His books are popular, so? His talks are well attended, so? If people did not like his work, they would not bother buying the books or going to for a he participates in.

Unlike Dawkin's and maybe the ones who support him I believe God exists and the eternal destination of our soul depends on realizing this. Of course the issue should be professionally challenged, but it serves no one to do it as badly as he does it and what makes it so objectionable is his credibility in biology is smuggled into the theological arena where it has no place. I think he is helping poor misguided impressionable people reject the only hope available for the human condition. If done professionally and sincerely I have no issue and even encourage it. If done clumsily and incompetently and for preference reasons I resent it.

When did Dawkins ever claim omniscience? You keep making him into something bigger than he claims to be and that is hardly his fault. And that former NASA scientist is just another creationist who claimed something not in evidence, and denied scientific facts because they did not fit his agenda. Just because he once worked for NASA means little and does not confer authority on him. Why would I then refute any statement he makes about how his god created anything? I am an atheist; I refute all of that creationist claptrap. All of it. There is no reason to go into details about his opinions and beliefs. Why would I argue those? They were his, not mine and why waste time on an argument about a man’s opinions? Makes no sense. He stated nothing that holds up to scientific scrutiny in the quote you posted

I was joking about omniscience. As I told the other guy who attempted to shoot the messenger. If you are so right why are all your efforts spent finding absurd reasons to discredit the messenger and then dismiss the message? Why can't the message ever actually be shown to be wrong? I do not care if it was a 12 year old illiterate child from the Congo 5000 years ago, the claim is still true. There is no known way to account for life within natural law. In fact you can't even get a universe to put life in with natural law alone. I reject your arbitrary and invalid reasons for dismissing the NASA guy. Prove the claim wrong. BTW he is just the first site I saw that said it well. The same claim exists in a thousand places, times, and from various sources and has no known exception.

I mentioned that he has been dead for five years because I would think you can come up with someone better, and quote something that is less than40 years old, since that quote is from a book published in the 70s. And what does “life comes only from life“ mean in this context anyhow?

I posted countles sources of the same claim in many threads. What has happened besides abject failure to produce life in a lab even when cheating that makes you claim age means wrong? That life did not arrise by natural means alone is what I meant. The odds are insane. They are trillions of trillions of times less likely than even the absurd point where physics officially terms them zero. 1 x 10^50. The odds of life arrising on it's own is 1 x 10^ so many digits I could not fit them on this entire forum. See contingent probabilities for life.

And the reality you are referring to? Is that your dreamscape where gods micromanage humanity or ignore them as the case may be?

The Biblical view is what I defend.

 

[StarryNightshade]

He's a great evolutionary biologist; but a second rate philosopher and a third rate theologian.

Personally, I'll take Neil DeGrase Tyson and Anthony Flew over Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens any day.

 

[Simurgh]

snip same old arguments

So it simply comes down to that. You defend your personal biblical view—whatever that may be when contrasted with other people’s biblical view. Dawkins disagrees with that, writes books that attack that particular position because scientific evidence does not support it. And since you cannot attack him on the science, you attack him on theology.

Then, people of faith debate him and cannot dispute his conclusions other than reiterating their belief and stating that he is a bad theologian. Still, since he is no theologian and does not claim it, what’s the obsession? Maybe self-same critics should study biology and then try to refute him on his evolutionary theories. That at least would make sense.

You have quoted some 200 year old legal opinions on the existence of god as far as I can remember, and of course, other sources I am sure, that defend the creationist agenda. Not one of the things you said refutes Dawkins primary assertion, namely that the probability that there is no god is very high.

And regarding life from nothing, are we talking about archaea and bacteria evolution in general? An excellent source for this is Koch, A. L. 2011. Bacterial Origins. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Life is of course not something from nothing, but something from chemical reactions—to be really simplistic about it.

 

[1robin]

So it simply comes down to that. You defend your personal biblical view—whatever that may be when contrasted with other people’s biblical view. Dawkins disagrees with that, writes books that attack that particular position because scientific evidence does not support it. And since you cannot attack him on the science, you attack him on theology.

What a strange summary. My Biblical view is pretty much the protestant orthodox view. I derived it in a vacuum but later determined my view is the prevalent one. I defend standard protestant Christianity. I do not care if Dawkin's attacks what I believe. I must have said 6 times so far I welcome these debates. I watch and like Hitchens, Harris, Shermer and the rest because they make competent arguments. I dislike Dawkin's because his argumentation is pathetic not because he disagrees. Get your straw man in line. Dawkin's does not make any scientific claims that disprove the Bible. He does make scientific faith based assumptions that do so, but I have no need to argue against science fiction. You are way way off.

Then, people of faith debate him and cannot dispute his conclusions other than reiterating their belief and stating that he is a bad theologian.

You mean other than pointing out he has no idea what he is talking about there is no argument? He is well known as making the worst theological arguments possible these days. There is no need to debate stupid.

Still, since he is no theologian and does not claim it, what’s the obsession? Maybe self-same critics should study biology and then try to refute him on his evolutionary theories. That at least would make sense.

My obsession. What is your and others obsession with defending a guy in a field where he is incompetent. It is far more logical for a person in a field where Dawkin's intrusion of clumsy arguments are retarding debate than for your almost reverential defense of his incompetence. Maybe you can talk him into getting in the pro hockey rink. He can't be worse at that, and he is probably more competent.

You have quoted some 200 year old legal opinions on the existence of god as far as I can remember, and of course, other sources I am sure, that defend the creationist agenda. Not one of the things you said refutes Dawkins primary assertion, namely that the probability that there is no god is very high.

If you will review a bit, I gave the rebuttal to one of Dawkin's blunders that has been termed the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. I see the only tactic available to you is inventing arbitrary reasons to dismiss messengers while leaving the message unchallenged. What makes testimony and evidence reliable has not changed in thousands of years. Try again. Here is one of a thousand sites with testimony from actual experts that range throughout the years that say the same thing.
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

And regarding life from nothing, are we talking about archaea and bacteria evolution in general? An excellent source for this is Koch, A. L. 2011. Bacterial Origins. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Life is of course not something from nothing, but something from chemical reactions—to be really simplistic about it.

At this point there is no need to get detailed. There is not a single example of life arising from non-life. There is no argument here, it is a scientific fact. The only thing available is claims that they say this or that may shed light on how it happened yet they have never seen it happen. Even every single effort to force it to happen in controlled conditions in a lab have all ended in abject failure. No scientist, lab, or perfect conditions existed on Earth a billion years ago. Even if it worked that would only prove it took intelligence to do it.

If you want to start from the beginning:
1. You cannot get a universe as tuned for life of any kind as this one without a intelligent creator. It is virtually certain that the universe is finite. That means that natural law did not create it because it did not exist and is not causal even if it did. To change one of many constants by one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion etc..... and we get no universe at all. Without A God like cause you have no universe to falsely claim life arose in at all.
2. Even having a universe still leaves a lot of work to allow life. Earth has hundreds of properties balanced on a knife edge that allow life to exist. Spin rate, axis tilt, moon (size, orientation, orbit rate, and distance), magnetic field, etc... that even given the number of planets out there it is still absurdly unlikely, though the odds are much better than for the universe fine tuning.
3. If you have the right universe and the right planet you still have odds in the 1 in 1X10^100s to get by to get life. Peptides v/s nucleotides, chemical evolution problems, carbon production in a star, left handed right handed proteins, etc.. adinfinitum.
4. Now then a cell (the first life form) has enough information in it to fill a 20 GB hard drive. There is no known source for information (specific complexity) besides intelligence. Where did it come from?
5. The PHD I work with is a information theory expert and a Christian. He said that without a decoder tuned to extract the same type of information coded even if you got 20GB of code out of thin air it still would not help. You have to have an equally absurdly improbable evolution of a decoder. Convergent evolution.

That is less than .00000000000000001% of the things needed just to get a cell. Please give me the examples of these things happening by natural law alone (which is rational and there for from a mind as well) observed by Dawkin's. I do not mean fantasy, science fiction, or rhetorical theory. I mean things that meet science's own scientific method.

 

[1robin]

He's a great evolutionary biologist; but a second rate philosopher and a third rate theologian.

Personally, I'll take Neil DeGrase Tyson and Anthony Flew over Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens any day.

I like Flew and Hitchens but find Tyson a little arrogant and a camera hog. I would take Shermer as a sub for Tyson. However I would rather have a drunk Bill Neigh the science idiot than Dawkin's.

 

[Simurgh]

What a strange summary.......................

Your view might be standard in your opinion, but so what. It still does not account for the other billion and a half other points of view. Protestant orthodoxy means what exactly? Lutheran? Methodist? Some evangelical flavor? You mentioned you dislike Dawkins, ok. Fine. I think we all got that a few pages ago. You pull out some vague accusations about his science and theology, and then go on about how everyone else, namely Hitchens and others is better. Fine. All things being equal, why then do you waste so much effort on going on about Dawkins anyhow. Has this not already been laid to rest? Or is it just that you respond to me because I am in dire need of conversion to your point of view? Or is it because I say that he answers theologians from a scientific position? Yes, he answers people who insist on appropriating science to defend their belief system with creationist drivel and the usual ID arguments that make no sense—see the watchmaker argument.

If you feel that I and others are obsessed with defending Dawkins, then maybe you need to look at your irrational defensiveness regarding him. Why do you spend so much effort in saying the same thing over and over again and still miss the point. He is not a theologian, he does refute creationist ideas with science and theology is not the issue anyhow. You act as if it were, and we say you are making it up as you go along. Seriously, if he is so incompetent, why bother with what he says. Just go bask in your presumed superiority and stop arguing a moot point. And no, you never gave an actual rebuttal of anything. You just quote irrelevant writings of people who mirror your disdain for rational thought. Your supposed experts may be expert on creationist ideology, but they hardly qualify as relevant today considering the topic. Yeah, I know, 200 year old legal expertise that affirms the existence of god. Really important stuff and definitely a refutation of anything Dawkins may or may not have said.

Myredeemer.com is your source for expertise? On what evangelical zealotry? Oh wow, yeah sure. I will definitely look there for any expertise to refute anything that “refutes” Dawkins and his ilk. While I am at it, I will also get a lobotomy. Thinking for yourself is definitely a bad thing. And so is looking for real answers to the vital question: why are people in such desperate need to invent gods to make their lives mean something.

Just so you know. I still need no gods to explain the origins of life. We already have a pretty good idea what happened; evolution shows how things developed; and just because we do not have all the answers yet, does not mean we never will. In any case, there is no need for a god to explain it all. We just need to continue searching for answers to the questions we still have.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr. Spinkles, forgive my delay; a few things got in the way of responding right away. But, in response to what you asked about Chomsky, I do have evidence that he has lied. More than just once. The best critic that I know of, who has caught Chomsky in several lies, is Oliver Kamm. Chomsky made the statement that what America needs is a sort of "denazification" and then lied about it. Kamm debunks it here: Oliver Kamm: Chomsky recollects

Another instance of a lie that Chomsky was caught in was exposed by Oliver Kamm right here: Oliver Kamm: Chomsky and the Vietnam War - a study in propaganda

There are a number of other lies that I am convinced that Chomsky has told and I can try to find the links for you but these are the best two that I know of.

Thanks for the links, Matthew. I read them in depth and started a new thread on this subject here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/145078-noam-chomsky-crude-dishonest.html

 

[Warren Clark]

Yep the irony is quite absurd. That is actually a comment from a debate between a theist I can't remember and Hitchens (who I do like a lot but of course dissagree with). It was a pun on his book; God is not great. He only laughed but never dissagreed. BTW that was only a comment about what is known as militant atheists and they are a small minority. I think most atheists are sincere and genuine even if I find their contentions less so. Heck we all were atheists at one time.

The problem with this is that even militant atheists do not "hate" "God".
They hate what people have become under an influence of such religion.
They are sick of people controlling everyone else's lives in the name of their God.
Religion has only made us content with being foolish.
For the past couple centuries science has been able to progress a little further every year only because the church has finally lost power.
Instead of praying away illness that brings death, we are able to use science to create cures and medicine to fight of that which might kill us.

Many other countries do not have an issue with there being no prayer or god in the text books. That is why their science is more advanced than our own. We are behind. Militant Atheists don't care if people believe in God. It is the fact that they are destroying the education system.
It honestly has nothing to do with God at all.
Its all about religious fanaticism in the education system.

 

[1robin]

Your view might be standard in your opinion, but so what. It still does not account for the other billion and a half other points of view. Protestant orthodoxy means what exactly? Lutheran? Methodist? Some evangelical flavor? You mentioned you dislike Dawkins, ok. Fine. I think we all got that a few pages ago. You pull out some vague accusations about his science and theology, and then go on about how everyone else, namely Hitchens and others is better. Fine. All things being equal, why then do you waste so much effort on going on about Dawkins anyhow. Has this not already been laid to rest? Or is it just that you respond to me because I am in dire need of conversion to your point of view? Or is it because I say that he answers theologians from a scientific position? Yes, he answers people who insist on appropriating science to defend their belief system with creationist drivel and the usual ID arguments that make no sense—see the watchmaker argument.

If you feel that I and others are obsessed with defending Dawkins, then maybe you need to look at your irrational defensiveness regarding him. Why do you spend so much effort in saying the same thing over and over again and still miss the point. He is not a theologian, he does refute creationist ideas with science and theology is not the issue anyhow. You act as if it were, and we say you are making it up as you go along. Seriously, if he is so incompetent, why bother with what he says. Just go bask in your presumed superiority and stop arguing a moot point. And no, you never gave an actual rebuttal of anything. You just quote irrelevant writings of people who mirror your disdain for rational thought. Your supposed experts may be expert on creationist ideology, but they hardly qualify as relevant today considering the topic. Yeah, I know, 200 year old legal expertise that affirms the existence of god. Really important stuff and definitely a refutation of anything Dawkins may or may not have said.

Myredeemer.com is your source for expertise? On what evangelical zealotry? Oh wow, yeah sure. I will definitely look there for any expertise to refute anything that “refutes” Dawkins and his ilk. While I am at it, I will also get a lobotomy. Thinking for yourself is definitely a bad thing. And so is looking for real answers to the vital question: why are people in such desperate need to invent gods to make their lives mean something.

Just so you know. I still need no gods to explain the origins of life. We already have a pretty good idea what happened; evolution shows how things developed; and just because we do not have all the answers yet, does not mean we never will. In any case, there is no need for a god to explain it all. We just need to continue searching for answers to the questions we still have.

I replied to this in depth but my connection had dropped out (thanks Al Gore) so when I sent it it dissapeared so you are for better or worse getting the short version (which is all that is needed anyway).

1. The distinction between the subtleties of Lutheranism and the Methodists makes no difference in the context of does a God exist. We are not discussing transubstantiation or music in Church. In fact no doctrine matters at all.
2. This is where your argumentation went off the tracks. You assert that my pointing out Dawkin's incoherence is an obsession.
a. Dawkins is incompetent in theology.
b. In my view the human soul is at stake. It is altogether property and fitting that I insist that the integrity of the debaters arguments on both sides be maintained. He is possibly leading impressionable people who do not understand his credibility in biology is not merited in theology to hell. Nothing inappropriate there.
c. You on the other along with many others are obsessively defending his capability in an area where he has none. That is inappropriate.
3. I did in fact give the philosophical rebuttal to his abhorrent central argument. The rebuttal is inescapable and known to philosophy 101 students.
a. Infinite regression of causation is incoherent and BTW makes all of science invalid if actually applied to both sides instead of using double standards like currency.
b. It is unnecessary to explain a cause to adopt it. I can know X produced Y whether I can know what caused X.
c. God (or whatever created the universe) has no need of a cause.
To defend an argument so easily dispelled by kindergarten philosophy is what is irrational not my pointing it out. It is atrocious and would not be allowed if integrity not the destruction of the subject was the goal.

4. My redeemer was not the source it was just the site I happened to find those statement at. For the record I will not entertain any of these ridiculous "Christians can't be used as sources for Christianity or anything else for that matter" It certainly did not hurt Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Sandage, or Collins etc….. adinfinitum..... Science owes more to Christians that any other group. These claims are an illegitimate attempt to shoot the messenger because the message is inconvenient. I could say that no evolutionist may be used to defend evolution, or no materialist may speak on supernaturalism, or no determinist on morality. I however argue against their claims not against their integrity even though modern academics is now a clique environment where you get on board with the theory of the day or forget being published or tenured.

5. If you have no need of God then you can't explain life. If you could you would be on time magazine not in a forum defending the all mighty Dawkin's. The odds are trillions and trillions of orders of magnitude beyond hyperbolic insanity it is still a wonder that anyone will defend life arising alone. You made a faith based statement about life not a scientific one. Much of science and most of the science used to challenge God requires more faith based on less evidence than the ever did.

6. I love to watch shows on dinosaurs. I have seen three on T Rex lately. One said he was a fast and brutal predator that could out run and kill anything, another said a slow ambush type opportunist, and still another an ungainly giant turkey vulture scavenger. If they can't even agree on whether T-rex was a hyper predator or a vulture, posture, speed, or intelligence for a creature with many skeletons who lived 650 million years ago your absurd claims you know how life arrived over a billion or so years ago with no fossils is meaningless. I went to many lectures when in school one was a lecture given on string theory which a group declared necessitated an 11 dimensional universe (and which has not one scrap of evidence). I went to another talk at my university the next night on the holographic universe theory which mandated a 2 dimensional universe. The catch is it was the exact same scientists that said both. Schizophrenic self-contradicting theoretical scientists should stay out of theology, the stake are too high in theology or applied science.

 

[1robin]

The problem with this is that even militant atheists do not "hate" "God".

I vehemently disagree. Again militant atheists are a small minority but they do at least hate the concept of God. The Bible is full of examples where man in his natural state is at enmity towards God whether they officially believe in him or not.

They hate what people have become under an influence of such religion.

I know, those hundreds of hospitals, fields of science, hundreds of billions in charity, great architecture, armies that have fought to keep tyranny from running rampant, public school systems, a foundation for actual (morality, meaning, purpose, origin, and destination), and the greatest example of human conduct in history must be stopped.

They are sick of people controlling everyone else's lives in the name of their God.

Currently it is the atheists who are stopping anything that is ever even associated theology out of anything public yet insist their fantasies derived from even less evidence be shoved down the throats of children. I say teach them all and have no compulsion. However neither side will get behind that.

Religion has only made us content with being foolish.

Or given us the most profound answers in life without having to get a billion in grant money to go see the life on Mars that does not exist. These statements are all spin and have no explanatory power.

For the past couple centuries science has been able to progress a little further every year only because the church has finally lost power.

Most of that progress is built on the back of mainly Christians along with (Greek theists, muslim's, and Roman theists and deists) and only makes any rational sense given a God. I agree that Catholics suppressed knowledge for a time but free thinking Christians dominated science until very recently and they are still there. When secular science was languishing in ignorance even the Muslims made great leaps in math and medicine. Doctors were still killing people by the millions in even the late 1800's because they did not follow practices that the Hebrews among others knew 3000 years before. Without God there is not much of a role, foundation, or progress in sciences history.

Instead of praying away illness that brings death, we are able to use science to create cures and medicine to fight of that which might kill us.

This is a very common and irrational appeal to the absurd atheists make along with morality insinuations. It is a tactic to win a word fight not resolve a matter with integrity. No Christian I ever knew and no apostle ever said or thought that all disease is punishment, for instance. We believe that, that can occur but is very very rare. Supernatural acts are the extreme exception not the norm and yes prayer has worked in countless cases even when science failed.

Many other countries do not have an issue with there being no prayer or god in the text books. That is why their science is more advanced than our own.

Yeah I know, once a prayer is made then calculus is impossible. In fact every single personal experience I had in school is exactly the opposite. When science was built on the collective back of Christians in large part these claims just appear desperate.

We are behind.

Our being behind has more to do with the direction (in a thousand issues) that our country has taken politically over the past 60 years. I think God is to you what Bush is to liberals, the fall guy. The fact is that as God was swept aside every single thing he stands against has risen and standards across the board dropped. I agree there are other causes but IMO they are all symptoms of a loss of faith disease. Links are hard to establish especially with someone who refuses to even allow the possibility yet the correlation in the data is too consistent to dismiss.

Militant Atheists don't care if people believe in God. It is the fact that they are destroying the education system.

We do not control the education system your side does, secularism, moral relativists, and materialists displaced God then the bottom fell out and you blame God.

It honestly has nothing to do with God at all.

Its all about religious fanaticism in the education system.

Of course everyone knows that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have been wrecked by Christians and Berkley is the paradigm of intellectualism.

 

[Simurgh]

snip…word wall of inconsistent, incoherent, and immaterial pseudo-rebuttals

As usual, vague accusations and your insistence that Dawkins is a bad theologian. No, duh, is that because he is not a theologian at all? So why constantly harp on this. Everyone knows that he is not a theologian, but when people with theological aspirations ask him questions he replies. Now, that just means he enters into a discourse with them and that’s all. Would you prefer for him not to answer because his answers do not agree with you? Then don’t listen, don’t read his books, and ignore him.

He is not anyone’s center of the universe and so it ought to be easy enough to avoid him. Else, the people who want to discuss religion with him and who are not all that cognizant in science either should refrain from engaging him in dialogue.

You constantly tell me how anyone in Phil 101 could refute his statement, so just do it. Stop making allusions to whatever you are taking issue with and take his statements apart by parsing them according to logic 101. And no, using creationist fallacies is not the same as logical, rational, or philosophical discourse.

All your rantings aside, you have yet to come up with a valid rational argument that is not steeped in religious presumptions and superstitions. Reification of your religious beliefs does not work either. Those things you assume are self-evident are not.

And for human souls being at stake, that's your opinion and that's all it is. Your assumption that other people's souls can be saved by you is just beyond hubris. Especially, when the only thing you seem capable of doing is maligning someone who questions your assumptions.

You furthermore assume too much. I have yet to know any atheist who bothers to hate something s/he does not believe in. Seriously, how do you hate something that does not even exist?

 

[1robin]

As usual, vague accusations and your insistence that Dawkins is a bad theologian. No, duh, is that because he is not a theologian at all? So why constantly harp on this. Everyone knows that he is not a theologian, but when people with theological aspirations ask him questions he replies. Now, that just means he enters into a discourse with them and that’s all. Would you prefer for him not to answer because his answers do not agree with you? Then don’t listen, don’t read his books, and ignore him.

He is not anyone’s center of the universe and so it ought to be easy enough to avoid him. Else, the people who want to discuss religion with him and who are not all that cognizant in science either should refrain from engaging him in dialogue.

You constantly tell me how anyone in Phil 101 could refute his statement, so just do it. Stop making allusions to whatever you are taking issue with and take his statements apart by parsing them according to logic 101. And no, using creationist fallacies is not the same as logical, rational, or philosophical discourse.

All your rantings aside, you have yet to come up with a valid rational argument that is not steeped in religious presumptions and superstitions. Reification of your religious beliefs does not work either. Those things you assume are self-evident are not.

And for human souls being at stake, that's your opinion and that's all it is. Your assumption that other people's souls can be saved by you is just beyond hubris. Especially, when the only thing you seem capable of doing is maligning someone who questions your assumptions.

That's it ride an incompetent man's right to screw up the most important debate in human history and call my views illogical until the bitter end. I will dispel the claims made here tomorrow; my daily incoherence capacity has been reached. BTW I have posted what is Dawkin's elementary flaw in his absurd core argument about 4 times now. I will do so once again but your own your own after that.

1. Infinite causal requirements are impossible, are not reflected in nature, illogical, would make all facts instantly unknowable (including Dawkins entire profession), and does not apply to a hypothetical uncaused first cause anyway. His argument literally eats itself.
2. It is not necessary to know that an explanation is the best explanation to have to explain it as well. If I see a sign that says eat at Joe's on mars, the best explanation is that intelligence is the cause. I do not even have to know what kind of intelligence and I certainly do not have to explain where it came from.

This is philosophy kindergarten and will not be given again even if you ignore it for the approx. fifth time.

 

[Skeptisch]

Again militant atheists are a small minority but they do at least hate the concept of God.

They do not hate god or its concept they simply point out that there is no scientific evidence for her or him.

God, on the other hand, is capable to say things like:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortune tellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

 

[1robin]

They do not hate god or its concept they simply point out that there is no scientific evidence for her or him.

Yes they do. They did not write books called "there is no scientific evidence for God" even though there is and science is not the arbiter of all truth. They wrote books called "The God delusion" and "God is not great" and compared the most cherished hope in human history (heaven) to a celestial north Korea. Hitchens said if there was a heaven he doesn't want to go there. Well he probably will or has gotten exactly what he chose. There is little surprise in this. Jesus said they will hate us as they have hated him.

God, on the other hand, is capable to say things like:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortune tellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Now this is a news flash indeed. It was a well kept secret that God hates sin until now and was especially concerned with maintaining the moral integrity of his people, who he would use to reveal himself through. By all means let everyone do whatever feels good and so when Christ came the Jews looked just like everyone else and there for Christ did not reach millions he could have saved. I have no problem debunking these context stripped and purpose denied issues but this is hardly the thread for it. Start this conversion in another thread and we will get to the bottom of this red herring.

 

[Skeptisch]

They did not write books called "there is no scientific evidence for God" even though there is and science is not the arbiter of all truth. They wrote books called "The God delusion"...

Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

You may also want to familiarize yourself with what a "scientific fact" is.
A good place to start is Richard Dawkins’ “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True”

 

[1robin]

Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

This definition is why what Hawkins said is so absurd and based primarily on an emotional resentment of faith. The Bible is consistent with fact and reason. That probably explains why the Bible has outsold all of Hitchen's and Dawkin's books combined, a hundred time over.

You may also want to familiarize yourself with what a "scientific fact" is.
A good place to start is Richard Dawkins’ “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True”

There is little need or merit in examining how a scientific fact is quantified since the arguments against God used by scientists are all based on conjecture and require more faith based on less evidence than the Bible. If they routinely break their own rules and methods why should I be concerned with them. When a man you give as a source for scientific fact makes an argument as absurd as demanding infinite causal regression which if applied consistently would destroy every fact ever known he is one poor source indeed. His pet theory of Godles evolution is predicated on the faith based knowledge that life did what no life has ever been observed doing, being produced from non intelligence. These hyper-literal requirements it seems only apply to arguments for God, but an argument against God needs to pass no test beyond convenience. Double standards are the hallmark of a weak argument.

 

[PolyHedral]

That probably explains why the Bible has outsold all of Hitchen's and Dawkin's books combined, a hundred time over.

I once looked this up - IIRC, it took the Bible hundreds of years to attain the audience Avatar did in 3 months.

 

[lunamoth]

Oy veh. Richard Dawkins is a good scientist.

 

[1robin]

I once looked this up - IIRC, it took the Bible hundreds of years to attain the audience Avatar did in 3 months.

That might have something to do with the fact that no theater, car, printing press, projector, or buttered popcorn existed in 150AD. So let's all worship that big red flying thing and live in a tree. I would still bet there have been more Christians than people who have seen Avatar in total, though what that would prove is beyond me.