Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Dirty Penguin]

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

No this proves that people say they've heard the voice of their god or that their particular religious writings is the word of their god. This, when examined critically, is far from the truth.

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

But that's just it...we actually have evidence of written exchange with one another and if need be you can challenge me on what is written. This you can not do with text written a few thousand years ago. When you actually examine all religious text you quickly come to the conclusion that what is written is from the minds and hands of men.

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

See above. Additionally it's been shown over and over that what is written, especially in the bible, does not match nature and what we know of the natural world.

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

Not only can we see the sun we can measure thus we have empirical evidence of its existence. We don't have this for man made concepts such as deities.

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

So far you haven't been able to produce any.

 

[paarsurrey]

.and for the record he never tries to use science to disprove the existence of "God"....

Then what does he use to disprove.

Please give one, the most strong of his one reason, to disprove; just one.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Then what does he use to disprove.

Please give one, the most strong of his one reason, to disprove; just one.

Lack of empirical objective evidence.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Then what does he use to disprove.

Please give one, the most strong of his one reason, to disprove; just one.

The claim is unfalsifiable.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Then what does he use to disprove.

He doesn't try to disprove god.
At least, depending on what you put into that word.

Please give one, the most strong of his one reason, to disprove; just one.

There is no reason to think that there exist any god or gods.
In other words; an absolute and utter lack of evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lack of empirical objective evidence.

When our friend "Dirty Penguin" says

and for the record he never tries to use science to disprove the existence of "God"

It means, to me,it is an admission that the existence of the one creator God is not a subject of science.

 

[jarofthoughts]

When our friend "Dirty Penguin" says



It means, to me,it is an admission that the existence of the one creator God is not a subject of science.

No, it means that it is an unfalsifiable claim, which makes it nonsense.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it means that it is an unfalsifiable claim, which makes it nonsense.

Just your opinion; not a fact or opinion of science.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Just your opinion; not a fact or opinion of science.

All unfalsifiable claims are nonsense, both as they are and most definitely in a scientific context.
If you don't understand that, then you can't know much science.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When our friend "Dirty Penguin" says

and for the record he never tries to use science to disprove the existence of "God"

It means, to me,it is an admission that the existence of the one creator God is not a subject of science.

Everyone has chimed in and have answered it perfectly.

 

[Quiddity]

So, your reply is an ad hominem attack?
Noted. :sarcastic

If you take my doubt as an attack....:areyoucra

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you take my doubt as an attack....:areyoucra

I'm just noting that you would rather attack me than bring anything useful to the table.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm just noting that you would rather attack me than bring anything useful to the table.

I'm just noting that your assertion is without warrant and I regurgitated that what I said was...."I doubt.........".

Perhaps my doubt has some merit and you are upset that I called you on it?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm just noting that your assertion is without warrant and I regurgitated that what I said was...."I doubt.........".

Hey, if you meant nothing by it, then that's fine with me.

Perhaps my doubt has some merit and you are upset that I called you on it?

Nah.
I just don't like discussions without proper arguments being presented.
They never go anywhere interesting.

 

[Azihayya]

someone has to fight severe ignorance due to brainwashing at early ages, for the betterment of humanity.

Richard Dawkins is prone to barging onto any scene and denouncing a God that he is making pretensions about on the behalf of other people,

so I think that he is really out of his element in discussions about God, and is in no respectable way fighting ignorance.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Richard Dawkins is prone to barging onto any scene and denouncing a God that he is making pretensions about on the behalf of other people,

so I think that he is really out of his element in discussions about God, and is in no respectable way fighting ignorance.

So, who is in their element when discussing god then?
I mean, as truth claims go we're basically talking about faeries here...

 

[Azihayya]

So, who is in their element when discussing god then?
I mean, as truth claims go we're basically talking about faeries here...

Definately not; you can't classify Gods for everyone, because God, Gods and what the
word implies has meant something different to everyone and anyone for a very long time.

You see, you're talking about imaginary fairies when you speak of God,
but that is not what I believe God to be, even from a historical perspective.

To be within the element of talking about God, one must be able to clarify
the perspective they are speaking from, and define particular elements of
their subject, and should not be casting their singular definition about what
it means to have a belief in God over all other people who abide by, have or use God.

 

[outhouse]

Richard Dawkins is prone to barging onto any scene and denouncing a God that he is making pretensions about on the behalf of other people,

so I think that he is really out of his element in discussions about God, and is in no respectable way fighting ignorance.

Dawkins is dealing with reality.

man has a solid well documented history of creating deities at will.

the same way you denounce all other deities, your exactly the same as him. the only difference is you denounce one less then him.



deities are for the most part based on the geographic location you were born in, had you been born somewhere else, you would have different faith.


at this point in time, no deities have ever been known to exist outside mythology.


Dawkins is perfectly in line with the reality of the situation

 

[jarofthoughts]

Definately not; you can't classify Gods for everyone, because God, Gods and what the
word implies has meant something different to everyone and anyone for a very long time.

But they all share two characteristics: they are all supposedly supernatural and there is no evidence for their existence.

You see, you're talking about imaginary fairies when you speak of God,
but that is not what I believe God to be, even from a historical perspective.

And what on Earth makes you think that the god(s) that people believe in are any less imaginary than fairies?
I'm sorry, but how the universe works is not a matter of popular vote.

To be within the element of talking about God, one must be able to clarify
the perspective they are speaking from, and define particular elements of
their subject, and should not be casting their singular definition about what
it means to have a belief in God over all other people who abide by, have or use God.

Nonsense.
There is no knowledge to be had about gods whatsoever, which means that anyone is just as qualified as anyone else to speak about them.
And believing in a god or gods is most certainly not a requirement.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Richard Dawkins is prone to barging onto any scene and denouncing a God

No he doesn't. If he is on the scene it's because he's been invited. And those doing the inviting already know his position on religion..so it's of no surprise he would have some strong views against religion.

so I think that he is really out of his element in discussions about God

How so?

and is in no respectable way fighting ignorance.

If one want's to remain ignorant then there's nothing anyone can do to change that.