Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Looncall]

<snip>

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.

A very good point. It is like asking which direction Sherlock Holmes was facing on a train ride when Conan Doyle did not specify that.

 

[adi2d]

Reality always existed and needed no science to describe it; and the tool is not appropriate. It is like pulling a nail with a hammer; it is not a proper tool to pull a nail. Is it?

That's odd. I always thought the hammer was "intelligently designed" to pull a nail. Isn't that what the claw is for?

 

[Azihayya]

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

No. These are not my beliefs about Religion

and I don't think that they are representational of everyone's Religion either.


Religion can very often be considered as a language,

a form of communication among men.


Dawkins is taking out his emotional rage about Religion,

based on the experiences that he's had at complete random,

and lashing out at people who say they believe in Religion.

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



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.



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.

These are still pretensions being made about Religion, on my behalf,

and if you don't have a problem with how someone is allowed to express themselves,

then my sentiments should seem quite natural to you.

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.



How so?




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

If what you say is true it doesn't exclude you from the same principle.


You have to *choose* to see Religion for what it is, rather than what you make up about it.


I view Religion most often from a great Historical point of view, and if you really thought about it,

you would realize that Religion is grounded with Scientific and Philosophical facts.


However, I have no interest in continuing this discussion; so I'm leaving it here.

 

[outhouse]

No. These are not my beliefs about Religion

could this be from a lack of education in history? and religion?

again if im wrong please tell me why.

and I don't think that they are representational of everyone's Religion either.

not everyone but most do fall in that catagory.


now if im wrong your free to refute my statement.

Religion can very often be considered as a language,

actually this is very false

language describes the mythology

a form of communication among men.

do you think women do not play a role in religion? is this bias?


its a well known form of communication called mythology.

Dawkins is taking out his emotional rage about Religion,

emotion LOL, well no your wrong again.


I would have to bet you dont have a single piece of evidence to back this illfounded statement with.

and lashing out at people who say they believe in Religion.

first he is not lashing out, he merely explains away the mythology with logic and reason and knowledge.

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion can very often be considered as a language,

I don't agree with you.

Religion is based on the Converse with the one true creator God; so human language, it can be any language mostly which the human in conversation understands or could later understand, is only a medium of communication, yet the language is not the essence; the essence is the message from God which forms a revealed religion; so religion is not a synonym of language.

 

[outhouse]

I don't agree with you.

Religion is based on the Converse with the one true creator God; so human language, it can be any language mostly which the human in conversation understands or could later understand, is only a medium of communication, yet the language is not the essence; the essence is the message from God which forms a revealed religion; so religion is not a synonym of language.

which of course is just your personal god based on where you live.


the trinity?

yahweh?

El?

alla?


one true god? well that is something that has never been known to exist, there have always been multiple manmade deities in almost all societies, and the only thing they have in common is a different view and definition based on ignorance levels

 

[McBell]

... the only thing they have in common is a different ...

huh?

 

[paarsurrey]

which of course is just your personal god based on where you live.


the trinity?

yahweh?

El?

alla?


one true god? well that is something that has never been known to exist, there have always been multiple manmade deities in almost all societies, and the only thing they have in common is a different view and definition based on ignorance levels

Wrong

The one true creator God has always existed and has sustained life; it is another thing that the atheists are "blind" to it or ignorant of it; He exists irrespective if the atheists believe in Him or not; no compulsion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Wrong

The one true creator God has always existed and has sustained life; it is another thing that the atheists are "blind" to it or ignorant of it; He exists irrespective if the atheists believe in Him or not; no compulsion.

Got any empirical objective scientific evidence for this?

If not, then you are just another guy with an opinion, which makes the statement worthless.

 

[outhouse]

huh?

all religions have a different definition of what they would like to claim is the same god.

 

[outhouse]

Wrong

The one true creator God has always existed and has sustained life; it is another thing that the atheists are "blind" to it or ignorant of it; He exists irrespective if the atheists believe in Him or not; no compulsion.

you have zero evidence of one god, nor could you even define him.


you failed to answer which one??

yahweh
El
allah
jesus
asherah
baal




do you even understand the evolutonary proccess deities go through at mans hands??

 

[A Troubled Man]

Wrong

The one true creator God has always existed and has sustained life; it is another thing that the atheists are "blind" to it or ignorant of it; He exists irrespective if the atheists believe in Him or not; no compulsion.

Is there no compulsion stooping to intellectual dishonesty?

 

[BetrayTheArchetype]

Other than a conviction that God does exist, can you quantitatively demonstrate that he does?

I believe you may truly believe there is a god, but you must be aware that there are psychological, emotional, economic, sociological, and even sexual reasons why someone can be convinced of things such as the existence of God without a singular real reason to do so.

If you were to carefully examine your reasons, do they fall prey to any of those reasons for belief, or are you going to simply regurgitate the same thoughtless, "I know because I know".

Note, please, that, "he revealed himself to me" without any real evidence fails the psychological aspect stated earlier.

So, please, can you quantitatively demonstrate that he does exist? Otherwise, your statement that he is real, does exist, etc, is completely worthless.

After all, if you can demand without reason that god certainly does exist, then I can demand without reason that he does not exist, and the entire world get stuck in limbo until someone votes one side or the other up... and then, even if you do get more votes, you've invalidated yourself. Your religion isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

 

[Storm]

Other than a conviction that God does exist, can you quantitatively demonstrate that he does?

I believe you may truly believe there is a god, but you must be aware that there are psychological, emotional, economic, sociological, and even sexual reasons why someone can be convinced of things such as the existence of God without a singular real reason to do so.

If you were to carefully examine your reasons, do they fall prey to any of those reasons for belief, or are you going to simply regurgitate the same thoughtless, "I know because I know".

Note, please, that, "he revealed himself to me" without any real evidence fails the psychological aspect stated earlier.

So, please, can you quantitatively demonstrate that he does exist? Otherwise, your statement that he is real, does exist, etc, is completely worthless.

After all, if you can demand without reason that god certainly does exist, then I can demand without reason that he does not exist, and the entire world get stuck in limbo until someone votes one side or the other up... and then, even if you do get more votes, you've invalidated yourself. Your religion isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

Who are you addressing?

 

[BetrayTheArchetype]

My mistake. I believed that the last quoted statement from the post directly above mine would be the natural reference for my statements. Such has been my experience with other forums.

To be clear, my statements were aimed at paarsurrey.

 

[Storm]

Well, yes, but I didn't gather that he was making a claim for God, so it was a bit of a non sequitur.

Course, I only popped in here to see what the new guy was saying, so I could be missing context.

 

[Azihayya]

However, I have no interest in continuing this discussion; so I'm leaving it here.

I have no interest in continuing a conversation on the basis that I will be constantly be misunderstood;

if you have questions about anything I've said, seek the answers for yourself; I cannot help you.

 

[McBell]

I have no interest in continuing a conversation on the basis that I will be constantly be misunderstood;

I do not blame you.
However, it would be interesting to find out why you are so constantly misunderstood.
Is it because no one wants to understand you, or is it possible, even if it is only a wee teeny tiny miniscule microscopically small bit because of the way you present?

if you have questions about anything I've said, seek the answers for yourself; I cannot help you.

Giving up so easily?
Shame really.

 

[Azihayya]

From my perspective, the price is not worth the results.

 

[McBell]

Neither of us wants to understand eachother;

from my perspective, the price is not worth the results.

If you are refusing to understand the other side, how can you expect the other side to try to understand?
You did not address the only question in my post:
Is it because no one wants to understand you, or is it possible, even if it is only a wee teeny tiny miniscule microscopically small bit because of the way you present?