-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
yet you see fit to reply that you have left the topic and are not answering questions....
BetrayTheArchetype
Member
Mmm hmm. At any rate, there's little point to posting "I am not going to respond" at least three times in one thread unless there's mischief afoot.
If it's not postcount beefing, it's spotlight grabbing, or something other than any intended use of the thread and the forum.
But... you left the thread already... so, you'll never read this, or the reply of mine above, right?
If it's not postcount beefing, it's spotlight grabbing, or something other than any intended use of the thread and the forum.
But... you left the thread already... so, you'll never read this, or the reply of mine above, right?
Azihayya
Dragon Wizard
Hey, I just want to make it clear that I have no intentions of answering peoples nit-picky questions,
and furthermore would appreciate it if y'all would get off my back; I'm being accused at every angle.
That's really why I wanted to discontinue any discussion here anyway; my posts here are my business.
I only want to let my comments stand for themselves, whatever influence or interpretation they have on you is your responsibility.
and furthermore would appreciate it if y'all would get off my back; I'm being accused at every angle.
That's really why I wanted to discontinue any discussion here anyway; my posts here are my business.
I only want to let my comments stand for themselves, whatever influence or interpretation they have on you is your responsibility.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Depending on the topic, people here (me included) can become quite nit-picky, so you might as well get used to it...
Well, people here want to know stuff, as humans have a tendency to do, when answers aren't forthcoming they tend to speculate.
Also, this is in the debate section of the forums, which means that comments will be scrutinized and analysed, and, if found wanting, picked apart.
Actually, this being a public forum and all, your posts are anyone's business...
That kind of attitude usually only leads to people either ignoring you or picking your comments apart and throwing them in a proverbial ditch.
But hey, I might be wrong; maybe your comments are so profound and influential that that won't happen.
Also, welcome to the forum*.
*Really.
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
What on Earth are you on about? :sarcastic
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
So does the flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns, fairies, sprites, wood nymphs, trolls.....etc...etc....
Tell me I'm wrong (with evidence)
McBell
Unbound
This seems to be the core problem with those who insist on the existence of their deity, all their arguments equally apply to trolls, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the chubacabra elves, invisible garage dragons, etc.
That's absurd. That no one is qualified to talk about "god" doesn't mean everyone is.
BetrayTheArchetype
Member
There's a line of logic in JarofThought's statement that must be ceded to, Willamena.
There's no empirical data on any god. All we have are biased theological works. Nearly invariably those works describe something that happened so long ago there's no real chance to prove or disprove the claims in those works; at least, when the works are penned there's no method at that time to prove or disprove them.
Given that, it's very easy to make up literally anything you want on the subject. Without any provable method to verify those claims, they cannot be discounted because there's no way to know.
Except, as often misquoted by people on forums, the lack of any evidence IS evidence that such a thing is not real. We can go along all day and say that the lack of evidence saying that unicorns are not real means they could exist.
It does not actually work that way. The statement so often misquoted in forums is just that, misquoted, misunderstood, and maligned. Lack of proof of anything DOES mean it does not exist. Until something can be quantitatively demonstrated or at the least non-psychotically experienced it does not exist.
It lies within the realm of possible, but it does not exist. For something to exist it has to be more than the figment of someone's imagination. Until it is conclusively demonstrated, there's no realism in any concept and thus someone can, quite literally, speak in a qualified manner about anything they want - until they're proven wrong, or they're so absurd that the whole thing falls on its face by its own merit.
Consider this - "God, as the Christians understand him, just married Ahura Mazda. His marriage came to me in a revelation during my sleep. He told me to bear witness about the merging of Zoroastrian religion and Christianity, so here I am telling you."
It's certainly within the realm of possible and given the circumstances I describe I am quite qualified to speak on the matter - god himself ordained me to do so, and the qualifications don't come much better if you're Christian.
The problem, of course, lies in that the whole thing is patently untrue. God didn't, and until I can give any reason whatsoever for people to listen to me and not write me off as a crackpot, there's no reason to consider that it really existed. Since there's no reason to believe it (by design it is an unprovable scenario and no test can be ran to find out) and there's no proof that it did happen - the only statement that it did happen is my own declaration which is NOT proof for it - it's not proof that it did not happen.
It cannot be considered as realistic just because there's no evidence that it didn't happen, though. Otherwise, I'd like you all to bow down now and realize that the only true religion is Zororistianism. There's no evidence it did not happen so it must have happened.
And that, really, is why everyone IS qualified to speak on religion. Anyone can make anything up and it can be reasonable considering the terms of the discussion topic (gods and magic and such that cannot be quantified by physics), but nobody can be taken seriously about any of it.
There's no empirical data on any god. All we have are biased theological works. Nearly invariably those works describe something that happened so long ago there's no real chance to prove or disprove the claims in those works; at least, when the works are penned there's no method at that time to prove or disprove them.
Given that, it's very easy to make up literally anything you want on the subject. Without any provable method to verify those claims, they cannot be discounted because there's no way to know.
Except, as often misquoted by people on forums, the lack of any evidence IS evidence that such a thing is not real. We can go along all day and say that the lack of evidence saying that unicorns are not real means they could exist.
It does not actually work that way. The statement so often misquoted in forums is just that, misquoted, misunderstood, and maligned. Lack of proof of anything DOES mean it does not exist. Until something can be quantitatively demonstrated or at the least non-psychotically experienced it does not exist.
It lies within the realm of possible, but it does not exist. For something to exist it has to be more than the figment of someone's imagination. Until it is conclusively demonstrated, there's no realism in any concept and thus someone can, quite literally, speak in a qualified manner about anything they want - until they're proven wrong, or they're so absurd that the whole thing falls on its face by its own merit.
Consider this - "God, as the Christians understand him, just married Ahura Mazda. His marriage came to me in a revelation during my sleep. He told me to bear witness about the merging of Zoroastrian religion and Christianity, so here I am telling you."
It's certainly within the realm of possible and given the circumstances I describe I am quite qualified to speak on the matter - god himself ordained me to do so, and the qualifications don't come much better if you're Christian.
The problem, of course, lies in that the whole thing is patently untrue. God didn't, and until I can give any reason whatsoever for people to listen to me and not write me off as a crackpot, there's no reason to consider that it really existed. Since there's no reason to believe it (by design it is an unprovable scenario and no test can be ran to find out) and there's no proof that it did happen - the only statement that it did happen is my own declaration which is NOT proof for it - it's not proof that it did not happen.
It cannot be considered as realistic just because there's no evidence that it didn't happen, though. Otherwise, I'd like you all to bow down now and realize that the only true religion is Zororistianism. There's no evidence it did not happen so it must have happened.
And that, really, is why everyone IS qualified to speak on religion. Anyone can make anything up and it can be reasonable considering the terms of the discussion topic (gods and magic and such that cannot be quantified by physics), but nobody can be taken seriously about any of it.
McBell
Unbound
But that is not what he said.
He said everyone is just as equally qualified to to talk about god.
Who "isn't" qualified to talk about god?
Why?
Azihayya
Dragon Wizard
Depending on the topic, people here (me included) can become quite nit-picky, so you might as well get used to it...
Well, people here want to know stuff, as humans have a tendency to do, when answers aren't forthcoming they tend to speculate.
Also, this is in the debate section of the forums, which means that comments will be scrutinized and analysed, and, if found wanting, picked apart.
Actually, this being a public forum and all, your posts are anyone's business...
That kind of attitude usually only leads to people either ignoring you or picking your comments apart and throwing them in a proverbial ditch.
But hey, I might be wrong; maybe your comments are so profound and influential that that won't happen.
I have no obligation to participate here, I find the scrutiny revolving around my opinions
to be uncredible and fallacious of nature; it seems like the responders that I am getting
who are critically analyzing my statements are only haunting themselves.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
True, and yet, here you are.
That may or may not be so, but you have not shown us why that is.
I'm not sure they see it that way, but hey, I might be wrong.
Why do you think that is the case though?
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
@ jarofthoughts
Reference your post #675
Please quote the serial number of post where I wrote the following.
I never wrote that;it must be your mistake, so please correct for everybody
Reference your post #675
Please quote the serial number of post where I wrote the following.
I never wrote that;it must be your mistake, so please correct for everybody
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
How is that different from any other person on the planet?
If he thought his opinion about a subject was wrong he'd just change it... :sarcastic
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I think there are other biologists of his calibre out there but they restrict themselves to their specific field and they don't step out and encroach on religion as does Dawkins.
Please correct me if I am wrong.