Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[ImmortalFlame]

Many people live in instant denial, you are not alone.

Irony.

No I got all that. Dawkins is using the label of religions as the most divisive means in war. His personal war between his beliefs and religious beliefs.

Suuure, you keep saying that. Maybe some day you'll actually be able to support your view with reason.

Never in your argument. I could never see rationality in a flat earth mentality.

See above.

I already have proven it. Your own intelligence is what stops you from seeing it.

Delusions, also see above.

With your faith of belief, you wouldn't be able to see logic and reason if it bit you.

Since you have no idea what my beliefs are, you are now resorting to ill-informed personal attacks based on groundless assertions. Also, see above again.

With your faith of belief, you will, no matter how much contrary evidence is offered you.

Projection, see above.

Dawkins says please don't trot out Hitler as a counter agrument, then trots Hitler out. Dawkins believes and conceives he can use Hitler, but nobody else can. Dawkins in nothing but a bigot and hypocrite.

He says "And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example" to his point that religion is almost always an "incendiary agent" in war because "Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism". Nowhere does he say that it is wrong just to mention Hitler as an example of anything.

Congratulations on gloriously missing the point and proving your inability to actually understand what Dawkins is saying.

Oh so much prejudice and bias in Dawkins works, isn't there. Logical and rational people see Germany and German's starting the second world war. History gives all the backing to prove this. Most logical and rational people, see Hitler as a main cause of this. LOL Dawkins is so irrational, so illogical, so distorted and so confused, he sees a never renouced Catholicism for the cause of this.

One day Dawkins may snap back into reality and find, that wars and everything we have which he condemns and slams religions for, existed well before the world had religions.

As I expected, you have not refuted a single argument he made. Just mis-read part of it, argued a straw-man constructed from your mis-reading of a single sentence, and called Dawkins ignorant and prejudiced in spite of the fact that you fail to refute so much as a single one of his arguments.

You're a joke, Footprints. Just admit that you hate Dawkins just for the sake of hating Dawkins, and that your knowledge and understanding of his views are nil. You might yet hold on to a shred of your dignity.

 

[footprints]

Irony.

About all you deserve.

Suuure, you keep saying that. Maybe some day you'll actually be able to support your view with reason.

Already done that, your faith of belief just stops you from seeing it.

See above.

See above.

Delusions, also see above.

See above.

Since you have no idea what my beliefs are, you are now resorting to ill-informed personal attacks based on groundless assertions. Also, see above again.

LOL, more illogical and unreasoned statements. What have you been giving me, a complete pack of lies based on your personal belief of perception...... Hey, wait a minute, I might believe that.

Projection, see above.

Projection. See above

He says "And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example" to his point that religion is almost always an "incendiary agent" in war because "Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism". Nowhere does he say that it is wrong just to mention Hitler as an example of anything.

Congratulations on gloriously missing the point and proving your inability to actually understand what Dawkins is saying.

Oh now I get it. When Dawkins says please don't trot Hitler out, what Dawkins really means is, Please trot Hitler out.

You are truly amazing, in the negative sense.

Not only is your position illogical, unreasonable, and completely blinded by your faith, I cannot actually believe that any sane person, would continue to argue the point.

As I expected, you have not refuted a single argument he made. Just mis-read it, argued a straw-man constructed from your mis-reading, and called Dawkins ignorant and prejudiced in spite of the fact that you fail to refute so much as a single one of his arguments.

LOL of course I have misread it. I don't have your faith of belief. I cannot in the face of all reality, logic and reason, turn a statement around like, please don't trot Hitler out, to read please trot Hitler out. My brain is just not that confused, nor delusional.

You're a joke, Footprints. Just admit that you hate Dawkins just for the sake of hating Dawkins, and that your knowledge and understanding of his views are nil. You might yet hold on to a shred of your dignity.

And do you often get these delusions of grandeur, that you have some sort of psychic ability. Hate is not in my vocabulary, though it clearly is in yours. I understand on religious issues, Dawkins has a prejudice. I cannot condemn a person for being mentally ill.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I just wanted to inform my brothers that we are having a regular Sabbath now on Sunday, Master Dawkins is holding a ceremony for the new recruits as well as the ordinary blood sacrifice.

I was to inform ImmortalFlame, Auto, DallasApple and tumbleweed41(you got a special warning, last weeks ceremony would have gone much better without the headless Creationist you took with) to not, and I repeat, not take heads of Christians you murdered to the Ceremony, our Great Leader is very prone to look normal and good and we do not want a repetition of the Dallas/Immortal incident involving Christians being tortured and set on fire. This is To STOP!

Also, for the ones looking up to Second in Command, Master Myers have decided to promote a reform that would allow Homosexuals to be able to infect Normal living Hetereosexuals with AIDS, he has got plenty of information on that one.

Happy Weekend everyone.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL, more illogical and unreasoned statements. What have you been giving me, a complete pack of lies based on your personal belief of perception...... Hey, wait a minute, I might believe that.

You have no idea what my personal beliefs are. So, you're making unreasoned statements yourself. I have never once made any assumptions about your personal beliefs except for your obvious bias against Dawkins, which I explained my rationale for in full yet you have not yet refuted. What's more, you still fail to demonstrate even a working understanding of any of Dawkins' opinions or statements, even when they are placed in front of you.

Oh now I get it. When Dawkins says please don't trot Hitler out, what Dawkins really means is, Please trot Hitler out.

You are truly amazing, in the negative sense.

Read it again in context:

"My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism."

Now, where does Dawkins says that it is flat-out wrong to use Hitler as an example of any argument? Nowhere. He is clearly stating that it is wrong to "trot out" Hitler as an example of a non-religious justifier of war, since Hitler was religious.

Not that anything I've said above will actually get into your head. You just seem to hear what you want to hear when it comes to Dawkins.

Not only is your position illogical, unreasonable, and completely blinded by your faith, I cannot actually believe that any sane person, would continue to argue the point.

LOL of course I have misread it. I don't have your faith of belief.

Honestly, I'm just wasting my time aren't I? What's the point of debating Dawkins with someone who has absolutely no working knowledge of Dawkins whatsoever? You're clearly determined to either ignore, ridicule or flat-out lie about just about any of his statements put before you. I don't have to prove that to you - it's obvious to everyone else reading this argument. I'm happy to leave the keyboard knowing that I successfully refuted every point you made and nailed your ignorance to the wall for all to see, even if you don't see it yourself.

And do you often get these delusions of grandeur, that you have some sort of psychic ability. Hate is not in my vocabulary, though it clearly is in yours. I understand on religious issues, Dawkins has a prejudice. I cannot condone a person for being mentally ill.

And now you accuse him of being mentally ill.

Again, you have shown to have no working knowledge of any of Dawkins' opinions.

You have been shown to mis-read, mis-represent and mis-understand Dawkins' statements.

You have never once present any kind of refutation to any single one of Dawkins' arguments.

You have repeatedly called Dawkins ignorant, prejudiced, stupid and now mentally ill in place of actually arguing with a case.

Just admit it, Footprints. For whatever reason, you just hate the idea that there is a guy out there like Dawkins who is a lot smarter than you are and argues a point that, for whatever reason, you refuse to concede in spite of having no rational objection to it whatsoever. Go away, read a few books, hell even just a few articles, come back with specific references to Dawkins' writings and in what ways you find them divisive, try and refute them and then maybe we'll finally have something to debate. As it stands now, it's clear you have no interest in any such intelligent debate and just want to fling your useless, ill-informed opinions about like a rabid orangutan.

I hope to be able to actually engage in an actual discussion with you soon. Until such a time as you present a reasonable case, enjoy your poo-slinging.

 

[footprints]

I just wanted to inform my brothers that we are having a regular Sabbath now on Sunday, Master Dawkins is holding a ceremony for the new recruits as well as the ordinary blood sacrifice.

I was to inform ImmortalFlame, Auto, DallasApple and tumbleweed41(you got a special warning, last weeks ceremony would have gone much better without the headless Creationist you took with) to not, and I repeat, not take heads of Christians you murdered to the Ceremony, our Great Leader is very prone to look normal and good and we do not want a repetition of the Dallas/Immortal incident involving Christians being tortured and set on fire. This is To STOP!

Also, for the ones looking up to Second in Command, Master Myers have decided to promote a reform that would allow Homosexuals to be able to infect Normal living Hetereosexuals with AIDS, he has got plenty of information on that one.

Happy Weekend everyone.

Thanks Gabe, I already have tickets.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I just wanted to inform my brothers that we are having a regular Sabbath now on Sunday, Master Dawkins is holding a ceremony for the new recruits as well as the ordinary blood sacrifice.

I was to inform ImmortalFlame, Auto, DallasApple and tumbleweed41(you got a special warning, last weeks ceremony would have gone much better without the headless Creationist you took with) to not, and I repeat, not take heads of Christians you murdered to the Ceremony, our Great Leader is very prone to look normal and good and we do not want a repetition of the Dallas/Immortal incident involving Christians being tortured and set on fire. This is To STOP!

Also, for the ones looking up to Second in Command, Master Myers have decided to promote a reform that would allow Homosexuals to be able to infect Normal living Hetereosexuals with AIDS, he has got plenty of information on that one.

Happy Weekend everyone.

Should I bring my wife's bolognese? That went down a treat last year, especially when seasoned with those cremated remains of aborted fetuses. The trick, apparently, is to only use the freshest and most lately-aborted fetuses.

Oh, and I'll see you at the blood orgy as well, right?

 

[footprints]

You have no idea what my personal beliefs are. So, you're making unreasoned statements yourself. I have never once made any assumptions about your personal beliefs except for your obvious bias against Dawkins, which I explained my rationale for in full yet you have not yet refuted. What's more, you still fail to demonstrate even a working understanding of any of Dawkins' opinions or statements, even when they are placed in front of you.

Your personal beliefs which I know so far, is that you align with Dawkins. In your apologetic way you defend his bigotry and prejudice. That is all I need to know in this thread. By the way, I have got this from you, that is another delusion which you suffer from.

Read it again in context:

"My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism."

No matter how much I read it, it will not change. I am sorry, I do not have your faith of belief therefore cannot logical, nor rational, distort what is written there, in the apologetic manner in which you read it.

Dawkins clearly says, don't trot hitler out. He then uses some warped analogy which to his delusional state of mind, believes he has defeated the argument. It is an old Jedi mind trick, works on sheep, they see his bigotry and prejudice as being reasonable.

Now, where does Dawkins says that it is flat-out wrong to use Hitler as an example of any argument? Nowhere. He is clearly stating that it is wrong to "trot out" Hitler as an example of a non-religious justifier of war, since Hitler was religious.

Nobody has ever said, Dawkins has said it was wrong. This comes from some delusional part of your mind. Dawkins says, Don't use Hitler, cause Dawkins has just used Hitler, to prove his own warped sense of reasoning. Dawkins can use it, but he stands on bigotry and tells others not to. A do as I say, not as I do, hypocritical attitude.

Not that anything I've said above will actually get into your head. You just seem to hear what you want to hear when it comes to Dawkins.

I listen to a lot of things Dawkins says. When it comes to science, I agree with him every step of the way.

When it comes to religion and his own personal opinions, I could never agree with bigotry and pejudice, no matter who uses it. Albeit, this doesn't stop me from aligning with some of the perceptions he does use.

Honestly, I'm just wasting my time aren't I? What's the point of debating Dawkins with someone who has absolutely no working knowledge of Dawkins whatsoever? You're clearly determined to either ignore, ridicule or flat-out lie about just about any of his statements put before you. I don't have to prove that to you - it's obvious to everyone else reading this argument. I'm happy to leave the keyboard knowing that I successfully refuted every point you made and nailed your ignorance to the wall for all to see, even if you don't see it yourself.

Definately, wasting your time, you will never convert me to a bigoted and prejudiced position. You are welcome to it though.

And now you accuse him of being mentally ill.

Again, you have shown to have no working knowledge of any of Dawkins' opinions.

You have been shown to mis-read, mis-represent and mis-understand Dawkins' statements.

You have never once present any kind of refutation to any single one of Dawkins' arguments.

You have repeatedly called Dawkins ignorant, prejudiced, stupid and now mentally ill in place of actually arguing with a case.

Just admit it, Footprints. For whatever reason, you just hate the idea that there is a guy out there like Dawkins who is a lot smarter than you are and argues a point that, for whatever reason, you refuse to concede in spite of having no rational objection to it whatsoever. Go away, read a few books, hell even just a few articles, come back with specific references to Dawkins' writings and in what ways you find them divisive, try and refute them and then maybe we'll finally have something to debate. As it stands now, it's clear you have no interest in any such intelligent debate and just want to fling your useless, ill-informed opinions about like a rabid orangutan.

I hope to be able to actually engage in an actual discussion with you soon. Until such a time as you present a reasonable case, enjoy your poo-slinging.

Sorry, I cannot deny facts of reality, no matter how much it goes against your blind faith belief. Prejudice is a mental illness, to much evidence to deny it. However, easy for a person like you, who lives in instant denial.

 

[Gabethewiking]

footprints Your personal beliefs which I know so far, is that you align with Dawkins. In your apologetic way you defend his bigotry and prejudice. That is all I need to know in this thread. By the way, I have got this from you, that is another delusion which you suffer from.

Footie, I hope you find it okay that I pitch in here with a question.
It is clear that you do not like Dawkins, you seem to have something personal against him, this is fine, of course, but my question is when you call him bigot and prejudice, what do you base this on?

Could you supply some quotes perhaps?

Also, Richard Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist and was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, would you not say he presumably knows more about Evolution then you? (This is a personal Question I am asking, a simple Yes or No would be fine).

ImmortalFlame
Oh, and I'll see you at the blood orgy as well, right?

I am sorry to inform you that the orgy is canceled indefinitely this year. It turned out that footie's passion last time was a bit to much, to religious apparently, so we wanted to tone it down somewhat and take it easy.

 

[footprints]

Footie, I hope you find it okay that I pitch in here with a question.
It is clear that you do not like Dawkins, you seem to have something personal against him, this is fine, of course, but my question is when you call him bigot and prejudice, what do you base this on?

Could you supply some quotes perhaps?

Also, Richard Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist and was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, would you not say he presumably knows more about Evolution then you? (This is a personal Question I am asking, a simple Yes or No would be fine).

Gabe, you should know better than to rely on your own perception. It has failed you many times in the past.

I personally have nothing against Richard Dawkins, If I did, I wouldn't be investing well over a thousand dollars to hear him talk next weekend. I do however have something against bigotry and prejudice irrespective of who uses it.

If you read through this thread, you will find examples of it. The last pertained to his use of hitler, he could use it, but didn't want anybody else using it.

Of course Dawkins has a greater working knowledge of biology than I do pertaining to evolution. And why I take careful note of what he says. This though has nothing to do with his opinions on religions or to deities, here one opinion is equal as the next. And as to his psychological analysis pertaining to beliefs, then my working knowledge of biology down this line is greater than his.

Each to their own beliefs, and each to their own professions.

I am sorry to inform you that the orgy is canceled indefinitely this year. It turned out that footie's passion last time was a bit to much, to religious apparently, so we wanted to tone it down somewhat and take it easy.

Oh Gabe, you know that was your fault, you tried to sink me with your creationist rubbish and try to convince me the world was still flat.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Gabe, you should know better than to rely on your own perception. It has failed you many times in the past.

Yes I know, you always say that Footie, but you never give any evidence or backing for it.

I personally have nothing against Richard Dawkins, If I did, I wouldn't be investing well over a thousand dollars to hear him talk next weekend. I do however have something against bigotry and prejudice irrespective of who uses it.

Perhaps you are a masochist, what do I know, but so far your post portray your views as hateful and angry towards Mr Dawkins, you could ask other members here and I think they would agree, but perhaps we read you wrong.

Your claim of bigotry and prejudice is still just that, a claim, I can not see it but I can understand your dislike for his secular views as very few promote peace and love and all that atheism entails, especially in U.S media, i dont know about your Aussie one, isn't there a big "atheist conference" in Australia where Dawkins is visiting now?

If you read through this thread, you will find examples of it. The last pertained to his use of hitler, he could use it, but didn't want anybody else using it.

Creationist always use hitler falsely, claiming he is atheist and all kind of strange nonsense, this seems related to that and is specifically aimed for Creationist Ithink.

Of course Dawkins has a greater working knowledge of biology than I do pertaining to evolution. And why I take careful note of what he says. This though has nothing to do with his opinions on religions or to deities, here one opinion is equal as the next. And as to his psychological analysis pertaining to beliefs, then my working knowledge of biology down this line is greater than his.

Yes, so excluding his personal views on gods and faires, you agree that if you claim tha Evolution is false, and a person with decades of years in the field tells you, you are wrong and Evolution is a Fact.. You are in the wrong here?

Each to their own beliefs, and each to their own professions.

Certainly, but people claiming gods exist is no more different then people claiming univorns of Fairies exist, they are equal in evidence (that is, none exist) and yet promoted as "truth" without any basis for it so if an Educated man in Science points out that you are wrong, say, if you are a Creationist, it is a rather valid point, do you not think so footie?

 

[footprints]

Yes I know, you always say that Footie, but you never give any evidence or backing for it.

You and I both know I have, you creationist you. LOL.

Perhaps you are a masochist, what do I know, but so far your post portray your views as hateful and angry towards Mr Dawkins, you could ask other members here and I think they would agree, but perhaps we read you wrong.

Yeah and I am sure your believe the moon landings were a conspiracy to.

People here, especially you, will know how I handle bigotry and prejudice.

Your claim of bigotry and prejudice is still just that, a claim, I can not see it but I can understand your dislike for his secular views as very few promote peace and love and all that atheism entails, especially in U.S media, i dont know about your Aussie one, isn't there a big "atheist conference" in Australia where Dawkins is visiting now?

LOL that is just your perception talking, your faith of belief will stop you from seeing the bigotry and prejudice, for if you did, you would also see it in you.

LOL pertaining to the evangelistic crusade by Dawkins in Australia.

Creationist always use hitler falsely, claiming he is atheist and all kind of strange nonsense, this seems related to that and is specifically aimed for Creationist Ithink.

Yeah, and I am sure you still believe the earth is flat too. Dawkins used hitler falsely.

Yes, so excluding his personal views on gods and faires, you agree that if you claim tha Evolution is false, and a person with decades of years in the field tells you, you are wrong and Evolution is a Fact.. You are in the wrong here?

There are many other scientists in the world. I do understand Dawkins view is tainted by his perception which inhibits critical reasoning.

Certainly, but people claiming gods exist is no more different then people claiming univorns of Fairies exist, they are equal in evidence (that is, none exist) and yet promoted as "truth" without any basis for it so if an Educated man in Science points out that you are wrong, say, if you are a Creationist, it is a rather valid point, do you not think so footie?

I can't ever recall any ancient culture indentifying with unicorns or fairies as deities. If you can point me in the direction of these cultures, I would be much obliged. Either that or admit you are making a strawman argument, built on your own perception.

 

[skydivephil]

i think the suggestion is not that a culture identified unicorns or fairies as dieties, but that the level of evidence for both is zero. So i suggest it is you that is making the straw man argument.

 

[Skeptisch]

Gabethewiking, about “footie”:dan:, he seems to believe that there is no difference between believing in belief or blind faith and applying science and the scientific method to a hypothesis. To him it is all just a belief, so you are probably wasting your time trying to have a reasonable conversation with him. He also has a hard time telling us specifically why he thinks Prof. Dawkins, arguably the world’s leading evolutionary biologist, is in his words “an idiot”.

One of the nicest things about science is that it is a public activity. Scientists publish their methods as well as their conclusions, which means that anybody else, anywhere in the world, can repeat their work. If they don’t get the same results, we want to know the reason why. Scientists are not very good at believing; they look for evidence and strive to know.

Good luck with “footie”, most of us have given up on him and chances are you will too.

 

[footprints]

i think the suggestion is not that a culture identified unicorns or fairies as dieties, but that the level of evidence for both is zero. So i suggest it is you that is making the straw man argument.

Does zero evidence, suggest something doesn't or has never existed?

 

[footprints]

Gabethewiking, about “footie”:dan:, he seems to believe that there is no difference between believing in belief or blind faith and applying science and the scientific method to a hypothesis. To him it is all just a belief, so you are probably wasting your time trying to have a reasonable conversation with him. He also has a hard time telling us specifically why he thinks Prof. Dawkins, arguably the world’s leading evolutionary biologist, is in his words “an idiot”.

One of the nicest things about science is that it is a public activity. Scientists publish their methods as well as their conclusions, which means that anybody else, anywhere in the world, can repeat their work. If they don’t get the same results, we want to know the reason why. Scientists are not very good at believing; they look for evidence and strive to know.

Good luck with “footie”, most of us have given up on him and chances are you will too.

When a person has no rational and logical argument left, they resort to childish tactics. If you cannot combat the knowledge, try to discredit the poster.

Now if you would like to point out where in science or reality, Dawkins opinions as they pertain to religions or deities, is based on any credible scientific data, I will surely apologise. When a person has to try to distort the truth to justify a point, there is nothing scientific in their opinion at all.

 

[skydivephil]

Does zero evidence, suggest something doesn't or has never existed?

No it implies thats theres no reason to believe it exists. A subtle but important difference. Can you prove fairies dont exist?

 

[footprints]

No it implies thats theres no reason to believe it exists. A subtle but important difference.

Okay, so as we do not have any evidence as to the absolute origin of the universe, therefore by your analogy, there is no reason for you to believe the universe does exist.

Can you prove fairies dont exist?

Most certainly not. Fairies exist in childrens story books. They are a valid and tangible item. Everybody who observes the story, all observe the same thing.

 

[skydivephil]

Okay, so as we do not have any evidence as to the absolute origin of the universe, therefore by your analogy, there is no reason for you to believe the universe does exist.




Most certainly not. Fairies exist in childrens story books. They are a valid and tangible item. Everybody who observes the story, all observe the same thing.

There is plenty of evidennce thhe unvierse exists and there plenty of evidence as to its origin, unlike godds or fairies. Of course when we see there is no evidence fairies exist, we are not talking abou the depiction of fairies in books, we are talking about whether or not the creatures described in those books actaully exist as real material beings. Why I need to explain this is amazingly obvious point is beyond me.

 

[footprints]

There is plenty of evidennce thhe unvierse exists

Yeah theists say the same thing. So everybody is in agreement.

and there plenty of evidence as to its origin, unlike godds or fairies.

You are living in a delusion. There are many hypotheses, pertaining to events after the absolute origin of the universe, Big Bang, Big Crunch et al. We have absolutely no idea as to the absolute origin of the universe. What we have is two impossiblities of science, A) either something was created from nothing or, B) we have an effect without a cause.

Of course when we see there is no evidence fairies exist, we are not talking abou the depiction of fairies in books, we are talking about whether or not the creatures described in those books actaully exist as real material beings. Why I need to explain this is amazingly obvious point is beyond me.

I will let you believe they were talking about real things. Everybody else knows they were childrens stories. And if they aren't real things, which they are not, it becomes a very irrational stance to use them as a point of argument, especially when the user believes it proves a point.

 

[skydivephil]

Yeah theists say the same thing. So everybody is in agreement.




You are living in a delusion. There are many hypotheses, pertaining to events after the absolute origin of the universe, Big Bang, Big Crunch et al. We have absolutely no idea as to the absolute origin of the universe. What we have is two impossiblities of science, A) either something was created from nothing or, B) we have an effect without a cause.




I will let you believe they were talking about real things. Everybody else knows they were childrens stories. And if they aren't real things, which they are not, it becomes a very irrational stance to use them as a point of argument, especially when the user believes it proves a point.

It depnds upon what you mean by aboslute origin of the universe. Certainly we have lots of evdience the big bang happneed. The big crunch is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe. Was there anything before the big bang? we dont have any evidence to answer that question. Therefore we cannot say with any confidence what happened. We can make some theories that might describe what happened before the big bang and see if those theories make testable predictions, if they do that will count as evidence if those predictions are born out by the data. right now that is happeneing, for example Loop quantum cosmologoy descirbes a cycle of bouncing universes, we can test this idea by detecting the signatures of repulsive gravity the theory predicts. If we find it that will count as evidence in favour of it. At the moment though we havent so we do not accept it as being true.
The theory thhat god made the universe makes no testable predicitons that Im aware of and so it is not on the same footing as scientific ideas.

The point about the fairies is not irrational, Betrand Russel makes the same point withh hit orbittign tea pot discussion. The point is that none of us believe fairies exist, yet none of us can prove they dont exists but we do not put the two propositions on an equal footing. So it should be with god.