dimreepr

I can't think for you, but as @Genady suggests have fun thinking one up, it doesn't have to be high-brow to throw up interesting answers and tangents worth exploring. But if you push me, why was Led Zeppelin so popular in America?

Well, for a start I think Dawkins is deluded. but come on @Luc Turpin enough of this merry-go-round. Think of a better question, please... 🙏

I thought you guy's threw off the shackles of indentured servitude, drugs are bad, m'kay...

Indeed, I guess it depends on why the law was written, rather than protecting the citizens from themselves...

Think yourself lucky, I got a Turkey who thinks I'm sexy enough to gobble at...

Today I learned, there's more people who speak English in China than in the USA. 😉

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't convicted felons not allowed to vote? Seems like an oversight, not to go all the way with such a law. 😉

He's not that self aware, he 'still' thinks he's good at business bc he hasn't lost his inheritence, yet... The apprentice USA is one of the best pieces of satire in history, he should be a stand-up; hmmm, is he Ricky Gervais in a rubber suit?

Not really, the OP is basically conflating a very specific argument with a very diverse idea; the idea that a rediculess statement (not an argument), in some way reduces spinosa's version of god- -Is ironic, IOW what are you trying to prove?

Oh FFS, think harder; your position has only shifted, in the goals you set to defend your pointless argument. Think of a better question, in payment for a better argument. For instance, why can't I make myself better understood?

The old man and the fish sea,by Hemingway, is a reasonable parable/book to read, on the subject.

Absolutely, @MSC is presenting 'the' teleological argument as if it's the only one that has any value. There's more than one reason for the invention of god/s by people.

No, accepting that you might be wrong, in spite of your biased certainty... I understand how much fun it is to have a good argument: Frankly this one was over on page 1, think of another question and we can have some more fun... 🙏

Who cares, if you want to find the truth you've got to be prepared for the 'ugly'...

Because they're mounted on a mountain of hate, the Donald is like the anti-Sisyphus, in that we think we sent him to hell, but he fucking loves pushing rocks up hill...

The stage doesn't assume the actor can act...

Come on guy's, it's way past it's bedtime, time to stop feeding it sugar treats and let it crash...

The science of bias is out there, in many thousands of studies; you do the rigor, and 'then' explain which bias the scientific process fails to address. There you go, bringing politics into the discussion; talk about muddying the waters... 😉

I rely on my intolocutor, to provide the context for my answers, I'm not very good at anticipating the direction of the conversation...

Do you mean the Wittgenstein quote? There is an inherent bias in how those in power see the world and how it affects those without, for instance, (I can't recall the name of the study) when 'problem' children are introduced to hardened criminal's as a means to frighten them into going straight, 70ish% of them ended up in prison even though they were terrified at the prospect. That seems relevant.

Indeed, and he's making a mockery of the first amendment, which in the cold light of day would be a specious mistake...

It's commentary on the subject, bias isn't a rational process, my context is inherent in the topic we're discussing and your response was symptomatic of the in group out group theory ; bc I was trying to explain to @Luc Turpin how science 'the process' tries to reduce the irrational bias that our dominant handedness produces, means were more likely to chose in that direction. "it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence." Evidence of what, that scientist's are immune to bias bc of the rational nature of the process they follow? There's studies that show that even when interviewing is ridigly structured, the time of day often dictates the type of interview conducted and the outcome.

Did you ever consider that I may have a point?

“When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein

Maybe not, but what you're also not, is thinking logically about the problem, which fundamentally comes down to the ultimate question, "who do we decide to kill?"; bc it's as sure as shit you ain't voting for you...