Jump to content

Richard Dawkin's God Delusion, I could not read it


Recommended Posts

Both of your posts have amounted to nothing but linkspam for the book, so the first one is gone (at least temporarily). This one had the tiniest bit of on-topic material in it, so I just snipped the link.

How can you say such a thing without even taking a close look at my provided link ? because if you did , you wouldn't have said what you just did

 

Both my posts were to the point though ,because atheists like Dawkins always present science and evolution as the major "arguments " against religion ,while the scientific method itself and the discovery of evolution were the products of religious scientists ...ironically enough

What are you afraid of ,just let my topic in question be the subject of open-minded serious debates and let the people decide for themselves what to think of it

 

Come on , i thought this site was an open-minded one

 

I hope i was not wrong

 

Bye

Edited by Dbaiba
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I struggle to believe you've read any of it, because he did no such thing in that book. Perhaps you were reading a different book, like one by an apologist who was misrepresenting Dawkins' work?  

Dbaiba, As often seems to be the way, you missed a bit.   I said "If, on the other hand, supernatural things exist, please let me know what they are"   If you are so sure they exist, why didn't

Well, well   Where is that hypocrit moderator who accuses me of using offensive statements and insults ?????   He's gotta take a look at this latest post at least : vulgar below the waist non-sen

The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence

Mathematically speaking, you're dead wrong. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, it is not definitive proof (in most cases) of absence and the amount of credence it gives to the negation of the claim lacking evidence is dependent upon how much evidence one should expect.

 

maybe, then again maybe the version you saw was edited...

Which is quite possible. One 'side' loves to edit the living bujeebus out of things. For example, I've been told that the official version of my Q&A with Craig was mutilated.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot disprove the tiger John Cuthber mentioned, never.It does not mean that that lack of evidence is the evidence of abscence of the tiger.

You're right. Maybe the tiger is invisible. Maybe the tiger is super stealthy so as to be inaudible. Maybe the tiger immaterializes when you walk through it...

 

Maybe there wasn't any tiger in the first place.

 


God is unlike anything or anyone God had ever created or will ever create : meaning that God is beyond reason, let alone empirics.

If God is beyond reason, how can you contemplate what God is? If you can't, how do you set forth criteria that outline what God is? If you can't, what does the word "God" even mean? If the word "God" doesn't mean anything, how can you claim that God exists, created man, wrote the Bible, etc.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam can simply not be imposed to people = an islamic basic teaching .

The freedom of belief of non-muslims was guaranteed , even under dominant islam : in the glory time of islam at least .

What some current muslims do or say about it , in total contrast with those islamic basic tolerant teachings is simply irrelevent and unislamic

Then why does the Quran tell you to kill non-believers? This isn't a few crazies who happen to be muslim. This is a core issue in Islam itself.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a ridiculous hilarious misinterpretation of a Qur'anic verse that alluded to something else totally different :

I'm not sure how you can misinterpret "he has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction", especially when dealing with what comes just before that.

 

Deep under the ocean there is a sort of a "lake " of fresh unsalty water not mixing with salty water

First of all, Cousteau didn't write the Quran. Secondly, it's clear the Quran speaks of "two seas, flowing freely", not "a sort of a lake of fresh unsalty water". Third, even if you find springs of fresh water in the salty ocean, all of the water emerging from such a spring would mix with the salt water around it. Just because there's a constant flow of fresh water doesn't mean water doesn't mix. There is no mechanism for such an event to occur.
Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Dbaiba,

 

We have rules here that prohibit members for insulting others. Following something by, 'no offense,' doesn't cut it.

 

Everyone else, please stay on topic. This is about a book by Richard Dawkins and as far as I know, the Qur'an is not one of his. I have removed the OT posts to here.

 

Please do not respond to this note in the thread. You are welcome to report it if you do not agree with it or to PM a member of staff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read his writings. I have followed his arguments. I have much more than a clue to their contents. And I stand by my observation that his approach is extremist and thus, in a scientific context, seriously unhelpful. I am not interested in the ramblings and ravings of anyone who has reached an uninformed opinion about him. Mine is informed and it stands.

Exactly : Dawkins is an extremist , to say the least : an understatement .

 

I have been following him for some time now also : i saw some of his debates and documentaries like the ones about evolution, ...others about religion ....I saw his " The age of reason, the God delusion " video ...

 

I read his " The selfish Gene " , " River out of Eden " ....i read many excerpts of his other books ...

 

He represents the core extremist radical materialists' front .

 

He's so arrogant and extremist that he really gives science a very bad name , despite his purely scientific brilliant work .

 

He sounds like some sort of a fanatic atheistic jesuit or a fanatic atheist missionary , instead of a scientist, in his crusades against religion at least .when he thus crosses the boundaries of science .

 

The problem is that extremist atheists like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris (They are called the 4 horsemen of atheism by the way ) , the problem is that these extremists (Harris is less extremist compared with the rest ) have been monopolizing the scientific scene , so we do not hear much from the other reasonable moderate scientists, unfortunately enough .

 

!

Moderator Note

Dbaiba,

 

We have rules here that prohibit members for insulting others. Following something by, 'no offense,' doesn't cut it.

 

Everyone else, please stay on topic. This is about a book by Richard Dawkins and as far as I know, the Qur'an is not one of his. I have removed the OT posts to here.

 

Please do not respond to this note in the thread. You are welcome to report it if you do not agree with it or to PM a member of staff.

Calling someone " ignorant or mallicious " because he utters the silly statement that islam encourages the killing of non-believers for no reason is not really an insult ..

 

If it is , then i apologise .

 

.

Edited by Dbaiba
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly : Dawkins is an extremist , to say the least : an understatement .

 

I have been following him for some time now also : i saw some of his debates and documentaries like the ones about evolution, ...others about religion ....I saw his " The age of reason, the God delusion " video ...

 

I read his " The selfish Gene " , " River out of Eden " ....i read many excerpts of his other books ...

 

He represents the core extremist radical materialists' front .

 

He's so arrogant and extremist that he really gives science a very bad name , despite his purely scientific brilliant work .

 

He sounds like some sort of a fanatic atheistic jesuit or a fanatic atheist missionary , instead of a scientist, in his crusades against religion at least .when he thus crosses the boundaries of science .

 

The problem is that extremist atheists like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris (They are called the 4 horsemen of atheism by the way ) , the problem is that these extremists (Harris is less extremist compared with the rest ) have been monopolizing the scientific scene , so we do not hear much from the other reasonable moderate scientists, unfortunately enough .

 

Calling someone " ignorant or mallicious " because he utters the silly statement that islam encourages the killing of non-believers for no reason is not really an insult ..

 

If it is , then i apologise .

 

.

 

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

...so we do not hear much from the other reasonable moderate scientists, unfortunately enough .

 

 

Evidence suggests strongly that most scientists agree with them. To pull a quote of myself from an old thread:

 

97% of Royal society members and 93% of National academy of sciences members answer "No" to the question "Do you believe in a personal god?"

http://www.humanreli...telligence.html www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html. This is in two nations (the UK and the USA) where 65% and 93% of the respective populations believe in some form of God. http://en.wikipedia....#United_Kingdom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those scientists do not believe in God ,they are entiteld to that ,it's their God given right and freedom to believe or not to believe in whatever they wanna believe in or not believe in , but they are not extremists in relation to religion and believers like Dawkins and co are , not even remotely close .

 

Can you see the difference ?

 

No, science is not belief, it does not allow belief, belief is what religion is, can you not see the difference?

 

Why do you have to twist things like that ?

 

I talk about something and you mention somethingelse tottally different

 

Point out something Dawkins says that is inaccurate... I happen to believe that even moderate religion is driven by it's radical fringes but my "belief" aside I've never heard Dawkins assert something as truth he couldn't back up but he does slay the horsefeathers that many of the religious assert as fact, it hurts to have something you truly believe to be true shown to be false but honest men admit they are wrong and go on, the religious ignore reality and in fact assert that were scripture and reality clash scripture must take precedence. I know Islam does this as well, the whole saltwater freshwater thing is proof of this, that lie is asserted over and over by muslims, usually in muslim schools, as truth when even a small knowledge of the world shows it to be completely false.

 

There are other examples but i see no reason to pick apart any religious dogma here, it would be off topic but rest assured it can be done...

 

You will find nothing of scientific value in any of the worlds religions, no advancement of knowledge, our entire first world culture is based in science, not religion, religion contributes nothing to the sum total of human knowledge and usually inhibits such advancement....

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Moontanman and Dbaiba,

 

Stop derailing this thread. I have, once again, split the posts about the Qu'ran into the thread the belong.

 

Also, Dbaiba, calling someone ignorant and mallicious is indeed an offensive statement. This is not up for discussion in this thread. If you have an issue with it, report it or PM a member of staff. Further replies to modnotes in-thread will be removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins is, in one sense, an extremist.

He pulls no punches and is prepared to point out all of the problems with religion.

Many other writers don't do so.

However, it's important to remember that an "extremist" atheist like Dawkins (or me for that matter since I hold much the same views) is totally unlike religious extremism.

 

Check out the death tolls.

Killed in the name of religion: lots.

Killed in the name of atheism: nil.

 

(please don't waste time + bandwidth talking about Stalin or Mao etc. here)

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins is, in one sense, an extremist.

He pulls no punches and is prepared to point out all of the problems with religion.

Many other writers don't do so.

However, it's important to remember that an "extremist" atheist like Dawkins (or me for that matter since I hold much the same views) is totally unlike religious extremism.

 

Check out the death tolls.

Killed in the name of religion: lots.

Killed in the name of atheism: nil.

 

(please don't waste time + bandwidth talking about Stalin or Mao etc. here)

.

First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science .

..

The latter can say absolutely nothing about the former .

 

But , Dawkins does ignore that fact , on purpose, in order to impose his atheist agenda in the name of science , and does make it sound as if science that deals in fact only with material processes , that science does have not only a say but that science has also the final say , on metaphysical matters also : a real paradox .

 

 

Dawkins is on a kindda atheistic crusade against religion : that's an exclusive ideological agenda of his he tries to impose to people in the name of science : i can only despise him for that , for mis-using science like that to promote his own exclusive atheist view of the world , while science has absolutely nothing to do with all that .

 

I think that he should just stick to his purely scientific work he's good at .

 

He just gives science a very bad name ,when he crosses the boundaries of science and when he misuses it , not only to promote, but also to impose his atheist world view to others as some sort of "scientific facts ", science has not much to do with .

 

Worse : i think he's mainly a fascist in that regard , excuse my French , because he excludes all non-materialistic , non-atheistic views of the world or paradigms , and that in the name of science that has nothing to with that .

 

 

In his "Selfish Gene " book, for example , he presents the Darwinian theory of evolution .as the only valid explanation of our existence on earth : all other attempts which try to explain what man is, what makes us human or where do we come from as humans , must not only be regarded or discarded as fairy tales , especially those of religion, but must be definitely and absolutely dismissed .

 

 

Dawkins and co that present both science and evolution as THE major arguments against religion , whiie, in fact , both of them were discovered by religious people ,thanks to religion, thanks to islam in this case .:

 

The invention of the scientific method by muslims originated from the epistemology of the Qur'an and the discovery of evolution by muslims, more than 6 centuries before Darwin was even born , came right out of the evolutionary spirit of the Qur'an .

 

 

P.S.: Dawkins and co must realise that science has not the monopoly of the truth , that science is not the only valid source of knowledge, that science is not the only source of knowledge tout-court .....and more importantly , they should stop mis-using science for ideological atheistic materialistic purposes, science has nothing to do with .

 

 

Final note :

 

Secularism and atheism , not religion, have been ruling this world in all areas for many centuries now : a quick informed look at this recent past would show you , beyond a shadow of a doubt , how secularism and atheism were such big disasters for humanity , in terms of the 2 big wars , in terms of fascism, nazism, communism ...................in terms of western imperialism and racism worldwide , in terms of that despicable racist paternalistic Eurocentrism ...in terms of black slavery in the US and elsewhere ...

 

Secular regimes in the 20th century alone had provoked the deaths of hundreds of millions of humans , the extremist massacres in the name of religion , can only dream of .

 

The secuar or atheistic massacres , genocides , not to mention the holocaust or slavery , of the 20th century alone far exceed those committed in the name of God during all the existence of religions all put together and worldwide .

 

In Short :

 

Guys like Dawkins and co are certainly no better than those despicable religious extremists ignorant idiots .

 

Guys like Dawkins are in fact worse than them , simply because they have been managing their pretty wel orchestraded " scientific " crusades and " scientific " inquisitions against religions in general , in the name of science , science has nothing to do with , while religious extremism is mainly the result or product of ignorance , of lack of education , of psychological and socio-economic factors ...

 

So, what makes Dawkins and co worse is that they do what they do against religion in the name of science , science has nothing to do with , in the name of knowledge ,while those religious extremists do what they do in the name of ignorance in fact .

 

 

Which means that " the real threat to or real danger that threatens true knowledge is not ignorance , but informed ignorance , the pretention of knowledge "

Edited by Dbaiba
Link to post
Share on other sites

"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

 

Please cite an example.

 

If you can't do that then most of the rest of what you wrote isn't worth reading.

 

"Guys like Dawkins and co are certainly no better than those despicable religious extremists ignorant idiots ."

"Guys like Dawkins are in fact worse than them..."
Plainly wrong.

Dawkins and co don't kill people do they?

 

"So, what makes Dawkins and co worse is that they do what they do against religion in the name of science"

Telling the truth in the name of science is perfectly reasonable.

Yet you think it's worse than what the killers of these folks did?

https://mysticways.wiki.zoho.com/ACCUSED-AND-MURDERED-AS-A-WITCH.html

 

You think that arguing strongly, and with evidence is worse than this guy's murder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lee_Rigby

 

Have you really thought that through?

 

" the real threat to or real danger that threatens true knowledge is not ignorance , but informed ignorance , the pretention of knowledge "

Like pretending that The Koran provides knowledge when, in fact it demonstrably talks nonsense like saying that salt water doesn't mix with fresh , or the Bible when it tells you that the sun goes round the earth?

What similar lies has Dawkins told?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Secularism and atheism , not religion, have been ruling this world in all areas for many centuries now : a quick informed look at this recent past would show you , beyond a shadow of a doubt , how secularism and atheism were such big disasters for humanity , in terms of the 2 big wars , in terms of fascism, nazism, communism ...................in terms of western imperialism and racism worldwide , in terms of that despicable racist paternalistic Eurocentrism ...in terms of black slavery in the US and elsewhere ...

What a load of complete and utter shit!

 

I don't even know where to begin with this piece of uneducated drivel. Your ignorance of history and social science is only eclipsed by your tunnel vision when it comes to your toilet paper of a holy book! How the hell can you even begin to suggest either of the two world wars were the results of atheism? Do you have any books at all that aren't meant for you to color in? Where in either the fascist, nazism or communism manifestos are mentions of there being no god? Why, also, did the German soldiers wear belt buckles with "Gott mit uns"?

 

Racism? The lack of belief in a god makes you think other skin colors are worth less? I'll give you an easy one. Ever heard of the KKK? Imperialism? Do you even know what the word means? I'll give you a hint. Its very definition is very similar to a that of a theocracy.

 

Oh, and my favorite. Slavery in the US, how about that. Due to the evil atheists. Or perhaps not!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

 

Don't even bother to reply. You're such a poor troll your mother doesn't even let you out from under the bridge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well

 

Where is that hypocrit moderator who accuses me of using offensive statements and insults ?????

 

He's gotta take a look at this latest post at least : vulgar below the waist non-sense .

 

I do not understand why people resort to such toilet use of words in a discussion

 

Because they cannot handle the facts , tha's why .

 

pfff....Not worth replying to

 

Re-read what i said then carefully without being carried away by emotions .

 

or not , who cares .



"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

 

Please cite an example.

 

If you can't do that then most of the rest of what you wrote isn't worth reading.

 

"Guys like Dawkins and co are certainly no better than those despicable religious extremists ignorant idiots ."

"Guys like Dawkins are in fact worse than them..."
Plainly wrong.

Dawkins and co don't kill people do they?

 

"So, what makes Dawkins and co worse is that they do what they do against religion in the name of science"

Telling the truth in the name of science is perfectly reasonable.

Yet you think it's worse than what the killers of these folks did?

https://mysticways.wiki.zoho.com/ACCUSED-AND-MURDERED-AS-A-WITCH.html

 

You think that arguing strongly, and with evidence is worse than this guy's murder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lee_Rigby

 

Have you really thought that through?

 

" the real threat to or real danger that threatens true knowledge is not ignorance , but informed ignorance , the pretention of knowledge "

Like pretending that The Koran provides knowledge when, in fact it demonstrably talks nonsense like saying that salt water doesn't mix with fresh , or the Bible when it tells you that the sun goes round the earth?

What similar lies has Dawkins told?

Follow Dawkins ' crusades against religion,he conducts in the name of science , carefully , and you would know what i am talking about , if you haven't noticed yet already as you should have done in the first place to begin with .

 

I've been following that jerk for decades now , so

 

 

I am not gonna respond any further to uninformed opinions about that fascist

 

It would be a waste of my time

 

Dawkins should just stick to his purely scientific work he's very good at , instead of misusing science in order to promote and impose his atheist paradigm agenda to the people as " scientifc facts "......

 

 

Way below the required level discussion, unfortunately enough .

 

So, ciao



What's wrong with you, people ?

 

Can't you discuss matters as grown ups do ?

 

Odd

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't discuss it like a grown up unless you act like one so, as I said before: re.

"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

Please cite an example.

If I ask a question, and you don't answer then it's not going to be a grown up discussion, but that won't be my fault.

The outcome will be simple. We will simply assume that you are lying and were not able to answer.

So, do you wan't to have your point of view discarded or do you want to answer?

The choice is yours.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well

 

Where is that hypocrit moderator who accuses me of using offensive statements and insults ?????

 

He's gotta take a look at this latest post at least : vulgar below the waist non-sense .

 

I do not understand why people resort to such toilet use of words in a discussion

 

Because they cannot handle the facts , tha's why .

 

pfff....Not worth replying to

 

Re-read what i said then carefully without being carried away by emotions .

 

or not , who cares .

Cry more. Then answer me which world view has been the source of more slaves; atheism or Islam.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets give him a chance to cite an example of where

"Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say"

or to admit he made it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Cuthber, on 18 Jun 2013 - 19:00, said:

I can't discuss it like a grown up unless you act like one so, as I said before: re.

"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

Please cite an example.

If I ask a question, and you don't answer then it's not going to be a grown up discussion, but that won't be my fault.

The outcome will be simple. We will simply assume that you are lying and were not able to answer.

So, do you wan't to have your point of view discarded or do you want to answer?

The choice is yours.

Let's try to be methodic about this then , by gradually building the area of our present debate ,and we will see where it might lead us :

Just tell me this : is science qualified to say anything about metaphysics, about morality and ethics ,about God , about the existence or the non-existence of God ,about the. revelation....?

A big no should be your answer , right ? despite those seemingly " scientific " arguments Dawkins and co try to put on the table in that regard .

Well, Dawkins and co think otherwise , they think that God, for example, is just an idea , an empiric idea that can be either false or true , as Dawkins says in his God delusion ,for example ., and then , he dismisses God just because there is no "scientific " evidence for that .

That's a false assumption or a false hypothesis because science is simply not qualified to approach the question of God, for example .

The very material wordly nature of science does not permit such unscientific acrobatic non-sense Dawkins tries to make science do .

Why do you, guys , do not condemn this materialistic atheistic hijacking of science this unscientific way that misuses science in this sense , by implicating science outside of its "jurisdiction " ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've linked to this before, so some of you may recognize it. Dan Batson gives a good overview of the research on religion and prejudice. Dan Batson has a degree in theology, so I don't see why he would be biased against religion.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/science-and-religious-conflict-conference-does-religion-lead-to-tolerance-or-intolerance/dan-batson-with-commentator-steve-clarke

 

Of course, there's atheism vs. theism, and there's religion vs. irreligion. Batson was speaking about the latter, not the former, but we seem to be using the word "atheism" to refer to irreligious atheism specifically.

 

However, I am going to give a fair point for the religious side. IMO, when analyzing the various components of this abstract concept called "religion", most of the components fall under "ideology", "superstition", or both. If either one contributes to prejudice, it's probably ideology. Although the dominant ideologies tend to be associated with the dominant religion, ideology can be irreligious as well. For this reason, I think similar orientations should be present in secular movements, even if they have different distributions.

 

This section of Wikipedia's article on atheism discusses atheism and prejudice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism.2C_religion.2C_and_morality

Authoritarianism is the strongest predictor of prejudice.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die
Link to post
Share on other sites

John Cuthber, on 18 Jun 2013 - 19:00, said:

 

I can't discuss it like a grown up unless you act like one so, as I said before: re.

 

"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

 

Please cite an example.

 

If I ask a question, and you don't answer then it's not going to be a grown up discussion, but that won't be my fault.

 

The outcome will be simple. We will simply assume that you are lying and were not able to answer.

 

So, do you wan't to have your point of view discarded or do you want to answer?

 

The choice is yours.

 

Let's try to be methodic about this then , by gradually building the area of our present debate ,and we will see where it might lead us :

 

Just tell me this : is science qualified to say anything about metaphysics, about morality and ethics ,about God , about the existence or the non-existence of God ,about the. revelation....?

 

Yes, science does have something to say about those things, there is no evidence for them, none whatsoever... except for morality and ethics which are not based in religion and your assertion they are needs to be supported...

 

 

 

A big no should be your answer , right ? despite those seemingly " scientific " arguments Dawkins and co try to put on the table in that regard .

 

Well, Dawkins and co think otherwise , they think that God, for example, is just an idea , an empiric idea that can be either false or true , as Dawkins says in his God delusion ,for example ., and then , he dismisses God just because there is no "scientific " evidence for that .

 

Precisely, there is no scientific evidence for god, any god, yours or anyone elses, in the face of a lack of evidence for gods the default position is there are no gods...

 

 

 

That's a false assumption or a false hypothesis because science is simply not qualified to approach the question of God, for example .

 

The very material wordly nature of science does not permit such unscientific acrobatic non-sense Dawkins tries to make science do .

 

Quite the contrary, Dawkins position is indeed scientific, your's is not and is not supported by anything other than what some people claim to be true...

 

 

 

Why do you, guys , do not condemn this materialistic atheistic hijacking of science this unscientific way that misuses science in this sense , by implicating science outside of its "jurisdiction " ?

 

 

 

Until you can show some actual evidence for the supernatural the default position is there is nothing supernatural, horsefeathers claimed by someone who cannot show any evidence for his claims of horsefeathers, if you can't show it you don't know it...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of complete and utter shit!

 

I don't even know where to begin with this piece of uneducated drivel. …

 

!

Moderator Note

pwagen, this is over the line of being acceptable discourse. You can respond to the content without the personal commentary.

Well, well

 

Where is that hypocrit moderator who accuses me of using offensive statements and insults ?????

 

!

Moderator Note

Dbaiba, do not think you are blameless here. Disrespecting a member of the staff is perhaps the least of your transgressions. pwagen's response to you did not appear in a vaccum, it was provoked, and the staff sees this. Don't sit there and pretend you're the innocent victim here.

 

—————

 

 

If the discussion strays from the topic of the book again, the thread will be re-locked

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.