Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[zinfamous]

Just so you are aware, that is a faith based belief.

The only evidence we have of an existence of God or gods, or religion, is that it came about near the time that humans started gathering together in large tribes--not earlier.

there's really no faith in that, just that we know it existed then, and likely not before.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

the fuck? what are you talking about?

Dawkins has been criticized throughout his career for the pathetic selfish gene theory of his, and his most recent revision, he's had to put out a new footnote to try and backpedal and claim that he never wanted to imply that genes had a goal.

plus, there is ample proof that he is a bonafide dick.

what am I supposed to be making up, here?

You mean there was no religion or spirituality throughout the history of known human civilization?

nice little rebuttal, there, with no fucking argument behind it.

god damn temporary atheists latching on to whatever champion will dick is way into the spotlight. Makes all the atheists look bad.

Yes, your statement was a false equivalence: "I really so no difference between athiests who latch on to Dawkins as they are merely science "enthusiasts" and ultra fundy religiophiles."

It is not the same thing to think that Dawkins has a few good ideas and does a good job writing books to educate the general public about evolution, as it is to be fundamentally tied to religious dogma.

Here's why: if Dawkins woke up today and held a press conference to say that the Earth was formed last Thursday by a cosmic squid, I'd call him a raving idiot. My agreement with Dawkins is not based on the fact that he is Richard Dawkins, but rather because his statements are actually worth agreeing with. That's not fundamentalism.

So... false equivalence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, your statement was a false equivalence: "I really so no difference between athiests who latch on to Dawkins as they are merely science "enthusiasts" and ultra fundy religiophiles."

It is not the same thing to think that Dawkins has a few good ideas and does a good job writing books to educate the general public about evolution, as it is to be fundamentally tied to religious dogma.

Here's why: if Dawkins woke up today and held a press conference to say that the Earth was formed last Thursday by a cosmic squid, I'd call him a raving idiot. My agreement with Dawkins is not based on the fact that he is Richard Dawkins, but rather because his statements are actually worth agreeing with. That's not fundamentalism.

So... false equivalence.

Dawkins is a cult of personality and also a dick. One can be honest without being obnoxious to everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with his personal crusade, including those who are his intellectual and academic superiors who are also atheists. If they aren't subscribing to his "pure" version they are ripped apart.

 

[cybrsage]

The only evidence we have of an existence of God or gods, or religion, is that it came about near the time that humans started gathering together in large tribes--not earlier.

there's really no faith in that, just that we know it existed then, and likely not before.

Faith is belief without proof. Since you have no proof at all, you are holding a faith based belief.

It is fine, everyone has faith based beliefs...it is just that a lot of people like to pretend they do not. Not sure why.

 

[fskimospy]

Faith is belief without proof. Since you have no proof at all, you are holding a faith based belief.

It is fine, everyone has faith based beliefs...it is just that a lot of people like to pretend they do not. Not sure why.

He did not make a faith based statement. He stated what evidence was available. He then followed that with a statement of fact that religion was present after that time. His final statement was one of probability, that it was likely religion was not present before then.

All the statements of belief have proof, and the other statement is a probabilistic statement of uncertainty. Not sure why you always try to pull this.

 

[IronWing]

<snip>
Dawkins and the rest of them are scrotum leeches.

Just passing through this thread and pausing to award one cookie for this insult.


Also, we can pretty reasonably conclude that while humans and baboons share a common ancestor, humans certainly are not descendants of baboons. There is simply no way we would have ever given up color-changing butts as an expression of sexual interest. Jeans would look very different today had humans picked up that trait.

 

[cybrsage]

He did not make a faith based statement. He stated what evidence was available. He then followed that with a statement of fact that religion was present after that time. His final statement was one of probability, that it was likely religion was not present before then.

There is no proof at all. What proof did he show? He showed that some gods were invented by humans...but does this magically mean all were?

A belief with no proof at all is fully in the realm of faith.

All the statements of belief have proof, and the other statement is a probabilistic statement of uncertainty. Not sure why you always try to pull this.

Again, show the proof. Not conjecture, not uncertainty, hard data and facts. Show what happened before recorded human history...I do not think you will be able to do that, but give it a shot.

 

[Lonbjerg]

There is no proof at all. What proof did he show? He showed that some gods were invented by humans...but does this magically mean all were?

The fallacy of "reversing the burden of proof" is still active amongst those that suffer form the cognetive virus called "religion" I see.

Every single religion is invented by man...unless you want to tribute some other animal?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

There is no proof at all. What proof did he show? He showed that some gods were invented by humans...but does this magically mean all were?

This is simply bad logic. If such an explanation is the likely explanation, it is sufficient simply to show that this is the way it could have transpired. Showing that it did transpire thus is not necessary.

A belief with no proof at all is fully in the realm of faith.

Fortunate, then, that we deal with evidence, and not proof.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Since you have no proof at all...

This is a faith-based belief.

It is fine, everyone has faith based beliefs...

Faith-based belief.

...it is just that a lot of people like to pretend they do not.

Faith-based belief.

Not sure why.

Faith-based belief.

 

[Ninjahedge]

George Michael say so.

'Nuff said.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no proof at all. What proof did he show? He showed that some gods were invented by humans...but does this magically mean all were?

A belief with no proof at all is fully in the realm of faith.



Again, show the proof. Not conjecture, not uncertainty, hard data and facts. Show what happened before recorded human history...I do not think you will be able to do that, but give it a shot.

This is one of your most /facepalm-able posts yet. How many current, ongoing threads do we have here where you are desperately flailing like this to avoid admitting defeat?

 

[WelshBloke]

MY grandmaw don't look like no monkey!

does yo grandmaw look like a monkey?!

Actually my granny did look a bit like a monkey. :hmm:

 

[cybrsage]

The fallacy of "reversing the burden of proof" is still active amongst those that suffer form the cognetive virus called "religion" I see.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim. If you claim something, the burden to support your claim is on you for making the claim.

This should be self evident.

Every single religion is invented by man...unless you want to tribute some other animal?

Nope, can you prove this claim? Remember, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and you are making this claim.

 

[WelshBloke]

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim. If you claim something, the burden to support your claim is on you for making the claim.

This should be self evident.

...

Does that go for any religious claims as well?

 

[cybrsage]

This is one of your most /facepalm-able posts yet. How many current, ongoing threads do we have here where you are desperately flailing like this to avoid admitting defeat?

Sigh....there you go, being stupid on purpose again. Seems to be a regular thing with you.

Rather than actually address my post, you shift to logical fallacies. Your modus operandi is showing.

 

[cybrsage]

...blah blah...

He showed no proof. Quote his proof...evidence...etc.

 

[cybrsage]

This is simply bad logic. If such an explanation is the likely explanation, it is sufficient simply to show that this is the way it could have transpired. Showing that it did transpire thus is not necessary.

No, it is not. You need at least SOME evidence showing it DID happen this way.

The universe could have been created when the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed. No evidence of this, but it COULD have happened that way.

See how stupid your claim that no evidence is needed?

Fortunate, then, that we deal with evidence, and not proof.

Of which there was none posted.

 

[cybrsage]

Does that go for any religious claims as well?

Absolutely. If someone claims something at all, the burden of support is on that person. If there is no evidence (aka proof) to backup the claim, then it falls directly into a faith based belief.

No double standards allowed.

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh....there you go, being stupid on purpose again. Seems to be a regular thing with you.

Rather than actually address my post, you shift to logical fallacies. Your modus operandi is showing.

My favorite part about you is that the same guy who recently wrote this in another thread:

Sigh....it is basic substitution.

Obama wants to institute ObamaCare.

ObamaCare will destroy our healthcare system.

Obama wants to destroy our healthcare system.

...then comes into this thread and talks about fallacious reasoning. Your lack of self awareness is pretty amazing.

 

[cybrsage]

My favorite part about you is that the same guy who recently wrote this in another thread:

Rather than actually address my post, you shift to logical fallacies, again. Your modus operandi is showing.

 

[fskimospy]

Rather than actually address my post, you shift to logical fallacies, again. Your modus operandi is showing.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

I bolded the item you need to resolve before you can return to rational conversations. You need to actually start thinking.

 

[WelshBloke]

Absolutely. If someone claims something at all, the burden of support is on that person. If there is no evidence (aka proof) to backup the claim, then it falls directly into a faith based belief.

No double standards allowed.

Cool, so you agree with Dawkins about not teaching creationism as science then? :thumbsup:

I apologise if this has been covered already, there's no way I'm wading through this entire thread.

 

[fskimospy]

I bolded the item you need to resolve before you can return to rational conversations. You need to actually start thinking.

Don't be mad, it's just the internet. You've given everyone here abundant reason to avoid engaging in debate with you. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.