Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[cybrsage]

You didn't say that certain words didn't say that your claim isn't false. You said rather that some words actually "implied" what you claimed.

What is not said is equally as important as what is said. For example, Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling thereafter. Did Jill break her crown or not? It does not say. We can assume Jill did not break her crown since it only says Jack did.

There is much to be learned by the words not written.

Which words were those? ...unneeded vitriol removed...

בְּרֵאשִׁית
וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-צְבָאָם. ב וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה; וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.
ג וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת


These words.

 

[cybrsage]

They aren't wrong, ...unneeded vitriol removed...

They claim the two are seperate, you claim they are not. One of you is wrong. I prefer to side with the college over some ranting Internet person.

 

[cybrsage]

I think the reason that Dawkins is popular with some is because he's a loudmouth. That his points may or may not be correct or reasonable is secondary to his aggression.

That and he thinks it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them about fuzzy animals in a boat during a big flood.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What is not said is equally as important as what is said. For example, Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling thereafter. Did Jill break her crown or not? It does not say. We can assume Jill did not break her crown since it only says Jack did.

There is much to be learned by the words not written.

Irrelevant, since you claimed that there were certain words that implied that your claim was true. It doesn't matter that there aren't words that say you're wrong, or that the words that do exist don't contradict you. You made a claim, so back it up, prick.

בְּרֵאשִׁית
וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-צְבָאָם. ב וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה; וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.
ג וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת


These words.

Now you're not just a prick, you're a liar.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They claim the two are seperate,

No, they don't. You just don't know what they are saying because you're a simpleton.

you claim they are not. One of you is wrong. I prefer to side with the college over some ranting Internet person.

Learn to read, prick.

 

[cybrsage]

No, they don't. ...removed due to being unneeded vitriol...

Support your position.

 

[cybrsage]

Irrelevant, since you claimed that there were certain words that implied that your claim was true. It doesn't matter that there aren't words that say you're wrong, or that the words that do exist don't contradict you. You made a claim, so back it up, prick.

I did, and I posted the words.

Now you're not just a prick, you're a liar.

How would you now, you cannot read Hebrew. I guarentee these are the Hebrew words for the second chapter of Bereshit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good grief.

 

[Paul98]

What is not said is equally as important as what is said. For example, Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling thereafter. Did Jill break her crown or not? It does not say. We can assume Jill did not break her crown since it only says Jack did.

There is much to be learned by the words not written.

WOW really this is an argument for something? Jill has a crown?

 

[Juddog]

WOW really this is an argument for something? Jill has a crown?

cybrsage is just grasping at straws for something to argue about at this point. Without increasing his post count, his pay as a shill doesn't increase, so he has to make sure he has x number of posts every day. Therefore stirring up trouble is his specialty, even when it's about something that he agrees with you on.

 

[Acanthus]

Precisely what questions does Dawkins ask that I cannot answer or make a statement about? When have I said that Creationism is correct? Why am I obliged to dumb myself down to fit into his version of what is possible? Who is Dawkins to set himself as the absolute arbiter of what one must believe or not?

Why should I feel compelled to accept the untestable as truth whether it's a religious dogma or the belief of Dawkins?

I think the reason that Dawkins is popular with some is because he's a loudmouth. That his points may or may not be correct or reasonable is secondary to his aggression.

Dawkins is a very intelligent man, and frames his arguments in such a way that even a true believer can't bullshit their way out of them. It is a tough world to fight against when it is rationality vs irrationality and you have to make an irrational person realize their own faults.

A paraphrased Dawkins question: If you were not born where you were born, but you were instead born in India, would you be defending Hinduism or Islam as radically as you now defend Christ and the New Testament? Do you not find it alarming that you are a Christian by the happenstance of geography alone?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The truth of the matter is that true believers could care less what Dawkins says or believes. The only people that get excited about what Dawkins has to say is those who are like minded/hold the same beliefs.

 

[cybrsage]

WOW really this is an argument for something? Jill has a crown?

A crown is another word for head. Jill certainly has one.

 

[cybrsage]

...dur dur dur...duh duh duh...dur dur dur...

You don't say?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dawkins is a very intelligent man, and frames his arguments in such a way that even a true believer can't bullshit their way out of them. It is a tough world to fight against when it is rationality vs irrationality and you have to make an irrational person realize their own faults.

I suppose intelligence is relative. Personally I don't see that he's a superior mind compared to many of those he dislikes. His attitude towards those who do not view things as he does is that they are "quislings to science". Think that's an exaggeration? That's how he referred to Martin Rees, who is an atheist and overshadows Dawkins in scientific accomplishments. I tend to see Rees side of things because he can understand what is applicable to science and what is not as well as when to point out the difference. He also seems to know when to keep quiet. Dawkins does not educate, uplift or encourage. He pontificates. He's a hellfire and brimstone personality that thinks damnation is avoided by accepting Him as Your Personal Scientific Savior. If that's not his intention he has a lot of people fooled.

A paraphrased Dawkins question: If you were not born where you were born, but you were instead born in India, would you be defending Hinduism or Islam as radically as you now defend Christ and the New Testament? Do you not find it alarming that you are a Christian by the happenstance of geography alone?

Well that's a good question that I have no scientific interest in. Philosophically? Sure, but then again I don't have the need to proselytize and conflate science and considerations of God. I would wager that he would believe me a disbeliever or an inferior because I accept the difference between that which can be understood in principle and that which cannot. The realization that not all is amenable to examination by any one method is a sign of intellectual and emotional maturity. Neither Rees nor myself would ever accept Creationism as valid and certainly not acceptable as a valid scientific theory. The difference is that we don't feel compelled to beat people over the head with the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Knowledge itself is rewarding and we needn't elevate ourselves in our eyes insisting that others be our clones. The world is too wondrous and varied for those constraints, which eludes our dear Dawkins.

Whether or not his scientific views are correct isn't much of an issue for me. It's that he's a such a bankrupt human being who has no tolerance for ideas outside his own.

 

[cybrsage]

Whether or not his scientific views are correct isn't much of an issue for me. It's that he's a such a bankrupt human being who has no tolerance for ideas outside his own.

Yep.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I suspect your and others primary problem with Dawkins is that he asks questions which are difficult for the Believer to answer.

As for questions of "God" and other things for which Science can not Test, why should any Reasonable person accept what is Untestable? Something Exists or it doesn't.

That's like suggesting that the only reason anybody dislikes Michael Moore or Glenn Beck is because they challenge people. Hell, people can even dislike abrasive personalities despite largely disagreeing with them.

You suggest that there is no reason to believe in anything that is not scientifically testable. It is a belief that I share, but one that is philosophical, not scientific. The crux of the problem with inserting ID into science classrooms is that it is unscientific, not that it is wrong. You are welcome to believe that God crafted all species how they are, but that is a metaphysical discussion, not a scientific one.

Similarly, your lack of a belief in God is a philosophical argument, as is his (possible, he has not defined a position) belief in a God. You are welcome to reject all ideas that are not scientifically verifiable, but that, in itself, is not a matter of science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Support your position.

Support yours.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Yep.

Funny, I think his comment fits you just as well as it does Dawkins.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I did, and I posted the words.

They do not say what you claim that they say.

How would you now, you cannot read Hebrew.

No, you can't read Hebrew.

I guarentee these are the Hebrew words for the second chapter of Bereshit.

Cool story bro.

 

[cybrsage]

They do not say what you claim that they say.

Sure they do, you just refuse to admit it. You are limiting human writing quite a bit. There is almost as much said in what is missing as what is there. When you choose specific words, you are saying much more than what those words say.

I return you to jill falling down the hill after Jack. Did she bust her head open like Jack did? There are no words saying she did not, but since there are words saying Jack did and nothing saying Jill did as well, we can rightfully say Jill did not break her head. Nowhere does it say such, but we know it is true nonetheless due to the absense of including Jill in the head breaking.

No, you can't read Hebrew.

To a limited extent I can, limited only by vocabulary. I have troubles when the nikkud are missing, and usually try to find versions with them. My siddur uses nikkud, and it is a huge help. The above is missing the nikkud, would it help you if I posted a version with them added?

Cool story bro.

Why did you rant and rave for the actual words if you could not read them? Seems pretty foolish to foam at the mouth for something you cannot understand.

 

[cybrsage]

Support yours.

Already did, I believe I even quoted portions of the pages. You claim the opposite view, but demand I simply believe you because...well, just because.

 

[cybrsage]

Funny, I think his comment fits you just as well as it does Dawkins.

Nah, I have actually read much of the Quran...how about you, read any of it? To know about a religon, one must actually read the holy book of that religion. The Quran is a hard read, due to the way it is written, and some day I will finish all of it.

Have you ever read the entire Tanakh? The entire Brit Chadashah (New Covenant, often translated as Testament)?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Already did, I believe I even quoted portions of the pages. You claim the opposite view, but demand I simply believe you because...well, just because.

Ok let's do this then. I think you'll chicken out before the end, but let's just see how much of a disingenuous prick you are.

When you say that macro-evolution happens "across species," what do you think that means?

Also, before we continue, you need to acknowledge that we have in fact observed the origin of new taxa (speciation), and therefore your earlier claim that we had not is false.

 

[cybrsage]

Ok let's do this then. I think you'll chicken out before the end, but let's just see how much of a disingenuous prick you are.

Not until you stop the low brow cursing and slurs.