Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[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.

Likely...based on what, the beginning of recorded history showing that when people started to record things they already believed in a god(s)?

We see the belief in gods at the beginning of recorded history - which means these beliefs had to exist prior to then. Without a record of events, we cannot know what happened.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

Dawkins should not get anywhere near anything religious, he turns into an foaming at the mouth moron when he does.

That aside, I think Intelligent Design (as opposed to full on Creationism) should be taught in science class as an example of what a bad theory is. ID is not falsifiable and therefor fails as a scientific theory...that needs to be taught so people understand it better. String Theory could be used as well, but that involves way too many high level items to be effective. Everyone can easily understand why ID fails as a scientific theory.

But teach it as an alternative theory? No, definately not.

 

[WelshBloke]

Dawkins should not get anywhere near anything religious, he turns into an foaming at the mouth moron when he does.

That aside, I think Intelligent Design (as opposed to full on Creationism) should be taught in science class as an example of what a bad theory is. ID is not falsifiable and therefor fails as a scientific theory...that needs to be taught so people understand it better. String Theory could be used as well, but that involves way too many high level items to be effective. Everyone can easily understand why ID fails as a scientific theory.

But teach it as an alternative theory? No, definately not.

So Dawkins is foaming at the mouth but essentially you believe the same as him? :hmm:

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

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

People like him need to be landblasted.

 

[cybrsage]

Don't be mad, it's just the internet.

You think you are important enough to get me even slightly riled up? Your hubris is showing!

You've given everyone here abundant reason to avoid engaging in debate with you.

Ignoring the obvious lie about everyone (just people like you, who are upset that their views are challenged so easily), why don't you follow your own view and simply stop egaging in debates with me? Doing so only allows me to slap you around a bit anyway.

You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

I keep telling you, you have to buy me dinner before I will sleep with you. You can ask your mom for dinner money if you need, but it is a requirement prior to sleeping with you. No amount of begging by you changes this.

 

[cybrsage]

So Dawkins is foaming at the mouth but essentially you believe the same as him? :hmm:

No, I do not agree with him that it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them about religion. No sane person would.

 

[cybrsage]

People like him need to be landblasted.

Quite, you piss ant!

 

[WelshBloke]

No, I do not agree with him that it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them about religion. No sane person would.

Dawkins, who was one of the leading lights in the campaign, welcomed confirmation that creationists would not receive funding to run free schools if they sought to portray their views as science. "I welcome all moves to ensure that creationism is not taught as fact in schools," he said. "Government rules on this are extremely welcome, but they need to be properly enforced."

Thats pretty much your position as well yes?

 

[fskimospy]

You think you are important enough to get me even slightly riled up? Your hubris is showing!



Ignoring the obvious lie about everyone (just people like you, who are upset that their views are challenged so easily), why don't you follow your own view and simply stop egaging in debates with me? Doing so only allows me to slap you around a bit anyway.



I keep telling you, you have to buy me dinner before I will sleep with you. You can ask your mom for dinner money if you need, but it is a requirement prior to sleeping with you. No amount of begging by you changes this.

Something about this place riles you up, you have logged nearly 4,000 posts in about 3 months.

 

[cybrsage]

That is his personal view on religion. This is why I said he needs to stay WAY clear of all things religious. He turns into a foaming at the mouth moron.

Thats pretty much your position as well yes?

Yes, we agree on that issue. We most likely agree on most issues (most humans agree on most things even if it does not appear that way at first).

But when it comes to religion, he is not just a-religious, he is full on anti-religious, to the point of extreme idiocy. There are very few things worse than sexually molesting children, and teaching children a mainstream religion is certainly not one of those things.

 

[WelshBloke]

That is his personal view on religion. This is why I said he needs to stay WAY clear of all things religious. He turns into a foaming at the mouth moron.

Meh, he's entitled to his opinion.

Yes, we agree on that issue. We most likely agree on most issues (most humans agree on most things even if it does not appear that way at first).

But when it comes to religion, he is not just a-religious, he is full on anti-religious, to the point of extreme idiocy. There are very few things worse than sexually molesting children, and teaching children a mainstream religion is certainly not one of those things.

Well that's the one I was on about, its what the threads about. His other views are irrelevant to this.

 

[cybrsage]

Something about this place riles you up, you have logged nearly 4,000 posts in about 3 months.

Nah, your logical leaps are failing again. It is fun posting about things...have to do something while on conference calls.

Besides, there are a lot of people like you here who need their false views corrected. I simply do it in the same style they use on others...and that bothers them quite a bit.

When I first showed up here, I looked at those who were the worst offenders in posting style and used their same style of posting back on them. This bothers them greatly, and makes them say things like what you routinely say when I use your own posting style against you.

Those who are not like you do not get the same type of treatment.

 

[cybrsage]

Meh, he's entitled to his opinion.

Yes he is, but all sane people should rail against such a view. You do not support that view, do you?

Well that's the one I was on about, its what the threads about. His other views are irrelevant to this.

The thread is about him winning (at least according to the threat title). He cannot win when he makes statements like that. It is an automatic forever lose until he recants it.

 

[fskimospy]

Nah, your logical leaps are failing again. It is fun posting about things...have to do something while on conference calls.

Besides, there are a lot of people like you here who need their false views corrected. I simply do it in the same style they use on others...and that bothers them quite a bit.

When I first showed up here, I looked at those who were the worst offenders in posting style and used their same style of posting back on them. This bothers them greatly, and makes them say things like what you routinely say when I use your own posting style against you.

Those who are not like you do not get the same type of treatment.

If you think you use my posting style, you need to study it a lot more closely. In fact, I encourage you to do so, it would vastly improve the quality of what you write!

I would say you were just trolling this place, but good trolling requires expending less effort than those you troll, and nobody posts here more frequently than you. Instead, you're just a badly behaved guy who has some ego issues he can't control.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yes he is, but all sane people should rail against such a view. You do not support that view, do you?

I thought his view was that teaching children religion as science was a form of child abuse, not that it was worse than child abuse. And you'd have to define what you meant by child abuse. I know some odd middle class hippy types that think feeding children sweets is a form of child abuse.

The thread is about him winning (at least according to the threat title). He cannot win when he makes statements like that. It is an automatic forever lose until he recants it.

I'm not sure what your saying there. The article says its a victory over creationists that want to teach religion as science in schools.

 

[Paul98]

put cybrsage on ignore, no reason to have a discussion with someone like him.

 

[cybrsage]

I thought his view was that teaching children religion as science was a form of child abuse, not that it was worse than child abuse. And you'd have to define what you meant by child abuse. I know some odd middle class hippy types that think feeding children sweets is a form of child abuse.

Dawkins in the guy all atheists should flee from. He believes it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them about animals on a boat due to a flood.

He is right [referring to Nicholas Humphrey, mentioned earlier in the paragraph], and the same lesson should inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

The context is a discussion about some priests molesting children. He believes it is better for the children to have been sexually molested than to for the priests to have taught them about Catholicism instead.

Dawkins is a sicko.

 

[Ninjahedge]

No, you just skip him when he retorts.

 

[cybrsage]

put cybrsage on ignore, no reason to have a discussion with someone like him.

I am wondering if you still have me on ignore. It is bad form to put someone on ignore and then still talk about them.

 

[cybrsage]

No, you just skip him when he retorts.

Do you agree with Dawkins that it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them about religion? Not replying means yes, you agree with him.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Do you agree with Dawkins that it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them about religion? Not replying means yes, you agree with him.

Both things are abuse of children...

 

[JackSpadesSI]

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.




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

That's not true in the way that you think it is. You're right that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. What you're wrong about is what, exactly, is a claim.

If someone tells me that the Moon is made of cheese, then they have made a claim and the burden of proof is upon them.

However, if I respond to that person and tell them that they're quite likely incorrect, I have NOT made a claim and therefore I have no burden of proof.

To put this into religious perspective, the claim requiring proof is "there is a god or gods". Those that make that claim have the burden to offer proof. However, the fact that atheists do not accept that there is a god (or gods) is NOT a position which makes any claim, and therefore there is no burden of proof.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

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?

It could have happened that way. But no amount of evidence in the world can infer that it had to have happened that way.

WRT the Big Bang, as it happens, we do have evidence that shows that it could have plausibly happened the way physicists believe.

Oh. And straw man. I never said no evidence was needed. Ever.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Here's the thing. I'm all for people teaching their kids whatever their own religion specifies about the creation of the universe and the origin of life and man. I think it's great.

However, publicly funded schools should not be in the business of teaching religion. If there is a commonly accepted scientific theory that something could be the cause for these things, teach away. If there is not, leave it to the parents. Faith and science shouldn't be taught in the same classroom. If you want to discuss what people believe, do it in the setting of a history or social studies class where scientific analysis isn't expected.

I think this goes back to the old "teachers aren't your parents" issue. It isn't your teachers job to teach you religion, morality, discipline, etc. If you want your kids to learn about your religion, take them to church and teach them about it at home.

 

[cybrsage]

Both things are abuse of children...

What drugs are you on?