Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Dawkins Delusion

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:01:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dawkins is in it to make money. I'm pretty sure he isn't really that stupid.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 10:38:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Just saw this on YouTube, it's hilarious.



LOL
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I never really got into Dawkins, he's defense of evolution by Natural Selection is really impressive, but his arguments with regards to theism in general, are, pardon the pun, God awful.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 12:55:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I never really got into Dawkins, he's defense of evolution by Natural Selection is really impressive, but his arguments with regards to theism in general, are, pardon the pun, God awful.

Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 11:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Before this gets into a huge anti-Dawkins circle jerk, let me just weigh in on the fervent misuse of the scientific method in the video:

The video claims that because you didn't experience or see something, then you can't prove that it exists, although you can't really prove 100% that anything exists but that's irrelevant. This is a fundamental misuse of the scientific method, which applies to our objective reality world. I don't need to see something to know that it exists. I know that it exists if it can be replicated by a third-party source at will. I can't see atoms, but atoms have been proven to exist in the exact same reality at will, which means that they exist. I don't need to see something personally to know if it exists, because everybody experiences the same reality.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:26:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

You're right, as a philosopher of religion, he isn't half bad, he's all bad.

"I've never read a single religious text or theological work because I know they are all rubbish" - Richard Dawkins

Fact is, he just doesn't know what he is talking about, his methods are shoddy and his logic is awful. All he's done is cash in on 911, and he's laughing at his audience all the way to the bank.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:48:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:26:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

You're right, as a philosopher of religion, he isn't half bad, he's all bad.

"I've never read a single religious text or theological work because I know they are all rubbish" - Richard Dawkins

Fact is, he just doesn't know what he is talking about, his methods are shoddy and his logic is awful. All he's done is cash in on 911, and he's laughing at his audience all the way to the bank.

He's not concerned with proving specific things about a God, but instead with disproving a God, which doesn't require reading of any religious texts.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

If this "someone" does not exist, then there is no "somebody" who is omnipotent... Somebody can only be omnipotent, if they exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:58:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

Also, omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible (to virtually all theistic philosophers anyway). Therefore, if there is something our minds can conjure up that is not logical, omnipotence does not apply to that.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:01:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:58:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

Also, omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible (to virtually all theistic philosophers anyway). Therefore, if there is something our minds can conjure up that is not logical, omnipotence does not apply to that.

One minute God is bound to the rules of logic; the next, he exists outside of logic and it is impossible to prove his existence with logic. Be consistent.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:56:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

If this "someone" does not exist, then there is no "somebody" who is omnipotent... Somebody can only be omnipotent, if they exist.

Existence is based on what we can perceive and deduce. If we can't perceive something, then it doesn't mean that it does not exist- although we have no inclination to believe it exists.

On topic, that does make sense. Dawkin's argument is starting to suck.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:27:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:01:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:58:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

Also, omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible (to virtually all theistic philosophers anyway). Therefore, if there is something our minds can conjure up that is not logical, omnipotence does not apply to that.

One minute God is bound to the rules of logic; the next, he exists outside of logic and it is impossible to prove his existence with logic. Be consistent.

When did I ever say that if God existed, he was outside logic?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:28:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:27:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:01:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:58:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

Also, omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible (to virtually all theistic philosophers anyway). Therefore, if there is something our minds can conjure up that is not logical, omnipotence does not apply to that.

One minute God is bound to the rules of logic; the next, he exists outside of logic and it is impossible to prove his existence with logic. Be consistent.

When did I ever say that if God existed, he was outside logic?

You didn't, but pretty much every theist that I've met on this website falls back on this claim when I ask them to logically prove God.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:28:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:27:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:01:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:58:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

Also, omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible (to virtually all theistic philosophers anyway). Therefore, if there is something our minds can conjure up that is not logical, omnipotence does not apply to that.

One minute God is bound to the rules of logic; the next, he exists outside of logic and it is impossible to prove his existence with logic. Be consistent.

When did I ever say that if God existed, he was outside logic?

You didn't, but pretty much every theist that I've met on this website falls back on this claim when I ask them to logically prove God.

Really? Pretty much everything theist I've debated on this site argues that logic is part of God's nature, and that God acts according to his nature.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:38:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:37:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:28:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:27:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:01:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:58:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:52:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:29:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

I would disagree, his rebuttal to the modal ontological argument was embarrassing. Now, Richard can any creationist when it comes to Evolution, but besides that, he's extremely lackluster.

You mean this one (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)?

He does have a point in that omnipotence means all-powerful and the most powerful thing that somebody is capable of doing is creating something while not existing, making omnipotence a logical contradiction. If that's what he means...

Also, omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible (to virtually all theistic philosophers anyway). Therefore, if there is something our minds can conjure up that is not logical, omnipotence does not apply to that.

One minute God is bound to the rules of logic; the next, he exists outside of logic and it is impossible to prove his existence with logic. Be consistent.

When did I ever say that if God existed, he was outside logic?

You didn't, but pretty much every theist that I've met on this website falls back on this claim when I ask them to logically prove God.

Really? Pretty much everything theist I've debated on this site argues that logic is part of God's nature, and that God acts according to his nature.

Medic comes up as a supreme example.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:40:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who in their right mind, according to strict principles of validity, would ever... EVER create humankind?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

Is he really good at science? Considering his overconfidence and arrogance; that is suspect. It is possible that the arrogance has been cultivated for selling books and he is in reality a good researcher underneath.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:49:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:46:39 PM, baggins wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

Is he really good at science? Considering his overconfidence and arrogance; that is suspect. It is possible that the arrogance has been cultivated for selling books and he is in reality a good researcher underneath.

Have you read the Selfish Gene? It's incredibly scientifically detailed and obviously extremely well written and researched.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:51:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:46:39 PM, baggins wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

Is he really good at science? Considering his overconfidence and arrogance; that is suspect. It is possible that the arrogance has been cultivated for selling books and he is in reality a good researcher underneath.

Pick up "The Blond Watchmaker".
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:51:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:46:39 PM, baggins wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

Is he really good at science? Considering his overconfidence and arrogance; that is suspect. It is possible that the arrogance has been cultivated for selling books and he is in reality a good researcher underneath.

Pick up "The Blind Watchmaker".

Fixed. I don't know who the Blonde Watchmaker is, but he can't be much worse than the Blind one.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have read both 'Selfish Gene' and the 'Blind Watchmakers'. In both of them he has ignored arguments which go against him and misrepresented objections. If these books are examples of his science, he is no scientist.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:07:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 2:06:44 PM, baggins wrote:
I have read both 'Selfish Gene' and the 'Blind Watchmakers'. In both of them he has ignored arguments which go against him and misrepresented objections. If these books are examples of his science, he is no scientist.

Go ahead. Give me one of these "arguments."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:13:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 2:07:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 2:06:44 PM, baggins wrote:
I have read both 'Selfish Gene' and the 'Blind Watchmakers'. In both of them he has ignored arguments which go against him and misrepresented objections. If these books are examples of his science, he is no scientist.

Go ahead. Give me one of these "arguments."

I read his books few years ago and don't have them with me right now. I will see if I can get my hands on them when I go to my home at end of October. If you want we can do a debate on that sometimes next month.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:15:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:40:54 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Who in their right mind, according to strict principles of validity, would ever... EVER create humankind?

Lol No doubt eh....God is supposed to be omnipotent, but this was the best he could do?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:48:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:26:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:01:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/12/2012 10:01:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yeah, he's much better at science than philosophy.

He's very good at science, but people don't give him enough credit in philosophy- he isn't half bad.

You're right, as a philosopher of religion, he isn't half bad, he's all bad.

"I've never read a single religious text or theological work because I know they are all rubbish" - Richard Dawkins

Fact is, he just doesn't know what he is talking about, his methods are shoddy and his logic is awful. All he's done is cash in on 911, and he's laughing at his audience all the way to the bank.

He's not concerned with proving specific things about a God, but instead with disproving a God, which doesn't require reading of any religious texts.

Oh pulease, philosophy is not more pure if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter you are supposedly "philosophizing" about. His logic and his science are horrible when he tried to venture into theological philosophy. He writes dumbed down books for a dumbed down audience and makes a lot of money doing it, he's good at that, but he is no philosopher. He's smart, no doubt, but in the game he's playing all he has to do is be smarter than his audience, he did not produce anything resembling a valid philosophical body of work when he turned 911 angst into cash at the expense of a dumbed down and angry audience.

He's a scientist and a capitalist, he's not a philosopher, and if you think he is, then you are simply confusing philosophy and science, no doubt he is a good scientist, but I don"t even think you can say his philosophy was worth a damn even when he actually stuck to what he knew something about, biology. Granted, he wrote some fascinating books about biology, very interesting, but to the extent that he was doing philosophy, he was doing a p!ss poor job of it.

He simply extrapolated some rather bad habits of scientific thought, namely atomism, reductionism, and determinism without considering any other aspects of reality, more like a scientist trying to do philosophy than anything we can call real philosophy. The took the unfounded idea that wholes can be completely understood by analysis of their constituent components, assumed that the properties of microscopic units can generate and explain all of the behavior of macroscopic results, and the highly questionable concept that all events and objects have definite, predictable, determined causes and ran with them to produce what only appears to be valid philosophical conclusions. In the end he gave us a theory that doesn"t really explain anything philosophically, at least nothing that matters. I think good philosophy involves analysis and synthesis but he allowed the scientific reductionist nature of his thought to produce an unrealistically mechanistic model of life that completely ignores other, equally important aspects of reality. He left us with self-replicating molecules rather than life forms, he gives us a chicken that is merely an eggs way of making another chicken.

I don"t find that philosophically competent at all, at best it is a naive scientist that is attempting to do philosophy and is simply doing it badly. Organisms are much more than a collection of genes, their parts interact in complex ways, they have emergent properties that result from their genes acting in concert and influenced by environments, they have a history that matters. Extrapolating the scientific tool of reductionism into a meaningless worldview whereby you define a human being as merely a self replicating molecule"s way of making another self replicating molecule just doesn"t strike me as very good philosophy if you can call it philosophy at all.

Had he set out to philosophically demonstrate the limitations of reductionism and determinism, then maybe you could say it was a good work of philosophy, but that is not what he set out to do. He made a boatload of money, and that is what he set out to do, he accomplished that, but it wasn't philosophy.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater