Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,847 members, 7,956,176 topics. Date: Monday, 23 September 2024 at 06:59 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein (15874 Views)
Dawkins Tells Atheists To "Mock Religion With Contempt," And Ravi's Response / "Religion Has No Place In The 21st Century"-Cambridge Debate-Dawkins vs.Williams / Anony's Soul Theory Destroyed By Richard Dawkins! (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Nobody: 6:21pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
davidylan: Yawn....a comment full of nonsense |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Nobody: 6:40pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Lol, how do you read? Logical has more than one meaning. I dont mean the use of logic equations in philosophy. Garbage in garbage out. A premise can follow conclusions but faulty premises are normally put forward by your ilk. So when your premise is "if God exist". I can dismiss whatever agrument that follows. There is no evidence for God Mr_Anony: Atheism has only to do with God. Fail Atheists can be spiritual. Depends on your spiritual. My gf that is a buddhist doesnt believe in god but she is spiritual because she beleives that it is respectful to pay your last respects every year at parents graves. Mr_Anony: Lol...... |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by thehomer: 6:53pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't but the thing is that if they were trying to be honest, they would release it without waiting for him to request for it. It is like someone accusing another of being dishonest. If the accuser wished to show that they were honest, what they do is to present evidence nullifying the accusation especially if they hold all the cards. Mr_Anony: I've watched the video and I'm pointing out to you that the part where he was asked if there was any other possible option out there was edited out. Maybe you should watch it and read his own response about the clip. Mr_Anony: And I've told you that intelligent design is a form of creationism. The evidence also agrees with me. Mr_Anony: So Dawkins' answers already fits their narrative? Really? So why did it come as a surprise to him that he was being portrayed as saying that he believed intelligent design was a serious consideration? When people are talking about hypotheticals and they say something is plausible, you say that it doesn't mean they believe it yet you say that his statements already fit their narrative. I think that is inconsistent. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by thehomer: 7:06pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Of course that is what he was talking about. The question is what was the context in which he was saying it? Mr_Anony: Through which video? You see the problem is that you're refusing to accept that context matters. Since the recording of Ben Stein posing the question to him on any conceivable type of intelligent design wasn't in the clip you posted, it makes that clip and the voice overs dishonest. So he wasn't backing away from the statements, he was providing the context for his statement. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Nobody: 7:14pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
I will leave you guys with Dawkins giving a sweet reply to Anony's role model, William craig. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmKA5zUYBI |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 7:27pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Logicboy03:Logicboyism |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 7:32pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Logicboy03:Lol....to claim that a premise is faulty, you must show what makes it faulty. "If God exists" is actually a perfectly sound statement irrespective of whether there is actual evidence for God or not. To dismiss it prematurely shows irrationality on your part. Atheism has only to do with God. FailNice bait and switch attempt there. Redefining spiritual now are we? Besides I think we've thrashed the issue of Buddhism is not atheist before so I won't waste my time going over it again. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Enigma(m): 7:38pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: thehomer: Of course that is what he was talking about. Enigma, Anony, Creatrixity, davidylan, the whole world ------ all "debunked". |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by mazaje(m): 7:47pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
davidylan: I am not worried about any god. . .I spend time arguing with people that hold the god belief. . .Gods do not exist, but belief if god exist. . .God is an idea that people believe in and I spend time arguing with people that subscribe to that idea(man made idea). Your god can not exist and I we will be here arguing about it existence. . . |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by jayriginal: 7:52pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
advocate666: |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Nobody: 7:54pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Lol....to claim that a premise is faulty, you must show what makes it faulty. If the toothfairy exists........ You wouldnt listen to anything following the above premise. Same for God. There is no evidence for both. Let me give you a practical example- try making any argument for religion by sayin "if god exists" first. Furthermore, you are a liar. How can one say that there are no atheist buddhists? What kind of statement is that? There are many definitions of "spiritual". Very ambiguous word. To make the claim that atheists cant be spiritual would be to carry the problem of narrowly defining "spiritual". Spiritual for a buddhist is different from a christian spiritual. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 7:54pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
thehomer:Not necessarily. They are under no obligation to provide raw footage to the public. There are many reasons why might want to retain the footage. The second part about your opinion of what an honest filmmaker ought to do goes both ways i.e. if Dawkins really had nothing to hide, he would have demanded the full clip be made public. Speculating over reasons lead us nowhere. I've watched the video and I'm pointing out to you that the part where he was asked if there was any other possible option out there was edited out. Maybe you should watch it and read his own response about the clip.See 3:12 Lol.....a form of creationism...yeah right. So Dawkins' answers already fits their narrative? Really? So why did it come as a surprise to him that he was being portrayed as saying that he believed intelligent design was a serious consideration? When people are talking about hypotheticals and they say something is plausible, you say that it doesn't mean they believe it yet you say that his statements already fit their narrative. I think that is inconsistent.But their narrative was NOT that he believed in intelligent design. Their narrative was that he thought it possible only he was against certain kinds of designers i.e God. You have given them a strawman narrative just to back up your bais. thehomer:Good Through which video? You see the problem is that you're refusing to accept that context matters. Since the recording of Ben Stein posing the question to him on any conceivable type of intelligent design wasn't in the clip you posted, it makes that clip and the voice overs dishonest. So he wasn't backing away from the statements, he was providing the context for his statement.Please watch the video again. See 3:12 |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by mazaje(m): 8:05pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Firstly the creation story in the bible(since we are talking about the bible god) does NOT agree with what we see around. . .It has no scientific backing. . .Even reputable christians and christian apologist like William Craig claim it is just an allegory. . .But i was not written ORIGINALY as an allegory. . .Example, the earth(with water in it) according to the myth was created before all the stars and the sun. . . If you don't agree that precision and improbable complex order that characterizes our universe is evidence for a designer, then you must tell us what you think is most plausible upon which you base your disagreement. As I said earlier, you can't oppose a position in a vacuum Why not designers?. . . Inasmuch as it appears that you agree here, you also give no basis for your agreement and from your comment you are also not prepared to accept a series of preceding arguments so I really can't help you. Your request (especially how it is phrased) is irrational. I can provide you such evidence. . .I can add you up on skype and show you via webcam as I login into NL, type my post and hit enter. . .It is something that I can do at this very moment if I want to, you will see me talk to you, log in and reply to your post in real time. You will be able to tell that it is not a robot or a cat. . .So my request is not irrational at all. . .You are making an extra ordinary claim and extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. . . In the same way you cannot disagree in a vacuum, you also can't agree in a vacuum. There must be a basis for every claim or counter-claim. Ok, I agree. . .But why must it be ONLY a designer?. . .Why not designers. . .My computer is a very complex gadget and it was designed by many designers, so why must the universe have only a single designer and not many designers?. . . |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 8:19pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Logicboy03:Lol, why don't you start by making such an argument and then giving us a reason why a condition suddenly becomes irrelevant just because it is a condition. You really need to learn logic. Furthermore, you are a liar. How can one say that there are no atheist buddhists? What kind of statement is that?Yawn....as I said what you did there was an exercise in bait and switch and now you are pressing for a tangential argument (peppered with baseless ad hominen as usual). For instance I could bait you with the statement that "some atheists believe in gods" and when you say that they don't, I switch to "god is an ambiguous word, some football-loving atheists call Lionel Messi a god". That's basically what your argument was. Bait and Switch is a very poor way to argue my friend. 1 Like |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 8:49pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
mazaje:Good so are you basing your counter on science? Why not designers?. . .Why designers? Why propose a more complex explanation when a much simpler one would suffice? Why assume multiple designers for one design when it could just as easily be one designer. Kinda like coming upon a person who has been been killed by one stab wound to the heart and your first impression is that there are many killers instead of one. While it is very possible that many killers all held the knife together and delivered the blow, it is far less plausible than one killer. And it certainly is a weak counter argument to the person who starts by hypothesizing a single killer unless you are less interested in actually finding the killer an more interested in countering arguments. I can provide you such evidence. . .I can add you up on skype and show you via webcam as I login into NL, type my post and hit enter. . .It is something that I can do at this very moment if I want to, you will see me talk to you, log in and reply to your post in real time. You will be able to tell that it is not a robot or a cat. . .So my request is not irrational at all. . .You are making an extra ordinary claim and extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. . .I hope you know that the evidence I was asking for is the comment you have already typed not the one you will type later. Ok, I agree. . .But why must it be ONLY a designer?. . .Why not designers. . .My computer is a very complex gadget and it was designed by many designers, so why must the universe have only a single designer and not many designers?. . .The same question I asked you above: Why start an investigation by assuming multiple designers for a singular design when a singular designer is a much simpler place to start from? |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by jayriginal: 9:04pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Perhaps it is time to say what I think of the video:The matter seems clear to me.
Maybe you should have paused a little longer.
Also seems clear to me.
Now considering the bolded so far, is it really true that he "proposed" ? One one hand you say he "accepts the possibility" of an intelligent designer and on the other hand, you say he is right for "deducing an intelligent designer". Am I missing something ? Before todays game I accepted the possibility that we would beat the Ivory Coast. I certainly did not deduce it. Since when have the terms become interchangeable ? You arrived at that conclusion from one atheist ? One who you and others have thoroughly misconstrued. I shouldnt be surprised though. If one says "that isnt the default atheist position", another will find an opportunity to use it as an argument. It is quite common. There is no one position on atheism. It is the theists particularly that see Dawkins as the atheist figurehead/role model/leader or whatever. I think I know why. Its not so much what he says or writes as the title he gave his book "The God Delusion". Ouch!! That must have hurt and he sold lots of copies. In that DeepSight is right. Controversy sells or at the least creates awareness (which is easily translated to sales). In any case, I'm sure that is what angers most. Pebbles; mostly. EDIT: I have to say here that I didnt watch the video. I simply relied on your post which I have quoted here. 1 Like |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Nobody: 9:08pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: I am not a christian apologist nor a christian. You are a christian. Please make an argument for God. You have been doing this for over a year on NL, havent you? So, why dont you put a good argument for god forward? "If God exist........" <<<< complete the premise and conclusion Rise up to the challenge, I have made my claims clear- once you start with god's existence as a solid premise, you will run into a messy argument that makes belief in god look silly. I can prove it but I know you would claim that i put forward a faulty argument to strengthen my claim. This exercise is to prove to you on your won terms why my claims are true. Mr_Anony: Fail. Fail. Epic fail. "God" is not really ambiguous as regards to atheism. It is drawn down to a religious or creator god when talking about atheism. Whether it is Allah or Oodumare etc....it is very clear. Spirituality is an ambiguous word in every case. I did not bait and switch. I told you that you would fail in a formal debate if you made the statement that "atheists do not believe in the spiritual". You foolishly went ahead to still repeat the claim as true. Now, you are caught in a web of hard debunkery and are trying to escape |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 9:32pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
jayriginal:For your information, almost every scientific theory there is that has not yet been proven is described as possibility. It doesn't mean it is not a proposed theory. You are just being petty over words here. One one hand you say he "accepts the possibility" of an intelligent designer and on the other hand, you say he is right for "deducing an intelligent designer". Am I missing something ?E.g. 1. "I accepted the possibility that Ivory Coast would beat us." 2. "I deduced from the superior quality of Ivory Coast's squad that they would beat us". Notice that they are two different statements pointing to the same thing but not used interchangeably. Again you are being petty over words. You arrived at that conclusion from one atheist ? One who you and others have thoroughly misconstrued. I shouldnt be surprised though. If one says "that isnt the default atheist position", another will find an opportunity to use it as an argument. It is quite common. There is no one position on atheism. It is the theists particularly that see Dawkins as the atheist figurehead/role model/leader or whatever.I cited one atheist as a case study but that doesn't mean I arrived at the conclusion based solely on Mr Dawkins. By the way it is interesting how you say that "there is no one position in atheism". I thought atheism itself is the position that there is no God. EDIT:Edit: You really should have watched the video |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 9:53pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Logicboy03:Lol, you are a funny chap. You have just told me that the syayement "if God exists..." is always followed by something illogical. I have asked you how this is so, instead of explaining why, you ask me to make a statement with it. Why should I? So you can just tell me it is illogical? You haven't still told us why and how an "if" statement can be illogical. This you must do before we begin to proceed to any examples. yawn.. "God" is not really ambiguous as regards to atheism. It is drawn down to a religious or creator god when talking about atheism. Whether it is Allah or Oodumare etc....it is very clear.And I argued that you don't prove or disprove the very definition of a thing and by spiritual I was referring to the supernatural aspect of being. You promptly switched the meaning of spiritual to a synonym that referred to emotion such as the feeling of respect (which by the way has little or nothing to do with the atheism definitive context). Yes definitely bait and switch. I took your bait and you promptly switched the meaning. Funny how you call it "debunkery" Congratulations - Yet another reason why I say you are irrational and your thinking ability is so poor that you cannot recognize it. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by thehomer: 10:41pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: They owe it to themselves in order to be clear that they have nothing to hide. It is generally how honest people act in such a situation. What reason is more important than them here demonstrating their honesty? Dawkins isn't really in a position to make demands of them. Mr_Anony: What do you think it shows? I ask because that is the point where the question actually posed was dishonestly edited. Mr_Anony: Hey that's what the evidence shows. Mr_Anony: That isn't their narrative. Their claim is that Dawkins thought that intelligent design by aliens was a serious contender. I haven't introduced anything that Stein himself wasn't attributing to Dawkins. Once again, I have to ask you if you think that when someone says something is possible, do you think they mean that it is a really a serious consideration? Mr_Anony: I've seen it and that is one of the points where the dishonest editing took place. What do you think it shows? |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by Nobody: 11:17pm On Feb 03, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Yawn.....you seem to have a knack of running away from me. Goodbye. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by mazaje(m): 8:13am On Feb 04, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: I base my counter based on empirical evidence, and science has provided some. . .The creation story written in the bible just does not fit or agree with observable evidence. . .Even christian apologist have now discarded it as an allegory when it was not originally written as an allegory. . . Why designers? Why propose a more complex explanation when a much simpler one would suffice? Why assume multiple designers for one design when it could just as easily be one designer. Nope, it is not one design, it is a very complex design, firstly many people that conclude that the universe was designed came to such a conclusion based on the fact that we as humans design complex things. . . .Most of the complex things we design as humans are always the work of many designers. . .So it follows that since the universe is very complex, its designers should be complex as well, since we judge the universe based on the way we expect our own human society to function. . . Kinda like coming upon a person who has been been killed by one stab wound to the heart and your first impression is that there are many killers instead of one. While it is very possible that many killers all held the knife together and delivered the blow, it is far less plausible than one killer. And it certainly is a weak counter argument to the person who starts by hypothesizing a single killer unless you are less interested in actually finding the killer an more interested in countering arguments. Wrong analogy, when I see a complex structure like a an Air bus A380, I will not just conclude that it is a product of one designer, the possibility of it being is a product of many designers is also very high. . .The universe is very complex as such, since we base our conclusions based on how the human society function, it also follows that it is very possible that it has many designers, actually many people already believe that their many gods came together and created the universe. . . I hope you know that the evidence I was asking for is the comment you have already typed not the one you will type later. I can still show you. . .I will hit the modify button, delete the first comment I typed and rewrite it again. . .So that you will see, that I wrote it. . .It can be done and you know that. . . . The same question I asked you above: Why start an investigation by assuming multiple designers for a singular design when a singular designer is a much simpler place to start from? Because it is a very complex design and if we are to go by what we know and what we see around us, complex designed often require a lot of designers. . . 1 Like |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 8:26am On Feb 04, 2013 |
thehomer:That is merely your opinion of what "they owe to themselves" What do you think it shows? I ask because that is the point where the question actually posed was dishonestly edited.All I saw was a question asked and a question answered. Hey that's what the evidence shows.What evidence exactly? That isn't their narrative. Their claim is that Dawkins thought that intelligent design by aliens was a serious contender. I haven't introduced anything that Stein himself wasn't attributing to Dawkins. Once again, I have to ask you if you think that when someone says something is possible, do you think they mean that it is a really a serious consideration?The bold is what you think their claim was and not what it is. If I recall correctly, the phrase Stein used was "legitimate pursuit" Not "serious contender". You a loading their claim to make it sound like something else. If a person says that something is possible he doesn't necessarily mean that such a thing is a 'serious contender' compared to another theory, but yes he definitely means that such a thing can be legitimately explored. Here's a transcript typed from Dawkins' "rebuttal video" posted on this thread.
Now please read the above exchange carefully. 1. At no time did Ben Stein say that Dawkins believed in Intelligent Design. His voice-overs to me are an accurate representation of what Dawkins had just said. 2. At no time in the "rebuttal video" did Dawkins say that the clip was edited to change the questions asked to him. He posts the same questions and the same responses as they were in the video. 3. All Dawkins is claiming is that they took his statements to mean something else other than what he intended. But then again, no one has said that Dawkins believed in ID. That's Richard Dawkins strawman. 4. To me I think Richard is only upset because the video was not championing Darwinian evolution propaganda. As for his comments on the video, they are there for all to see. Here is an exchange between Dawkins and Mark Mathis the producer of "Expelled" at the screening of the movie. Richard Dawkins [RD]: Why were you dishonest about the film you were going to make?! We were lead to believe that you were going to present a fair account of evolution. I've seen it and that is one of the points where the dishonest editing took place. What do you think it shows?My friend I see no dishonest editing anywhere. Perhaps you should show me what it is that you are seeing because I simply can't see it. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 8:30am On Feb 04, 2013 |
Logicboy03:Lol.....How ironic that you should say this while running away. Anyway, it appears to me that you are now beginning to see just how poor a lot of your arguments actually are. I think that is a step in the right direction. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 8:41am On Feb 04, 2013 |
mazaje:ok Nope, it is not one design, it is a very complex design, firstly many people that conclude that the universe was designed came to such a conclusion based on the fact that we as humans design complex things. . . .Most of the complex things we design as humans are always the work of many designers. . .So it follows that since the universe is very complex, its designers should be complex as well, since we judge the universe based on the way we expect our own human society to function. . .Spot the contradiction in the bolded. Wrong analogy, when I see a complex structure like a an Air bus A380, I will not just conclude that it is a product of one designer, the possibility of it being is a product of many designers is also very high. . .The universe is very complex as such, since we base our conclusions based on how the human society function, it also follows that it is very possible that it has many designers, actually many people already believe that their many gods came together and created the universe. . .Actually, most complex structures are designed by one designer. I am an architect by profession and I have worked in design teams and the procedure is usually one designer and many helpers. In fact I have never come across a situation where the concept is not the brainchild of one man. What usually happens in a design team is that all the other members of the team criticize the design and then gradually tweak it as they move along. As for the design itself, it is usually born from the mind of one person. I can still show you. . .I will hit the modify button, delete the first comment I typed and rewrite it again. . .So that you will see, that I wrote it. . .It can be done and you know that. . . .Lol and how will that prove that it was not your cat that typed it the first time? Because it is a very complex design and if we are to go by what we know and what we see around us, complex designed often require a lot of designers. . .Not necessarily. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by DeepSight(m): 10:15am On Feb 04, 2013 |
thehomer: What I mean is that religion is not the issue in purely theistic debates such as most of those Dawkins is involved in. Proving the falsity of religion is not the issue in such debates: the issue is a purely cosmological and philosophical question as to the origin of the universe. The answer to that question; one way or the other, is harmless. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by mazaje(m): 10:31am On Feb 04, 2013 |
Mr_Anony: Yeah, sorry, my bad. . .wanted to say it was complex and not simple. . . Actually, most complex structures are designed by one designer. I am an architect by profession and I have worked in design teams and the procedure is usually one designer and many helpers. In fact I have never come across a situation where the concept is not the brainchild of one man. What usually happens in a design team is that all the other members of the team criticize the design and then gradually tweak it as they move along. As for the design itself, it is usually born from the mind of one person. Sure, I am a soft ware developer and system analyst as well. . .And i know how designs are made. . .People criticize and also offer their own opinions. . Over all, help mostly come from outside sources in one way or the other. . . Lol and how will that prove that it was not your cat that typed it the first time? By login in with my user name and password, it shows you at least that I am the man behind the post. . . Not necessarily. Sure, not necessarily but possibly. . . |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 12:04pm On Feb 04, 2013 |
mazaje:I never said it was simple, I only said it was singular Sure, I am a soft ware developer and system analyst as well. . .And i know how designs are made. . .People criticize and also offer their own opinions. . Over all, help mostly come from outside sources in one way or the other. . .Good then you understand what I am saying. In fact when you ask the question "who wrote X software?" The default assumption is usually one person and not many people. It may well turn out to be many people but you don't just start your investigation by assuming many people. It is just not the reasonable way to go about it. This you know By login in with my user name and password, it shows you at least that I am the man behind the post. . .We both know that your login name is not proof that you actually typed that comment. Anyone ranging from your mother to your pet cat could have created that comment. Heck it is even possible that your login name itself was not created by you but by one of your friends or even your cat walking across your keyboard or even 500 people taking turns to press one key at a time. Sure, not necessarily but possibly. . .Of course, I haven't written out the possibility I'm just saying that it is an unreasonable possibility to introduce at the beginning of our investigation because it will only serve to muddle up the investigation at the onset rather than help it. Remember we are working from design towards finding out who the designer is. It doesn't help us if we start by attempting to falsifying the designer from the onset. P/s: Notice how irrational I'm being about proof of your creation i.e. your first comment. Rather than at least accept the most plausible explanation and then build from there, I am throwing in all sorts of possibilities at the beginning. It will never help our investigation when the aim is not to discover but to discredit. Both of us can either get reasonable and logically work this thing through or we can continue playing the part of the irrational skeptic. I'll oblige you either way |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by jayriginal: 12:28pm On Feb 04, 2013 |
Mr_Anony:I really dont see how you can accuse me of being petty over words. There is a clear difference between allowing for the possibility of something and deducing something. I doubt you understand what you just wrote.
Ok, but find your comments below. Mr_Anony:
This is the part that really interests me because I have argued on this forum that this is incorrect. I have argued this with theists, deists, atheists and "agnostics". Its a common misconception. An atheist is one who does not believe in god. It is a very general term and not specific for those who declare that there is no god. So you guys are jubilating because Dawkins refused to declare god non existent when he is supposed to be an atheist. It shows you dont know what you are wrestling with. This misconception leads to warped arguments all the time. Warped arguments and phantom chasing. 1 Like |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by MrAnony1(m): 12:39pm On Feb 04, 2013 |
jayriginal:Please try and watch the video. This is the part that really interests me because I have argued on this forum that this is incorrect. I have argued this with theists, deists, atheists and "agnostics". Its a common misconception. An atheist is one who does not believe in god. It is a very general term and not specific for those who declare that there is no god. So you guys are jubilating because Dawkins refused to declare god non existent when he is supposed to be an atheist. It shows you dont know what you are wrestling with.Again the wordplay changes nothing. I see no difference between not believing that God exists and holding that God does not exist. But then perhaps there is something I am overlooking. Please could you make clear to me the difference between not believing in God's existence and believing that there is no God? EDIT: For instance if I say "I believe that Jayriginal is a girl", it follows that I should declare that "jayriginal is a girl" because that's what I am convinced you are. What doesn't follow is if I say "I don't believe that jayriginal is a girl" only to follow up my statement with "I don't hold the position that jayriginal is not a girl". It makes absolutely no sense |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by jayriginal: 1:40pm On Feb 04, 2013 |
Mr_Anony:I'll try when I can.
"I dont believe Anony wrote this post" is definitely not the same as "Anony did not write this post". Do you get the point now ? Its not so subtle that you cant get it after a little reflection. Beware of equivocation. You must have heard of accused persons escaping "justice" due to lack of evidence. Does that make them "innocent"? Think about that. Mr_Anony: If you were on the other side of the fence, you would utter something about being "petty with words" and "wordplay" changes nothing. Considering the fact that you are trying to prove that allowing for a possibility is the same as deducing the fact of that thing, you ought to be careful. |
Re: An Interview Of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein by plaetton: 2:37pm On Feb 04, 2013 |
^^^^^ Let me interject and help out Anony here. I , for example am one of those atheists who have never made an absolute statement that there is no god. Rather, I have maintained that the universe, in every observable way so far, may not have needed a designer and creator. The universe is maintained simply by the constant flux of energy. The religious idea of god is childish and a figment of man's imagination. It provides no proof, only a requirement to accept by faith. If there is a single causative factor for the origin of the universe, only empirical science is capable of identifying and explaining it in simple unambiguous and non-contradictory scientific terms. But ofcourse, you theists laugh at this because you claim that god, which you believe to exist, is beyond observation. There is a clear difference between not believing in something, and, asserting with absolute conviction that the thing in question does not exist. 1 Like |
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply)
Christians,scholars,-what Was The Age Difference Between Jesus Nd John D Baptist / Must Every Believer Speak In Tongues As An Evidence Of Having The Holy Spirit? / Yahuwshuwa ( Not Jesus Christ ) Is The Only Name Whereby We Must Be Saved!!!
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 181 |