Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 27, 2024, 3:09 pm
Thread Rating:
|
The debate is over
|
 RE: The debate is over
June 29, 2012 at 8:34 am
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2012 at 8:35 am by KichigaiNeko.)
The "debate" will go on and on and on and on because philosophers love "debate"
Personally I am far too busy living to worry about "debate"  ...... There is no god for me and so I am free to live as I see fit 
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
 (June 29, 2012 at 3:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(June 28, 2012 at 9:42 am)Epimethean Wrote: LOL. Dawkins' ignorance? Good one, Fr0ds. Next, you'll be telling us that god created the universe. I'd rather listen to Dawkins over you any day of the week - and I can't stand Dawkins.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
  RE: The debate is over
June 29, 2012 at 7:52 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm by Epimethean.)
And that, I think, is what it really comes down to. Being ill-informed about living in fantasy? I think he sees it for the disease it is. It would have to be embarrassing to have to talk with any seriousness to the self-deluded regarding their love of an irreality the "truth" of which they have never yet substantiated with an iota of evidence.
Trying to update my sig ...
 Quote:Dawkins is a self proclaimed religious ignoramus Epi. Religion is not worth knowing. Dawkins is a scientist. Were he an author of children's fables maybe your point would be valid.  RE: The debate is over
June 29, 2012 at 9:12 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2012 at 9:12 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 29, 2012 at 3:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Dawkins is a self proclaimed religious ignoramus. Who cares? I'll bet he's a self proclaimed Lord of the Rings ignoramus too. He sure does now a lot about the real, observable world though. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.  RE: The debate is over
June 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm by Tempus.)
(June 29, 2012 at 7:52 pm)Epimethean Wrote: And that, I think, is what it really comes down to. Being ill-informed about living in fantasy? I think he sees it for the disease it is. It would have to be embarrassing to have to talk with any seriousness to the self-deluded regarding their love of an irreality the "truth" of which they have never yet substantiated with an iota of evidence. There's nothing fantasy-like about the existence of various religious peoples, the history of their religions, and their practices. They all actually exist in reality and if you're planning to criticise them I think you ought to understand them first. Of course, if you're critcising general things, like the validity of belief without evidence that's fine. If you're criticising the Bible on some point, however, you'd better actually be familiar with the Bible.  RE: The debate is over
June 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
(June 29, 2012 at 4:09 am)Tiberius Wrote: Fr0d0 is correct on this one. When it comes to religion, Dawkins is one of the most ignorant public figures around. So fucking what? (at Frodo,not you Tib) the claim is a straw man,utterly irrelevant to me "as an atheist". I don't care about the sophistry and superstitions contained in EVERY formal religion,except academically. So far not one religion has managed to prove ANY truth claim they make,starting with their notion of God. Until that time, religion can blow its collective mythology and superstition out of its collective arse. In truth, I really don't care about what Richard Dawkins thinks about much of anything. I care even less what some dopey Christian apologist(s) think of him. 
(June 29, 2012 at 3:36 am)Micah Wrote: The debate is most certainly not over. Google any debates with William Lane Craig or John Lennox. Both are highly intelligent Christians who have held there own against the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I may not agree with them, but they make compelling cases. You really think they make compelling cases? Sorry, but asserting that their god is eternal is far from compelling. Every argument I've heard from either of them are nothing more than reworked Kalam Cosmological arguments, argument from design, etc. They are all fallacious. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
