Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[ManMachine]

Two can play this ridiculous game of yours. You call yourself ManMachine. Are you a man, or are you a machine? It is impossible to be both. Why are you claiming such an obvious contradiction?

This is why I called your presumptions about me baseless. Because you believe it is futile for a human being to desire the preservation of his/her species, you conclude that any such desire must be impractical and perhaps even unknowingly theistic. That is an arrogant and, again, baseless conclusion on your part.

Are you actually reading what I'm posting or just picking out random words? I didn't say it was 'futile for a human being to desire the preservation of his/her species.'

You didn't prove that my view is non-scientific, you just proved that you are far less resolved and motivated than myself. You just proved that you are a quitter who lacks any level of creativity or sense of perseverence. You just proved that you are completely closed minded and would have been better off being born in the dark ages.

Because you can't think of any way that the human species can survive, you assume that it is impossible. You are the skeptic who, 100 years ago, could never see us traveling into space. You are the skeptic who, 300 years ago, could never see us flying or using automobiles.

You speak of evolution but you have no belief in it. You think we've come as far along as we are ever going to.

Now, since I've shown that it is I, and not you, who believes in human evolution, who's the Theist now?

Perhaps we should investigate the reasons behind your fatalist views.

This is just nonsense. non-sequiters, irrelavnt conclusions, assumptions, no critical examination of what I'm saying and pointless babble about my username?

Your repeated attempts to derail the debate into irrelevance rather than deal with the points I'm raising is not interesting or engaging for me so I'm out.

I'm not a fatalist. If you are interested in my philosophy I would say it is probably best defined by my strong opposition to Meliorism, humanism and neoliberalism.



MM

[smax]

This is just nonsense. non-sequiters, irrelavnt conclusions, assumptions, no critical examination of what I'm saying and pointless babble about my username?

Not a big fan of your own medicine, eh?

Your repeated attempts to derail the debate into irrelevance rather than deal with the points I'm raising is not interesting or engaging for me so I'm out.

You think it's me who's minimized the subject matter? LOL.

This, coming from the same guy who immediately got lost in semantics instead of focusing the discussion on the obvious point I was making?

I'm not a fatalist. If you are interested in my philosophy I would say it is probably best defined by my strong opposition to Meliorism, humanism and neoliberalism.

Why am I not surprised that your views are not really views at all, but rather non-commital opposition to other views.

I know, I know, you are far too clever to subscribe to anything anyone else may have come up with.

There's nothing worse than someone who doesn't know where they stand but still has the nerve to criticize others for their views.

Oh, and one other thing, thanks for quitting again. This time I'm 100 percent behind you.

[Gilgamesh]

I like his stance there. It doesn't matter how many people believe dumb bullshit; it's still dumb bullshit and he refuses to entertain it.

[Statler Waldorf]

Any of them, Stat. Any argument for which science has said "we haven't sufficient evidence for this" or "we have found evidence falsifying this claim" which believers continue to tout. God. Homeopathy. Ant-vax bullshittery.

I believe you are confounding your terms here, science only deals with induction, and the vast majority of the arguments for God’s existence are deductive arguments, so science cannot prove or disprove their merit. It never ceases to amaze me just how much atheists exalt science, it borders upon being straight up scientism. I love science, it’s what I studied and it’s what I chose and love to do as a profession but it certainly has its limitations and can never be appropriately used to justify a person’s atheism.

---

Hehehe, Chad, Statler doesn't mind elaborating upon all the physical evidence he "has". IIRC he's a YEC (that's right, isn't it Stat, YEC not OEC, or is it the other way round - been awhile). Statlers "point" is actually an excuse for not being able to competently present the evidence he claims is overwhelming. Perhaps he simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word "overwhelming"?

This has nothing to do with whether I understand what the term overwhelming means or not and everything to do with you not understanding the nature of evidence. Evidence requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted, and the fact of the matter is that God must exist in order for a person to possess a logically coherent and defensible conceptual scheme. The entire notion and concept of “evidence” assumes that the God of scripture does in fact exist, so the debate was over before we even got to tossing around “evidences”. The evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming, but you’ll never accept it because you’re naturalistic conceptual scheme rules out the possibility of there being such evidences a priori.

[Esquilax]

This has nothing to do with whether I understand what the term overwhelming means or not and everything to do with you not understanding the nature of evidence. Evidence requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted, and the fact of the matter is that God must exist in order for a person to possess a logically coherent and defensible conceptual scheme. The entire notion and concept of “evidence” assumes that the God of scripture does in fact exist, so the debate was over before we even got to tossing around “evidences”. The evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming, but you’ll never accept it because you’re naturalistic conceptual scheme rules out the possibility of there being such evidences a priori.

Why do you guys always feel like you can just say shit like that without providing any form of evidence for it? I mean, I know your barrier of entry for justification of your beliefs is ridiculously low, but come the fuck on...

[downbeatplumb]

I love science, it’s what I studied and it’s what I chose and love to do as a profession but it certainly has its limitations and can never be appropriately used to justify a person’s atheism.

Even if all of what he hold true today because of the scientific method was proved wrong it would not be evidence for god.

There were atheists before there was science. One of the reasons for this is because the god idea is a stupid one.

I read the bible and wondered at the gullibility of people who believed it.

What science does that supports the contention that I was right in the first place is the demolishing of the idea that god did this or that.

[frz]

The evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming, but you’ll never accept it because you’re naturalistic conceptual scheme rules out the possibility of there being such evidences a priori.

what evidence? Where is this evidence. And don't tell me the voices in your head. That doesn't count.

[The Grand Nudger]

This has nothing to do with whether I understand what the term overwhelming means or not and everything to do with you not understanding the nature of evidence. Evidence requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted, and the fact of the matter is that God must exist in order for a person to possess a logically coherent and defensible conceptual scheme. The entire notion and concept of “evidence” assumes that the God of scripture does in fact exist, so the debate was over before we even got to tossing around “evidences”. The evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming, but you’ll never accept it because you’re naturalistic conceptual scheme rules out the possibility of there being such evidences a priori.

There he goes, blathering on bout overwhelming evidence without presenting so much as a single tittle. This evidence comes prepackaged with an excuse for being incapable of/unwilling to provide it as well.....which is convenient.

[thesummerqueen]

I feel like we're back on the fossil thread.

Science - the process of finding evidence - is a perfectly good reason not to believe in the existence of something that potentially wastes time and energy, as religion certainly does. No evidence for God, no reason for me to waste the brain space on it. There's other shit to do. When God provides repeatable evidence that bears up to scrutiny, then we'll talk.

A burning bush, man. That's all we need. And I don't mean an STD infested vag OR the lovely red-leaved shrubbery we use for landscaping down here.

[Statler Waldorf]

Why do you guys always feel like you can just say shit like that without providing any form of evidence for it? I mean, I know your barrier of entry for justification of your beliefs is ridiculously low, but come the fuck on...

I just pointed out that the very notion of “evidence” proves that God exists and then you turn around and ask me for evidence proving that God exists?

Even if all of what he hold true today because of the scientific method was proved wrong it would not be evidence for god.

I never said it would be, but the fact that we can do science at all is proof that God exists.

There were atheists before there was science.

So?

One of the reasons for this is because the god idea is a stupid one.

Why is it a “stupid idea”?

I read the bible and wondered at the gullibility of people who believed it.

Why?

What science does that supports the contention that I was right in the first place is the demolishing of the idea that god did this or that.

How?

what evidence? Where is this evidence. And don't tell me the voices in your head. That doesn't count.

Anything and everything, give me any evidence or experience you like and I can show you how it proves that God exists.

There he goes, blathering on bout overwhelming evidence without presenting so much as a single tittle. This evidence comes prepackaged with an excuse for being incapable of/unwilling to provide it as well.....which is convenient.

Sometimes I seriously wonder whether you even read my posts or not. I will try this one more time. The very notion of evidence proves that God exists. The fact that we can do science at all proves that God exists; so when you appeal to scientific evidence, no matter what the evidence is you are proving that God exists because in an atheistic universe science would be impossible. So you can blather on about evidence all you want, but you’ve already lost the debate the instant you begin appealing to evidence.

I feel like we're back on the fossil thread.

Why? Is it because you all are missing the point here almost as badly as you did in that thread?

Science - the process of finding evidence –

That’s not the definition of science.

is a perfectly good reason not to believe in the existence of something that potentially wastes time and energy, as religion certainly does. No evidence for God, no reason for me to waste the brain space on it. There's other shit to do. When God provides repeatable evidence that bears up to scrutiny, then we'll talk.

Are you really suggesting that you only believe in the truth of claims that can be scientifically testable and repeatable?

A burning bush, man. That's all we need.

What does the story of the burning bush have to do with anything?