The debate is over

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='304573' dateline='1341123751']
You have presented not a shred of evidence to support your extraordinary claim that your fairy tale is true.

And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject. [/quote]


Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely nothing to support or substantiate your fairy tale. Bravo.

Scientists find you embarrasasing.

They might, if embarrasasing were even a word. However, they would not find me embarrassing, which is what your fifth grade English teacher would find you.

---

... It's a matter of understanding information. Lack of understanding = lack of belief. Belief = informed choice.

---

You might insist (without any empirical support) that everything has to empirically proven. Reality is on my side though.

...demonstrating beyond a doubt your insanity and ignorance..

Its specious claim to hold ultimate truth?
Is that truth scientific in nature? If so, on what grounds does Dawkins challenge it?

It is arbitrary in nature, and Dawkins challenges it by pointing out that it holds no more claim to being accurate than claims of Zeus, Wotan, or the many thousands of other fairy tale deities that have been made up by others.

Its self assumed mantle of divine authority?
Ditto.

Ditto.

Its unsubstantiated ownership of objective morality?
Morality being rooted in God, who offers, like you correctly state, not an ounce of empirical claim?

Black Swan argument. The existence of a single person who exhibits moral behavior and does not believe in your sky fairy refutes your assertion of "morality being rooted in gawd". There are and have been billions.

Or its unverifiable claim for a unobservable deity?
Now there's a funny statement!

Whistling in the dark.

You know I'd go along with that 100%: (empirically) unobservable deity. Yet you don't seem to be able to grasp what faith means: belief without empirical proof. With good reason, but without the logically impossible... sure.

"Logic and reason" and "belief without proof" are mutually exclusive.

[quote='Zen Badger' pid='304831' dateline='1341225678']
Since Dawkin's main claim to fame(in this case anyway) is the falsehood of religion, all Frodo needs to do is produce evidence for god.

Yes. Dawkins wants proof that circles aren't squares. He's that fucking ignorant.

Look, asshole, if your sky fairy could create the entire fucking universe, then it could show itself to us and and end all of our skepticism here and now, forever and ever amen. According to your fairy tales, your sky fairy has appeared to other humans at will, and, being omniscient as you assholes claim, it would know perfectly well that we would not be skeptical it it were to show itself. Your claim that it is "non-empirical" is just a bullshit smoke screen. You are a pathological liar.

---

Frods, as always, you come out with the classic lines

Which scientists would they be? Jason Lisle? Kent Hovind?

Scientists who observe the common sense attitude that science deals with the observable. Sure there are those who call themselves scientists who go chasing evidence of fairies, celestial teapots and the like. What they don't also do is follow the scientific method, which sadly for your case is defined.

Sad attempt at a dodge. Answer the fucking question.