The debate is over

[Zen Badger]

And how exactly is reality on your side?

[Norfolk And Chance]

If god is real, he or his effects SHOULD be empirically testable. This much is simply obvious.

I could say fairies are non empirical, like Frodo says about god - but that would make me a fucking fool, like Frodo.

[KichigaiNeko]

There is mounting empirical evidence that this "god" does not exist outside the minds of those afflicted with the god-complex or those under 5years of age (mentally or chronologically)

[Epimethean]

Well, at least many of the under five crowd imagine cooler things than a dead jew on a stick.

[Reforged]

Well, at least many of the under five crowd imagine cooler things than a dead jew on a stick.

That sounds like a tasty treat more than anything else.
Potential new market? I think so! :-)

[Minimalist]

Scientists who observe the common sense attitude that science deals with the observable

I actually agree, Frods, except by insisting on belief in the un-observable you place us in the position of having to take your word for it.

That's asking a bit much, don't you think?

[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.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I see that you don't get basic logic either. That also doesn't seem to stop you wanting to make a fool of yourself either.

Basic logic answers to evidence.

[fr0d0]

Errr...none of those posted are actually "scientists" f0d0s.... charlatans yes, scientist? Umm NO

I didn't comment

And how exactly is reality on your side?

Reality is what I claim. If you claim that there is no such thing as non empirical then that's up to you to prove against the hard evidence.

If god is real, he or his effects SHOULD be empirically testable. This much is simply obvious.

There is mounting empirical evidence that this "god" does not exist outside the minds of those afflicted with the god-complex or those under 5years of age (mentally or chronologically)

Mounting evidence huh? Care to share a single shred with us?

---

Scientists who observe the common sense attitude that science deals with the observable

I actually agree, Frods, except by insisting on belief in the un-observable you place us in the position of having to take your word for it.

That's asking a bit much, don't you think?

You don't have to take my word for it. All you need do is use your inate reasoning powers.

---

And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.

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

Are you even aware of what we're talking about here?

It appears not.

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.

Well there's your best point scored.

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

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.

And we have established that Dawkins is ignorant on the subject. For those who progress out of kindergarten there's a whole grown up world to explore.

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.

Oh so you're arguing FOR a moral imperitive now? And what is your world view might I ask? How do you justify your intellectual standpoint?

Did I claim exclusivity? *goes take a looksie* ...hmm... no. That's a fail then.

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

Listen up shit for brains...

Proofs of logic require that no evidence be present. For with evidence logic is unnecessary. I don't need to prove that you have access to the forum when I have evidence of you shitting in it.

So to correct your statement above: "Logic and reason" and "belief with proof" are mutually exclusive.

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.

Ah you really are that ignorant.

Please provide proof to us, addressing the subject, and not drifting off into your own fantasy, as is usually what happens, that God is empirically proven in Christian tradition.

If you can't, I expect you to be honest and retract your statement (I won't be holding my breath).

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Errr...none of those posted are actually "scientists" f0d0s.... charlatans yes, scientist? Umm NO

I didn't comment

Indeed. You dodged the question. Answer the fucking question.

And how exactly is reality on your side?

Reality is what I claim. If you claim that there is no such thing as non empirical then that's up to you to prove against the hard evidence.

Another sad attempt to shift the burden of proof. You are claiming sky-fairy x exists and defining it in a way that specifies it cannot be verified, yet your fairy tale book claims your sky fairy created the universe and appeared before certain people.

If god is real, he or his effects SHOULD be empirically testable. This much is simply obvious.

Your claim is refuted. Laughing isn't going to make this go away.

There is mounting empirical evidence that this "god" does not exist outside the minds of those afflicted with the god-complex or those under 5years of age (mentally or chronologically)

Mounting evidence huh? Care to share a single shred with us?

Including that the fucking world is NOT FLAT, and that the sun and stars don't revolve around it. as science and knowledge progresses, you are running out of the gaps you used to hide your sky fairy in. Just for starters.

---

I actually agree, Frods, except by insisting on belief in the un-observable you place us in the position of having to take your word for it.

That's asking a bit much, don't you think?

You don't have to take my word for it. All you need do is use your inate reasoning powers.

More like DISCARD your innate reasoning powers.

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

Are you even aware of what we're talking about here?

Very much so.

It appears not.

Keep telling yourself that, asshole.

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.

Well there's your best point scored.

In the humor department, anyway.

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.

And we have established that Dawkins is ignorant on the subject. For those who progress out of kindergarten there's a whole grown up world to explore.

\

And I am largely ignorant on the subject of Grimm's fairy Tales. Unfortunately for you, that grown up world is not in need of either set of fairy tales.

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.

Oh so you're arguing FOR a moral imperitive now? And what is your world view might I ask? How do you justify your intellectual standpoint?

I am refuting your "no gawd, no morals" claim. Handily. Shove your semantic prestidigitation up your ass.

Did I claim exclusivity? *goes take a looksie* ...hmm... no. That's a fail then.

Did you mean something else when you said "Morality being rooted in" your sky fairy?

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

Listen up shit for brains...

OH, look at the True Christian!!!!!!

Proofs of logic require that no evidence be present. For with evidence logic is unnecessary.

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know fuck about even basic logic or reason. Never heard that inconvenient little bit about in order for the conclusion to be true, the premises must also be true, have you? Well played.

I don't need to prove that you have access to the forum when I have evidence of you shitting in it.

Oh, is this you talking about evidence? That is truly funny.

So to correct your statement above: "Logic and reason" and "belief with proof" are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for demonstrating conclusively why no one need take anything you say seriously, ever.

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.

Ah you really are that ignorant.

You really are that disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Please provide proof to us, addressing the subject, and not drifting off into your own fantasy, as is usually what happens, that God is empirically proven in Christian tradition.

I made no such claim, asswipe.

If you can't, I expect you to be honest and retract your statement (I won't be holding my breath).

I think you really should hold your breath. Better yet, go suck on a tailpipe.