The debate is over

[Reforged]

'Nough said.

[Zen Badger]

Ahhh, no.

As the one making the claim of his ignorance it is incumbent upon you sir to verify that claim. Not me to do it for you.

If you are unable to do so, I can only come to the reasonable conclusion that you are talking out of your arse.

Well we're already discussing one of his absurdities below. Let's stick with that one.

It's not Dawkins who is being ignorant here laddie, it's you.

In fact you're downright incoherent.

Incoherant to you. Because you are willfully ignorant of the subject?

So I can safely assume from that bit of dodging that in fact you are unable to back up your claim of Dawkin's ignorance on religion.

And that you are indeed talking out of your arse.

Very good.

BTW, I like your avatar pic. Very appropriate for some reason.

[fr0d0]

Dodging the question Zen? Nice one

What about NOMA? Dawkins dismisses it without reason.

[Faith No More]

Are you referring to the New Orleans Museum of Art or the National Organization of Minority Architects?

[Zen Badger]

Dodging the question Zen? Nice one

I thought I was asking the question....

What about NOMA? Dawkins dismisses it without reason.

What's a NOMA?

[Mister Agenda]

No Overlapping Magesteria. It's the notion that religion and science should stay in their own playpens. Dawkins rejects it for this reason: religion keeps playing in science's playpen. Religions keep making claims that are testable if they are true. When they do so, they've stepped onto science's turf and scientists are entitled to look into the matter.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Dodging the question Zen? Nice one

What about NOMA? Dawkins dismisses it without reason.

REALLY?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."[9] Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.

Dawkins also argues that a religion free of divine intervention would be far different from any existent ones, and certainly different from the Abrahamic religions. Moreover, he claims that religions would be only too happy to accept scientific claims that supported their views. For example, if DNA evidence proved that Jesus had no earthly father, Dawkins claims that the argument of non-overlapping magisteria would be quickly dropped.[10]

Dawkins makes a more fundamental criticism of NOMA by stating that not all grammatically correct questions are legitimate (for example, "What does the color red smell like?"), and thus the Why? questions of religion do not necessarily deserve an answer.[11]


^ Dawkins, Richard (1998). "When Religion Steps on Science's Turf". Free Inquiry. Retrieved 2008-09-13.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/f..._18_2.html

^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-03-20.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-da...32164.html

^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Black Swan. ISBN 978-0-552-77331-7.

How the hell does that look like "without reason" to you? How the hell does that look like "ignorance" to you?

[WeAreTheGods]

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.

No, all the cases they make are awful.

The debate still goes on only because human race as a whole is not ready to abandon religion, and I don't have great hopes that it will be any time soon (if ever).

[WhatIfGodWasJustAMyth]

2 dudes debating on religion.
Muslim versus Atheist. Nobody won.

Does anyone ever really win a debate.
Also the debate was not settled a long time ago because of the golden rule. DENY DENY DENY!!!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Does anyone ever really win a debate?

Of course, there are rules and scoring in formal debates.However, I do not conflate winning a debate or argument with [necessarily] being right.

Debates tend to be a form of rarified public entertainment at best, a form of public masturbation at worst.