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: December 3, 2024, 6:45 pm
Thread Rating:
Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament
|
RE: Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament
September 27, 2015 at 12:13 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2015 at 12:13 pm by Randy Carson.)
(September 27, 2015 at 12:06 pm)abaris Wrote:(September 27, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Is there any chance you might actually interact with the argument instead of dismissing it because of who wrote it? Just deal with the argument at hand. (September 27, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Atheism is NOT a worldview or anything like that, it doesn't dictate morality or almost anything we do in our daily lives. Why is it so hard to understand? Because strawmen fall down easier than reality. And it's the victory that counts; however facile. Gotta rack up those brownie points!
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(September 27, 2015 at 11:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Wiker notes that in coming over to the atheist side, we face a number of new problems that arise. Atheism doesn't equate to moral anti-realism. Your 'ethicist' has erected a moral straw man. Total fail.
3rd times the charm!
(September 27, 2015 at 11:50 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Randy, answer me this: would it hurt if for no reason, I approached you with a cleaver and cut off your hand?
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House “Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom "If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech (September 27, 2015 at 12:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: A moment to reconsider whether dismissing an argument because of its source is an intelligent thing to do. No, no, no. Dismissing an argument is something totally different from being skeptical of an argument. The source is dubious by any scientifics standards. Both authors have an agenda. So, if you were really out for a serious discussion, both arguments would have to be evaluated according to source criticism. Which is really something you can't do in an opinonated thread. That's what you constantly fail to understand. Your champions aren't right because they happen to confirm your opinion. They aren't wrong by default either. But it needs a lot more than just copy pasting a piece to make a case. And I guess, even you wouldn't go by the same standards if it was about a Marxist making a claim.
20 replies in the first hour.
Only one half-ass hearted attempt to respond to the argument. You guys really aren't as good at this as you think you are... (September 27, 2015 at 12:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(September 27, 2015 at 12:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Shooting the messenger, right? Quite possibly ad hominem as well. What do I win?? *chuckle* Gotcher. I didn't commit any logical fallacy, since Wiker's motives (given his publication history, his background, and the fact that he works for The Discovery Institute) are a priori inimical to Dawkins' position. Ad hominem is not always a fallacy. This is one of those cases. Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)