Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:17pm
Thread Topic: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
-
My orchestra teacher read this book and displayed it openly in classroom. He's Ukrainian and is a Jew based on race, not beliefs. He should see this...
-
Now let me tell you why that's bulls---.
from O:16 to 0:37 is his opinion. He's putting the book down from the start and then changes his topic to pick apart details.
at 0:50, to simplify it even more since this guy couldnt figure it out for himself, stating that a being lived in the sky for all eternity is adding one more step already. If he lived for all eternity and you dont want to explain where he came from, why not just state that the universe has been around forever? You're deciding that the universe has to have a beginning, but god doesnt? Sounds like a hypocrit move to me. At least science is trying to find an origin and is studying it. We dont need 6,000 year old farmers telling us that they know more about the universe than trained professionals.
1:09 "I think" another opinion.
1:20, Science doesnt say that they have the best explanation. And as for the ancient artifacts and the moon technology, we would infer that they were made by sentient life until more evidence came along to disprove that theory. We will try to explain our findings and will actually do the research to prove our point. Theistic beliefs are the only ones who refuse to prove their points. Also, philosophy and science do not go hand in hand like this guy thinks. Philosophy is an opinion while science relies on facts. A philosopher of science is giving an opinion to what should be facts. It doesnt mean they're right at all. It only means that they're opinionated.
2:42 he states that since intelegent design is the easiest solution, that we shouldnt have to explain it. And what really gets me is he says, "that can be left a question for future inquery." So he's saying that we can actually ask for an answer later. But he never says when later is? An open end in a faulty theory, from an unqualified man, on an imaginary friend. yep, this opinion is definitly the right one... (epic sarcasm)
2:48, since we dont need to ask the question because it doesnt need to be answered(wtf), then this book is obviously wrong because it tries to tell us our happy opinion (based on another book) isnt backed up with anything.
3:09, "you would never have an explanation for anything. That would destroy science." No it wouldnt. Science never claims to know anything for 100% certain. Science infers the most logical answer with the information at hand. This is what we know, this is how we can prove it, until we get further evidence to prove otherwise we will continue study on this path. It's not, this is what we know because we say so and you cant tell us we're wrong. That's religion.
3:20, another damn opinion.
3:54, more opinions!
4:00, that's right. Imaginary friends are less complex than the world around them. A god would require the ability to manipulate the universe whithout a physical body. That is where the unexplainable complexiion comes in and yet your Dr. William Craig seems to just overlook the entire part about god having magical superpowers. An imaginary friend is a simple idea made by imaginative minds. A god is an imaginative idea made by simple minds. Big difference. (and personally, my money's on the imaginary friend.)
4:51, guess what.. MORE OPINIONS! :D
Not to mention, I did a quick google search on your Doctor here. All of his doctorates are on philosophy and biblical theology. And he got them from a christian school. He isnt qualified to debate scientific facts, nor does he have the experience to really understand what he's debating. -
This kind of ties into our brief discussion if you can't prove supernatural existance, it is not there. But in reverse one could say since it hasn't been proven false, it can't be proven wrong.
-
It can be proven much more unlikely and highly detrimental to society. Not to mention the hypocracy of the religios side. Science will actually go out and prove their opinion. Religion says they're right and refuse to accept any information that points to otherwise. They refuse to admit that they might, and probably are wrong.
And like I said, religion can be proven much more unlikely and highly detrimental to society. What mroe reason do you need? -
That's more of the Catholic Church. I would say protestants are more open-minded.
Considering in the 1800's there was a 5% chance of divorce, compared to nowadays when it's like 55% or something, kids were better off back then. This would refer back to that stat in politics. -
Also back in the 1800's you were concidered adult at 15. If you were from the south, you were expected to know how to use a weapon by 12. In the north, you were expected to get a job and provide minimum wage income for doing the most dangerous jobs. Also, the reason divorce was so low back then is because if you had a divorce you would be shunned by almost everyone you knew. It was part of the hypocracy we just talked about. And none of this dismisses the fact that religion still wont provide any facts, and still persists that they are right in spite of that.
-
"Not to mention, I did a quick google search on your Doctor here. All of his doctorates are on philosophy and biblical theology. And he got them from a christian school. He isnt qualified to debate scientific facts, nor does he have the experience to really understand what he's debating."
That would make you unqualified to argue anything too. -
And in present day- people abuse numerous legal and illegal drugs, get DUI's, contract STD's, and more, have affairs and more.
I have a feeling that religion was also apart of the reason a person wouldn't divorce.
Beleive it or not, morals form biblical times can still be applied today and have positive affects -
Against professionals who have dedicated their lives to that particular branch of science? I'd pipe down and start taking notes. I would review the evidence that they give and ask questions, but I would keep my own opinion to myself until it was asked of me.
Against people on the internet who try and use said professors, I will gladly debate away because the person I'm against is just as qualified to back their opinion as they are to post videos online.
And I am actually working on having a voice in major debates. I'm majoring in human psychology and minoring in physics. I've aready taken the college intrance exam and passed, I'm just finishing my last year of highschool before I enroll.
So yes, I would be unqualified to argue anything if you were more qualified than me. But since we are both equals for now on the field of debate, I am as qualified as you. -
You realize that most Chrisitian schools teach evolution.
-
Bob- yeah, I relize that, so bringing up that point doesn't do much.
-
i have no issue with what christian schools teach. It's already biased because of the simple influence of idiology. What I dissagree with is the christian community trying to make public schools teach creationism.
-
Since it's as basic as it comes, reaching all religions, I think there should be a counter to the teaching of evolution and leave it up to the studne to decide what to believe.
-
But since, what is taught at schools is determined by the widely most accepted theory amoungst sceintists, it's not going to happen.
-
Correction, it isnt as basic as it comes. It only reaches Christianity. Every other religion has its own variation of the history of life. Roman and greeks believed it was the pantheon gods who saved them from the titans. The norse believed that the gods protected them from the ice trolls, Christianity actually incompases it's more gritty details from pagan beliefs, I never could understand hinduism, and I havent studied enough muslim belief to give that one, but you get my point. The creationism that you're talking about is christian only and only reaches christians.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
