User Tag List

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678
Results 106 to 112 of 112

Thread: Richard Dawkins - will he debate the existence of God?

  1. #106
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,550
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 12,176 Times in 8,701 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147845
    Umm .. so .. no word then?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. #107
    TOL Subscriber CRASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1200
    Why?
    Psalms 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

  3. #108
    One Post Wonder
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I agree that Hitchens would make for a better debate..

    Dawkins philosophical background, is well erm. Well judging from his commentary of Thomas Aquanis he's similar to a college freshman that took Philosophy 101 and considers himself a master of all forms of philosophy.

  4. #109
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,550
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 12,176 Times in 8,701 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by CRASH View Post
    Why?
    What why?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  5. #110
    Over 1500 post club Frank Ernest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, IN
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1530
    Quote Originally Posted by johhny-turbo View Post
    I agree that Hitchens would make for a better debate..

    Dawkins philosophical background, is well erm. Well judging from his commentary of Thomas Aquanis he's similar to a college freshman that took Philosophy 101 and considers himself a master of all forms of philosophy.
    Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?

    Psalm 144

  6. #111
    TOL Legend Granite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Live free or die.
    Posts
    11,960
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 23 Times in 21 Posts

    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    519640
    At any rate I don't think anybody here ever thought Dawkins would take this offer seriously. Personally I like Hitchens's style better, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that, either.
    If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.
    --George Monbiot




    Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
    --Homer J. Simpson

  7. #112
    Journeyman laughsoutloud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Ernest View Post
    Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?
    Oh come on.

    Here is the problem - there is no evidence that can be considered "scientific" to support the existence of God.

    So you have to fall back on personal experience (which is subject to interpretation, as millions do to "prove" all sorts of things that cannot be demonstrated, including contradictory religious beliefs), or you have to fall back on various logical arguments which, as Wittgenstein noted about philosophy, just becomes a discussion about the meaning of words.

    ID was all about trying to put some scientific muscle behind Paley's watchmaker argument, but it has been a total failure in that department, as demonstrated by how the DI and others have pretty much given up on it. After all the smoke clears, ID is no more than an argument from personal incredulity.

    So you are left with faith - this is what you believe. Dawkins has stated that God's existence is as likely as Russel's idea that there is a teapot orbiting in space - you can't actually prove that it is not out there, but there are pretty good reasons to doubt. You can read what he has to say here, and see for yourself.

    The kicker is that, so far, science has not had to invoke "God did it" to explain anything about the natural world. Quite the opposite, so far, all the things we have found out about the world shows that it works according to natural principles.

    All the objections (the origin of the cosmos, the transition from non-life to life, the DNA molecule, etc.) do not constitute proof of God, but simply a lack of knowledge. "We don't know" is not the same thing as "God did it." You may believe that God did it, but that does not make you right (or wrong, as of yet).

    So what is the point of a debate? He's made his case, people have responded over and over - what would a verbal joust prove?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us