|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 23, 2020 20:38:29 GMT
Do you agree with what Richard Dawkins says in this video?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 23, 2020 20:56:00 GMT
Does he have a bullet point list at the end?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 20:58:38 GMT
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 20:59:31 GMT
Does he have a bullet point list at the end? You have to do your own! I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 23, 2020 21:04:21 GMT
I mean I can't really find any fault with what he said, though I do consider pretty much all religious arguments (Watchmaker, Pascal's Wager, prim mover, fine tuning, morality argument) not very good and refuting them is just shooting fish in a barrel. I would like to see him take on more abstract, open ended topics (secular vs Christian morality, Christian socialism, secular humanism, Christian culturalism) rather than these tired theist arguments that have already been refuted a million times. Though I'm assuming he's probably done some of those other topics as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 21:08:06 GMT
I mean I can't really find any fault with what he said, though I do consider pretty much all religious arguments (Watchmaker, Pascal's Wager, prim mover, fine tuning, morality argument) not very good and refuting them is just shooting fish in a barrel. I would like to see him take on more abstract, open ended topics (secular vs Christian morality, Christian socialism, secular humanism, Christian culturalism) rather than these tired theist arguments that have already been refuted a million times. Though I'm assuming he's probably done some of those other topics as well. IMHO it served the OP's purpose. Those are other topics which I am sure Dawkins has addressed which you could make threads about. 
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 23, 2020 22:08:59 GMT
You watched the presentation?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 22:16:58 GMT
You watched the presentation? Yes. Because 2 min 25 seconds is the outer limits of my concentration span. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 22:49:32 GMT
He isn't very thorough. He hasn't considered the possibility that he is hallucinating.
No, Darwin did not explain the origin of life. Darwin did show that fully designed things might get altered in their design, which people already knew for centuries. Darwin did not show how dumb, base ingredients without "design" can get one. Even the atheists on this board know that. At least they mindlessly repeat "abiogenesis is not evolution" whether they understand what that means or not. They appear to have some acquaintance with a "motte and bailey fallacy" whereby similar arguments are conflated to avoid direct confrontation with the more difficult one. Yet they do not seem to be aware that evolution is the "motte" and abiogenesis is the "bailey."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 23, 2020 22:55:39 GMT
You watched the presentation? Yes. Because 2 min 25 seconds is the outer limits of my concentration span. The reason I asked is because at roughly the same time you were saying, "yes" here you were giving clusium and purmutojoe a message that says this:
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 23:51:11 GMT
Yes. Because 2 min 25 seconds is the outer limits of my concentration span. The reason I asked is because at roughly the same time you were saying, "yes" here you were giving clusium and purmutojoe a message that says this: Yet the OP in this case made a point and illustrated that point with a short video not requiring the video to make his point for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 24, 2020 0:10:51 GMT
So were his five points just refutations of arguments FOR god? That proves only (if he is accurate) that those arguments are not valid reasons to believe in God, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist at all. (I have not watched it, I am at work, but given the responses above it seems like this is what the video is
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 0:17:33 GMT
So were his five points just refutations of arguments FOR god? That proves only (if he is accurate) that those arguments are not valid reasons to believe in God, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist at all. (I have not watched it, I am at work, but given the responses above it seems like this is what the video is Are there others that he is ignoring? The points are in another post on here by Cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 24, 2020 0:19:29 GMT
So were his five points just refutations of arguments FOR god? That proves only (if he is accurate) that those arguments are not valid reasons to believe in God, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist at all. (I have not watched it, I am at work, but given the responses above it seems like this is what the video is Are there others that he is ignoring? The points are in another post on here by Cool. it does not matter if there are others he is ignoring, proving an argument FOR god is false does not prove there is no God. I cant see cools post, not on this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 0:21:41 GMT
Are there others that he is ignoring? The points are in another post on here by Cool. it does not matter if there are others he is ignoring, proving an argument FOR god is false does not prove there is no God. I cant see cools post, not on this thread? Sorry, it was Lowtack.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 24, 2020 0:26:42 GMT
it does not matter if there are others he is ignoring, proving an argument FOR god is false does not prove there is no God. I cant see cools post, not on this thread? Sorry, it was Lowtack. right so yeah that was what I was basing my comment on, disproving the 500 year old arguments for God does nothing to prove that there is no God, it simply proves that these arguments are not valid proof for god.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 0:30:20 GMT
right so yeah that was what I was basing my comment on, disproving the 500 year old arguments for God does nothing to prove that there is no God, it simply proves that these arguments are not valid proof for god. Are there any valid arguments for proof of God?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 24, 2020 0:33:32 GMT
The reason I asked is because at roughly the same time you were saying, "yes" here you were giving clusium and purmutojoe a message that says this: Yet the OP in this case made a point and illustrated that point with a short video not requiring the video to make his point for him. More than that, this is the great Richard Dawkins in the video. And anything the great Richard Dawkins says must be THE TRUTH!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 24, 2020 0:34:59 GMT
right so yeah that was what I was basing my comment on, disproving the 500 year old arguments for God does nothing to prove that there is no God, it simply proves that these arguments are not valid proof for god. Are there any valid arguments for proof of God? Who cares??? That is not the stance being described here, the stance is that theses are the best reasons to not believe there is a god, when in actual fact all he has done is refute the arguments for god, unless he is prepared to forward an argument for there being no god then he has not done anything to prove it. To be fair the wording is ambigious, he cold be interpreted as saying that I was given 5 reasons to believe in god and since I can refute them effectively those are 5 reasons why I do not believe in a god, but of course the vague wording is intentionally there so that people think he has actually presented a cogent argument to not believe in God, which is not what refutation of these arguments is.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 1:48:07 GMT
Yet the OP in this case made a point and illustrated that point with a short video not requiring the video to make his point for him. More than that, this is the great Richard Dawkins in the video. And anything the great Richard Dawkins says must be THE TRUTH! Really? I was referring to the OP and his point not the content of the vid or who was in it!
|
|
