[QUOTE=Zeke129;18278953]Like the Qur'an?
Like the Torah?
Like the Pāli Canon?
They're all the same [i]judgmental ignorant propaganda[/i].[/QUOTE]
You forgot the agnostics.
Meh, I dislike him for his principle about not believing anything unless there is empirical evidence behind it.
[QUOTE=PQNY;18277980]God I hate that Dawkins prick sooo much. He makes me mad.[/QUOTE]says a nazi horse
[QUOTE=M_B;18275627]itt: 1 christian[/QUOTE]
This right here is what causes these annoying religious debates
[QUOTE=girtastic;18281730]You forgot the agnostics.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about holy books, of which agnostics and atheists have none.
[editline]02:00PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18282307]Meh, I dislike him for his principle about not believing anything unless there is empirical evidence behind it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, pesky annoying logic.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18282561]I'm talking about holy books, of which agnostics and atheists have none.
[editline]02:00PM[/editline]
Yeah, pesky annoying logic.[/QUOTE]
Prove the statement "Only believe something if it has empirical evidence behind it", using empirical evidence.
I think this is a great thread for Muslims to come party in.
I am Muslim and what is this?
[QUOTE=Mr_Proudfoot;18278046]I agree with dawkins,
but you all fucking worship him like a god.[/QUOTE]
i wonder how you gathered all of that about me by me just saying he was a christian. well, whatever method you used, you should rework it, i don't worship him by any means whatsoever.
dawkins<3
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18282670]Prove the statement "Only believe something if it has empirical evidence behind it", using empirical evidence.[/QUOTE]
You can't prove an imperative, dorkwinkle.
Richard Dawkins sounds like a pansy.
He was probably beat up by a bunch of Christians when he was young.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;18287878]Richard Dawkins sounds like a pansy.
He was probably beat up by a bunch of Christians when he was young.[/QUOTE]
Uh, he only said science is interesting, which is true for religious / non-religious people
[QUOTE=Kondor;18287887]Uh, he only said science is interesting, which is true for religious / non-religious people[/QUOTE]
Ya, science is interesting, but Sagan is a much better atheist than Dawkins.
[QUOTE=CptFuzzies;18275858]Science =/= Religious replacement.
I too am a Christian.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this.
[QUOTE=Kondor;18287887]Uh, he only said science is interesting, which is true for religious / non-religious people[/QUOTE]
This.
Morals and spirituality of religion mixed with the logic and observation of science is pretty good.
Richard Dawkins is a little nerde bitch.
[QUOTE=TH89;18287868]You can't prove an imperative, dorkwinkle.[/QUOTE]
So then surely Dawkins' maxim is false?
Surely it's a self-contradiction. He is asking for you to only believe things that science can empirically prove, and at the same time asking you to believe his word without asking for evidence.
I mean, I'm an Atheist and cannot stand stories of religion influencing government, but I find that Dawkins is almost as bad as some fundamentalists, even if he argues for the same thing that I do.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18299557]So then surely Dawkins' maxim is false?
Surely it's a self-contradiction. He is asking for you to only believe things that science can empirically prove, and at the same time asking you to believe his word without asking for evidence.[/QUOTE]
You would make a good philosopher.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18282307]Meh, I dislike him for his principle about not believing anything unless there is empirical evidence behind it.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that kind of the reasoning behind science?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18299557]So then surely Dawkins' maxim is false?
Surely it's a self-contradiction. He is asking for you to only believe things that science can empirically prove, and at the same time asking you to believe his word without asking for evidence.[/QUOTE]
He has never and never will ask that.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18299557]I mean, I'm an Atheist and cannot stand stories of religion influencing government, but I find that Dawkins is almost as bad as some fundamentalists, even if he argues for the same thing that I do.[/QUOTE]
I think you're just trying to distinguish yourself as "different" by talking down Dawkins because he's popular, without actually listening to what he has to say.
You guys are all fucking dumb, if you were really that smart you'd find out we don't know shit about how the multiverses(multiple universes) were created.
We don't know shit, that is the fucking truth.
You can speculate all you want and trust the guys in labcoats, but YOUR OPINION DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - TH89))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=TH89;18305342]He has never and never will ask that.
I think you're just trying to distinguish yourself as "different" by talking down Dawkins because he's popular, without actually listening to what he has to say.[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to distinguish myself as "different" by talking him down because he's popular. Problem is, he isn't popular at all in philosophical circles, and he is guilty of the same spin and language of those who argue for fundamentalism.
And he has asked that, in his documentary [I]The Root of All Evil?[/I]. It's a self-contradiction that has been brought up before. [url]http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=453[/url]
Not only that, but the interview he did with Alister McGrath was cut and put on the DVD for reasons explained in the wiki article on it.
I just don't understand this fascination with Dawkins, I find David Hume to be far more convincing, even though he died over 200 years ago.
The Great Church of Hasselhoff does not approve of this thread.
But hey, lets argue about the meaning of life on an internet forum about gaming and pretend we're doing something :V
[QUOTE=Thugaim;18307002]You guys are all fucking dumb, if you were really that smart you'd find out we don't know shit about how the multiverses(multiple universes) were created.
We don't know shit, that is the fucking truth.
You can speculate all you want and trust the guys in labcoats, but YOUR OPINION DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.[/QUOTE]
If it was purely speculation it wouldn't be science.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18316961]I'm not trying to distinguish myself as "different" by talking him down because he's popular. Problem is, he isn't popular at all in philosophical circles, and he is guilty of the same spin and language of those who argue for fundamentalism.[/QUOTE]
He's not a philosopher.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18316961]And he has asked that, in his documentary [I]The Root of All Evil?[/I]. It's a self-contradiction that has been brought up before. [url]http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=453[/url][/QUOTE]
This site says that since torturing babies is wrong, there must be a God. Didn't you say you were an atheist?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18316961]I just don't understand this fascination with Dawkins, I find David Hume to be far more convincing, even though he died over 200 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Dawkins' main focus is on genetics and evolution, not atheism.
[QUOTE=TH89;18323392]He's not a philosopher.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but does his search for knowledge not make him a philosopher?
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;18323590]Ah, but does his search for knowledge not make him a philosopher?[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=TH89;18323638]No.[/QUOTE]
You sure?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
