24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Dawkins tends to try to prove the unproveable - that there is no God. Eagleton takes the unimpeachable position that God exists in many forms at least as a cultural entity. People can and :censored:ing well do believe what they want - they also frequently choose not to test their beliefs rigorously using scientific methods. No amount of brow-beating will ever change that, so why bother? It's a foolish waste of time. Did you watch Earth Story yet? It's absolutely spectacularly good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 That could be awesome!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Asteroid 2012da14 - It'll miss, just. http://www.space.com/19686-asteroid-2012-da14-earth-flyby-nasa.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLatics Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Dawkins tends to try to prove the unproveable - that there is no God. Eagleton takes the unimpeachable position that God exists in many forms at least as a cultural entity. People can and :censored:ing well do believe what they want - they also frequently choose not to test their beliefs rigorously using scientific methods. No amount of brow-beating will ever change that, so why bother? It's a foolish waste of time. Did you watch Earth Story yet? It's absolutely spectacularly good. Depends on your definition of proof. It's impossible to 'prove' literally anything - we can't prove gravity, we're just almost certain that it exists. Dawkins acknowledges that there is a possibility of a God, but equates its likelihood to that of the tooth fairy being real, given that they both have the same levels of proof. Of course people can believe what they want (who said they can't?!), Dawkins (and many others) believe that a secular world would be a better one so naturally they'll try to put over their point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 We can't prove gravity... f=gm1m2/ r2 Drop something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLatics Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 f=gm1m2/ r2 Drop something. Yeah yeah, give me an argument I haven't heard a million times ;-) Not proof, just makes it extraordinarily likely to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Of course you are being philosophical,and that's fine. However if we evaluate the causes as to what is being observed...Occam's Razor and plausibility. I know my money is on gravity and not God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Of course you are being philosophical,and that's fine. Philosophy owns Science. Epistemological FACT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Epistemological FACT. Wondered when you would rock up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Wondered when you would rock up. You wondered it. I would have derived the answer from first principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 You wondered it. I would have derived the answer from first principles. Only if we deduced that there was only one assumption that could be observed. You could have just as easily - and equally - not given a toss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Dawkins tends to try to prove the unproveable - that there is no God. I can quite confidently state that Dawkins has never tried to do this, nor is this is a fair characterization of his position. In fact, I would say that the amount of atheists who hold this position would be part of an extreme minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 That could be awesome!! Portentous. A natural harbinger of ill fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I can quite confidently state that Dawkins has never tried to do this, nor is this is a fair characterization of his position. In fact, I would say that the amount of atheists who hold this position would be part of an extreme minority. So you lot really are just purely yapping at people because of what they believe. Good. It makes it slightly more straightforward for you to butt out and mind your own business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I am atheist and skeptic, and I understand that there aren't just two pigeon holes - skeptic or believer; most fit along in between the two so common ground can be achieved. As Steven Novella says, if your goal is to convince someone else to be a bit more skeptical about stuff (which is my goal), then it is helpful to find common intellectual ground and generally not piss them off - We are all humans, with the same basic cognitive biases and mental flaws. If you approach someone with the attitude that they are gullible and you have all the answers, you are not likely to get far. I'm in the same corner as Dawkins, but I know that he shouldn't be exempt from criticism - he's not infallible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 So you lot really are just purely yapping at people because of what they believe. Good. It makes it slightly more straightforward for you to butt out and mind your own business. Touchy aren't we? Besides, whilst it may be fun to challenge wacky (or otherwise) beliefs with discussion, outspoken atheists tend to be more vocal about the actions of some believers and how they impact on others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Touchy aren't we? Besides, whilst it may be fun to challenge wacky (or otherwise) beliefs with discussion, outspoken atheists tend to be more vocal about the actions of some believers and how they impact on others. Oh portentous comet! Please land on the coffee table of Alain de Botton, Just after Richard Dawkins has asked for one sugar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Oh portentous comet! Please land on the coffee table of Alain de Botton, Just after Richard Dawkins has asked for one sugar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.