Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 23018 times)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #125 on: March 03, 2012, 02:20:02 PM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic these days...



  This is not true. Theists love to twart facts. Dawkins describes himself as 99.9999% atheistic and 0.0001% agnostic. By this, he means he cannot completely rule out the possibility of God. But he thinks it is very, very unlikely.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Natural Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11168
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #126 on: March 03, 2012, 02:21:23 PM »
LOL... You are such a troll.
he s not trolling, he s just inconceivably ignorant, immature and in need of attention.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #127 on: March 03, 2012, 02:29:27 PM »
he s not trolling, he s just inconceivably ignorant, immature and in need of attention.

  I think even he doesen't believe the bullshit he spits. You address his stupid "points" and completely demolish them, and he makes those exact points again with slightly different phrasing and wording and then claims you haven't addressed anything. I gave up arguing with him in this thread after I realized that to him it was just about him being proud and saving face and not actuallly having any valid points to make:

  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0

SUCKMYMUSCLE

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #128 on: March 03, 2012, 02:56:02 PM »
LOL... You are such a troll.
  nope, just speakin the truth

Natural Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11168
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #129 on: March 03, 2012, 02:57:19 PM »

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #130 on: March 03, 2012, 03:00:18 PM »

lol, coming from the guy who goes around preaching about end times prophecy from the bible ...    kind of ironic  ;D

Metabolic

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Team I Fucked Her Face
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #131 on: March 03, 2012, 03:03:17 PM »
She is just so full of shit, ad-hoc hypothesis everywhere, stating unprovable facts, pure dogma beliefs to support her "demonstrations"...Crap, she is just crap.

Rami

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • One Hundred Percent
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #132 on: March 03, 2012, 03:05:49 PM »
she did good, and I bet she's a complete brute in bed

Rami

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • One Hundred Percent
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #133 on: March 03, 2012, 04:17:52 PM »
how can you not fap to this


deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2667
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #134 on: March 03, 2012, 05:58:09 PM »
So tbombz again, what schools did you finish?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26511
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #135 on: March 03, 2012, 06:13:07 PM »
  This is not true. Theists love to twart facts. Dawkins describes himself as 99.9999% atheistic and 0.0001% agnostic. By this, he means he cannot completely rule out the possibility of God. But he thinks it is very, very unlikely.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Dawkins himself disagrees with you...watch the video and the clip and he specifically says he calls himself an agnostic.

yes it believes that his views are 6.9 out of 7 right but even your dear leader cannot dismiss the possible existence of a god.

sorry if this hurts.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5422
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #136 on: March 03, 2012, 08:13:27 PM »
  nope, just speakin the truth

Quote from: tbombz
electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained.

You sure are. Just out of curiosity, is your computer using "unexplained" electricity, or are you using a steam-powered model?

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #137 on: March 03, 2012, 08:25:01 PM »
Dawkins himself disagrees with you...watch the video and the clip and he specifically says he calls himself an agnostic.

yes it believes that his views are 6.9 out of 7 right but even your dear leader cannot dismiss the possible existence of a god.

sorry if this hurts.

  Idiot!!!!!!!!! Dawkins said he isn't 100% an atheist becuse he can't rule out completely the possibility of there being a God. He is still 99.99999% atheistic and 0.00001% agnostic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

oni

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #138 on: March 03, 2012, 10:06:06 PM »
I've actually met Dawkins in real life a few times, my dad was taught by him at Oxford and we would bump into each other a few times
While I agree with what he says he is one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. I hope one day to be like him

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #139 on: March 04, 2012, 12:50:34 PM »
You sure are. Just out of curiosity, is your computer using "unexplained" electricity, or are you using a steam-powered model?
your walking through a forest and you come across a tennis ball. you ask yourself.. where did that tennis ball come from? how did it get here?   after much time researching the issue you somehow come to prove that a man named ted had brought that tennis ball into the forest 2 weeks earlier while on a camping trip.

but you still dont know how ted got the tennis ball to begin with, why ted brought it into the forest, where the ball was made at, of what materials the ball was made from, who started the company that made the tennis ball, who invented the tennis ball, what kinds of balls existed before that that inspired the inventor of the tennis ball... ect


you can say X caused Y, but you still need to explain X before Y is actually explained.  

 ;)

Growth NOOB

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #140 on: March 04, 2012, 01:02:54 PM »
your walking through a forest and you come across a tennis ball. you ask yourself.. where did that tennis ball come from? how did it get here?   after much time researching the issue you somehow come to prove that a man named ted had brought that tennis ball into the forest 2 weeks earlier while on a camping trip.

but you still dont know how ted got the tennis ball to begin with, why ted brought it into the forest, where the ball was made at, of what materials the ball was made from, who started the company that made the tennis ball, who invented the tennis ball, what kinds of balls existed before that that inspired the inventor of the tennis ball... ect


you can say X caused Y, but you still need to explain X before Y is actually explained.  

 ;)

Why do you always invoke this "infinite regression" argument?  You are essentially claiming that nothing at all can be explained, ever. 

What you are doing is pointless.  Just because you can ask a follow up question, why would that take away from the actual answer you are seeking? 

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #141 on: March 04, 2012, 01:11:08 PM »
You are essentially claiming that nothing at all can be explained, ever. 


thats basically the gist of it broseph  :)


some quote from Socrates:


And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.

Rami

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8066
  • One Hundred Percent
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #142 on: March 04, 2012, 01:14:07 PM »
when we become god, will he believe in god then?

Obvious Gimmick

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6213
  • I'd hit it
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #143 on: March 04, 2012, 01:15:23 PM »
wish god would create me a sandwich, too lazy to walk to kitchen

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #144 on: March 04, 2012, 01:15:28 PM »
when we become god, will he believe in god then?
 ;D its just his imagination


wavelength

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
  • ~~~
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #145 on: March 05, 2012, 12:05:05 AM »
You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.


It has been discussed elaborately a few years ago in the religion section.
Science has its purpose of course, it's a very beautiful body of knowledge.
But it's not the one that will deliver essential truth, only philosophy can do that.

Growth NOOB

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #146 on: March 05, 2012, 07:41:44 AM »
thats basically the gist of it broseph  :)


some quote from Socrates:


And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.


I understand what you are saying, and the philosophy behind it, but what does it actually accomplish?   Why not work towards what truths we can attain?  Once we know the answer to one question, it will more than likely help towards answering a deeper mystery.

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28646
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #147 on: March 05, 2012, 07:47:47 AM »
.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9860
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #148 on: March 05, 2012, 08:15:52 AM »
Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in
evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA.
Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA  
reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species.
I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand
and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor,
of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in nature
must have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life.
Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn't
fully explain similarities in DNA.



you nitwit creationism isnt a theory, it has no testable falsifiable criteria, evolution does, jesus are you that stupid, do you think by making your appeal to authority in the beginning of your post would make me take you serious?


creationism cannot be falsified, the fact that you are stating this and then making comments about how someone couldn't disprove it shows your lack of intellect. Don't come in the thunderdome with your weak pedantic zealotous bullshit.

no the majority of evidence for evolution is not dna, you fucking incredible asshole, genetics wasn't even around when evolution was postulated, that very fact the fact that we are temporal creatures indicates that dna is not all that evolution rests on since the theory was formulated without it. its not similarities either asshole, there are certain genes that have to be expressed in order for the phenotypic changes you witness to be realized, this is a natural progression, to find genes activated in humans that are normally not but are found in dolphins would disprove genetics. Genetics states that things evolved from common ancestors as is found in the fucking fossil record, the whole thing, not once has there been a contradiction. Genetics explains how things evolved and gives us objective data to do so, GENES!.

you idea is one of mere conjecture, perhaps its not gravity and the mass of objects applying force to each other, or the space-time fabric posited by einstein it is god holding things up, perhaps that explains things better then gravity, the math, the observations, the...fuck it your too stupid, this world makes me sad.

perhaps the similarities in dna are simply god using the same template, perhaps its not gravity god is using a tractor beam we can't see, its not the rotation of the earth causing friction and thus wind, its god blowing from another dimension, just having a whistle. This is your argument, perhaps god explains everything, tell me how to test it, how to falsify it? how can i test your claim that it is god using the same template? i can i prove god, template, how to use the template, were is this template,why use dna? it seems stupid actually, if i was god i would just create everything whole and healthy, evolution has all sorts of problems like mutations and survival of the fittest etc, its almost a cruel way to develop the world if you had the power to avoid it. Ethically your arguments are hollow even.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9860
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #149 on: March 05, 2012, 08:20:02 AM »
  Idiot!!!!!!!!! Dawkins said he isn't 100% an atheist becuse he can't rule out completely the possibility of there being a God. He is still 99.99999% atheistic and 0.00001% agnostic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

correct, he even states the degree of atheism, strong versus weak. Atheism is a scale not a point as dawkins describes, atheism is associated with a non-belief, but dawkins in his books outlines that the inclination one has dictates their beliefs. That is, he is agnostic in that he doesn't claim to know but thinks its unlikely, thus he is a weak atheism, he is not agnostic, or neutral in any sense.

i agree with your points.