|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2011 : 23:01:12 [Permalink]
|
| So what did Dawkins say that made you think he is making a stronger case for faith. He's an atheist, he has no need of faith. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2011 : 08:16:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
So what did Dawkins say that made you think he is making a stronger case for faith. |
Nonono. I asked justintime what Dawkins is missing which would make a stronger case for faith, since justintime claims that Dawkins' criticisms of Christianity are weak due to Dawkins' ignorance of the subject. Then justintime got confused. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2011 : 12:21:21 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | All these point were taken directly from a interview with Dawkins. Even the last bit about his purpose in life he found is selling/writing books. |
You've taken what I've said and what other people have said out of context and misrepresented it constantly throughout this forum. And now you want me and others here to just trust your interpretation of Dawkins? I don't think so. Quote him, provide us with the context, and then we'll see if you actually understand what he's saying or just mis-translating it into something that fits your own preconceptions.
| You get too excitable in debates(by your own admission to bngbuck in Skeptically quitting). |
Oh, you mean when I was addressing my tone, not the content of my posts? Yeah, and that invalidates what I've written in this thread how?
| You will do much better if you picked off days to debate or slap on an extra pair of diapers. |
Oh look, another ad hom attack that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. More confirmation you are a troll. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2011 : 14:23:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
Please read my post again. I said Dawkins has a very rudimentary knowledge about Christianity. I also said he is not a Biblical scholar. Now look at his academic qualifications. He has no degree in Theology or even attended any seminaries..
It is dumb to expect an evolutionary biologist and claimed Atheist such as Dawkins to make a stronger case for faith. He is on the opposite side of the fence. Surely you all must know that. |
Please read my post again. You're faulting Dawkins for being ignorant of Christianity. What parts of Christianity do you think he's ignorant of? Do those parts of Christianity make a case for faith?
|
Dawkins as I have stated is not a biblical scholar nor did he even attended any seminaries to talk intelligently about Christianity. He is totally ignorant of Christianity. He thinks religious people who believe in God are delusional.
His attack is on all peoples of religion according to his The God Delusion. Dawkins does not attack Christianity specifically nor can he because as I said before his fundamental understanding of Christianity is inadequate.
Why are you hanging on to your question about what parts of Christianity is Dawkins ignorant of and if those parts of Christianity make a case for faith is not even applicable.
Repeat his attack is on all peoples of religion that to believe in God is Delusional. Try rephrasing your question again.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2011 : 15:37:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Why are you hanging on to your question about what parts of Christianity is Dawkins ignorant of and if those parts of Christianity make a case for faith is not even applicable. |
No, you made it about Christianity on page one of this thread. You claimed that Dawkins was engaged in some sort of fallacy because of his alleged ignorance of Christianity.
Can you really not remember what you wrote a mere week ago?| Dawkins as I have stated is not a biblical scholar nor did he even attended any seminaries to talk intelligently about Christianity. |
Argument from non-authority.| He is totally ignorant of Christianity. |
Utterly false.| He thinks religious people who believe in God are delusional. |
True.| His attack is on all peoples of religion according to his The God Delusion. |
True.| Dawkins does not attack Christianity specifically... |
Not according to what you said.| ...nor can he because as I said before his fundamental understanding of Christianity is inadequate. |
I've been asking, what part of his understanding of Christianity is inadequate?!
Repeating the same claim won't magically make it come true. Just saying that he's not a Bible scholar doesn't mean that his grasp of the fundamentals of Christianity is below par. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 09:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Here is my first quote on Dawkins.
"The problem with Dawkins is he is a evolutionary biologist and not a religious/Biblical scholar. He has the right to claim his atheism. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about with his scientific background. He is caught in the same fallacy. Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of a god/creator."
1. "The problem with Dawkins is he is a evolutionary biologist and not a religious/Biblical scholar. Dawkins does not have a Theology degree or attended any seminaries.
2. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about. Should be taken in the context of my next point.
2, "Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of a god/creator."
3. He is caught in the same fallacy.
Dawkins was debating O'Reilly which I also mentioned in page 2. A creationist against a evolutionist. Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of god/creator. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 09:38:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Here is my first quote on Dawkins. Try putting it in context to the full post.
"The problem with Dawkins is he is a evolutionary biologist and not a religious/Biblical scholar. He has the right to claim his atheism. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about with his scientific background. He is caught in the same fallacy. Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of a god/creator."
1. "The problem with Dawkins is he is a evolutionary biologist and not a religious/Biblical scholar. Dawkins does not have a Theology degree or attended any seminaries.
2. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about. Should be taken in the context of my next point.
2, "Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of a god/creator."
3. He is caught in the same fallacy.
Dawkins was debating O'Reilly which I also mentioned in page 2. A creationist against a evolutionist. Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of god/creator.
|
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 09:44:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Here is my first quote on Dawkins.
"The problem with Dawkins is he is a evolutionary biologist and not a religious/Biblical scholar. He has the right to claim his atheism. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about with his scientific background. He is caught in the same fallacy. Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of a god/creator."
1. "The problem with Dawkins is he is a evolutionary biologist and not a religious/Biblical scholar. Dawkins does not have a Theology degree or attended any seminaries.
2. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about. Should be taken in the context of my next point.
2, "Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of a god/creator."
3. He is caught in the same fallacy.
Dawkins was debating O'Reilly which I also mentioned in page 2. A creationist against a evolutionist. Religion cannot disprove evolution no more than evolution can disprove the existence of god/creator.
|
I suppose pointing out that evolution says nothing on the existence/non-existence of a supreme being would just be lost on you.
I'll try to rephrase evolution into terms you might actually be able to comprehend.
Evolution is critters having kids that differ ever so slightly from their parents. Over time, these changes add up to whole new critters.
The question of God is not brought up nor addressed as it is religion, not science. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 09:46:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
So what did Dawkins say that made you think he is making a stronger case for faith. He's an atheist, he has no need of faith.
|
That is where DaveW just doesn't get it. The post was not about faith. It was Creationist against evolutionist. Why neither religion nor evolution can be used to disprove each other.
What DaveW is looking for is a whole separate debate on Christianity versus Dawkins. But Dawkins in his book The God Delusion does not attack Christianity. He finds all religious people who believe in a god delusional. Just like religion find non-believers infidels. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 09:54:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by podcat
So what did Dawkins say that made you think he is making a stronger case for faith. He's an atheist, he has no need of faith.
|
That is where DaveW just doesn't get it. The post was not about faith. It was Creationist against evolutionist. Why neither religion nor evolution can be used to disprove each other.
What DaveW is looking for is a whole separate debate on Christianity versus Dawkins. But Dawkins in his book The God Delusion does not attack Christianity. He finds all religious people who believe in a god delusional. Just like religion find non-believers infidels.
|
Unlike you, DaveW can read.
2. But when he attacks Christianity which he has a very rudimentary knowledge about.
|
Sez you.
You have yet to answer the question on what portions of Christianity that Dawkins is inadequate on.
You have made the claim. It is up to YOU to support it.
Just showing that Bill O'Reilly can browbeat guests and edit interviews has no bearing on the salient points he was making.
We continue to wait, knowing that you will trow up another red herring argument or another ad hom, for that evidence. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 10/24/2011 09:55:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 10:14:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by podcat
So what did Dawkins say that made you think he is making a stronger case for faith. He's an atheist, he has no need of faith. |
That is where DaveW just doesn't get it. The post was not about faith. It was Creationist against evolutionist. Why neither religion nor evolution can be used to disprove each other. |
Please quote, with page numbers, where Dawkins attempts to use evolution to disprove religion.| What DaveW is looking for is a whole separate debate on Christianity versus Dawkins. |
No, I'm looking for you to defend your claims about Dawkins' knowledge of Christianity being "inadequate." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 11:21:12 [Permalink]
|
Did you watch the O'Reilly debate with Dawkins. Here was a creationist facing Dawknis an evolutionist. Dawkins himself said you do not need god to explain creation. Creation can be explained purely through biological. evolution.
DaveW wrote
No, I'm looking for you to defend your claims about Dawkins' knowledge of Christianity being "inadequate." |
I already pointed out to you Dakwins does not have a Theology degree nor has he attended any seminaries. To prove one is not a doctor you look for his medical degree. DuH!!!! No degree ....no doctor.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 11:26:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I already pointed out to you Dakwins does not have a Theology degree nor has he attended any seminaries. |
Ah, another argument from non-authority. How fallacious.
But if that's the standard you wish to hold people to, unless you, justintime, can present us with your biology degree, we can conclude that your knowledge of evolution is inadequate to make any pronouncements about it (like in the other thread).
(Not that you haven't proven your inadequacy already.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2011 : 11:29:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
I already pointed out to you Dakwins does not have a Theology degree nor has he attended any seminaries. |
Ah, another argument from non-authority. How fallacious.
But if that's the standard you wish to hold people to, unless you, justintime, can present us with your biology degree, we can conclude that your knowledge of evolution is inadequate to make any pronouncements about it (like in the other thread).
(Not that you haven't proven your inadequacy already.)
|
Can you produce a biology degree or we can conclude that your knowledge of evolution is inadequate to make any pronouncements about it. |
|
|
 |
|
Richard Dawkins Victim of Discrimination
