The God delusion debate

[Cypress]

Richard Dawkins, biologist Oxford University versus John Lennox, mathematician Oxford University.

Brief wrap-up:
Dawkins: science offers better explanations of the natural world; blind faith leads to ignorance which leads to violence.
Lennox: atheism actually undermines science; science is very limited in what it can explain.

 

[domer76]

Richard Dawkins, biologist Oxford University versus John Lennox, mathematician Oxford University.

Brief wrap-up:
Dawkins: science offers better explanations of the natural world; blind faith leads to ignorance which leads to violence.
Lennox: atheism actually undermines science; science is very limited in what it can explain.

Partly agree. Science does offer better explanations. Blind faith does lead to ignorance. Not necessarily violence, however.

Atheism and science go very well together. Science is still limited, but not as much as blind faith.

 

[Cypress]

Partly agree. Science does offer better explanations. Blind faith does lead to ignorance. Not necessarily violence, however.

Atheism and science go very well together. Science is still limited, but not as much as blind faith.

These series of Dawkins- Lennox debates seem like the best ones out there on this issue, because they both are so good at being a spokesperson for their point of view.

Blind faith doesn't seem that well defined to me. On the one hand there is the Creation science museum, on the other hand devout christians and Muslims have won Nobel prizes in physics

 

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Richard Dawkins, biologist Oxford University versus John Lennox, mathematician Oxford University.

Brief wrap-up:
Dawkins: science offers better explanations of the natural world; blind faith leads to ignorance which leads to violence.
Lennox: atheism actually undermines science; science is very limited in what it can explain.

you have blind faith in science.



it's made you into an anti-human Nazi.

 

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

religion is more importantly about morality.

and you have nothing to say on that, because you embrace evil.

 

[Cypress]

you have blind faith in science.

Nope, I am one of the few here to actually make threads describing how science is a quite limited form of knowledge, even over the howls of protest by militant atheists

At the same time, Holy Rollers blatantly abuse scientific uncertainty to claim this lack of knowledge somehow justifies the god of Abraham

 

[Hume]

Nope, I am one of the few here to actually make threads describing how science is a quite limited form of knowledge, even over the howls of protest by militant atheists

Are those "militant atheists" real people or strawmen?

 

[Cypress]

Are those "militant atheists" real people or strawmen?

It's the posters who attempt to convince me that science can pretty much answer all the questions we have. Even when it comes to morality, ethics, aesthetics, values.

 

[Hume]

It's the posters who attempt to convince me that science can pretty much answer all the questions we have. Even when it comes to morality, ethics, aesthetics, values.

Okay, but who specifically? Why not name that person and debate him?
You seem obsessed with writing, "militant atheist."

 

[Cypress]

Cal

Okay, but who specifically? Why not name that person and debate him?
You seem obsessed with writing, "militant atheist."

It's not one single person, and call outs are for the war zone

Some of my interlocutors were convinced that science can be a source of all knowledge, and they had a sense that anything beyond science is irrational.

 

[Hume]

Cal

It's not one single person, and call outs are for the war zone

Some of my interlocutors were convinced that science can be a source of all knowledge, and they had a sense that anything beyond science is irrational.

So, straw man. Got it.

 

[Cypress]

So, straw man. Got it.

Nope. Even Richard Dawkins in his opening statement insinuates that science is the source of all worthwhile knowledge.

 

[Hume]

Nope. Even Richard Dawkins in his opening statement insinuates that science is the source of all worthwhile knowledge.

Who cares about Richard Dawkins. He does not speak for me.

 

[Cypress]

Who cares about Richard Dawkins. He does not speak for me.

Review this thread if you are still pretending that there aren't any posters here who believe science can pretty much be the source of all worthwhile knowledge -->

Science can't answer these questions

These questions are universally shared by all human beings. 1. Is existence meaningful, absurd, or both? 2. How should I live my life? Does it matter? 3. Do I need other people? Why? How? 4. What does death mean, if anything? Francis Ambrosio, Georgetown University

www.justplainpolitics.com

 

[Hume]

Review this thread if you are still pretending that there aren't any posters here who believe science can pretty much be the source of all worthwhile knowledge.

Science can't answer these questions

These questions are universally shared by all human beings. 1. Is existence meaningful, absurd, or both? 2. How should I live my life? Does it matter? 3. Do I need other people? Why? How? 4. What does death mean, if anything? Francis Ambrosio, Georgetown University

www.justplainpolitics.com

Well, I have Obtenebrator on ignore. So, I don't care what he says about anything.

 

[Hume]

Zen mode also tried to make the case for materialistic scientism, as has my

Yes, he believes the brain is an autonomous entity.

 

[Cypress]

Well, I have Obtenebrator on ignore. So, I don't care what he says about anything.

Zen mode also tried make the case for materialistic scientism, as has my friend evince.

Are you prepared stop pretending it's a strawman, and strict materialistic reductionists actually exist?

 

[Hume]

Zen mode also tried make the case for materialistic scientism, as has my friend evince.

Are you prepared stop pretending it's a strawman, and strict materialistic reductionists actually exist?

I wanted you to clarify. As I said, I have some of the people you mentioned on ignore and never see their posts.

 

[domer76]

These series of Dawkins- Lennox debates seem like the best ones out there on this issue, because they both are so good at being a spokesperson for their point of view.

Blind faith doesn't seem that well defined to me. On the one hand there is the Creation science museum, on the other hand devout christians and Muslims have won Nobel prizes in physics

I’m biased, I know. But I’ve never seen any apologist with an argument that was worth a shit. At least the ones trying to convince me the Bible stories are scientifically plausible and/or that science validates them.

 

[Cypress]

I’m biased, I know. But I’ve never seen any apologist with an argument that was worth a shit. At least the ones trying to convince me the Bible stories are scientifically plausible and/or that science validates them.

They bible is literature that should never be taken as a work of science or historical biography; those two literary genres were not even invented at that time in the near East.