b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7671429 (Thread)

# by the search for truth?
(I helped save b3ta! Dr. Strange Now Fully ISO 3103 Compliant!, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:37, archived)
# Yes
(Pachey, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:38, archived)
# Science, fables, religion
they are all just ways in which we shape the world which is beyond our understanding.

An element of what is scientific fact today WILL be proved wrong in the future. Science is justified opinion, but it is opinion.

His intolerance of others is bordering on religious bigotry. The man is a fundamentalist and causes hurt to others.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:40, archived)
# he is a bit of a twat when he talks to people with different views
(I helped save b3ta! Laird Dave Draws Now charges to take off his clothes., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:41, archived)
# Yes.
He is guilty of every trait he demands be wiped out by religious nutjobs.

He is overzealous and of no use to humanity.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:43, archived)
# ^This
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:54, archived)
# here he explains why
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A5DA8D-E7F2-99DF-32F53BCD97024B43&sc=I100322
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:44, archived)
# I give him the finger when he's on the telly
safe in the knowledge that I can see him and he can't see me

this gives me a feeling of IMMENSE POWER

then I have a custard cream
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:44, archived)
# hahahahah
(I helped save b3ta! Dixipoos Bye Bye Blackbird, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:45, archived)
# I sometimes feed the sparrows too
(I helped save b3ta! M3Essential and The Essentials. LIVE!, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:47, archived)
# oi!
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:49, archived)
# a fine reward
for giving that prick the finger.
(I helped save b3ta! Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:47, archived)
# The possibility that the scientific view of things may change in the future
is exactly what makes Dawkins the opposite of a fundamentalist.

Science is constantly re-evaluating itself as new evidence is discovered. It is open to criticism and discussion. Fundamentalism is not.

If anyone found even the slightest bit of credible evidence that a God exists, I am sure Dawkins would be fascinated to see it and would alter his stance accordingly. As things stand, no such evidence is available.

Science may not be able to explain everything, but that does not mean we have to fill the gaps with God.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:04, archived)
# THIS EXACTLY!!


but wouldn't it be ironic if Dawkins was actually the son of God.
(I helped save b3ta! frogdoctor learning the hard way since 1972., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:06, archived)
# True
but that doesn't disprove the original point that Dawkins is a fucking cock.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:10, archived)
# We indeed do not have to fill the gaps with God
but if people want to have theories about what fills the gaps then only a cock will not let them.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:11, archived)
# why is fighting ignorance
being a cock?
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:14, archived)
# Assuming that belief in a creator = ignorance
is being a cock.

Unless of course you actually have proof that God doesn't exist?
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:15, archived)
# No. You don't need a proof of good existence (or non-existence)
you are an ignorant because you ignore that the gaps are integral part of the scientific method and that there is no need for a creator to fill them.
Besides, is impossible to "fill the gaps" withouth "destroying" the rest of the house
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:23, archived)
# Utter drivel.
There's no need to fill the gaps with God but it's just as ignorant to assume that's the only possible place he can be or to assume that just because science can quantify something, it can explain it.

I have just as much problem with the Intelligent Design fuckwits as I do with Dawkins.

Nobody can prove that God does or doesn't exist. Assuming that one or other belief = ignorance makes you an arrogant cock.

And that destroying the house sentence doesn't actually make sense.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:31, archived)
# This.
I have a massive problem with religious fundamentalists, but Dawkins has gone from being a fairly rounded scientist to being a man who says 'you like God! you are an idiot!'.

His crimes are identical to those of the religious bigotry brigade.

Tolerance is required and he doesn't have it.

Nor do I always, but I don't set myself on a pedestal.

Scientific assumptions ARE belief.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:34, archived)
# the house analogy is the whole point
is not about the existence of god or not. Is invoking god (without any evidence for its existence) to to explain natural phenomena.

The house analogy is to clarify that gaps have already existed (and will already exist). Until 400 years ago, the creator was used to explain planetary motion. Now we have a scientific theory for it. So either invoking god at that point was incorrect, or our current scientific theory for planetary motion is incorrect. But we can track back the planetary theory to other scientific theories, which must be now wrong as well (otherwise our planetary motion theory would be correct) and so on and so forth, until we are left with no scientific theory at all.
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:45, archived)
# Yes BUT
we have stories to fill the gaps in knowledge.

zealots who cannot accept that they might be wrong and someone else might be right are idiots.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:11, archived)
# yes
but see Mistery Bob's below.
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:17, archived)
# Not wanting to fill the gaps is ignorant.
Accepting that it is a task which can never be completed does not make the search for knowledge any less valid.

Deciding which elements you are assuming and which you are casting aside is equally valid. Occam's Razor is an excellent machination.

Deciding that those who choose different assumptions are ignorant is bigotry.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:32, archived)
# As I have said elsewhere
I think Dawkins is happy for people to believe anything they like. It's human nature for people to believe in any number of a million different things and I doubt he believes he can stop that (in fact, he writes about possible ways such belief systems may have arisen).

However, why should he not be vocal about his views and try to convince others to take them on board? Isn't that what religion does constantly?
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:27, archived)
# There would be no problem if he didn't mind religion doing it too
but he says that they should be stopped whilst his message be preached, for example, in schools.

I am not in favour of either camp, but the support for Dawkins by people who are pleased to see fundamentalists shouted down appalls me, since he IS a fundamentalist.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:37, archived)
# It always eems to come back to the word "fundamantalist"
but a fundamentalist is somebody who cannot change his view. He has a belief system that will not alter, regardless of whatever anyone else says.

Dawkins position is not one of fundamentalism. He says, "I have looked at the evidence and this is what I conclude." His conclusion is that the likelihood of there being a God is very small.

He may argue this passionately and articulately, but that does not make him a fundamentalist. Hey may offend and annoy people along the way, but that is not fundamentalism.

Should new evidence be uncovered that throws his argument into doubt, he would amend his conclusions and possibly change his mind. That is not fundamentalism.

He lays out his reasoning and explains why he thinks what he thinks and invited others to debate with him - that is not fundamentalism.

I'd love to continue debating more, but unfortunately I have to get to the shops before they close.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:00, archived)
# A religious belief is generally "I have looked at the options and this is what I conclude" also.
Dawkins is NOT open to a God - have you not read the book? Sometimes he says he is, but he is not.

The problem I have is not that he states his conclusion, but that he says that anyone with a different conclusion is wrong.

Any religion, and one who questions the idea that we are a God free society is, in his words, ignorant.

This is fundamentalism.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:22, archived)
# Not all religions are evangelical
(Pachey, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:38, archived)
# No
but often it is the evangelical religions that have most mass influence.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:01, archived)
# this^
(I helped save b3ta! finnbar has officially retired, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:17, archived)