Assuming that belief in a creator = ignoranceis being a cock.
Unless of course you actually have proof that God doesn't exist?
(Unless of course you actually have proof that God doesn't exist?
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
(Besides, is impossible to "fill the gaps" withouth "destroying" the rest of the house
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 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.
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.
(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.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:34,
archived)
the house analogy is the whole pointis 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.
(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.
Your watch is BACK,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:45,
archived)
Yes BUTwe 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.
(zealots who cannot accept that they might be wrong and someone else might be right are idiots.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:11,
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.
(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.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:32,
archived)