He has faith.He truly and absolutely believes in a set of unprovable principles and theories to the extent that he will not entertain any other possibilities and openly berates anyone who does not conform to his beliefs.
I can follow that for as far as his theories are testable, beyond that he is just a lunatic who has chosen which theories he likes and stuck to them, like the worst religious fundamentalist.
(I can follow that for as far as his theories are testable, beyond that he is just a lunatic who has chosen which theories he likes and stuck to them, like the worst religious fundamentalist.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:34,
archived)
All about the dark side.Yes he's dogmatic about the force...hang on..
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:37,
archived)
You don't need faith to believe in empiricism, that's the pointI define "faith" as "believing in something impossible for which there is no proof" and then I further define it as "insanity". Dawkins is no lunatic, though I will concede he's pretty fundamental. But then I'm pretty hardline myself.
(
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:45,
archived)
You see, where you are going wrong is that you do not know what faith is."believing in something impossible for which there is no proof" is stupidity.
"believing in something for which there is no proof" is faith.
The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support does not hold water once one begins questioning beyond our current ability to test. Asking questions which are beyond our present abilities is not madness, it is theorising and yes, science needs empiricism, but speculation is not at fault.
Dawkins does not adhere to radical empircalism, but allows for speculation, but he has decided, for whatever reason, to highlight any philosophical or scientific postulation which includes a deity as automatically wrong. What he does by this is declare any non deity based idea as correct and he does it in a manner which is fundamentalist.
As long as there are questions which there are not evidence for the answers to it will be a matter of faith to subscribe to any of those answers.
("believing in something for which there is no proof" is faith.
The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support does not hold water once one begins questioning beyond our current ability to test. Asking questions which are beyond our present abilities is not madness, it is theorising and yes, science needs empiricism, but speculation is not at fault.
Dawkins does not adhere to radical empircalism, but allows for speculation, but he has decided, for whatever reason, to highlight any philosophical or scientific postulation which includes a deity as automatically wrong. What he does by this is declare any non deity based idea as correct and he does it in a manner which is fundamentalist.
As long as there are questions which there are not evidence for the answers to it will be a matter of faith to subscribe to any of those answers.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:25,
archived)
*touches with a 20 foot pole*please explain WHICH "set of unprovable principles".
(
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all foreskin of the apocalypse,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:50,
archived)
Pffffft!You can't expect anyone how calls Dawkins a fundamentalist to actually explain why!
(For the record I think Dawkins is a smug antagonistic tosser, but he isn't as bad as the extremists no matter how much they want him to be).
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:08,
archived)
(For the record I think Dawkins is a smug antagonistic tosser, but he isn't as bad as the extremists no matter how much they want him to be).
He is an extremist.He holds a belief and condemns those who hold any other belief. He is an extremist.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:30,
archived)
Well, Big Bang theory for one.I mean, I subscribe to it, but I am aware that I could be proven wrong and, whilst I believe in it, it is not any more valid than an early creation.
Short Earth creationists can be shown to be wrong to an extent which is acceptable, hell, evolution is demonstrable, but theories as to soul, initial creation, fate and so on are all just that, theories.
I don't think I was sneezed out of the nose of a big green cat, but until I see some evidence to the contrary I will hold back from condemning those who might.
(Short Earth creationists can be shown to be wrong to an extent which is acceptable, hell, evolution is demonstrable, but theories as to soul, initial creation, fate and so on are all just that, theories.
I don't think I was sneezed out of the nose of a big green cat, but until I see some evidence to the contrary I will hold back from condemning those who might.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:29,
archived)
Actually, a better example might be this:He absolutely believes, despite no evidence to back this up, that there is no deity.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:41,
archived)
You've got the burden of proof the wrong way 'round again.there is no evidence FOR god, therefore it's completely reasonable to hold the position it doesn't exist. God is about as probable as santa: there is a theoretical possibility it exists, but in all likelyhood it doesn't and anyone claiming otherwise had better provide some good evidence.
( but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all foreskin of the apocalypse,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:56,
archived)
You can just as much disprove creationism as you can disprove the statement 'Jesus was gay'.You can never wholly disprove something, but that's irrelevent, that is not how burden of proof is.
As it stands there is evidence besides theory for the Big Bang (the residual energy), there is none for creation theories besides writing (most of which is actually copied from early Persian beliefs).
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:42,
archived)
As it stands there is evidence besides theory for the Big Bang (the residual energy), there is none for creation theories besides writing (most of which is actually copied from early Persian beliefs).
The burden of proof rests entirely on the delivery.If I want you to believe that Jesus was gay then I need to provide evidence.
If you want me to believe that he is straight then you need to provide me with evidence.
To be fair, I see no evidence against initial creationism.
(If you want me to believe that he is straight then you need to provide me with evidence.
To be fair, I see no evidence against initial creationism.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:46,
archived)
You don't need evidence against creationism.Otherwise I could spread libelous bollocks about anything or anyone and order them to give me concrete proof to the otherwise, but that is not how burden of proof works. You have to have evidence for your claims, other people don't have to provide evidence to contridict your baseless assertions.
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:04,
archived)
Are you saying Science should sue Religion for defamation? my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:06,
archived)
sounds reasonable to methe royal society vs the church of england, at the old bailey. tickets only £400 a place. it'd be a killer.
(
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:08,
archived)
I think women should sue religion for demation of character!And maybe the Fruit Marketing Board.
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:09,
archived)
You are wrong.How burden of proof works is something you should research.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 18:59,
archived)
given the bits in johnabout the "most beloved disciple" (implied to be john) lying on jesus' bare breast, there's actually some evidence for the "jesus was gay" argument.
except... oh, that damned catholic church, replacing the name "mary magdelene" with "john". i knew they were up to something!
(except... oh, that damned catholic church, replacing the name "mary magdelene" with "john". i knew they were up to something!
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:46,
archived)
a slight refinement"it is not any more valid than an early creation that can also produce the cosmic microwave background, the observed anisotropies on the cosmic microwave background and the length-scale of the baryon acoustic oscillations in the large-scale structure of galaxies, ideally without waving a hand and saying 'God did it that way'."
Is the "big bang" correct? Of course it's not. It relies on the universe being homogeneous and isotropic and the very fact we're here disproves that. Is it a predictive model that has passed every test so far? Well, no, but it's passed far more than any other cosmology ever has. Where it breaks down is on small scales around galaxies (it generally predicts cuspy dark matter haloes and too many satellites compared to observations), which is no great shock since the model itself cannot and can never have been trusted on small scales.
This is what annoys me about this kind of argument -- we're comparing a model that produces quantitative numbers and testable predictions, with the half-assed rambling of lunatic Bronze-Age goatherders which will never produce numbers. That's all science is about, ultimately -- numbers and predictions. Got a model that predicts what's observed? Good, it's a valid model. Is it truth? Who cares? Leave that to the philosophers. Got a religion that doesn't predict any numbers? Good, it's a religion. But don't try and pretend that it's got a viable cosmology unless you can get numbers out of it.
Very irritating.
(Is the "big bang" correct? Of course it's not. It relies on the universe being homogeneous and isotropic and the very fact we're here disproves that. Is it a predictive model that has passed every test so far? Well, no, but it's passed far more than any other cosmology ever has. Where it breaks down is on small scales around galaxies (it generally predicts cuspy dark matter haloes and too many satellites compared to observations), which is no great shock since the model itself cannot and can never have been trusted on small scales.
This is what annoys me about this kind of argument -- we're comparing a model that produces quantitative numbers and testable predictions, with the half-assed rambling of lunatic Bronze-Age goatherders which will never produce numbers. That's all science is about, ultimately -- numbers and predictions. Got a model that predicts what's observed? Good, it's a valid model. Is it truth? Who cares? Leave that to the philosophers. Got a religion that doesn't predict any numbers? Good, it's a religion. But don't try and pretend that it's got a viable cosmology unless you can get numbers out of it.
Very irritating.
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:44,
archived)
You see, the problem is that you are saying 'Religion is not science, therefore it is wrong'.It is not wrong, it is just different.
Well, it might be wrong, but we do not know yet.
(Well, it might be wrong, but we do not know yet.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 18:58,
archived)
No no noI doubt you'll read this reply, alas, but overall I more or less agree with your position. It's true that I'm saying "Religion is not science", but I'm not then following it up with "therefore it is wrong". What I was trying to drive at is that drawing *scientific* conclusions out of religion is wrong -- unless it can produce testable numbers. Just the same as drawing religious conclusions out of science is straining what are, after all, sophisticated algorithms rather too far.
What science can tell is is how nature behaves. That doesn't mean that that's what nature *is*, just that that's how it behaves. Drawing conclusions beyond that is certainly a matter of faith.
Sorry for the antagonistic tone -- I study cosmology for a living, so I'm a bit more sensitive to claims that it's only as valid as a creationist theory than the usual nerd is.
(What science can tell is is how nature behaves. That doesn't mean that that's what nature *is*, just that that's how it behaves. Drawing conclusions beyond that is certainly a matter of faith.
Sorry for the antagonistic tone -- I study cosmology for a living, so I'm a bit more sensitive to claims that it's only as valid as a creationist theory than the usual nerd is.
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 21:49,
archived)
LOL!ok.
No mention of the supernatural in his ideas.
(No mention of the supernatural in his ideas.
op op op op op I stink therfore I spam,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:55,
archived)
Indeed not.But then, if a deity existed it would not be supernatural, would it? It would be natural.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:26,
archived)
is this a face to faith meeting?
The Twisted Omentum vidi vici veni,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:48,
archived)
christopher hitchins for the win
op op op op op I stink therfore I spam,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:53,
archived)
"too much tallent for a place like this"
Jamnog Sardines in her eyebrows, lobsters up and down,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 17:40,
archived)
fuck off you cunt Jamnog Sardines in her eyebrows, lobsters up and down,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 17:41,
archived)
shut your cake you hipocrytytthis plaxce i bursting with tallent
( Jamnog Sardines in her eyebrows, lobsters up and down,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 17:43,
archived)
i was confused about which bread to use..have i missed something?
( op op op op op I stink therfore I spam,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 14:57,
archived)
Hahahha what?Defrost the cucumber
( epiphany coming live from sweden,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:17,
archived)
Some of those are really funnyVinegar A La Soy Sauce
Serves 1
You will need:
* 110ml mint sauce
* 20ml soy sauce
* 60ml vinegar
* 30ml essence of vanilla
* 30ml lemon juice
Instructions:
1. pre-heat the oven to 200 C
2. slice the lemon juice
3. stir-fry the soy sauce
4. rinse the vinegar
5. grill the essence of vanilla
6. sauté the mint sauce
7. bake for 70 minutes and serve hot
mediocre ha ha ha, you're reading this,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:24,
archived)
Wah!
Just Juan Cornetto will take you to the lo-rider show n' flaunt ya on,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:42,
archived)