Richard Dawkins Asks: What If You`re Wrong?

Submitted by: tainteddeity 7 years ago in Funny

Well, what if you are?
There are 256 comments:
Male 1
Genetic Fallacy, one of many fallacies Dawkins commits, google it!
0
Reply
Male 194
Pooptart19, I`m afraid you`re going to get the good old "God works in mysterious ways" argument.

@ metalm0rgan, if you can`t explain that nothing made everything, how can you explain that nothing made God? The argument is equally valid for both the Big Bang theory and the God theory. As for your own understanding, isn`t it better to make up your own mind with the aid of other`s peoples opinions, rather than simply follow someone elses opinion?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
In short, your God gets a rise out of suffering, torture, death, rape, etc. If he didn`t want any of those things to happen, it wouldn`t be so. Your god is an ass.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]I`m still waiting for an example.[/quote]

prime, TRY to think this through. The idea of God you most likely hold is this: All-knowing, all-powerful, correct? Okay, moving along.

If God knew beforehand of the outcome of his own creation (the "fall" of Man) then why did God create anything in the first place? Better yet, how could anything your God created ever go to sh*t? Logic would conclude that if God created something, whatever the outcome of that creation could, at no point, go against the will of God. God can`t create a car he didn`t already know would break down, can he? If he wanted the car to NOT break down, he simply would`ve created it not to do so in the first place. Anything that happens anywhere could never deviate from God`s plans. So if your God created humankind and then humankind did something God told them not to do (the concept of original sin), how could humankind EVER do anything not already predetermined by God?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]You do realize this makes you sound like a spoiled brat with no conscience. You`ve got a lot to learn and you are going to have to learn it all the hard way, Your self-made shifty morality and snottiness will be your undoing.[/quote]

Crakr, my morality only shifts when I have gained a better understanding of reality or when someone else has made a good enough argument to invoke a possible change in my morals. It is not I that is without a conscience, for a truly moral person is moral even when they think they aren`t being watched.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
More on morality:

Who is moral? One who does not steal because they think God is watching, or one who does not steal because they understand the reason and value of personal property?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]So you just substitute you`re own rules, That you can re-invent whenever you like.[/quote]

What`s that thing called that does that all the time? It starts with an R, I think. Oh right. RELIGION.

Don`t get angry just because thinking people change their morality when they have a greater understanding of reality.

[quote]For you it does. That way you can absolve yourself of any sin or guilt from anything you do. That way, In your mind, You remain perfect and faultless no matter who you may hurt along the way.[/quote]

Crakr, did you pick failing as a career, or did you happen to just fall into it naturally? This idea that one whose morality is not based on a holy text simply forms their own morality to suit their desires, devoid of any feeling of guilt or fault is absurd. Who is more likely to feel forgiven for any wrongdoing against another person? One who simply prays for forgiveness or one who asks forgiveness from the person they have wronged
0
Reply
Male 110
I hope this doesnt sound patronising, but I don`t think evolutionists and atheists are completely right. Nor do I think that they are idiots. The theory of evolution is not entirely ridiculous, the only thing I cant get my head around is the whole big bang thing. I refusue to beleive that nothing created everything. ` Before the big bang there was nothing. After the big bang there was everything.` Why did this happen? It just did. Nothing went bang by itself. I`m sorry but that doesnt make any sense to me. I met Sir Patrick More at a convention once and I asked him his thoughts. His words were and I quote. "The Idea that there is no intelligent design behind the universe is complete and utter bunkham." I don`t know what bunkham means but I think he was saying that he thinks there is a God. Who am I to argue with a man who has studied the universe his whole life and probably knows more about the subject than anyone? I`m sure he did not come to the desicion lightly
0
Reply
Male 194
@ DigoDeFuego, sorry what? Did you just argue that since God is God and Parents are not God, God does not have to follow the rules that Parents do? What kind of logic is that?

Rather than start arguing how your statement "God is God" is complete and utter bull**** in regards to any kind of logical reasoning, I`d like you to explain what you mean.
0
Reply
Male 1,013
Sorry if this is a repost, but here`s the orig:


Dawkins on Book TV
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Yaezakura: [quote]Christians viewed slavery as morally righteous.[/quote]


I beg to differ, Look up the word `Abolitionist` and learn more about it. A lot of Christians believed slavery was wrong.

There is also a big difference between `servitude` and slavery.
Servants were paid, Slaves were not.
Servants could wed whom they wished, Slaves did wed, but they were not honored by their owners.
Servants were `indentured`, Slaves were `owned`.
Servants were treated like family, Slaves were treated like cattle.

We`d call both of them `Slavery` today, But it was a major difference back then. So, Maybe society has become more `civilized`, But the core Christian morals have remained the same.
0
Reply
Female 385
Crakr: Your idea of morality HAS been changing all throughout history. By the standards of people in Christ`s time, you would be viewed as immoral filth worthy of death for all the "moral laws" you forsake, as would pretty much every modern Christian.

A prime example is slavery. Christians viewed slavery as morally righteous. The Bible was used to justify the slavery of blacks for hundreds of years. Yet now, no truly moral person could endorse slavery.

Morality, ultimately, comes down to our instincts as a social species. By and large, acts beneficial to society are moral, while those detrimental to society are immoral. The vast majority of acts are neutral. And you know what? Sometimes, the needs of a society (and thus what is considered moral or immoral) change over the course of a few thousand years. Things relevant to bronze age goat herders have no bearing on the modern world, and we have issues now that they could not have envisioned.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
[quote]we don`t need your archaic idea of morality.[/quote]

So you just substitute you`re own rules, That you can re-invent whenever you like.

[quote]Morality is changing ALL THE TIME[/quote]

For you it does. That way you can absolve yourself of any sin or guilt from anything you do. That way, In your mind, You remain perfect and faultless no matter who you may hurt along the way.

You do realize this makes you sound like a spoiled brat with no conscience. You`ve got a lot to learn and you are going to have to learn it all the hard way, Your self-made shifty morality and snottiness will be your undoing.

0
Reply
Male 4,807
LOL
0
Reply
Male 4,546
FYI, I mostly contribute to the long flamey religious discussions. That doesn`t mean that`s all I *read*.

I only post when I have something to say. "LOL" doesn`t usually qualify. :P
0
Reply
Male 416
"@simbha
Science does not disprove the existence of God; it cannot.

That is a good point, but The theory of evolution does not disprove, or attempt to disprove, the existence of God.

And so I am getting this right, you`re saying that Biology isn`t a science because the scientific method is not the most efficient method that can be applied to it? I think you might be over-thinking that one. A biologsist makes an observation about nature, forms an hypothesis based on those observations, and tests his/her hypothesis by acquiring data. Science."

I suppose I could have been clearer about my position. I was tongue-in-cheek agreeing with Prime that `biology is not a science` and offering an explanation why this position might be considered valid: that the study of life requires an understanding of complex systems and that the scientific method is a rather blunt tool for this scholarship. It was not my intent to persuade otherwise. Does biology effectiv
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Guys, lets lay off Prime. The line between troll and overly aggressive is pretty gd thin and he does not deserve an inquisition. He`s checking the room and voicing his opinion: nothing wrong with either of those.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
A1, I was not lumping you in with Prime, unless you mean putting you in the same paragraph. I was just thanking you for the compliment.

Prime, I realize they might be arrogant about physics and think it is easier. In some respects it might be, but getting into a pissing contest about who`s science is more difficult or abstract is one thing, totally writing it off as not a science, thats something else entirely. Actually they`re both pretty lame.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Is there any better authority on who is/isnt a troll than fancypants himself?

I still state that I am not a troll. Some users disagree. The only way to get official say in this matter would be to ask the guy who runs this.

Mod/user issues is not something new. In addition, users falsely accusing mods of abusing power/trolling is not new either. There is an easy official way to decide this. If it turns out I`m trolling, I`ll step down.

Don`t see what the drat a boat has to do with this
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Well I would love to continue this trolling for salmon with you Prime, I`m really drunk right now and have to get up in about 6 hours. We have 155 little piggys that need to die in the morning and 34 big old Holsteins to meat their maker after that.
Have a great day moderating or whatever you do for a living and eat some bacon for breakie!! Bacon is squeely good
0
Reply
Male 7,933
yeah i`m obviously going to be off topic. I started off explaining how Dawkins response was overhyped, then i get called a troll for a little biology/anthropology joke/ then i have to show proof that anthro is considered a social science, and now recently my modding is being called into question... yeah i believe im going to get a tad off topic responding to those
0
Reply
Male 4,807
You have been a student way to long. There is a world outside you know?
Oh am I trolling. I don`t even own a boat so how could I possibly troll? Maybe we should ring up Fancy and let him decide?
0
Reply
Male 4,807
I`m just saying that you are waaaay of topic.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Wow, well said prime
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Do or do not Moderators on IAB have certain responsibilities? "

Yes. I keep failing to see how I have broken any rule. I haven`t deleted anyones comment I disagreed with, I haven`t banned anyone...everything seems normal.

"40 plus comments on one post? "
Me and Davy have easily gone over 200 just going against each other.

"WTF are you moderating anyway? your own agenda? 3 users have called you out and you still continue. "

Yes, I clearly became a mod because I have an agenda. Congratulations a1, it was a good 2 year run, glad to see someone figured it out. Good work agent
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Brass.. I think Bio is science! don`t lump me in with prime!! Hell the sweetest science in my opinion is boxing. nuff said
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Brass, there is a certain arrogance in physics to biology as there are in math/science/business majors to liberal arts. I`m yet to meet a engineer (not including biomedical), or physics major that doesn`t feel that bio is a much easier science.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
yea yea, let fancy settle this matter.
I think you missed my point, Prime.
Do or do not Moderators on IAB have certain responsibilities?
40 plus comments on one post?
WTF are you moderating anyway? your own agenda? 3 users have called you out and you still continue.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Thanks A1. And Prime, claiming most top physicists would agree that biology isn`t science or a genuine science......well I raise the BS flag on that. I`m not sure I would call it trolling because you might believe it, but if they say that they`re saying it in jest.
0
Reply
Male 239
"Think of parents whose rationale is that it`s okay to torture or even kill their children because, hey, they made `em, right? The same can be said for your god"

The difference is, God is God. Parents are not God. Therefore God does not have to abide by the rules Parents do.

I don`t get how the God is unfair argument and the God doesn`t exist argument become one thing. You can either argue one or the other... if he doesn`t exist then how can he be unfair?
0
Reply
Male 7,933
And like I also told skine, if you genuinely believe I am trolling, let fancylad settle this matter. Send him an e-mail and if there is something that needs to be corrected, it will be corrected. That simple
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"If users think you are just commenting to get a rise out of them then maybe you aren`t "just stating my opinions in the same way i did before i was a mod. The red name hasn`t changed my behavior." "

I think youre giving way too much credit to the average IAB user. This is a site where most members think "if you don`t agree with what the majority believes, then you are trolling".

Sorry I`m not skine and I think the BLS is a credible source.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
That is true Prime but does not being a moderator mean you might have certain responsibilities. Oh I don`t know maybe not having comments such as this....
skine
Monday, March 29, 2010 9:01:21 PM
"Again, prime, you are an obvious troll.
(and obvious troll is obvious)"

If users think you are just commenting to get a rise out of them then maybe you aren`t "just stating my opinions in the same way i did before i was a mod. The red name hasn`t changed my behavior."
Opinions are good, debate is GREAT, but....
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Now I`m not saying your trolling, but.... come on man! your comments are obviously egging users on to a point of getting a rise out of them."

I`m stating my opinions in the same way i did before i was a mod. The red name hasn`t changed my behavior
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Prime.. I know mods get into it with debates, here at IAB, all the time but when do you cross the IAB "line" from being a moderator and being borderline troll?
Now I`m not saying your trolling, but.... come on man! your comments are obviously egging users on to a point of getting a rise out of them.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Wow Prime... Good for you, good for you! and you being a mod and all. Your mom must be so proud!

And Brass... you make very good statements. Very logical.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
..................what?
0
Reply
Male 263
it doesn`t matter, the question is asked of me, so i answer as a christian. thus my answer stands, with no logic holes.

and atheists can argue morality all day long, but at the end of the day, they make up their own for any reason they wish. and thus my first action as an atheist is to say killing babies is promoting our species and planet, population control and is not immoral, but should be practiced. all children under 5, every 2 years, should be slaughtered.

0
Reply
Male 1,610
Well, I`m not gonna get into a debate about that because arguing that the existense of god cannot be argued would be the most exhausting (and asinine) argument I could imagine. A LOT of people who get into these arguments are pretty ignorant as to what the theory of evolution really says and sometimes, if people are not too insulting, they might learn a little about what Darwin was really saying.

BTW Primetime, sorry if I was patronizing. I hate it when people use the argument that any scientific discipline is flawed and cannot be trusted. I think it is good to question science, to question everything, but you can`t discredit it without some serious evidence to back up why it is not valid.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Dang it, prime, you`re right. God`s usual justification is "I made you, so I can do what I want with you." Think of parents whose rationale is that it`s okay to torture or even kill their children because, hey, they made `em, right? The same can be said for your god."

I`m still waiting for an example.

" Some of us prefer to think instead of pointing to a "holy" text. "

Ok but youre 0/2.

"I read these religious comments/ flame wars all the time and most everyone puts up a good fight but there is never a winner."

Well I disagree. I`ve been keeping count and so far i`m 7503-0. Undefeated!
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Agreed Brass. Saying one science is better than another and arguing about god at the same time is rather asinine.
Mind you, I read these religious comments/ flame wars all the time and most everyone puts up a good fight but there is never a winner.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]So, Because you listen to people like Dawkins that makes you instantly smarter and more qualified to argue morality than any Christian.[/quote]

Crakr, don`t get so upset just because we don`t need your archaic idea of morality. Some of us prefer to think instead of pointing to a "holy" text.

[quote]You, Young man, Have shown neither the experience, common sense, or politeness to be lecturing anyone about morality.[/quote]

Aw, Crakr doesn`t like it when I`m succinct & unforgiving.

[quote]In fact I believe you are of the ilk that makes up their own morality as they go along. That makes you a danger not only to those around you, But to yourself as well.[/quote]

So basing morality on reality is wrong, Crakr? Instead we should never EVER change anything about our morality because hey, goat herders figured it all out thousands of years ago? Morality is changing ALL THE TIME, Crakr. Yes, even Christian morality has changed.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
A1 - I would not say this argument cannot have a winner or loser. Most of the time the argument gets too convoluted and strays from an avenue that might reach such a conclusion. But when someone tries to discredit science........well that is something worth arguing, at the very least so others don`t make the mistake of taking that same approach. People need to be educated, not made more ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
You guys DO realize such banter is amusing to those of us reading but it is going nowhere as always.
There will never be a winner when it comes to these wars. Just losers on both sides.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]I don`t remember God raping anyone in the Bible...and If I recall, most of the time he murdered someone his justification wasn`t "eve ate a fruit"[/quote]

Dang it, prime, you`re right. God`s usual justification is "I made you, so I can do what I want with you." Think of parents whose rationale is that it`s okay to torture or even kill their children because, hey, they made `em, right? The same can be said for your god.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
In that it is not all that complex? Then no, I disagree. Genetics research is one of the most exclusive fields of science and it falls into the realm of biology. Biology in general still requires the same level of scrutiny as any other scientific discipline. Why should we value it any less?
0
Reply
Male 7,933
To the "ok Biology is not rocket science" one.

Until now i see the @simbha part
0
Reply
Male 1,610
excuse me, referring
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Wait, Primetime, you`re other screename is simbha? Which comment are you refering to? Because I was responding to:

Biology is the natural science that specifically deals with complex systems - defined to be a system of elements that interact in a nonlinear manner. The scientific method, by its nature, deals with phenomena that can be understood through tests of linear causality. Though used, this method is not optimal for dealing with complex phenomena.

That is something that can only be taken literally or it definitely does not concern science.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
I`m hoping you see what I meant beyond the literal meaning.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Ok.........I think we can agree on that one too. Biology is not rocket science. Yay for progress!
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"And so I am getting this right, you`re saying that Biology isn`t a science because the scientific method is not the most efficient method that can be applied to it?"

No.
I`m saying its not Rocket Science
0
Reply
Male 1,610
@simbha
Science does not disprove the existence of God; it cannot.

That is a good point, but The theory of evolution does not disprove, or attempt to disprove, the existence of God.

And so I am getting this right, you`re saying that Biology isn`t a science because the scientific method is not the most efficient method that can be applied to it? I think you might be over-thinking that one. A biologsist makes an observation about nature, forms an hypothesis based on those observations, and tests his/her hypothesis by acquiring data. Science.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
[quote]"You are a child in thought, Crakr. Either you are too dimwitted to think for yourself and form your moral code, or you are a p*ssy, too scared to challenge power."[/quote]

So, Because you listen to people like Dawkins that makes you instantly smarter and more qualified to argue morality than any Christian.

You, Young man, Have shown neither the experience, common sense, or politeness to be lecturing anyone about morality. In fact I believe you are of the ilk that makes up their own morality as they go along. That makes you a danger not only to those around you, But to yourself as well.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Baalthazaq is a Mod now? Probably just for the weekly flame wars, me thinks,cause that`s pretty much the only time he shows up.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
almightybob1: Yes, Jesus did confirm the 10 commandements, But also said this.

Mathew 22:

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Notice the `like unto it` part. Meaning that `love they neighbor as thyself` is a way of loving God back the way he loves us.
0
Reply
Male 617
haha, arguments! God is real. he exists right here in your arguments, if nowhere else. let it rest.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
I don`t remember God raping anyone in the Bible...and If I recall, most of the time he murdered someone his justification wasn`t "eve ate a fruit"

Care to list any specific examples?
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"So do you only accept OT parts that Jesus specifically reinforced?"

Sort of. We don`t follow anything that might contradict the teachings of Jesus.

" Prime said Leviticus was ritual law, but that quote is Lev 19:18. So I`m trying to find out where he draws the line. "

Ritual and moral. Look at their definitions.

The "with another man is wrong" would still follow moral, the "stone him to death" is ritual.

"But I`m sure he doesn`t think Lev 20:25 is a sin - "distinction between clean and unclean animals". "

That contradicts with Jesus saying "nothing that is put into the mouth blah blah blah"

"Prime, so your God is justified in the rape, torture, and even murder of young children just because Eve ate from a tree? Prime, you could at least TRY to think hard about your religion, but I may be demanding too much of you."

I don`t exactly reme
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Look any argument from authority is wro.... holy crap look at my new shiny red username.

I just have to say, that as a mod (and therefore clearly a prime example for all humanity to follow), hereby agree with Lionhart.

Problem solved. :P

On a more serious note, for various acts, especially killing God is automatically absolved.

1) From God`s perspective, all he is doing is moving your soul around from one locale to the next. Thus, killing *is* ok for God
Equivalent: It is wrong for someone to steal my TV, but perfectly acceptable for me, the owner, to move the TV to the next room.

I think this is basically what others have meant by "viewing it through humanistic eyes".

2) We do not have ultimate foresight, therefore we are not allowed to kill.
Equivalent: I don`t have my Surgeons license, I cannot go poking around people`s insides, someone with enough knowledge, can.
0
Reply
Male 416
As far as humans understanding `God` through humanistic eyes (Crakr`s comment, but not directed at him)...

I`m not exactly sure how anything else is possible. We are limited by our perspective in understanding anything in the universe. Dawkins can be considered inappropriately arrogant for many reasons but one of the principal ones is that he insists on implicitly espousing the view that we CAN understand all phenomena through our limited, epistemological perspective. Science does not disprove the existence of God; it cannot. All it can do is provide us with an understanding of the physical universe by building on itself, coupled with (re)new(ed) observations. It can say nothing about what happened `before` the Big Bang (to take the most common understanding of the universe`s origins) and is consistent with - at least - a Deistic worldview that a super-powerful being created the physical universe in which we live, along with all its physical laws.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]So what kind of frail, weak, fallible human are you, That you make judgments about God ?[/quote]

Woops, I was using logic. My bad, Crakr. I guess one should always submit to power, even if the power is held by an insane, omnipotent tyrant.

[quote]I don`t remember the "innocent" part anywhere.[/quote]

Prime, so your God is justified in the rape, torture, and even murder of young children just because Eve ate from a tree? Prime, you could at least TRY to think hard about your religion, but I may be demanding too much of you.
0
Reply
Male 416
Physics - a field which I`ve studied extensively in the past - generally deals with phenomena that have a linearly causal relationship. It is true that some (mainstream) facets of the field deal with phenomena that are nonlinear, but the field as a whole does not.

In dealing with molecular phenomena, in particular, chemistry does deal with complex systems but - again - the experimentation in the field is generally not done in this way. Once again, this is a generalization that does not apply to all - even mainstream - parts of the field.

The point is that biology specifically must deal with events that cannot be understood through anything but a `systems` approach. This is not to say that most biologists deal with their work in this way, but I think that most are at least cognizant of this.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]No one is `innocent` of sin, If you had truly read the bible you`d understand that.[/quote]

Crakr, I am well aware of the horsesh*t concept of "Original Sin" and its absurdity, thank you.

[quote]The problem here is, You are looking at God with `Humanistic` eyes and embolden yourself that you believe that you know better than God does.[/quote]

So might makes right, Crakr? If your God spoke to you one day and commanded you to kill your child, would you do it? If you say "yes," then you are mental and should be locked away. Crakr, some people, such as yourself, are incapable of forming their own morality without the commands of some supreme being. "God said it. That settles it." You are a child in thought, Crakr. Either you are too dimwitted to think for yourself and form your moral code, or you are a p*ssy, too scared to challenge power.
0
Reply
Male 416
Ha ha ha ha.

I just got here and read through many of the comments. This is why I come to IAB - to read the rants of others.

For the record, I do agree with Prime that Biology, in its truest form, is not a science. But I differ as to why this is the case.

Biology is the natural science that specifically deals with complex systems - defined to be a system of elements that interact in a nonlinear manner. The scientific method, by its nature, deals with phenomena that can be understood through tests of linear causality. Though used, this method is not optimal for dealing with complex phenomena.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I don`t believe in God because innocent children get molested and evil people get rich. I believe in Power, and I live to harness it.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Wait, Jesus did actually say it, in Matthew 19:19.

So do you only accept OT parts that Jesus specifically reinforced?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Didn`t Jesus say that? Obviously it still applies. [/quote]

No prime, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is Leviticus 19:18. Jesus didn`t say it.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I know i`m not prime but, is that a serious question? [/quote]
Serious.
I`m trying to establish which parts are moral law (and therefore still apply) and which parts are ritual law (and therefore were absolved). Prime said Leviticus was ritual law, but that quote is Lev 19:18. So I`m trying to find out where he draws the line.

Presumably he would say Lev 19:18 applies - "Love thy neighbour as thyself".
But he would presumably say Lev 19:19 no longer applies - "Don`t wear clothes of mixed fabric".
I KNOW he believes Lev 20:13 is a sin - "lie with a man as with another man".
But I`m sure he doesn`t think Lev 20:25 is a sin - "distinction between clean and unclean animals".

So I`m just trying to establish which parts of Leviticus prime chooses to categorise as `absolved` and which as `still apply`. And what his scriptural basis for doing so is.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Tell me prime, do you think that the instruction "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in the `absolved` section or the `still applies` section?"

Didn`t Jesus say that? Obviously it still applies.

@deutsch
Clothing is material science. The only bio included is organic chemistry to make sure it doesn`t harm the person. But most advancements in textile are due to chemistry.

So for the other three, 1) I avoid going to the doctors. 2) I don`t have a pet. 3) Environment....seriously?

0
Reply
Male 194
Using the question "what if you`re wrong" as an argument isn`t very smart, since it can be used about anything. Perhaps it was asked as a test.

To me, it seems that she might have wished for him to say "well, then you`re right", whereas the fact is that "someone else might be right". It isn`t guaranteed that someone knows the truth of things, quite the opposite in fact. I hardly think that everything there is to be discovered about the universe has been discovered yet.

That said, I often hear the argument "what if you`re wrong" about my atheistic "beliefs" from my christian associates, most of the time as a way to scare me into belief. As if I`d fall for that.
0
Reply
Male 239
"Tell me prime, do you think that the instruction "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in the `absolved` section or the `still applies` section?"

I know i`m not prime but, is that a serious question?
0
Reply
Male 47
Personally I believe in the juju at the bottom of the sea
0
Reply
Male 472
Oh I get it Prime doesn`t understand what biology is- let me help

Biology-
the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, health, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

See all the things I said and more are biology.

It doesn`t matter how much you have a personal hatred for the subject, prime, biology has improved your life, because well- it studies LIFE.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]As I`ve already explained, there`s moral law, and ritual law. Most ritual law (mosaic law, leviticus,etc.) was absolved with the passing of Christ.[/quote]

Tell me prime, do you think that the instruction "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in the `absolved` section or the `still applies` section?
0
Reply
Male 813
Lol I was reading through these comments backwards, and wonder why everyone was calling prime an idiot.... then I got to the biology page. LOL.
0
Reply
Female 8,055
Balthzar says it really, I cannot believe in god even if I wanted to.God is not logical, no evidence either. However- when I was small I really did believe in fairies- no matter what anyone said, no matter how little evidence for their existence. I could not just switch off that belief. In any case- it only matters to me if you believe in a god if your beliefs are inflicted on my life. Example of that would be if I were denied contraception or a blood transfusion due to a religion influencing my countrys laws.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
Yaezakura: It could be one thing manifesting itself in different ways. You seem stuck on one method of explaining things but it still doesn`t contradict a God or whatever it is that is beyond what we are capable of understanding at this time.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
And for the record, anyone who bet
"a) questions that "prove a point"

is the winner
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Prime, the Bible contradicts itself on whether or not to follow OT laws"

I thought I just clearly explained it...

"Even IF the death of Jesus got rid of every single OT law, what kind of god worth worshiping would, at ANY time, advocate the killing of homosexuals, innocent women, children, etc.?"

I don`t remember the "innocent" part anywhere.

And, seeing as I am christian, the God worth worshiping is the God I think exist. Thats like saying "Well why would you have your parents when Timmy`s parents are much cooler".
0
Reply
Male 17,511
"what kind of god worth worshiping would, at ANY time, advocate the killing of homosexuals, innocent women, children, etc.?"

No one is `innocent` of sin, If you had truly read the bible you`d understand that. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death...." That means our own sin condemns us to death, but there is hope. cont` Romans 6:23 "...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Jesus paid the cost of our debt of sin.

The problem here is, You are looking at God with `Humanistic` eyes and embolden yourself that you believe that you know better than God does. Are You omnipotent & omniscient ? I think not.

So what kind of frail, weak, fallible human are you, That you make judgments about God ?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]Poop, taking the Dougsimpsons, kevinmillars, and Maddogs out of the equation; you have to be one of the biggest bitter bitches in IAB.[/quote]

Oh, prime. Don`t get all butthurt just because I continue to point out the bullsh*t of your religion.

[quote]As I`ve already explained, there`s moral law, and ritual law. Most ritual law (mosaic law, leviticus,etc.) was absolved with the passing of Christ.[/quote]

Prime, the Bible contradicts itself on whether or not to follow OT laws. People love to pick and chose verses when it fits their own morality. Even IF the death of Jesus got rid of every single OT law, what kind of god worth worshiping would, at ANY time, advocate the killing of homosexuals, innocent women, children, etc.?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Well, This discussion went in directions I didn`t predict it would. Usually it ends with something like.

"Does too"
"Does Not!"
0
Reply
Male 7,933
@deutch, most of what you mentioned is chemical engineering/ material science.

"Awwww, look at Lionhart trying to sound all noble. Against gays on Biblical grounds? Hmmm, do you also kill them as Leviticus 20:13 commands? I think not, but ain`t cherry picking fun?"

Poop, taking the Dougsimpsons, kevinmillars, and Maddogs out of the equation; you have to be one of the biggest bitter bitches in IAB.

As I`ve already explained, there`s moral law, and ritual law. Most ritual law (mosaic law, leviticus,etc.) was absolved with the passing of Christ.

Now lets have a wager guys.
Does poop respond to this with
a) questions that "prove a point"
b) anger towards religion
c) An unusual combination of question marks and exclamation points
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]I, for example, am anti-gay on Biblical grounds, but I also ban on sight anyone making nasty remarks about gays on the site.[/quote]

Awwww, look at Lionhart trying to sound all noble. Against gays on Biblical grounds? Hmmm, do you also kill them as Leviticus 20:13 commands? I think not, but ain`t cherry picking fun?
0
Reply
Male 1,231
There is still the choice factor; I was raised a catholic, but am now an atheist, due to one day, when I was a about 7 yoa thinking to myself, `you know what, this is a load of crap, maybe there isn`t an answer to everything`. What you were brought up to believe is a big factor, but what you actually believe is also a factor. Everyone who believes anything could be wrong, but, to me, it isn`t about being right or wrong, its about being happy and living a full life. Something which i feel i can do without religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
The answer to the question is relevant to the religion you were brought up to believe. If someone in Tibet, or Japan, believed in evolution and was wrong, he`d come back in another life and, depending on how "good" of a person he was he would come back reincarnated as another form of life. No religion proves that their religion is correct so if the theory of evolution is wrong, and btw everything we have learned from genetics, the fossil record, inheritable traits, etc, has supported the theory of evolution, than there is a whole spectrum of possibilities to consider. To answer that question one would have to debate from a philosophical standpoint, in which case everyone would probably come to the conclusion that nothing would happen when you die because there is no God, unless you had been taught there is your whole life, in which case you would not allow yourself to arrive at that conclusion.
0
Reply
Male 509
@Prime
if biology isn`t a science, how come we can`t make artificial organic things? we can only make the simpler molecules with more effort than the body uses

and before you say test tube babies, they use actual human cells to start them off. As far as I am aware, there have been no artificial sperm/egg cells made and therefore no truly artificial humans.
0
Reply
Male 8,300
> primetimekin
> You have the ability to a) get me demodded (b) get me banned...

In fact, the system works rather well because all of the Mods are mature, sensible individuals who respect other people`s opinions and rights even when they differ from their own. I, for example, am anti-gay on Biblical grounds, but I also ban on sight anyone making nasty remarks about gays on the site. There`s a difference between having personal beliefs, and enforcing those beliefs on others.

Another example: Davy and I hijacked a forum for a chat back`n`forth one night when we hadn`t seen each other for ages. A member pointed out that it was all off-topic, on consideration we agreed he was correct, and I banned MYSELF from the site for 2 weeks for the transgression.

We`re fair to the point of stupidity here at IAB :-)
0
Reply
Female 1,682
Hahaha. Wow. That was pretty funny actually. >.>
0
Reply
Male 4,546
>GRadde

No problem, just some quick points about Pascal`s Wager.

It is mathematically/logically sound, but does not take all factors into consideration. These factors are what make it wrong.

Factor 1) Does not take all views into consideration. The values of "Not believing" are therefore incorrect, as it neglects the possible "infinite bad" of other hells. This is slightly offset by factor 2.

Factor 2) Belief. Christianity is one of the only true "faith based" belief structures. Most revolve around acts for salvation, and therefore belief is secondary.

Factor 3) Belief is not a choice (as I stated earlier). You could even agree entirely with Pascal that it is better to believe, but you cannot just say "Ok, I believe now" without it being a lie. You can choose to listen to a preacher or read a book that might convince you, but you still need to be convinced.

The wager doesn`t do that.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
>Baalthazaq

o.O Thanks for informing me of Pascal`s Wager, didn`t know of it before. It`s a very interesting point of view. :)
0
Reply
Female 385
SpoonFork: The issue is, there are no real events. All of the "visions" are merely delusion. If they weren`t, they would be consistent, limited to one deity, not spread all across the spectrum of faiths. Miracles are not miracles. They are either easily explainable natural events, or things rigged by man to appear to be miracles.
0
Reply
Male 472
@prime...

If you think biology is a joke, then don`t listen to it.

When you get sick, don`t go to a doctor.
If you have a pet, and it gets sick, don`t take it to the vet.
If you want to eat, good luck finding food that hasn`t been improved by biology (there is none).
Try finding clothes which haven`t been improved by biology.
Oh, as per the field of environmental biology, sorry for taking care of the wilderness for you, I guess you don`t enjoy that either.

If you`re living you can`t ignore the progress and improvements biology has made for you.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
I`d do the same for Allah, Jehovah, Christ, whatever. Hell, if Zeus started showing up in visions I`d want to get to the bottom of what`s going on as long as there`s some real events happening.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
The way I see it is if there`s a huge ass religion around it, and people have religious experiences that involve a diety or messengers of that diety, miracles occuring that are credited to this diety because of their beliefs, then I`m going to think maybe I`m missing part of the picture here. I don`t care if it`s JuJu monster at the bottom of the sea, I`m not going to outright dismiss some real events because most the tribe that believes in it is full of poo.
0
Reply
Male 315
He didn`t answer that question at all, he just said "no, what if you`re wrong?" regardless of the subject he is talking about, that`s just dodging a question that you have no good answer for. Unfortunately hindsight is 20/20, maybe he could have come up with a real answer if he had time to think.
0
Reply
Female 8,055
Well- as I see it, the question has myriad answers. If you are wrong about Christ now- you burn in hell, if you were wrong a few hundred years ago you went to limbo or purgatory. All religions have a different fate for non believers, so you would have to ascertain which god was the true god , then which version of that faith the correct one- then you would know your fate.
0
Reply
Male 3,819
I`m confused as to why they remade this. Aren`t parody`s usually supposed to be slightly different than the things they`re parodying?
0
Reply
Male 48
Lively debate is not trolling. I appreciate someone who spends the time to express well thought out ideas. This thread was meant for long debate. Others for snappy one-liners. I like the mix.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
I answered this the first time it was posted.

1) By believing in some basic monotheism, you are covered for approx. 2 Billion interpretations of God.
The Ju Ju covers... 2000? 20`000?

2) The argument made is basically Pascal`s wager, he increased the size of the table, but avoided the question completely. (Also, not all religions are belief based, they (mostly) are act based).

3) An alternative answer to Pascal`s Wager is that belief is not a choice.

(Example: Stop believing in your computer. Don`t pretend not to believe, actually stop believing).

You cannot choose not to believe in God, though you can make choices around it, therefore he has no choice in the matter.

My original post.
0
Reply
Male 914
Primetime is not a troll. Repeat, he is not a troll.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"However, on 3, if I need to report anything then the mods aren`t doing their jobs. "

We have a system of checks and balances. Recently one mod was deemed to be abusing his powers so a user sent an e-mail to fancylad.

I am giving you an official avenue from which you can have official verification whether I`m trolling or not.
So unless you are just calling me a troll because you have no points to offer, you have a great opportunity to prove your statements right.
You have the ability to
a) get me demodded
b) get me banned
c) be right!
All of this can be yours if your statement is right!
0
Reply
Female 385
For the love of...

He did answer the question. In the only way it can actually be answered. He can`t just say "I`ll be in hell", because that is only one of thousands of possibilities if he`s wrong. He hardly had the time to sit there and go over the afterlife possibilities of every religion to ever exist. It would, in fact, be impossible, since many of those faiths are dead and forgotten. If one of those was the right one, we`re ALL boned.

Which was the whole point. No one with a brain takes Pascal`s Wager seriously, because they realize it`s not "This god or no god". In reality, every god ever invented by man is equally likely to exist, and considering the lack of evidence, they`re all less likely than there being no god at all.
0
Reply
Male 719

0
Reply
Male 719
@prime: I`m glad we agree that 1 and 2 aren`t even up to debate (you must have coarse, bright green hair and a gemstone bellybutton because you`re a troll).

However, on 3, if I need to report anything then the mods aren`t doing their jobs.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
If its about point 3, then I become demodded. If its about point 4, then I have some esplaining to do to my bookie
0
Reply
Male 1,674
@primetime
What if you`re wrong?
0
Reply
Male 719
Actually, that makes a lot of sense to me. My father was raised in Brooklyn until he was eight, then my grandparents moved to Edison. He claims Yankee loyalty, but I know that he would root for the Brooklyn Dodgers if he could, and he "secretly" roots for the Phillies.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
I have 4 things to say.
1) Stating your opinion is not trolling. Yes i think Bio is a joke, Dawkins is a pooty debator, and the BLS is a credible source.

2) I`m tired of the "trolling" excuse being used when you can`t refute what the person says, so you revert to avoiding it completely.

3) If I am a troll, then e-mail fancy what happened. If he finds this is trolling I`ll de-mod myself ASAP.

4) Rays are beating the Yankees in the AL east this year
0
Reply
Male 1,674
lol, I`m a northern jersey guy and my gf lives in south jersey. So there was this whole Yankees/Philies rivelry going on during the world series. I`m not a big sports fan but it i really enjoyed watching the series at her brothers house.

Also primetime is such a troll.
0
Reply
Male 719
I mean, the pre-season isn`t quite over yet, but who would you choose of Yankees and Boston on opening day?
0
Reply
Male 719
So Blank, how about those Yankees?
0
Reply
Male 1,674
i was having a dialogue with skine. It`s not anything you need to concern yourself with.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
....ok now I`m lost. The "Don`t Feed the troll" designated whom as the troll?
0
Reply
Male 1,674
i wasn`t talking to you, primetime
0
Reply
Male 239
"He says he`s no more likely to be wrong than the woman asking the question, that`s all."

He also equates christianity with believing in the ju ju monster in the sea (which is something he said specifically because it sounds like a ridiculous thing to believe) and his book is called "The God Dillusion" so saying he just said he was no more likely to be wrong than her is giving him a little too much credit.

He didn`t answer the question (I know it was just too stupid to answer) and just went on a self righteous tangent about something barely related with no chance of anyone countering what he said.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Of course blank... I`m the troll.
I obviously have come to IAB for the past X amount of years simply to wait for the perfect forum to troll, and guess what I found it!!

"Only when they say asinine things like biology isn`t real science. "

I`m just saying what the Stephen Hawkings and Von Braun`s of the world think. Maybe not a real science is taking it too far, but rather...its not rocket science.

"How exactly does that fit? Like I`ve already said, Dawkins wasn`t trying to say he`s right, so saying "proving the other wrong doesn`t make him right" doesn`t have a place in this argument."

I don`t think Dawkins was directly trying to say he`s right, what I`m saying is that he tried to come off as "the greater one" in that situation.

0
Reply
Male 719
@Blank, I`m already there.

I just like some concluding remarks.
0
Reply
Male 719
Seriously, you`re not worth the time.

Goodnight, and please don`t reproduce.
0
Reply
Male 372
Only when they say asinine things like biology isn`t real science.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
@skine
0
Reply
Male 7,933
.....because the Bureau of Labor and Statistics doesn`t qualify as legit at all?

Seems to me that anything i`ll post that shows how anthropology is a social science will just be met with "well thats not a valid reference".


0
Reply
Male 2,148
How exactly does that fit? Like I`ve already said, Dawkins wasn`t trying to say he`s right, so saying "proving the other wrong doesn`t make him right" doesn`t have a place in this argument.
0
Reply
Male 719
@prime: I`ll change my position.

You`re either an idiot, a troll or a douche.

Note that the three aren`t mutually exclusive. Everything you`ve said is completely false or completely arrogant. You honestly have no idea of what science or the scientific process are. You gave me two references tonight, and I would have accepted Wikipedia over either.

Honestly, I cannot believe that you are at all involved in science. It`s more probable that you`re a scientist at the Creation Institute.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
......but... she doesn`t believe in the great juju at the bottom of the sea. This is what passes for logic these days?
0
Reply
Male 7,933
I didn`t say he was right about atheism, I just said he responded appropriately because the question didn`t need an answer. Your whole "I`m smart because I can quote a movie" think doesn`t make a difference, then, does it?"

clearly thats what I was going for. I know when I try to impress colleagues, hollywood allusions are excellent for showing knowledge... I didn`t use the example because it perfectly fits what Dawkins did.... not at all.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
I didn`t say he was right about atheism, I just said he responded appropriately because the question didn`t need an answer. Your whole "I`m smart because I can quote a movie" think doesn`t make a difference, then, does it?
0
Reply
Male 1,674
Regardless, T-Bone, i think we can all agree that he *responded* to the question.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"The question didn`t need answering. If you`re recognizing this WHILE saying "he didn`t answer the question","

I said that because people are saying that he answered the question. I`m simply stating the fact he isn`t
0
Reply
Male 78
Same poo, different deity.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Honestly, you seem like that guy who thinks he`s smarter than most philosophy majors after he sees the Matrix (but isn`t even aware of Plato`s Republic). "

Well I`ve always thought I`m smarter than philosophy majors simply for the fact that I`m not majoring in a jobless field

"AKA Debating 101 with PLOT!"

hehehe...the part of debate 101 would be listed under "Fallacy" or False Dichotomy.

Just because you prove the other wrong, doesn`t mean youre right. So if Dawkins were in debate 101, the teacher would`ve knocked him down a few points
0
Reply
Male 1,674
Monday, March 29, 2010 9:30:56 PM
This was on South Park?

I`m pretty sure this was fan made.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
The question didn`t need answering. If you`re recognizing this WHILE saying "he didn`t answer the question", you`re either stupid or a troll. I`m done with this, you aren`t even trying to get anywhere.
0
Reply
Male 719
Thank You For Smoking: AKA Debating 101 with PLOT!

Honestly, you seem like that guy who thinks he`s smarter than most philosophy majors after he sees the Matrix (but isn`t even aware of Plato`s Republic).
0
Reply
Female 3,562
This was on South Park?
0
Reply
Male 7,933
thank you for smoking.

The main character is explaining to his son that his job is to be right. The example he gave was that he defended flavor X of ice cream was the best while his son defended flavor Y. The guy proved that sometimes Flavor Y isn`t always enough, and never addressed why flavor X was the best.

Dawkins didn`t answer what happens if he is wrong. He answered that she could be wrong as well.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Biology is to science as multiplication tables are to math. Sure you can count it as a science, but its a cute science.

"What if you`re wrong" is such a stupid question that it doesn`t need answering. "

I never said that it needed to be answer. I said he didn`t answer it.

I don`t know if you were too stupid to not see that, or if you were just trolling.

(Did you see what I did there?)
0
Reply
Male 2,148
I haven`t seen Thank You For Smoking, but I didn`t see Dawkins say he`s right in this video. He says he`s no more likely to be wrong than the woman asking the question, that`s all.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
"primetimekin
Male, 18-29, Southern US
8013 Posts Monday, March 29, 2010 9:19:47 PM
So youre basically refuting what I said....by saying something completely unrelated? "

It`s Bill Pullman YOU FOOL!
0
Reply
Male 2,148
I agree that psychology isn`t a real science, but biology absolutely is.

"What if you`re wrong" is such a stupid question that it doesn`t need answering.

Maybe you ARE stupid and not just a troll...
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Dawkings did the "Thank you for smoking" technique. He proved vanilla was the best flavor by showing that chocolate wasn`t.... I don`t know why that`s so hard to see
0
Reply
Male 7,933
So youre basically refuting what I said....by saying something completely unrelated?
0
Reply
Male 1,674
lol, homer just proved there was no god.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
primetime: I`ll repeat what`s already been said: You`re either really stupid or a troll.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
"Vindictive
Female, 13-17, Midwest US
700 Posts Monday, March 29, 2010 9:13:51 PM
this argument is so frustratingly stupid that i`m surprised you all haven`t started flinging poo at each other. "
The episode of The Simpsons where Homer takes the crayon out of his brain is on.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
this argument is so frustratingly stupid that i`m surprised you all haven`t started flinging poo at each other.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"He answered the question with "Exactly the same thing that happens if you`re wrong", not just "What if you`re wrong"."

Last time I checked, the question was what if he`s wrong not what if she`s wrong.

"Also, primetime, troll harder."

Oh ofcourse, I forgot where I was. whenever someone says what they actually feel on I-A-B, it must obviously be trolling right?
0
Reply
Male 719
Sorry, I can usually calm myself enough to evade the filter.

However, just the complete lack of integrity is so grating that I have trouble ignoring it.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
Do you idiots really think he would dodge a question like that? Clearly he`s thought about what if he`s wrong and he`s prepared to accept those consequences.

He answered the question with "Exactly the same thing that happens if you`re wrong", not just "What if you`re wrong". His point in this answer is that it isn`t more likely for any specific belief to be right than any other, so what does it matter? If the Scientologists are right, the same thing happens to him as happens to the woman who asked that question.

Also, primetime, troll harder.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
fine skin, how about the BLS job outlook of social science jobs i.e. Antrho
0
Reply
Male 1,195
I`m sorry I complained about all the arguing, reading the posts on this topic has taken away my boredom. Thank you, IAB, for finally doing your job.
0
Reply
Male 719
suite101.com?

Really? Are you a drating retarded non-nice individual?
(sorry, filter)

Nobody who even cares about their integrity would even ADMIT that they`ve ever used such a website. There are more goddamned ads than words on that site.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]let me replace that with
Oh Poop, you so enjoy showcasing your ignorance, don`t you? Do you honestly think biology is to be taken seriously? Are you REALLY that incredibly stupid?[/quote]

Prime, saying biology isn`t to be taken seriously is to undermine the medicines that keep your ignorance ass alive. Shucks, let`s forget our knowledge of the cell, DNA, RNA, mitochondria, viruses, vaccines, cancer, disease, germs, etc. F*ck all that! It`s all one big joke!
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Davy, now speaking honestly hear.

You`re telling me you DONT think social sciences are a joke?

I`m just taking it a step further and going one up the ladder to biology
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Are you REALLY that incredibly stupid?[/quote]
Go easy on Prime. He`s from Florida. Not his fault, he was born that way.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Oh Prime, you so enjoy showcasing your ignorance, don`t you? Do you honestly think biology is a joke? Are you REALLY that incredibly stupid?"

let me replace that with
Oh Poop, you so enjoy showcasing your ignorance, don`t you? Do you honestly think biology is to be taken seriously? Are you REALLY that incredibly stupid?
0
Reply
Male 719
Again, prime, you are an obvious troll.

(and obvious troll is obvious)
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Biology and anthropology are NOT social sciences. "

Granted biology isnt.
but anthro is a social science science!
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]Poop, I`m a man of real science. Physics, and chemistry. Find me any top physicist that doesn`t think bio/anthro/social sciences arent a total joke[/quote]

Oh Prime, you so enjoy showcasing your ignorance, don`t you? Do you honestly think biology is a joke? Are you REALLY that incredibly stupid?
0
Reply
Male 719
Biology and anthropology are NOT social sciences.

Seriously, look up the following definitions:

-Science
-Scientific Process (Scientific Method)
-Biology
-Anthropology
-Social Science
-Belief
-Faith
0
Reply
Male 99
or at least you`re being one, anyway.
0
Reply
Male 99
primetime your a idioty.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Of course he never directly answered the question, it was rhetorical."

Not exactly sure you know what rhetorical means here....
0
Reply
Male 7,933
if you are an actual mathematician...then yeah, you can say physics is a joke

". just as much as psychology and just as much as physics."

....you compared psychology with physics....argument invalid

"you`re an undergrad, right Prime. Just FYI, no one with a real understanding would ever claim what you say. Sure they may joke about it but never claim it in a public forum."

So I say what they think...fair enough
0
Reply
Male 99
its called logic.
0
Reply
Male 99
notice how i didn`t actually respond to your reasoning and demands there.

just like what richard dawkins did, i answered your question by telling you that your question was bullpoo to begin with and therefore did not require an answer.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
you`re an undergrad, right Prime. Just FYI, no one with a real understanding would ever claim what you say. Sure they may joke about it but never claim it in a public forum.
0
Reply
Male 99
and i`m a mathematician, primetime, and i say that physics is a joke.



so i don`t think the "lol my dick is bigger than yours" argument is a good way of reasoning. biology is a science. just as much as psychology and just as much as physics.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@primetimekin
Of course he never directly answered the question, it was rhetorical. We all know what answer the girl was looking for. The thing is, its a stupid question and he just pointed that out to her in a way that even the most ignorant person in the world could understand.
0
Reply
Male 99
and that pooptart19 guy as well
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Poop, I`m a man of real science. Physics, and chemistry. Find me any top physicist that doesn`t think bio/anthro/social sciences arent a total joke
0
Reply
Male 99
i agree with what blanktom just said there.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]"Yeah, Prime. Those silly biologists aren`t very scientific, what with their fancy labs and published papers appearing in respected scientific journals. F*ck those biologists!"

So are anthropologist...your point?[/quote]

Oh forget it, Prime. It`s just your piss poor knowledge and understanding of science is all.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
you obviously don`t understand what a scientist is Prime.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Yeah, Prime. Those silly biologists aren`t very scientific, what with their fancy labs and published papers appearing in respected scientific journals. F*ck those biologists!"

So are anthropologist...your point?
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]First off, he`s a biologist...we`re using the term "science" here a tad too loosely.[/quote]

Yeah, Prime. Those silly biologists aren`t very scientific, what with their fancy labs and published papers appearing in respected scientific journals. F*ck those biologists!
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"The fact that you state that biology isn`t a science really does imply that you`re a troll. "

Its as much of a science as psychology and earth space
0
Reply
Female 211
No matter how hard I try, I just can`t find humour in this show.
0
Reply
Male 99
all of you guys who think that he didn`t answer the question need to listen to his response again and think a bit harder.

simply put, the question made no sense. his response pointed this fact out and therefore it was impossible to answer. this is a logic thing.

the key fact here is that a false hypothesis can imply anything you want it to. he points out that her question is baseless because it makes false assumptions. because of that, it therefore makes no sense to ask him if he`s wrong.

so if you want to be a douchebag about it, he didn`t answer the actual question because he didn`t have to. his answer was better than anything he could`ve said. the south park people realized the genious of how he handled the question and that`s why they animated it. they wanted to emphasize what he was saying here so that people who understand at least this basic logic crap can understand why the "what if you`re wrong" argument is a fallacy.

so thi
0
Reply
Male 719
@prime: I know you`re a mod, but you are either an incredible idiot, or an amazing troll.

The fact that you state that biology isn`t a science really does imply that you`re a troll.
0
Reply
Male 1,195
I saw this before, except it didn`t suck so much because it was the actual video.

Also, I`m pretty sure that by posting this video, `tainteddeity` is trolling... This is the internet, you can`t expect to be able to say anything about any religion or belief at all without everyone mindlessly insulting each other...
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"I won`t even argue. I`ll simply say that no scientist has faith in science. They have faith in the scientific process.

You literally have no clue what you`re talking about. "

So you have faith that no scientist has faith?

"No scientist has faith in science. They have faith in the scientific process"

wait what?
So scientist dont have faith in science they have faith in science...

Last time I checked the scientific process was quite an important component of science. I don`t know how biology, or other "sciences" do it. But I`m pretty sure thats how it works in physics/chemistry
0
Reply
Male 719
"Second, every single person on earth has faith. He has faith that the current model of how life was created is correct. Even though history has shown that most prevalent scientific theories often get disproven, he still has faith that his theories will stand the test of time."

I won`t even argue. I`ll simply say that no scientist has faith in science. They have faith in the scientific process.

You literally have no clue what you`re talking about.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Because he doesn`t have faith; he`s a scientist. That`s the point. You can`t call Atheism a faith because it`s a LACK OF faith - a LACK OF belief."


First off, he`s a biologist...we`re using the term "science" here a tad too loosely.

Second, every single person on earth has faith. He has faith that the current model of how life was created is correct. Even though history has shown that most prevalent scientific theories often get disproven, he still has faith that his theories will stand the test of time.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Should be noted....Dawkins never answered the question.

All he did was to try to prove the opposition wrong, thus everyone would think he`s right.

Learned that from "Thank You for Smoking"
0
Reply
Male 719
"the whole response boils down to a first grade answer.

"what if you`re wrong?"
"what if YOU`RE wrong!?" "

The question is a bit deeper than you make it. This isn`t just:

"You suck."
"No, you suck!"
etc.

It`s closer to:

"You don`t believe that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream ever. What if you`re wrong?"
"Well, what if chocolate isn`t the best flavor? What about vanilla, strawberry, coffee, mint chocolate chip, maple walnut or cotton candy?"

Except that people are raised to only like one flavor from childhood. Also, if chocolate is truly the best then everyone who prefers anything else or has no preference will suffer eternal hellfire. But then again, if vanilla is truly the best then everyone who prefers anything else or has no preference will suffer eternal hellfire. But then again...
0
Reply
Male 1,674
Fealiks, you`re debating the meaning of a word but completely missing the point. If he truely does not define himself by ANY beliefs then he should be able to answer a question about his... (phylosophy, self, belief, whatever you want to call it)... without having to bring up religion.
0
Reply
Male 72
woooow.... you guys are truly retarded...
he didn`t answer the question??
what if he`s wrong? he`ll burn in hell...
but thats not the point... if you had even a handful of common sense you`d get that...
0
Reply
Male 224
"I was obviously not refeering to a religious belief."

The point is, he doesn`t define himself by ANY belief. Atheism is not a school of thought, it`s not a doctrine and it`s not a belief; it`s a LACK of belief in any deity. Babies are atheists - do you expect them to grow up and say to their parents "I already believe in atheism, how can you expect me to become a Christian?"? No, because atheism isn`t something you believe in. It`s a STATE of not believing in God.
0
Reply
Male 719
"My problem is that Dawkins has no problem believing in Aliens landing on the planet and starting life, but cannot believe in a being with power to create life... "

This just shows that you can quote Ben Stein`s movie which was heavily edited, and was obviously slanted towards IDers. In fact, Dawkins was under the impression that it was an unbiased documentary for most of the interview.

In the interview, he admitted that it was a plausible claim that aliens were responsible for life on Earth, but not something he believed. He followed that if this was the case, it would come about by evolution by natural selection, or something incredibly similar.

This is just how I can entertain the notion of a Celestial Teapot (which I don`t believe in), but state that it can only be there by human intervention.

Dawkins has stated on many occasions that he was giving Stein the benefit of the doubt.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
yeah, pretty much
0
Reply
Male 372
oh wow, guess you`re right since you put it that way.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
"Meh, I like this. Its a good response to a good question."
Actually it`s a bad response to a dumb question.
0
Reply
Male 372
Meh, I like this. Its a good response to a good question.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
"Because he doesn`t have faith; he`s a scientist. That`s the point. You can`t call Atheism a faith because it`s a LACK OF faith - a LACK OF belief."
I was obviously not refeering to a religious belief.
0
Reply
Female 1,283
[quote]My problem is that Dawkins has no problem believing in Aliens landing on the planet and starting life, but cannot believe in a being with power to create life.[/quote]
Always counter with "well, where did they come from?"
It just sets it back at square one lol.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
the whole response boils down to a first grade answer.

"what if you`re wrong?"
"what if YOU`RE wrong!?"


0
Reply
Male 224
"My problem is that Dawkins has no problem believing in Aliens landing on the planet and starting life, but cannot believe in a being with power to create life... He has replaced a religion of god with one of no god, but he has the same faults he lambasts others for having."

He doesn`t have a problem with the concept, he just has no reason to believe that it`s the case because he hasn`t been presented with any evidence. The theory that Alien bacteria began life on Earth, on the other hand, has some convincing evidence behind it.
0
Reply
Male 224
"There`s a lot of Atheists out there (usually the most outspoken) why define themselves by who they "are not" instead of trying to promote who they *are*. R.D. seems to be of the former camp. He was asked a question about his belief and rather than answer it he has to point out flaws in other beliefs."
Because he doesn`t have faith; he`s a scientist. That`s the point. You can`t call Atheism a faith because it`s a LACK OF faith - a LACK OF belief.
0
Reply
Male 49
My problem is that Dawkins has no problem believing in Aliens landing on the planet and starting life, but cannot believe in a being with power to create life... He has replaced a religion of god with one of no god, but he has the same faults he lambasts others for having.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
There`s a lot of Atheists out there (usually the most outspoken) why define themselves by who they "are not" instead of trying to promote who they *are*. R.D. seems to be of the former camp. He was asked a question about his belief and rather than answer it he has to point out flaws in other beliefs.

If he can`t answer to his beliefs honestly than maybe he is Anti-Religious and not an Atheist.
0
Reply
Male 813
P.S. Just so you learn something, it`s called arguing to absurdity.
0
Reply
Male 813
addler, it`s a valid counter argument if you had even the slightest bit of knowledge about philosophy. Its obvious you don`t however so nuff said.
0
Reply
Male 813
MissMage, ya cause not doing so has gone over SO WELL in the history of humans.
*massive facepalm*
0
Reply
Male 776
"Umm . . . That was some pretty clever intellectual gymnastics but he still didn`t answer the question."

probably because he doesn`t have one, if you ignore the "intellectual gymnastics" the whole response boils down to a first grade answer.

"what if you`re wrong?"
"what if YOU`RE wrong!?"
0
Reply
Male 2,199
i was waiting for the joke and was sadly let down...
0
Reply
Female 465
Umm . . . That was some pretty clever intellectual gymnastics but he still didn`t answer the question.
0
Reply
Male 310
I love boooooooooooobies!!
0
Reply
Male 871
Hes not arrogant anything hes forthright in the face of a religious establishment that wants its fairytales purporting to be the truth taught alongside actual truth like science!
And an end to the indoctrination of children into the religious practices of their parents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EFl8xwxgBQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EFl8xwxgBQ

go watch either of these programmes and you`ll see what hes actually about.
To point out also that hes not just attacking christianity he talks to people from differing religions.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
i dont get it
0
Reply
Female 695
"The problem I find with some Christians (NOT ALL) is that they hear what they want to and there is no way to express what you want in an argument because they won`t even listen to your points."

So why the HELL do you argue with them at all then, Davo? This is MY problem. Why are Atheists so offended by Christians that they feel the need to debate them or challenge their beliefs constantly?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Its from south park in case you didnt realise!
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]if im wrong i will just cease to exsist with no penalty whatsoever. if you are wrong, however, well............[/quote]

You assume the only possible outcomes are "MY God exists" or "NO god exists". Which is the same assumption his entire response was aimed at dismantling.

No matter what you believe, there are thousands of other belief systems that you are, therefore, not believing in. It is possible your Christian God exists. It is possible no god exists. But if we assume it`s possible for your god to exist, we must assume it is equally possible for every god in the history of mankind to exist.

Instead of being a coin flip where one side is paradise for you, and one side is nothingness, you instead have a roulette wheel, and all your chips are on a single number.

To complicate things further, many gods other than the Christian one may favor an honest-hearted skeptic atheist over someone who actively worshiped other gods.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
I love it when people say he "didn`t answer the question" and act like it`s because he`s evading it or doesn`t know what he`s talking about.

The problem I find with some Christians (NOT ALL) is that they hear what they want to and there is no way to express what you want in an argument because they won`t even listen to your points.
0
Reply
Female 695
"Nope, he comes off as arrogant because he is the atheist equivalent of a bible thumper."
I completely agree.
He`s just another arrogant douche who thinks his opinion is > everything.

I wish people could just learn to respect each other`s beliefs and not go around trying to change them. Whether Christian or Atheist or whatever. I don`t know why atheists in particular get so personally offended by someone`s belief in God but of course, it could go the other way too.
0
Reply
Male 1,357
This is a direct voice clip from a real Q&A he did.
I am an atheist. Richard Dawkins is not a good philosopher, I`ve studied him quite a bit. If you ever go to Peter Vardy Lecture, he knows what he`s talking about, and slags off dawkins from time to time as well! :)
0
Reply
Male 4,004
"Dawkins comes off as arrogant largely because he assumes people are intelligent ..."

Nope, he comes off as arrogant because he is the atheist equivalent of a bible thumper.
0
Reply
Male 724
@HarryDresden

What about The Athiest Church?
0
Reply
Male 1,815
This speech is pretty old, internet wise. Why was it animated South Park style? The original video is the same. Animating it didn`t add a thing.
0
Reply
Male 205
skine: "Dawkins comes off as arrogant largely because he assumes people are intelligent ..."

Yep. Made that error myself a few times.

0
Reply
Male 258
youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg here`s the original
0
Reply
Male 1,627
is this some kind of program that you can make a south park episode?
0
Reply
Male 734
"He`s also married to my childhood hero, so that helps."

Really? I thought his relationship with Mrs. Garrison ended, but I guess not. :P
0
Reply
Male 99
yeah but why doesnt he answer the ultimate question

whether atheists should call ourselves the Allied Atheist Alliance, the Unified Atheist League, or the United Atheist Alliance?
0
Reply
Female 635
I like Richard Dawkins. He`s usually right, at least from where I stand.
He`s also married to my childhood hero, so that helps.
0
Reply
Male 263
if im wrong i will just cease to exsist with no penalty whatsoever. if you are wrong, however, well............
0
Reply
Female 2,352
All religious debate aside that was a stupid question.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
@everyone asking "whats the point?!?!?!?!" - you know, sometimes people like to create things just because they have the talent to do so and they enjoy the process.
0
Reply
Male 756
i think people should be able to beleive what they whant. i beleive in god and evolution
0
Reply
Female 356
What was the point to making this annimated like Soth park???!! It`s a serious thing..not making fun...WHY?! what is the point of this?!?!
0
Reply
Male 625
this was never in a south park episode this guy just made it and its a really good animation
0
Reply
Male 719
@osmandis: Dawkins comes off as arrogant largely because he assumes people are intelligent, or at least have the capability to be so.

The thing is that he did answer the question, but assumed that people would take his answer to imply everything in my explanation. Also, when someone has been exposed to so many versions of Pascal`s Wager, it makes sense that they begin to dismiss people who don`t even realize they`re asking about Pascal`s Wager.

@Froggy: Either use a link or use the actual address: http://www.i-am-bored.com/
0
Reply
Male 205
@skine: that`s more like an answer I would have expected from Dawkins. His answer was, as I see it, slightly arrogant, more directed to the general public than to the girl who put the question. Impolite in my book.
0
Reply
Male 122
I think I am Christian, and it is this that is the only thing that really tests my faith properly. It is a very very good point, and one that should be considered thoroghly by everyone.

Although, as most people have said, it is just a version of this: http://bit.ly/14z3fO (relax, it`s a wikipedia link)
0
Reply
Male 2,034
Why was this animated?????
0
Reply
Male 51
lol, `legitimate question`.
0
Reply
Male 2,056
@qquuaacckk, ever heard of guest stars?
have you even watched any cartoons lately?
0
Reply
Male 719
"Yep. Made me angry when I first saw it (the original lecture). That`s no way to wind out of a legitimate question."

While he doesn`t answer the question directly, the answer is implied in an obvious manner.

If he`s wrong about Christianity, then he`ll be sent to Christian Hell. If he`s wrong about Islam, then he`ll be sent to the Muslim hell. If he`s wrong about Hinduism, then he`ll be reincarnated as a lesser being. If he doesn`t believe in Religion X, then he will be subject to Religion X`s choice of punishment.

An atheist runs the risk of being wrong about every religion that has ever existed, while a Christian runs the risk of being wrong about every religion except for Christianity.

So, Pascal`s Wager falls apart completely when there are multiple mutually exclusive religions.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Here is the original clip, from which they have taken the audio and then animated to.

I doubt this was actually done by South Park, but it mimics the style very well and it`s a well-done bit of animation.

Dawkins gives this response because the girl is basically using a differently formed version of Pascal`s Wager, and it`s such an old, tired, and often-used argument that he`s probably given up taking it seriously every time. Pascal`s Wager is a ridiculous argument, so it merits a ridiculous response.
0
Reply
Male 332
FAKE! richard dawkins is actually a person not an animation!
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] He didn`t really seem to answer the question. [/quote]

I guess he didn`t, but if anyone wants to debate this, I think it was an invalid question to begin with.
0
Reply
Male 205
kenisaim: "He didn`t really seem to answer the question."
Yep. Made me angry when I first saw it (the original lecture). That`s no way to wind out of a legitimate question.
0
Reply
Male 508
The southpark voice over was a nice touch. He can`t answer the question "what if you`re wrong?" with "well then I go to hell" (which is what she was hoping for) because he doesn`t believe in it. Answering with the question, "What if you`re wrong about the flying spaghetti monster?" Is brilliant and hopefully gets her thinking about how stupid the question was in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I don`t see anything wrong with this cartoon, its not making fun of him, and even if it did, people have freedom of speech.

Mabie we can change things up with a bit of Muslim bashing? It seems people want something new.
0
Reply
Male 894
you can tell by the voice-over, its recorded at like a seminar or something and then dubbed over a vid of south part
0
Reply
Male 559
Oh here we go. We turn simple posts in to religious debates, I can`t imagine what this is gonna do in the forum.
0
Reply
Male 518
South park did not do this, someone made it like south park did
0
Reply
Male 1,557
I`ve seen the real clip of that... why did South Park regurgitate it in its entirity?
0
Reply
Male 10
How exactly is this funny?
0
Reply
Male 22
also, whats up with all the religion(mostly christian) bashing lately? I-a-b has changed alot in the past few month...
0
Reply
Male 893
The last thing we need on IAB is more religious debates.
0
Reply
Male 518
This made a really good response and makes it a south park joke. 1 star
0
Reply
Male 15
Why did this clip need a south-park-ish version? I don`t get it...
0
Reply
Male 22
He didn`t really seem to answer the question.
0
Reply
Male 848
Link: Richard Dawkins Asks: What If You`re Wrong? [Rate Link] - Well, what if you are?
0
Reply