Is Richard Dawkins Inerrant ?

[Jack]

God has many definitions, even by definition of Christians, Muslim et al, which really does highlight Dawkins' prejudice on this matter.

That's not prejudice. In any debate both sides are expected to state their definitions and qualify their opinions. In order to avoid trying to pointlessly debate every possible definition of a god theists can invent, it makes sense to limit the debate to a specific example. If I'm debating the god of Abraham it's distracting and dishonest to have those I'm debating suddenly switch to defining god as deists do. I call it honesty and transparency to establish the limits of the debate at the start.

Please supply your evidence which says the probabilty of God is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant.

The total sum of all the physical evidence presented throughout history by believers that points irrefutably to the existence of their god. There is little chance if any at all of a god as described in the Torah, the Bible and the Koran existing and interacting with humans yet leaving no physical traces, no evidence at all, and supposedly performing acts that can be attributed to natural processes. There's no physical evidence that gods exist and we have no need to believe gods exist. At least Big Foot supposedly leaves footprints.

Reference the God Delusion. Read the book yourself I don't wish to pick that piece of crap up again, if I want bigotry and prejudice I can get it from other sources now.

I'd appreciate it if someone who has actually read the whole book could let us know if this is in there. I'm only part way through it and I haven't encountered that phrase. Perhaps later I'll search for it. A Google search only returns this thread for that phrase. It's a pretty presumptuous thing to say and I'd like to know if he really wrote that or if it's another theistic strawman thrown out in hopes no one would bother to fact check it.

As insignificant hasn't been established, except perhaps in the mind of Dawkins and his Dawks under their own delusion, it is a very bigoted statement.

Bigoted, prejudice? Pretty strong reactions to a book. Insignificance is a given and has been established. Why else are we told to believe by faith? Because even theists admit one can only believe, not know. Knowledge requires evidence, which religion can't provide. belief by faith only requires you convince yourself something is true, regardless of the lack of or contrary to evidence.

Dawkins had the opportunity to revoke it, or at least deny any tie to it. He chose not to.

Why should he? The phrase doesn't violate the meaning of atheist. The absolute certainty that gods don't exist isn't required for disbelief.

Please supply evidence which says conclusively that this is completely accurate. In truth, this is a complete fabrication of a vivid imagination, real flying tea cups. LOL one that already has a definition of God.

So you believe that there's a real possibility that the tooth fairy exists?

[isaone]

Thank for at least responding to the OP Brisbane since Diogenes simply refused to do so and then took his ball and went home.

Jack (thanks) has answered your replies so I will be brief.

Anything which has been tested and searched for for several thousand years and never provably found by definition has an insignificant probability of existing .

I have read the God Delusion 2.89765 (more than twice but not 3 ) times and have not seen that phrase. The burden of proof is clearly and always on whosoever asserts a positive fact . In this case that is you/ in this case. Unless you show this quote to be accurate it must be considered false.

The insignificance is established as I state above. Even if this is a logically faulty statement it is in no way bigoted but merely incorrect. Please provide proof of bigotry .

My footnote about wording was simply an aside there is no need to debate it since Dawkins does now (as you point out) support the phrase. I was merely pointing out that the quote was presented as a Dawkinism when he did not originate it but again no need to debate who said what .

The evidence that God = Tooth Fariy = Zeus is as has been stated repeatedly .

There is no direct evidence that any of them exist, zero zilch, nada, none , zip.

Therefore concerning the question of existence (the only valid point here since that is what the quote is referring to) they are exactly equivalent.

PS
I am truly baffled by Diogenes's and my interaction on this thread. If anyone would like to re-read our exchanges and point out where I was anything less than straightforward or guilty of some offense that would result in his apparent abandoning of the thread out of disgust for my behavior, please post or send me a PM to explain because I so do not see it .

[brisbane buddy]

That's not prejudice. In any debate both sides are expected to state their definitions and qualify their opinions. In order to avoid trying to pointlessly debate every possible definition of a god theists can invent, it makes sense to limit the debate to a specific example. If I'm debating the god of Abraham it's distracting and dishonest to have those I'm debating suddenly switch to defining god as deists do. I call it honesty and transparency to establish the limits of the debate at the start.

Jack I have a way better than average knowledge as to what prejudice is, what causes it and how to eliminate it from the soul/spirit/subconscious mind than the majority of people. When a persons own intelligence stops them from looking at credible knowledge it is due to prejudice and bigotry. To narrow something down to a single point and believe that speaks for the all, is prejudice in its finest form.

The total sum of all the physical evidence presented throughout history by believers that points irrefutably to the existence of their god. There is little chance if any at all of a god as described in the Torah, the Bible and the Koran existing and interacting with humans yet leaving no physical traces, no evidence at all, and supposedly performing acts that can be attributed to natural processes. There's no physical evidence that gods exist and we have no need to believe gods exist. At least Big Foot supposedly leaves footprints.

There is much physical evidence Jack, I gave you some. Just because you refuse point blank to try it, in no way shape or form says it doesn't exist, it just says you will live in denial to prove your own point right.

I'd appreciate it if someone who has actually read the whole book could let us know if this is in there. I'm only part way through it and I haven't encountered that phrase. Perhaps later I'll search for it. A Google search only returns this thread for that phrase. It's a pretty presumptuous thing to say and I'd like to know if he really wrote that or if it's another theistic strawman thrown out in hopes no one would bother to fact check it.

I find it totally amazing how some people can deny knowledge then live in instant denial.

Ref page 28 Paperback edition "The God Delusion."

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.

Bigoted, prejudice? Pretty strong reactions to a book. Insignificance is a given and has been established. Why else are we told to believe by faith? Because even theists admit one can only believe, not know. Knowledge requires evidence, which religion can't provide. belief by faith only requires you convince yourself something is true, regardless of the lack of or contrary to evidence.

Bigoted and prejudice are words which have a specific meaning in the English language and in scientific reference. When and if better words and meaning come into existance I will most probably use them. At the moment they are the best fit. I think most atheist find them offensive because they don't use them in the descriptive sense, but use them as demeaning terms towards the religious person.

Please provide evidence, other than what is to found in Dawkins or his Dawks own imagination, that insignificance has been established. Dawkins may have debunked many extremists views/theories of a particular version of God but this in no way shape or form even begins to suggest that his opinion has debunked God.

Why should he? The phrase doesn't violate the meaning of atheist. The absolute certainty that gods don't exist isn't required for disbelief.

He shouldn't Jack, well not if he doesn't want to. He too has rights. But he should also be intelligent enough to know it makes him and his dawks the same as the religious which he condemns.

So you believe that there's a real possibility that the tooth fairy exists?

Inanity and sanctimonous crap, doesn't serve for credible debate. We have already established that the tooth fairy and flying teacups et al, are figmentations of very vivid imaginations and atheists ones at that.

Cheers.

[Diogenes]

abandoning of the thread out of disgust for my behavior

Just to clear this up...

I did not abandon this thread out of disgust for your behavior...that is a wrong assumption...I abandoned this thread because it became apparent to me that those who support Dawkins are not willing to honestly debate what other scientists have to say about him.

The only ones you want to debate are the opinions of the amateur-scientists on this board.

Which only goes to confirm my belief that it isn't just the theists who are scared of criticism and honest debate.

Like theists you pretend to be open-minded and interested in the facts...but in reality you just want people to accept your opinions blindly without the benefit of other expert opinions...

you can now continue to enjoy your love-in without me.

( obviously I am not referring to all theists and all atheists...just most. )

[brisbane buddy]

Thank for at least responding to the OP Brisbane since Diogenes simply refused to do so and then took his ball and went home.

Isaone, if want to know why Diogenes has done anything, I will ask Diogenes, that way I am sure to get the truth and not something from your imagination.

I have read the God Delusion 2.89765 (more than twice but not 3 ) times and have not seen that phrase. The burden of proof is clearly and always on whosoever asserts a positive fact . In this case that is you/ in this case. Unless you show this quote to be accurate it must be considered false.

People will only see what they want to see Isaone. We have known you to misread before. Burden of proof lies in a persons ability to seek the truth. When I say something you can deny it, when you say it, it must be true.

The insignificance is established as I state above. Even if this is a logically faulty statement it is in no way bigoted but merely incorrect. Please provide proof of bigotry .

Saying something has been established and providing evidence are two different things. Now either supply evidence or admit you have none. I have already shown you the Bigotry, LOL you just don't believe it.

Cheers.

[isaone]

Hey Brisbane thanks for proving yourself wrong without any effort on my part .

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.

By the time the religious finish this book they will all be atheists.

Yes he did say the first quote and I recall it. It has a totally different content that your pretend quote. Significantly Dawkins has an 'if' does not contain your 'all'.

Dawkins is merely expressing his hope for the effect of his book and as such it is not a statement which we can debate as being true or false. Without the 'if' which you just happened to have removed the statement is obviously untrue and despite my blind loyalty to the Supreme leader , I would not accept it. With the 'If' it is perfectly reasonable .

[brisbane buddy]

Hey Brisbane thanks for proving yourself wrong without any effort on my part .

Two statements meaning the same thing doesn't change anything. A rose by any other name is still a rose. It is a completly bigoted statement either which way you look at it.

Yes he did say the first quote and I recall it. It has a totally different content that your pretend quote. Significantly Dawkins has an 'if' does not contain your 'all'.

LOL isaone, you denied it. The quote I used was pulled directly and exactly from the book, word for word and any person who opens the book to that page can prove it for themselves reference was included. You have more excuses than a religious nut and you don't mind distorting history to prove it. Dawkins made his intentions very clear.

Dawkins is merely expressing his hope for the effect of his book and as such it is not a statement which we can debate as being true or false. Without the 'if' which you just happened to have removed the statement is obviously untrue and despite my blind loyalty to the Supreme leader , I would not accept it. With the 'If' it is perfectly reasonable .

LOL more excuses isaone. Where is your proof pertaining to insignicant. I am waiting isaone.

Cheers.

[rez]

..I abandoned this thread because it became apparent to me that those who support Dawkins are not willing to honestly debate what other scientists have to say about him.

In order to even carry this challenge out, one must first list reasons why a scientist would disagree or agree with Dawkins in the first place.

In order to do that Dawkins must have his own ideas.

I tried to figure out what ideas you had in mind in order to make the debate more specific..

LOL I asked you what "theories" and then I listed some of them.

You failed to fulfill your own challenge. Dawkins did not come out with anything revolutionary in the field of Biology. He is simply articulating what your 8th grade Biology book states about the Theory of Evolution.

As an authore Dawkins discusses the logical inconsistencies supernaturalists have when it comes to the god argument.

Of course, this has nothing to do with science or scientists.


So. what is it that you have a real problem with?

Is it because I am coming off smug and pretentious? Probably.

However, what am I suppose to do? Come at you with hugs and kisses when you are simply not comprehending the simplest of ideas about Dawkins, Biology, and the logical arguments of gods existence?

[brisbane buddy]

rez do you know what is the funniest thing of all? I will tell you.

Evolutionists believe in evolution, yet religions speak of evolving to a higher plain, and evolutionists don't believe them. It really does crack me up the evolutionist doesn't believe in evolution.

Cheers.

[rez]

Evolutionists believe in evolution, yet religions speak of evolving to a higher plain, and evolutionists don't believe them.

It is funny that you think that the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with a "higher plain".

[Jack]

Using the term "evolution" sloppily won't win debate points. It's a misapplication of the word. You can call it evolution but that doesn't make it evolution. Classic strawman.

[GetRealDude]

...I abandoned this thread because it became apparent to me that those who support Dawkins are not willing to honestly debate what other scientists have to say about him.

The only ones you want to debate are the opinions of the amateur-scientists on this board.

Which only goes to confirm my belief that it isn't just the theists who are scared of criticism and honest debate.

Like theists you pretend to be open-minded and interested in the facts...but in reality you just want people to accept your opinions blindly without the benefit of other expert opinions...

you can now continue to enjoy your love-in without me.

( obviously I am not referring to all theists and all atheists...just most. )

As much as it pains me to say so (rolls eyes), I guess we should be honest with Diogenes here. We open minded, overly rational atheists and agnostics DO feel Dawkins is our perfect god...he is completely inerrant....and we say our prayers to him facing the Library of Congress 5 times daily. We blindly follow him like sheep...and NEVER ask questions about his validity. If Dawkins asked us to tithe we'd give him a dollar immediately without question. Pass the plate please.

Diogenes, I have to ask....have you ever once raised your hand during a church service to ask the minister a question about the validity of his words or text?

If not, I highly recommend you start....then you'll see the real sidesteppers and true avoidance gurus....and they possibly might even downright throw you out of the church on your ear for doing so.

It is sad what religion does to the mind. We've seen yet another example, ad nauseum, of the intellectual backflips and sidesteps the faith based mind must take to survive a debate and avoid rational discourse. They'll do ANYTHING to avoid backing up their statements...COMPLETELY DELUDE themselves they are being rational, yet provide not a single shred of evidence to support their rant. It bears repeating, its sad what faith based systems do to the mind. It literally is comparable to ingesting a poision/toxin and watching its deterious effects on the brain's reasoning capabilities.

Anyone who has ever read Dawkins's work, or seen his debates, will see that even Dawkins himself will give disclaimers on the nature of science. We all know Dawkins is not inerrant or perfect...that's an impossible, hypothetical concept for anyone to achieve, including a 'god'.

Not once has Dawkins, or any other credible scientist, EVER implied that science knows all the answers.

In comparison, have you EVER heard a minister make the impossible claim his particular god was inerrant?