1
 
   
 

DAWKINS HARRIS 08

 
wavelength32
 
Avatar
 
 
wavelength32
Total Posts:  105
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
18 December 2006 20:06
 

I realize Dawkins is not a US citizen, but this would be pretty wonderful, wouldn't it??

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/wavelength32-11.jpg

 
NobleSavage
 
Avatar
 
 
NobleSavage
Total Posts:  621
Joined  05-12-2006
 
 
 
19 December 2006 01:05
 

I’d much prefer Harris/Dawkins 08.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
19 December 2006 01:59
 

We can all pause and say a prayer of thanks to God that the founders in their foresight created a provision in the Constitution making it impossible for whiny british hack scientists to get elected to the highest office in this great country of ours.

Hurrah founding fathers! hurrah beer!

 
johnpritzlaff
 
Avatar
 
 
johnpritzlaff
Total Posts:  87
Joined  18-09-2006
 
 
 
19 December 2006 03:33
 

Haha, pretty funny… I’m gonna put that on my myspace.

 
B.Dewhirst
 
Avatar
 
 
B.Dewhirst
Total Posts:  62
Joined  14-12-2006
 
 
 
20 December 2006 06:21
 

[quote author=“frankr”]We can all pause and say a prayer of thanks to God that the founders in their foresight created a provision in the Constitution making it impossible for whiny british hack scientists to get elected to the highest office in this great country of ours.

Hurrah founding fathers! hurrah beer!

Having now called a chaired and tenured professor who, thirty years ago, revolutionized his field of research a ‘hack’... where is the evidence which backs up your claim?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
rab
Total Posts:  1835
Joined  26-03-2006
 
 
 
26 December 2006 14:54
 

[quote author=“frankr”] whiny british hack scientists to get elected to the highest office in this great country of ours.

Link?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 13:26
 

[quote author=“rab”][quote author=“frankr”] whiny british hack scientists to get elected to the highest office in this great country of ours.

Link?

Do you want a link to the Constitution or to show that he is a hack or that he is a scientist? You can check the Constitution on your own but iyou are looking for examples of him being a hack scientist I suggest you read the God Delusion. Here is a quote that encompasses his being a hack.

[quote author=“Richard Dawkins”]I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.

 

 
 
Avatar
 
 
camanintx
Total Posts:  765
Joined  16-08-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 13:33
 

[quote author=“frankr”]Here is a quote that encompasses his being a hack.

[quote author=“Richard Dawkins”]I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.

So having an opinion qualifies you as a hack? In that case, I guess there’s no shortage of hacks on this forum, including you frankr.

As for this quote, what would expect an ethologist to say, that it’s all part of God’s plan?

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 13:53
 

He is not a hack for having an opinion. He is a hack because he makes a living mocking believers for believing without empirical proof (see his hatchet job in The God Delusion) He dismisses all believers as delusional because of their lack of empirical evidence and turns around and makes a dogmatic statement with no empirical evidence. Hack.

 
FaixaPreta
 
Avatar
 
 
FaixaPreta
Total Posts:  318
Joined  23-03-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 14:07
 

[quote author=“frankr”]He is not a hack for having an opinion. He is a hack because he makes a living mocking believers for believing without empirical proof (see his hatchet job in The God Delusion) He dismisses all believers as delusional because of their lack of empirical evidence and turns around and makes a dogmatic statement with no empirical evidence. Hack.

How many times do we have to go through this Frank?  You (all theists) are making the claim that God exists without a scintilla of empirical proof.  You can’t call Dawkins a hack when the burden of proof rests with you.  You all are the hacks. 

Did you really read God Delusion?  I’m impressed if you did. (seriously)

BTW, Happy Holidays!!  :D

 
 
Avatar
 
 
camanintx
Total Posts:  765
Joined  16-08-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 14:11
 

[quote author=“frankr”]He is not a hack for having an opinion. He is a hack because he makes a living mocking believers for believing without empirical proof (see his hatchet job in The God Delusion) He dismisses all believers as delusional because of their lack of empirical evidence and turns around and makes a dogmatic statement with no empirical evidence. Hack.

Do you make a habit of confusing evidence with proof? Dawkins is not mocking belief without proof but rather irrational belief that ignores evidence to the contrary. There are many things we cannot prove but we believe them anyway because the evidence we have supports our belief. While you may not believe in evolution, I’m confident Dawkin could produce substantial evidence supporting his claim.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 14:37
 

I have said many times that there exists many things in this universe that exist outside the realm of empirical evidence. Love and beauty are the examples I most often use. Mr Dawkins and his ilk claim that belief without empirical proof is irrational. I do not. I can claim (and do) that the universe points to a creator. The creator is outside the universe but his/her/its stamp is seen throughout the universe. I could never gather empirical proof of the creator because he/she/it lies outside the scope of the natural sciences. Mr dawkins says this is delusional. He has every right to his incorrect judgement. What makes him such a hack is that he then goes on to theorize how the Darwinian evolution explains everything even though he admittedly does not have his precious empirical proof.

FP
I may be a hack but if I write a book I am not going to use Saturday Night Live actors as my credible sources. He quotes Julia Sweeney. This man is supposedly a scientist. I am beginning to see the atheist set is just an incestuous group of authors who quote each other.

camanintx
I have not said that I did not believe in evolution. I think the question irrelevant to my point. If you are saying that belief is irrational and contrary to the evidence then please give me the evidence. Also give me criteria for the evidence. Do not say empirical evidence only because it is clear that Mr Dawkins believes that Darwinian natural selection explains it all without empirical evidence.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
rab
Total Posts:  1835
Joined  26-03-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 15:14
 
[quote author=“frankr”]If you are saying that belief is irrational and contrary to the evidence then please give me the evidence. Also give me criteria for the evidence..

Criteria for faith? It’s believing that the bible is true. It’s true because it’s written in the bible. So the burdent of evidence is on you. Prove to us that the bible is true.

The difference with Mr. Dawkins is that he says he doesn’t have proof. Christians say things like, “because it’s written in the bible” or “god has done wonderful things for me” or “I feel his presence.”

As most non believers will say, wonderful things have happend in their lives without faith or prayer. They’ve also felt a presence, such as that feeling that occurs in the stomach after a plate of beans.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Joad
Total Posts:  775
Joined  04-12-2006
 
 
 
30 December 2006 16:30
 

frankr,

Our Founding Fathers also made it impossible for credible scientsts like Marie Curie or George Washington Carver to hold office.

Professor Dawkins make his living as a professor.

He ridicules lunatics for fun.

Nothing in the US Constitution prohibts hacks from holding office. So far, 43 have done so. As I recall, the first 5-6 US Presidents were Brits.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
camanintx
Total Posts:  765
Joined  16-08-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2006 01:03
 

[quote author=“frankr”]I can claim (and do) that the universe points to a creator. The creator is outside the universe but his/her/its stamp is seen throughout the universe. The creator is outside the universe but his/her/its stamp is seen throughout the universe. I could never gather empirical proof of the creator because he/she/it lies outside the scope of the natural sciences.

You say you could never gather empirical proof of the creator yet you also say its stamp is seen throughout the universe. You can’t have it both ways frankr. Any evidence of something happening that cannot be explained through natural processes would be sufficient to justify your belief. The problem is, no one has been able to produce any.

If the universe was created as you claim, then there are only three possible explanations for whatever created it.

1. The creator has always existed: Besides the fact that it doesn’t explain anything, how is this any different than saying the universe has always existed?

2. The creator evolved through natural processes: If this is the case, then couldn’t the same natural processes have produced us?

3. Something else created the creator: Besides the infinite regression problem, wouldn’t each previous creator have to be more complex than the next? That means the next creator (maybe us?) would do an even worse job than the last. At least this theory doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Every argument ever presented for God presupposes the existence of God. It is this type of logic that we’re calling irrational.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2006 04:47
 

You seem to think of god as some old man who created the universe. It is a childish image of God.

Answer this simple question and maybe you can discern what I mean by saying that the universe points to God but one could never get definitive proof of God’s existence. Could you study a footprint and find in that footprint definitive proof that it was created by a foot.

 
1