Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

[ThaG]

Apparently you don't understand why I mentioned that part about embryos. I didn't do it to try and show how that particular religion was valid, I did it to show an example of religion speaking about empirically known things. Religion is not against natural process. It simply explains that behind that natural process is ultimately a supreme being. Such a thing is not meant to discourage empirical study.

where is the evidence that "behind that natural process is ultimately a supreme being"

it doesn't exist..

what are we doing then?

religion is not against natural processes, but it fails to correctly explain them in every known case, which seriously questions its validity

No. It's not, "God did it" and that's it. As soon as we have some conception of God, we open up whole new fields of study. Questions are raised regarding the nature of this universe in relation to God and God's will, the nature of the individual self and how it relates to God as well as the universe, the different levels of understanding God ~ from sheer impersonalism to knowledge of the Personality of Godhead ~ and the implications each level of understanding has in theoretical philosophy & practical living, the study of devotion to God ~ neutral worship, awe and veneration, devotion in the flavor of friendship, devotion in the flavor of parenthood and devotion in the flavor of conjugal lover ~ the study of divine and demoniac qualities, the study of God's pastimes with His devotees, etc. And each of these can be broken down to further subsections and gone into deeper and deeper detail. Even the subsections I listed can be broken down into more subsections.

are you crazy?

Religion opens up new fields of study related to God? Only a lunatic can say that....

What's the use of these "fields of study" when they study something, which not only can't be proven to exists but there is not a single bit of evidence confirming its existence...

That's sheer lunaticism from a brainwashed science-illiterate moron

Your outlook on religion is biased to the fact that you reject the premise. Since you reject the premise, you think that "God did it" is as deep as it goes.

sigh...

what about your premise being total nonsence?

 

[ThaG]

I'm sorry you don't understand what I am saying.

God being the ultimate answer behind everything does not limit our study of phenomenon to saying "God did it". That is my point. God may be the supreme operator of this universal machine, but that does not negate the natural process that ensues; the natural process that we study with the bodily tools we have.

Go check with your psychiatrist...

Your posts are equivalent to a kid making up all kind of silly arguments explaining how Santa Claus manages to deliver presents to all kinds around the globe in a single night...

It's exactly the same thing

I will not get tired to repeat this - you need evidence in order to claim something, if you don't have it, what you say is irrelevant

which is the case with every god ever invented - the evidence for his existence doesn't exist

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

where is the evidence that "behind that natural process is ultimately a supreme being"

it doesn't exist..

what are we doing then?

religion is not against natural processes, but it fails to correctly explain them in every known case, which seriously questions its validity




are you crazy?

Religion opens up new fields of study related to God? Only a lunatic can say that....

What's the use of these "fields of study" when they study something, which not only can't be proven to exists but there is not a single bit of evidence confirming its existence...

That's sheer lunaticism from a brainwashed science-illiterate moron



sigh...

what about your premise being total nonsence?

What about you moving the goal posts of this conversation, moron?

My point was to explain that saying "God did it" is not the totality of theistic study and understanding. It was not to try and prove God's existence or convince you that you should believe in God. At the very least there was hope that you would be less ignorant of the subject in the future.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Go check with your psychiatrist...

Your posts are equivalent to a kid making up all kind of silly arguments explaining how Santa Claus manages to deliver presents to all kinds around the globe in a single night...

It's exactly the same thing

I will not get tired to repeat this - you need evidence in order to claim something, if you don't have it, what you say is irrelevant

which is the case with every god ever invented - the evidence for his existence doesn't exist

I'm sorry you can't follow in a simple conversation. Obviously you need to go back and review the discourse I was having with Cmoke.

 

[ThaG]

What about you moving the goal posts of this conversation, moron?

My point was to explain that saying "God did it" is not the totality of theistic study and understanding. It was not to try and prove God's existence or convince you that you should believe in God. At the very least there was hope that you would be less ignorant of the subject in the future.

I am asking you: what is the point of theistic studies when they study something non-existent??????

I agree there is plenty of pointless scientific research being funded, done and published, but this is just too much...

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I am asking you: what is the point of theistic studies when they study something non-existent??????

I agree there is plenty of pointless scientific research being funded, done and published, but this is just too much...

That God is non-existent is your contention, and it is an issue that I have not been addressing.

Obviously, only theists would be interested in theistic studies.

What more can I say?

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

I've always wondered what they do in fact study. Seems like pure BS to me.

 

[AGENT707]

moral of the story???

FUCK CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS.....

fuck it, while were at it...fuck all you religious weirdos...motherfuckers...

i honestly wanna fight u fools...u guys r a fuckin waste of oxygen...

it pisses me off that schools let u fucks promote that bullshit on campus...

talkin about do this do that or die...motherfucker..shut the fuck up or u'll die right here!!!!!...hahahahaha...

aaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.....

 

[taetae]

^Future scientist?


J/K

 

[Cmoke]

^future crack head minority?

J/K

 

[MR.VILLAIN]

Religious weirdos? Yack Yack Yack!

Richard Dawkins is a joker, and a joke of a debater. All he does is seek to demean those he disagrees with, that's all. I have more respect for Noam Chomsky, a man who I do not agree with, but atleast knows how to conduct himself with class when debating.

I am agnostic, but I can't stand knee jerk atheists even more than "conservative" christians.