Richard Dawkins vs Wendy Wright

[Jan Ardena]

francois,

You're just declaring your conclusions without backing any of it up.
It's like saying "Capitalism is more efficient at producing wealth than communism."--and then not saying anything to back up your statement. That's not arguing. That's just saying what you believe. It's actually pretty similar to what you see Wendy doing here. "well, I believe..."
Well of course you believe! That's not the point. Explain why. That's the point.

It's quite simple. He say's, because he cannot SEE any evidence of proof for Gods' existence. He therefore does not exist.

He has set his own standard of what God is, because he will know when the evidence is correct.
And when he is satisfied with what he regards as evidence, he will accept that God exists.

He therefore doesn't have to believe in God if he doesn't want to.

Wendy is responding to Richard, conveying to him her beef with his and other atheists claims, and their behaviour to theists who don't see it their way.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Carcano,

It was more like a game of dodge ball.
She asks for evidence...and Dawkins throws her a ball of evidence.

The ball he throws does not contain evidence that we change species over time.
That's what she is focusing on.

She dodges with a nervous giggle...and returns to..."But we believe in a loving God who...blah, blah, blah."

No she doesn't.
She sticks to the point, to which Dawkins patronises her by telling her to read an elementary science book, or to go to the museum. And even tries the old bishops and priests accept this theory, why don't you card.
There is no merit in his dialougue, regarding evidence.
He is being arrogant, and she is not accepting it.

You can see how Dawkin's gentlemanly manner gets a little ruffled after this sequence goes on a permanent repeat cycle.

Because he cannot maintain that facade for too long.
She could see right through him, and he didn't feel comfortable with it.

jan.

 

[AlexG]

There really isn't any arguing with a believer. There isn't any grounds for argument. The believer BELIEVES, and no evidence or argument changes their mind.

 

[francois]

francois,



It's quite simple. He say's, because he cannot SEE any evidence of proof for Gods' existence. He therefore does not exist.

He has set his own standard of what God is, because he will know when the evidence is correct.
And when he is satisfied with what he regards as evidence, he will accept that God exists.

He therefore doesn't have to believe in God if he doesn't want to.

Wendy is responding to Richard, conveying to him her beef with his and other atheists claims, and their behaviour to theists who don't see it their way.


jan.

There are two different categories of gods. There's the kind that is described in the bible who created us and listens to us and is jealous. Then there's another pantheist "god," which can be thought of as being the same as nature. People who believe in this type of god are usually spiritual.

The god of the Bible, which is what most people are talking about, almost certainly does not exist. We have not yet found any evidence. And beyond the problem of there not being any evidence, there serious philosophical/logical problems with the notion of God. One example is, Why would he create us, knowing everything that we would do, and then punish us when we do them? It makes no sense.

The other god, the pantheist "nature is god" does exist, because nature does exist. Really what it is, is just semantical confusion. It's just taking something that already obviously exists (nature) and giving it a new name (god)--it doesn't bestow any extra meaning or power to the word god. It just results in confusion. People who are strict pantheists are really just atheists who are attached to the word "god."

Now that that potential confusion is out of the way, what evidence do you think there is of a real god?

 

[spidergoat]

francois,



It's quite simple. He say's, because he cannot SEE any evidence of proof for Gods' existence. He therefore does not exist.

He has set his own standard of what God is, because he will know when the evidence is correct.
And when he is satisfied with what he regards as evidence, he will accept that God exists.

He therefore doesn't have to believe in God if he doesn't want to.

Wendy is responding to Richard, conveying to him her beef with his and other atheists claims, and their behaviour to theists who don't see it their way.


jan.

Dawkins doesn't personally set the standards of evidence. Personal testimony is not evidence, since human perception is subject to tricks, illusions, and mental illness. And basically, that's all theists have.

 

[iceaura]

It's quite simple. He say's, because he cannot SEE any evidence of proof for Gods' existence. He therefore does not exist.

No, he doesn't.

He says nothing of the kind. You are and have always been wrong about what he says. That has been explained to you, in detail and with respect for your views, many times. It has gone beyond simple incomprehension, and become an error of stance visibly willful.

And when people get something like that wrong, and simply repeat their error over and over in the face of reasoned explanation and deferential consideration and polite rebuttal and thorough explication of the problem, and then extend themselves to insult and false claims of the personages involved, the next step for the diplomatic and tolerant is simply dismissal, a turning away - because that kind of stubborn insistence on pejorative error is offensively arrogant, and the diplomatic wish to avoid unnecessary and unproductive conflict with the arrogantly haywire.

 

[Carcano]

The ball he throws does not contain evidence that we change species over time.

She sticks to the point, to which Dawkins patronises her by telling her to read an elementary science book, or to go to the museum.

Thats right...if you want to see the *orginal* fossil evidence of hominid evolution as Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens you have to get off your butt and go the museum in Nairobi Kenya.

Failing that, youre stuck with plaster casts and photographs.

 

[John99]

And what exactly is that?

 

[Carcano]

And what exactly is that?

A display at the Nairobi National Museum.

This case in particular was asked to be removed to a less prominent section of the museum in 2008 by a coalition of evangelical groups in Kenya...as they felt it would corrupt their children.

 

[John99]

A display at the Nairobi National Museum.

That is understood. Proving what it shows is a different matter though. My question is: how does this show that humans evolved? This is that to say this show evolutoin is not much different htan what a religious person would do.

This would be simple to prove were it not for some things we cannot just eliminate. One problem is the fact that we know extinction of species is a reality. The theory of evolution is fine but proving it is another matter.

 

[spidergoat]

It shows a progression from apes to us. Funny the Bible didn't mention that.

 

[John99]

It shows a progression from apes to us.

But it doesnt show that.

 

[spidergoat]

Homonid fossils do, as well as DNA evidence.

 

[John99]

Homonid fossils do, as well as DNA evidence.

But you have to prove this. You have to realize, you cant jsut hide behind some scientific terms to make a case.

Those just show what they are and not what they may have become. And tbh, they may show what they are but does not mean a whole species of these existed either. You can be looking at some deformities too. So you asy what are the chances of that? Does the chance exist? YES. BUT you have to remember there are things we just dont know about from millions of years ago however, one thing we do know is that extinction of whole species is real. I am not a religious person but i am giving you factual information and you really are not. You may be but does that really qualify as proof?

 

[John99]

I am just pointing out some problems and does not mean i am reaching or imparting definititive conclusions.

Point two of dissertation:

Human Intelligence.

I need you to show me where human intelligence has evolved because tbh, i just dont see this to be the case. Knowledge is different.

 

[spidergoat]

But you have to prove this. You have to realize, you cant jsut hide behind some scientific terms to make a case.

Those just show what they are and not what they may have become. And tbh, they may show what they are but does not mean a whole species of these existed either. You can be looking at some deformities too. So you asy what are the chances of that? Does the chance exist? YES. BUT you have to remember there are things we just dont know about from millions of years ago however, one thing we do know is that extinction of whole species is real. I am not a religious person but i am giving you factual information and you really are not. You may be but does that really qualify as proof?

It has been proven by more knowledgeable people than me in a systematic way. It's a progression because these species occur in their own time, the distribution is not haphazard. They do not show the signs of being a deformed human, not even Homo floresiensis does, and that was one likely explanation early in it's study. The study of human evolution is far from complete, but what they have found fits with the story of homonids evolving from a common ancestor with apes, and branching out into many species, one of which evolved into modern humans. And yet the Bible mentions none of this. Instead there is a fairy tale of two first humans in a garden. The Bible has been falsified.

 

[Carcano]

That is understood. Proving what it shows is a different matter though. My question is: how does this show that humans evolved?

Can we prove that the very FIRST modern homo sapien evolved from the exact fossils of more primitive hominids we have on hand?

No, there is no proof of that...nor could there be unless the entire ancestry was witnessed under controlled conditions in real time.

So in that sense I agree with you.

 

[spidergoat]

So i ask the membership:

Show me, you show me a sign that human intelligence has evolved throughout history and i will give you five stars on your report card.

Look at the evidence. We know apes use stones as tools. In early homonid settlements we find the first chipped stone tools. Later on we find representative symbols and pictures, later on we find more advanced artifacts. It shows a progression in intelligence. This is mirrored in brain structure, size and complexity.

 

[John99]

It has been proven by more knowledgeable people than me in a systematic way. It's a progression because these species occur in their own time, the distribution is not haphazard. They do not show the signs of being a deformed human, not even Homo floresiensis does, and that was one likely explanation early in it's study. The study of human evolution is far from complete, but what they have found fits with the story of homonids evolving from a common ancestor with apes, and branching out into many species, one of which evolved into modern humans.

They do show signs of waht can be some deformities or just extinct species.

Could "Evolution of Species" have, in reality, been "Extinction of Species"?

A

nd yet the Bible mentions none of this. Instead there is a fairy tale of two first humans in a garden. The Bible has been falsified.

I am not discussing that but would not prove what you are saying either.

 

[John99]

Look at the evidence. We know apes use stones as tools. In early homonid settlements we find the first chipped stone tools. Later on we find representative symbols and pictures, later on we find more advanced artifacts. It shows a progression in intelligence. This is mirrored in brain structure, size and complexity.

You use what is available. But apes have not evolved in intelligence either.