Google excludes churches from its non-for-profits discounts

[Castiel]

Point me to an example. I've watched/read everything Dawkins (and Hitchens) and I cannot think of something where Dawkins has some kind of unevidenced 'faith' in something.

He has consitantly demonstrated that he beleives that Science can and will explain everything, including how and why the Universe came into existence and the myriad other unanswered/unanswerable questions about our existence, he has no evidence that science will be able to do this, or that even if it can that it will vindicate his atheism over that of someones theism. In this regard he exhibits unevidenced 'faith'.

I apologise for the lack of specific examples and the brevity of my reply, however I am posting from a phone which is rather limiting.

 

[Glaucus]

Point me to an example. I've watched/read everything Dawkins (and Hitchens) and I cannot think of something where Dawkins has some kind of unevidenced 'faith' in something.

So you've never seen Dawkins try and use science to disprove god or things like intelligent design.

Also what's the point of spending loads of time trying to find a tiny quotes, I see you haven't comment or re-thought your position on dark ages and haven't shown any links to why you believe in dark ages.

 

[StriderX]

He has consitantly demonstrated that he beleives that Science can and will explain everything, including how and why the Universe came into existence and the myriad other unanswered/unanswerable questions about our existence, he has no evidence that science will be able to do this, or that even if it can that it will vindicate his atheism over that of someones theism. In this regard he exhibits unevidenced 'faith'.

I apologise for the lack of specific examples and the brevity of my reply, however I am posting from a phone which is rather limiting.

I think if someone believes science can/will explain things, doesn't mean he should provide evidence for it, if he said that science did/has explained things, then yes he would have to.

So i suspect you are exaggerating his words, as do many people.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Religion is a tool, it can be used like any other tool, for good or evil. It is humanity that is responsible, not the tools they use to justify themselves, so saying that religion is only a force for evil is as retarded as saying it is only a force for good.

I have said several times in the thread that I appreciate people are corruptible and fallible. Put them in positions of power (in any sense of the word) over vulnerable people and it will get abused. Kids will get anally raped. Sure.

However, it isn't just about the corruptibility of humans. The majority of major religion in this world (particularly Abramhamic) are founded on, have a long history of, and preach things that are evil and cruel.

Whether that is homosexuals being persecuted by various Christian denominations, the indoctrination of children in Evangelical belt of America (undoing of intelligence and cultural progress, essentially - a henious crime), or the stoning to death of adulterous women in Iran or Nigeria (yes, I know it is hadith and not the Quran, but so what - the hadith is the religion), or the eternal damnation a non-believer gets for not believing (even if this poor soul hasn't had the chance to be indoctrinated by a particular church), or the absolutely sickening and fear-inducing theological doctrine of original sin.

Religion isnt retarded

Religion makes a virtue out of faith and not thinking critically or rationally. It tends to be retarded.

 

[Castiel]

I'll pass on trawling through SC, but I do follow religious threads here in GD. And I've never seen it. The only thing I do remember is you defining atheism as a faith or religion, which it is not.

There are various types of atheism, some exhibit differing levels of faith in their specific definitions.

Collectively however, Atheism is a philosophical position, it can be either secular or religious.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

So you've never seen Dawkins try and use science to disprove god or things like intelligent design.

Well, evolution or science does not disprove 'intelligent design' per se, and nor did Dawkins.

However, intelligent design has no evidence (I don't want to have to write out a disclaimer here, I know the bible is evidence for some idiots, but that's not what I mean by evidence), but evolution has plenty. It has the most evidence out of all the theories of how we came to be.

The rational conclusion to come to is that as far as our understanding allows, we came about through evolution. It would be irrational to conclude that we were intelligently designed. It is barely a theory, more of a fairytale. It just does not stand up to anything.

Someone who believes in intelligent design has to close their eyes and shut their ears to an overwhelming amount of evidence and science.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

There are various types of atheism, some exhibit differing levels of faith in their specific definitions.

You're right, but most atheists (including myself) go by the broad definition - a rejection of the belief of in deities, not the narrow sense - the denial that they exist (which does require a leap of faith, so it is idiotic). We are all atheists in one way or another. If atheism was a belief system, not collecting stamps would be a hobby. Not believing in Shiva would be a belief system, etc.

 

[Castiel]

I think if someone believes science can/will explain things, doesn't mean he should provide evidence for it, if he said that science did/has explained things, then yes he would have to.

So i suspect you are exaggerating his words, as do many people.

Im not exaggerating anything, I am making an observation based on his interviews, books and conversations with him.

I see nothing wrong with being of the opinion that Science will eventually explain everything, I suspect that humanity will not have the longevity to see that to fruition but the point remains that holding that opinion has an element of faith.

 

[Glaucus]

Forget the bible, there is just as. Much evidence for intelligent design as evolution, as they both require the same evidence.

The difference is science simply doesn't care about intelligent design as it is not the simplest option and requires far more steps.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Forget the bible, there is just as. Much evidence for intelligent design as evolution, as they both require the same evidence.

No there isn't

The difference is science simply doesn't care about intelligent design as it is not the simplest option and requires far more steps.

It isn't about 'caring'. It is about not being able to measure something that is essentially the figment of people's imagination.

In that sense, there is more evidence that Harry Potter and Hogwarts exists than there is for a creator or intelligent design.

 

[RomanNose]

Forget the bible, there is just as. Much evidence for intelligent design as evolution, as they both require the same evidence.

Sorry, what evidence is there for intelligent design?

 

[Glaucus]

No there isn't


It isn't about 'caring'. It is about not being able to measure something that is essentially the figment of people's imagination. In that sense, there is more evidence that Harry Potter and Hogwarts exists than there is for a creator or intelligent design.

Evolution and intelligent design are both theories, both require the same evidence, fossil records. The difference is science doesn't care.
What I have said is totally true. You need to understand what science is and the assumption it makes in the model.

You also need to remember I am not religious in the slightest and hold science in extremely high regard however I do understand it's boundaries and limitations.

Why bring hogwarts into it, I said ignore the bible. This particular debate has zero to do with bible or religious thoughts. It's about two competing theories one of which is Is very much outside the scientific model and as science simply doesn't care for it.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Evolution and intelligent design are both theories, both require the same evidence, fossil records. The difference is science doesn't care.
What I have said is totally true. You need to understand what science is and the assumption it makes in the model.

You also need to remember I am not religious in the slightest and hold science in extremely high regard however I do understand it's boundaries and limitations.

You really, really don't...

 

[Naffa]

You actually believe that there is equal evidence for creationism (I don't like to give it the credit of a remotely plausible name) and the theory of evolution? You can't argue with such a position.

 

[Glaucus]

You really, really don't...

Do you understand the scientific model? Do you understand it's concepts and limitations?

 

[Glaucus]

You actually believe that there is equal evidence for creationism (I don't like to give it the credit of a remotely plausible name) and the theory of evolution? You can't argue with such a position.

Of course not and that is not what I have said at all, try again.

 

[Naffa]

Do you understand the scientific model? Do you understand it's concepts and limitations?

Do you mean the scientific method?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Forget the bible, there is just as. Much evidence for intelligent design as evolution,

Of course not and that is not what I have said at all, try again.

 

[Glaucus]

Do you mean the scientific method?

Yes

 

[Glaucus]

What's confusing about that?

What evidence would you see from intelligent deisgn? Fossil record like we have.
What would you see from evolution? Fossil record like we have.

Same evidence, does one hold as much weight as the other, of course not as it falls outside the scientific method and as such science disregards it.