The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:53 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...
It does not parse.
...

[Image: Lord-of-the-Rings-Prank-665x385.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
19-08-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then perhaps you can tell us what the answer to Carl's own question is?

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?"

It is meaningless to say the dragon exists, isn't it?

Is there some other answer?
Carl makes a valid point to question what the impact is of the existence. And I am sure you would get some very imaginative and interesting responses. For example

For religious folk the existence of their god somehow gives them a purpose, validates their stance that humans are not just mere animals and are bound to a special moral code etc.

For some people the existence of UFO sightings or crashes might validate their paranoia regarding fear of UFOs.

Just because these claims don't provide evidence or falsifiable criteria it doesn't mean we have proof that gods or UFO visits to earth don't exist.

All we can come back with is that they claims are unsupported and unfounded and unverifiable and ought to be disregarded. We cannot claim knowledge of the competing position which is that of non existence of these things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
How the hell is this still going? Unreal.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WillHopp's post
19-08-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:52 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  How the hell is this still going? Unreal.

What exact definition are you using for "still"? And what is meant by "unreal". I may want to argue against you depending on what you specifically mean by them. Tongue

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like itsnotmeitsyou's post
19-08-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We cannot claim knowledge of the competing position which is that of non existence of these things.

Why can't we? For certainly we can know that something is not there, right? If we can know that something exists because we observe it existence, then why can we not know that something does not exist when we observe its non existence (empty space)?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:56 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:52 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  How the hell is this still going? Unreal.

What exact definition are you using for "still"? And what is meant by "unreal". I may want to argue against you depending on what you specifically mean by them. Tongue

A still is a device used for brewing moonshine. Unreal is a slang term for being amazing. WillHopp is obviously advocating that we drink heavily and I'm thinking that may not be a bad idea.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
19-08-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:58 PM)Free Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We cannot claim knowledge of the competing position which is that of non existence of these things.

Why can't we? For certainly we can know that something is not there, right? If we can know that something exists because we observe it existence, then why can we not know that something does not exist when we observe its non existence (empty space)?
Because your observations aren't significant to the claim.
Just because you can't see germs doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-08-2015, 02:04 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just because these claims don't provide evidence or falsifiable criteria

Yes, they do.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Because your observations aren't significant to the claim.
Just because you can't see germs doesn't mean that they don't exist.

This isn't about whether or not it is practically possible to produce evidence.

It is about entities which are defined as having no evidence for their existence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
19-08-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:56 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  What exact definition are you using for "still"? And what is meant by "unreal". I may want to argue against you depending on what you specifically mean by them. Tongue

A still is a device used for brewing moonshine. Unreal is a slang term for being amazing. WillHopp is obviously advocating that we drink heavily and I'm thinking that may not be a bad idea.

I'm ok with the definition of "still", but I'm not sure about the "unreal" part.

He ACTUALLY meant "not actually real" which is obviously not true. This thread very plainly exists and claiming otherwise is idiotic.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: