The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 02:18 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.

This.

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
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
19-08-2015, 02:20 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 02:26 PM by Stevil.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.
Its about the claims more so than the entities which are the subject of those claims.

The claims themselves are insufficiently formulated, they can't be evaluated and should therefore be ignored.

Regarding the alleged entities, who knows what they are and how to find them? Can't start down that track until a proper claim is made.

This is the point of Carl's garage dragon. Claims need to be properly formulated and need to provide falsifiable criteria otherwise we are left chasing tails, or burrowing down rabbit holes in search of "evidence" we assume exists but which the claimant "forgot" to inform us doesn't exist.

It's like a conversation I had once on a Catholic forum.
So you fellas believe bread and wine turns into Jesus body and blood?

Yes, it certainly does.

But, then couldn't we extract the contents of your stomach and test for blood and body of Christ?

No, it doesn't work like that. When you test it you will find that it is bread and wine. But the essence of it has transformed into Jesus body and blood.

What does that mean?

Well, chemically it looks and behaves like bread and wine, but really it is Jesus blood and body.

Oh my Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:18 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  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.

This.

NO! I know that is not what you actually mean because, reasons!

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
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
19-08-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:22 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:18 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  This.

NO! I know that is not what you actually mean because, reasons!

That.

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
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
19-08-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:58 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

That's not a very good analogy, since we can see germs. We detect germs according to how the affect our health, such as the Bubonic Plaque was named when they couldn't see germs. The evidence of their existence is observed.

But there is absolutely no evidence of the existence or possible existence of God available. There is no evidence at all tio support the concept that God is responsible for anything.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:22 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  NO! I know that is not what you actually mean because, reasons!

That.

Those!

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
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
19-08-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:37 PM)Free Wrote:  There is no evidence at all tio support the concept that God is responsible for anything.
Does the god claim that you have seen contain criteria for an expectation of evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is the point of Carl's garage dragon. Claims need to be properly formulated and need to provide falsifiable criteria otherwise we are left chasing tails, or burrowing down rabbit holes in search of "evidence" we assume exists but which the claimant "forgot" to inform us doesn't exist.

It's like a conversation I had once on a Catholic forum.
So you fellas believe bread and wine turns into Jesus body and blood?

Yes, it certainly does.

But, then couldn't we extract the contents of your stomach and test for blood and body of Christ?

No, it doesn't work like that. When you test it you will find that it is bread and wine. But the essence of it has transformed into Jesus body and blood.

What does that mean?

Well, chemically it looks and behaves like bread and wine, but really it is Jesus blood and body.

Oh my Facepalm

Exactly. The Christian in question is simply wrong. The bread and wine have not become, in any way, the body and blood of Jesus. To say that it has is to argue for the existence of a garage dragon.

(19-08-2015 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:37 PM)Free Wrote:  There is no evidence at all tio support the concept that God is responsible for anything.
Does the god claim that you have seen contain criteria for an expectation of evidence?

No. That is exactly the point.

It is a garage dragon.

"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, 03:22 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Exactly. The Christian in question is simply wrong. The bread and wine have not become, in any way, the body and blood of Jesus.
Can you prove that?

(19-08-2015 03:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  To say that it has is to argue for the existence of a garage dragon.
Sure, the garage dragon analogy/argument means that we recognise that the claim itself is insufficient for evaluation.
It does not mean that the subject of the claim does not exist.

(19-08-2015 03:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Does the god claim that you have seen contain criteria for an expectation of evidence?

No. That is exactly the point.

It is a garage dragon.
Which again means that we recognise that the claim itself is insufficient for evaluation.
It does not mean that gods don't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Can you prove that?

Can you show any meaningful way in which it can be said to be true?

No, you can't. Therefore, it is false. That is what false means.

(19-08-2015 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, the garage dragon analogy/argument means that we recognise that the claim itself is insufficient for evaluation.
It does not mean that the subject of the claim does not exist.

No, the garage dragon analogy states that the claimed entity cannot be evaluated.

There is no meaningful way to say that it exists, which means that it does not exist.

I have pointed out the easy way to refute this multiple times, but you continue to dodge around it. If you disagree with the conclusion, then provide an answer to Sagan's question.

"What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: