Atheist Kids (split)

<< < (2/8) > >>

Teleological (March 11, 2010, 12:48:52 PM):
Do you guys think this is an informed opinion lol?
Obviously considerably better-informed than yours. You haven’t, as is your almost invariable habit, addressed the central question Dawkins has raised about theology.
Forgive me for not answering a question from a philosophically and theologicaly ignorant person.

I mean, you would not listen to a mechanic if there was something wrong with your geyser would you?
Some mechanics are also plumbers and vice versa.
No evidence that Dawkins is a philosopher and a scientist. Gosh, all evidence indicates the man has a PhD in zoology IIRC.

How did you come to this conclusion?
Your posting history here and elsewhere. Objective self-assessment isn’t your forte either, itself a product of mistaking idle armchair musings for Truth™ about the world.
Yeah well, the same can be said of you.


Mmmm, advances in epistemology seem to point to the direction that philosophical naturalism and materialism are epistemically sterile and a bit useless, incoherent and by gosh self-refuting (not that the self-refuting nature of a proposition is going to stop any of you guys).
That would explain their persistence and prevalence. ::)

'Luthon64
I guess you need a lot of heads to make nonsense sound sensical even though it is epistemically sterile and worthless.
Teleological (March 11, 2010, 12:52:18 PM):
Quote
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism?

Plenty, unless you're hell-bent on being an accomodationist. Topic for another thread, once again. Care to play?

If evolution had anything to do with atheism or theism it will be taught in religious and philosophy classes. Fortunately here we are in the 21st century and it is taught in science classes.

But yeah play all you want.
Gogtjop (March 11, 2010, 13:10:37 PM):
Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in classes, wouldn't it?

Didn't think so.

You see, you can't so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can't pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.

Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he's "qualified" to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.

Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you're talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?

Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn't have "formal" education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can't deal with Dawkins' reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man "ain't trained".

Nice try, but nobody's fooled.
Teleological (March 11, 2010, 13:12:20 PM):
Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in classes, wouldn't it?
Theism actually has a lot to do with philosophy. Read up. So does materialism, naturalism, realism, nominalism, rationalism, empiricism, dualism etc.

You see, you can't so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can't pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.
Evolutionism and its philosophical implications? Surprise, what do you believe those are?

Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he's "qualified" to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.

Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you're talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?

Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn't have "formal" education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can't deal with Dawkins' reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man "ain't trained".

Nice try, but nobody's fooled.
Oh well, Dawkins is not fooling anybody with his philosophical ignorance either. A waste of time imo. His knowledge about evolution is good though, although I have seen better. He does not like to go much into molecular detail, which is a great shame. His next book should focus more on those aspects in a little more detail.
Gogtjop (March 11, 2010, 13:19:53 PM):
Heh, *sproing* goes the trap. Evolutionary biology (and the deterministic chemistry that drives its current research effort) has major implications for notions of dualism, for one. Can you see or can't you? Must I explain further? Oh, but wait, you don't have a biology degree, do you?

Oh well, I guess it's pointless then, seeing as none of it would be of any use to you, amirite? :D

And I agree, Dawkins isn't fooling anybody!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page