richard dawkins atheist evolution dvd debate

[RoyWilliamJohnsun]

You are absolutely spot on the point of "growing up in a religious family" on whether that has any implications on the existence of God.

[cupwithhandles]

Do you believe Jesus is there in the room while you are masturbating? If you are a Christian, you are supposed to say "yes", he is in the room, but as a sane human being, you absolutely do not believe it. If you did, you could not masturbate. I know you are a sane human being. You say you believe, but you do not. (as least while masturbating, which you, as a healthy, sane young man, do frequently).

[wavenaboard]

I would recommend taking (or probably retaking) an intensive course in logic. Your name-dropping of logical terminology gives the impression of an comprehension of it, but you often employ fallacies, and at times don't even seem to understand the fallacies you've name-dropped. Some other posters on this thread have done likewise. Don't you agree that you can't make a good argument without adhering to the rules of logic?

[miggetymike1]

@wavenaboard Please, give me your strongest example of a fallacy that I employ.

[loljesus24]

There's plenty of variation for natural selection to work on. Your lack of critical faculties is proof of that.

[loljesus24]

Wait are you deleting comments that own your pathetic beliefs? LOL

[miggetymike1]

yes, that's why all of the comments you see below are glowing reviews from people who think like me! LOL

[thisguysajerk]

wow.... you're stupid.

it's not if. it's fact. if it wasn't the medical care you'd receive would consistently fail...

[RationalConclusion]

The point that Dawkins makes in relation to children often taking the religion of their parents is not one in which he is trying to prove the non existence of god. What he is doing is pointing out the illogicality of belief being dependant on social circumstances instead of evidence.

[miggetymike1]

think about what u said. If something proves the illogicality of belief in something then it is evidence that that belief is false.

If you thought the world was flat and I pointed out that your belief isn't logical that would be evidence that the world isn't flat.

out of curiosity are you consistent in what you wrote? Does the fact that atheist parents are more likely to have atheist children mean that atheism is "illogical" and "based on social circumstances instead of evidence"?

[RationalConclusion]

"If something proves the illogicality of belief in something then it is evidence that that belief is false."

Dawkins was highlighting the illogicality in relation to children believing in a particular god because their parents do. Belief in god and the existence of god are two different things.

"If you thought the world was flat and I pointed out that your belief isn't logical that would be evidence that the world isn't flat. "

I don't understand what you mean.

[RationalConclusion]

"Does the fact that atheist parents are more likely to have atheist children mean that atheism is "illogical" and "based on social circumstances instead of evidence"? "

If a child is atheist purely on the basis that their parents are atheists then that belief is indeed based on social circumstances however that does not mean that atheism itself is illogical.

The logic and rationale of of a belief depends on why the person believes it.

[deRoyLight]

Youtube "Can you trust your thoughts," it deals with this exact paradox.

I'll also add to it that you yourself enter into the paradox when you try to use it in the first place. You come to what you think is a rational conclusion based upon how you can't trust your conclusions. You can't advance an argument in that manner.

[miggetymike1]

No. that video and your comment are straw men. The theist argument isn't that our thoughts shouldn't be trusted b/c they are random but that if atheism is true our thoughts are random and shouldn't be trusted. That video just shows how dumb it is to believe that our thoughts are pointless. I AGREE! that's because they weren't products of random chance. I'd like to hear you comment on my part on this in the video. HOW CAN PURELY RANDOM OCCURANCES GET BETTER AND BETTER AT FINDING THE TRUTH?

[deRoyLight]

It's not a straw man at all.

Second of all, it's not purely random. It's guided by natural selection, which is undoubtedly a non-random process.

But how can a process with no predetermined conclusion lead to a system that can make correct choices? Can you trust an individual's thoughts or accounts?

No, you can't trust an individual, nor his accounts. That's why testimony is the lowest form of evidence in the realm of Science. We have methods that check truth for us -- math, science, records..

[miggetymike1]

it's a straw man because it's not the theistic argument. It is a similar argument that can be easily attacked without addressing the real argument.

watch "re: can you trust your thoughts."

[deRoyLight]

Further, it's not 'purely random occurrences' that get better and better at finding truth... Our minds don't decide truth, it can only understand truth.

I could easily ask you how your logic can be trusted considering you are one of 14 million sperm, and your existence here today is as much of an accident as anything. Yet, that wouldn't be a good reason to deny your arguments... that would be an avoidance of your arguments, which is what you are attempting to do when you say this.

[miggetymike1]

I'll assume you meant "random chance" and not accident. In that case my response is that it wasn't purely random for the sperm that later became me to have "won." That's like saying the winner of a footrace is purely random-it's not.

[deRoyLight]

... exactly the point.

It's not purely random. Natural selection is not purely random, just as the fact that your sperm had a chance to win isn't purely random. You're making my argument for me here.

[deRoyLight]

And to expound a little bit on the point... As I said, we cannot entirely trust our thoughts. Look up 'Common sense is worthless in science' again here on youtube.

We can, however, trust our thoughts to a reasonable point, but that does not need to be divinely guided. Surely you can imagine the selective benefits to being able to trust your thoughts. Would you be more or less likely to survive by being able to rationally understand the world? If that is so, then there is evolutionary benefit.

[hughjarrse]

Dawkins himself admits he can't prove the non existence of god, he finds it extremely unlikely that a god exists. all you need to create matter is energy (e=mc2) we know energy exists so if we wanted to suggest energy is eternal it would be more logical than suggesting a god is eternal, because we don't know of an existing god, and there is no evidence for one

[tehsma]

You said "He believes nothing created everything". If you had Evolution in mind, this is a wrong statement. In order for Evolution to happen, you must first have Biology to act on. Biological Evolution happens to say nothing with regards to the initial spark that would lead to Biology in the first place. It is a common misconception to think it does. As the previous poster said, you should read "Origin of the Species" to get an idea of what some of the mechanisms of Biological Evolution are.

[miggetymike1]

did you guys just buy a bunch of stock in the origin of species book? Like I already mentioned I have read it. What you are saying about biological evolution is obviously true. I'm saying atheists, not evolutionists believe nothing created everything. I'm surprised you would attempt to dispute that (cont...)

[loljesus24]

Wait.. err where's your evidence that God does exist? The funny thing about logic is that the onus is on you not Dawkins. If you actually read Dawkins instead of watching skewed propaganda babble you'd know that he has never once claimed to have evidence for the non-existence of god. Then again, he doesn't have it for the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. P.S. Read 'Origin of Species' as you clearly don't understand the basic tenets of evolution.

[miggetymike1]

He believes nothing created everything, intelligence can come from non intelligence, and unguided randomness can lead to order: the burden is on him.

I didn't watch "skewed propaganda." As I clearly pointed out in my video (by holding up the dvd's!) my response was based on public unedited debates that dawkins did.

I have read origin and it doesn't address the only claim I made about evolution.

You should address the arguments and leave the personal attacks to children.

[godlessmessiah]

I think the biggest problem is that dawkins really isnt any good with live debates (as with many of us).

Its better that he leaves the live debates to the likes of hitchens as dawkins tends not to give the best image in this scenario.

His books however are great.

[miggetymike1]

I agree hitchens is "better" in the sense that he is more likely to win converts but sadly this is because he is more entertaining, not because he uses better arguments or gives better responses to objections.