Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[MEIOT]

So? You can't just throw away subjectivity and think that you have a complete account of the world.


Because people don't have disagreements regarding the interpretation, of say, quantum mechanics, right?


Where's your evidence for the position that you can simply dismiss non-objective information? I don't think you're going to be able to find any...


I can't help but feel that this is a very ironic point to make given what your definition of knowledge appears to be.

Are you at all familiar with any scientific fundamentals or methodologies?
Do you know how science works at all?
I get the impression....not.
research the answers to your own silly questions. Science is not based on interpretation.

Nice try though

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Are you at all familiar with any scientific fundamentals or methodologies?
Do you know how science works at all?
I get the impression....not.
research the answers to your own silly questions. Science is not based on interpretation.

Nice try though

Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics "corresponds" to reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments (not one prediction from quantum mechanics is found to be contradicted by experiments), there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation. These views on interpretation differ on such fundamental questions as whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or random, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and what is the nature of measurement, among other matters.
Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached amongst physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality.[1][2]

No, but you are such a know-it-all. Objectivity is without interpretation, apparently. So you must clearly know something all the other scientists don't. Enlighten us, please.

 

[Ponderer]

You taking the piss right?
A large fish vs a whale? Really? Does it matter? Chemical expulsions turning someone in to salt? Not taking one of each sex of animal on the ark?
I'm speechless.
Clearly you are under the misguided impression that the words coming out your ass makes sense to you and so it must make sense to everyone else. That's not the case my friend.

Every illogical part of your bible has a logical explanation? Really? Go on. Apart from a large fish as opposed to a whale that swallowed that dude and chemical expulsions (whatever the fark that is) and animals species suddenly having offspring with no mate..and Noah fitting one 'kind' of each animal species at the time on a dinky(in retrospect and context) boat....go on...explain the rest of the logic in the rest of the shite.


Read back the garbage you posted and then have a good laugh at your stupidity. Critical thinking separates dumbasses like you from the rest thank fark.

Try it. Logical and critical thinking helps buddy.

Did anybody else read the garbage this guy posted and went...What in the actual fark!!??

Those that believe the crap that Dawkins spews are either gullible (easily swayed by BS) and/or intellectually challenged and/or Atheists.
Those that regard Dawkins's attempts at Philosophy as Philosophy are intellectually challenged.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

It comes as no suprise that Xarog, (aka Gingerbeardman) falls for the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. After all, critical thinking is not exactly his strong point.

Even funnier, I consider myself an agnostic. Let's say I have an allergic response to dumb atheism.

Let us just say that your atheism is obviously not of the smart variety.

 

[Ponderer]

And...another dumbass joins the discussion with absolutely no idea what in the world he's talking about. Ignorant idiots just crawling out the woodwork en masse it would appear.
Quit your incoherent rambling and go research the subject matter you're debating. Start with the definition of logical thinking and critical thinking.
Herd thinking is owned by all mainstream religions so you can't throw that in with critical thinking. They are mutually exclusive IMO

Says the dumbass?

 

[Ponderer]

Science is fine, scientism however is a stupid religion.

Very well said.

 

[Spizz]

Those that believe the crap that Dawkins spews are either gullible (easily swayed by BS) and/or intellectually challenged and/or Atheists.
Those that regard Dawkins's attempts at Philosophy as Philosophy are intellectually challenged.

Because Techne said so? Have you ever actually had a single thought of your own?

But I’m still waiting for you to discuss Dawkins dissection of Aquinas 5 proofs and tell me why he is intellectually challenged. Maybe now’s your chance to shine and shut me up. Because I reckon you haven’t read a Thomas the Tank Engine book never mind the God Delusion.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Ponderer]

That statement betrays your ignorance of Richard Dawkins. He is an extraordinary evolutionary biologist.

The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow and others are just immense. He has contributed awesome publications to the world's body of knowledge and evolutionary biology has comprised the majority of his professional life.

Personally I care little for his books on atheism. Not because I am likely to disagree with their contents but because theism is not worth anyone's time and energy imo.

Actually read some of his most celebrated works before you call Dawkins a joke. He is anything but.

My ignorance of Richard Dawkins?
Far from it.
His (Dawkins's) conjectures is not science - it is in fact scientism.
Those that are under the impression that Dawkins "is a great man of science" are the ignorant ones.

 

[Ponderer]

Even funnier, I consider myself an agnostic. Let's say I have an allergic response to dumb atheism.

+1

 

[Spizz]

My ignorance of Richard Dawkins?
Far from it.
His (Dawkins's) conjectures is not science - it is in fact scientism.
Those that are under the impression that Dawkins "is a great man of science" are the ignorant ones.

He’s a professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford.

Just curious, did you get matric?

 

[Ponderer]

I should have been more specific - anything that's written in any of the holy books that's open to interpretation, which is pretty much everything is not and can not be based on fact

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters"

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

How would you interpret this?

Everything the Mind perceives is an interpretation.
An example be Language - a Language serves as a medium to convey meaning.
How can you say that anything that is open to interpretation cannot be based on fact if everything the Mind perceives is interpreted by the Mind?

 

[rambo919]

"Anything that is open to interpretation can never be based on fact."
Huh?

Like I said, he's drunk. Trying to wring sense out of him can only result in stupid fights.

 

[Ponderer]

Are you at all familiar with any scientific fundamentals or methodologies?
Do you know how science works at all?
I get the impression....not.
research the answers to your own silly questions. Science is not based on interpretation.

Nice try though

"Science is not based on interpretation."
Huh?

 

[noxibox]

There's layers to it. It's literal and symbolic at the same time on many levels.

Basically make up whatever suits the reader.

 

[buka001]

Are you at all familiar with any scientific fundamentals or methodologies?
Do you know how science works at all?
I get the impression....not.
research the answers to your own silly questions. Science is not based on interpretation.

Nice try though

He doesn't

 

[Techne]

Are you at all familiar with any scientific fundamentals or methodologies?
Do you know how science works at all?
I get the impression....not.
research the answers to your own silly questions. Science is not based on interpretation.

Nice try though

It is pretty clear you love science without knowing much about it.

 

[scudsucker]

It is pretty clear you love science without knowing much about it.

And you have no idea what science is.

 

[noxibox]

But I’m still waiting for you to discuss Dawkins dissection of Aquinas 5 proofs and tell me why he is intellectually challenged.

Never mind Dawkins. Philosophers have argued against them. Some people talk about them as though they're unassailable. Regardless of whether Dawkins did a proper job of tackling them they can be argued against.

The key point though is that even proving the existence of something that could be a called a god doesn't provide any useful information about the entity. The rest, like motivations, rules and so on, whether it comes from the Bible, Koran or anywhere else, cannot be proved.

 

[Ninja'd]

Are you saying Chris Angel is the Messiah returned to earth?

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

 

[Ponderer]

And you have no idea what science is.

And you do?