Good vid as to the principal, but one-way and consequently the destruction of a paper tiger. Turn this round and you're talking about Dawkins. If it had been less myopic I'd have used this.
emmacc
· 8 months ago
One way? As in it only makes sense and not nonsense? It is not the destruction of a ‘paper tiger’ but the destruction of many ridiculous real life arguments that sceptics hear from credulous fools who claim to be open minded because they believe any nonsense which they are fed, without thinking critically about the truth of those claims. As for your attack on Dawkins, could you explain to me how this refers to anything that Dawkins says? He only asks for real evidence for a god, he has never (close mindedly) claimed there is definitively no god, only that there is no evidence for a god. His stance, if I may be so bold as to claim to understand it, is that the burden of proof of a supernatural being is with the person or people making the claim of a supernatural being. The only way Dawkins could be claimed to be closed minded is if you showed him evidence that god exists – actual scientific evidence, not testimony or anecdote, and he refused to accept it. Otherwise he is a scientist and a sceptic – a man able to weigh up evidence and come to conclusions. I would call that an intelligent man, myself, but perhaps we have different standards.
pinksy
· 8 months ago
Hey Steve... I just wondered a couple of things:
1. How would the argument be turned around? Do you mean "turn around" such that a counter-argument is given? If so, I'm unsure how a counter-argument would constitute a discussion of Dawkins.
2. How is the video myopic? The opening moments of the video, in my view, argue that open-mindedness is the antithesis of myopia:
"Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness, because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist depends on our willingness to consider new ideas. Indeed scientific discovery often requires entirely new ways of thinking."
andrefrancis
· 8 months ago
..... eh?
pinksy
· 8 months ago
the vid or the comments?
andrefrancis
· 8 months ago
..... eh?
pinksy
· 8 months ago
..... eh?
emmacc
· 8 months ago
Actually an ellipsis has three dots, so I think you'll find you mean ... eh? Now I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it.
pinksy
· 8 months ago
..... eh?
robinsons
· 8 months ago
This is a great vid which unfortunately applies to too many people on both sides of the science / religion debate.
All Comments
As for your attack on Dawkins, could you explain to me how this refers to anything that Dawkins says? He only asks for real evidence for a god, he has never (close mindedly) claimed there is definitively no god, only that there is no evidence for a god. His stance, if I may be so bold as to claim to understand it, is that the burden of proof of a supernatural being is with the person or people making the claim of a supernatural being. The only way Dawkins could be claimed to be closed minded is if you showed him evidence that god exists – actual scientific evidence, not testimony or anecdote, and he refused to accept it. Otherwise he is a scientist and a sceptic – a man able to weigh up evidence and come to conclusions. I would call that an intelligent man, myself, but perhaps we have different standards.
1. How would the argument be turned around? Do you mean "turn around" such that a counter-argument is given? If so, I'm unsure how a counter-argument would constitute a discussion of Dawkins.
2. How is the video myopic? The opening moments of the video, in my view, argue that open-mindedness is the antithesis of myopia:
"Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness, because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist depends on our willingness to consider new ideas. Indeed scientific discovery often requires entirely new ways of thinking."
... eh?
Now I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Thanks,
Steve