It is currently Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:32 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
wenglund wrote:
I'll re-ask this question since it went unanswered the first go-around:

Sethbag wrote:
Yes, you're right. There ought to be another one.

5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.


What studies does Dawkins supposedly site in support of this assertion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


That strikes me as the null hypothesis. What we should be looking for is studies demonstrating that it doesn't undermine one's critical and rational thinking facilities.


What you just suggested strikes me more as the "null hypothesis" (the word "doesn't" being the biggest clue). Either way, I am interested in reading the so-called "plenty of evidence" for Dawkins alleged main point #5 above.

Quote:
I wonder, would insertion of religious dogma into mainstream science curricula be determinental to society?

Do we really need a study to demonstrate this before we start to worry about it?


I think that depends upon which "dogma" is being inserted (As a Special Ed instructor in the public school system, I have incorporated religious precepts "such as the Golden Rule" into my behavioral rules, to the demonstrable benefit of all parties, and I also believe the religiously motivated interjection of the notion of sexual abstinence taught to teens during health sciences, has had a positive social effect) where in the curricula and/or how closed one's mind is to subject. ;-)

What pre-study worries do you have?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


The golden rule is not religious dogma but has roots going back a long, long way. It is a common sense moral rule that captures the importance of empathy, which is, I believe, the basis for human moralit (in a non-religious way). Nor is the golden rule a scientific principle, unless one is looking at evolutionary explanations for human morality.

I'm talking more about inserting junk science, such as Intelligent Design, or generally teaching that feelings/faith can and do trump evidene or that gaining knowledge can be done via questionable epistemic methods (which includes pretty much all religious belief).

The null hypothesis states, to put it simply, the "current state of knowledge" that one wants to disprove. I think that the current state of knowledge at the very least anecdotally shows clearly the deletrious effect of magical and superstitious thinking on human behavior and the capacity to reason (one case in point, witch hunts). As I see it the burden of proof is solidly on you to demonstrate the converse, if that's what you're arguing.

The interesting thing is that religious adherents are likely to agree with this argument in just about every other context, except religious belief. To shift the burden of proof, or null hypothesis, to their opponents, they need to demonstrate why religion is a unique case. I don't think they can do that; at least I've never seen a compelling argument in this direction.


I have simply asked to see the "plenty of evidence" that is claimed to be in support of Dawkins argument #5 (Please note that I am talking here not about some supposed religionist counter-argument, but the argument that Dawkins is alleged to have made, which argument bears the burden of proof). If that can't be done, then just say so--your ironic and misguided attempts at shifting the burden of proof to religionist notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Wade, you obviously do not understand how to do empirical research. If we place the burden of proof on Dawkins viz #5 above, this means that the null hypothesis is either:
a. Believing in things for which no evidence exists improves one's critical and rational thinking faculties
Or
b. Believing in things for which no evidence exists has no impact one's critical and rational thinking faculties
I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that either of the above should stand as the null hypothesis given the veritable tons of historical anecdotal and experiential evidence to the contrary.

There’s no way in hell anyone (outside of persons of questionable reasoning ability, such as yourself) would adopt a as the null hypothesis; at best you’d get b as your starting point.

There exist literally mountains of casual empirical evidence pointing toward the deleterious effects of magical and superstitious thinking on human reasoning capacity and performance that it’s beyond silly that you’d even suggest that the contrary assertions are on the same value.

Let’s set up one experiment. Choose two jury pools. One pool listens to the evidence and makes a decision viz guilt vs. innocence based on evidence. The other prays, or uses some other form of divination, to determine guilt vs. innocence. Let’s run this experiment a number of times.

Or, choose two groups and present to them a complex problem they need to solve. One group is given background and supporting evidence. The other group prays or uses some other form of divination.

Which methods above do you think are more likely to produce systematically better results?

Once you’ve answered this question honestly, perhaps then you can begin to see through the religious fog that clouds your brain.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
guy sajer wrote:
Wade, you obviously do not understand how to do empirical research. If we place the burden of proof on Dawkins viz #5 above, this means that the null hypothesis is either:
a. Believing in things for which no evidence exists improves one's critical and rational thinking faculties
Or
b. Believing in things for which no evidence exists has no impact one's critical and rational thinking faculties
I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that either of the above should stand as the null hypothesis given the veritable tons of historical anecdotal and experiential evidence to the contrary.

There’s no way in hell anyone (outside of persons of questionable reasoning ability, such as yourself) would adopt a as the null hypothesis; at best you’d get b as your starting point.

There exist literally mountains of casual empirical evidence pointing toward the deleterious effects of magical and superstitious thinking on human reasoning capacity and performance that it’s beyond silly that you’d even suggest that the contrary assertions are on the same value.

Let’s set up one experiment. Choose two jury pools. One pool listens to the evidence and makes a decision viz guilt vs. innocence based on evidence. The other prays, or uses some other form of divination, to determine guilt vs. innocence. Let’s run this experiment a number of times.

Or, choose two groups and present to them a complex problem they need to solve. One group is given background and supporting evidence. The other group prays or uses some other form of divination.

Which methods above do you think are more likely to produce systematically better results?

Once you’ve answered this question honestly, perhaps then you can begin to see through the religious fog that clouds your brain.


Rather than trading insults with you, I will take your response above to mean that, no, you cannot, or at least will not, provide the "plenty of evidence" that was claimed to be in support of Dawkin's argument #5 (please note again that I am not here speaking to any supposed argument that I or other religionist may make, but rather I am inquiring about Dawkins argument).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
Wade, you obviously do not understand how to do empirical research. If we place the burden of proof on Dawkins viz #5 above, this means that the null hypothesis is either:
a. Believing in things for which no evidence exists improves one's critical and rational thinking faculties
Or
b. Believing in things for which no evidence exists has no impact one's critical and rational thinking faculties
I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that either of the above should stand as the null hypothesis given the veritable tons of historical anecdotal and experiential evidence to the contrary.

There’s no way in hell anyone (outside of persons of questionable reasoning ability, such as yourself) would adopt a as the null hypothesis; at best you’d get b as your starting point.

There exist literally mountains of casual empirical evidence pointing toward the deleterious effects of magical and superstitious thinking on human reasoning capacity and performance that it’s beyond silly that you’d even suggest that the contrary assertions are on the same value.

Let’s set up one experiment. Choose two jury pools. One pool listens to the evidence and makes a decision viz guilt vs. innocence based on evidence. The other prays, or uses some other form of divination, to determine guilt vs. innocence. Let’s run this experiment a number of times.

Or, choose two groups and present to them a complex problem they need to solve. One group is given background and supporting evidence. The other group prays or uses some other form of divination.

Which methods above do you think are more likely to produce systematically better results?

Once you’ve answered this question honestly, perhaps then you can begin to see through the religious fog that clouds your brain.


Rather than trading insults with you, I will take your response above to mean that, no, you cannot, or at least will not, provide the "plenty of evidence" that was claimed to be in support of Dawkin's argument #5 (please note again that I am not here speaking to any supposed argument that I or other religionist may make, but rather I am inquiring about Dawkins argument).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


No, Wade, the correct way to take what I'm saying is that I am not allowing you to inappropriately shift the burden of proof to where it does not belong.

You obviously aren't paying attention to anything I, or anyone else, is saying. You insist on blundering forth in your own un-scientific manner while attempting to call onto the carpet those of us who insist on even a smidgeon of rigor in our reasoning and analysis.

Take a beginner course on empirical research methods and then let's talk again.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9202
Gadianton wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Gadianton wrote:
Quote:
But many find the scientific method lacking and see a higher designer of the world, life and Universe. So they believe there is evidence and that it meets a reasonable level. Why are they wrong?


and what kinds of methods, superior to the "scientific method" do these 'many' use?


Perhaps it is better said that while science provides much about how it does not answer why and leaves it all to chance. Many think that a creation evidences more then just chance.


Question for you: Why did the virgin mary's face appear in the toasted cheese sandwich?


That is news to me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
guy sajer wrote:
No, Wade, the correct way to take what I'm saying is that I am not allowing you to inappropriately shift the burden of proof to where it does not belong.

You obviously aren't paying attention to anything I, or anyone else, is saying. You insist on blundering forth in your own un-scientific manner while attempting to call onto the carpet those of us who insist on even a smidgeon of rigor in our reasoning and analysis.

Take a beginner course on empirical research methods and then let's talk again.


So, even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins set forth the proposition/argument/claim that: "believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society"; and even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins claimed there was "plenty of evidence" to support this propostion/argument/claim; to your way of thinking, I am inappropriately shifting the burden of proof by asking for the claimed "plenty of evidence" in support of Dawkins propostion/argument/claim #5. Could you please provide me with an authoritative source on "empirical research methods" where it says that asking for the claimed evidence in support of a proposition/argument/claim constitutes shifting the burden of proof?

I ask, because I am somewhat familiar with burden of proof in common law as well as in logic and critical thinking, and in these disciplines "the burden of proof for any claim [or propostition/argument] rests on the claimant [or those asserting the proposition or argument]." In other words, Dawkins bears the burden of proof for his claim #5. He supposedly has met that burden with "plenty of evidence". Accordingly, one cannot reasonably conclude that I am shifting the burden of proof by simply asking to see the "plenty of evidence" in support of the Dawkins claim #5.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
Wade, I was summing up Dawkins' points in my own words. I don't know that Dawkins has cited official studies showing those conclusions. Why don't you read his books, and watch his interviews, and see for yourself the evidence he cites?

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:43 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
No, Wade, the correct way to take what I'm saying is that I am not allowing you to inappropriately shift the burden of proof to where it does not belong.

You obviously aren't paying attention to anything I, or anyone else, is saying. You insist on blundering forth in your own un-scientific manner while attempting to call onto the carpet those of us who insist on even a smidgeon of rigor in our reasoning and analysis.

Take a beginner course on empirical research methods and then let's talk again.


So, even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins set forth the proposition/argument/claim that: "believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society"; and even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins claimed there was "plenty of evidence" to support this propostion/argument/claim; to your way of thinking, I am inappropriately shifting the burden of proof by asking for the claimed "plenty of evidence" in support of Dawkins propostion/argument/claim #5. Could you please provide me with an authoritative source on "empirical research methods" where it says that asking for the claimed evidence in support of a proposition/argument/claim constitutes shifting the burden of proof?

I ask, because I am somewhat familiar with burden of proof in common law as well as in logic and critical thinking, and in these disciplines "the burden of proof for any claim [or propostition/argument] rests on the claimant [or those asserting the proposition or argument]." In other words, Dawkins bears the burden of proof for his claim #5. He supposedly has met that burden with "plenty of evidence". Accordingly, one cannot reasonably conclude that I am shifting the burden of proof by simply asking to see the "plenty of evidence" in support of the Dawkins claim #5.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Wade, but who's the claimant, Dawkins or you, who is asserting the converse?

Who's the claimant in this case:

Person 1" "There's such a thing as alien abuductions."

OR

Person 2, "There's no such thing as alien abuductions?"

They are both making claims; who bears the burden of proof?

Trick question; it's obvious.

Or, take this case,

"Magical and superstitious thinking impair one's reasoning capabilities."

OR

"Magical and superstitious thinking have no impact on one's reasoning capablities."

Which one of these bears the burden of proof?

Are you seriously telling me that the former does?

I think you'd be hard pressed in any type of scientific process to find an example that privileges magical and superstitious thinking over evidence-based reason.

Outside of religion, Wade, what other examples would you cite me that magical and superstitious thinking have no impact on or improve one's critical reasoning capacities?

Saying those making assertions bear the burden of proof assumes some kind of null hypothesis that represents the "accepted state of the world."

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Last edited by guy sajer on Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
By the way, Wade, I'm not trying to be a weasle or anything, just that my OP and the addition of #5 were attempts to sum up the general message of Dawkins in my own words, and was a paraphrasing of things gathered over his God Delusion book, in combination with all of the other things from Dawkins that I've seen or heard, including his interview with Bishop Harries, the "Root of All Evil?" TV special, various other interviews, TV appearances, his Galapogos tour boat Q&A sessions, and so forth. That point wasn't a direct quote of some one paragraph claim or anything like that, but rather was a point I feel he's made over the course of an awful lot of question answering and example citing and whatnot. You really would have to read his book, and watch his interviews and TV appearances and such, to identify the various examples he's used and the way in which he's made this point.

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Who Knows wrote:
What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.


I am taking Sethbag at his word. He has read Dawkin's book, and I haven't. He made the claim, and so I am simply asking for references. How this simple and reasonable request somehow violates some cardinal rule of "empirical research" is beyond me. So, I am waiting for Mr. Sajer to explain himself--hopefully using authoritative sources. In other words, I am slowly feeding Sajer the rope of irony, tied with the knot of his own wildly inflated hubris and collasal ignorance, with which to hang himself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
wenglund wrote:
Who Knows wrote:
What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.


I am taking Sethbag at his word. He has read Dawkin's book, and I haven't. He made the claim, and so I am simply asking for references. How this simple and reasonable request somehow violates some cardinal rule of "empirical research" is beyond me. So, I am waiting for Mr. Sajer to explain himself--hopefully using authoritative sources. In other words, I am slowly feeding Sajer the rope of irony, tied with the knot of his own wildly inflated hubris and collasal ignorance, with which to hang himself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I think guy's reasoning goes somewhat like this:

Let's say I say "The book of abraham is not scripture".

Now, would the burden of proof rest with me? Or does the burden of proof rest with those claiming that the book of abraham is scripture? And until they can satisfy that claim, the burden of proof is not on me (claiming the Book of Abraham isn't scripture).

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
guy sajer wrote:
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
No, Wade, the correct way to take what I'm saying is that I am not allowing you to inappropriately shift the burden of proof to where it does not belong.

You obviously aren't paying attention to anything I, or anyone else, is saying. You insist on blundering forth in your own un-scientific manner while attempting to call onto the carpet those of us who insist on even a smidgeon of rigor in our reasoning and analysis.

Take a beginner course on empirical research methods and then let's talk again.


So, even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins set forth the proposition/argument/claim that: "believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society"; and even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins claimed there was "plenty of evidence" to support this propostion/argument/claim; to your way of thinking, I am inappropriately shifting the burden of proof by asking for the claimed "plenty of evidence" in support of Dawkins propostion/argument/claim #5. Could you please provide me with an authoritative source on "empirical research methods" where it says that asking for the claimed evidence in support of a proposition/argument/claim constitutes shifting the burden of proof?

I ask, because I am somewhat familiar with burden of proof in common law as well as in logic and critical thinking, and in these disciplines "the burden of proof for any claim [or propostition/argument] rests on the claimant [or those asserting the proposition or argument]." In other words, Dawkins bears the burden of proof for his claim #5. He supposedly has met that burden with "plenty of evidence". Accordingly, one cannot reasonably conclude that I am shifting the burden of proof by simply asking to see the "plenty of evidence" in support of the Dawkins claim #5.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Wade, but who's the claimant, Dawkins or you, who is asserting the converse?


I find it odd that you would ask since: 1) I have repeatedly qouted Dawkin's claim (or at least what Sethbag has said is Dawkins claim); and 2) I have repeatedly and specifically indicated that I am NOT speaking to any counter argument (or converse claim).

Quote:
Who's the claimant in this case:

Person 1" "There's such a thing as alien abuductions."


In principle, this fits the pro claim: "believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society"

Quote:
OR

Person 2, "There's no such thing as alien abuductions?"


In principle, this fits the con claim: believing in things for which there is no evidence does not undermine one's critical and rational thinking faculties and thus doesn't not prove, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

Quote:
They are both making claims; who bears the burden of proof?

Trick question; it's obvious.


I agree. It is obvious. Both claimants bear the burden of proof for their respective claims, though typically in debate, if person 1 fails to meet the burden of proof, person 2 wins the debate.

But, this is all beside the point--which you might just have figured out were you not so busy scrambling to save face. My simple request wasn't an attempt to shift the burden of proof (regardless wherever one may think the burden may or may not rest), but rather to learn the specifics of the "proof" that had already been claimed to exist in support of Dawkin's claim.

Here are a couple of cases that may help you grasp this simple and obvious point:

Person 1: The earth is spherical, and I have ample evidence to prove it.

Person 2: Please tell me what that evidence is.

Person 3: Well, Person 2 is trying to shift the burden of proof and obviously doesn't understand the basics of "empirical research".

Which person is the idiot?

Trick question. It is obvious.


How about this?:

Person 1: There is "plenty of evidence" that frequently thinking negative thoughts tends to have a delitarious affect on a persons success in life, as well as the success of those around them.

Person 2: I would be interested in see that evidence. Could you provide some citaitons?

Person 3: Well, Person 2 is trying to shift the burden of proof and obviously doesn't understand the basics of "empirical research".

Which person is the idiot?

Trick question. It is obvious.


I am still waiting for the authoritative source on "empirical research" (preferably from a "beginner course) that allegedly claims that asking for references for claimed evidence somehow amounts to shifting the burden of proof. Good luck.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Last edited by wenglund on Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Sethbag wrote:
Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?


I haven't read anything from Dawkins, and I have only heard what has been said here about him. That is why I simply asked for references rather than questioning what Dawkins has said or what has been said about Dawkins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Who Knows wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Who Knows wrote:
What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.


I am taking Sethbag at his word. He has read Dawkin's book, and I haven't. He made the claim, and so I am simply asking for references. How this simple and reasonable request somehow violates some cardinal rule of "empirical research" is beyond me. So, I am waiting for Mr. Sajer to explain himself--hopefully using authoritative sources. In other words, I am slowly feeding Sajer the rope of irony, tied with the knot of his own wildly inflated hubris and collasal ignorance, with which to hang himself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I think guy's reasoning goes somewhat like this:

Let's say I say "The book of abraham is not scripture".

Now, would the burden of proof rest with me? Or does the burden of proof rest with those claiming that the book of abraham is scripture? And until they can satisfy that claim, the burden of proof is not on me (claiming the Book of Abraham isn't scripture).


I don't think that analogy fits this case since Dawkins is making an affirmative claim (his claim takes the form: X causes Y which in turn results in Z), whereas your example takes the form (X is NOT Y).

But even if that were his reasoning, it is beside the point. My simple request was essentially for documentation regarding the claimed "plenty of evidence". This in no reasonable way can be interpreted as me shifting the burden of proof, let alone indication that I don't have the slightest clue about "empirical research". I am merely asking for documentation.

If you get this simple and obvious point, please see if you can explain it to Guy. In his haste to fault me with not knowing what I am talking about, he ironically can't see that he is clueless, and doesn't seem willing to get a clue from me. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
wenglund wrote:
Sethbag wrote:
Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?


I haven't read anything from Dawkins, and I have only heard what has been said here about him. That is why I simply asked for references rather than questioning what Dawkins has said or what has been said about Dawkins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Ok, well I feel my summing-up was fairly reasonable in terms of Dawkins and some of his main points. For any more specifics, you'd really have to go to the source. I highly recommend it. I really like watching or listening to anything Dawkins says.

You could start with something fairly easy, like the Bishop Harries interview. Bishop Harries is actually the most reasonable of the Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with. Perhaps it's because he's not so dogmatic, and has a very common sense approach, unlike most other Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with.

Anyhow, here's the Google Video link to the Bishop Harries interview.

Here's a link to "The Root of All Evil?", a UK channel 4 TV special by Dawkins. Please note that Dawkins doesn't actually think that religion is the root of all evil, and that the title was chosen by the TV network, and he disagreed with it. He thinks it's only a root of some evil. :-)

There are many more good Richard Dawkins interviews and things you can access on YouTube and Google Video. Plus, of course, you can read the books. So far I've only read "The God Delusion", but I intend to read his other works as well.

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Sethbag wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Sethbag wrote:
Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?


I haven't read anything from Dawkins, and I have only heard what has been said here about him. That is why I simply asked for references rather than questioning what Dawkins has said or what has been said about Dawkins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Ok, well I feel my summing-up was fairly reasonable in terms of Dawkins and some of his main points. For any more specifics, you'd really have to go to the source. I highly recommend it. I really like watching or listening to anything Dawkins says.

You could start with something fairly easy, like the Bishop Harries interview. Bishop Harries is actually the most reasonable of the Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with. Perhaps it's because he's not so dogmatic, and has a very common sense approach, unlike most other Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with.

Anyhow, here's the Google Video link to the Bishop Harries interview.

Here's a link to "The Root of All Evil?", a UK channel 4 TV special by Dawkins. Please note that Dawkins doesn't actually think that religion is the root of all evil, and that the title was chosen by the TV network, and he disagreed with it. He thinks it's only a root of some evil. :-)

There are many more good Richard Dawkins interviews and things you can access on YouTube and Google Video. Plus, of course, you can read the books. So far I've only read "The God Delusion", but I intend to read his other works as well.


I don't know that my interest in Dawkins is sufficient to motivate me to plow through all his material in search of the requested information. But, I do appreciate the suggestion. Perhaps I will watch the video when I get more inclined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
At least listen to the Bishop Harries interview. I think you'll like Bishop Harries (now Lord Harries), and one can't help but like listening to Dawkins as well. This link was to the full source material from his interview with Bishop Harries, a small portion of which made it into Dawkins' "Root of All Evil?" TV special.

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:32 am 
Star A
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:59 pm
Posts: 84
I like this clip from Dawkins discussing Mormonism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVI3QcCu8t0

:D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fence Sitter, toon and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group