Skeptic Project

It feels like Haramein has been posted a hundred times on TZM forums. It's where the mixture of Zeitgeist and TVP turns into total chaos, guys who apparently don't know what science is and that 1000 references to Einstein won't make your "theories" better try to promote a society lead by science.

I like Dawkins and I hate Chopra, btw, if somebody was interested in my opinion on that.

Oh God, I almost got sucked into watching video after video of evolution vs creationism debates while watching Dawkins videos. The amount of stupid here is endless as well, although I don't blame them. Evolution is not very intuitive and takes a lot of time and effort to understand.

See, and I am biased towards liking Hitchens simply because he blasts on Ayn Rand, and he isn't really any less prick-ish than Dawkins. Its just irrational bias nothing more.

I just don't really get into "debunking" religion because religion does not mask itself in perverting science like CTs do. Plenty of religious people have absolutely no problem admitting that their beliefs are based on irrational faith. Those who promote crap like Intelligent Design are a pretty small minority, just really loud and have a lot of money behind them. But when it comes down to the people of a community voting on the issue, even in deeply red states like Kansas, parents simply don't want it taught in science class. They see the difference between science and religion. They stay out of science and I stay out of their religion in return.

My friend said that while Dawkins has made positive contributions to science and genetics, he has a problem with him trying to use science to disprove god.

Dawkins has a point. There is no scientific reason, no logic, to presupposing a concious, sentient, entity that created the universe exists.

That's all I've understood Dawkins' point is, unless you can show me something specific he has a problem with.

He thinks Dawkins misrepresents things by saying science disproves god. My friend thinks that science proves the existence of god, but it's overall just personal opinion. He has a problem with Dawkins trying to prove his opinion to be right.

My friend has a masters in physics, so he isn't some creationist barking at science. He thinks Dawkins' criticism of young earth ideology is valid. He dispels some religious beliefs that contradict science, but then he carries it over and says that all religion is wrong.

He thinks Dawkins misrepresents things by saying science disproves god.

Im afraid you're going to have to ask him for a specific example, maybe from a lecture or a talk or one of his TV shows you can find on youtube or something.

I can't say I've ever thought Dawkins's arguments have been unreasonable though there is one exception to that though, see below.

My friend thinks that science proves the existence of god, but it's overall just personal opinion.

Except that's a contradiction.

If he thinks science proves the existence of a god in any way, then this isn't his personal belief. If it is just his personal belief, then it can't be scientifically valid.

He dispels some religious beliefs that contradict science, but then he carries it over and says that all religion is wrong.

What Dawkins does do that does annoy me is that he fixates on the Biblical religions, he doesn't talk about pantheism or atheistic Buddhism. So sometimes he can came across as a bit ignorant, however when he gets down to basics I havent see anything that faults the logic he uses.

So, as I said to start with you're going to have to find a specific example to continue this.

That's the difference between faith and reason, so long as you understand there is a difference and don't believe your faith can be proven with reason.

What Edward said. He probably doesn't dispute that his belief in god is unscientific because you can't be scientific about it. It's all faith.

He probably doesn't dispute that his belief in god is unscientific because you can't be scientific about it. It's all faith.

But there is a difference between saying...

- I believe and have faith in a god

vs

- I believe and have faith that science proves a god.

And when someone that claims to be scientific says they personally think science proves a god, then that suggests to me some irrationality they aren't willing to part with.

Like, they know its an irrational belief because they do understand science and they realise that science really is the only demonstrable, verifiable way we can gain knowledge about the universe. So they say that they believe that science proves god, but are quick to point out its just their opinion.

This is contradictory.

A scientist that believes in god would say its just faith, they would never say that its their belief that science proves it because then what they are really saying is that they are a bad scientist.

So to me it sounds very much like cognitive dissonance is going on here.

Isn't it the same for someone who claims he's disproven god via science?

Sure, so again I have to ask you where Dawkins claims to have done so.

The most I have heard him say is that science makes a deity very unlikely and make no sense. We have no reason to believe in a deity, but also that science shows us even more reasons why we don't need to invoke supernatural explanations. As times gone by the god of the gaps has gotten smaller and smaller.

I recall Dawkins saying theres a scale of atheism from about 1-8 or something along those lines, he said 8 is outright claiming god does not exist at all, and he states hes about a 7. I heard this in an interview he did online somewhere.

Though it has to be said Dawkins communication skills are a bit lacking thats probably why he comes off as an arrogant cold douche

I must have missed the part where he says science can't disprove god. All I saw was him saying that you can be agnostic and pretty much still be athiest.

I'll show it to him.

"But that's only true because people fought vehemently against it."

Not really. Its true because the parents simply didn't want it. I think parents wouldn't have wanted it with or without the media circus around it.

The pro-ID folks were the ones who sunk all the money into pushing it.

Yes, without people fighting against it ID would have taken a foothold in the US education system. It is very important, but the Dover trial was a deep blow against the Creationists plans.

That and Climate Change are for me quite important/relevant issues, the latter being the most important as the deniers are going to help fuck up the planet.