The Nasty NAAFI Thread About Christians

Yes. But to refute an argument you need to use credible sources.
No you don't. Reductio ad absurdam, for example.

To refute an argument, you only need to show that it's founded on false assumptions, internally inconsistent or contradictory or that it fails to account for observed facts. Religion is bang to rights on all three.
 
Yes. But to refute an argument you need to use credible sources. On the face of it, Dawkins is trying to do the impossible, prove a negative.

In reality of course Dawkins is simply a narcissistic gobshite who loves the sound of his own voice rather than someone making a cogent argument.

I'm not sure you quite have the right end of the stick.

As I read it, Dawkins is a biologist who got sick of creationists etc having a pop at evolution etc...it was them trying to refute a scientific theory (evolution) using faith-based arguments that got on his nerves.

The point about the scientific method is that any theory stands ready to get disproved or amended, but religious appeals to 'faith' aren't disproving anything.

It's a small step from there to having a pop against their belief systems...and at that point it looks like he realised there's money in it.

So I'd say he is someone who does have a cogent argument, but who does also like the sound of his own voice.

Personally I find the way he puts down some of the more idiotic God-botherers quite entertaining.

As I mentioned above, when he comes up against someone who can make some reasonably sound point, he's quite polite about it.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
I'm not sure you quite have the right end of the stick.

As I read it, Dawkins is a biologist who got sick of creationists etc having a pop at evolution etc...it was them trying to refute a scientific theory (evolution) using faith-based arguments that got on his nerves.

The point about the scientific method is that any theory stands ready to get disproved or amended, but religious appeals to 'faith' aren't disproving anything.

It's a small step from there to having a pop against their belief systems...and at that point it looks like he realised there's money in it.

So I'd say he is someone who does have a cogent argument, but who does also like the sound of his own voice.

Personally I find the way he puts down some of the more idiotic God-botherers quite entertaining.

As I mentioned above, when he comes up against someone who can make some reasonably sound point, he's quite polite about it.
Dawkins is an insufferable arrse, who intentionally goes out of his way to annoy people. Sounds like he has the right stuff for this place.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I see that the idiotic man is at it again.

Justin Welby under fire over C of E's zero-hours contracts

One rather hopes that there is a lamp post reserved for this foolish, meddling, political priest and hypocrite (and former oil company executive) when the revolution comes.
Doubtful. Looks like he's doing his level best to hedge his bets with those most likely to stage a revolution with these comments, to me...
 

BratMedic

LE
Book Reviewer

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
No you don't. Reductio ad absurdam, for example.

To refute an argument, you only need to show that it's founded on false assumptions, internally inconsistent or contradictory or that it fails to account for observed facts. Religion is bang to rights on all three.

An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process.

Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
A deity worth kneeling to if that shows anything to go by..
If only for the portrayal of God's wife as a milf and Hell's demons as stunning as Mazikeen.For those not in teh know:-
God's wife
S2_promo_-_Charlotte_Richards.jpg

Mazikeen
Maz.jpg
 
I would not want to be apart of the half time show, Christians vs Lions does not sound like a winning proposition.

Not much of a Deity if he cant stop a few mouldy pussy cats munching on his flock now is he?
 

Latest Threads

Top