Brief Rebuttal to Dawkins

This is a brief 6 minute rebuttal this guy does to Richard Dawkins on his book 'The God Delusion' and Sam harris. He makes an excellent point, worth the watch.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

He makes some very good points indeed and thanks for posting a balance in all the modern madness. I am not religious or scientific but if I had a choice, I'd probably go with the mystics and the internal thinkers. They don't experiment on their own people.

Crop rotation. A most excellent point of one of the major things we are doing wrong. I remember learning that at school. Crop rotation for 3 years and on the 4th year the land was left fallow. We have lost quite a lot due to "science".

How is rebutting Dawkins a conspiracy in religion?

Can you hear that??? That is the sound of the wave of atheist butt hurt that is ready to come crashing into this thread. Pretty good video with some pretty good points. I personally do not believe in a personified god but Im open to the idea of a god of sorts.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
How is rebutting Dawkins a conspiracy in religion?

How do 99% of all the threads in conspiracy in religion have to do with conspiracies?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are just the ones at the top right now

Originally posted by JoshF
Can you hear that??? That is the sound of the wave of atheist butt hurt that is ready to come crashing into this thread. Pretty good video with some pretty good points. I personally do not believe in a personified god but Im open to the idea of a god of sorts.

You always manage to slip in some derogatory or otherwise offensive statement in nearly all your posts that I've seen. I know you're new, but get over yourself. The boards are better without people voicing out intolerance.

Just think about it.

~
Also, no one's "Butt Hurt" about this video. It's not even that clever.

First, he's making moral claims about science. That's a vast misappropriation. Science is not about morality. It can help us have the knowledge to make moral decisions, but morality is a different subject. Science really can't be blamed for any immorality, though can be thanked for the knowledge that helps us be moral.

So his video falls apart right there.

He also claims Dawkins was focusing on the worst of morality from religion. Dawkins was mostly looking at the facts and evidences. not moralities. If you want to compare the worst of science to the worst of religion, I really want to see how any scientific knowledge is comparable to slaughtering virgins as sacrifices, destroying entire cities, men, women, children, babies, (livestock), just for having different beliefs. Burning non-believers alive, killing family members for religious honor. Ect.

He talks about our top soil eroding, and he's right. But the point he's making is wrong. For one, the reason we know our top soil is eroding is by scientific analysis. We'd still be pumping our land full of nutrients and killing it if we didn't further gain knowledge of the damages it causes. There's nothing moral or immoral about knowing that we can use certain nutrients to get more out of our land. There's nothing moral or immoral about knowing that it damages the land. What's moral or immoral, is what we do with the knowledge. However, we're better off knowing than not.

He mentions the 20th century killers being non-religious, fighting for ideologies instead. For the most part, he's right. Though, he leaves out that the most known killer from that time, Adolf Hitler, was a devout catholic who repeatedly stated he thought he was doing God's will.

He also blames science for eugenics. Eugenics is the knowledge that some gene's are better than others. There's nothing immoral about that. I suffer from some genetic disorders, I'll be the first to say than not all genes are equal. Class Warfare caused the mentality in the U.S. And in Germany, it was ideology and religion that decided that Jews genes were inferior, that they shouldn't reproduce, and that they should be killed. It wasn't scientific, it was taking a basic scientific fact(Which, hitler probably didn't understand that well in the first place, given that he rejected evolution and banned text books teaching it) and mending it to suit immoral religious means. That's not a fall on sciences part. I mean, hitlers hatred of the Jews, was inspired by the writings of Martin Luther(The founder of the Lutheran Religion), who hated them because of their religious beliefs of not accepting who Luther thought was the Son of God(Some chap named Jesus, he believed).

So this guy's attempt at blaming the holocaust on Science is false. Very false.

~
This guy, his video is on the Internet, after being filmed by a Camera in a Lighted room. I'm sure he drove home in his Car afterwards, and watched some TV. Seriously, is he really trying to argue that science is wrong, or immoral? You know someones not worth criticizing when they try attacking our objective pursuit of knowledge that has Given so much, and told us even more.

He might as well be attacking learning and thinking directly.

~
Again, the point of Dawkins work, is that there's not facts or evidences to support religious beliefs. This guy ignores that. He'd have a really hard time saying there's no facts or evidences for scientific beliefs(since science is made by looking at facts and evidences). He'd also have a hard time trying to say (islam, in this case) has evidence for being true. It's a belief, but not one that the evidence supports, same with other religions.

So, this is a horrible rebuttal. He doesn't really say anything that truthfully runs counter to The God Delusion. In fact, The God Delusion could be used by itself as a rebuttal to this guys claims.

~
How many who've watched this video and agree'd with it, have actually read The God Delusion? I'm quite sure it's there's very few, if any, who have.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


That video is a joke of a rebuttal.

"communisim is anti religion" /facpalm

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


The poor man doesn't know what science is. Science is purely descriptive. What we decide do with science, is based on our ideology. You can as well use science for evil purposes in the name of religion as for any other ideology. Science itself does not tell what we should do with it.

His other argument, that not ideologies are bad, but humans are bad, is also bunk. Ironically, if it were true, it makes his religion rather useless, as people would act bad anyhow despite how religious they are. So he is shooting in his own foot with that argument, if he was right.

reply to post by -PLB-


I have a degree in physics and I know that the most accurate theory in physics QED is still an approximation.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


If you have a degree in physics you should no that there is not a single law in physics telling use what we should do. It only describes what we observe, and never tells us what we should do with the knowledge we gather.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


What i really do not understand, is that why scientists who do not believe in fairy-tales, going on to disprove fairy-tales. It´s a serious question. I do not believe in the "Easter-Bunny" or the "Tooth-Fairy" either, but i am not going to write "The Easter-Bunny Delusion", or "The Tooth-Fairy Delusion". After all arguing against fairy tales it´s a sign of mental disorder. Seriously, if you do not believe in fairy-tales do not bother with fairy-tales.

Here is another source concerning the God Delusion, which concludes:

Far from wanting to warn anyone against ‘even opening a book like this,’[79] I recommend that believers and non-believers alike apply their ‘native intelligence’[80] to reading The God Delusion. However, I suggest doing so with help from a list of logical fallacies. Readers can then enjoy a stimulating game of ‘Eye Spy’. In particular, look out for examples of: self-contradiction, begging the question[81], attacking a straw man[82], data picking[83], wishful thinking[84], appeal to ridicule[85] and various ad hominim attacks[86] from simple name-calling[87] to ‘poisoning the well.’[88] Blowing away houses made from philosophical straw is a praiseworthy endeavour; but Dawkins’ frequent substitution of straw houses for the real thing means that his critique of religion has more puff than bite.

Who´s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

Peace

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

If you have a degree in physics you should no that there is not a single law in physics telling use what we should do. It only describes what we observe, and never tells us what we should do with the knowledge we gather.

LOL!!! You should know full well that if you have two Physicists you'll have three to five opinions!!!

haha

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

What i really do not understand, is that why scientists who do not believe in fairy-tales, going on to disprove fairy-tales. It´s a serious question. I do not believe in the "Easter-Bunny" or the "Tooth-Fairy" either, but i am not going to write "The Easter-Bunny Delusion", or "The Tooth-Fairy Delusion". After all arguing against fairy tales it´s a sign of mental disorder. Seriously, if you do not believe in fairy-tales do not bother with fairy-tales.

Yes, but believing in the tooth fairy never harmed anyone. No one's protesting for the tooth-fairy to be taught in public schools. No one brainwashes children into believing in the tooth fairy. No one's using the tooth fairy to try to regulate laws. No one claims the the United States is a Tooth-farian Nation, or that the foundation of our civilization comes from ten mostly irrelevant laws the Tooth Fairy gave us. No one in Undeveloped Countries is being killed for not believing in various variations of tooth fairies. No families are torn apart by those who do believe not accepting those who don't believe in tooth-fairies.

Dawkins is a biologist not a physicist, there are some things beyond Dawkins mind that I understand. Dawkins cannot fathom the complexities of the universe and is arrogant for even thinking just because he knows biology he has solved the secrets of the universe.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I think you are equally arrogant for thinking you have found the theory of everything.

reply to post by -PLB-


I never said I found it.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Just like Dawkins never said he solved all the mysteries in the universe.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

No one's protesting for the tooth-fairy to be taught in public schools.

Where i am coming from, we are been taught Biology in Biology class and Religion in Religion class. So i do not know the situation in America very well.

No one brainwashes children into believing in the tooth fairy.

I suppose we better brainwash them, not to believe into.

No one's using the tooth fairy to try to regulate laws

No matter how you try, there is this thing called Separation of State and Religion.

No one claims the the United States is a Tooth-farian Nation,

No, it´s called an American Nation.

or that the foundation of our civilization comes from ten mostly irrelevant laws the Tooth Fairy gave us.

The foundation of your American civilisation comes from your "Constitution". And from the first ten amendments, which are known as the Bill of Rights. Whether you find that irrelevant it´s up to you.

No one in Undeveloped Countries is being killed for not believing in various variations of tooth fairies. No families are torn apart by those who do believe not accepting those who don't believe in tooth-fairies.

Yes, what you are saying, it´s called Intolerance. And the answer to intolerance, is not in opposing any belief, atheist or theist. It is in respecting the right of individuals to choose their own beliefs.

But my point on my previous post still stands. That point is "Arguing against non existent characters, it´s a sign of mental disorder".

Peace

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

That video is a joke of a rebuttal.

"communisim is anti religion" /facpalm

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism".-Vladimir Lenin

You should read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake, The End Of Materialism By Charles Tart. and Doubting Dawkins by Keith Ward. more than one opinion out there..if youre ready for it?