Richard Dawkins = Larry Logic ~ Arse
Discussion
ClassicMotorNut said:
I also find Dawkins arrogant and dislikeable but I do like his forthright manner which it seems a lot of people aren't able to handle. He has given his opinion and, unsurprisingly, some especially stupid people are upset by it.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to have a child with Down's syndrome, knowing full well that the child would be so limited and that it would be very difficult to raise him.
You can say that about all sorts of different disabilities, autism can lead to a very limited life for some.I can't imagine why anyone would want to have a child with Down's syndrome, knowing full well that the child would be so limited and that it would be very difficult to raise him.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's a ridiculous question. Do you have evidence that unicorns don't exist? There is no onus on anyone to prove stuff doesn't exist. The onus rests with those asserting the positive, not the negative.
You stated that Dawkins is correct - ie there is no god. I'd say that was overreaching somewhat.For the record, I'm not religious. I have no need for a god in my life, but I'm not in a position to state with absolute certainty that some sort of 'higher power' definitely doesn't exist.
TTwiggy said:
You stated that Dawkins is correct - ie there is no god. I'd say that was overreaching somewhat.
For the record, I'm not religious. I have no need for a god in my life, but I'm not in a position to state with absolute certainty that some sort of 'higher power' definitely doesn't exist.
Dawkins doesn't state it with absolute certainty, he states that the likelihood of the existance of such a being is vanishingly small, not zero.For the record, I'm not religious. I have no need for a god in my life, but I'm not in a position to state with absolute certainty that some sort of 'higher power' definitely doesn't exist.
Einion Yrth said:
Dawkins doesn't state it with absolute certainty, he states that the likelihood of the existance of such a being is vanishingly small, not zero.
Ok - that's reasonable. And is roughly in tune with my view.The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest that there was a certainty to god's non existence.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TTwiggy said:
Ok - that's reasonable. And is roughly in tune with my view.
The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest that there was a certainty to god's non existence.
I was implying that Dawkins is right in his debates over the existence of God. The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest that there was a certainty to god's non existence.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lots of people seem to. But the problem that the opponents of Dawkins face, especially in arguments over the existence or otherwise of God, is that regardless of how obnoxious he may be, he is right, and his opponents are wrong.
As has Dawkins been on occasion. I'd happily debate anthropogenic climate change with him as the concept of a fragile earth climate goes against his own evolutionary stable system theory.KingNothing said:
Given the choice if my partner was scanned and discovered that the foetus had down syndrome, I'd want it aborted.
Your partner might think otherwise.I'see a few down syndrome people once a week.Some very nice people well loved by the parents.One lady was telling me of the four children she had her daughter who is also mentally handicapped, is the most caring child of the four.Jinx said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lots of people seem to. But the problem that the opponents of Dawkins face, especially in arguments over the existence or otherwise of God, is that regardless of how obnoxious he may be, he is right, and his opponents are wrong.
As has Dawkins been on occasion. I'd happily debate anthropogenic climate change with him as the concept of a fragile earth climate goes against his own evolutionary stable system theory.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jinx said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lots of people seem to. But the problem that the opponents of Dawkins face, especially in arguments over the existence or otherwise of God, is that regardless of how obnoxious he may be, he is right, and his opponents are wrong.
As has Dawkins been on occasion. I'd happily debate anthropogenic climate change with him as the concept of a fragile earth climate goes against his own evolutionary stable system theory.Never the less
Foppo said:
KingNothing said:
Given the choice if my partner was scanned and discovered that the foetus had down syndrome, I'd want it aborted.
Your partner might think otherwise.I'see a few down syndrome people once a week.Some very nice people well loved by the parents.One lady was telling me of the four children she had her daughter who is also mentally handicapped, is the most caring child of the four.He's not suggesting the slaughter of "some very nice people" or "the most caring child"...but the aborting of an unborn foetus.
Edited by Hackney on Thursday 21st August 14:23
FredClogs said:
Most people dislike him because he's a prick, not because if the veracity of his views on the physical actuality of a super natural creator (which you've yet to convince me doesn't exist).
I won't be even trying to convince you. For reasons I've already given. The ball is in your court when it comes to convincing.TwigtheWonderkid said:
FredClogs said:
Most people dislike him because he's a prick, not because if the veracity of his views on the physical actuality of a super natural creator (which you've yet to convince me doesn't exist).
I won't be even trying to convince you. For reasons I've already given. The ball is in your court when it comes to convincing.I see no ball, I have no court or racket and the metaphorical net is an illusion of your anger at something but I'm not sure what.
FredClogs said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FredClogs said:
Most people dislike him because he's a prick, not because if the veracity of his views on the physical actuality of a super natural creator (which you've yet to convince me doesn't exist).
I won't be even trying to convince you. For reasons I've already given. The ball is in your court when it comes to convincing.I see no ball, I have no court or racket and the metaphorical net is an illusion of your anger at something but I'm not sure what.
Justayellowbadge said:
Oh God.
Is this going to descend into paragraph after paragraph debating the meaning of meaning, primary cause and other tedious philosophical self abuse?
I was rather hoping it would stick on the subject at hand, the morality of baby murdering, but some people just can't help themselves from spoiling for an argument...Is this going to descend into paragraph after paragraph debating the meaning of meaning, primary cause and other tedious philosophical self abuse?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff