My favorite part… Dawkins: You can’t disprove anything. You can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can’t disprove Thor with his hammer. You can’t disprove Zeus or Poseidon… Colbert: Those are pagan gods… Dawkins: Yeah, that’s right! (laughingly) Colbert: They don’t exist… (laughingly) Dawkins: You’re an Atheist about all those gods (pagan gods), everyone here is an Atheist about all those gods; some of us just go one god further.
Unfortunately, the Colbert “character” tends to offset what could have been a very serious and wonderful debate. Dawkins won anyway.
Actually I saw that today for the first time lol. I enjoyed it, Colbert is awesome. It did seem as though Colbert just let him have half of the argument because usual Colbert style, he’s not there to debate but to make people laugh. Like when Dawkins asked, “And who made God?”, easy for Colbert to say he’s always existed, but yet he did not, did anyone catch things like that? I assume might have put a negative vibe going into a deep argument like that, and I only say this because from what I know Colbert is Catholic, or at some time used to be. But yeah, it was a good video.
Club, he actually did say “but god is outside of time”. Which is a stupid argument anyway, as you might as well say the universe is ‘outside of time’ or ‘always existed’ or whatever… being a godly person rather than an impersonal thing doesn’t affect your ability to always exist or be outside of time I assume.
Honestly, haven’t you heard this like 10 times before? Why do you repeat the same tired arguments?
Do you believe something always existed? ‘Some’ thing? I do, but since I’m a theist I believe it’s God. I really don’t know what time has to do with any of it? Colbert didn’t say anything after Dawkins asked who made God from what I remember.
What do you mean? Where was my argument in this last post? I honestly don’t know what I’m repeating lol.
Oh well, there goes the scientific method then. Really, why does this man even get airtime…
Dawkins: Democracy is no good for science
Oh well, there goes any thought of Dawkins apparent liberalism actually being applied to his other claims…
Dawkins: There’s no intelligent design in natural things. There’s plenty of intelligent design in computers and cars… and we’re so stupid because we think that just because these things are intelligently designed that so are we.
Need I really point out the glaring contradiction in this argument? I ask again, why does this absolute cretin who cannot open his mouth without embarrassing himself get airtime? Krossie’s 8 year old has more sense than Dawkins…
He’s talking in an absolutist sense. Given we’re on a philsophy forum, I’m sure you understand what I (and Dawkins) must mean here.
All evidence, for instance, suggests that the earth revolves around the sun, but so long as all the evidence we have is necessarily tenuous, contingent and changing, the theory of a geocentric universe cannot absolutely be disproven. You would have to take complete leave of your senses, of course, to deny the theory of heliocentrism but then again these are exactly the same contorted epistemological arguments (about the limits of physical evidence) that theists use to argue in favour of a god.
Er what? Are you really trying to suggest here that democracy is a legitimate way of establishing empirical truth? That scientific knowledge can be invalidated by a survey of the people?
I think you do, because it certainly appears to make sense to me.
Actually, I have to agree with JP, because having viewed this show originally, and again thanks to the venerable paisano, Sagesound, it would appear that Dawkins has just given irrefutable proof that humanity is ineffably stupid.
Nature exists.
Nature has an observable design.
Nature has a design that is signified by absence of intelligence, (random occurrence).
Hominids were brought forth by natural design, (random occurrence).
Therefore, hominids, are by natural design, without intelligence.
Works for me, it has been my natural observation for many years. Dawkins has officially proven that humanity is ineffably stupid.
Let us all group together as one, drooling in unison. Our task is complete.
Or, we could make Dawkins the new divine leader, because after all, this is his discovery?
Assume nothing. What I understand is that Dawkins is saying that we cannot disprove the existence of Thor or some other pagan gods but despite that finds sufficient justification to call his book ‘The God Delusion’.
So, we’re deluded if we believe in the existence of something that cannot be disproven, in an absolutist sense.
Assuming that all the evidence points towards that explanation, why believe the theory for which there is the most evidence? Why aren’t other criteria as compelling?
Yes, that’s precisely what I’m ‘trying to suggest’…
What they’re saying is that he’s not the voice of reason and logic, so in their minds they are not fighting against the messiah but the false messiah. Dorky, you’re acting like a theist.
Even if Dawkins were the voice of reason and logic I’d still be asking ‘why should we believe such a voice?’ There are more important things to search for than truth…
