This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Demotruk's Profile

Demotruk's Avatar Joined almost 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Demotruk

More Discussions by Demotruk

Latest Comments by Demotruk

Go to: Welcome to This World

Demotruk's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Demotruk

Woah, that was quite powerful...

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:12:25 UTC | #490295

Go to: We Suck

Demotruk's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Demotruk

"God had no part in this process" is not atheism, it's simply the reverse in this case to "God guided this process". In which case religious people who understand evolution by natural selection should vote for "God had no part in this process". Jerry Coyne misrepresents Kenneth Miller I believe in this case, because theistic evolutionists often believe God simply set the initial conditions with an understanding of how it would play out, which is not the same as "God guided this process".

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:44:17 UTC | #490205

Go to: The Godless Delusion

Demotruk's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Demotruk

Isn't it funny the way the blurb for apologetics books often deride other apologetics books? "sadly, most of the books written in response have conveyed an impression of ad hoc defensiveness. But not this one." The recent creationist response to TGSoE did the same, deriding other creationist books.

You don't get that from the scientist or atheist writers. Apologetics is clearly in a sad state of affairs if they have to acknowledge how bad they are just to create the pretense that this one might be better.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:41:08 UTC | #489834

Go to: How facts backfire

Demotruk's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Demotruk

Did the person have any way to verify things for themselves?

I'm sure if I was in the situation, and told that "there were no WMD's found in Iraq" or "George Bush did not ban stem cell research" (both of which I already knew), I would have no problem. But how could they actually demonstrate these facts? In order for it to be proven to me that these are true, I would have to be able to verify them for myself, not just take them on the authority of the researchers.

Imagine if the researchers had presented the "fact" that birds had not evolved from dinosaurs, it was a myth and in reality there was a different evolutionary path from early reptiles to birds. It would be pretty easy for the researchers to make up phony evidence, produce phony statements from scientists and present them as fact (at least to someone who is not an expert in the field). Without the ability to verify this "fact" for yourself, how could you be anything but skeptical and disbelieving?

I don't necessarily disagree with the ideas in this article, but it does seem odd that we would think the subjects 'ought' to believe the facts they are presented with. In a study like this, the subjects don't know the motivations of the researchers. If they present things as fact, and you have no way to verify them, why should you take them on their word?

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:35:15 UTC | #488925

Go to: New survey on science and religion

Demotruk's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by Demotruk

Now I happen to agree with Jerry Coyne on this matter, but it irks me to no end when people say something like "We atheists think...". You do not speak for atheists, 'we atheists' think all sorts of things and are not necessarily united on anything except for the lack of a belief in God.

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:15:03 UTC | #488688

More Comments by Demotruk