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

blitz442's Profile

blitz442's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by blitz442

Think like a lawyer? - last commented 03 May 2012 04:21 PM

Evolution and a belief in God are incompatible - last commented 07 December 2010 08:51 PM

More Discussions by blitz442

Latest Comments by blitz442

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

blitz442's Avatar Jump to comment 227 by blitz442

Comment 226 by Steve Zara

"The mind is a flowing weave on a tapestry of grey cells, and the pictures on that tapestry may be real or they may not be, but they are only flickering images, transient, changed with each viewing."

Well said. I hope that goes in the book.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:47:25 UTC | #950965

Go to: Against All Gods

blitz442's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by blitz442

Comment 16 by ZenDruid

God was last seen hiding in the quanta.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:01:27 UTC | #950129

Go to: Against All Gods

blitz442's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by blitz442

Comment 14 by godzacon

"things already known by religion"

I would also add that implicit in this claim is the notion that there must be a category of religious knowledge that the methods of science can speak to, which contradicts the belief that religion and science do not overlap.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:46:14 UTC | #950127

Go to: Against All Gods

blitz442's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by blitz442

Comment 12 by Maariya

If one took something so seriously then they wouldnt attempt to critically examine it, because its religion not science.

Please do not fall into the trap that religious claims = claims that get a free pass from examination. The major religions make very specific claims about reality, and are not averse to using scientific evidence when they think it is in their favor. It is only when evidence goes against those claims that the tired arguments about religion being completely separate from evidence, reason, and critical analysis get wheeled out.

Religion has always been a closed belief system, however if you criticise a certain part of it I'm sure that religion will have an acceptable comeback

How can a comeback be acceptable if it comes from a closed system that admits no contradicting evidence?

as it is still learning things already known by religion.

What is science still learning that religion already knew? Do tell.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:30:01 UTC | #950125

Go to: Against All Gods

blitz442's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by blitz442

Comment 10 by Maariya

I don’t see how that applies to religion

Plenty of religious claims have been falsified; YEC, demonic possession, efficacy of prayer, faith-healing...

That principle was sought out by 'philosophers' who were more bothered about science then they were about religion/God

Why the scare quotes around philosophers? What are you implying - that true philosophers should never take religion seriously enough to critically examine its claims?

So obviously it would 'disprove' God.

I'm not sure if falsification is the same as complete and permanent disproof, which may be impossible. But if we never find God where believers say we should find him, then that is close enough to disproof for me.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:09:13 UTC | #950123

More Comments by blitz442