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

Comments by Maariya

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by Maariya

Oh ok, so you see a flaw and then see a better way of understanding (which is science) regardless of the fact that even that has flaws. You can not substitute religion with science. Yes I am pretty much

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:45:35 UTC | #950228

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Maariya

Obviously some of you may be I am not saying you aren't I'm stating that there must be a reason for why they to disregard the religious teaching because e.g. they may have come across some counter points against the religious teachings.

There are also theories in science which cannot be proven to this day. Lets take for example the devastating theory of evolution, thus because of such theories is it wrong to disregard science as a whole??

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:16:54 UTC | #950226

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by Maariya

Comment 47 by mmurray I think she's gone. Which gives an opportunity to all break into song ...

I have not yet gone.

The things that became common knowledge came through religious teachings so at the beginning these things were not common knowledge. There are also theories in science which cannot be proven to this day. Lets take for example the devastating theory of evolution, thus because of such theories is it wrong to disregard science as a whole?? l

And before you judge religious literature you may find it more helpful it you read it fully rather than to listen to it on the news as the things that make the headlines usually are nonsense, thus consider educating yourself before in the religions you claim are not true.

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:56:43 UTC | #950223

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Maariya

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

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

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. Science however is an open belief system i guess thats what makes it so rational and open to criticisms, then again it has to be an open system as it is still learning things already known by religion.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:21:25 UTC | #950124

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Maariya

Comment 9 by blitz442

So you're talking about the falsification principle, I don’t see how that applies to religion. That principle was sought out by 'philosophers' who were more bothered about science then they were about religion/God. So obviously it would 'disprove' God.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:56:42 UTC | #950122

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Maariya

If you set out to disprove something that is what you will do, if you set out to prove something that is what you will do. Now whether how credible, valid, reliable that proof is, is a whole different topic.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:15:16 UTC | #950120

Go to: Against All Gods

Maariya's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Maariya

You can't really pose a cheap shot at all classical arguments for the existence of God with 'Fred'. And yes fair enough even in the eys of a theist the classical arguments aren't exactly the best ones taking into consideration that they do not in anyway want a disbeliever to believe in God. So criticising them is a waste of time.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:59:25 UTC | #950117