Religion

Lost-in-FL

(7,093 posts)

47. Ahem...

Reply to MarkCharles (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:13 PM

Dec 2011

I was being sarcastic.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all] Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 OP

You have a point, but you could easily say the same thing about Tim Tebow RZM Dec 2011 #1

Don't know, never followed that particular controversy... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #5

This is random thoughts, so maybe not as eloquent as I could be. Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #7

I don't think he's so controversial over here in the U.K. mr blur Dec 2011 #2

Exactly, also a big fan of David Attenborough myself... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #4

"Fundamentalist materialist" tama Dec 2011 #8

A fellow "Scientist" who believes in telepathy and generational memory... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #9

...or like Ernst Mayr who also disagreed with Dawkins Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #19

Being both tama Dec 2011 #21

A great experimentalist? He derives conclusions from... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #27

Are talking about the same guy? tama Dec 2011 #33

Ancedotal evidence is useless without repeatability, do you understand... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #42

Read again. tama Dec 2011 #48

Who are these "authoritarian orthodoxies" the ones who couldn't... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #54

Perhaps tama Dec 2011 #55

An honest person would say the results are inconclusive... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #61

That's what Sheldrake tama Dec 2011 #63

What evidence? Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #75

Belief tama Dec 2011 #77

There is no valid edhopper Dec 2011 #14

It is quite common tama Dec 2011 #22

Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #28

Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want... tama Dec 2011 #34

Like telepathy edhopper Dec 2011 #50

Like the belief tama Dec 2011 #51

Oh good edhopper Dec 2011 #64

To tell you the truth tama Dec 2011 #70

So basically you got nothing as far as evidence is concerned? n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #76

How was your day? tama Dec 2011 #78

He's willing to take them on. rrneck Dec 2011 #3

Because he's critical of religion, and possibly also because he's pro-evolution LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #6

"...under direct attack by many people who use misinformation, lies, and ignorance as their weapons. Jim__ Dec 2011 #10

This is interesting... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #11

That is the conclusion of the argument. Jim__ Dec 2011 #12

You attack the whole Dawkins's God Delution based on a paragraph made to be a 'filler'? Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #25

No. I'm merely pointing to one paragraph that demonstrates why his book was attacked. Jim__ Dec 2011 #29

So that justifies death threats? Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #32

There are people who like philosophy tama Dec 2011 #39

I prefer conversations that are useful and relevant to the discussion at hand... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #41

You are entitled to your opinion tama Dec 2011 #43

"Fuck Kant"? tama Dec 2011 #38

The difference between me and a coffee house philosopher is... Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #46

You are always wrong tama Dec 2011 #52

... Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #58

First mover tama Dec 2011 #23

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require either "metaphysical" presumption... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #26

Indeed tama Dec 2011 #36

Then all things in motion do not need to be put in motion. edhopper Dec 2011 #16

What is the basis for your "then"? Jim__ Dec 2011 #18

Aquinas says all thing must be put in motion. edhopper Dec 2011 #20

No, he doesn't: Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. Jim__ Dec 2011 #30

Poor phrasing on my part. Emphasis on put, as in - all things in motion MUST be put in motion. edhopper Dec 2011 #49

Dismantled Aquinas'argument? Jim__ Dec 2011 #56

I see that he did. edhopper Dec 2011 #65

Big Bang tama Dec 2011 #24

What does the Big Bang have to do with a branch of philosophy? Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #31

What does 'causality" have to do with a branch of philosophy tama Dec 2011 #35

Science moved beyond philosophy by the late 19th century... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #40

And philosophy came back tama Dec 2011 #44

So not only are you misrepresenting science, but history as well? Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #53

20th century tama Dec 2011 #57

Since when were all of them philosophers? Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #60

For the purpose of this discussion tama Dec 2011 #62

What you don't seem to understand in your all too broad edhopper Dec 2011 #66

Perhaps you are unawere tama Dec 2011 #71

Quite well aware edhopper Dec 2011 #72

Partial explanation tama Dec 2011 #74

They threaten the power structure. Deep13 Dec 2011 #13

"Challenging people's core values and beliefs always makes them a bit grouchy." tama Dec 2011 #37

Simply because he is an outspoken atheist. Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #15

Spoken like a true believer. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #45

Ahem... Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #47

Then you FAILED to state how. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #68

Don't give yourself a heart attack over nothing. Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #69

MC, you might get a little less needlessly upset if you go into A&A and write iris27 Dec 2011 #59

Why would I spoil the fun ? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #67

Pretty sure everyone else got it, because most here do take note of who posts what. iris27 Dec 2011 #73

I can't say I read the whole thing--- digonswine Dec 2011 #17