Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_marg]

Philosophy isn't a court of law, and the Burden of Proof isn't some defeasible presumption you try to shift on someone. Dawkins is affirming the proposition "God almost certainly does not exist", which is why he dedicates all of chapter 4 to explaining his argument.

I suppose you are going to tell me next that atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color?

Stop being naïve.

Stak Dawkin's is presenting an argument against an argument which claims the existence of something. The warrants for his argument to reject the claim are obviously going to reguire less evidence and reasoning than for those making the affirmative claim...he rejects.

by the way...please let Tarski give his perspective. We've talked enough, it would be nice to have someone else's input, someone that I believe I can respect. Just back off, until Tarski has posted a little to give his perspective.

[_marg]

#3 of Dawkins argument on Pages 157-158 can be true along with the God Hypothesis, hence, his entire argument doesn't follow. There is no entailment.

Tarski can you make heads or tails out of this because I can't.

[_Morley]

#3 of Dawkins argument on Pages 157-158 can be true along with the God Hypothesis, hence, his entire argument doesn't follow. There is no entailment.

Tarski can you make heads or tails out of this because I can't.

I should probably stay out of this, but this seems more than a little bizarre. Are you debating Stak? Or are you two in counseling with Tarski as a mediator?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I should probably stay out of this, but this seems more than a little bizarre. Are you debating Stak? Or are you two in counseling with Tarski as a mediator?

She wants Tarski to do the arguing for her. I just want her to make some kind of point.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Stak Dawkin's is presenting an argument against an argument which claims the existence of something.

wat

Have you actually read this book? Chapter 4 isn't an argument against an argument. He calls it, "The Argument from Imporbability" where he asserts that Darwinism is a better explanation for complexity than God.

It isn't a response. It's an explanation and defense of the proposition " Why there is almost certainly no God."

Does context mean anything to you?

The warrants for his argument to reject the claim are obviously going to reguire less evidence and reasoning than for those making the affirmative claim...he rejects.

Chapter 3 is made up of his rejections of arguments, not Chapter 4.

by the way...please let Tarski give his perspective. We've talked enough, it would be nice to have someone else's input, someone that I believe I can respect. Just back off, until Tarski has posted a little to give his perspective.

I can respond when I want to, just like I can call you stupid if I want to. I'm not going to rely on someone else, and try to conjole them into affirming my opinions.

[_marg]

by the way...please let Tarski give his perspective. We've talked enough, it would be nice to have someone else's input, someone that I believe I can respect. Just back off, until Tarski has posted a little to give his perspective.

I can respond when I want to, just like I can call you stupid if I want to. I'm not going to rely on someone else, and try to conjole them into affirming my opinions.

Of course you can respond whenever you want..but because more often than not with me, because I don't read your posts generally so I don't know what your discussions are like generally...you use insults or attacks in lieu of discussion. I'm not interested in discussing with someone like that.

So I'm interested in Tarski's perspective.

And at this point, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post..I've been there, done that.

[_MrStakhanovite]

And at this point, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post..I've been there, done that.

Translation: I can't stand it when you use the text to make your obvious points, so I'm going to try and get someone who hasn't read the book to argue for me.

[_marg]

And at this point, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post..I've been there, done that.

Translation: I can't stand it when you use the text to make your obvious points, so I'm going to try and get someone who hasn't read the book to argue for me.

Well my understanding is Tarski began to read the book, be that as it may, I don't think to discuss your argument he has to read the book.

And as far as.." can't stand it when you use the text to make your obvious points,"..I will discuss ad nauseum with people who stay on topic instead of resorting to attacks. It's not just a matter of you using attacks Stak, it's that in discussion (it's probably when you think you are losing in argument) you resort to attacks in lieu of discussion. So it's absurd to expect me to continue to discuss with you when that's been your behavior.

Tarski took a bit of an interest and I truly would like to hear his perspective..even if I'm wrong or ignorant on some matter ..I still would like to hear his perspective. He certainly is not biased in my favor so it's not as if I'm seeking a biased perspective to support me.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Well my understanding is Tarski began to read the book, be that as it may, I don't think to discuss your argument he has to read the book.

This entire discussion was about Dawkins' argument. The argument is in the book. If you haven't read the book and can't quote from the book to bolster your position, you can't discuss the topic. Tarski commented on mathematical induction, because that is what he was interested in, not Dawkins' argument.

You are so eager to respond to my insults, but when I take the time to scan a page from the text, to directly counter your false assertion that I built a straw man, you all of sudden have nothing to say. When I tell you exactly where Dawkins argument fails, you don’t have any more interest, but when I call you stupid, you pretend like you have some actual interest in this.

[_marg]

The person really eager here is you Stak. Let's get Tarski's perspective on a few things first.