Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've heard of that book before and the science is questionable. My understanding was that the study was not rigorous by any means, but instead pushes the agenda of the author. The second half becomes a self help book. I'm looking for serious rigorous studies, not influences by the researchers preconceived notions. Thanks for the suggestion though
I read his book and honestly wasn't impressed. He just isn't a great philosophical mind.
It wasn't a philosophy book.
Anyway, Dawkins himself has absolutely nothing to do with the STEP study he discussed and I referenced - but your need to whine about him is not surprising in the least.
The "placebo effect" actually proves that religions are all the same to me. Whatever social norms the person grew up with may have enhanced the effect. Maybe we should engineer some new ones based on what we do know. Using quantum effects and space being "something" we can ask ourselves "can thought generate an effect?" Well, with waving and probability at the heart of things there is only one possible answer.
LOL "only one right answer" in a "sea of answers". Now that's funny to me. I am a probability fundamentalist.
Anyway, Dawkins himself has absolutely nothing to do with the STEP study he discussed and I referenced - but your need to whine about him is not surprising in the least.
He's not a good theologian or philosopher. He is way outside his area of expertise to try to discuss theology. Seriously. He's just not a great thinker in those areas. I find it amazing that people lift him up as some kind of great thinker on the subject of God.
He's not a good theologian or philosopher. He is way outside his area of expertise to try to discuss theology. Seriously. He's just not a great thinker in those areas. I find it amazing that people lift him up as some kind of great thinker on the subject of God.
The discussion of the study was a scientific discussion. It was not a theological discussion. You know this - your shtick, aside from trying to make this about Dawkins and not about the foolish nonsense that is prayer, is to try and pretend you actually don't understand that this is neither a philosophical nor theological issue but a scientific one. You're being dishonest in pretending that you don't understand this.
The discussion of the study was a scientific discussion. It was not a theological discussion. You know this - your shtick, aside from trying to make this about Dawkins and not about the foolish nonsense that is prayer, is to try and pretend you actually don't understand that this is neither a philosophical nor theological issue but a scientific one. You're being dishonest in pretending that you don't understand this.
I wasn't the one that first mentioned Dawkins. I merely stated that he wasn't an authority.
I wasn't the one that first mentioned Dawkins. I merely stated that he wasn't an authority.
I'm not sure now whether you were saying the author of the book wasn't a good authority or Dawkins (who reviewed the book) wasn't. In any case, who are the 'authorities' on the subject? Theologians, preachers and Bible -students? They are authorities only in Biblefaith. They are not authorities in Bible and faith criticism. For that we have to turn to those who work in other disciplines; ones that cast biological, archeological, textual, philosophical and sociological doubt on the claims of the Bible and religion.
Your efforts to try to dismiss a commentator on the basis of Authority (just as Creationists love to claim validity because some creationists having a certificate of some sort ) falls flat.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-28-2014 at 06:42 AM..
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience. (Rational Wiki)
Incidentally, atheism is NOT a lack of imagination fallacy. We can imagine more 'gods' than the believer can (or they would not be so fixated on just One) but our rationale is that there is no persuasive evidence for any god, not that we cannot imagine how one could exist.
Incidentally (again) the use of wrong fallacies or misuse of fallacies to discredit the opposition is a Strawman fallacy. Which is setting up a similar - sounding (but different) argument that is easier to knock down than the real one.
Incidentally (yet again) the 'Strawman' accusation we used to get a lot (not so much now) seemed to mean 'I don't accept that', so it is a weak or poor argument. Which is not what a strawman is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) falls flat.
