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.
Discrediting the individual does not discredit the idea, and is a perfect demonstration of the logical falicy Ad Hominem.
Come on kdbrich, you can do better.
I'm not attacking him personally--but I am attempting to attack his credibility on the subject. That is not an ad hominem. if I were to insult his intelligence that would be an ad hominem.
I'm not attacking him personally--but I am attempting to attack his credibility on the subject. That is not an ad hominem. if I were to insult his intelligence that would be an ad hominem.
It's an ad hominem to attack peoples credibility on the subject. Why can't you just attack his ideas without having to resort to insults or the spreading of lies?
It's an ad hominem to attack peoples credibility on the subject. Why can't you just attack his ideas without having to resort to insults or the spreading of lies?
It's an insult to state that he's a bright guy, but not known for his philosophy?
LOL...ok. I personally receive much worse from atheists on this board that are unable to refute my statements.
yet, Dawkins feels the need to assert that there positively is no God, and believers are delusional for believing in one. But he "entertains" the idea in the interview.
Er, what? He entertains the idea of panspermia (thanks coosjoaquin, you expanded my English vocabulary today), and makes the difference between panspermia and theism clear in The God Delusion.
I had a look at the interview in question on YouTube. Dawkins clearly explains what's the important point in his reasoning - similar to the quote I gave from The God Delusion. But Stein's voiceover completely ignores his explanation and only focus on "ZOMG Dawkins believes we were created by aliens".
Dawkins was in fact answering a question by Stein about whether Intelligent Design can answer a question in biology. The origin of the first self-replicating molecule is the only gap left where the possibility of an intelligent designer still exists (because the exact process isn't yet figured out).
Er, what? He entertains the idea of panspermia (thanks coosjoaquin, you expanded my English vocabulary today), and makes the difference between panspermia and theism clear in The God Delusion.
I had a look at the interview in question on YouTube. Dawkins clearly explains what's the important point in his reasoning - similar to the quote I gave from The God Delusion. But Stein's voiceover completely ignores his explanation and only focus on "ZOMG Dawkins believes we were created by aliens".
Dawkins was in fact answering a question by Stein about whether Intelligent Design can answer a question in biology. The origin of the first self-replicating molecule is the only gap left where the possibility of an intelligent designer still exists (because the exact process isn't yet figured out).
I still can't believe how someone can really believe that trying to attack the person has anything to do with the argument. There is no reason for it unless the opposition knows that they are wrong and can't even argue ideas.
How often do we see this going on in this world? Why do so many people treat science as politics and try so hard to get the whole world angry?
I'm not attacking him personally--but I am attempting to attack his credibility on the subject. That is not an ad hominem. if I were to insult his intelligence that would be an ad hominem.
OK, i see what you are saying, and you are correct that Dawkins is not a philosopher. He is a scientist.
Religion asserts itself as fact and Intellegent Design asserts itself as science, both of these are philosophies attempting to define themselves as something that they are not. These are the claims that Dawkins is descrediting from a scientific veiw point.
OK, i see what you are saying, and you are correct that Dawkins is not a philosopher. He is a scientist.
Religion asserts itself as fact and Intellegent Design asserts itself as science, both of these are philosophies attempting to define themselves as something that they are not. These are the claims that Dawkins is descrediting from a scientific veiw point.
I'll go with that.
My point though, is that Dawkins attempts to speak authoritatively in the supernatural realm. He's just not qualified to do so.
My point though, is that Dawkins attempts to speak authoritatively in the supernatural realm. He's just not qualified to do so.
I don't know about Dawkins but there are no qualifications for the job. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many religions.
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.
.
