• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

Re: Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

CFLarsen said:
He is not interested in debate. He is here for an entirely different reason.

"With your history here of utter refusal to back up your claims with evidence, shut up."

Looks like someone else is the one who isn't interested in debate. You're not fooling anybody (except yourself)...
 
Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

Donks said:
Just one question, who is going to compile a list of all religious and atheist groups on the planet, how many members each has, and how much they donate?

Probably no one. Conceptually it is easy, but there exist, as far as I am aware, no organization that actually compiles a suitable frame and samples from it to get that information that we'd need to ideally explore the answer to the question.

We could get some indication from news reports, or by visiting such organizations webpages or contacting them.
 
Lucky said:
This has turned out a lot longer than I intended, and I doubt you will feel like replying to the whole thing. But I would be interested in your response to any of my points.

I have no real disagreement with anything you posted. Dawkins frequently does himself no favours when firing from the hip, and Randi's equally bullheaded decision to quote that particular sentence ensured that this thread would be on the wrong track from the start.

The only point where we part company is that I do still think Martin Kettle was right to ask the question. I used my first post on this thread, where I gave the links to the article and letters in the Guardian, to start a thread on another board which is now 6 pages long and on which a much better level of discussion has been maintained, with good points being made civilly by both religious and non-religious alike. Here's the link:

http://www.gallifreyone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19370

Unfortunately registration is required to read it, which you may not wish to do if you are not a Doctor Who fan (it's the web's main Doctor Who fan site).
 
jzs said:
And the American Atheist organization is an atheist organization, whereas organizations that don't mention disbelief, like 7-11 or K-Mart for example, are not atheist organizations. I don't think you understand yet.

People are not something merely because they claim to be.

jzs said:
Absurd PseudoSkeptic, absurd. A prediction is basically a guess. I certainly didn't make any claim to know the future. In fact I said it was based on my obviously subjective observations from the past, that is, me not recalling hearing about atheist groups out there donating. Maybe they are and I just never heard about it, who knows.

Can you not see how my guess is completely and utterly different that some self-proclaimed psychic claiming to actually see the future? If not, you're really out in la-la land.

It is a fact that me making a prediciton is just that. Merely making a prediciton does not mean I have to verify anything, make a list of anything, calculate figures of anything, have some game plan for verification of it, or do anything your little bully brain desires me to do.

You can bitch, whine and complain all you like. You made a prediction. You are not interested in providing evidence yourself. You want others to do it for you.

jzs said:
"shut up", that's rational skeptic talk, folks.

I got it from Randi. And he's right: Either you provide evidence of your claims, or you shut up.

jzs said:
Except you, who never fails to reply to me. Nice to know you're thinking about me... all the time. No one ever thought otherwise.

I point out that you never engage in real debate. To you, that's "bullying".
 
jzs said:
"With your history here of utter refusal to back up your claims with evidence, shut up."

Looks like someone else is the one who isn't interested in debate. You're not fooling anybody (except yourself)...

Prove me wrong, then: Start debating.

What do you think of Tuskegee? You brought it up. Start debating.
 
jzs said:
Probably no one. Conceptually it is easy, but there exist, as far as I am aware, no organization that actually compiles a suitable frame and samples from it to get that information that we'd need to ideally explore the answer to the question.

We could get some indication from news reports, or by visiting such organizations webpages or contacting them.

"We", T'ai? You. You provide evidence. Don't let others do your work for you.
 
I appreciate Dawkins' lack of "tact" and I have no objection to his comments or his timing. Events like the tsunamis should make it exceedingly plain to people that if their God exists, then that God is either useless or vicious (or maybe just apathetic).
 
Originally posted by jzs
I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.
Probably. So what?
 
Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

NoDeity said:
Probably. So what?

Well, clearly that would indicate the moral superiority of the religious. :rolleyes:
 
Many people would probably assume so.
It sure as hell doesn't show that religious beliefs are true.
 
CFLarsen said:
People are not something merely because they claim to be.


Well you're not a skeptic. I agree.

Let's get back to specifics though: the American Atheists is an atheist organization, for example.


You can bitch, whine and complain all you like.


And you can posture, troll, and bully all you like. Merely making a prediction doesn't mean I have to do anything more, despite your wishes otherwise. Get over yourself.


I got it from Randi. And he's right: Either you provide evidence of your claims, or you shut up.


I know you follow Randi. I do to, but not everything, like his vocabulary and dismissive tone. If you model yourself after him, then good for you.


I point out that you never engage in real debate. To you, that's "bullying".

You bumped a thread for shanek and it hadn't even been a day yet. That is bullying, and you're not fooling anybody except yourself...
 
CFLarsen said:

What do you think of Tuskegee? You brought it up. Start debating.

I've already said that Tuskegee is an example of bad in the name of science.

How much more clear and direct can I get? Do you want me to read that sentence aloud, record it for you, and email the audio file to you?
 
CFLarsen said:
"We", T'ai? You. You provide evidence. Don't let others do your work for you.

I didn't say other should do work for me, PseudoSkeptic. And again, me making a prediction doesn't imply that I must do anything else, as you are desperately trying to persuade me it does.

I suggested ways people could possibly find the information if they are interested in it.

The fact that you brain can't differentiate between those things is rather lame.
 
jzs said:
Well you're not a skeptic. I agree.

What a juvenile attempt. I never said I am not a skeptic.

jzs said:
Let's get back to specifics though: the American Atheists is an atheist organization, for example.

Yes, let's forget about your little faux-pas.

jzs said:
And you can posture, troll, and bully all you like. Merely making a prediction doesn't mean I have to do anything more, despite your wishes otherwise. Get over yourself.

Call it what you like. You still haven't provided any evidence of your claim.

jzs said:
I know you follow Randi. I do to, but not everything, like his vocabulary and dismissive tone. If you model yourself after him, then good for you.

I do not "follow" Randi. But he is right in this case. Put up or shut up.

jzs said:
You bumped a thread for shanek and it hadn't even been a day yet. That is bullying, and you're not fooling anybody except yourself...

Boo hoo, crybaby.
 
jzs said:
I've already said that Tuskegee is an example of bad in the name of science.

How so? Explain. Debate. Argue your point.

jzs said:
How much more clear and direct can I get? Do you want me to read that sentence aloud, record it for you, and email the audio file to you?

Heavens, no. But merely throwing out a word does not constitute debating.
 
jzs said:
I didn't say other should do work for me, PseudoSkeptic.

Oh, yes you did:

jzs said:
We could get some indication from news reports, or by visiting such organizations webpages or contacting them.

jzs said:
And again, me making a prediction doesn't imply that I must do anything else, as you are desperately trying to persuade me it does.

You can, of course, abstain from providing evidence of whether or not your prediction came true or not. However, that renders the prediction worthless, and nothing but a waste of everybody's time.

jzs said:
I suggested ways people could possibly find the information if they are interested in it.

And you have the audacity to claim that you didn't want other people to do your homework?

jzs said:
The fact that you brain can't differentiate between those things is rather lame.

Typical T'ai: Never engaging in anything, always leaving it up to others, then criticizing them for not doing what he wants.

Change the record, T'ai. It's broken.
 
jzs said:
I didn't say other should do work for me, PseudoSkeptic.


Ad-hom bait?


And again, me making a prediction doesn't imply that I must do anything else,


But your doing nothing else does imply that we are going to credit you with nothing but worthless, meaningless, insulting "prediction"s.


as you are desperately trying to persuade me it does.


Well, you don't HAVE to try to gather evidence regarding your prediction, but when you don't, it becomes an unsupported item of faith, and one supported only by emipheral words on an electronic bulletin board. That's not even to the status of the "bible", internally contradictory, historically questionable patchwork of edited and re-edited documents that it is.

In other words, you are certainly ABLE to make a prediction and then fail to support your prediction as evidence becomes available, however, in that case, you're asking us to take on positions as worshipers of your prophecy.

Sorry, no, you can avoid the burden if you want, in which case your prophecy is simply a bunch of meaningless words, cast, as seems to be your wont, in a fashion intended to insult atheists and skeptics.

But you're the one who has assumed the burden. No, you don't have to take it on, but if you don't, nobody else need do so, and your words remain nothing more meaningful than unsupported prophecy registered as bits on a bulletin board.


I suggested ways people could possibly find the information if they are interested in it.


You say that you don't want others to do the work for you, but you suggest how they might. Strictly speaking, you haven't demanded that someone do your work for you, but your attempt at enablement would seem to suggest, since you at least appear to have made some effort to make it possible for others, to have some desires or expectations in that area.


The fact that you brain can't differentiate between those things is rather lame.

More ad-hom baiting, I see.
 
jj said:

Well, you don't HAVE to try to gather evidence regarding your prediction, but when you don't, it becomes an unsupported item of faith,


And I never said it was anything else. I just made a prediction and that's it.


That's not even to the status of the "bible", internally contradictory, historically questionable patchwork of edited and re-edited documents that it is.


You're off on quite a tangent there.


you're asking us to take on positions as worshipers of your prophecy.


Oh please. I'm asking? Nope, that's just your overly dramatic interpretation/opinion. I just made a prediction. I'm not asking anybody to do anything.


in a fashion intended to insult atheists and skeptics.


That won't work either. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I guess I "intended" to insult myself.

You won't even admit that all athiests lack belief in god(s), thus they all have that in common; they share that. Go on.

Speaking of "ad hom" that you have some problem with, why don't you post to me in an ultra condescending haiku form? ;)


But you're the one who has assumed the burden.


Wrong again. I didn't make a claim. I didn't claim that religious organizations donate more than atheist organizations. I made a prediciton that the religious organizations will donate more than atheist organizations. You really don't understand the difference, do you? Moreover, I'm not dogmatically clinging to that prediction. If it turns out to be wrong, then it is wrong. I just hope the victims get what they need to get through it.


You say that you don't want others to do the work for you, but you suggest how they might.


I suggested how they might find the information if they want to find it. I didn't say I want or demand them to do anything for me.
 
CFLarsen said:
How so? Explain. Debate. Argue your point.


Treatment was intentionally withheld so they could study what would happen.


Heavens, no. But merely throwing out a word does not constitute debating.

And merely throwing out "Explain." and "Debate." does not constitute debating on your part.
 

Back
Top Bottom