The God Debate
- Thread starter Canteen Worker
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
-
We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
Again you misinterpret but at a base level yes!
You are walking blind within this topic and it is not for me to teach you. Read the book, watch some Dawkins lectures and speeches and you will understand better than i can describe!
I refuse to continue the debate until we are on the level ground of both reading the book, otherwise it is simply a waste of my time
Matabele
Journey Man
The point that Dawkins is making is that natural selection reduces massive improbabilities by sub-dividing them into smaller and more manageable improbabilities.
There are three intellectual blind spots that are characteristic of Dawkins’ rhetoric in his book:
Firstly, Dawkins seems to replace one explanation of gaps (God) for another (luck), which amounts to an intellectual ‘bait and switch’;
Secondly, it replicates a way of argument that has dogged the Intelligent Design movement – that the greater improbability of A must mean B is true, which is of course logically slipshod;
Thirdly, Dawkins assumes that a theist cannot agree with gradual evolutionary change, which produces false dichotomy where a spectrum of opinion exists. (Dan this is where I contend Dawkins makes a flawed pre-siupposition that makes further debate of his points superflous).
There are three intellectual blind spots that are characteristic of Dawkins’ rhetoric in his book:
Firstly, Dawkins seems to replace one explanation of gaps (God) for another (luck), which amounts to an intellectual ‘bait and switch’;
Secondly, it replicates a way of argument that has dogged the Intelligent Design movement – that the greater improbability of A must mean B is true, which is of course logically slipshod;
Thirdly, Dawkins assumes that a theist cannot agree with gradual evolutionary change, which produces false dichotomy where a spectrum of opinion exists. (Dan this is where I contend Dawkins makes a flawed pre-siupposition that makes further debate of his points superflous).
snigger all you want but it just shows you more and more as the fool you are, you take someone elses opinion other than your own and do not know the facts. Juvenile and shows the water your later arguments will hold.
You tip your hand far too early
You tip your hand far too early
I am ENTP mate, that by defintion means, i dont care that people are tired of it, the issue is not dead. If they are not interested they simply do not enter the conversation. Stop trying to back out and throw up more hurdles. Stick to the original agreement you c.s.lewis book is irrelevant at this stage
we just did Myer Briggs today, so of course I am goign to follow it. Funnily enough i did one through my own research and came up with the same result, its funny how my profile says "rarely finishes one topic before moving on to the next and always has a new trend or focus"
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
7 | 6 | 1 | 99 | 14 |
|
8 | 6 | 2 | 66 | 14 |
|
7 | 6 | 1 | 54 | 14 |
|
9 | 5 | 3 | 37 | 11 |
|
9 | 5 | 4 | 95 | 10 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 49 | 10 |
|
9 | 5 | 4 | 42 | 10 |
|
9 | 5 | 4 | -14 | 10 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 8 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | -14 | 8 |
|
8 | 3 | 5 | -55 | 8 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | -60 | 8 |
|
8 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 7 |
|
8 | 3 | 5 | -25 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -55 | 6 |
|
7 | 1 | 6 | -87 | 4 |
|
8 | 1 | 7 | -166 | 4 |
