I read that "there are no winners in this debate"

In a forum, like this one, where thread topics are listed in order of the most recent post, a "bump" is a content-less post that serves only to bring a thread back to the top of the list, and therefore back to the attention of the forum's participants.Does that make sense?

A particular post is moved to a different position?

bump is just an empty post (actually has just one word - "bump")for the sole purpose of keeping the thread at the top of the queue or to remind someone the thread is still there.

Oh, the whole thread. I get it.

quote:

---

The implication is that the first participant to make an improper comparison to Hitler or Nazis (generally in the form of an ad hominem) automatically loses the argument.

---

*sigh*Almost makes me miss ol' Syamsu.

Edit - ok, I guess you got it. Never mind.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-13-2005 09:25 PM

Parasomnium, I wanted to ask you if you have ever heard of the following author/book/critique? I am curious enough to actually go browse the book...and seeing as how you like Dawkins so much, I was curious as to whether you had ever heard of McGrath. Respectfully, Phatboy.This message has been edited by Phat, 10-14-2005 08:08 AM

There are some powerpoint slides of a lecture by McGrath here which look like they summarise the book.As far as I can make out, his arguments against Dawkins are (to paraphrase):- science doesn't say there can't be a God
- religion doesn't diminish the world
- memes have never been observed
- ...and just because something is a meme doesn't mean its false, or harmful.He doesn't give any positive reasons for believing, but maybe his sole aim was to critique Dawkins. I don't think he has, but it was at least a serious attempt.PE

Grr...I don't know why stuff like this bothers me so much. It's not on topic, but let me just say that:1) There's no evidence that Flew ever was an atheist.
2) Flew still asserts that atheism is the most reasonable position, it's just not one that he himself prefers to believe.
3) His "conversion" doesn't "raise the stakes" for atheists or any such nonsense.In regards to the book - like the Ken Miller book, it seems like responses to Dawkins sort of miss his point. All Dawkins is saying is that, thanks to science, there's no need to believe in God or in a universe of purpose or meaning. Therefore, the views of Miller and McGrath - that, if you're so inclined, you can opt to believe in God and a universe of meaning - don't really constitute a rebuttal.

I have heard of McGrath, but never read any of his books. Prompted by your post, I did some googling and read some reviews. I stumbled upon this review of another of McGrath's books, "The Twilight of Atheism". What caught my attention in the blurb google presented about it, was this: This invokes an image of atheism as a whole system, with all kinds of definitions and tenets, theories and decrees. It has a core of central tenets - its "heart" - which have flaws - multiple flaws even.But why all the fuss? Atheism can be described in one phrase: a lack of belief in gods. That's it. It's a bit tenuous to discern a heart here. And I see no possibilities for flaws either: one believes in God or one doesn't, it's as simple as that. {I just realised this is off-topic here. Sorry.}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 14-Oct-2005 02:42 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

And when you call them on it they still think that they know what you said better than you do.Remind you of anyone?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Not to mention that I have never heard of Anthony Flew until his "defection", so I don't see why I should consider this significant.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Why is that whenever a reviewer uses the word 'brilliant', I get a sinking feeling?

Under Ned's notion of learning is a form of "winning", I would like to comment that I have learned something about Dawkins, that I would not have had, had there not been posters here @EvC who either hold down Dawkins' view as a "Devil's" ADvocate or vocalize so similarly, that, this, (not "this-that" I having rejected Dawkins back when the "Selfish Gene" first came out and before I read Gould's critique of the same...) website becomes an abbreviation free zone for me at least. I understand that it is hard to sort through some posters' comments because they may use abbreviations more freely than others, but this does not affect in my rationalizing, no, not in the least.I have decided that there would be NO amount of debate with Richard Dawkins that could sufficiently "critique" him. Why? Well, I have no clear idea &WHAT& he is arguing against. He can not be arguing against the wall behind Wounded Kings' mammal jar shelfed. That much is clear to me. He might be leaning against it but he is not arguing against it. At least he could always turn around and so say so.It seems that no matter how much one shows EITHER that ID's probable event gives an irreducible complex not contained in Wolfram Science necessarily nor if one presents a design with a significant element of stochasticsm where God's omnipresence might preexist, that RD simply needs say that no one KNEW what he was arguing against, because, even if this(add your favorite) presentation of information was given to him he could simply say that growth and development is NOT a blueprint, no matter how many shades of blue the fact is alleged from and in. I don't know.Perhaps I am wrong and he will have to reliquish some context of cultural horizontalism content-wise to what I will spell in biologically is "effective Lamarkiansisms" (later), but I can not see how I will have to change my (own) mind that, what is sketchily represented as a box &AND& an arrow below is, (that I will never negate this oppostion to Richard's use of the Necker Cube etc) but a "blueprint" in any apprehendible sense of the comprehensible word , word up; relevant to the charge of accounting genetically by false atomisms, rightly levied against the loser, whomever that might be.

and that is why i no longer go to church.there are two ways to win a debate.in a real debate, the discussion is watched and judged by an external group. the winner is declared based on several points. having the most convincing argument, presentation, being sportsmanlike (see: andre the giant), and so forth.in this forum, you win when everyone else starts berating your opponent for being an imbecile. oh. and when you get a potm and your opponent does not. also, see the above descriptions. only very rarely do you get the real and true victory, when you create a convert. sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes not; but what do you care, you're right.