Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

[bigarrow]

Quote from Free Thinker:

and so do i. as long as it is taught critically. nothing makes atheists quicker than an understanding of who wrote the bible and why:


He is a famed atheist, a disbeliever in the existence of an Almighty, and now an outspoken supporter of bringing Bibles back to state schools in England.

Richard Dawkins, the well-known British atheist, wrote in the Guardian that he supports education secretary Michael Grove's plan to send free King James Bibles to every school.

In fact, he said he would have even donated to the cause insisting that: "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

However, Dawkins has an additional motive for supporting Secretary Grove's plan.

"People who do not know the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality," Dawkins writes. "The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...in-public-schools_n_1542318.html?ref=religion

Time to get the thread back on topic. I agree if they critically studied the bible there would be fewer bible believers.

 

[jem]

Quote from Spiker:

Now they're calling it the Higgs Particle.

its funny you would cite Free Thinker on this thread.

He and Stu were lying and misrepresenting science for 5 - 7 years.

Ask him how many times he argued that scientists were not saying the constants appear fine tuned.

Free thinker or stu acting like they are pro science is like Obama saying he is pro free market forces in health care.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
Ask him how many times he argued that scientists were not saying the constants appear fine tuned.

The answer is none.

The constants appear fine tuned
The constants are fine tuned.

Were you ever able to distinguish between those two statements like any normal person would, well....
come to think of it, the way you go about stuff... you still wouldn't have much of a clue actually.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The answer is none.

The constants appear fine tuned
The constants are fine tuned.

Were you ever able to distinguish between those two statements like any normal person would, well....
come to think of it, the way you go about stuff... you still wouldn't have much of a clue actually.

The cycle of lies is now complete. And so is the comedy...
The troll now takes the argument from his antagonist and pretends it was his own. I have been saying for years that top scientists state our universe appears designed. Stu trolled to his death that this was not the case.
---
Stu said the following and things like the following for years...
Here is what he wrote on 06/03/07 about 5 years ago.

"Design defined as intelligent has no scientific basis, neither does the belief in an appearance of intelligent design. It never has.
In direct comparison , there is the overwhelmingly sound scientific basis for self organizing arrangements of parts or elements, defined as design."

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

The cycle of lies is now complete. And so is the comedy...
The troll now takes the argument from his antagonist and pretends it was his own. I have been saying for years that top scientists state our universe appears designed. Stu trolled to his death that this was not the case.
---
Stu said the following and things like the following for years...
Here is what he wrote on 06/03/07 about 5 years ago.

"Design defined as intelligent has no scientific basis, neither does the belief in an appearance of intelligent design. It never has.
In direct comparison , there is the overwhelmingly sound scientific basis for self organizing arrangements of parts or elements, defined as design."

As I say, any normal person would find no reason to go off on one like you do over something so straightforward.
Is this some sort of creationist tactic to make crude and ignorant bullshit comment in place of arguments they don't have?

There is nothing inconsistent in that statement and in what I'm saying.
The constants appear fine tuned and the constants are fine tuned, have entirely different meanings to any rational person.
The problem you have is with yourself.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

As I say, any normal person would find no reason to go off on one like you do over something so straightforward.
Is this some sort of creationist tactic to make crude and ignorant bullshit comment in place of arguments they don't have?

There is nothing inconsistent in that statement and in what I'm saying.
The constants appear fine tuned and the constants are fine tuned, have entirely different meanings to any rational person.
The problem you have is with yourself.

Is this really what the argument has been revolving around of late, appearance of tuning vs. actual tuning? Just asking.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Is this really what the argument has been revolving around of late, appearance of tuning vs. actual tuning? Just asking.

It's the best Jem could manage.

 

[jem]

bullshit... that is what stu tried to change the argument to.

After I showed him to be misrepresenting the work of Hawking.

 

[jem]

ricter - this is where the argument is now.

Quote from jem:



The main issue here is issue is whether those constants "naturally" come about because of infinite other universes or because there is a Tuner.

“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008) [/B]

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

bullshit... that is

...the best you could manage.