tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post8539953653841829140..comments2023-05-27T23:20:32.194+10:00Comments on Marco's Blog: Criticizing DorkinsMarco Parigihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-4587016012304656852007-08-12T07:15:00.000+10:002007-08-12T07:15:00.000+10:00Those scientists who claim that global warming is ...Those scientists who claim that global warming is natural and is caused by the sun, for instance. I believe they are fraudulent and, even though they are trying to convince the public not to concern themselves or be alarmed by Global warming - Something that I agree with, the wrongness of the means outweighs the rightness of the ends. Equally, I think that the world will be a better place with religions that don't contradict basic historical sciences. The claim that science proves religion is pointless is an out and out lie.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-19823763556910583582007-08-10T17:18:00.000+10:002007-08-10T17:18:00.000+10:00I think he crosses the line when he tars all God-f...I think he crosses the line when he tars all God-fearing people with the same brush as he uses for his actual valid points. By my standards he's either too delusional or too fraudulent for my liking. That would apply to many scientists, I am sure.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-56909086978809782812007-08-10T07:52:00.000+10:002007-08-10T07:52:00.000+10:00That said, read JBS Haldane instead of Dawkins. He...That said, read JBS Haldane instead of Dawkins. He is much more scientific in his arguments.Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-11048878206046736392007-08-10T07:40:00.000+10:002007-08-10T07:40:00.000+10:00I think you are being a bit too hard on the Prof. ...I think you are being a bit too hard on the Prof. He never claims to offer a 'proof' of the non-existence of God, and while I don't think it is possible to make any meaningful discussion of probabilities of the existence of God (as defined by me), I think it might be possible for the existence God (as defined by Dawkins); that is, a supernatural entity who is directly and solely responsible for the speciation of living things. Even if we can't say this is 'improbable', we can say that if it were true it would make our universe a pointless and stupid joke. <BR/>There are a lot of things out there that can't be proven, yet make a great deal of difference to how people behave and how society ought to be organised. If you hold one opinion rather than another that can't be proven and you know it is really important that other people should have that opinion too, you don't have to be fraudulent or delusional to use rational-sounding arguments, (and sarcasm) to try to sway people to the correct view.Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.com