cybercoma Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Oh I'm am sure...but I fail to see the critical lab testing and reproducing experiments in political science. They certainly don't use Bunsen burners and beakers in a lab, but there is reproduction of experiments by looking critically at the correlation between variables using different data sets and whatnot. It's only soft science in the sense that you can't take something like depression for example and look at it directly. You have to find ways of measuring depression, which is where it becomes an "art" rather than a science and why it's a "soft" science. Nonetheless, that's where the "softness" ends. What you do with the data you collect and how you present it must be scientific or you don't get published... if it's a good journal that is. edited to add: I'm not saying social science and natural science are the same. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that social science can be and often is empirical as well. Edited June 28, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=165 A month later, Dawkins and Grayling still cower. We're still waiting. Meanwhile the gentle proddings for the two to bravely face Craig become not-so-gentle anymore. They're getting pitchforked to walk the plank! Coward A.C. Grayling and chicken Dawkins flee debate with William Lane Craig Sing with me: Brave Sir Grayling ran away Bravely, ran away…away… When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Grayling turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Grayling He is packing it in and packing it up And sneaking away and buggering off And chickening out and pissing off home, Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge. From BeThinking.org’s web site. Excerpt: While Professor Dawkins has set himself up as the ‘scourge’ of the Church, Professor Grayling has offered his latest attack on Christianity by publishing The Good Book – a secular bible in the year the Church celebrates the 400th anniversary of the translation of the King James Bible. While Dawkins and Grayling have refused to debate the existence of God, Grayling has also refused to debate the foundations of the morality on which his ‘Good Book’ rests. These point-blank refusals to engage in public discussions with Professor Craig will undermine their credibility, not only among Christians but also amongst fellow academics. Having been invited to debate Craig, Professor Grayling replied: “I am not interested in debating Professor Craig, though if he would like to co-opt me for the publicity for his tour – I would be happy to debate him on the question of the existence of fairies and water-nymphs. But as for the very uninteresting matter of whether there is just one god or goddess and that it can be debated despite the claim that it is transcendently ineffable and unknowable – that is an empty prospect, hence my declining the invitation.” Justin Brierley, who presents Premier Radio’s highly-rated discussion programme, Unbelievable?, comments: “It looks insulting and worryingly narrow minded when an invitation to defend such views against a top-flight Christian academic such as Dr. Craig is dismissed in these terms. Grayling is seen as a key proponent of rationalism and atheism in the UK. It will therefore come as a surprise to many that he is so unwilling to defend the rational grounds for atheism against a major opponent.” http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/coward-a-c-grayling-and-chicken-dawkins-flee-debate-with-william-lane-craig/ Only shows how irrational these two so-called "rational" delusional monkeys are! Edited July 2, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 What childish moronic garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Oh I'm am sure...but I fail to see the critical lab testing and reproducing experiments in political science. Yes, political science and other areas of social sciences equire empirical research methods. Here's a detailed explanation. The social sciences -- anthropology, economics, political science and sociology, among others -- use an extensive set of empirical methods to observe, understand and explain social phenomena. Observing a culture or group in its natural setting is a longtime favored method of social research. Often associated with anthropology and sociology, researchers have used observation in a variety of settings, from foreign cultures to school classrooms. By interacting with members of a group or society and participating in its activities and rituals, researchers can study social phenomena from the perspective of an outsider and insider. Because of the nature of social science research, observations occur as a part of field research, rather than in a laboratory setting. Written questionnaires, administered to a sample of subjects, and interviews, conducted in person or by phone, are favorite research methods across all branches of social science. Researchers code survey data for analysis with a variety of statistical techniques, while interviews with open-ended questions generate detailed data for qualitative analysis. Documents, such as letters, journals, government records and other written materials, provide another method of social research. To add scientific rigor to social research, sociologists, political scientists and others have conducted complex statistical analyses in their research, either collecting their own data or using data sets from government agencies or other organizations. http://www.ehow.com/list_5939043_empirical-social-science-research-methods.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=165 A month later, Dawkins and Grayling still cower. We're still waiting. Meanwhile the gentle proddings for the two to bravely face Craig become not-so-gentle anymore. They're getting pitchforked to walk the plank! http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/coward-a-c-grayling-and-chicken-dawkins-flee-debate-with-william-lane-craig/ Only shows how irrational these two so-called "rational" delusional monkeys are! Both had written books! And both declined to stand behind their works. That someone would want to critique their books is not unheard of so, why be so "coy" about it? The biggest question: Why don't they want to defend their books? There's only one glaring answer as to why. They cannot defend their books, and they both know it. The books are meant for their target market - atheists who crave for anything to bolster their non-god faith, those who refuse to question and mindlessly believe in Dawkins and company. These jabs from the press are hitting bullseye! These point-blank refusals to engage in public discussions with Professor Craig will undermine their credibility, not only among Christians but also amongst fellow academics. That statement rings true. Sam Harris' been rubbing salt by saying Craig is the only Christian apologist who'd put the fear of God in his colleagues! http://www.bethinking.org/resources.php?ID=866 Another atheist Philosopher from Oxford wrote Dawkins, suggesting his cowardice! Full text of Dr Daniel Came's "Cowardice" letter to Dawkins and subsequent exchangePosted by Justin Brierley on June 6, 2011 http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/full-text-of-dr-daniel-camesGrayling is seen as a key proponent of rationalism and atheism in the UK. It will therefore come as a surprise to many that he is so unwilling to defend the rational grounds for atheism against a major opponent.” How ironic! And what must be a tremendous let-down - to say the least - to all atheists. Dawkins and Grayling both know Craig definitely read and recognized the weaknesses (and the faults) in their books. Why do you think Craig is so gungho in critiquing The God Delusion, with or without Dawkins? Those books are nothing more than - to quote the poster above - "childish moronic garbage." The books are indefensible. Both authors must know that, and therefore would rather leave their books at the mercy of Craig than nakedly face Craig and outright public humiliation. That's the only rational conclusion. Edited July 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Still waiting for Dawkins to end his duck-duck-goose game while doing his now-famous chicken dance. Meanwhile.... Here is Richard Dawkins safe and comfortable with his preferred audience http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Edited July 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Why can't Dawkins stand behind and defend his book? This review gives an insight what that book is all about. Review Essay: Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Atheist Fundamentalism Simon Watson [email protected] Emmanuel College University of Toronto 75 Queen's Park Crescent Toronto, ONT M5S 1K7 Canada In his 2006 bestseller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, presents an argument against "God" that mirrors the rhetoric used by the religious fundamentalists he sets out to criticize. Anticipating the accusation of "fundamentalism," Dawkins argues that he is not a fundamentalist because he does not prescribe violence against his opponents (282). Yet he believes ridicule is a valid form of discourse and uses disease imagery to describe the religious (34, 176, 186, 188, 193-4). His language is therefore divisive, painting the world in hues of black and white, good or evil. As opposed to "irrational" religion, which is a "vice" and a "poison" (its followers delusional if not insane), science and reason are unlimited in their potential to discern the truth and set the human race in a moral direction (5, 6, 20, 23, 374, 262-272). Using such rhetoric, The God Delusion resembles a religious tract in its intent to convert its reader to atheism: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down" (6). Dawkins also argues that he is not a fundamentalist because he does not base his beliefs on a literal interpretation of a holy book; rather, he grounds his conclusions in "mutually buttressed evidence" (282). But like the Christian fundamentalist who misrepresents and oversimplifies Darwinian evolutionary science, Dawkins presents a monolithic and oversimplified straw man of "religion," which he belittles and denigrates. Generalizing from religious extremism and fundamentalism to all religion, Dawkins demonstrates a deafness to the religious other and an inability to step outside his Darwinian "Theory of Everything," the parameters of which are limited to the empirical declarative (144). more... http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1502/1502watson.pdf Edited July 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Atheist bus ads in Australia reads: Atheism - Celebrate Reason. With Dawkins running away from reason, shouldn't it say: ATHEISM - CELIBATE REASON! (inspired by: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown) Edited July 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The God Delusion was published 5 years ago. If people want to debate Dawkins and evolution, why don't they debate him on The Greatest Show on Earth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Betsy is still exercizing her Dawkins obsession? Still?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why can't Dawkins stand behind and defend his book? This review gives an insight what that book is all about. more... http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1502/1502watson.pdf Did you note this interesting passage from the review you cited?: But like the Christian fundamentalist who misrepresents and oversimplifies Darwinian evolutionary science, Dawkins presents a monolithic and oversimplified straw man of "religion," which he belittles and denigrates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Going back to Dawkins. How long is he going to resist the pressure to face Craig? Does he realize that all these pressures - which are turning into outright mockings of him - will make him look stupid? After all, it was him who wrote The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is, according to Gary Wolf, from his article in Wired.com, Topic: Church of the Non-Believers http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18436&st=0 Well, Craig is a reputable Philosopher with a bevy of achievements under his belt. He is a Christian. An Apologeticist. Being a philosopher, he can certainly give an intellectual argument. And what a better way to take a logical step in renouncing a "supernatural crutch" by indulging in a logical public debate. You get to renounce the supernatural crutch publicly! As for being relentless, the relentlessness in this scenario comes from the relentless clamor for this one-on-one to happen....matched only by the relentless scurrying away by Dawkins! The New Atheism movement is supposed to be an in-your-face-offense tactic against religion/faith. Well, practically everyone - including atheists - are pushing Dawkins to get into an in-your-face with Craig....but Dawkins just won't! Big words. Talking about aggressive offense when he can't even do any defense! The optics are not good for those fence-sitters, or those who got swayed by Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. This must be a big let-down. If Dawkins cannot bring himself to stand by his own book, that says a lot about the rubbish that's in that book! It must mean, he knows Craig will easily tear his book apart! Why would that be a big let-down? Its utterly pointless and infantile to bother with debates between scientists and preachers. Its not even vaguely possible for anything usefull to come of it. Edited July 12, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Betsy is still exercizing her Dawkins obsession? Still?! Why not? And it will go on. Dawkins still performs as a clown in his circus limelight! Well I shouldn't complain....this will provide great entertainment for months to come. For us believers, anyway. Edited July 13, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why would that be a big let-down? Its utterly pointless and infantile to bother with debates between scientists and preachers. Its not even vaguely possible for anything usefull to come of it. Well said. Just like a trained seal by the Cowardly Clown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Weheeey......It's official!!! I'd like to extend my congrats to some of our spaghetti monster-spouting community members who can finally come out of the closet...proclaim and enjoy the expression of their freedom of religion. 14 July 2011 Last updated at 04:53 Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear". Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism. "The photo was not approved on religious grounds. The only criterion for photos in driving licence applications is that the whole face must be visible," said Manfred Reinthaler, a police spokesman in Vienna. Having received his driving licence, Niko Alm now wants to get pastafarianism officially recognized. A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted, US-based faith whose members call themselves pastafarians. The group's website states that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523 FAQ please: Are into high carbs? What's the significance of the holes in the colander? Do you wear pie plates too? Or Pie-In-The-Sky is another sect? Edited July 14, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Seems ridiculous doesn't it, believing in something that couldn't possibly be real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Seems ridiculous doesn't it, believing in something that couldn't possibly be real. Just so. Betsy, what do you think? after all, you're now openly mocking stated beliefs. Or for more conventional narratives...what do you think about Mohammad's Divine conversations with God on the hillside? Seem unlikely to you, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Well said. Just like a trained seal by the Cowardly Clown! Its just an obvious fact. Theres nowhere for a debate along these lines to go, and no real point in having one, and they certainly arent going to change anyones mind about anything. Its quite literally like a German person that doesnt speak English debating with an English person that doesnt speak German. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) Just so. Betsy, what do you think? after all, you're now openly mocking stated beliefs. Or for more conventional narratives...what do you think about Mohammad's Divine conversations with God on the hillside? Seem unlikely to you, maybe? I am not mocking stated beliefs. I am mocking the HYPOCRISY and IGNORANCE of MOCKERS of stated beliefs (faith, believers, religion) - in other words, the NEW ATHEISTS! Starting with its hypocritical, big-mouth-all-hot air yet quite cowardly leader - Dawkins! Big difference! Edited July 15, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Faith believers have been open about their belief based on faith. New Atheists - led by Dawkins - openly mocks and ridicule those who have faith, and yet obviously ignorant of the fact that they - the new atheists - are one and the same as those they mock! Dawkins try to hide behind the cloak of science - but science spits him out and expose him for the charlatan that he is! Come out of your closet! Be honest with your own selves. Have some pride - not, fried chicken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) Its just an obvious fact. Theres nowhere for a debate along these lines to go, and no real point in having one, and they certainly arent going to change anyones mind about anything. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just telling you what I think about you and your religion, and your Bishop Dawkins! Dawkins, being a scientist himself should know very wel that all actions have consequences. Have you heard about Cause and Effect? Well, the articles and responses you're reading from the posts here are the effects of his big mouth, via his money-making book, The God Delusion! Its quite literally like a German person that doesnt speak English debating with an English person that doesnt speak German. Exactly. Just like talking to some of you here, who go on and on and on.... in circular mode. Edited July 15, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) I am not mocking stated beliefs. I am mocking the HYPOCRISY and IGNORANCE of MOCKERS of stated beliefs (faith, believers, religion) - in other words, the NEW ATHEISTS! Starting with its hypocritical, big-mouth-all-hot air yet quite cowardly leader - Dawkins! Big difference! You have no right judging people who believe in His Noodly Goodness. They have just as much basis for belief as you. I would say even more so, since their faith at least has an explanation for gravity and yours doesn't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster holds us to the earth with his noodly appendages. For this reason, he loves midgets more because he has to reach further to keep them from floating away into space. Gravity, you see, is just a scientific theory, so I wish they would stop explaining it as fact in the classroom. The FSM noodly appendage theory deserves equal classroom time because it too is a theory. Edited July 15, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I am not mocking stated beliefs. I am mocking the HYPOCRISY and IGNORANCE of MOCKERS of stated beliefs (faith, believers, religion) - in other words, the NEW ATHEISTS! Starting with its hypocritical, big-mouth-all-hot air yet quite cowardly leader - Dawkins! Big difference! But you believe that the Islamic faithful are mistaken. That their beliefs are false. I agree with you. Edited July 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) But you believe that the Islamic faithful are mistaken. That their beliefs are false. I agree with you. I don't know what your point is with this response. Anyway, here's the complete post that you've quoted above: I am not mocking stated beliefs. I am mocking the HYPOCRISY and IGNORANCE of MOCKERS of stated beliefs (faith, believers, religion) - in other words, the NEW ATHEISTS! Starting with its hypocritical, big-mouth-all-hot air yet quite cowardly leader - Dawkins! Big difference! As I stated (which you probably overlooked in your huffing haste to respond), let me repeat.... I am not mocking stated beliefs. So bringing up Islamic belief into this is irrelevant. They are open about their faith! We're talking about the New Atheists. Their belief. Which they try to deny (out of hypocrisy and of course, ignorance). Their unshakeable faith in their doctrine and belief of non-god. They're as fundamentalist as any other religious group! At least the sect Pastafaria came out lately. Complete with the religious pasta-drainer cap! Speaking of which, does it comes in different colors? Edited July 24, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 dre: Why would that be a big let-down? Its utterly pointless and infantile to bother with debates between scientists and preachers. Its not even vaguely possible for anything usefull to come of it. What's the fear? We have "futurists" who dream of contacting and communicating with other intelligences of the universe. Yet unable to communicate with different view right here on this planet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.