egafd.com

[quote]Also, Dawkins makes several references to Jesus in The God Delusion (pp118 et seq) and doesn't say that He never existed.[/quote]

Admitting something exists is to imply it's some sort of truth. Denying he exists is a firm belief it isn't true. There is plenty of middle ground between the two and that's where Dawkins firmly sits. I don't believe in God, but I can't deny he/she/it never existed because I don't know. Doesn't suddenly make me a believer in saying that, does it?

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]Also, Dawkins makes several references to Jesus in The
> God Delusion (pp118 et seq) and doesn't say that He never
> existed.[/quote]
>
> Admitting something exists is to imply it's some sort of truth.
> Denying he exists is a firm belief it isn't true. There is
> plenty of middle ground between the two and that's where
> Dawkins firmly sits. I don't believe in God, but I can't deny
> he/she/it never existed because I don't know. Doesn't suddenly
> make me a believer in saying that, does it?
>
You are definitely confused. Argie said that Jesus did not exist and I said He did and that no serious historian including a scientist like Dawkins denies that Jesus existed and that the dispute is whether Jesus was the son of God.

Admitting that a bloke called Jesus existed around 2,000 years ago is in NO WAY implying any sort of truth of his divinity or otherwise.

I believe that the climate is changing because it always is. However, I don't believe for one second in man-made global warming. Because I believe the climate changes does not imply any sort of belief in that man is responsible...

[quote]You are definitely confused. Argie said that Jesus did not exist and I said He did and that no serious historian including a scientist like Dawkins denies that Jesus existed[/quote]

There's only you that's confused, Essex Lad. For a start, you can't even remember what you first told Arg. You didn't say that Dawkins 'doesn't deny', you said 'he admits Jesus existed'.

Two different things, as I've already tried to point out. Not denying something isn't the same as admitting something. Once you understand this, you'll realise who's the one that's really confused. Not denying could just be taken as 'no comment, agnosticism, or being non-committal'. Admitting something is a definite statement.

If in an argument, David accuses you of beating your wife, if you refuse to deny it (because the accusation is absurd to you) it's not an admission that you do beat your wife. Get it? Please say you 'get it', because I'm running out of ways to make this simpler for you.

[quote]Admitting that a bloke called Jesus existed around 2,000 years ago is in NO WAY implying any sort of truth of his divinity or otherwise.[/quote]

Exactly. But that wasn't my point. My point was that Dawkins wouldn't 'admit' Jesus existed in any seriousness because he cannot know for definite. As Dawkins points out in the full debate (lots of times), the question is irrelevant. His admission in that clip you posted was purposely cut to take it out of context (see my Pistorius example in the other post). It was a concession to make the bigger point to show it's irrelevance, not a serious statement of fact.

[quote]I believe that the climate is changing because it always is. However, I don't believe for one second in man-made global warming. Because I believe the climate changes does not imply any sort of belief in that man is responsible...[/quote]

You know those 2 litre plastic pop bottles? Get two empty ones with the lids. Go here> and buy a cylinder of CO2. Fill one bottle with carbon dioxide and quickly seal the lid. Leave the other bottle full of outside air.

Put two bottle out in the garden on a sunny day. Take in in the evening, open lid and take temperature of each bottle. Jot down your results. Repeat as many times as you want. Look for a pattern. If you find that pattern, post your results and your theory of what those results show, here.

Hint: if CO2 levels in an atmosphere has no affect on temperature rises, there'll be little difference between the two plastic bottles. You could then follow that this could be evidence that emitting CO2 into the earth's atmosphere doesn't change the overall climate and that the changes we see now are natural.

If, on the other hand the bottle with more CO2 is a lot warmer than the one filled with air............well............I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself. I can't do it all for you.

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]You are definitely confused. Argie said that Jesus did
> not exist and I said He did and that no serious historian
> including a scientist like Dawkins denies that Jesus
> existed[/quote]
>
> There's only you that's confused, Essex Lad. For a start, you
> can't even remember what you first told Arg. You didn't say
> that Dawkins 'doesn't deny', you said 'he admits Jesus
> existed'.
>
> Two different things, as I've already tried to point out. Not
> denying something isn't the same as admitting something. Once
> you understand this, you'll realise who's the one that's really
> confused. Not denying could just be taken as 'no comment,
> agnosticism, or being non-committal'. Admitting something is a
> definite statement.

If someone, say a well-known atheist, writes in a book that Jesus was born in Bethlehem around 4BC and then proceeds to give details of His life, is that not admitting that Jesus existed?


>
> [quote]Admitting that a bloke called Jesus existed around 2,000
> years ago is in NO WAY implying any sort of truth of His
> divinity or otherwise.[/quote]
>
> Exactly. But that wasn't my point. My point was that Dawkins
> wouldn't 'admit' Jesus existed in any seriousness because he
> cannot know for definite.

Then why write about Him in his book The God Delusion? I don't write about people who don't exist in any of my twenty-something books or in newspapers so why would Dawkins write about someone who he believes did not exist.

As Dawkins points out in the full
> debate (lots of times), the question is irrelevant. His
> admission in that clip you posted was purposely cut to take it
> out of context (see my Pistorius example in the other post). It
> was a concession to make the bigger point to show it's
> irrelevance, not a serious statement of fact.
>
> [quote]I believe that the climate is changing because it always
> is. However, I don't believe for one second in man-made global
> warming. Because I believe the climate changes does not imply
> any sort of belief in that man is responsible...[/quote]
>
> You know those 2 litre plastic pop bottles? Get two empty ones
> with the lids. Go here>
>
> and buy a cylinder of CO2. Fill one bottle with carbon dioxide
> and quickly seal the lid. Leave the other bottle full of
> outside air.
>
> Put two bottle out in the garden on a sunny day. Take in in the
> evening, open lid and take temperature of each bottle. Jot down
> your results. Repeat as many times as you want. Look for a
> pattern. If you find that pattern, post your results and your
> theory of what those results show, here.
>
> Hint: if CO2 levels in an atmosphere has no affect on
> temperature rises, there'll be little difference between the
> two plastic bottles. You could then follow that this could be
> evidence that emitting CO2 into the earth's atmosphere doesn't
> change the overall climate and that the changes we see now are
> natural.
>
Then how do you explain the warm period in the Middle Ages, considerably warmer than now? Or was all the technology used to emit CO2 into the air lost to history like we lost most of the Roman innovations for many years?

Also since there are tons of CO2 being released into the air by China and India as I type why has there been no increase in global temperatures this century?

[quote]If someone, say a well-known atheist, writes in a book that Jesus was born in Bethlehem around 4BC and then proceeds to give details of His life, is that not admitting that Jesus existed?[/quote]

No. It would depend entirely on the context. Was he reciting common or popular belief?

Again, admitting something is a definite statement. Admitting Jesus lived is not the same as admitting you believe Jesus lived. One implies a fact, the other only your thoughts.

[quote]>
> Exactly. But that wasn't my point. My point was that Dawkins
> wouldn't 'admit' Jesus existed in any seriousness because he
> cannot know for definite.

Then why write about Him in his book The God Delusion? I don't write about people who don't exist in any of my twenty-something books or in newspapers so why would Dawkins write about someone who he believes did not exist.[/quote]

Because it was a book about the belief in God.......and a lot of people who believe in God believe in Jesus. How could he NOT mention Jesus in such a book?

[quote]Then how do you explain the warm period in the Middle Ages, considerably warmer than now? Or was all the technology used to emit CO2 into the air lost to history like we lost most of the Roman innovations for many years? [/quote]

I don't know, but I could read up on it - as could you. A quick glance on google just shows a gradual increase in temperature in the Northern hemisphere (not the whole planet like now), and it is very very gradual over a 4-600 year span. A whole lot different to the climate's temperature shift since the start of the Industrial age. 97% of climate scientists agree that the temperature rises of the last century is caused by human activities. And they know a lot more about the climate than you or I. If you saw 100 doctors and 97% of them said you need to lower your cholesterol or you'll be dead within 5 years, would you think they're all talking out of their arse?

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... arison.png[/img]

[quote]Also since there are tons of CO2 being released into the air by China and India as I type why has there been no increase in global temperatures this century?[/quote]

I don't know. But the last 14 years doesn't negate the fact that in the last 100 years, the average temperature has risen far faster than at any time in known history. Perfectly aligning with the rise of industrialisation. What do you know 97% of climate scientists don't?

Did you try that little experiment, btw? How did it go?

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]If someone, say a well-known atheist, writes in a book
> that Jesus was born in Bethlehem around 4BC and then proceeds
> to give details of His life, is that not admitting that Jesus
> existed?[/quote]
>
> No. It would depend entirely on the context. Was he reciting
> common or popular belief?
>
> Again, admitting something is a definite statement. Admitting
> Jesus lived is not the same as admitting you believe Jesus
> lived. One implies a fact, the other only your thoughts.

Then why not add a caveat saying that he (Dawkins) did not believe that Jesus existed but he doesn't.

>
> [quote]>
> > Exactly. But that wasn't my point. My point was that Dawkins
> > wouldn't 'admit' Jesus existed in any seriousness because he
> > cannot know for definite.

If he read any history books he could, the same as he would know that Herod the Great existed or Pontius Pilate or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great to any other figure BC.

>
> Then why write about Him in his book The God Delusion? I don't
> write about people who don't exist in any of my
> twenty-something books or in newspapers so why would Dawkins
> write about someone who he believes did not exist.[/quote]
>
> Because it was a book about the belief in God.......and a lot
> of people who believe in God believe in Jesus. How could he NOT
> mention Jesus in such a book?

He could have added a personal caveat but he didn't.

>
> [quote]Then how do you explain the warm period in the Middle
> Ages, considerably warmer than now? Or was all the technology
> used to emit CO2 into the air lost to history like we lost most
> of the Roman innovations for many years? [/quote]
>
> I don't know, but I could read up on it - as could you.

I have.

A quick
> glance on google just shows a gradual increase in temperature
> in the Northern hemisphere (not the whole planet like now), and
> it is very very gradual over a 4-600 year span. A whole lot
> different to the climate's temperature shift since the start of
> the Industrial age. 97% of climate scientists agree that the
> temperature rises of the last century is caused by human
> activities. And they know a lot more about the climate than you
> or I. If you saw 100 doctors and 97% of them said you need to
> lower your cholesterol or you'll be dead within 5 years, would
> you think they're all talking out of their arse?

I would question how many of them are the beneficiaries of government grants dependent on them saying that global warming is man-made.

I could point to the 1950s when 97% of doctors believed that smoking was good for you or that homosexuality was a mental illness.


>
> [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... arison.png[/img]
>
> [quote]Also since there are tons of CO2 being released into the
> air by China and India as I type why has there been no increase
> in global temperatures this century?[/quote]
>
> I don't know. But the last 14 years doesn't negate the fact
> that in the last 100 years, the average temperature has risen
> far faster than at any time in known history. Perfectly
> aligning with the rise of industrialisation.

Well it sort of does since India and China are pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air now more than they have ever before... and yet even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that global warming has stopped. Are we less industrialised?

What do you know
> 97% of climate scientists don't?
>
> Did you try that little experiment, btw? How did it go?
>
No, I have to go to work...

Quick question:
In the 1980s "experts" said that we were all at risk from Aids, that every family in Britain would be affected by the disease by the end of the decade, that we would all know someone who had died of Aids.
Guess what? The "experts" were wrong. Thirty odd years later and Aids has not decimated the country. Most families have not been personally affected unless they had a member who was homosexual or an intravenous drug user.

Subsequently, we have been told that we would all die from salmonella in eggs, BSE in hamburgers (a few cases of people who got Mad Cow Disease had been lifelong vegetarians and thousands of healthy cattle were slaughtered unnecessarily), passive smoking, the Millennium Bug would cause untold havoc, hundreds of thousands would die from bird 'flu, DDT, swine flu...

Just recently, the NHS spent millions of tamiflu which is now known to be next to useless.

Each and every time the "experts" were wrong. Why do you think that this time they have got it right?

Just say to 'em that your a devil-worshipper and Bob's you uncle they bugger off!