More Dawkins critism

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Rather than saying an atheist has a specific concept of god, perhaps it would more correct to say an atheist has limits to what can be defined as a god.

The crux of the issue at hand appears to be that Scoff's "god" has no limits that I can see, whereas others have drawn the line somewhere.

Again, why should it? The idea of limits being necessary is, again, derived from sciientific non-falsifiability.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, why should it? The idea of limits being necessary is, again, derived from sciientific non-falsifiability.

The definition of an atheist hinges entirely on the definition of a god. If god has no definition, and no defined limits as to what/where/when it can be, then the term atheist simply bursts at the seams.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

However, when the atheist takes on board that conception of God, they certainly don't accept the idea that this god exists, do they?

True, but that is a rejection of one of the properties of the concept, that being existence.

The theist says "This is God, and God exists". The atheist says I reject that as being true.

The concept remains the same.

Take the character of Luke Skywalker. One of the properties of the concept of the character of Luke Skywalker is that he is just that, a character in a story, produced by George Lucas. He doesn't exist. Equally one of the properties of the concept of George Lucas is that he does exist.

It is not really the same to say that "Luke Skywalker doesn't exist" as it is to say that "George Lucas doesn't exist". One statement is in keeping with the original concept, while the other is rejecting a fundamental property of the concept.

Scofflaw wrote:

Therefore, they have a conception of God that includes non-exstence

Not really, they have the same concept of God that they think is not true or not valid, because they reject the truth of one of the properties of the concept. Its like saying I reject the concept of George Lucas because I don't think he exists in real life, and one of the properties of concept of George Lucas is that he does exist in real life.

There is no concept of George Lucas that states he is a character in a story, or a fictional entity, or otherwise doesn't exist, that I'm aware of.

Scofflaw wrote:

I didn't intend to suggest that your conception of God is original, but that the atheist generally has a conception of god that includes non-existence

I see what you are saying, but I wouldn't put it like that. It confuses what is part of the concept and what is accepted/rejected by people discussing the concept.

If an atheist, in the process of discussing God, says "I think that is nonsense, God doesn't exist", he isn't creating a new concept of God where existence is not a property of that concept. He is rejecting the original concept as being untrue or flawed.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

True, but that is a rejection of one of the properties of the concept, that being existence.

The theist says "This is God, and God exists". The atheist says I reject that as being true.

The concept remains the same.

Take the character of Luke Skywalker. One of the properties of the concept of the character of Luke Skywalker is that he is just that, a character in a story, produced by George Lucas. He doesn't exist. Equally one of the properties of the concept of George Lucas is that he does exist.

It is not really the same to say that "Luke Skywalker doesn't exist" as it is to say that "George Lucas doesn't exist". One statement is in keeping with the original concept, while the other is rejecting a fundamental property of the concept.


Not really, they have the same concept of God that they think is not true or not valid, because they reject the truth of one of the properties of the concept. Its like saying I reject the concept of George Lucas because I don't think he exists in real life, and one of the properties of concept of George Lucas is that he does exist in real life.

There is no concept of George Lucas that states he is a character in a story, or a fictional entity, or otherwise doesn't exist, that I'm aware of.



I see what you are saying, but I wouldn't put it like that. It confuses what is part of the concept and what is accepted/rejected by people discussing the concept.

If an atheist, in the process of discussing God, says "I think that is nonsense, God doesn't exist", he isn't creating a new concept of God where existence is not a property of that concept. He is rejecting the original concept as being untrue or flawed.

That is so - but when he rejects a description of God as being not godlike, he is using a conception of god, rather than rejecting one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

Quick interjection ... Dawkins will be interviewed by Karen Coleman on 'The Wide Angle' on Newstalk 106 next Sunday (21st) between 10 and 12 (or 10 and 1 ... not sure how long that programme goes on for).

nitrogen

aidan24326 wrote:

Btw, Dawkins has another two-part special coming up on C4 in the next week or two. This time he's attacking all other forms of irrationality besides religion, especially those that are ever-eager to get people to part with their cash such as mystics, tarot readers, faith healers, palmistry, fortune telling etc etc
It's called 'The Rational Enquirer'.

On a small tangent, this sounds similar to Penn and Teller's Bull****. If anyone listens to the Penn Radio show podcast, Dawkins was on it in Oct and Penn joked that he was stealing his show. Still looking forward to it.

Dave!

Please someone post a thread in advance of it being shown, with the channel, time, etc.! I'm dying to see this

bipedalhumanoid

I'm a bit late but I created a you tube video about Reville's article if anyone is still interested...

It includes audio from the god delusion audio book. I didn't have to say anything to refute Reville's claims about this book.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=47lnFPeX1Pw