Richard Dawkins

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

I swear to every god you believe in...

I don't know if a god(s) exist.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, I didn't think Richard Dawkins arguments were very strong. Especially not in his "Authority from Scripture" section which unless he has corrected in a more recent edition are incorrect concerning extra-canonical Gospels, and the accounts of the Gospels of John, Matthew and Luke.

I asked you to justify your labelling of the book as "feeble" a few months ago and you responded with:

I never said I dismissed his points. I found some of them to be interesting, but I don't adopt them. That is different. Likewise with Hitchens. What I said had nothing to do with dismissing or accepting any argument they make. This is you trying to turn the discussion around.

I merely said, that Nietzsche and Camus are better at promoting secularism than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens will ever be. Yes, I believe that Dawkins and Hitchens are feeble in comparison. What's the big deal? I'm allowed to like whatever authors I like surely?

so to clarify, when you describe someone's book as "feeble" it means you think their literary quality is poor which has nothing to do with the strength of the arguments and when you describe it as "lacking" you're referring to the arguments being made. Do I have that correct?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so to clarify, when you describe someone's book as "feeble" it means you think their literary quality is poor and when you describe it as "lacking" you're referring to the arguments being made. Do I have that correct?

Sorry to butt in here.

It's not unreasonable to state that luminaries like Russell and Nietzsche, for example, do tower above the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens in the realm of philosophy - the grounds upon which many people are willing to debate the whole God hypothesis.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry to butt in here.

It's not unreasonable to state that luminaries like Russell and Nietzsche, for example, do tower above the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens in the realm of philosophy - the grounds upon which many people are willing to debate the whole God hypothesis.

Oh I know that's not unreasonable. The problem here is that Jakkass described the book as "feeble" without any clarification and when I challenged him on the arguments being made he insisted he was making no comment on the arguments, that he was discussing literary style only and that my suggestion that he was referring to the arguments was me "trying to turn the discussion around". In this thread I asked him to clarify his use of the word "lacking" and he has confirmed that this time he is referring to the arguments. I am confused. Perhaps he needs to be clearer in his use of language eh

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh I know that's not unreasonable. The problem here is that Jakkass described the book as "feeble" without any clarification and when I challenged him on the arguments being made he insisted he was making no comment on the arguments and was discussing literary style only and that my suggestion that he was referring to the arguments was me "trying to turn the discussion around". In this thread I asked him to clarify his use of the word "lacking" and he has confirmed that this time he is referring to the arguments. I am confused. Perhaps he needs to be clearer in his use of language eh

Perhaps. But it seems to me that while Dawkins is obviously a highly intelligent man who is capable of raising difficult questions, he is not a philosopher (or theologian :pac:) by trade. Again, I don't think it unreasonable to state that his arguments are "lacking" or whatever in comparison to those who are philosophers, especially they happen to be heavyweights in their field.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps. But it seems to me that while Dawkins is obviously a highly intelligent man who is capable of raising difficult questions, he is not a philosopher (or theologian :pac:) by trade. Again, I don't think it unreasonable to state that his arguments are "lacking" or whatever in comparison to those who are philosophers, especially they happen to be heavyweights in their field.

I still don't think you're seeing the problem here. The problem is not his labelling the arguments as lacking, the problem is not his labelling of the literary style as feeble, the problem is that when I challenged him on his use of the word feeble he insisted that he was making no comment whatsoever on the arguments and accused me of "trying to turn the discussion around" but now when he uses the word lacking he confirms that he is referring to the arguments.......no?

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He gave up his career because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Now I know that such things are rare and people can be both excellent scientists and christians but the fact that this ever happens is a tragedy

Perhaps he was happier as Christian than a scientist?
I'm not sure what this tale tells us other than suggesting that perhaps the pursuit of science is perhaps not for everyone.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I still don't think you're seeing the problem here. The problem is not his labelling the arguments as lacking, the problem is not his labelling of the literary style as feeble, the problem is that when I challenged him on his use of the word feeble he insisted that he was making no comment whatsoever on the arguments and accused me of "trying to turn the discussion around" but now when he uses the word lacking he confirms that he is referring to the arguments.......no?

So he thinks the literary style is feeble and also that the arguments are lacking? I can certainly see how one could reach that conclusion, although I personally don't think Dawkin's literary skills are that bad.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

So he thinks the literary style is feeble and also that the arguments are lacking? I can certainly see how one could reach that conclusion, although I personally don't think Dawkin's literary skills are that bad.

Um, no. But if three times isn't enough then I doubt a fourth will do any good

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I still don't think you're seeing the problem here

I guess not. But then again I would have to take an interest in an debate from a few months back and some old blood that is raging under the surface.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps he was happier as Christian than a scientist?
I'm not sure what this tale tells us other than suggesting that perhaps the pursuit of science is perhaps not for everyone.

I suppose it could be said that the story shows us that in some cases religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, which is the point that Dawkins was making. The guy was a brilliant scientist, the guy wanted to be a scientist but being a scientist conflicted with his bible so he made the difficult choice to give up his career. If it turns out that he was right to reject science because his understanding of god is the right one then I'm sure he'll be delighted but otherwise it's a shameful waste of a life, it's somebody giving up on their career because of some stories in an old book

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose it could be said that the story shows us that in some cases religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, which is the point that Dawkins was making. The guy was a brilliant scientist, the guy wanted to be a scientist but being a scientist conflicted with his bible so he made the difficult choice to give up his career. If it turns out that he was right to reject science because his understanding of god is the right one then I'm sure he'll be delighted but otherwise it's a shameful waste of a life, it's somebody giving up on their career because of some stories in an old book

I'm not sure it is, I mean by what standard do you determine that someone hasn't lead a good life or wasted their lives? In the end of the day the only person who can judge how well you've lived your life is you yourself.

The truth or not of Christianity is really immaterial in the matter, imho.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure it is, I mean by what standard do you determine that someone hasn't lead a good life or wasted their lives? In the end of the day the only person who can judge how well you've lived your life is you yourself.

The truth or not of Christianity is really immaterial in the matter, imho.

Maybe others are different but I'd much rather know the truth no matter how harsh it is than live my life based on a comforting falsehood. As I've said, if the only standard is that you think you're happy you might as well keep yourself drugged up to the eyeballs for your whole life. As an analogy, imagine you had a friend who was firmly of the belief that Angelina Jolie was very soon going to leave Brad Pitt, fly over to Ireland and become his wife. Imagine he had begun to prepare for this day, dedicating much time and effort to it, renovating his house to get it to a standard that Angelina is accustomed to and the like. Would you see no problem with him doing this as long as he felt it made him happy, and make no attempt to gently point out that it ain't gonna happen?


But anyway, the reason I mentioned the story was to show that religion can cause people to be satisfied with not understanding the world, which I think it did

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure it is, I mean by what standard do you determine that someone hasn't lead a good life or wasted their lives? In the end of the day the only person who can judge how well you've lived your life is you yourself.

The truth or not of Christianity is really immaterial in the matter, imho.

Very true. I was struck by the words "shameful waste". Nothing provided to back this up, of course, other than personal opinion born out of a dislike for faith in God and seemingly the primacy of all things scientific.

lmaopml

I had two problems really with Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'...

...and that's not that he wrote it..:P He can write what he wants, he's renowned in his field, a brilliant scientist and it's a free world..

I think the man under the circumstances was writing a book that he really really believes from the heart....after 9/11 etc. I got the impression that the more tolerant kind of educated atheist would have a laugh and a guffaw at some of his gaffs etc. and that's ok too....I actually think he rather enjoyed that....

....however...there is an underlying generalising tone that science and religion are like oil and water...it's either one or the other....I found that very disappointing coming from a man with his particular punching power in the science community....

...also, in the aftermath, he has picked up some 'clinger oners' that only ever bought 'The God Delusion' and truely believe that there is a huge dividing line between both science and religion and that people of faith are ignorant or lacking in some way, and use his 'gaffs' in a far more 'unfriendly' way...The assumptions are incredible sometimes...

I've been asked 'How could you not 'believe in' Evolution?? :eek: I don't know how many times and it's rather annoying...while the FSM is being bandied about with underlying scorn...

Of course I'm well able to answer...;)...I can do scorn with the best of em...

I fear it's caused a deeper division, if you will, from someone who rather than use his biggest black marker to highlight over the 'dotted' line....could have tried the eraser first

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Very true. I was struck by the words "shameful waste". Nothing provided to back this up, of course, other than personal opinion born out of a dislike for faith in God and seemingly the primacy of all things scientific.

I presumed you would already know exactly why an atheist would consider someone giving up on their dreams and a promising career because of one particular interpretation of one particular holy book a shameful waste

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure it is, I mean by what standard do you determine that someone hasn't lead a good life or wasted their lives? In the end of the day the only person who can judge how well you've lived your life is you yourself.

I wouldn't agree with that at all, I have a relative (don't want to go into specifics as they may be reading this) who devoted their life to things that only made them miserable. They are now suffering from a number of stress related illnesses but still maintain nothing is wrong, they are perfectly "happy". Both everyone in our family including their spouse and children have been trying to get this person to go see a councilor because they seem on the edge of a nervous break down.

I've no problem saying this person has not lived their life well, and is continuing to. Nor do I think it is good to put much heed in people who claim to be happy but where the evidence of their lives contradicts this.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nothing provided to back this up, of course, other than personal opinion born out of a dislike for faith in God and seemingly the primacy of all things scientific.

So quite a bit to back it up them ... :pac:

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that at all, I have a relative (don't want to go into specifics as they may be reading this) who devoted their life to things that only made them miserable. They are now suffering from a number of stress related illnesses but still maintain nothing is wrong, they are perfectly "happy". Both everyone in our family including their spouse and children have been trying to get this person to go see a councilor because they seem on the edge of a nervous break down.

I've no problem saying this person has not lived their life well, and is continuing to. Nor do I think it is good to put much heed in people who claim to be happy but where the evidence of their lives contradicts this.

I'm not sure how your example proves anything, by your own admission this person is miserable. Then clearly they're not content.

But we're getting off the point, lets agree to disagree.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If it turns out that he was right to reject science because his understanding of god is the right one then I'm sure he'll be delighted but otherwise it's a shameful waste of a life, it's somebody giving up on their career because of some stories in an old book

Would you consider say Mother Theresa to have wasted her life? Or Ghandi? Or Martin Luther King? Or Nelson Mandela?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This man's religion has caused this man to accept an answer that is in all likelihood wrong and which conflicts with scientific evidence. His religion has done this, therefore religion does this. Therefore Dawkins comment that religion does this is accurate. Whether or not you view this as a problem is a matter of opinion. It only becomes "wrong" if you interpret it to mean all religion at all times in every single way but that wasn't the way in which it was meant.

Good, just so as long as we're clear that atheism teaches people to be satisfied with murdering and persecuting.

Rev Hellfire

prinz wrote: »

Good, just so as long as we're clear that atheism teaches people to be satisfied with murdering and persecuting.

Wooh steady on Tonto, where'd you pull that cracker from ?

Bloody Nipples

prinz wrote: »

Would you consider say Mother Theresa to have wasted her life? Or Ghandi? Or Martin Luther King? Or Nelson Mandela?




Good, just so as long as we're clear that atheism teaches people to be satisfied with murdering and persecuting.

Atheism doesn't teach people anything, and it certainly doesn't teach people to be satisfied with murder and persecution.

For murder see the stoning of apostates, the Crusades, God wiping out the Earth's population with a flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, hell even Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt just for looking over her shoulder.

For persecution, try Prop. 8.

prinz

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Wooh steady on Tonto, where'd you pull that cracker from ?

Just because a small minority of atheists indulged in militant atheism and abused that as an excuse to murder members of the clergy and religious laity say for example in the Soviet Union etc, my statement is valid, because it's impossible to make a blanket statement to cover all atheists for all time. What I said is only "wrong" if you interpret it that way.

Zulu

prinz wrote: »

Good, just so as long as we're clear that atheism teaches people to be satisfied with murdering and persecuting.

-1 A step too far there! Should we put it down to a pre-coffee howler?

Human nature appears to be to murder & persecute. There is no proof that atheism teaches any of the sort.

PDN

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Atheism doesn't teach people anything, and it certainly doesn't teach people to be satisfied with murder and persecution.

For murder see the stoning of apostates, the Crusades, God wiping out the Earth's population with a flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, hell even Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt just for looking over her shoulder.

For persecution, try Prop. 8.

Maybe you should read the thread? He was poking fun at the way some atheist posters have been reinterpreting language.

prinz

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Atheism doesn't teach people anything, and it certainly doesn't teach people to be satisfied with murder and persecution..

I think you should read the last few pages to see where that stemmed from.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure how your example proves anything, by your own admission this person is miserable. Then clearly they're not content.

It demonstrates (wouldn't say proves) that a person can judge themselves happy while everyone else around them thinks they are miserable (and thus wasting their life).

Of course the opposite is true, a person can be happy while others thing they shouldn't be.

So it is not trying to prove anything, merely point out that it is more complicated than saying the only person who can measure if they are happy and had a fulfilling life is the person themselves. Often how we judge our own happiness is greatly effected by factors we don't realize or understand, and our conscious judgement can vary greatly from our unconscious (ie real) judgement

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But we're getting off the point, lets agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that :eek::pac:

prinz

Zulu wrote: »

-1 A step too far there! Should we put it down to a pre-coffee howler?

No howler, but tea if you're making one

Zulu wrote: »

There is no proof that atheism teaches any of the sort.

There is proof that people have been murdered and persecuted by militant atheists for no other reason than the atheists don't agree with them on that point. Falun Gong in China for example. You see no one has been able to point out where in Christianity, Christians are taught to be satisfied with not understanding things. All we have are examples of individuals who made a personal choice in the light of their faith. I suggest those who murdered people in the Soviet Union made that decision to murder in the light of their own personal atheism.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

There is proof that people have been murdered and persecuted by militant atheists for no other reason than the atheists don't agree with them on that point. Falun Gong in China for example. You see no one has been able to point out where in Christianity, Christians are taught to be satisfied with not understanding things.

Er, yes we have, repeatable and we even gave quotes. Faith in divine revelation is by definition being satisfied with not understanding things.

PDN's quote fails not because atheism is wonderful and shinning and good but simply because atheism doesn't teach anything It is a state of being, not a philosophy.

A more accurate example would be something like Communism teaches people to devalue individual life (not my quote)

I've no problem with that quote, I would agree with it. But equally I wouldn't assume that every single communist every where devalued individual life, or that every single Communist everywhere devalued human life to the level Stalin did.

But then I doubt anyone but a rabid Communist would be interested in getting into a semantic argument about what exactly that quote meant.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, yes we have, repeatable and we even gave quotes. Faith in divine revelation is by definition being satisfied with not understanding things..

Such as? I haven't seen anything that said to be Christian one must be satisfied not to understand things about the religion itself or about the world in general.

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN's quote fails not because atheism is wonderful and shinning and good but simply because atheism doesn't teach anything It is a state of being, not a philosophy.

A state of being doesn't drive people to murder those you don't agree with. You do that because you want to impose your "state of being" onto others.