Should Dawkins be arrested for covering up atheist crimes

Dave!

I'm very glad I gave this thread a miss !

Ickle Magoo

Ah, but seeing as you are here now, Dave!....?

:pac:

Dave!

/runs away

ISAW

fergalr wrote: »

snip...


Its these last few paragraphs that makes me suspicious of those posters here slating the author. These are very even paragraphs - he's clearly not the most dogmatic guy in the world. Why is he getting such an incredibly tough going over here?

Did people not read that far?
Or was it the earlier stuff that got the teeth out?

Ferglar. After pages and pages of poeople claiming thinks about it YOU are the first person to actually go through the article! You also did it in a fair and balanced way. Many if not all the detractors of it have stated they didn't even read it and gave up half way through but that didn't stop them saying it was all wrong - even the parts they didn't read! They also rely on others whom they didn't read to the end as a valid criticism of the article they themselves admit they didn't read. So they take a criticism for granted because it happens to agree with their uninformed opposition to the original author.

Waking-Dreams

Not only has the original HP article been changed and edited

WHAT evidence do you have for this?

Original: http://politics.ifoday.com/?p=9091

Updated: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html

All anyone has shown so far is that a full stop was changed to a question mark!

Well if that isn't proof of you pulling the veil over your own eyes I don't know what is. If you had bothered to read both versions you would notice how certain passages have been removed. I am NOT going to spell it out for you, I already feel embarrassed enough replying in this thread again. Take 5 minutes away from this board and read it yourself. Connect the dots.

Asking people here: "Where's the evidence? Where's your citations?" makes you sound like a Flat Earth believer, "Show me the evidence people!" Like somone said, this is the A&A forum. Most people have been exposed to a lot of silly arguments that when they keep re-appearing from different speakers/journos, it's just an incredible waste of time pointing out the same old flaws in their logic ad infinitum.

Fitzgerald's arguments were actually tackled in The God Delusion in 2006, but he seems to have an axe to grind (like so many others) and obviously didn't bother, or care to read it either way.

Anyways, I think this thread has reached its zenith.

Good day.

ISAW

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

[/LEFT]


Well if that isn't proof of you pulling the veil over your own eyes I don't know what is.

If you are accusing me of lying you had better say so!

If you had bothered to read both versions you would notice how certain passages have been removed.

I was asking for the evidence and for someone to cite the passages. Nobody did so far.
To date all I am aware oif is a changed question mark and a sentence removed which was suggesting Dawkings is a coward because he would not dare say the same of Islam that he does of Christians. Otherwise the article is the same as far as I know. And I think I already covered possible reasons for those two changes.

If you want to list more differences and the relevance of them feel free to do so.

Don't just say "go and read them" If you have a point it is for YOU to make it!

I am NOT going to spell it out for you,

In other words you are not going to support your claim with reference to the actual source material. I have not yet seen how the author was lying or misleading anyone and you have yet to show he was.

I already feel embarrassed enough replying in this thread again. Take 5 minutes away from this board and read it yourself. Connect the dots.

Thisi called "shifting the burden" Please look it up under "logical fallacy". I am not responsible for how you chose to feel when you fail to support you claims with actual evidence.


Here is a reference to help you
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Asking people here: "Where's the evidence? Where's your citations?" makes you sound like a Flat Earth believer,

It is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence! that is a standard of normal logical debate and scientific enquiry. It is well known in atheist circles.

"Show me the evidence people!" Like somone said, this is the A&A forum. Most people have been exposed to a lot of silly arguments that when they keep re-appearing from different speakers/journos, it's just an incredible waste of time pointing out the same old flaws in their logic ad infinitum.

This is just a handwaving argument!
What is the difference between "no evidence for invisible unicorns" and "no invisible unicorns"?

If you don't provide the evidence why do you expect that your opinion should be taken as valid?

Fitzgerald's arguments were actually tackled in The God Delusion in 2006,

LOL! Dawkings apparently can see an article written four years in the future and tackle them! If that isnt akin to godlike powers i don't know what is?

If you are saying that Fitzgerald recommitted the same errors which Dawkins had tackled then

1. Care to list the "errors"?
2. Care to cite where Dawkins deal with each of them?

No? well then

3. What is the difference between "no evidence for invisible unicorns" and "no invisible unicorns"?

Good day. [/LEFT]

Run away if you wish but that wont make your unsupported opinion valid!

King Mob

ISAW can you actually point out any points of merit the article makes?

No one here can find any, and it's been spelt out to you why all the points in the article are crap.

At this point you're just looking for people to waste their time for some reason.

MikeC101

ISAW wrote: »

I was asking for the evidence and for someone to cite the passages. Nobody did so far.
To date all I am aware oif is a changed question mark and a sentence removed which was suggesting Dawkings is a coward because he would not dare say the same of Islam that he does of Christians. Otherwise the article is the same as far as I know. And I think I already covered possible reasons for those two changes.

These are a few that stood out - assuming the politics.itoday one is the original.

(Thanks for the links Waking-Dreams)

Original:

As a lapsed atheist, I have the greatest respect for those who do not think that there is anything beyond the material in this universe. Many friends and family feel that way: they are staying true to the best truth available to them. Yet most remain open to new possibilities and acknowledge that they are not entirely omniscient. Most too are respectful to those who think differently to themselves.

Changed:

Most atheists I know are great people, and are staying true to the truth as they see it. Most also remain open to new possibilities and acknowledge that they are not entirely omniscient, and are respectful to those who think differently to themselves.

Original

Dawkins, however, has nothing but contempt for the majority of human kind who believe in God; but more than this, he no longer appears to be a seeker after truth: he now seems to be someone who just hates and seeks to destroy Judaeo-Christian moral principles.

Changed:

Dawkins, however, often seems to have only contempt for the majority of human kind who, unlike him, do believe in the spiritual. His selective campaigning about political issues makes me wonder: is he really an objective seeker of truth, or is he someone who just wants to undermine Judaeo-Christian principles?

Original:

Dawkins has many times tried to say that Einstein did not believe in God. Yet Einstein said this:

Changed:

Dawkins has many times tried to say that Einstein was not spiritual in the way most people understand it. Yet Einstein said this:

Original:

There is no such humility from Dawkins: the only illimitable thing he knows is his own arrogance.

Changed:
It's not there.

Original:

His particular bile is reserved for the Judaeo-Christian traditions. You will not see him spouting off so vociferously about Mohammed. He is too cowardly for that.

Changed:

Dawkins is right to be angry about the awful cover up of child abuse in the Catholic Church, but he seems to have a tendency himself to be very selective in the issues he shouts about, and those he remains silent about

Original:

I don’t see Dawkins loudly decrying the actions of his atheist colleagues in Cambodia.

Changed:

I don't see Dawkins loudly decrying the actions of atheists in Cambodia.

Original

His agenda is to mock, pillory and destroy the Judaeo-Christian principles and beliefs upon which Western Civilization is founded. Indeed, his ideology ultimately renders discernment of good and evil impossible, subjective and arbitrary.

Changed:

his preference appears to be to emphasise religiously motivated barbarism over the many atheistically motivated wrongs.

Original:

He is himself a narrow-minded fundamentalist who appears to be lacking in some basic human faculties, beyond intellect.

Changed:

Many now see Dawkins as something of a narrow-minded fundamentalist himself

Original:

You could even say that he is involved in a cover up that would make a Bishop blush: for we have seen what atheist utopias look like: they look like cattle trains rolling in to Belsen with women and children hudding together in the cold.

Changed:

He seeks to magnify wrongs done by religions, and to breeze over the immense horrors brought about by some atheist belief systems. Yet we have seen what atheist utopias can look like.

Original:

There is nothing particularly original about atheism

Changed:

Atheism is not new

Original:

While the likes of Richard Dawkins aim their bile at traditional Christianity, fundamentalists are largely immune to their attacks, and become only stronger as the more committed members of the established churches head their way

Changed: Removed.

Original:

The new and militant atheists

Changed:

Some of the new and militant atheists

Original:

what is also certain is that atheism has repeatedly proven itself to be the most destructive worldview ever known to mankind. Whereas, religious belief has been shown to have many measurable positive consequences for individuals and societies.

Changed:

history shows that societies without a shared moral compass can be deeply destructive to human life, happiness and well-being.

Basically the second version contains far more weasel words (he's stuck in a lot of "some" and "many" and so on), has toned down the attacks aimed at Dawkins and atheism, along with removing several of the more obvious "atheism is bad because communism was bad" lines.

ISAW

King Mob wrote: »

ISAW can you actually point out any points of merit the article makes?

King mob can you look up the reference tological fallacies and look for "proving a negative"

someone else posted the article and people stated it was "tripe" without any reference to any point and without showing the counter to this point!

It is not for me to show how or where the article is filled with merit. you have however been given a single holistic comprehensive and in my view unbiased review by one poster fergalr about 9 or 10 messages back, and that only after several pages of name calling and personal attack on the author without a single reference to the points made by him.

No one here can find any,

Wrong! fergalr points out some points made which are reasonable and correct.

and it's been spelt out to you why all the points in the article are crap.

no ity hasn't! It has been CLAIMED but the claims make scant or no reference to the original and provide no counter claim which is supported by their own citation!

At this point you're just looking for people to waste their time for some reason.

You can fling all the personal dirt you wish but if you make a point about an article it is for you to CITE where in that article the point is being made and to provide your own counter argument. this has not been done?

Care to list five posters who have gone through the article and shown something from each three lines or so to be wrong by citing counter evidence?

King Mob

This frankly is just pedantry ISAW.

You're just asking everyone here to waste their time and yours.
And when people actually do you complain because their waste of time wasn't detailed enough or cited enough.

It's clear that no one here, yourself included thinks this is a good article.

If it was a good one you'd have been pointing out all the arguements that stand up to scrutiny instead of asking us to waste time.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Care to list five posters who have gone through the article and shown something from each three lines or so to be wrong by citing counter evidence?

ISAW - a good discussion happens when people put forward ideas with which other posters can either agree, disagree or ignore, each of which responses is then fodder for the next agreement, disagreement or ignoral (?).

This method of discussion is called the Dialectic and it's something that the A+A community does rather well.

Continually referring to previous posts, or asking other people to, makes for a lousy discussion, it irritates people, and -- as I've made clear in one mod post in this thread and another mod post yesterday -- will henceforth be feeling the murderous wrath of my <Del> key.

Waking-Dreams

At this point you're just looking for people to waste their time for some reason.

My guess is because ISAW is either fixated with being “right”, or rather, just enjoys a lengthy online discussion and the attention it brings.

Dawkins apparently can see an article written four years in the future and tackle them! If that isnt akin to godlike powers i don't know what is?

You just don't get it. If you had any modicum of understanding you'd know that the main points Fitzgerald brings up in his article, are points which have already been stated for many years by lots of people, and were addressed by Dawkins 4 years ago (and still are to this day even). Fitzgerald isn't really bringing anything new to the table (a trait shared by most of Dawkins' detractors). I suspect he's just got an axe to grind and any article in the media on Dawkins is going to attract some attention.

Incidentally, have you ever read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies? Worth a look.

fergalr points out some points made which are reasonable and correct.

Yet, fergalr neglected to include any citations or evidence. How can you demand evidence from those who deem the article as tripe, yet when there is support for its merit, you make no such request? Don't bother answering. I've entertained your skirmish way too much.

I seriously recommend you read that book too by the way: “Meeting The Shadow”. Don't take this as a personal attack but I think you are self-medicating with this particular kind of pendantic argumentation because you secretly feel good about yourself when you “win” these arguments and claim others are being illogical, or running away, or not showing you all the evidence that meets your strict approval, etc.

As a species, we often self-medicate with distractions which allows us to sift through life without ever having to adequately address our problems. This becomes manifest in habits like comfort eating, drinking, sex, drugs, shopping and getting sympathy, guilt or attention from others.

Take care ISAW. I think we have all been very generous with our time in keeping you entertained here but you're going to have to find a new source of mental stimulation. You won't be getting it from me anymore.

And cheers to MikeC101 for that in-depth point by point analysis. I read the original article and deemed it to be tripe; a diatribe of utter contempt and disdain for Dawkins and Atheism.

It doesn't merit being discussed in a fair and balanced way, just as creationists do not merit being given a platform to engage in a fair and balanced public debate with a scientist over the theory of evolution.

ISAW

MikeC101 wrote: »

These are a few that stood out - assuming the politics.itoday one is the original.

Basically the second version contains far more weasel words (he's stuck in a lot of "some" and "many" and so on), has toned down the attacks aimed at Dawkins and atheism, along with removing several of the more obvious "atheism is bad because communism was bad" lines.

Basically they don't! There are no substantive changes. If anything the subject is broadened by the change. e..g from just Christians to all believers in anything spiritual. Also personal attack of the like of "it is my opinion that Dawkins is..." are changed to "people believe that ..." or they are left out. The actual argument made hasn't been changed by the edits from the original to the later version.

I would go through each change with reference to each one but until Robinch the moderator changes his opinion I can't.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

ISAW - a good discussion happens when people put forward ideas with which other posters can either agree, disagree or ignore,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty; to attribute to other authors the ideas they have previously expressed, rather than give the appearance to the work's readers that the work's authors are the original wellsprings of those ideas.

If people are going to waffle on without any reference to what came before it isn't a debate!

You should know the difference between unsupported opinion based on personal belief and documented fact. "Believers are stupid people with silly opinions" is an opinion! You are entitled to such an opinion and people have to tolerate it.But don't claim it is a fact without evidence. It is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence. As a scientific skeptic you are aware of his.

each of which responses is then fodder for the next agreement, disagreement or ignoral (?).

It isn't a case of whether I agree, disagree or want to ignore. If someone claims something as a fact then it is for them to support it with evidence or else itis just their opinion.

This method of discussion is called the Dialectic and it's something that the A+A community does rather well.

Continually referring to previous posts, or asking other people to, makes for a lousy discussion, it irritates people,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Western_forms
In Plato's dialogues and other Socratic dialogues, Socrates attempts to examine someone's beliefs, at times even first principles or premises by which we all reason and argue. Socrates typically argues by cross-examining his interlocutor's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or inconsistency among them. According to Plato, the rational detection of error amounts to finding the proof of the antithesis
^ Vlastos, G., Burnyeat, M. (Ed.) (1994) Socratic Studies, Cambridge U.P. ISBN 0-521-44735-6 Ch. 1


Read your own references before you deign to lecture people on them!

-- as I've made clear in one mod post in this thread and another mod post yesterday -- will henceforth be feeling the murderous wrath of my <Del> key.

I fail to rsee your logic here. You lecture me on how to debate and say it requires me not referring to eariler claims. The referrence you supply to support this contradicts your claim. Then you continue to reference an earlier message! Bizzare.

You have asked me not to go into the detail of earlier posts (why they have a "quote" system one might wonder) so i haven't. having handicapped by reference to the minutae earlier posts it still does not remove the fact that much of what has been said is opinion. I do not say "I have a different opinion" and look for a compromise. I say "other people have an opposing opiniopn based on these published reports about AIDS..." I then go on to point out how their opinion is valid and isn't open to compromise. Just like someone saying "burn all Catholics" . I don't think it is wise to get into a compromise where i can admit burning just a few is acceptable. If you are going to gag me for that then what can I say?

On the other side of the "discussion" are people (this had been pointed out earlier as well) who se no merit at all in any posts by people who criticise Dawkins. so how you expect a "synthesis" is beyond me.

ISAW

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

My guess is because ISAW is either fixated with being “right”, or rather, just enjoys a lengthy online discussion and the attention it brings.

My motivations are not the subject of the discussion here.

You just don't get it. If you had any modicum of understanding you'd know that the main points Fitzgerald brings up in his article, are points which have already been stated for many years by lots of people, and were addressed by Dawkins 4 years ago (and still are to this day even).

so you claim. And if you claimed the Earth was flat and the Sun went found it? But If someone came here and said that would you not say "really? Where is your evidence?" If ther are four yesrs of mounting evidence surely it would be easy to reference say ten of them and quote from them showing how they destroy and of Fitzgeralds arguments? But what do we get instead. Jots of posters chime in backpatting an opinion. They don't offer any references to this wealth of literature but they all (just as you have above) claim "we all know that..." . We don't! saying "lots of people disproved it" isnt showing anything! it is just more unsupported opinion

It is just as easy for me to say "lots of people didn't disprove it" . See?

Fitzgerald isn't really bringing anything new to the table (a trait shared by most of Dawkins' detractors).

Dawkings detractors and fitzgerald bring something new to the table all the time. See?
It is called "gainsaying."

I suspect he's just got an axe to grind and any article in the media on Dawkins is going to attract some attention.

I suspect he doesn't have an axe to grind and isn't really interested in media attention.

Incidentally, have you ever read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies? Worth a look.

Incidentelly have you ever read Bas Astronomy by Phill Platt ? Otr looked at the apologetic index reference to logical fallacies? worth a look.

Yet, fergalr neglected to include any citations or evidence.

He cited the original author . he covered the full article. He gave hi sopinion based on the actual words used by the original author.

How can you demand evidence from those who deem the article as tripe, yet when there is support for its merit, you make no such request?

I accept it is his opinion just as it is their opinion. the difference is her refers to the source material and others don't!

Don't bother answering. I've entertained your skirmish way too much.

do you make a habit of pretending to ask questions which are actually personal attacks implying double standards (which I don't have) and then running away?

snip personal attack accusing me of drug problems.

Take care ISAW. I think we have all been very generous with our time in keeping you entertained here but you're going to have to find a new source of mental stimulation. You won't be getting it from me anymore.

Please keep your threats or personal remarks to yourself. If you don't like what I say you may ignore me.

And cheers to MikeC101 for that in-depth point by point analysis. I read the original article and deemed it to be tripe; a diatribe of utter contempt and disdain for Dawkins and Atheism.

Your opinion to which you are entitled.

It doesn't merit being discussed in a fair and balanced way

How do you tell difference between your opinion then an a bigot's opinion?

Turtwig

Holy Mother, I'm sticking to the Christianity Forum Threads from now on.

King Mob

ISAW wrote: »

Incidentelly have you ever read Bas Astronomy by Phill Platt ?

You realise Phil Plait is an Atheist and a fan of Dawkins right?

ISAW wrote: »

Otr looked at the apologetic index reference to logical fallacies? worth a look.

Have you?
Cause there's a bunch of them in the article.

And you seem to have ignored the question I asked.
Do you actually even agree that the article is good?

robindch

ISAW wrote:

How do you tell difference between your opinion then an a bigot's opinion?

ISAW wrote: »

If people are going to waffle on without any reference to what came before it isn't a debate!

The only person waffling here is you.

Or was you, since you are now on a week's holiday for (a) ignoring three polite moderator requests to bring the debate forward and not constantly whinge about previous posts of yours and other posters and (b) suggesting that another poster might be a bigot.

Osgoodisgood

Why are we feeding Trolly McTrollster?

Ickle Magoo

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Why are we feeding Trolly McTrollster?

I object to the insinuation that it's a scottish troll! :mad:











:pac:

Waking-Dreams

My motivations are not the subject of the discussion here.

No, not the subject but they're playing their part.

But if someone came here and said that would you not say "really? Where is your evidence?" If there are four years of mounting evidence surely it would be easy to reference.

Sure it would, but I just couldn't rationlise giving that kind of time burglar my attention. I think that's what most of us have been stating here. Been there, debated that. We have better things to do. It's just you don't want to accept that. I think backing up concepts and ideas with evidence is very important but you picked a really bad case to defend on that basis.

People dismiss other people all the time because we only have a finite amount of time here on this earth, who the hell wants to look back and say: “I'm so glad I spent all those hours/weeks/years debating people who obviously had no clue about what they were talking about. They might have rejected my evidence and thrown it back at me, but it was worth it.”

Please keep your threats or personal remarks to yourself.

I really don't think I made any personal threats, as I agree with the forum rules but I'll accept my opinion came across as a personal attack. I just recognise in your behaviour a trait that I've seen in a lot of people who frequent internet forums. People easily get addicted to arguing on the Internet (look at how many times you've posted and quoted in this thread for starters) and I was just throwing it out there that you might be addicted to your struggle; your need to debate and engage with others because it pushes buttons inside your brain. Emotions are some of the most powerful chemicals out there. Have you ever met anyone who just always seemed to be talking about how life keeps throwing crap at them, like that was their sole identity? "Woe is me." What does that behaviour get from other people? It can sometimes get their attention, their sympathy, even guilt, over how their life is all sunshine in comparison. Interesting huh? There's always a secondary emotional pay-off from such negative behaviour, else people wouldn't do it in the first place.

Everyone here is going to walk away from this thread and forget about it in a few days. Somehow I think you'll be filing this one away, along with the others, and you'll be brooding over it fervently.

I just don't understand why you are so obsessive over people providing citations when all they are doing is giving their opinion (which as you just said today, they're entitled to do so). So, what's the issue? What were you trying to get from peope? It turned into a pretty big debate about evidence and referencing original authors being tantamount to stating a unfavourable opinion. Maybe we have you all wrong, and this was just a bit of a laugh and we played right into it.

I don't recall anyone saying their perception was fact. Just that they thought the article was tripe. If they arrived at that conclusion in ways you deem unfair, well, that's just something people do. Newspapers/journalists massage and manipulate people's opinions all the time.

Anyways, I think we can all retire from this thread now once and for all and let the dust settle. It was not my intention to cause offence.

The Mad Hatter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I object to the insinuation that it's a scottish troll! :mad:

Nah, that'd be Trolly MacTrollster.;)

Ickle Magoo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Nah, that'd be Trolly MacTrollster.;)

It could be either Mc or Mac from the gaelic.

It should have been Trolly O'Trollster!

Osgoodisgood

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I object to the insinuation that it's a scottish troll! :mad:

:pac:

But I didn't say he was Scottish did I? And i resent the implication that I did and furthermore where is your evidence for thinking that I thought that when you know that thinking that is just opinion which is different to facts. Or evidence. Or something. Really, you're just not trying to engage me in meaningful dialogue at all!

Trolaf Trollssen perhaps?

King Mob

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Trolaf Trollssen perhaps?

Yea nuts to the Scandinavians!

I hear they're all filthy atheist-communists!

Ickle Magoo

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

But I didn't say he was Scottish did I? And i resent the implication that I did and furthermore where is your evidence for thinking that I thought that when you know that thinking that is just opinion which is different to facts. Or evidence. Or something. Really, you're just not trying to engage me in meaningful dialogue at all!

Trolaf Trollssen perhaps?

Citation please!