The Four Horseman hold forth! Dawkins, Hitchen et al.

[gurrier]

Wow, a sky pixie worshipper vs a Randist.

It's like watching 2 people hitting each other with soft rubber hammers in a dark room...

 

[sleaterkinney]

The arguments are cheap and cynical, and they do not convince me. There are other people arguing for atheism who have a point. Dawkins, nor any of the other professional atheists on that video, have not.

Well give us an example then, have you actually read any of their books or writings?.

at least they put themselves up for criticism, which is more than most religions allow.

 

[8ball]

Are we having a hammer party?

Stop!













hammertime . . .

 

[kyser_soze]

Aldy is a sky pixie worshipper, and Gmart recently came out as a follower of Ayn Rand. It's like watching a debate about whether faeries are better than elves...

 

[8ball]

Elves.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Aldy is a sky pixie worshipper, and Gmart recently came out as a follower of Ayn Rand. It's like watching a debate about whether faeries are better than elves...

Elves help santa out, what do faeries do?

 

[8ball]

Teeth.

 

[gurrier]

Aldy is a sky pixie worshipper, and Gmart recently came out as a follower of Ayn Rand. It's like watching a debate about whether faeries are better than elves...

Ah. I thought somebody was calling me a follower of that loathsome harpy.

 

[Dillinger4]

Well you're obviously somebody who knows how to build a rigorous evidence-based argument. Your argument above is constructed from two dismissive adjectives, your own intellect as a universal yardstick for measuring the merit of arguments and a reference to some unspecified others with unspecified arguments (who I will wager do not exist).

Perhaps you might advance your case by outlining which others have a point and what their point is?

The God Delusion is just an extended diatribe and contains little, if any, actual science. What Dawkins proposes would get laughed out of most undergraduate philosophy classes.

Dawkins can only concieve of one idea of what God might be, which is a pretty weak and poor conception. He would do well to read just a little bit of theology to know that there are stronger arguments that he could not deal with in the same breezy manner. He only deals with one single concept of the Abrahamic God. What about all the other religions of the world? Can they be brushed off so easily?

Dawkins claims religion is a root of all evil, which is lazily wheeled out by people who do not really understand anything. Soviet Russia was an atheist regime, and killed millions of people. It was the Jews that were murdered in Auschwitz, not the other way around.

On top of this, Dawkins only seems to deal with Fundamental style religion, with what seems to be a Fundamental style of his own. There are many shades of religion, theology, and concepts of God that he doesn't even gloss over, but misses completely.

IMO, he does present the weakest arguments for religion/theology/god to argue against, and that is poor form, for a Scientist.

I think its a good thing that Dawkins stands up to bullshit religionists eg Creationism or whatever. But that doesn't mean I agree with him, like so many people do so easily.

People all to easily accept Dawkins arguments without any critical awareness.

 

[butchersapron]

Ah. I thought somebody was calling me a follower of that loathsome harpy.

Mohammed?

 

[8ball]

Dawkins claims religion is a root of all evil, which is lazily wheeled out by people who do not really understand anything. Soviet Russia was an atheist regime, and killed millions of people. It was the Jews that were murdered in Auschwitz, not the other way around.

The rest of your points are dubious enough but this bit is just total cack - he never claims religion to be the root of all evil in any of his books (the name of the show he did was an editorial decision by the production company), and he concedes the stuff about atheists not necessarily being all fluffy and lovely in the book.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The God Delusion is just an extended diatribe and contains little, if any, actual science. What Dawkins proposes would get laughed out of most undergraduate philosophy classes.

Dawkins can only concieve of one idea of what God might be, which is a pretty weak and poor conception. He would do well to read just a little bit of theology to know that there are stronger arguments that he could not deal with in the same breezy manner. He only deals with one single concept of the Abrahamic God. What about all the other religions of the world? Can they be brushed off so easily?

Actually he doesn't in the book, you haven't read it have you?

Dawkins claims religion is a root of all evil, which is lazily wheeled out by people who do not really understand anything. Soviet Russia was an atheist regime, and killed millions of people. It was the Jews that were murdered in Auschwitz, not the other way around.

He presented a tv programme which had the title the root of all evil? and has stated the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous

 

[Dillinger4]

I am sorry if I get it wrong here, I am writing essays at the same time. My mind is not completely on this.

My point is that I think to many people accept Dawkins and his arguments with barely any use of their critical faculties, and et outraged when somebody tries to criticize him, which smacks of just another kind of fundementalist thought.

My arguments might be shit. But at least I am trying to engage critically with it.

 

[8ball]

My point is that I think to many people accept Dawkins and his arguments with barely any use of their critical faculties, and et outraged when somebody tries to criticize him, which smacks of just another kind of fundementalist thought.

I've heard this said but not seen it happen - at least not on these boards.

I'm a bit critical of his style of presentation sometimes but I think he's actually mellowing slowly - I've seen him argue face-to-face with some religious types and he's often respectful of them personally, even though he has no time for their ideas.

Can't stand Hitchens, though - there's somethine about him that gets my back up.

 

[Dillinger4]

Like I said earlier, out of those four its actually Dennet that seems to irritate me the most. But thats more general, really. I agree about Hitchens as well.

I don't know. There is just something about all of them that I find intensely smug and irritating.

 

[Belushi]

Can't stand Hitchens, though - there's somethine about him that gets my back up.

Both he and his brother are barking mad.

 

[butchersapron]

I've heard this said but not seen it happen - at least not on these boards.

I'm a bit critical of his style of presentation sometimes but I think he's actually mellowing slowly - I've seen him argue face-to-face with some religious types and he's often respectful of them personally, even though he has no time for their ideas.

Yes i've seen this many times. He's personally respectful but intellectually scornful, which i think is how it should be. But if you're on the other side i can see how it might appear differently. But that's not his problem frankly.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Dawkins may be a lot of things, but he was never a vocal public cheerleader for the war and an enthusiastic spreader of neo-con propaganda.

 

[8ball]

Dawkins may be a lot of things, but he was never a vocal public cheerleader for the war and an enthusiastic spreader of neo-con propaganda.

Ah, it all comes flooding back . . . cheers.

 

[Dillinger4]

Yes i've seen this many times. He's personally respectful but intellectually scornful, which i think is how it should be. But if you're on the other side i can see how it might appear differently. But that's not his problem frankly.

I agree with that.

 

[gurrier]

The God Delusion is just an extended diatribe and contains little, if any, actual science. What Dawkins proposes would get laughed out of most undergraduate philosophy classes.

Can you describe the experiment (the actual science) which might provide us with evidence that you would accept on the matter. If his arguments would get laughed out of any undergraduate philosophy class, then you should find them easy to disprove.

Dawkins can only concieve of one idea of what God might be, which is a pretty weak and poor conception. He would do well to read just a little bit of theology to know that there are stronger arguments that he could not deal with in the same breezy manner. He only deals with one single concept of the Abrahamic God. What about all the other religions of the world? Can they be brushed off so easily?

That's actually just wrong. He does indeed deal primarily with the major mono-theistic faiths, but many of his arguments (e.g. the anthropocentric fallacy) are addressed towards the very idea of supernatural entities, of any shape or form.

Dawkins claims religion is a root of all evil, which is lazily wheeled out by people who do not really understand anything. Soviet Russia was an atheist regime, and killed millions of people. It was the Jews that were murdered in Auschwitz, not the other way around.

That is true, I think, to a very limited extent. However, it is absolutely irrelevant to the central point - is he right about god being a delusion?

On top of this, Dawkins only seems to deal with Fundamental style religion, with what seems to be a Fundamental style of his own. There are many shades of religion, theology, and concepts of God that he doesn't even gloss over, but misses completely.

Totally, 100% wrong I'm afraid. His most basic (and scientifically strongest) arguments deal with all supernatural entities. To put it simply, if we have no evidence for something's existence, we assume it does not exist.

IMO, he does present the weakest arguments for religion/theology/god to argue against, and that is poor form, for a Scientist.

So, once again, what are the strongest points that he misses (or are you, as I suspect, a sky-pixie believer who doesn't agree with him at all?)

People all to easily accept Dawkins arguments without any critical awareness.

ORLY? You think that loads of people, who have been indoctrinated into religion from the cradle, simply abandon all their beliefs in the supernatural as soon as they encounter Dawkins arguments, without event thinking about it?

Where are these people, I have some Mars-related real estate future-options to offer them.

 

[Dillinger4]

Believing in Dawkins is almost a kind of religion.

I am not a 'sky-pixie' believer.

I have stuff to do. I will come back to this later this evening when I have time.

But as for this

ORLY? You think that loads of people, who have been indoctrinated into religion from the cradle, simply abandon all their beliefs in the supernatural as soon as they encounter Dawkins arguments, without event thinking about it?

You clearly don't understand the reasons why people might choose to believe in God. Its not all indoctrination, IMO.

The only people who have a God Delusion are the ones who are accepting everything in the God Delusion as truth.

Its not the bible, and none of you should be treating it that way.

 

[Belushi]

I haven't read the book, but the hysterical reaction of some superstitious types to Dawkins convinces me he must be on to something

 

[gurrier]

You clearly don't understand the reasons why people might choose to believe in God. Its not all indoctrination, IMO.

I didn't say anything is "all indoctrination". I merely pointed out that the vast majority of the population are indoctrinated in religious beliefs from the cradle and that your claim that large numbers of people believe everything that Dawkins says without even thinking about it is thus, not exactly credible, to put it mildly.

The only people who have a God Delusion are the ones who are accepting everything in the God Delusion as truth.

Your evidence free assertion is made even weaker by the fact that there is no evidence that such people actually exist. Can you show me anybody, anywhere who accepts everything in the God Delusion as truth?

Its not the bible, and none of you should be treating it that way.

You're the only person who I've ever come across who seems to be doing so.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I didn't say anything is "all indoctrination". I merely pointed out that the vast majority of the population are indoctrinated in religious beliefs from the cradle

Well the indoctrination clearly doesn't seem to be very successful. And how could it be, given that people worship money, not god.

 

[Jonti]

It was given to me as a gift, and I dutifully set about reading it. He is very thorough, and even dealt with my own objection to having to read the tome (which was like "oh, puhleeze, I know this shit already").

Yes, he uses the traditional (because devastating) argument that if we have no evidence for something's existence, we may as well assume it does not exist. But he goes further, asking how anything worthy of the appellation "God" can have created the universe and all the things in it, unless that thingy is at least as structured as life, the universe and everything.

The God-hypothesis cannot explain the structured complexity of the world, he says, unless "God" is at least as structured as his works. So the God-hypothesis gets you nowhere. On the other hand, the scientific idea of evolution does account for the development of stuctured complexity from amorphous chaos over the aeons.

That's Dawkin's position in a nutshell; why he says science actively disproves the existence of God.

It is indeed unfortunate that few philosophers have grasped the importance of the idea of evolution, which (to put it in philosophical terms) can conjure informed structure* out of meaningless chaos.

* in the sense of structures whose internal form usefully reflects the world they inhabit

 

[gurrier]

It is indeed unfortunate that few philosophers have grasped the importance of the idea of evolution, which (to put it in philosophical terms) can conjure informed structure* out of meaningless chaos.

Indeed. It always strikes me as amusing that, for example, the catholic church and the mainstream christian denominations claim to accept evolution. It's as if they really don't understand that evolution has erased all supernatural elements from the history of the universe. At least the intelligent design folk and the creationists get the logical implication of natural selection and have the sense to fight against it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So all those books and videos simply repeat "there is no god" for hundreds of pages and don't contain any actual arguments?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed any such thing.

Probably because I haven't.

The fact that Dawkins' opponents on this thread either:
a) use pure ad-hominems
b) use completely wrong claims about his arguments and expertise
or
c) very, very poor attempts at religious-poetic mystification (albedaran)

shows that he's got a very good argument...

You're making assumptions.
It could show that his "opponents" are not very good at arguing.

...that is very, very hard to argue against on its own, logical, level.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but I have read some of his papers and books, and the singular reason that the above is true (and it is) is that religion, by it's very nature, is not something amenable to logic, it's all about belief and faith. Dawkins knows this, indeed it forms part of his argument against religion. Where he and other atheists occasionally miss the point is that some people, however vast or tiny their intellect, feel a need to believe, to have faith in a force greater than themselves. Me, I'm happy to leave them to it as long as they don't bother me, whereas Mr Dawkins wishes to disabuse people of their delusions.
My worry is that without the emotional emolient of religion as a "comfort zone", some people might become as aggressive and argumentative as Dawkins.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Aldy is a sky pixie worshipper, and Gmart recently came out as a follower of Ayn Rand. It's like watching a debate about whether faeries are better than elves...

If only that woman had changed her surname to "All", the world might have been a better place.

 

[kyser_soze]

My worry is that without the emotional emolient of religion as a "comfort zone", some people might become as aggressive and argumentative as Dawkins.

In fairness, many people in that 'comfort zone' are far more aggressive and argumentative (not to mention bigoted, homophobic and sexist) than Mr Dawkins...