• In total there are 10 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 10 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Richard Dawkins: Person of the Year 2006 - as per BBC

#35: Jan. - Mar. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

--

Unread post

I'm afraid that excuse won't work for Dawkins Gas. First of all, he is very clear about the fact that the arguments he presents are supposed to apply to all religions that involve the God hypothesis. He sets it up as a rebuttal to ALL philosophical and theological arguments.Now if you're going to do that, then you have a duty to do some research.Second, just because you're writing for a lay audience doesn't mean that you bend the facts. I mean, it's wrong to say that evolution claims men evolved from monkeys regardless of whether you're addressing a lay audience or a gathering of biologists. Talking about a complicated and difficult subject doesn't excuse you from doing your research and presenting the facts correctly.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: --

Unread post

I am saying that there is no need for god or religion for morality/ethics to be. Period. I would prefer we all base our system on something that is not total myth though...like the realization that we are all beings and in this together.Thats all. I am happy with your first statement...that morality is made up. If more theists would just admit that their god is also just made up, and stop killing in the name of and expecting people to accept, respect and fall in line with their faith and its requisite make-believe god, I would be less vocal...and so would people like Dawkins and Harris and Dennett.Quote:I'm an atheist when it comes to the vast majority of religionsI love Dawkins' extension of this...I just chose to go one god more!Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Saint Gasoline

Re: --

Unread post

Quote:I'm an atheist when it comes to the vast majority of religions, but I can recognise the difference between sophisticated religions and conceptions of God and simple versions. It's just plain lazy and greedy to suggest that there's no difference between believing in some sort of superman and traditional conceptions of God within the western tradition.The thing is, Niall, that the "sophisticated" versions are just as problematic. You try to argue that the God of Eagleton and Catholicism is not the God addressed by Dawkins, but I think you are quite wrong. Eagleton, for instance, tries to criticize Dawkins by saying he conceives of God as a "chap". Now, God certainly does conceive of God as a "person" in the sense that he can think and feel and love (Eagleton and Catholics attribute these characteristics to God). But Dawkins doesn't argue that God is literally a physical man of some sort.As I've shown earlier, Eagleton's only argument for the EXISTENCE of God is the contingency argument, which basically asserts that because everything in the universe is contingent, there must exist something necessary, and that is what we call God.The problem, of course, is that if this argument WERE true, all it would establish about this "thing" in question is that it necessarily exists. We couldn't also attribute characteristics to it like personhood, the abilities to think, feel, and love, and so on. And THIS is why the sophisticated versions are just as silly. They use sophisticated proofs to "prove" the existence of things that are not capable of thought, feeling, love, or whatever (in short, things that we wouldn't normally call "gods"). And then they apply these characteristics to these concepts without any warranted reason.As an atheist, I do not necessarily disbelieve in a logical foundation for existence, this wouldn't be something I'd feel comfortable calling a "god" unless it were also sentient in some way, or "supernatural", or an object of worship in a religion. Of course, this is not something supernatural, nor is it sentient, nor is it something that people worship. People worship gods that are like "chaps"--even Eagleton's god is a "chap"...an immaterial chap to be sure, but a chap all the same. Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: --

Unread post

Are we to call you "Gas" or "Saint" for short? I'm in bed typing on my laptop making all sorts of noise while my fiance tries to sleep, so this post will have to be brief. I just read every post in this thread and have a few quick comments. Besides, I am tired to the point where I'm not sure this post will make a whole lot of sense.1. Fiske, I got your email about stepping down as discussion leader. I'll delete your name and try to find someone to take the lead. I have to say that I am really struggling to believe you're an atheist after reading plenty of your comments in this thread and many of the others. If you're truly an atheist you'll be a new kind I'm not familiar with...which is not necessarily a bad thing. As I start posting in the other God Delusion threads I'll get more into this observation of mine. I'm perplexed how you can have so many negative things to say about Richard Dawkins and virtually nothing positive. What would you say is the nature of your atheism? What led you to become an atheist? It must be something very different than what led Dawkins or even myself down that path.2. Saint, your posts are very much in line with how I feel about Dawkins. I'm going to start posting in the other threads when I'm not making so much noise in be, so bare with the lack of real content here. I just want it known that I personally am impressed with your reasoning and communication skills. Remind me to add a link to your site some time soon too.3. Niall, you always impress me. Rarely are you so one-sided as to not give credit where credit is due. Granted, you disagree with Dawkins on many different levels, but you at least are giving him some level of respect it seems. And I sometimes find myself laughing at your posts as you make some good points. 4. Nick, I agree with every damn word you say. We have a lot in common it seems.5. Dissident, I find myself having to skim over your posts or else fall asleep. Liberation Theology might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but this doesn't change the fact that billions of people are believing in non-existent magical beings, and a great many of these people are ready, willing and able to fight you or I because we don't adhere to the same fucked up beliefs. And this is the core of Dawkins book. He is disgusted by the evils and dangers of believing in anything without evidence. No need to dissect each sophisticated belief down to know that the foundation of the belief is a big fat delusion. Nick said is better in one of his above posts. And Dawkins said it best in response to a lady in the audience of a talk he gave who asked something about God being a female instead of a male. Dawkins replied that he doesn't much care if we are talking about a non-existent male God or a non-existent female God. Who really cares?
Saint Gasoline

Re: --

Unread post

Chris, I believe that Fiske is truly an atheist, and I think that the differences between us are more matters of mannerisms than our respective beliefs concerning the nonexistence of God. Fiske is what I'd like to call an "elitist" atheist. He thinks that "mainstream", "simplified" atheism in the form that Dawkins brings to the masses is a bad thing, because it can reflect badly upon atheists, and I think this is partly why he criticizes the book so vehemently. The other reason seems to be a personal one. He has remarked to me that he has theistic friends whom he deeply values, so he is more prone to see mockery of religion as offensive for this reason.I don't doubt his sincerity in claiming to be an atheist, but the tension arises because most of us have entirely different views concerning Dawkins' portrayal of atheism as well as his tone towards religious believers. I happen to think his simplification of atheism and his presentation of it to a mass audience is a very good thing, not necessarily because it is an air-tight case for atheism, but because it gets the view out there in the public realm, making it a viable viewpoint. And in a world where atheists are among the least respected people on Earth, I think this is a vitally important task.What Fiske dislikes is the potential that Dawkins has provided for making atheists appear superficial, simplistic, and rude. Of course, I do not understand his love for Eagleton's review, considering the fact that it was just as superficial and rude as The God Delusion, but that's another story altogether.I think that important thing is that most of us do not disagree on the facts of the matter. We can all agree that The God Delusion is rather simplistic, and at times poorly-researched. We part ways in our explanation and reaction to these facts. They don't bother me because I see the Dawkins' value as a consciousness-raiser, and not necessarily a master-arguer for atheism. It also doesn't bother me because this book isn't written for those who have studied theology and the philosophy of religion. (There's always Michael Martin, Hume, and Mackie for that.)And for anyone who doubts Dawkins' ability to make atheism a subject of debate and discussion, just look at the uproar it has caused--not only in this community, but out there in the real world, too. We were discussing this book before it even came out, for crying out loud! And that, my friends, is a good thing for atheism. Fiske is right that Dawkins' portrayal can be simplistic--but that just makes a great segue for deeper discussions of these issues, from closer examinations of the arguments for God's existence to an analysis of morality and religion. The value of Dawkins' book is in the discussion it can provoke on the topic, and the exposure it can make for viewpoints that express freethinking.Oh, and Chris, call me SG for short. I will not respond to "saint" because I am the furthest thing from one, and while I most certainly do have a digestive problem that would make the name "gas" fitting, I don't really want to make that fact known public. So SG it is! Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: --

Unread post

I just want to say that, although I am very agressive sometimes, that I respect Niall and Dissident and their contributions here. I feel they are honest about what they feel yet not overly POMPOUS about it. Strong and opinionated yes, but I see nothing wrong with that.St. Gas, although he may also disagree with my tactics, is also someone I respect.I am a frustrated person and I know I need to tone down a bit...but this is how I grew up. I do try, but unabashed 'holier than thou' attitudes piss me off...and I will not hesitate to call the bastards out, theist or atheist alike.As for making an attempt to learn what others say I (and others) are 'missing' in our understanding of religion, I tried looking over some theology books at the bookstore...trying to make some initial effort...but reading the blurbs about how MORE logical it is to believe in god than not...I tell ya, I was slamming books back onto the shelf and growling! lolI will be reading the Ehrman book in the future. It looks good.Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 1/22/07 10:27 am
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: --

Unread post

Chris: Dissident, I find myself having to skim over your posts or else fall asleep.Slumber works for you Chris...at least where Religion is concerned. It helps you avoid learning anything about the subject.
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: --

Unread post

And useless, hippy, toking, hug-the-world, mile-long sermons work for you DH. It helps you avoid saying anything concrete or significant.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: --

Unread post

irish: And useless, hippy, toking, hug-the-world, mile-long sermons work for you DH. It helps you avoid saying anything concrete or significant.I don't toke, wear my hair fairly conservatively, and think my sermons are actually quite short. But, imagine that, discussing religion and, whaddaya know, sermons sometimes show up! Perhaps if you exhibited any sign of attending, studying, reading, discussing the subject you might have expected that.Frankly irish, you've already admitted that this is a subject you're not interested in studying: but are passionate in deriding. This is the epitome of prejudice. Is that concrete enough?
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: --

Unread post

Come on guys...leave the angst to me. I accept my role and quite frankly, I resent anyone else getting bitchy around here.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Post Reply

Return to “The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins”