How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like?
well I just wish someone would post what they believe to be a particular scientific flaw in one of his statements. (and he has made millions of them out there in youtube land)
Unless someone speaks to the detail, you could substitute either "Hitler" or "Mother Theresa" for Dawkins in most of the above generalised criticisms - it would be as meaningful
How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like?
there is no evidence for god.
why?The claim "there is no evidence for God" is so subjective as to be meaningless.
What constitutes evidence for one person is discounted by the next. (??)
A fascinating discussion on internet infidels (??)
revealed that even in the event a person observed a phenomenon that they had previously stated could count as evidence that it might be simply the case that an alien civilization with technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic had played on a trick on the person.
1. I'm not trained in biology so can't comment on his science. -
2. ... Rather than requesting others criticise his ideas in detail, why not put on an objector's hat for awhile and really start to rigorously analyse his worldview claims yourself to see if you can disprove them (Assuming you haven't already).
3. I would say that if you are fair-minded and reasonable you will quickly see issues with much of his rantings about faith and religion.
4. However, that also discloses my prejudice that a fair and reasonable person could agree with (much of) Dawkins' science without affirming his meta-narrative. The key is in distinguishing logic from science. Science is dependent on logic, not vice-versa.
why?
"there is no evidence for god" means that "there is no (tangible) evidence for god" surely.
now if you'd said :-
"the claim that splitting hairs doesn't advance an argument has merit"
then I'd agree with you.
1. ok I accept your admission on this score - hardly helps you in your right to criticise him surely
2. I already have - and I have no problems here.
3. Lemme get this straight - you cant fault him (specifically) - but I should quickly be able to find faults ??
4. meta narrative - whatever
I'll go for the group comfort and hope bit, but wonder about the "repentance" part. And, sorry, but - although I readily accept that religion may provide some individuals with a sense of comfort or hope, I just can't see that religion has successfully provided society in general with much in the way of either hope or comfort.I
Group comfort, hope and repentance are necessary for stability and order among humans and this is the vital role religion plays.
why are you responding - ?Find two materialists who agree on what constitutes tangible evidence for "the existence of a god" and then ask them how they would respond if actually confronted with that evidence.
In practice people disagree on just what constitutes tangible evidence for the existence of a god. One person means "if I pray and my amputated leg grows back I will believe there is a god". The next person will settle for nothing less than the eradication of war overnight. Someone else would require flaming letters in the sky saying "I exist". In each case what one person will accept as evidence will be discounted by the next skeptical person who requires a different standard of evidence.
To make the claim "there is no evidence for a god" really means something like "I have found no evidence to satisfy me" which is a very different thing to whether or not there actually is tangible evidence pointing to the existence of any god.
On the internet infidels forum there was some fascinating discussion about this point which actually demonstrated that people mean very different things when they say "there is no evidence for a god". Most people came to the conclusion that even faced with evidence they had previously stated would be acceptable to them, they would still disbelieve because it would not actually prove a god existed but only that something weird had occurred. This is why the statement "there is no evidence for God" is really meaningless.
On 1 and 3 you seem to be saying that because I'm not qualified to comment on his science that I'm not qualified to comment on his philosophy. I can fault him very specifically on the way he employs his beliefs (as opposed to his science) to discount other worldviews. That is very different to being unable to comment on the actual science he studies.
About 4....is it okay if Dawkins uses big words but I can't?
EDIT: And why the hell am I responding again?
I'll go for the group comfort and hope bit, but wonder about the "repentance" part. And, sorry, but - although I readily accept that religion may provide some individuals with a sense of comfort or hope, I just can't see that religion has successfully provided society in general with much in the way of either hope or comfort.
I just can't see
and I know I’m a speck and my sparkplug must age
and I give my respect - and I smile at this page.
speaking of chasing - you outta see my dog when she sees a possum -poem Cuts to the chase.
PS thought for the day ( just flashed through my grey matter)
ask not "what would Jesus have done?"
ask instead ..... "what would Steve Irwin have done"
sorry to preach m8 - i realise in your case it's preaching to the converted
If you are good (ie, do as we say) you go to Heaven, if you are bad, you go to Hell. Manipulation and control. People are generally afraid of dying, so what better way of influencing them by making up a story about St Peter at the Pearly Gates, or an oasis filled with 200 virgins. Even Hinduism/Buddhism use reincarnation as a tool of manipulation. If you develop good Karma you come back as a superiour whatever. So, be good now, or you will be punished in the afterlife. Animism is quite interesting in their beliefs but mostly link back to the same thing. Be good now, or you will be punished.Off the subject again
But why do religions have an afterlife as a central tenement (?) to their faith?
2020:-I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature (i.e. better than other religions that is) - and Dawkins, believe it or not, has strong ideas there as well (as he does on most important moral questions
And of course on absolutely no grounds should they criticize another church from their own pulpit - in fact under no grounds should they criticize anybody surely . They must accept that the other church has every right to exist. Maybe then they'd avoid the criticism about starting fights and wars and stuff.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?