The Dawkins delusion...

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, Gian said:

Dawkins is one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in

No, Dawkins needs god in order to discredit those who don't believe what he does, basically the antipode of that sentence.

Edited June 15 by dimreepr

[Gian]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

What does that mean? Is it that Dawkins is in some way an extreme sceptic, who is always on the hunt for things to disbelieve? Do you have evidence he is like that?  Or is it just an attempt at a cheap aphorism?    

Ciao, love and kisses.

 

It means the definition of religion in his God Delusion book really is a delusion, because that's not what religious people believe. The definition of God he puts there is just so many groundless assertions. 
It's a bit like if I wrote a book called The Science Delusion all about how stupid Dawky and other scientists are for believing the Earth is flat.

But they don't believe the Earth is flat, so such a book would be a pointless imposture.

That's why when I asked him about it, a clergyman friend of my mum and dad's said "We aren't particularly worried about Professor Dawkins."

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

[dimreepr]

31 minutes ago, Gian said:

It means the definition of religion in his God Delusion book really is a delusion, because that's not what religious people believe. The definition of God he puts there is just so many groundless assertions. 
It's a bit like if I wrote a book called The Science Delusion all about how stupid Dawky and other scientists are for believing the Earth is flat.

But they don't believe the Earth is flat, so such a book would be a pointless imposture.

That's why when I asked him about it, a clergyman friend of my mum and dad's said "We aren't particularly worried about Professor Dawkins."

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

Again no, there's a level of truth in his god delusion book, but that doesn't match the reality of religion in it's entirety; for instance, no one 'serious' believes God wrote the bible, Jesus or Mohamed or etc did and they employed a god as a defacto meme, to explain the why on many different levels...

Dawkins mistake is, only asking why once...

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, Gian said:

It means the definition of religion in his God Delusion book really is a delusion, because that's not what religious people believe. The definition of God he puts there is just so many groundless assertions. 
It's a bit like if I wrote a book called The Science Delusion all about how stupid Dawky and other scientists are for believing the Earth is flat.

But they don't believe the Earth is flat, so such a book would be a pointless imposture.

That's why when I asked him about it, a clergyman friend of my mum and dad's said "We aren't particularly worried about Professor Dawkins."

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

OK but that’s rather different: what you now seem to be saying is that Dawkins needs a caricature of what religious people believe, in order to be able to disbelieve in that, rather than in what religions actually teach.
 

Actually I’m to a large extent with you on that. My mother, who was a committed and thoughtful Anglican, always found Dawkins rather funny: “like Mr Punch, with a bladder on a stick”, she used to say. I certainly found his original style of critique superficial. He seemed to me to treat religion as providing an alternative account of the physical world, in confrontation with science, instead of recognising that religion is fundamentally about providing people with a guide to help them live their lives. Of course he’s dead right to ridicule creationism, which idiotically does attempt to deny the findings of science, but creationism is a distinctly minority pursuit, theologically (to put it politely).

But though I don’t pretend to have followed the evolution of his views in any detail, my impression is that he has softened his tone and become a bit more nuanced in recent years. 

 

[dimreepr]

The question becomes, how many levels of why does it take for the truth to become real?

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The question becomes, how many levels of why does it take for the truth to become real?

For an atheist, none. The atheist lives in the here and now and does not ask transcendental questions.,

 

 

Edited June 15 by Sensei

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Sensei said:

For an atheist, none. 

Really!!! So all athiest's accept the first level of why?

That takes an awful lot of faith in the answer, that's more religious than scientific.

15 hours ago, Sensei said:

The atheist lives in the here and now and does not ask transcendental questions.,

Again that's more religious than scientific.

 

Quote

“if a person wishes to achieve peace of mind and happiness then they should acquire faith, but if they want to be a disciple of truth, which can be "frightening and ugly,” then they need to
search.” ― Nietzsche, Friedrich

Quote

Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron

 

[exchemist]

36 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Dimreepr:

Dawkins is wrong because his entire premise: "God, almost certainly does not exist," because it's "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence" is wrong.

 

Evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah God is revealed in the creations around us and our fine-tuned universe.  Dawkins has not presented any "strong contradictory evidence" that says otherwise.  He is simply spouting his personal philosophy.

 

"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20)

 

 

Alter2Ego

 

 

You seem to be a hopeless case. It's hard to credit how stupid it is to quote religious scripture as evidence of the truth of the religion in question. Self-referential or what?  

[Bufofrog]

33 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah God is revealed in the creations around us and our fine-tuned universe

It seems to me that our 'fine-tuned universe' is actually not conducive to life at all.  So much so that there is only a thin shell around a single planet where life has managed to hold on as far as we know.  There are over 5000 exoplanets that have been discovered and the overwhelming majority of them could not harbor life and most probably none of them contain life.  Life on earth appears to be a lucky fluke.

 

 

[Night FM]

On 4/24/2024 at 6:08 AM, dimreepr said:

Who thinks he's right and why.

I have not read the book, though I vaguely recall there being a documentary, and, from what little I'm aware of it, I believe it is very misinformed, to the point of almost seeming intentionally so, at least to me. I believe that most what what he attributes to "religion" is reducible to human psychology, and would be just as prevalent in the domain of secular beliefs and ideologies, such as political ideologies (such as how a fanatical adherent to Communism, or, for that matter, Scientism would rigidly adhere to it no matter what evidence was offered to the contrary).

There is a book called Superforecasting by Phillip Tetlock which points out that ideological fantatics, regardless of their specific ideology (e.x. capitalism, socialism, etc) tend to make inaccurate predictions about future events, as being stuck in an ideological filter limits their perception of reality.

My perception is that it's common to attribute negative human behaviors, such as fanatical adherence to something in this case (whether it be a religion or a sports team) specifically to those viewed as ideological opponents, while ignoring virtually identical behaviors on the part of those one views as their allies (such as the fanatical devotion to the "New Atheism" fad of the early 2000s, and how many of its adherants seem to fit the same demographic as the "incel" demographic).

I'll also add that Dawkins may have been biased as an evolutionary biologist due to opposition to evolution from religious people. However, I don't believe that all opposition to evolution is based merely on opposition to evolutionary biology itself, but that much of it may be related to inferences, incorrect or not, which people may derive from evolution.

For example, the Nazis used evolution to advocate racism and fascism or social Darwinism, and others have bastardized evolutionary concepts, such as Dawkins' "The selfish gene" to advocate immorality, (despite it not even being accurate to Dawkins' work to begin with).

Likewise, strong atheists may use evolution to argue affirmatively that there is no God, despite evolution not negating the possibility of a God, and this simply being another aspect of the materialist paradigm.

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[Eise]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

allies (such as the fanatical devotion to the "New Atheism" fad of the early 2000s, and how many of its adherants seem to fit the same demographic as the "incel" demographic).

What? Prove that with some better known examples. At least I know that e.g. Daniel Dennett was happily married. 

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

There is a book called Superforecasting by Phillip Tetlock which points out that ideological fantatics, regardless of their specific ideology (e.x. capitalism, socialism, religion,etc) tend to make inaccurate predictions about future events, as being stuck in an ideological filter limits their perception of reality.

Added that for you. Extreme example is Jehovahs. They project the last day a few years in the future, and they do that for ages. Obviously they are not aware that Jesus predicted that the apocalypse would soon happen, possibly already in his own lifetime, but at least the younger ones under his followers.

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'll also add that Dawkins may have been biased as an evolutionary biologist due to opposition to evolution from religious people.

You mean biased by facts, by confirmed theories? And yes, in the beginning he refused to discuss creationists, because that would mean taking them seriously. But the more education was poisoned by creationists, the more radical Dawkins became. 

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

For example, the Nazis used evolution to advocate racism and fascism or social Darwinism

Yep, that happened, it is a black chapter in the history of the cultural impact of evolution theory. But it doesn't follow from evolution theory. In fact, it is an example of the so called naturalistic fallacy. As you can plainly see, in general (with awful exceptions) we do not kill 'lesser human life forms': we try to help and/or heal them.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

You mean biased by facts, by confirmed theories? And yes, in the beginning he refused to discuss creationists, because that would mean taking them seriously. But the more education was poisoned by creationists, the more radical Dawkins became. 

That's what I mean, he assumed that knowledge is better than ignorance; I'm not saying willful ignorance has any value BTW.

But, god did it is just as viable an answer in science, when exploring the nebulous nature of nature, as it is in the nebulous nature of people.

Education is like oxygen, in that it is a dose dependant poison; get too much and you end up thinking about an ever increasing circle of knowledge, until we're thinking about nothing important; get to little and all you think about is, what's important; like that guy with the wax wing's and his hieght fixation.

 

Edited August 29 by dimreepr

[npts2020]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:28 AM, dimreepr said:

But, god did it is just as viable an answer in science

Until you prove the existence of god, I don't see how this would ever be true. AFAIK science is supposed to be based on the best available evidence, can you give any examples of "god did it" being that best evidence?

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Until you prove the existence of god, I don't see how this would ever be true. AFAIK science is supposed to be based on the best available evidence, can you give any examples of "god did it" being that best evidence?

Why do I need to prove the existence of something, in order to say "I don't know, yet"?

Science, as far as I know, is not the only source of information available to you (history, for instance); besides, science never said "god didn't do it" they just question it's attendance, since it isn't answering it's email's, ATM... 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why do I need to prove the existence of something, in order to say "I don't know, yet"?

Science, as far as I know, is not the only source of information available to you (history, for instance); besides, science never said "god didn't do it" they just question it's attendance, since it isn't answering it's email's, ATM... 

You didn’t say “I don’t know, yet”

You said god did it.

If your view is that the mind/intentions of god are unknowable, then it’s game over - no further investigation will reveal anything. Which is the antithesis of science. 

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

You didn’t say “I don’t know, yet”

You said god did it.

If your view is that the mind/intentions of god are unknowable, then it’s game over - no further investigation will reveal anything. Which is the antithesis of science. 

 

No, I said "you may as well say god did it", besides this is tangential to my point, which is that god is the delusion, for both side's of the argument.

I feel that it's important to reiterate some facts about me, I'm a practising atheist and IFLS.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I said "you may as well say god did it", besides this is tangential to my point, which is that god is the delusion, for both side's of the argument.

It would be a distinction without a difference to the point I made, had you said that, but what you actually said was “god did it is just as viable an answer in science” which is crap. 

Your religious affiliation or lack thereof is utterly inconsequential to this point.

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I said "you may as well say god did it", besides this is tangential to my point, which is that god is the delusion, for both side's of the argument.

I feel that it's important to reiterate some facts about me, I'm a practising atheist and IFLS.

The first law of holes

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

It would be a distinction without a difference to the point I made, had you said that, but what you actually said was “god did it is just as viable an answer in science” which is crap.

Is it tho, some answer's may never be revealed or resolved, even by science; but to say you're wrong bc I know better, while in a state of non-understanding, seems deluded.

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

The first law of holes

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

What's the second law of holes?

Keep digging, the metal-detector went beep?

[Luc Turpin]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it tho, some answer's may never be revealed or resolved, even by science; but to say you're wrong bc I know better, while in a state of non-understanding, seems deluded.

I agree with the above indicated statement. Humility is good. So is pausing and taking a step back to take in the view.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

I agree with the above indicated statement. Humility is good. So is pausing and taking a step back to take in the view.

That doesn't mean you're free to spout bollox...

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it tho,

Yes. 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

some answer's may never be revealed or resolved, even by science; but to say you're wrong bc I know better, while in a state of non-understanding, seems deluded.

And where did I (or anyone) say that? 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Yes. 

And where did I (or anyone) say that? 

Well, Dawkins did.

[Luc Turpin]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't mean you're free to spout bollox...

No bollox there.

Humility and taking a step back have been required on your part, intended or not, to arrive at your statement.

Not many do that.

and still agree with your statement

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, Dawkins did.

So this is moot, since Dawkins is not participating in this particular exchange.