Why do many people here hate Richard Dawkins?

[Skeptic Ginger]

If/when you start out with the right version of the theists' position, perhaps there will be more to comment on. ...

Is there such a thing as the theists' position?

If you are trying to say I'm not taking the Gould/Deist/Wm Lane Craig argument that gods are outside of space and time into account, you're right. It's not an argument I care about.

 

[Joey McGee]

I've read most of his works, and found them to be rather below par--the more academic ones simply aren't that earth-shaking (Dibblee and de Vrise did more to advance our understanding of evolution than Dawkins has, and I'll bet 90% of you don't know who they are), and the more public ones pale in comparison with such authors as Sagan, Ward, and even Alvarez (T. rex. and the Crator of Doom, for those interested).

In my mind, Dawkins' greatest skill is selling Dawkins to the public. Which is fine--lots of people are famous for being famous.

And now, for something completely different.

Of this event, philosopher Daniel C. Dennett noted:

"The illumination of Dawkins' incisive thinking on the intellectual world extends far beyond biology. What a treat to see so clearly how matter and meaning fit together, from fiction to philosophy to molecular biology, all in one unified vision!"

For cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, writing in The Times:

"The significance of Dawkins' ideas, for me and many others, runs to his characterization of the very nature of life and to a theme that runs throughout his writings: the possibility of deep commonalities between life and mind."

Pinker eloquently writes about how information theory fits into Dawkins' ideas, and implies why some may find these ideas troubling:

"Dawkins’s emphasis on the ethereal commodity called “information” in an age of biology dominated by the concrete molecular mechanisms is another courageous stance. There is no contradiction, of course, between a system being understood in terms of its information content and it being understood in terms of its material substrate. But when it comes down to the deepest understanding of what life is, how it works, and what forms it is likely to take elsewhere in the universe, Dawkins implies that it is abstract conceptions of information, computation, and feedback, and not nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, and proteins, that will lie at the root of the explanation."

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html

The man has certainly had a huge impact on science and other scientists through his work and ideas that you can't compare to the world of Sagan and whats their name.

 

[platonov]

I certainly don't. I hate people who worship him, and hang on everything the man says as if he were the One True Prophet of science and reason. I've read most of his works, and found them to be rather below par--the more academic ones simply aren't that earth-shaking (Dibblee and de Vrise did more to advance our understanding of evolution than Dawkins has, and I'll bet 90% of you don't know who they are), and the more public ones pale in comparison with such authors as Sagan, Ward, and even Alvarez (T. rex. and the Crator of Doom, for those interested).

In my mind, Dawkins' greatest skill is selling Dawkins to the public. Which is fine--lots of people are famous for being famous. But peole who buy into the press are exceedingly annoying, as fanboys always are.

Depends on who you talk to.

If you talk to the Dawkins fanboys, the argument eventually boils down to "Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it." Dawkins said that gods don't exist, so that's proof they don't.

Less rabid non-believers tend to take the stance that if something can't be supported by evidence (which is an astonishingly slippery term), it should be dismissed. It's a foundational principle in scientific inquiry, only stated slightly differently (all statements must be supported by evidence). This stance does not permit us to say that gods don't exist, nor that fairies don't exist. What is actually asserted by this stance is that these questions, standing as they are without evidence to support them (from the skeptic's viewpoint--the theists have a very different one, and the refusal of most skeptics to accept that theists hold that viewpoint is why they feel that skeptics are ignorant, arogant jerks), are not admissible to the discussion. In short, S.G., H.F., and their ilk are actually giving theists more credit than the "faitheists" they are accusing of being soft on theism. Think about it--S.G., by saying "Gods don't exist", is accepting that the topic is worthy of consideration. Someone who says "There's insufficient data to discuss it" is in fact saying that the theist position does not rise to the level of being wrong.

The theists' position is of course that sufficient evidence exists to at least warrant discussion. This isn't actually a wrong position, either. Evidence DOES exist--the rational atheist's criticism of theism isn't that it's unsupported by evidence, but rather that the evidence is of such poor quality that no firm conclusions can be drawn from it. Evidence is merely data supporting some conclusion. GOOD evidence supports a single conclusion in an argument (it can always be used for multiple arguments, of course--broken glass can be evidence for a break-in and an insurance claim, for example). The problem with theism is that the evidence they cite, when it doesn't collapse under the weight of logic, never supports a unique answer--it always allows for multiple interpretations. The fact that organisms previously thought to be extinct are sometimes found in deep oceans, for example, was once held up as proof of Creationism (the plausability of extinction was a major issue back then). It's also evidence of organisms migrating to follow preferred habitats, or adapting to habitats after being displaced by new organisms. The cosmological constants can be used to support the notion of a Creator God--and they can be used to support several theories of cosmology that include no gods. And so on.

(At this point I will be dismissed by the less honest members of the forum via some snippy comment along the lines of "Oh, that 'advanced theology' we keep hearing about; why don't you show us some examples of it?" I consider such comments to be confessions of the complete lack of integrity on the speaker's part. There is NO excuse for not doing the background research, regardless of what Saint Dawkins says--if someone wants to debate the existence of gods, it is incumbant upon them to at least be familiar with the major schools of thought on the topic as the basic requirement of good scholarship. If they don't, they are ignorant by definition--and among alleged intellectuals there is simply no excuse for such ignorance. There are two sides to this debate, and we expect middle schoolers to have a better level of academic diligence than some skeptics beleive is required of them. It's rather sad. There's also the pesky fact that several form members have supplied examples of such theological writings in the past, and everyone who makes dismissive comments about theology universally ignored them.)

To say there's no evidence is either to confess hopeless ignorance of the topic, to abuse language to the point where "Words mean what I mean when I use them" is a step up in terms of intellectual integrity (at least that statement is openly abandoning linguistics), or to flat-out lie. The real issue is that no evidence has been presented that uniquely supports the notion of a god. What evidence has been presented is insufficient to support the notion of the existence of gods, because the evidence supports multiple conclusions in the discussion. Until unique evidence is presented to support the notion of gods, the question of the existence of gods is not one we can seriously consider.

As far as fairies go, I'm not exactly agnostic towards them. I've toyed for a while with the idea that the Fay and the like were garbled rememberances of early encounters with other human species. We know that such garbling occurred (see AronRa's YouTube video on dragons, leviathan, and other Biblical monsters for examples), and we know that Ice Age mammals lived well past when many think they died out (mammoths were around during the construction of the Pyramids, for example). It's not outside the realm of plausibility that humans and Neanderthals or other hominins interacted, and some of those interactions became legends, that were passed down through the ages, becoming more and more distorted through time. Testing this idea would require finding the earliest versions of fairy tales, however, which is beyond my capacity. I do rocks and bones; I wouldn't even know where to start looking for ancient books! Still, it illustrates the flaw in accepting pithy phrases uncritically--fairies may in fact be real, just very different from how people think of them today.

Me too. It's the greatest proof against the belief that religion is a serious threat to humanity. If we removed religion entirely, we'd still have every one of the problems frequently associated with it--only with slightly different language. The fact that people can't differentiate between criticizing Dawkins and hating him is directly comperable to the way the most radical of theists can't differentiate between people disagreeing with them about religion and people attacking their religion. The way people demand we all accept what Dawkins has to say, and defend him even after it's been demonstrated that Dawkins is in fact wrong (there was a rather infamous poll....) is identical to the folks who demand we accept the Bible as literal truth despite the fac that it contradicts reality.

Religion is often a symptom, not the disease. The real disease is irrationality. And that'll be with us always, whether in the form of faith in God or faith in famous scientists.

Your dislike of Dawkins or his fanboys [or SG for that matter ! ] aside – this is a very confused argument. Perhaps the dislike led to the confusion.

On one hand given the nature of the evidence .....

the question of the existence of gods is not one we can seriously consider.

And yet 'we' or somebody or everybody have to take some theology or something seriously before we reach this conclusion. The assumption that 'we' haven't is based on what ?

I think I'll stick with the fairies

And let me assure you the fairies I'm agnostic about have nothing to do with early humans - they are more recent arrivals (I think)

 

[Delvo]

...

 

[Dinwar]

Your dislike of Dawkins or his fanboys [or SG for that matter ! ] aside – this is a very confused argument. Perhaps the dislike led to the confusion.

Your confusion stems from two sources:

1) You apparently didn't realize that I was describing multiple different viewpoints on the topic. Quite obviously different viewpoints will see things differently.

2) If one wishes to argue that the question of gods is insufficiently supported to warrant serious consideration, one must obviously be familiar with the various lines of evidence theists use to support their notions of gods, as well as the arguments against them. Without that knowledge, one cannot honestly say anything on the topic ("If you can't show it, you don't know it", as one YouTube celebrity says). The only way to hold the view that the evidence is insufficient without examining the evidence is to learn the evidence telepathically--which violates the tennents of skepticism. When Randi no longer has his $1 million, I'll accept that it may be possible for someone to argue against religious arguments without learning them first. I'm arguing the self-evident position that the conclusion "The arguments supporting the existence of gods aren't worthy of consideration" is just that--a conclusion, which, in order to be itself worthy of consideration, must be based on evidence. The only way to do that is to examine the theists' arguments.

Most skeptics, in my experience, treat the idea that there is no or insufficient evidence for gods as an article of faith. They have not examined the data (or they've done a cursory examination, like reading one holy book and declaring they know more about the religion than its adherents), they are not familiar with the arguments they are trying to dismiss, and they become downright petulant when someone even suggests that they learn what the devil they're talking about. Faith is not a rational position, particularly not for a group that outright statest that they do not view it as a rational position.

But I'm perfectly willing to be convinced. You tell me how you're going to demonstrate that the arguments for the existence of gods are unsupported without examining them, and I'll reconsider. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath, however.

By the way, this is precisely what science demands of us. Scientists who wish to dismiss the arguments of others frequently learn those arguments as well as their advocates (we're human, so it's not universal, but it's the expected none the less). Even when the conclusion is "This argument is not even wrong", the researchers still examine the argument carefully and thoroughly. Skeptics expect us to treat religion as special--something that can be dismissed without even knowing what's said. I'm merely pointing out that this is an inconsistent position.

Finally, please don't psychologize. I do not believe anyone has the capacity to determine why I made my arguments from a single post--much less the capacity to ferret out subtle psychological pressures manipulating my conclusions. My dislike for Dawkins' fanboys has nothing to do with my argument; my adherence to the basic principles of rational thought do.

 

[tsig]

Your confusion stems from two sources:

1) You apparently didn't realize that I was describing multiple different viewpoints on the topic. Quite obviously different viewpoints will see things differently.

2) If one wishes to argue that the question of gods is insufficiently supported to warrant serious consideration, one must obviously be familiar with the various lines of evidence theists use to support their notions of gods, as well as the arguments against them. Without that knowledge, one cannot honestly say anything on the topic ("If you can't show it, you don't know it", as one YouTube celebrity says). The only way to hold the view that the evidence is insufficient without examining the evidence is to learn the evidence telepathically--which violates the tennents of skepticism. When Randi no longer has his $1 million, I'll accept that it may be possible for someone to argue against religious arguments without learning them first. I'm arguing the self-evident position that the conclusion "The arguments supporting the existence of gods aren't worthy of consideration" is just that--a conclusion, which, in order to be itself worthy of consideration, must be based on evidence. The only way to do that is to examine the theists' arguments.

Most skeptics, in my experience, treat the idea that there is no or insufficient evidence for gods as an article of faith. They have not examined the data (or they've done a cursory examination, like reading one holy book and declaring they know more about the religion than its adherents), they are not familiar with the arguments they are trying to dismiss, and they become downright petulant when someone even suggests that they learn what the devil they're talking about. Faith is not a rational position, particularly not for a group that outright statest that they do not view it as a rational position.

But I'm perfectly willing to be convinced. You tell me how you're going to demonstrate that the arguments for the existence of gods are unsupported without examining them, and I'll reconsider. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath, however.

By the way, this is precisely what science demands of us. Scientists who wish to dismiss the arguments of others frequently learn those arguments as well as their advocates (we're human, so it's not universal, but it's the expected none the less). Even when the conclusion is "This argument is not even wrong", the researchers still examine the argument carefully and thoroughly. Skeptics expect us to treat religion as special--something that can be dismissed without even knowing what's said. I'm merely pointing out that this is an inconsistent position.

Finally, please don't psychologize. I do not believe anyone has the capacity to determine why I made my arguments from a single post--much less the capacity to ferret out subtle psychological pressures manipulating my conclusions. My dislike for Dawkins' fanboys has nothing to do with my argument; my adherence to the basic principles of rational thought do.

You seem to hold it as an article of faith that no one who argues against a god belief has ever studied the subject.

Do you know some killer argument for god besides the usual fine tuning, intelligent design, the contingency argument or personal experience?

 

[kerikiwi]

.... Faith is not a rational position, particularly not for a group that outright statest that they do not view it as a rational position.

.... You tell me how you're going to demonstrate that the arguments for the existence of gods are unsupported without examining them, and I'll reconsider....

Where faith (belief without evidence) is the only argument for the existence of god, the argument cannot be examined and is unsupported.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My dislike for Dawkins' fanboys has nothing to do with my argument; my adherence to the basic principles of rational thought do.

You seem to hold it as an article of faith that no one who argues against a god belief has ever studied the subject.

Do you know some killer argument for god besides the usual fine tuning, intelligent design, the contingency argument or personal experience?

 

[Dinwar]

Where faith (belief without evidence) is the only argument for the existence of god, the argument cannot be examined and is unsupported.

And you know that this "...isthe only argument for the existence of god" how, exactly?

In order to know this, you must have made a survey of the reasons offered for the existence of gods. Then you must have analyzed them and determined that all of them rest on faith.

Or do you merely accept that assertion without examining the data? If so, congradulations--the only difference between yourself and the theist straw men you concoct is in the conclusions you reach (I've listed several lines of argument that do not rely on faith in this discussion, so we can dismiss your assertion as false). Your methods, if you haven't done the above legwork, are precisely those you ascribe to theists.

 

[Dinwar]

I already gave one such line of evidence (as well as the logic behind it and critiques of it). To ask again pretty much demonstrates that nothing I say will have any impact on the conversation.

 

[kerikiwi]

And you know that this "...isthe only argument for the existence of god" how, exactly?

In order to know this, you must have made a survey of the reasons offered for the existence of gods. Then you must have analyzed them and determined that all of them rest on faith.

I said 'where faith is the only argument'. That means the claimant states that faith is the only reason.
In that case there are no other reasons offered , so there are no other reasons to survey and analyse.
If, in other cases, someone offers reasons other than faith, that is the time to analyse those other reasons.

 

[platonov]

Your confusion stems from two sources:

1) You apparently didn't realize that I was describing multiple different viewpoints on the topic. Quite obviously different viewpoints will see things differently.

2) If one wishes to argue that the question of gods is insufficiently supported to warrant serious consideration, one must obviously be familiar with the various lines of evidence theists use to support their notions of gods, as well as the arguments against them. Without that knowledge, one cannot honestly say anything on the topic ("If you can't show it, you don't know it", as one YouTube celebrity says). The only way to hold the view that the evidence is insufficient without examining the evidence is to learn the evidence telepathically--which violates the tennents of skepticism. When Randi no longer has his $1 million, I'll accept that it may be possible for someone to argue against religious arguments without learning them first. I'm arguing the self-evident position that the conclusion "The arguments supporting the existence of gods aren't worthy of consideration" is just that--a conclusion, which, in order to be itself worthy of consideration, must be based on evidence. The only way to do that is to examine the theists' arguments.

Most skeptics, in my experience, treat the idea that there is no or insufficient evidence for gods as an article of faith. They have not examined the data (or they've done a cursory examination, like reading one holy book and declaring they know more about the religion than its adherents), they are not familiar with the arguments they are trying to dismiss, and they become downright petulant when someone even suggests that they learn what the devil they're talking about. Faith is not a rational position, particularly not for a group that outright statest that they do not view it as a rational position.

But I'm perfectly willing to be convinced. You tell me how you're going to demonstrate that the arguments for the existence of gods are unsupported without examining them, and I'll reconsider. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath, however.

By the way, this is precisely what science demands of us. Scientists who wish to dismiss the arguments of others frequently learn those arguments as well as their advocates (we're human, so it's not universal, but it's the expected none the less). Even when the conclusion is "This argument is not even wrong", the researchers still examine the argument carefully and thoroughly. Skeptics expect us to treat religion as special--something that can be dismissed without even knowing what's said. I'm merely pointing out that this is an inconsistent position.

Finally, please don't psychologize. I do not believe anyone has the capacity to determine why I made my arguments from a single post--much less the capacity to ferret out subtle psychological pressures manipulating my conclusions. My dislike for Dawkins' fanboys has nothing to do with my argument; my adherence to the basic principles of rational thought do.

Me confused

I don't wish to be snippy but the part of my post you snipped deals with your response.

The rest seems to be just straw.

 

[platonov]

Furthermore - you seem to be saying that SG has arrived at the correct answer but via the wrong method ? That seems harsh.

Indeed it is my considered opinion that in the future after our (yours and mine) arguments are long forgotten subjects such as “The hermeneutics of baby/sheep/cartwheel interaction in the Near Infrared region” will be a source of fascination and bogglement to many.

 

[Humes fork]

I certainly don't. I hate people who worship him, and hang on everything the man says as if he were the One True Prophet of science and reason. I've read most of his works, and found them to be rather below par--the more academic ones simply aren't that earth-shaking (Dibblee and de Vrise did more to advance our understanding of evolution than Dawkins has, and I'll bet 90% of you don't know who they are), and the more public ones pale in comparison with such authors as Sagan, Ward, and even Alvarez (T. rex. and the Crator of Doom, for those interested).

In my mind, Dawkins' greatest skill is selling Dawkins to the public. Which is fine--lots of people are famous for being famous. But peole who buy into the press are exceedingly annoying, as fanboys always are.

"Famous for being famous." Dawkins is famous primarily for his books. This is so regardless of what you would prefer.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't wish to be snippy but the part of my post you snipped deals with your response.

I snipped it for the sake of space. I see no point in re-posting the entire post--all it does is clutter up the thread, and hide what parts you're focusing on.

If you don't want to be harsh, I suggest you pull back on the accusations. You've made a number of them, including arm-chair psychologizing. Such behavior is going to be interpreted as attacks.

This is the relevant bit I didn't quote:

On one hand given the nature of the evidence .....

the question of the existence of gods is not one we can seriously consider.

And yet 'we' or somebody or everybody have to take some theology or something seriously before we reach this conclusion. The assumption that 'we' haven't is based on what ?

If we're going to accuse people of straw manning arguments, I think it most fair to accuse YOU of it. I presented multiple viewpoints, along with the strengths and weaknesses of each. From that, you gathered the above. It's hardly a fair summary.

The part you qouted was, by the way, stated in a particular context--specifically, I was illustrating how to properly address the issue of evidence when it comes to theistic arguments, and from the perspective of an atheist.

There is a vast difference between "This argument isn't even wrong" and "We don't need to acknowledge that argument at all." What many of the Dawkins fanboys do is the latter--they dismiss the arguments out of hand, often arogantly asserting that they don't need to know what the arguments are to dismiss them (that's what it means when they say "I don't need to study theology to know that they're wrong", as demonstrated in practice). You DO need to understand the arguments the other side is making--there is no honest way to avoid that. As I said, the conclusion that their arguments are unsupported is exactly that, a conclusion--which requires evidence to support it. That evidence takes the form of comparing their claims against reality.

And it's not an assumption that many here don't understand the arguments. It's a conclusion based on several years' experience on this forum. I have had people literally tell me that they don't need to know the arguments in order to refute them. I have had people literally tell me that the RCC doesn't know its own beleifs. I have have had people literally tell me that regardless of what religious people say they believe, they REALLY should beleive that skeptic's interpretation of the Bible, so we can dismiss what the beleivers say. (Oddly enough, it's always in that form--theists should accept the skeptic's view of the Bible. It's only after I point out that not all theists are Christians that they pay lip service to critiquing any other religious views.) Dawkins has said openly that one need not understand theology to refute it. Sorry, but if you think I'm making an assumption you are not paying attention.

Furthermore - you seem to be saying that SG has arrived at the correct answer but via the wrong method ? That seems harsh.

I've said far worse to S.G., and she's earned far worse. The reasons are irrelevant to this discussion, and I don't say that as a personal attack, merely to point out that there is a history there that you are unaware of. We've crossed paths before, and some of that is inevitably bleeding in.

I agree that there are no gods. I do not believe that S.G. has done the requisite work to critique theism, however. For an example of what it looks like when someone does do the requisite homework, look at A'isha's postings.

Furthermore, I'm MUCH harsher in criticizing methodology than I am in criticizing conclusions. The reason is simple: being wrong for the right reason means that you can be corrected. Being right for the wrong reason means that if you are ever wrong, you'll never know it. The history of science is rife with examples of both, and it's pretty clear to me that proper methodology is the single most important part of rational inquiry.

Finally, if you think this is harsh you should see what scientists do to each other sometime. The worst this forum has to offer is downright tame compared to real-world interactions between scientists, even excluding the more spectacular examples such as the Bone Wars. "Harsh" is irrelevant. Correct and incorrect are the only relevant factors.

Indeed it is my considered opinion that in the future after our (yours and mine) arguments are long forgotten subjects such as “The hermeneutics of baby/sheep/cartwheel interaction in the Near Infrared region” will be a source of fascination and bogglement to many.

This is pretty much irrelevant. Reason works the same at all times (though we may discovery new ways to subvert it, ie, new logical fallacies). An incorrect argument--such as an overly-hasty assertion without proper evidence to back it up--will always be incorrect. Boiled down, what tsig, S.G., H.F., and numerous others ignore is that I'm not attacking or defending any particular position in terms of theism or atheism. I'm defending rational thought as such.

I am still waiting to hear how one can critique arguments one has never bothered to learn, by the way. Because those are the two options: do the background research and learn what the other side has to say, or pretend you're refuting the other side without actually learning what the other side's arguments are. If one refuses to do the background research and still wishes to debate theism, one is implicitely saying that one need not learn what one's opponents are saying in order to refute them--and the inevitable consequence is to be dismissed as an ignorant, arrogant fool. Here's a more thorough examination of this topic, if you're interested.

 

[Dinwar]

"Famous for being famous." Dawkins is famous primarily for his books. This is so regardless of what you would prefer.

True enough. Unlike some, he actually started out with some substance. However, his recent activities haven't continued in that vein. And even in his (non-technical) books he seems to delight in generating controversy. I'm cynical enough to believe it's because controversy drives up book sales, particularly given the poor scholarship in some of his books and his Twitter activity.

A scientist famous for his books is not a good thing. Scientists don't generally write books; they write journal articles--because science isn't done via books anymore. If a scientist is famous for writing books, it immediately rings alarm bells. Sometimes, like with Ward and Gould, those alarm bells are dimmed upon reading the books. Others, like with Crick and a few others, the books warrant it. Either way, when I see a scientist famous for books I at minimum worry that the scientist has abandoned science in favor of press. It's kind of like a football player famous for advertising soup--it doesn't mean he's a bad football player, you just have to wonder why he's not famous for what he considers himself to be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Furthermore - you seem to be saying that SG has arrived at the correct answer but via the wrong method ? That seems harsh.

Indeed it is my considered opinion that in the future after our (yours and mine) arguments are long forgotten subjects such as “The hermeneutics of baby/sheep/cartwheel interaction in the Near Infrared region” will be a source of fascination and bogglement to many.

What's the reference to the baby?

I've arrived at a conclusion I believe not only to be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, but also to be the one conclusion about the existence of gods that actually is arrived at using the scientific process.

Ending the argument with "you can't prove otherwise" ignores what we can conclude from the evidence. That is not consistent with the scientific process.

Contriving scenarios where an undetectable god could exist does not follow the evidence to the conclusion, it starts with the conclusion and seeks the evidence supporting it.

And there is that double standard. Science does not require one test every single individual or case before drawing a broader conclusion about many things. We don't need to test every genome of every organism to conclude evolution theory broadly applies. Likewise, we need not test every single god myth to conclude they are all myths.

As for remaining open to new evidence, that is standard for all scientific conclusions, I agree. But that does not stop us from considering many things have reached the level of scientific fact. That the door is always open doesn't change what is currently in the house.

Therefore, I can say the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that all gods are mythical human inventions. All gods are fictional. Human beliefs are the only gods we have. There's no evidence of anything but human belief in gods. This is where people fail to make the paradigm shift.

We have evidence of god beliefs. We have no evidence of gods. We can explain the beliefs. There's nothing left over to address.

 

[Dinwar]

Likewise, we need not test every single god myth to conclude they are all myths.

To prove to yourself, no, of course not.

To participate in a debate? You certainly need to be familiar with anything anyone may reasonable bring up (and, of course, be willing to accept that you don't know some of them).

Something everyone seems to ignore about my points: I start them with "If you wish to discuss...." Quite obviously if you merely wish to reach some conclusion for yourself, the criteria are different (the standards for intellectual honesty and scholarship are not, but since you're not throwing yourself into public discourse any errors you commit are your own concern). Since Dawkins' fanboys are interested in spreading the Good News, the criteria for entering into debates is the relevant criteria.

Also, you've misrepresented science. Scientists arguing against Creationism back when it was a valid scientific concept did, in fact, have to argue against each and every minute proposal of Creationists--and they in turn argued against each and every minute proposal of evolution. The individual researchers may have been convinved by a single example, but the debate spanned EVERYTHING. They still refute Creationist arguments in a level of detail never matched by those critiquing religion; the most famous web pages refuting Creationist arguments would fill several volumes, and systematically refute every variation of Creationist arguments. They do not simply refute a few and call it a day.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see a single thing in your post Dinwar except hand waving and quite a bit of straw.

Re straw: Nothing I said had anything to do with not countering arguments Creationists or anyone else makes against scientific theories. Notice those are arguments against scientific conclusions, not arguments in support of god beliefs not being myths.

And I certainly haven't misrepresented science.

I can only conclude from your post you can't see well out of the filters you are looking through.

 

[platonov]

I snipped it for the sake of space. I see no point in re-posting the entire post--all it does is clutter up the thread, and hide what parts you're focusing on.

If you don't want to be harsh, I suggest you pull back on the accusations. You've made a number of them, including arm-chair psychologizing. Such behavior is going to be interpreted as attacks.

<snip>

beleivers say. (Oddly enough, it's always in that form--theists should accept the skeptic's view of the Bible. It's only after I point out that not all theists are Christians that they pay lip service to critiquing any other religious views.) Dawkins has said openly that one need not understand theology to refute it. Sorry, but if you think I'm making an assumption you are not paying attention.


<snip>

still wishes to debate theism, one is implicitely saying that one need not learn what one's opponents are saying in order to refute them--and the inevitable consequence is to be dismissed as an ignorant, arrogant fool. Here's a more thorough examination of this topic, if you're interested.

OK – I'm not going to defend what you call Dawkins fanboys, thats between you and them.
They would doubtless disagree with your characterization
In any case SG's argument about explaining God beliefs seems fine on the surface.


As to this post I was being facetious, in what I thought was a very obvious manner [perhaps I am more familiar with certain arguments on this forum than you think ]
However, and again I'm not being deliberately snippy, your failure to recognize this may help explain why you seem to take theology more seriously than I do. As it happens I am/was pretty familiar with the various arguments for God theological and otherwise (see below)


But to the meat of the matter ........ as I see it:

Do you maintain that the many intelligent, scientifically literate, reasonably well informed people with no real interest in religion [to take a group I am more familiar with] who have grown up with or arrived at the world view that these gods are mere peasant superstition are ill equipped to make this judgement. They should undertake more research in the field of theology or apologetics to be sure ?

Because frankly I don't buy it & they certainly wouldn't. My interest is merely that – an interest, not shared by most atheists I know [ this is in a European context FWIW]. Most people don't – they regard this stuff as nonsense.



I glanced at your link – not something I have any interest in TBH.
But what I do have an interest in and a certain knowledge of is history. Thus I couldn't help noticing the reference to several things that the holocaust could be attributed to.
Centuries of poisonous Christian antisemitism didn't seem to make the grade. A glaring omission to put it very mildly. Is the rest of the site up to the same standard ?