Why do many people here hate Richard Dawkins?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is evident that many people here hate Richard Dawkins with a vengeance. But why? He is a promoter of science and has had a positive impact on many lives (and a negative impact on nobody). What's there to hate?

The only people I'm aware of who "hate" him, besides creationist nutjobs, are the SJW's, because he committed the crime of being white and wealthy.

 

[platonov]

What's the reference to the baby?


<snip>

I thought the baby had a sheep's face or the head of a spider or something

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought the baby had a sheep's face or the head of a spider or something

You appear to have false memories.

Anyway, no matter. I liked your comment:

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 ?

 

[Joey McGee]

Here's a more thorough examination of this topic, if you're interested.

Unfortunately, I read that. I was ready to hear something interesting about why the question of why good things happen to bad people if god exists was a bad one, perhaps I would be treated to an interesting argument about theodicy. But instead I am told that I am not allowed to ask unless I have sacrificed my life fighting evil. Ok, let's say I have, then what would the answer be? I am confused as to what his point is. I mean, Willliam Lane Craig can give a lot better answer than that.

Religion isn't about altering the reality of death because Judaism has no coherent doctrine about the afterlife? Well, I think it's easily understood that most people aren't referring to orthodox Judaism when they make this very fair, generalized point. I'm not convinced, sorry.

Amusingly, abortion and sexuality can also be compared forcing people to pay taxes as well.

I found the whole thing preachy, emotionally unbalanced and in the end, hysterical. If I don't follow all of his logic when arguing with believers, I might be causing the next Hitler?

 

[stevea]

I like your post.

Don't you think the case could be made that both are, in fact, the result of evolution, albeit a relatively recent "kind" of evolution.

We evolved, and are now in a position to manufacture several lines of GMO corn, of which one is deemed "fittest" and survives, while the others don't.

Similarly, if one day our silicon based robot overlords come to rule, would not an "outside third party" view them as what we "evolved" into?

Just thinkin' here...

This is actually an excellent point. But generally by 'evolution' we now mean the mechanism of variation is based on DNA and random mutations thereof, and then there is a "natural selection" process in reproduction that selects among variations and organisms.

Yes - if a human splices a lightening bug gene into corn and produces a novel effect that is useful - that is evolution even tho' the production of the initial GMO only recent, can't happen w/o scientific intervention, and not common - it required a human for the rather complex 'interbreeding' step. Still I'd agree it's possible to consider that evolution in a certain extended sense.

But synthetic organisms - not so.
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell/overview/
are a different matter. We're not just splicing genes across species boundaries, but creating new genes never before seen. To date such novel genes seem limited to non-functional encodings of the scientists names and poetry, but still these don't occur in natures, and are now reproduced as part of the creatures DNA. That's not evolution as we typically mean it; the gene didn't arise from inheritance nor from random errors.

--

We could also consider the natural vs artificial claim (false dichotomy IMO) that some ppl apply whenever humans are involved. Say Budweiser considers two yeast strains Ya and Yb and after market studies decides to use Ya - now hundreds of thousands of acres of cropland are devoted to feeding Ya and a great deal of care and effort is applied to propagating Ya en masse. Yb is stored away in a cryo-tank and re-propagated on a plate every 6 month. Is that "natural selection" by tasting panel ?

IMO yes it is, but it's a rather extreme case of symbiosis. Since both species in this sceanrio survive - was ther any selection ?

 

[stevea]

No, I meant paradigm shift. How can you possibly recognize a new tree is a tree without a new exam of everything about it to be sure it is the same as the previous trees you've seen? How can you possibly conclude all life on Earth is the result of evolution without testing every single living organism?

You can't do any of these things using logical argument UNLESS you apply induction (it's in the part you blithely snipped b/c you can't address real debate). Induction can't be applied to your type of argument since you have massively failed to present any evidence that generally applies across all classes of potential gods.

Why are you applying a double standard to god myths? How many myths do you need to look at before you can conclude the evidence supports the conclusion they are all myths?

There is no double-standard. I am demanding that we apply exactly the same standard - a standard for the scientific method that clearly you do not comprehend. Also note that your insistence on using the word "myth" (a human cultural artifact) recently demonstates that you are ignoring the class of potential gods that are not the subject of legends, stories or myths.

We can obtain hard evidence on the nature of large classes of trees across vast geography. We can therefore *assume* (extrapolate, induce) by the scientific method that any sample of a tree trunk should contain lignin. A legitimate scientist might say "all trees we have studied contain lignin". They might inaccurately abbreviate that as "all trees contain lignin" or more accurately "... are likely to contain lignin" . No reputable scientist would describe this as your expansive claim does - "all trees not containing lignin are impossible". The scientific method does not EVER exclude possibility of new contrary evidence, it merely models observations and uses this to create a weak basis for extrapolation. Maybe you caught this UNSCIENTIFIC habit from the climate debate politicos.

You seem to want to extrapolate from the 3 trees in your backyard to all trees on the planet (your gods thesis is a bigger extrapolation actually). You have no basis for such massive extrapolation. No scientist would consider it a reasonable extrapolation.

Theoreticians from Hume to Popper have cast doubts on even this weak form of extrapolation/induction when applied fo physical sciences, but that's beyond your reading level based on your inability to comprehend the basics.

Then let's also consider that your claim cannot even be addressed by the scientific method. If you disagree - then please propose a testable hypothesis for the class of untestable gods that I described in a previous post.

In science the process is to follow the evidence to the conclusion, not start with the conclusion and look for evidence supporting it.

Yes, And when you have ZERO evidence and ZERO hope of obtaining evidence - then you make no conclusion. You are the one creating unwarranted conclusions based on zero evidence.

What evidence is there?

Right - exactly. There is no evidence of any sort wrt "all gods' therefore your claim of non-existence fails massively.

There is evidence of god beliefs but no evidence of gods. Shift paradigms and ask a different question: What best explains god beliefs?

You are dismissing the existance of gods b/c some second hand reports contain clearly false attributes. Pliny claimed that Africans were headless and had faces in the torsos. Pliny was wrong, but still Africans existed. If you proved these beliefs were/are wrong, that does not provide any evidence either way that gods exist/don't-exist.

You can't dismiss a gods existence by merely suggesting a probable explanation for humans preferring to believe *some* exists. That is not a logical argument.

Then you shift the goalpost from "non-existence of all gods" to probablistic claims for human belief in a mere few gods that were incorporated into human culture. Human beliefs aren't the question at all. A few gods of human cultures has little to do with your claim for "all gods". That's a logical error not a paradigm shift.

Why ask the question, are gods real? There is no tangible evidence gods exist. How long are you going to ask a meaningless question?

I didn't ask that question - ever - your reading skills need improvement. I completely agree. "gods exist" is precisely as silly a question as to fairies or unicorns exist, except in the case of gods we could not even in principle expect to ever collect evidence (making it a bit sillier). It is not rational or scientific to believe in gods or unicorns.

Instead I am objecting to your obverse unscientific, irrational claim that no gods exists when there can be no evidence to support your thesis. There is no evidence that all gods or all unicorns or black swans don't exist. To claim they don't exist based in no particular evidence or detailed reasoning is irrational.

IOW it's equally wrong to assert something does or does-not exist when you have no evidence.

If one follows the actual evidence, it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are mythical beings humans invented.

There is no such "actual evidence", and your claim is false, soince some gods belong to the class of gods unrelated to jhuman culture. You are trying to argue that some some cultures might reasonably want to invent an anthropomorphic god - therefore it is necessarily imaginary. Yes, that is likely for that particular god - no that does not constitute evidence about all gods or the god concept generally. It may not even be a testable hypothesis (therefore is 'unscientific').

Even if gods of human cultures could all be ruled out - that says nothing of "all gods". That's a massive extrapolation based on a tiny smidgen of non-evidence.

There is no evidence to the contrary.

I never suggested there was any evidence in favor of any "all gods" existence - nor against it - that's one massive red-herring you are dragging about.

Why would you need to prove each and every god was a mythical being after you found thousands of them that were myths and not one that there was evidence to the contrary?

I never suggested you had to show "each and every god" was non-extant. That's another mis-read by you. I said you have to apply induction properly if you want to extrapolate from limited evidence to a generalization. You have repeatedly failed to consider the things necessary for valid induction.

You can't (for obvious reasons) sit in 1st century Rome and claim there are no black swans inthe world, or sit in N.Europe at the same time and claim there are no black people on earth - that is a stupid extrapolation from limited evidence. This is exactly the same type of 'extrapolation from ignorance' you are making.

There is no reason to ask, do gods exist because there is no evidence that suggests they do.

I NEVER asked that. Please try responding to my actual argument as posted instead of to your biased mis-interpretations.

In fact YOU beg that very question by making claims about "all gods" existence based on an "ad ignoram" argument.

My conclusion, and like it or not it is consistent with logic and science, is that all gods are mythical beings, human generated fiction.

My conclusion is that you are incapable of recognize either reason nor scientific methods in debate. Any background you have in these topics is quite shallow. You fail to address the main issues.

As I suggested before - study the issues of induction wrt to physical sciences (not math). Study the requirements for a theory to even be considered as a subject of science - a falsifiable hypothesis. Then you will see that you are making an unscientific claim and even if we ceded your claim about just the few potential gods of human cultures - the extrapolations you make to "all gods" is nonsense.

People like Dawkins and I are "6.7 of 7" atheists. It's only you "true believers" who cannot tolerate doubt based on ignorance and limitations of evidence.

When you have any valid evidence to the contrary, let me know.

Nonsense thinking - I clearly am not supporting any deist position, and I have decimated your "certainty thru' ignorance" claims using simple descriptions and examples that you have constantly failed to address.

actually enumerate all classes of potential gods and eliminate each as possible.

Why should I support your argument by doing your homework? YOU must enumerate categories to apply induction with any hope of acceptance. That job is for those who support YOUR position.

In any case I already gave you the class of "untestable gods" and you obviously can't address even this most obvious counter argument.

Like all "true believers" you are asserting certainty (of non-existence) in the face of ignorance. That is unscientific, implies lack of reason, and is fundamentalist in nature. I can't imagine why so many ppl cannot learn to live w/ such microscopic and unimportant uncertainty.

 

[tsig]

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.

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.

Is the cosmological constants one of these arguments?

Seems like you think there are good arguments for god so why not humor us and present them here?

Then again since you think faeries might exist you might not be quite the skeptic we're looking for.

 

[tsig]

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.

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

That's all I have to say to you on this topic. I do not believe discussing this with you will be productive.

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.

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.

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.

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:



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.

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.

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.

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.

Above is every post you have made in this thread, please hilite where you posted the argument for god's existence and critiques of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No offense but you sound like a Christian Apologist might sound defending science instead of the Bible.

You can't do any of these things using logical argument UNLESS you apply induction (it's in the part you blithely snipped b/c you can't address real debate). Induction can't be applied to your type of argument since you have massively failed to present any evidence that generally applies across all classes of potential gods.

I didn't write a dissertation, I presented what we all know is true.

Got any evidence of god beliefs or stories that are not mythical? You know damn well there aren't any. Or are you a theist who doesn't believe your god belief is a myth, just everyone else's?

There is no double-standard. I am demanding that we apply exactly the same standard - a standard for the scientific method that clearly you do not comprehend. Also note that your insistence on using the word "myth" (a human cultural artifact) recently demonstates that you are ignoring the class of potential gods that are not the subject of legends, stories or myths.

I alternate the terms I use between myth and human generated fiction.

God stories are fiction. Can you name a single one that isn't? I can name a thousand that are.

We can obtain hard evidence on the nature of large classes of trees across vast geography. We can therefore *assume* (extrapolate, induce) by the scientific method that any sample of a tree trunk should contain lignin. A legitimate scientist might say "all trees we have studied contain lignin". They might inaccurately abbreviate that as "all trees contain lignin" or more accurately "... are likely to contain lignin" . No reputable scientist would describe this as your expansive claim does - "all trees not containing lignin are impossible". The scientific method does not EVER exclude possibility of new contrary evidence, it merely models observations and uses this to create a weak basis for extrapolation. Maybe you caught this UNSCIENTIFIC habit from the climate debate politicos.

I addressed leaving the door open to new evidence. 'If/When' said evidence is found the conclusion can be reevaluated. Go re-read my posts. You will see again and again:

"overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion"

Got it? Read it a couple times.

You seem to want to extrapolate from the 3 trees in your backyard to all trees on the planet (your gods thesis is a bigger extrapolation actually). You have no basis for such massive extrapolation. No scientist would consider it a reasonable extrapolation.

Theoreticians from Hume to Popper have cast doubts on even this weak form of extrapolation/induction when applied fo physical sciences, but that's beyond your reading level based on your inability to comprehend the basics.

Then let's also consider that your claim cannot even be addressed by the scientific method. If you disagree - then please propose a testable hypothesis for the class of untestable gods that I described in a previous post.

Frankly I don't care about your argument from authority, nor have you honestly paraphrased my actual claims. That's straw or dishonesty, take your pick.

Yes, And when you have ZERO evidence and ZERO hope of obtaining evidence - then you make no conclusion. You are the one creating unwarranted conclusions based on zero evidence.
Right - exactly. There is no evidence of any sort wrt "all gods' therefore your claim of non-existence fails massively.
You are dismissing the existance of gods b/c some second hand reports contain clearly false attributes. Pliny claimed that Africans were headless and had faces in the torsos. Pliny was wrong, but still Africans existed. If you proved these beliefs were/are wrong, that does not provide any evidence either way that gods exist/don't-exist.
You can't dismiss a gods existence by merely suggesting a probable explanation for humans preferring to believe *some* exists. That is not a logical argument.

Yowza! A touchy subject for you is it?

I can and I did. I'm not convinced by this emotional outburst.


[snipped over the top rambling rant]

Look, I would love to address your issues, but I'm not going to address this rant. If you have some more concise, specific complaints with my position, repost and I'll reply. But I don't have time for a rambling rant that says the same thing over and over.

I've had this same position for years and posted it here many times, no goal post shifting involved. In fact, it's nonsense like that which says you are not articulating your thoughts very cohesively.

My position is simple, straight forward and consistent with the scientific process and the evidence. It shouldn't take you a page of rambling to cite the arguments you have with my position.

 

[ThunderChunky]

The only people I'm aware of who "hate" him, besides creationist nutjobs, are the SJW's, because he committed the crime of being white and wealthy.

I thought it was because of male privilege and his insensitivity towards the plight of the female gender with regards to unwanted coffee invitations.