Dawkins!

[Scuba Pete]

I didn't even know those "mullions" were even hungry!

The only "nerve" that Dawkins has hit, is the one connected to my distaste of bigotry. Your diatribe could easily be put in that same basket of angst empowered rantings aimed at showing us just how intolerant you are. Thanks for playing!

 

[Autodidact]

Have to agree with Scuba. The fact that an argument makes people angry is not evidence that it is correct. It may also mean that it's stupid and offensive.

 

[sandie]

Dawkins makes many sensible arguments it is just that religious people do not want to hear them.

He is right when he says there is as much chance that a teapot is spinning round the earth as there is a god.

In fact I like tea and so I think we should start the cup and flying saucer religion.

At least we would have the physical tea to enjoy.

Be honest this theory is as convincing as Islam is for eg.

If we cannot paint Mohammed then he clearly never existed.

These are beliefs of the barking mad and delusionary.

Religion is now proven an evil that must be eradicated and a new order proposed where people believe in what they see and act in humanity towards each other.

Abolish world organised religion it is the only way.

HUMANISM THE ONLY WAY.

 

[Storm]

Dawkins makes many sensible arguments it is just that religious people do not want to hear them.

I repeat my invitation for you to present one.

If we cannot paint Mohammed then he clearly never existed.

Abolish world organised religion it is the only way.

HUMANISM THE ONLY WAY.

There's a strict rule against proselytization on this site. I suggest yous stop breaking it.

 

[sandie]

Remembver Scuba you rant on about Bigotry.

Is it not bigotry that Muslims want to make the whole world Muslim?

Is it not bigotry for the Pope to want to stop abortion?.

The so called God did not save the 6,000,000 million jews did he?

You are bigotted to not look at the other view.

Billy Graham made millions spouting his bigotry, why did he not do it for free?

Let us be very honest here The Bible is a bunch of fFairy Stories and it is bigots who ram the nonesense down our children's throats, making them live in fear and only in their way.

Another view by Dawkins is no more a bigotry thant the views spouted by religious leaders.

Understand there has to be another way.

The current world religions do not work it is a simple as that.

Your angry reaction proves my point in that you are brainwashed in religious BIGOTRY if you defend the insanity of religious belief.

Why do we not start talking huimanity not a God( teapot, Wizard of OZ) that clearly after thousands of years has still not shown itself or proved that it even exists.

The time has come to find anaother way.

Ban religion in schools let the innocent make up their own minds.

This will stop labels and help us live together in peace.

Humansim the real way.

 

[Autodidact]

I repeat my invitation for you to present one.

O.K., The Blind Watchmaker is a sustained and lengthy argument against creationism. In that book, Dawkins argues that the theory of evolution fully explains the diversity of life on earth, and its apparent design. I think he's correct. Should we debate it?

 

[Autodidact]

Here's another. Dawkins argues that Meme Theory provides an explanation for why religion flourishes regardless of the truth or falsity of its ideas; that religions spread in a manner analogous to viruses, if they have features that lead to reproduction (such as proselytizing) and survival (such as threats of punishment for non-belief.) I find this argument persuasive. You?

 

[Storm]

O.K., The Blind Watchmaker is a sustained and lengthy argument against creationism. In that book, Dawkins argues that the theory of evolution fully explains the diversity of life on earth, and its apparent design. I think he's correct. Should we debate it?

By "creationism," do you mean YEC/ ID? Or are positions like theistic evolution included?

 

[Storm]

Here's another. Dawkins argues that Meme Theory provides an explanation for why religion flourishes regardless of the truth or falsity of its ideas; that religions spread in a manner analogous to viruses, if they have features that lead to reproduction (such as proselytizing) and survival (such as threats of punishment for non-belief.) I find this argument persuasive. You?

Not so much.

1) As you yourself point out, this argument is irrelevant to the question of whether a given religion is correct, much less the question of God's existence.

2) It seems to ignore those religions that don't proselytize or threaten non-believers.

Now, I'm not saying that memetics is false. I just don't see how it relates to the argument at hand.

Actually, I don't see the relevance of memetics in general. I'm inclined to think that that's a failure on my part more than the theory's, though. If you have as clear an understanding of memetics as evolution, Autodidact, I'd appreciate your explaining it to me. EDIT: Though we should probably take it to another thread. EDIT 2: In fact, I just made a thread for that: Memetics Questions. Hope to see you there!

 

[sandie]

I find the spread of lies,falsehoods and fear spread out by religion especially the fear of non conformists a viral bigotry.

Remember religion is humanity telling humanity what to do with fairy stories to back it up and fear to keep us all in line to the leaders way of thinking.

What religion actually lacks is the supreme being they keep spouting on about. As no teachings come from that just man to man.The supreme being has never shown itself.

So religious leaders are humanists themselves in that they can only rely on humanity to propogate ideas made up by humans for humans.

That is why there must be another way. The proven way of things that actually exist,science and what we can prove.

Surely it is better to prove what we can prove not what we cannot.

 

[fantome profane]

2) It seems to ignore those religions that don't proselytize or threaten non-believers.

But have you not noticed that those religions that do proselytize have huge numbers compared to those who don’t? We don’t need to ignore the religions that don’t proselytize, they perfectly illustrate Dawkins ideas of memetics. Certain memes contain within themselves the idea that they must be proselytized vigorously. This is one very effective strategy that memes use to replicate themselves. And we can compare them with those that don’t include the idea that they must proselytize to get a good idea about just how effective it is.

 

[Storm]

But have you not noticed that those religions that do proselytize have huge numbers compared to those who don’t? We don’t need to ignore the religions that don’t proselytize, they perfectly illustrate Dawkins ideas of memetics. Certain memes contain within themselves the idea that they must be proselytized vigorously. This is one very effective strategy that memes use to replicate themselves. And we can compare them with those that don’t include the idea that they must proselytize to get a good idea about just how effective it is.

Buddhism seems to be doing pretty well. Still, it's a fair point.

 

[Autodidact]

By "creationism," do you mean YEC/ ID? Or are positions like theistic evolution included?

No, I don't think theistic evolution would be included under creationism.

 

[Autodidact]

Not so much.

1) As you yourself point out, this argument is irrelevant to the question of whether a given religion is correct, much less the question of God's existence.

Right; it's not about that. It's about what it's about--weird criticism to disagree because of the subject matter.

2) It seems to ignore those religions that don't proselytize or threaten non-believers.

Not at all. It predicts that religions that do proselytize, such as Christianity, Islam and LDS, will grow at a greater rate than those that do not, such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

Now, I'm not saying that memetics is false. I just don't see how it relates to the argument at hand.

It is the argument at hand. You asked for an example of Dawkins' arguments. I gave you two. Each one takes up an entire one of his books, and a lot of his life's work. You said something about none of his arguments being any good. There are two that I think are quite good. Would you like some more?

Actually, I don't see the relevance of memetics in general. I'm inclined to think that that's a failure on my part more than the theory's, though. If you have as clear an understanding of memetics as evolution, Autodidact, I'd appreciate your explaining it to me. EDIT: Though we should probably take it to another thread. EDIT 2: In fact, I just made a thread for that: Memetics Questions. Hope to see you there!

I'll see what I can do; I'm no expert and haven't spent much time on it. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[Autodidact]

Buddhism seems to be doing pretty well. Still, it's a fair point.

And what you see is that using memetics, that is, comparing religion to a virus, is a helpful and productive tool for learning about them, not, as some see here, an offensive insult.

 

[Storm]

No, I don't think theistic evolution would be included under creationism.

OK, then.

While it would be an interesting intellectual exercise for me to defend YEC, I'm not in the mood right now. I would point out that the brand of Literalism that gives rise to such positions is just bad theology, imo.

So, while I appreciate and sympathize with Dawkins' stand against it, I think it's more effectively done from the theological side, for instance in the article Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance by Conrad Hyers.

 

[Storm]

Right; it's not about that. It's about what it's about--weird criticism to disagree because of the subject matter.

Not at all. It predicts that religions that do proselytize, such as Christianity, Islam and LDS, will grow at a greater rate than those that do not, such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

It is the argument at hand. You asked for an example of Dawkins' arguments. I gave you two. Each one takes up an entire one of his books, and a lot of his life's work. You said something about none of his arguments being any good. There are two that I think are quite good. Would you like some more?

We have miscommunication, and it's my fault. I was referring to his theological arguments, such as the efficacy of prayer. I know you disagree with me on that one, but it's the only one that's been raised so far. I certainly didn't mean to criticize his work in biology or memetics, though I can see how you'd take my statements that way. Mea culpa.

I'll see what I can do; I'm no expert and haven't spent much time on it. Thanks for the compliment.

You're quite welcome. I've gotten a bit frustrated with you in this thread, Autodidact, but I do respect you.

 

[Autodidact]

OK, then.

While it would be an interesting intellectual exercise for me to defend YEC, I'm not in the mood right now. I would point out that the brand of Literalism that gives rise to such positions is just bad theology, imo.

So, while I appreciate and sympathize with Dawkins' stand against it, I think it's more effectively done from the theological side, for instance in the article Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance by Conrad Hyers.

Well since Dawkins is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, he's in a very good position to argue Biology rather than theology. Especially since he doesn't believe in the Theism part of theistic evolution. So, are you ready to withdraw your assertion (whatever it was specifically) that all of his arguments are bad?
eta: read next post. O.K., all clarified now.

 

[Autodidact]

We have miscommunication, and it's my fault. I was referring to his theological arguments, such as the efficacy of prayer.

Does Dawkins raise this argument? In which book?

 

[Storm]

Well since Dawkins is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, he's in a very good position to argue Biology rather than theology. Especially since he doesn't believe in the Theism part of theistic evolution. So, are you ready to withdraw your assertion (whatever it was specifically) that all of his arguments are bad?

Not with the necessary clarification. I already withdrew the unfortunate blanket statement, and pointed out several times in this thread that I do respect him when he stays in his own field. But I still haven't heard a single decent theological argument from him, which is what is necessary if he wants to argue the existence of God.