More Dawkins idiocy...

[prometheus11]

I guess Wilson isn't familiar with his biology background. Or is that quote taken out of context? I wouldn't expect Wilson to make such an ignorant comment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

And you think this man's opinion on this subject, and his justification for his opinion, can be summed up in a single quotation?

His views on paradise re:jihadis, etc.

Could you be more specific?

God Delusion ch 8 + 9

Again, I am trying to quantify exactly how much you know. I need more details, please.

He's a humanist and signatory to humanist declarations, so it's relevant

Only as relevant as me asking for your opinion on the Pope and your responding by saying "He wears a hat and lives in the Vatican". I am trying to ascertain just how much you actually know about the man and his opinions. Saying that he is a humanist is hardly revelatory.

God likely doesn't exist and belief in god is detrimental to society.

Again, care to be more specific? You can get that from reading the blurb.

I'd consider it accurate rather than 'opinion',

There aren't many who would consider their opinion inaccurate, are there?

but will reconsider if you can show that he is more academic than polemicist.

I'm not sure you can weigh one against the other. He is capable of being both to varying degrees.

As to the second part, because internet forums tend to deal in the present rather than what happened 10 years ago.

So Dawkins has stopped writing blogs, essays and books and is now limited strictly to Twitter?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, the mildest would be Atran who described his type of views as 'bizarre' (iirc)

Higgs - embarrassing
EO Wilson - "not a scientist"
DS wilson, Taleb and Gray hold him largely in contempt

I can't help but note that you missed the entire rest of my post. Here it is again, with added emphasis on the most important parts:

"I can now answer your question: it's because lots of people have varying opinions and see things differently. Asking "But why do people disagree with him" isn't an argument, and it's certainly not a rational response to any kind of argument. If you disagree with a particular view someone has, explain their point of view and the reasons you disagree with it. The fact that other people, rational or otherwise, may disagree with them doesn't have any bearing whatsoever."

So telling me people disagree with him, or even personally dislike him, has no relevance to this discussion. I am interested in your views only, and how you justify them.

 

[Augustus]

And you think this man's opinion on this subject, and his justification for his opinion, can be summed up in a single quotation?


Could you be more specific?


Again, I am trying to quantify exactly how much you know. I need more details, please.


Only as relevant as me asking for your opinion on the Pope and your responding by saying "He wears a hat and lives in the Vatican". I am trying to ascertain just how much you actually know about the man and his opinions. Saying that he is a humanist is hardly revelatory.


Again, care to be more specific? You can get that from reading the blurb.


There aren't many who would consider their opinion inaccurate, are there?


I'm not sure you can weigh one against the other. He is capable of being both to varying degrees.


So Dawkins has stopped writing blogs, essays and books and is now limited strictly to Twitter?

Why don't you present what you think is an accurate representation of his views first so we can skip this drawn out iterative process of finding what you consider accurate. Once we have both presented our views it is easier to have a discussion.

 

[outhouse]

Why don't you present what you think is an accurate representation of his views

Because that does not help us determine what your OP with a moving vague goal post is all about. Only your definition is relevant.

If you chose to remain slippery, we cannot offer anything in refutation.

 

[Augustus]

I can't help but note that you missed the entire rest of my post. Here it is again, with added emphasis on the most important parts:

"I can now answer your question: it's because lots of people have varying opinions and see things differently. Asking "But why do people disagree with him" isn't an argument, and it's certainly not a rational response to any kind of argument. If you disagree with a particular view someone has, explain their point of view and the reasons you disagree with it. The fact that other people, rational or otherwise, may disagree with them doesn't have any bearing whatsoever."

So telling me people disagree with him, or even personally dislike him, has no relevance to this discussion. I am interested in your views only, and how you justify them.

Go back and read the context. You jumped into my reply to icehorse. This post relates to that context, not your other posts. Don't confuse the 2 and pretend it was related to our other discussions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why don't you present what you think is an accurate representation of his views first so we can skip this drawn out iterative process of finding what you consider accurate. Once we have both presented our views it is easier to have a discussion.

I'm not trying to have a discussion, I'm trying to ascertain just how much you actually know about Richard Dawkins' opinions - that's been the whole point of this exercise so far and I have been very clear about that. So far you have demonstrated a rudimentary knowledge of his opinions, along with a few of his detractors. You've expressed a lot of opinions about him in this thread, but most of what you have been arguing against have been dramatically simplified positions which show little to no real knowledge to the depth of the man's actual objections to religion. To me, this is most likely the reason why you prefer targeting his twitter comments rather than his actual theological arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Go back and read the context. You jumped into my reply to icehorse. This post relates to that context, not your other posts. Don't confuse the 2 and pretend it was related to our other discussions.

I never said it was related to our discussion - I said it was related to this discussion (i.e: this thread) and my interest (i.e: the justification for your opinion of Dawkins). You asked a question and I gave you an answer.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Back to another point in your OP:

There is no humanity, no universal human rights, no salvation through reason. Yet he is entirely confident in the fact that his beliefs are perfectly rational and evidence based. Not only is there no evidence to support his views, but there is a mountain of evidence to disprove them.

Are you making these claims from a relativist standpoint? If not, what firm ground can you propose that we can stand on from which to discuss these claims of yours? I've already said that I view questions of objective morality from the perspective of the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). I understand that a relativist can undermine that perspective, but then relativists can undermine every discussion, so for me talking with relativists is a waste of time.

So if you're not taking a relativist stance, then what? On what basis are you making the claims I just pulled from the OP?

 

[Augustus]

I'm not trying to have a discussion,

So the purpose is me to summarise everything he has said over the past 20 years into a fully referenced, non-simplified 100 word summary, after which you will make an arbitrary comment as to whether or not it meets your own subjective criteria whilst offering nothing in return to demonstrate what your opinion is based on?

Not a great deal of point in carrying out such a non-discussion really.

 

[Augustus]

Are you making these claims from a relativist standpoint?

I asked you about this before, but you didn't answer.

You need to define what you mean by relativist. Not simply as an exercise in me being pedantic, but as it is absolutely essential to my answer.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

From wikipedia:

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but they only have relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the purpose is me to summarise everything he has said over the past 20 years into a fully referenced, non-simplified 100 word summary, after which you will make an arbitrary comment as to whether or not it meets your own subjective criteria whilst offering nothing in return to demonstrate what your opinion is based on?

No, the purpose is to establish the extent to which you are actually familiar with Dawkins views beyond mere superficialities and tweets. So far, you have demonstrated very little, and your reluctance to answer the majority of my questions is evidence of your reluctance to admit it. I just find it telling that whenever people want to take down Dawkins it is always via analysis of his tweets rather than the bulk of his work, and I feel this is because many of his detractors have no interest in understanding his position, just attacking him for the same reason many people like attacking outspoken atheists - prejudice, and a socially-ingrained bias towards giving religious views undue levels of deference.

Not a great deal of point in carrying out such a non-discussion really.

If you can't demonstrate a working understanding of Dawkin's actual point of view, there's not a great deal of point in calling him an idiot, is there?

 

[Augustus]

No, the purpose is to establish the extent to which you are actually familiar with Dawkins views beyond mere superficialities and tweets. So far, you have demonstrated very little, and your reluctance to answer the majority of my questions is evidence of your reluctance to admit it.

The purpose seems to be more an ego stroking exercise on your behalf in which not writing a referenced essay whilst jumping through your hoops demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the topic. At no point have you demonstrated that you know the first thing about his views, and anyway you are not here to discuss anything just to appoint yourself the arbiter of who is qualified to comment on a particular topic.

I just find it telling that whenever people want to take down Dawkins it is always via analysis of his tweets rather than the bulk of his work, and I feel this is because many of his detractors have no interest in understanding his position, just attacking him for the same reason many people like attacking outspoken atheists - prejudice, and a socially-ingrained bias towards giving religious views undue levels of deference.

As with your first post, you assume an awful lot. I find it telling that if someone criticises Dawkins it is automatically assumed that they are an ignorant and irrational appeaser for fanaticism.

The bulk of his work is not really relevant. I'm not trying to discredit everything he's ever said. I agree with a fair bulk of it, what I don't agree with is things like this:

“Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people. ”... “The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism—as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: ‘Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”... “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.”

I discussed why previously so you can search for it if you want.

If you can't demonstrate a working understanding of Dawkin's actual point of view, there's not a great deal of point in calling him an idiot, is there?

It's a discussion forum, certain phraseology generates more interest and thus discussion

If you wish to discuss anything specific, I'm happy to continue. If you want to play the judge, it's a bit pointless.

 

[prometheus11]

The purpose seems to be more an ego stroking exercise on your behalf

....

The bulk of his work is not really relevant. I'm not trying to discredit everything he's ever said.

.....

It's a discussion forum, certain phraseology generates more interest and thus discussion
.

So.... You're admitting to trolling?

 

[Augustus]

Hi Augustus,

From wikipedia:

Still not very clear. I assume you are talking about moral relativism though, but this is not a straight forward topic.

'Relativist' is used pretty much as an insult in everyday speech for people who refuse to criticise the behaviour of other cultures. In this sense, I'm not a relativist as I've said before.

In a more nuanced sense, I am a relativist, and on the basis of our discussion you probably are too as you don't think there is a one size fits all type of morality.

 

[prometheus11]

'Relativist' is used pretty much as an insult in everyday speech for people who refuse to criticise the behaviour of other cultures. .

I've been discussing relativism for half my life. At least a thousand discussions. Probably many more. I have NEVER heard the term used for that purpose.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The purpose seems to be more an ego stroking exercise on your behalf in which not writing a referenced essay whilst jumping through your hoops demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the topic. At no point have you demonstrated that you know the first thing about his views, and anyway you are not here to discuss anything just to appoint yourself the arbiter of who is qualified to comment on a particular topic.

Actually, no. The whole point of my initial post was merely noting a peculiarity in Dawkins' detractors in that they seem to prefer posting lengthy takedowns of tweets rather than actually grappling with any of his more serious arguments. So far, you have done that exact same thing. You have presented very little to indicate that you have much knowledge of Dawkins, and yet you feel qualified to call him an idiot. I have asked you to outline his views - I have no asked for an "essay". It doesn't take much time to summarize a specific person's opinion, or at least give an accurate summary of a man's point of view on a specific issue. I am not saying this disqualifies you from any kind of debate or discussion or opinion on the man - I am merely suggesting that perhaps one of the reasons people prefer attacking his tweets rather than his actual arguments is because they are either unfamiliar with them or are merely jumping on the Dawkins hating bandwagon. You have done little to convince me that you don't belong in either camp, despite being given several chances.

As with your first post, you assume an awful lot. I find it telling that if someone criticises Dawkins it is automatically assumed that they are an ignorant and irrational appeaser for fanaticism.

I never once suggested that, and it is utterly dishonest for you to say so.

The bulk of his work is not really relevant. I'm not trying to discredit everything he's ever said. I agree with a fair bulk of it, what I don't agree with is things like this:

“Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people. ”... “The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism—as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: ‘Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”... “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.”

I discussed why previously so you can search for it if you want.

I'm not asking for you to discredit everything he has ever said, and your ability to copy and paste quotes from websites isn't impressive to me. All I have attempted to do, and that I have said from the very beginning, is discover if you have any real understanding of or reaction to any of Dawkins more verbose arguments and justifications. Throughout the parts of this thread I have read, I have seen nothing but simplifications and hand-waves, but I have seen very little that actually deals with the meat of his arguments.

It's a discussion forum, certain phraseology generates more interest and thus discussion

So you were being deliberately inflammatory?

If you wish to discuss anything specific, I'm happy to continue. If you want to play the judge, it's a bit pointless.

I have no interest in playing judge, especially when you clearly have designs on the role for yourself.

 

[outhouse]

So.... You're admitting to trolling?

Well lets look at his comments

Dawkins is an idiot, but I wont tell you why, you go ahead and guess. But others do say he sucks so he must.

That sums up this whole thread

 

[Augustus]

but I have seen very little that actually deals with the meat of his arguments... your ability to copy and paste quotes from websites isn't impressive to me.

Well you did admit that you have no intention of reading any of the previous discussion. And you ask for specific quotes from his book, then complain when I provide them.

All I have attempted to do, and that I have said from the very beginning, is discover if you have any real understanding of or reaction to any of Dawkins more verbose arguments and justifications... I have no interest in playing judge, especially when you clearly have designs on the role for yourself.

Then engage in discussion of the points, explain why you consider them wrong as is the normal purpose of a discussion forum. This will enable you to discover things.

If you just appear and state you won't read any of the thread, won't engage in any discussion, but demand that others follow your commands to be judged or else be shown to be a scoundrel don't be surprised that people aren't really interested in fulfilling your demands.

So would you like to discuss anything related to the OP?