More Dawkins idiocy...

[icehorse]

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.

I agree with prometheus - never heard that definition before.

Actually, as my tag line indicates, I DO think there is a core, universal, pretty darned good, set of morals. I've agreed that there are variations, but not major variations.

 

[Augustus]

I agree with prometheus - never heard that definition before.

It's not a definition, it's a usage. As in:

Our original feminist vision was radical and transformative. We believed in universal human rights. We were not multi-cultural relativists. We called out misogyny when we saw it and did not exempt a rapist, a wife-beater, or a pedophile because he was poor (his victims were also poor); or a man of color (his victims were also people of color); or because he had an abused childhood (so did his victims).

In your own words, can you explain what you think relativism is then?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well you did admit that you have no intention of reading any of the previous discussion.

Because it's not relevant to the point I am making and has no impact on it whatsoever. I am not going to go trawling through twenty-odd pages of comments when I can just make my own inquiry.

And you ask for specific quotes from his book, then complain when I provide them.

1 - I have never asked for "a specific quote from his book". I once asked for a summary in HIS words, but that is because you've never really presented any of his opinions accurately at length, and very rarely refer to his own words.

2 - I have never complained about your providing quotations, merely that none of the quotations you have provided indicate anything past a very superficial understanding of his opinion and/or access to Google.

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.

Do not patronize me.

Again, all I did was make an observation - an observation you seem unwilling to address in any meaningful way. You didn't have to engage with the observation if you didn't want to, and now that you're starting to be exposed you want me to suddenly get back to discussing these inconsequential tweets?

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.

It's an internet forum. I brought up a relevant observation. If you're incapable of demonstrating that you aren't ignorant of Dawkins work, but just like bashing the man's twitter comments because you feel it justifies your irrational dislike of the man, that is a problem with you. Do not turn this around on me and make it sound like I am the unreasonable one.

Also, "scoundrel"? Seriously?

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

I would like to discuss why you think people choose to attack tweets rather than his actual arguments.

 

[icehorse]

It's not a definition, it's a usage. As in:

Our original feminist vision was radical and transformative. We believed in universal human rights. We were not multi-cultural relativists. We called out misogyny when we saw it and did not exempt a rapist, a wife-beater, or a pedophile because he was poor (his victims were also poor); or a man of color (his victims were also people of color); or because he had an abused childhood (so did his victims).

In your own words, can you explain what you think relativism is then?

I would say that a relativist claims that ultimately there is no way to know whether an action is right or wrong. So, for example, a relativist would say that there's no way to prove that murdering people is "wrong", or that being charitable is "right".

 

[Augustus]

If you're incapable of demonstrating that you aren't ignorant of Dawkins work, but just like bashing the man's twitter comments because you feel it justifies your irrational dislike of the man, that is a problem with you.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss what I said. You are back to assuming the things that you decided upon before your 1st post, I must be 'irrational'.

I would like to discuss why you think people choose to attack tweets rather than his actual arguments.

Because I was reading his tweets and disagreed with them. If you want to refer me to a particular article that you think relates to this topic, I'll happily provide a response.

Can you explain what part of beliefs you believe I have misrepresented?

 

[Augustus]

I would say that a relativist claims that ultimately there is no way to know whether an action is right or wrong. So, for example, a relativist would say that there's no way to prove that murdering people is "wrong", or that being charitable is "right".

You can ask everybody 'would you like to be murdered'? They would all say no, so you can say that it is wrong.

But would you admit there is a difference between a hunter gatherer murdering a deformed baby and a contemporary European doing the same?

 

[prometheus11]

I would say that a relativist claims that ultimately there is no way to know whether an action is right or wrong. So, for example, a relativist would say that there's no way to prove that murdering people is "wrong", or that being charitable is "right".

I don't agree.

A relativist needs to understand the context in which an action occurs in order to decide if that action would be considered "wrong" or "right" by "the sensible 'man'."

 

[prometheus11]

You can ask everybody 'would you like to be murdered'? They would all say no, so you can say that it is wrong.

But would you admit there is a difference between a hunter gatherer murdering a deformed baby and a contemporary European doing the same?

Murder is not an action; it's s judicial pronouncement.

"Killing" is the action. In many cases it is not considered murder. (Wartime. Self defense. Etc )

And yes, many people would prefer to be killed. (Such as those with horribly painful diseases that will only get worse and more agony and worse until they die)

Yes, you take a morally relativist stance when you judge the KILLING of a baby in one circumstance to be murder and in another circumstance to be justified for righteous reasons (such as to save the lives of several babies).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm perfectly happy to discuss what I said. You are back to assuming the things that you decided upon before your 1st post, I must be 'irrational'.

I never assumed anything before my first post. I gave you plenty of opportunities to demonstrate you had a deeper knowledge of Dawkins' opinions than ones culled from his twitter account, and you failed to do so. Don't accuse me of prejudice just because you failed to justify your own position.

Because I was reading his tweets and disagreed with them. If you want to refer me to a particular article that you think relates to this topic, I'll happily provide a response.

That's all well and good, but if that's merely the case then why should my initial observation cause any consternation whatsoever? I made no accusations whatsoever, merely an observation that I rarely, if ever, see threads detailing refutations of Dawkins' books or articles, but countless threads making all sorts of allegations about him based purely on tweets. Why do you suppose this is?

Can you explain what part of beliefs you believe I have misrepresented?

I don't believe I've ever accused you of misrepresentation, just oversimplification. But if you need examples of that from the OP:

"The first one labels Stalinism and Naziism 'religions' to support his ideological assumptions. His arguments about the "unique danger" of religious belief have to come up against the major flaw that some non-religious ideologies have been even more murderous than the religions he hates. To solve this, hey why not just just say that they are religions instead?"

Anyone who has read the God Delusion would know that he has already addressed this exact issue at length. He has never maintained that religion is "uniquely dangerous" in that it causes "more murders" than non-religious ideologies, merely that religion uniquely allows for the holding of positions which are not only exempt from rationality but permitted to be directly in opposition to it. Dawkins has never maintained that religion is unique as a cause or justification of murder, and so to say that this is a "major flaw" is inaccurate at best.

What's more, he did not call them religions. He called them "religious ideologies" and later corrected himself by calling them "evidence-free ideologies" (most likely due to reactions like yours). There is a distinction to be made, otherwise he would not have made it.

"They place a mystical value on something, in this case the individual and its inalienable human rights."

Human rights are not mystical.

"They also preach salvation, for Dawkins, salvation comes through science, reason, democracy and respect for individual rights."

This is not only a misrepresentation, but outright dishonesty and hyperbole. Dawkins has never espoused any belief that these things lead to any kind of "salvation" in the same manner as religions do - merely that they lead to more objectivity and a greater understanding of the world and our place in it.

"As with religious people, he believes that there is one correct way of living, which, by happy coincidence, just happens to be the same as the one as he believes in."

Pure fabrication. Please give a single example of Richard Dawkins claiming that there is "one correct way of living".

"So, on to the 2nd tweet. Instead of religion, it is now "evidence free ideologies" that are the problem. All of the world's problems are cause by people's lack of reason."

Another pure fabrication. Please give a single example of Richard Dawkins claiming that "ALL of the world's problems are caused by people's lack of reason".

"It is important to note that he didn't refer to utopian ideologies being problematic, just "evidence free" ones."

He also didn't refer to flat-earthism being problematic, so clearly he must consider that as evidenced based, then?

"Unfortunately for Mr Dawkins, he is a humanist, and if any ideology meets the criterion of being "evidence free", it is humanism. Yet again, he fails to realise that his own beliefs are disproved by any scientific criteria and are wholly irrational."

And hamburgers are made by wookiees. It's very easy to make claims and then not support them.

"Not only is there no evidence to support his views, but there is a mountain of evidence to disprove them."

Since you have yet to present any of his views, or any of the evidence against them, this seems a premature conclusion.

"Unfortunately for him, Dawkins own ideology is also utopian."

Please demonstrate Dawkins' utopian ideology.

"For example, a significant number of Humanists supported the neo-conservative/liberal interventionist wars. Fighting wars to establish human right and Western values is utopian."

A significant number of Humanists also mow their lawns. So what can we infer about Dawkin's approach to lawns from this? Nothing. Also, believing in universal human rights is not "utopian".

"Ideologies are how you explain to yourself how the world works. They are myths, not evidence based truths."

This is merely a weak justification to ignore any kind of evidence-based ideology and dismiss the possibility of some being more based on reality, or a more accurate reflection of reality. You can't just dismiss them on the basis of being an ideology. It's perfectly possible that some ideologies are based on evidence based truths, and that an ideology need not be based on myths.

In other words, you accuse Dawkins of a lot of things, and show no evidence of any of those accusations being accurate. You use hyperbole and red herrings to string together an illogical sequence of arguments to refute an argument that I am not yet convinced you even thoroughly understand.

 

[icehorse]

All right, I gave a quick description and it got parsed to death. Let's try a different tack...

Would you agree or disagree that societal metrics such as health, poverty, education, violence, and -shudder- even happiness can be used to determine whether given behaviors and beliefs are good or bad?

 

[outhouse]

A relativist needs to understand the context in which an action occurs in order to decide if that action would be considered "wrong" or "right" by "the sensible 'man'."

Agreed and a relativist has no reason to debate anything. It is like asking to debate an imaginative moving target.


Try getting a straight answer about science or history from a muslim, its the same thing here.

 

[Augustus]

merely that religion uniquely allows for the holding of positions which are not only exempt from rationality but permitted to be directly in opposition to it

How is religion unique in this sense? Plenty or people have killed or died for mystical qualities such as glory, brotherhood, virtue and honour. Surely you can admit this?

Human rights are not mystical.

Yes they are. They rely on transcendent abstract qualities based on subjective preferences.

Let's say that every year the 10 richest people in each country would have to stand 'trial'. They wouldn't be punished for being rich, but would be expected to show that they hadn't used their wealth to leverage greater privilege and wold be expected to demonstrate that they had made reasonable attempts to give back to society. If not, they would be shot.

Objectively, this would result in a net benefit to society, but violates the human rights of a tiny number of people.

What makes it 'wrong'?

Dawkins has never espoused any belief that these things lead to any kind of "salvation" in the same manner as religions do - merely that they lead to more objectivity and a greater understanding of the world and our place in it.

It's not religious salvation, but the idea that we can move beyond what all the evidence shows are fundamental aspects of human nature. The idea that violence and irrationality are problems that can be solved, rather than an intrinsic part of our existence.

Please give a single example of Richard Dawkins claiming that there is "one correct way of living"...Please give a single example of Richard Dawkins claiming that "ALL of the world's problems are caused by people's lack of reason".

Rhetorical hyperbole [mine]

Regarding the idea that we can overcome our nature through the application of reason. What is reasonable depends on the point we start from, the idea that applying reason leads to his worldview is not based on experience.

He also didn't refer to flat-earthism being problematic, so clearly he must consider that as evidenced based, then?

No, but if lack of evidence is the problem then it brings a whole load more ideologies into the equation.

Also, believing in universal human rights is not "utopian".

Expecting that one set of universal values can exist and apply to all of the disparate societies in the world runs against the entire history of our existence. Can you provide evidence to support that this is an achievable goal? That, in a loose sense, there is an 'end of history' scenario where we realise a set of universally agreed upon principles.

And hamburgers are made by wookiees. It's very easy to make claims and then not support them."Not only is there no evidence to support his views, but there is a mountain of evidence to disprove them." ... Please demonstrate Dawkins' utopian ideology... This is merely a weak justification to ignore any kind of evidence-based ideology and dismiss the possibility of some being more based on reality, or a more accurate reflection of reality. You can't just dismiss them on the basis of being an ideology. It's perfectly possible that some ideologies are based on evidence based truths, and that an ideology need not be based on myths.

It's a definition of ideology, not a justification. I didn't say all ideologies are equal either.

But, for humanism, why should I agree that a concept of humanity exists for example? What evidence is there to support this?

or:

By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. Amsterdam Declaration

We are liberated by calculation and reason to visit regions of possibility that had once seemed out of bounds or inhabited by dragons... [Can we succeed in this] I genuinely don’t know the answer, but I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.

Yes I know he says 'I don't know', but he does conceive it as a realistic possibility. This is utopian. Morality does not progress like technology does, evidence shows we are a violent species and will remain so.

We are never going to solve the problem of overpopulation short of some environmental disaster. If we do suffer an environmental disaster, you can bet your life that it will not usher in an age of humanism.

From an evolutionary perspective, would you agree that the goal is survival of the species? Would you also agree that the survival of one's kin (or at least group) is preferable to the survival of outsiders?

There is a realistic chance that we are going to cause a total collapse of our ecosystem. This means a realistic risk of everybody, including my group being wiped out. On what scientific grounds is it irrational for my group to kill half of the world's population to buy some breathing space if we have the capability?

Why should I risk the death of my kin to protect an arbitrary construct of 'human rights', that would almost certainly lead to disaster?

Also given that humans are not intrinsically more valuable than any other animal, killing these people would allow other species to flourish. Only by considering a human life more 'valuable' than that of a bird, whale or a monkey would make this cruel.

What makes a human like more valuable than that of any other sentient animal?

[I'm not saying we should do this, just saying there's no objective reason why I shouldn't]

 

[Augustus]

Would you agree or disagree that societal metrics such as health, poverty, education, violence, and -shudder- even happiness can be used to determine whether given behaviors and beliefs are good or bad?

I agree that they should be in a normative sense, and very much wish they were. I'm not sure if that can be justified scientifically though.

Even if we accept that it is justifiable scientifically, you always run up against the problem of individual rights versus the greatest good though. Is it better to violate the rights of 1 person to benefit 100?

Even if human rights are objectively true, they are often irreconcilably contradictory.

 

[prometheus11]

Of course "greater good" is better than less good. Yep, easy. Sacrifice one for a million, sacrifice a hundred for a hundred thousand, sacrifice one for two.

 

[icehorse]

You bring up questions of individual rights vs. collective rights. While I agree that these can be complex questions, they don't seem unanswerable. For example, if a society decided that scapegoating was a good idea, it might initially be thought that this is an example of a moral contradiction. But it could well be that in such a society, everyone's well being is incrementally reduced when scapegoating is allowed.

 

[outhouse]

Even if human rights are objectively true, they are often irreconcilably contradictory

So what are you trying to pervert human rights into something negative?

 

[outhouse]

Yes they are. They rely on transcendent abstract qualities based on subjective preferences.

That in no way refutes YOUR reply that they are mystical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is religion unique in this sense? Plenty or people have killed or died for mystical qualities such as glory, brotherhood, virtue and honour. Surely you can admit this?

Firstly, you need to define "mysical qualities".

Secondly, how do any of those things allow for positions that are in direct opposition to rationality? Glory, brotherhood, virtue and honor are vague concepts that are largely defined by the situation and circumstances. What is considered virtuous at one time for one set of reasons can change with the time and with the reasons, and a person can have rational reasons for thinking that something is glorious, brotherly, virtuous or honorable. None of them are justifications in an of themselves that run contrary to rationality.

Yes they are. They rely on transcendent abstract qualities based on subjective preferences.

That doesn't make them "mystical", it makes them abstract.

Let's say that every year the 10 richest people in each country would have to stand 'trial'. They wouldn't be punished for being rich, but would be expected to show that they hadn't used their wealth to leverage greater privilege and wold be expected to demonstrate that they had made reasonable attempts to give back to society. If not, they would be shot.

Objectively, this would result in a net benefit to society, but violates the human rights of a tiny number of people.

What makes it 'wrong'?

You're presenting a simple problem to do with moral philosophy. You'll receive different answers from different people based on preferences for personal liberty and individual rights or societal growth and moral utilitarianism. What on earth does this have to do with anything mystical? The fact that something may not have a readily apparent objective answer that is most correct doesn't suggest the input of anything mystical.

It's not religious salvation, but the idea that we can move beyond what all the evidence shows are fundamental aspects of human nature. The idea that violence and irrationality are problems that can be solved, rather than an intrinsic part of our existence.

Had Richard Dawkins ever said that these problems can be "solved"?

Rhetorical hyperbole [mine]

Regarding the idea that we can overcome our nature through the application of reason. What is reasonable depends on the point we start from, the idea that applying reason leads to his worldview is not based on experience.

I believe I asked you for an example of something you have claimed Richard Dawkins believes. Can you do that?

No, but if lack of evidence is the problem then it brings a whole load more ideologies into the equation.

Naturally, anything that can be referred to as "evidence-free ideologies" includes all ideologies which are "evidence-free" - a fairly obvious syllogism. Does that mean he needs to list them all?

Expecting that one set of universal values can exist and apply to all of the disparate societies in the world runs against the entire history of our existence. Can you provide evidence to support that this is an achievable goal? That, in a loose sense, there is an 'end of history' scenario where we realise a set of universally agreed upon principles.

You're confusing the notion of universal human rights and "universally agreed upon principles". One can hold a position that there is universal rights without the whole world agreeing to it, and a person may even be able to base their decision on what constitutes those rights based on sound, rational reasoning which may even be considered objectively just - at least, in theory. Something doesn't need to be universally agreed upon in order for, at the very least, an individual to believe in a Universally applicable set of rights.

It's a definition of ideology, not a justification. I didn't say all ideologies are equal either.

Then you consider some ideologies to be objectively (to some extent) superior to others?

But, for humanism, why should I agree that a concept of humanity exists for example?

What word do you use to refer to the entities you interact with?

What evidence is there to support this?

The fact that you are currently communicating with one.

or:

By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. Amsterdam Declaration

We are liberated by calculation and reason to visit regions of possibility that had once seemed out of bounds or inhabited by dragons... [Can we succeed in this] I genuinely don’t know the answer, but I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.

Yes I know he says 'I don't know', but he does conceive it as a realistic possibility. This is utopian.

Wanting to create a better world and improve people's lives is utopian? You are extremely confused.

Morality does not progress like technology does, evidence shows we are a violent species and will remain so.

Evidence shows we have been violent, but I have no idea why someone who seriously questions whether humanity exists could possibly invoke evidence to suggest we will "remain violent". What's more, I've never seen Dawkins ever claim that his ideology, or any ideology for that matter, would "end" violence. That's ludicrous.

We are never going to solve the problem of overpopulation short of some environmental disaster.

Oh, I see the problem now! You're a pessimist with a severe lack of imagination. How edgy.

If we do suffer an environmental disaster, you can bet your life that it will not usher in an age of humanism.

What does that have to do with the price of butter? Or Dawkins, even?

From an evolutionary perspective, would you agree that the goal is survival of the species?

From an evolutionary perspective, there are no "goals". That's like saying "from a gravtiational perspective, would you agree that the goal is to pull things together?" Evolution is merely a force within the physical world. Humans are a by-product of that. The notion of goals doesn't enter into it.

Would you also agree that the survival of one's kin (or at least group) is preferable to the survival of outsiders?

I would, but only on a very basic and emotional level. If given a choice, I would rather my friend lived and a bus full of strangers died on a personal level. But I happen to have a brain, and I know the place that such feelings come from and hope I can sufficiently understand the reasons for the disconnect between my rational and emotional centres enough to inform a better judgement, whatever that judgement may be.

There is a realistic chance that we are going to cause a total collapse of our ecosystem. This means a realistic risk of everybody, including my group being wiped out. On what scientific grounds is it irrational for my group to kill half of the world's population to buy some breathing space if we have the capability?

Again, questions on moral philosophy are irrelevant. I hardly see where this is going.

Why should I risk the death of my kin to protect an arbitrary construct of 'human rights', that would almost certainly lead to disaster?

Now you're just rambling.

Also given that humans are not intrinsically more valuable than any other animal, killing these people would allow other species to flourish. Only by considering a human life more 'valuable' than that of a bird, whale or a monkey would make this cruel.

What makes a human like more valuable than that of any other sentient animal?

[I'm not saying we should do this, just saying there's no objective reason why I shouldn't]

There are plenty of objective reasons why not. Over 7 billion to be exact.

Pointing out the fuzzy areas in human morality may be very impressive in a high school philosophy class, but you've not even approached any kind of point or even vaguely responding to a thing I have written. I don't care about this kind of naval-gazing, and it doesn't prove anything. The fact that these sorts of problems continue to puzzle us, and that we are constantly struggling to define what the "right thing" even is in such situations doesn't say one damn thing about Richard Dawkins, humanism or anything even remotely relevant in this discussion. Try your treatise on someone else, please.

 

[Augustus]

What is considered virtuous at one time for one set of reasons can change with the time and with the reasons, and a person can have rational reasons for thinking that something is glorious, brotherly, virtuous or honorable. None of them are justifications in an of themselves that run contrary to rationality.

They can make you do something murderous and counterproductive based on things which are not objectively true. They are rational in the sense that acting on religious belief is rational.

Why is religion unique?

Naturally, anything that can be referred to as "evidence-free ideologies" includes all ideologies which are "evidence-free" - a fairly obvious syllogism. Does that mean he needs to list them all?

Not the point. The cause of the problem is not that they are 'evidence free'. Most ideologies are.

What word do you use to refer to the entities you interact with?

Humans. A collection of individuals with differing and often contrasting needs and wants.

The idea that "humans beings collectively" represents a meaningful unit is a hangover from monothesitic religion. It is not an idea that existed in many societies and is faith based rather than evidence based. No other animal exists 'collectively', they exist as individuals and groups which are often in direct competition.

Believing in humanity is fine, it's not based on any evidence though.

There are plenty of objective reasons why not. Over 7 billion to be exact.

Why is it objectively worse to kill a human than another sentient animal? What is the evidence for this?

doesn't say one damn thing about Richard Dawkins, humanism or anything even remotely relevant in this discussion.

It was the point of this discussion.

His ideology is not based on evidence and his view that religion is unique in its negative effects is not based on evidence either, in fact it goes against the evidence.

To some extent, we all rely on certain beliefs that are not objectively provable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They can make you do something murderous and counterproductive based on things which are not objectively true.

Please give an example of how any of those concepts can be used to justify something that is murderous, counterproductive and not subject to rational judgement.

They are rational in the sense that acting on religious belief is rational.

I never said they were rational, I said that they are vague concepts that can change depending on circumstances. I said that they are not exempt from rationality, because people can (and do) think of good, sound, rational reasons to think that things are virtuous, glorious, etc.. Religion is the only form of ideology which can (though doesn't always, of course) have commands and principles that are not only exempt from rationality but may run contrary to it, but may still be claimed to be objectively good.

Why is religion unique?

Because religion uniquely allows for the holding of positions which are exempt from, and contrary to, rationality. I have already said that. Religions hold that there is a set of Universal values, and that these values are not determined by humans or other thinking brains, but by a set of dictates determined by either an unknowable authority that cannot be questioned or else an unchangeable fundamental element of the Universe.

Let's try an example. Let's say we have the example that a soldier is being told that they should kill an entire building full of innocent people, and they are being told that to do so would be "virtuous". The soldier asks his commander why this is considered a virtuous act. What could the commander possibly say, without religion, to justify the claim that this act was necessarily virtuous?

Not the point. The cause of the problem is not that they are 'evidence free'. Most ideologies are.

So do you feel an ideology which doesn't require any kind of rational justification or evidence for its claims is necessarily no more potentially harmful than one that does?

Humans. A collection of individuals with differing and often contrasting needs and wants.

And "humans" make up "humanity". You basically just gave the definition of both.

The idea that "humans beings collectively" represents a meaningful unit is a hangover from monothesitic religion. It is not an idea that existed in many societies and is faith based rather than evidence based.

That is ridiculous. How is referring to humanity as a collective "faith-based"? It's just a label.

No other animal exists 'collectively', they exist as individuals and groups which are often in direct competition.

Now you're just debating semantics. Do you believe it is impossible for humans to exist as individuals and yet still constitute a collective that can meaningfully be labelled "humanity"?

Believing in humanity is fine, it's not based on any evidence though.

That makes no sense.

Why is it objectively worse to kill a human than another sentient animal?

I've never claimed it was.

What is the evidence for this?

I've never made the claim, so I don't have to present evidence for it. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

It was the point of this discussion.

Which is exactly why this discussion is flawed. The basis for your argument against Dawkins isn't a meaningful response to his beliefs.

His ideology is not based on evidence and his view that religion is unique in its negative effects is not based on evidence either, in fact it goes against the evidence.

Please demonstrate these claims.

To some extent, we all rely on certain beliefs that are not objectively provable.

So do you therefore believe that all people's ideologies are equal?