More Dawkins idiocy...

[Robert.Evans]

That can be very meaningless and vague. It also does not recognize the fanaticism that refuses education and knowledge

Certainly knowledge is always a good thing if it builds one up and does not knock them down. But whether deeper means anything depends on the observer and what they get out of it. Again though, it should be positive. Even non-reilgious societies have killed and done atrocious things in the past and we might say even now, depending on how one views the politics of the west.

 

[outhouse]

But whether deeper means anything depends on the observer and what they get out of it.

That is exactly my point Robert. Its subjective understanding. It is not revealed knowledge in context.

Again though, it should be positive

Agreed

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is exactly my point Robert. Its subjective understanding. It is not revealed knowledge in context.



Agreed

Well I would say it was "revealed knowledge in context". But you and I will always have differences on that as you stand in a different position to me. Your ideas are purely secular imo

 

[outhouse]

Your ideas are purely secular imo

And instead of education and knowledge based, I views yours as mythological and faith based, IMHO.

 

[psychoslice]

Well that is always an easy stance isn't it. I will tell you what is front of my face and therefore I can't be wrong. Sometimes we look deeper. He doesn't want to. He has been pruned out and is the scorned man now. Why else would he spend so much time on this hobby of us, other than the fact he makes millions of cause out of the gullible.
If he is just going to stick with materialistic arguments, then he will win. He can prove them. But why then debate it in the first place?

People like him keep the idiots out there honest, if we sit back and let these people do what they want, then where would we be, the religious can be very dangerous if allowed to do all the want to do, they would take over everything, they would teach our children silly ideas that are not scientific, in fact we would emerge back to the so called dark-ages.

 

[Olinda]

Well you are too much into your beliefs, you cannot see beyond your belief's because you are blinded by your beliefs, Dawkins isn't blinded by any beliefs, he simply say's what is known, not that which is not known, or believe to be known.

Thanks, Psychoslice, I'm having difficulty seeing beyond my beliefs mainly because I can't see any beliefs either!

 

[psychoslice]

Thanks, Psychoslice, I'm having difficulty seeing beyond my beliefs mainly because I can't see any beliefs either!

Yea I don't have beliefs either, I don't need to believe the sun is going to rise each day.

 

[Olinda]

So, to summarise my understanding of all this, Richard Dawkins' ideologies are agreed to be at least less harmful than many, but are not evidence-based. Fair enough. It would be hard to provide proven facts to support any belief system that 'should' be applied universally.

There has been a strong reaction to the perceived criticism of Richard Dawkins' ideology, which is interesting and could even be depicted as immoderation, or even uncritical support of a leader. . but that would need another thread. I'll see if I can overcome my newbie shyness sometime and start it.
Thanks all, for everything I'm learning, especially Augustus

 

[Olinda]

Yea I don't have beliefs either, I don't need to believe the sun is going to rise each day.

That is in fact an assumption I use

 

[icehorse]

So, to summarise my understanding of all this, Richard Dawkins' ideologies are agreed to be at least less harmful than many, but are not evidence-based. Fair enough. It would be hard to provide proven facts to support any belief system that 'should' be applied universally.

There has been a strong reaction to the perceived criticism of Richard Dawkins' ideology, which is interesting and could even be depicted as immoderation, or even uncritical support of a leader. . but that would need another thread. I'll see if I can overcome my newbie shyness sometime and start it.
Thanks all, for everything I'm learning, especially Augustus

Are you a relativist? If not, what kind of evidence would you need to see?

 

[Olinda]

Are you a relativist? If not, what kind of evidence would you need to see?

Icehorse, as I've said, I'm learning as I go here and am not entirely certain of my ideology. I don't think the relativist position is tenable though.

At this stage of learning I doubt that evidence to support a utopian ideology would exist. I don't think that that should preclude anyone from adhering to such an ideology. It does mean that the holder of such a belief system should be respectful and circumspect when discussing another person's beliefs.

 

[icehorse]

Icehorse, as I've said, I'm learning as I go here and am not entirely certain of my ideology. I don't think the relativist position is tenable though.

At this stage of learning I doubt that evidence to support a utopian ideology would exist. I don't think that that should preclude anyone from adhering to such an ideology. It does mean that the holder of such a belief system should be respectful and circumspect when discussing another person's beliefs.

But you claimed that Dawkins had no evidence. I think that he does. That's why I asked you what evidence you'd need to see. It strikes me that you're implying "who knows? who can judge?", when in fact we do know.

 

[Robert.Evans]

People like him keep the idiots out there honest, if we sit back and let these people do what they want, then where would we be, the religious can be very dangerous if allowed to do all the want to do, they would take over everything, they would teach our children silly ideas that are not scientific, in fact we would emerge back to the so called dark-ages.

You might have a point. Though I think he goes about it the wrong way and even said, still makes millions out of it. ALL his books could be free on the internet. It's not as though he is poor.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yea I don't have beliefs either, I don't need to believe the sun is going to rise each day.

You don't need to believe it? Not sure. But I have to ask, Do you believe it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

But you claimed that Dawkins had no evidence. I think that he does. That's why I asked you what evidence you'd need to see. It strikes me that you're implying "who knows? who can judge?", when in fact we do know.

You think Dawkins has evidence? What? All be speaks of is physical things as a materialist. So what? How does that show that God does not exist? It doesn't. If you are claiming you are a materialist like he, and that is suffcient an answer, then fine. But evidence, no.

 

[Augustus]

If you're arguing for relativism, you've got yourself a fine "get out of jail free" card. Every conversation can be scuttled when you play the relativism card.

If you're not a relativist, are you claiming that morals came from a deity?

If not, then... ?

Relativism in what sense?

In the sense that all values have equal merit, none are better or worse than others - no.

In the sense that morals are cultural constructs - to some extent. There are some things that all humans have in common and we have some degree of nature. We aren't a completely blank canvas. That said, this doesn't lead to any sophisticated moral code as being more objectively 'true' and it certainly doesn't lead to humanism.

I agree with most of the tenets of humanism, although from an anti-utopian perspective.

Humans are violent and history is tragic, there is no solution to this problem looking forward. A person lives virtuously in the present as it is all they can do. It is not about some mythical future, just living by your values for its own sake and with no expectation of salvation.

But you claimed that Dawkins had no evidence. I think that he does

What evidence?

Humanism in general is a big topic, so will narrow it down to this.

From the Humanist manifesto 3, that Dawkins is a signatory to.

"we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals."

What is the evidence that:

a) Humanity exists as an 'evidence based' reality?
b) We have the ability to progress, rather than progress and regress depending on environmental characteristics. That history is teleological, not cyclical?
c) informed conviction is a better phrase than "desperately need to believe, despite the evidence being overwhelmingly against us"?

And a bonus though experiment: What will happen to our 'moral progress' when overpopulation and pollution cause the ecosystem to collapse?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well that is always an easy stance isn't it. I will tell you what is front of my face and therefore I can't be wrong. Sometimes we look deeper. He doesn't want to. He has been pruned out and is the scorned man now. Why else would he spend so much time on this hobby of us, other than the fact he makes millions of cause out of the gullible.
If he is just going to stick with materialistic arguments, then he will win. He can prove them. But why then debate it in the first place?

He spends so much of his time trying to educate people on evolution because it's needed, that's why.

 

[icehorse]

If you're not coming from a relativist stance, then can you agree that there is a spectrum from failed states like Syria up to very successful states like we see in Scandinavia? If so, do you see any correlation between the cultures and beliefs held in the failed states vs. the cultures and beliefs held in the more successful states?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You might have a point. Though I think he goes about it the wrong way and even said, still makes millions out of it. ALL his books could be free on the internet. It's not as though he is poor.

http://www.ebooks-for-all.com/bookmarks/detail/Richard-Dawkins-God-Delusion/onecat/0.html
https://archive.org/details/unweavingrainbow00dawk

I'm not sure why you think he shouldn't be allowed to make a living though.

 

[Robert.Evans]

He spends so much of his time trying to educate people on evolution because it's needed, that's why.

No, he spends most of his time trying to convince others that he is right on his stance on God. He also had an opportunity to put a big foot in the door with the Catholic church when the Pope said that they had no problems with evolution. He did not take that opportunity. So it is not about that. And he could promote for free, even on the net; he is a millionaire after all.