Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[Storm]

In other words, Bias is caused by lack of information. Knowing what I do about Dawkins, I would say it is very unlikely he has a lack of information regarding religions, as he has studied them, I daresay, at least as much as you have.

If he has, he's ignored everything that didn't suit his own bias, which is worse. I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Photonic]

If he has, he's ignored everything that didn't suit his own bias, which is worse. I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When one takes an outside view of religion, what one sees is quite frankly disturbing.

I cannot fault him for what is painfully obvious.

 

[Storm]

When one takes an outside view of religion, what one sees is quite frankly disturbing.

I cannot fault him for what is painfully obvious.

No human endeavor can be understood from outside.

 

[Photonic]

No human endeavor can be understood from outside.

I would say that the only way to understand it is to view it from the outside.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I actually thought Hitch was brilliant when it came to his articles on British republicanism and the end of the monarchy (part Brit). But I definately started to think less of him when he made a career out of basically trolling religion

 

[Photonic]

I actually thought Hitch was brilliant when it came to his articles on British republicanism and the end of the monarchy (part Brit). But I definately started to think less of him when he made a career out of baically trolling religion

Too bad.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Too bad.

He should have stuck to British republicanism, maybe if he did we wouldn't have been inflected with that Will and Kate wedding debacle

 

[gnomon]

I actually thought Hitch was brilliant when it came to his articles on British republicanism and the end of the monarchy (part Brit). But I definately started to think less of him when he made a career out of basically trolling religion

That's fantastic.

But this is a thread about Dawkins.

If you are going to malign intellectuals from a crumbled tower at least try to keep them straight.

But we know how it is. All those intellectuals who offer up criticisms of religion just kind of look alike.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's fantastic.

But this is a thread about Dawkins.

If you are going to malign intellectuals from a crumbled tower at least try to keep them straight.

But we know how it is. All those intellectuals who offer up criticisms of religion just kind of look alike.

Whoops that what i get for having too many windows open

 

[gnomon]

Whoops that what i get for having too many windows open

And I apologize for being too snarky because I've done it as well.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And I apologize for being too snarky because I've done it as well.

I still think Hitch was brilliant on British republicanism by the way

 

[cablescavenger]

By smug I mean he is a haughty little venomous prig. Please tell me how many times I have to repeat this before you get the definition of smug right

smug, and misinformed.

 

[Storm]

I would say that the only way to understand it is to view it from the outside.

Nonsense. A deaf man will never understand music.

 

[cablescavenger]

And when you speak confidently from ignorance, your betters call it smug.

What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.
-- Bertrand Russell,

Call it smug if you like, it makes perfect sense to me

 

[Storm]

What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.
-- Bertrand Russell,

Call it smug if you like, it makes perfect sense to me

Me, too. Pity Dawkins can't see it.

 

[Photonic]

Nonsense. A deaf man will never understand music.

[youtube]YAOTCtW9v0M[/youtube]
Beethoven Symphony No.9 - YouTube

 

[cablescavenger]

Me, too. Pity Dawkins can't see it.

Why do you think that? Is it because he is not religious?

 

[Photonic]

Why do you think that? Is it because he is not religious?

Apparently, you have to be religious at that very moment to understand religion ever.

 

[cablescavenger]

Poorly phrased, I meant a man born deaf. Beethoven lost his hearing and composed from a position of knowledge.

Also, I regretted the implications of my analogy as soon as I posted. What I'm trying to say is that you can never understand any aspect of humanity until you "walk a mile in his shoes." Foreign language is unintelligible. Art is meaningless. Science is pointless, and theology 'mere superstition.'

OK, I will accept that.

I also understand your point about walking a mile in someones shoes, and would agree with that when making judgments about people.

When making an assessment on whether God exists does not require the experience of any person. It is a personal assessment based on the evidence.

 

[Photonic]

OK, I will accept that.

I also understand your point about walking a mile in someones shoes, and would agree with that when making judgments about people.

When making an assessment on whether God exists does not require the experience of any person. It is a personal assessment based on the evidence.

It can also be a scientific assessment if the evidence would ever be presented.