Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[cablescavenger]

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

Agreed.

What I like about Dawkins is he has lots of evidence. No wonder he looks smug when debating against conjecture.

 

[Storm]

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

No, because I've never seen any indication that he'd agree.

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

You have to study and try to understand.

 

[Photonic]

No, because I've never seen any indication that he'd agree.


You have to study and try to understand.

What makes you believe Dawkins has not? Because he has come to a different conclusion than you? That is poor evidence to go on.

 

[Storm]

What makes you believe Dawkins has not? Because he has come to a different conclusion than you? That is poor evidence to go on.

Because he says so himself:

"Look, somebody who thinks the way I do doesn’t think theology is a subject at all. So to me it is like someone saying they don’t believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven’t studied fairy-ology."

source

 

[Photonic]

Because he says so himself:

"Look, somebody who thinks the way I do doesn’t think theology is a subject at all. So to me it is like someone saying they don’t believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven’t studied fairy-ology."

source

Well, I tend to disagree that you can't be an expert on such things, after all we have experts on mythology. In the end that is what it is to me.

 

[Storm]

Well, I tend to disagree that you can't be an expert on such things, after all we have experts on mythology. In the end that is what it is to me.

That's not what I was saying. I'm saying Dawkins is no expert on any subfield of religion, but fails to realize his own ignorance.

 

[Photonic]

That's not what I was saying. I'm saying Dawkins is no expert on any subfield of religion, but fails to realize his own ignorance.

Because it took you 20 years, it should take everyone else 20 years...right?


After all, I'm an astrophysicist, but anyone can just do what I do immediately. People have different rates of learning, and different capabilities to handle that learning. This idea is nothing new.

 

[Storm]

Because it took you 20 years, it should take everyone else 20 years...right?


After all, I'm an astrophysicist, but anyone can just do what I do immediately.

If all else fails, STRAWMAN! :camp:

 

[Photonic]

If all else fails, STRAWMAN! :camp:

*sigh* People are far too hasty in calling something a straw-man when they disagree.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.

Your assumption is you can't see how Dawkins can be an expert on religion if you aren't after 20 years. I know it isn't fair but some people really are better, faster learners than other people.

 

[Storm]

*sigh* People are far too hasty in calling something a straw-man when they disagree.


Your assumption is you can't see how Dawkins can be an expert on religion if you aren't after 20 years. I know it isn't fair but some people really are better, faster learners than other people.

I made no such assumption, though. My informed opinion after 20 years of study is that Dawkins has no clue what he's talking about. So, yeah... it was a strawman.

 

[Photonic]

I made no such assumption, though. My informed opinion after 20 years of study is that Dawkins has no clue what he's talking about. So, yeah... it was a strawman.

Right, your informed opinion. Unfortunately, not everyone comes to the same informed opinion. Not everyone requires the same amount of time too either.

 

[Storm]

Right, your informed opinion. Unfortunately, not everyone comes to the same informed opinion. Not everyone requires the same amount of time too either.

Dawkins has access to the same data, which he has either missed or ignored. I don't care whether he's an atheist or a Christian or my first convert. The point is he's a theological bumpkin.

 

[Photonic]

Dawkins has access to the same data, which he has either missed or ignored. I don't care whether he's an atheist or a Christian or my first convert. The point is he's a theological bumpkin.

You keep saying that but you have yet to present evidence that he is.

 

[Storm]

You keep saying that but you have yet to present evidence that he is.

I provided a quote from the man himself BOASTING of his ignorance. You attempted to twist even that into some bizarre elitism about how learning speed. Why should I go into detail if you're not going to be honest?

 

[Photonic]

I provided a quote from the man himself BOASTING of his ignorance. You attempted to twist even that into some bizarre elitism about how learning speed. Why should I go into detail if you're not going to be honest?

I'm not sure how you managed to interpret what you quoted to mean that.

Please clarify.

 

[cablescavenger]

No, because I've never seen any indication that he'd agree.

I can understand that, but his job is as an educator. He does acknowledge that people have beliefs, he just rejects that they are valid.

While some religious people might take offense at the candid way he nonchalantly disregards their belief, but one has to consider that he speaks in the same manner and with the same willful disregard that has always been afforded to non believers.

 

[Storm]

I can understand that, but his job is as an educator. He does acknowledge that people have beliefs, he just rejects that they are valid.

While some religious people might take offense at the candid way he nonchalantly disregards their belief, but one has to consider that he speaks in the same manner and with the same willful disregard that has always been afforded to non believers.

You touch it with a needle!

Dawkins has no right - NONE - to consider himself an educator in a field he hasn't studied. I would love to take a biology class from him, but that's HIS field. Listening to him on theology is like listening to Kirk Cameron on evolution.

 

[idav]

Listening to him on theology is like listening to Kirk Cameron on evolution.

Ouch, LOL!

 

[Storm]

Ouch, LOL!

Indeed. The difference is, he's not an utter moron. I don't know whether that's better or worse in the end, but it's certainly more frustrating and sad to me.

 

[cablescavenger]

You touch it with a needle!

Dawkins has no right - NONE - to consider himself an educator in a field he hasn't studied. I would love to take a biology class from him, but that's HIS field. Listening to him on theology is like listening to Kirk Cameron on evolution.

He does not try to educate people about God, but the reasons why God could be considered invalid. He merely backs up his opinion.

I can see why you are angry, as an atheist we face these things every day and they go unnoticed.

For instance you have a child, people interfere and say it should be christened or baptised.
You send your child to school and Religious education is given to them.
You get married, and you either do it in a church where the event is hijacked by a the priest/vicar, or you do it in a civil ceremony which amounts to a small back room somewhere despite the fact some of your taxes support the church, and the church does not pay taxes.
A friend or relative dies and the vicar/priest is there to glean stories from the relatives, talk as if they know them and tell everyone about the great place they are going to, something I thought someone else is supposed to decide upon.

To you that might just be a part of life, and I know many atheists that just accept the rules of life too, but I find it pretty repugnant that these things are allowed to happen.