Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[idav]

We agree thus far. Do you agree that Dawkins made that error in the provided quote?

Yes generalizations are generally wrong.

 

[Storm]

We're on the same page then.

 

[shawn001]

Wrong!

God a lot more interesting than the stale old tripe that Dawkins comes up with.

I think that quote needs reversing.

if people think Dawkins is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- God

speaking for God is blasphemy.

 

[shawn001]

If people DON'T think God (or any other subject, for that matter) is interesting, THEY should just shut up about it. Otherwise they're just trolls.


The absolute nature of the phrasing renders this one as false as 2+2=7.

This is I believe came from this

"
I believe in one less god



Richard Carrier, in Sense and Goodness Without God, writes on page 255:

But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.​

In other words, if you are a Christian, you probably don't believe in the existence of Allah, Vishnu or any of the myriad of other gods that people have followed throughout history. I don't believe in those gods either, so in this sense I'm not all that different to you. The only small difference is that I believe in one less God. "

 

[outhouse]

yep, he has been using that correct phrase for a long time and its been said many different ways.


Most are skeptics, most dont believe in all the other deities worshipped and no longer worshipped.
You are all like me, the only difference is I believe in one less god then most of you

 

[Storm]

This is I believe came from this

"
I believe in one less god



Richard Carrier, in Sense and Goodness Without God, writes on page 255:

But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.​

In other words, if you are a Christian, you probably don't believe in the existence of Allah, Vishnu or any of the myriad of other gods that people have followed throughout history. I don't believe in those gods either, so in this sense I'm not all that different to you. The only small difference is that I believe in one less God. "

I'm not a Christian, though. Nor any other form of exclusive theology.

 

[painted wolf]

Surly you can do better that this! Maybe this one is more to your liking?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

:biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[Riverwolf]

As I said, the church was determined that its members only be exposed to a view of the world in keeping with its teachings, and none others. Anything that challenged the teachings of the church was seen as an enemy of the church.

Pretty much what I said, just worded differently.

Well, you said

"That's one religion, and not an adequate representative for all religions,"
​

which I took as noting that singling out the conflict between science and the Christian (Catholic) church overlooked all the other relationships between other science research and other religions. And that these other relationships amounted to a significant number. I simply pointed out that they did not. Most of the science done in the world was under the eye of the Catholic Church.

Uh... during the European Dark Ages, Islamic countries were in a golden age of science, medicine, mathematics, etc.

So, no, Europe wasn't the only country involved with scientific research in the world.

You said

"It should be noted that scientists did exist during this time, and much of what they found was perfectly acceptable by the Church... as long as it didn't disagree with Church doctrine. Therefore, they didn't want to maintain a misunderstanding of the world deliberately like some kind of illuminati group trying to keep everyone dumb."
​

And I disagree that they (the Catholic Church) "didn't want to maintain a misunderstanding of the world deliberately like some kind of illuminati group trying to keep everyone dumb." The Catholic Church thought the proper understanding of the world was established by their interpretation of the scriptures etc., so there was no possibly that they might be misunderstanding. Now, although they didn't consider their understanding to be mistaken, that's what it amounted to; therefore, by permitting only science that conformed to their understandings they were forcing science to maintain, buttress, these misunderstandings. All of which is contrary to your claim that they didn't want to deliberately maintain a misunderstanding of the world. They deliberately did so by "cherry picking" the science they would allow. Hence my

"So scientific research that only conformed to the preconceptions of the church wouldn't help maintain its misunderstandings? Yeah, right."
​

The scientific research they permitted did, in fact, maintain the Church's misunderstanding.

Seems like we're in agreement, but you don't like the way I word my statements.

When I say "they weren't deliberately maintaining a misunderstanding", I mean they didn't actually have the proper understanding and simply wanted to keep the people from it for x, y, and z reasons.

 

[Riverwolf]

In other words, if you are a Christian, you probably don't believe in the existence of Allah, Vishnu or any of the myriad of other gods that people have followed throughout history. I don't believe in those gods either, so in this sense I'm not all that different to you. The only small difference is that I believe in one less God. "

But if one is a Hindu, and if you're even peripherally educated in the Vedas, you probably believe that "The Wise refer to what is One with many Names." (Rig Veda 1.164.46)

 

[Riverwolf]

yep, he has been using that correct phrase for a long time and its been said many different ways.


Most are skeptics, most dont believe in all the other deities worshipped and no longer worshipped.
You are all like me, the only difference is I believe in one less god then most of you

Hang on, hang on. You just changed a single word that makes your statement correct with his incorrect. The word "most" changes everything.

Change "all" to "most", and I entirely agree.

 

[Storm]

Hang on, hang on. You just changed a single word that makes your statement correct with his incorrect. The word "most" changes everything.

Change "all" to "most", and I entirely agree.

Yep.

 

[cablescavenger]

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. Dawkins said "ALL." Not 'most,' not the majority. Therefore, if even one person doesn't fit the bill, the statement is false. I don't.

The quote is:

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins

So you have debunked nothing.

 

[Storm]

The quote is:

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins

So you have debunked nothing.

My existence does, as I am part of "all" and no such 'atheist.'

 

[cablescavenger]

Actually, it's very important, depending on how we're defining the word "god".

In this case, I define it as something worshiped with reverence, ritual, supplication, etc. that lasts longer than the average human life, and/or acts as some kind of benefactor.

Beyond that, how do we distinguish individual gods? Do we consider gods only in terms of their mythological characters? Or do we go beyond that and define them only in terms of that thing which inspired that mythological character? After all, not everyone who currently worships Shiva believes literally the stories in which the God is a character. I imagine this would have been the case in ancient days, as well, in which not all worshipers of Zeus believed that he was exactly like the character in the tales. (I, for one, do not believe Athena would be the kind of woman who would care about her "fairness", or the kind of woman who would bribe someone.)

And how many Gods do you believe in?

 

[cablescavenger]

My existence does, as I am part of "all" and no such 'atheist.'

Hmmm... so you believe in every God that there has ever been.

What's that smell?

 

[Storm]

Hmmm... so you believe in every God that there has ever been.

As already stated, in my own way, yes.

What's that smell?

Impending personal attacks would be my guess. :sarcastic

 

[Skeptisch]

If Dawkins bothered to read the works of advanced theology, or even its history (like the aforementioned works of Armstrong), he'd have a deeper understanding than the dictionary, and would most likely have the proof he claims to desire.

A scientist’s brain asks for scientific evidence in order to do his or her research and experimentation. It is not very likely that he or she is very interested in a realm where faith without scientific evidence is a virtue. Dawkins is interested in “The Magic of Reality and How We Know What’s Really True”, a good read for everyone, especially supernaturalists.

Karen Armstrong says some things few scientists would object to:

It's a great event to get outside and enjoy nature. I find it very exciting no matter how many times I see bald eagles.
Karen Armstrong

There are some forms of religion that are bad, just as there's bad cooking or bad art or bad sex, you have bad religion too.
Karen Armstrong

 

[Storm]

A scientist’s brain asks for scientific evidence in order to do his or her research and experimentation. It is not very likely that he or she is very interested in a realm where faith without scientific evidence is a virtue. Dawkins is interested in “The Magic of Reality and How We Know What’s Really True”, a good read for everyone, especially supernaturalists.

Not familiar with it, but I may look it up when I get home.

Are you under the impression that all believers are supernaturalists?

Karen Armstrong says some things few scientists would object to:

It's a great event to get outside and enjoy nature. I find it very exciting no matter how many times I see bald eagles.
Karen Armstrong

There are some forms of religion that are bad, just as there's bad cooking or bad art or bad sex, you have bad religion too.
Karen Armstrong

Indeed she does, which is why I brought her up.

 

[outhouse]

Hang on, hang on. You just changed a single word that makes your statement correct with his incorrect. The word "most" changes everything.

Change "all" to "most", and I entirely agree.

ive seen it worded both ways depending on who is doing the copying

 

[Riverwolf]

And how many Gods do you believe in?

You're not getting it. This isn't a simple question for me, because the answer is highly dependent on how we mutually define the word "Gods."

But since you desperately want a simple answer from me, tell me how many Gods have ever been worshiped, and you'll have your number.