Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[Riverwolf]

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

Just goes to show that a single, poorly-chosen word can change the entire meaning. ^_^

 

[idav]

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

I don't think that there is anything wrong with 'all' in this case. All of us are atheists for most gods though we may still choose to believe in one or many concepts. There is hardly an easy way to reconcile the characters of allah, jehovah, yahweh, krishna, zues etc. as one god even if you believe there is truth to all of them.

 

[outhouse]

Just goes to show that a single, poorly-chosen word can change the entire meaning. ^_^

I look at it from his perspective

he has theist trying to shoot down his science based on belief not observable evidence.

I can see him taking liberties on the offensive side of the fence with all the defending he has to do.

 

[Storm]

I don't think that there is anything wrong with 'all' in this case. All of us are atheists for most gods though we may still choose to believe in one or many concepts. There is hardly an easy way to reconcile the characters of allah, jehovah, yahweh, krishna, zues etc. as one god even if you believe there is truth to all of them.

Sure there is: recognizing that God is beyond human comprehension, and therefore all interpretations are necessarily flawed.

 

[idav]

Sure there is: recognizing that God is beyond human comprehension, and therefore all interpretations are necessarily flawed.

Sure but at some point theists believe their own perception of god to at least be less flawed than others. When somebody comes to you saying god is a temperamental child you would disagree and be atheist for that concept of deity.

 

[Skeptisch]

Just goes to show that a single, poorly-chosen word can change the entire meaning.

Not for all of us .

 

[Storm]

Sure but at some point theists believe their own perception of god to at least be less flawed than others. When somebody comes to you saying god is a temperamental child you would disagree and be atheist for that concept of deity.

Hmmm.... I think we might be talking past one another. I read the "gods" in that quote to mean Zeus, etc.. Not one person's particular thoughts on him.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think that there is anything wrong with 'all' in this case. All of us are atheists for most gods though we may still choose to believe in one or many concepts. There is hardly an easy way to reconcile the characters of allah, jehovah, yahweh, krishna, zues etc. as one god even if you believe there is truth to all of them.

Sure, there isn't an easy way, but that doesn't mean it's all that hard, either. They're not all one God(except Jehovah and Yahweh are literally the same Deity), though they all reflect the same things. Zeus, Indra, Odin/Thor, etc. all reflect the same Sky Father archetype who also brings storms, and all of them are warriors. In that sense, I believe in all of them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not for all of us .

You don't see the key difference between "all" and "most"? One is an absolute statement (which are generally incorrect), while the other leaves room for the existence of alternatives.

 

[idav]

Hmmm.... I think we might be talking past one another. I read the "gods" in that quote to mean Zeus, etc.. Not one person's particular thoughts on him.

There is a difference between me thinking Yahweh is based on an actual being vs someones particular conception of that being. There are those that argue him as evil or good or even both so I would have to go by how the theist defines their god.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is a difference between me thinking Yahweh is based on an actual being vs someones particular conception of that being. There are those that argue him as evil or good or even both so I would have to go by how the theist defines their god.

And that's where the problem is: we all use these terms differently, and we haven't established a clear boundary. Since it was Dawkins who set the boundary, the logical but impractical step would be to ask him.

 

[idav]

And that's where the problem is: we all use these terms differently, and we haven't established a clear boundary. Since it was Dawkins who set the boundary, the logical but impractical step would be to ask him.

Well we could always just put words in his mouth.

Aside from that, for someone who believes god to be a temperamental child, would you say you believe their deity exists, because the theist would certainly believe he does? If anything we are attempting to see it from the view of that theist where all other gods do not exist except their own.

 

[cablescavenger]

As already stated, in my own way, yes.


Impending personal attacks would be my guess. :sarcastic

To believe you require a premise that you hold to be true.

Given that many religions disappeared long before writing existed, and have been lost altogether, you have knowledge of them, and no premise for them.

 

[Storm]

There is a difference between me thinking Yahweh is based on an actual being vs someones particular conception of that being. There are those that argue him as evil or good or even both so I would have to go by how the theist defines their god.

And I think He is based on an actual being, regardless of individual opinions on said being's personality.

 

[Skeptisch]

You don't see the key difference between "all" and "most"? One is an absolute statement (which are generally incorrect), while the other leaves room for the existence of alternatives.

Out of context yes, but when in context it does not seem to change the general meaning of the statement.

How about this absolute statement:
We are all born atheists. No baby is born believing in the miraculous conception of Jesus, that Muhammad is a prophet or that Joseph Smith was chosen by God to spread Mormonism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure there is: recognizing that God is beyond human comprehension, and therefore all interpretations are necessarily flawed.

Does that apply to the interpretation that god is beyond human comprehension?

 

[Skeptisch]

:biglaugh:wa:do

It is always good to hear from our resident, spiritual scientist even when it is only a big laugh.

I think what is said here is that we can not change the laws of nature (physics). No matter how hard we try with intention and prayer there is no scientific evidence or record to the contrary. Some religions seem heavily into miracles and that too the laws of nature do not permit.

 

[cablescavenger]

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.

My apologies, I just looked up Panentheist to see if I could figure out what you were saying to me, and I think I get where you are coming from.

Am I right in thinking you believe the entire universe is in your God? and there is just one God?

 

[idav]

And I think He is based on an actual being, regardless of individual opinions on said being's personality.

The statement is taking into account different concepts of gods not just God in a general sense. An atheist believes in one less god than a monotheist. A monotheist believes in only one god not all the gods described throughout history. To say that every god encompasses your god is a discredit to other theists who believe in their god in a certain way.

 

[Photonic]

I think religious people tend to not understand what Dawkins refers to when he says "God."

He makes it pretty clear he is talking about traditional Gods like Thor, or the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and Allah, etc.

He has never directed his arguments towards the non-personal Gods like that of Spinosa.