Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[Riverwolf]

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.

Yeah, I believe that Deity to exist, but not necessarily in the manner in which its worshiper understands.

 

[Riverwolf]

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

I don't disagree with the general meaning. But the statement was clearly not well thought-out.

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.

Well, I might argue that infants and children essentially view their parents as Gods, and so are theists in their own way.

 

[idav]

Yeah, I believe that Deity to exist, but not necessarily in the manner in which its worshiper understands.

Right so you don't believe in their god kinda like atheists.

 

[Riverwolf]

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?

Close, but though I use the word "God" often, I would say that the universe is part of, and exists within, a Supreme Reality which no name can accurately describe; since I worship this Reality in the form of Siva, I call it God (which etymologically means "something worshiped"); when speaking more accurately, I add the word "Brahman."

But I am also a polytheist, in that there are other Gods who exist within the Universe and don't exist outside of it (called Daityas), and that there are Gods who exist within the Universe but are essentially "rays" of Brahman (called Adityas). While I generally use the Vedic and Puranic names for these Gods (and sometimes names from other traditions), I generally consider all the worshiped Gods to be different ways of viewing the same Entities. I.E., I consider Zeus to be the same God as Indra and Odin/Thor, and these are all Father Sky. But Father Sky is not Mother Earth.

So while the mythological characters are separate "avatars", if you will, I believe that they embody the same Deity.

 

[Riverwolf]

Right so you don't believe in their god kinda like atheists.

Kind of, but not exactly. Therefore, it's not accurate to say I'm an atheist to those Gods.

As my old Band teacher used to say, "close means wrong."

 

[idav]

Kind of, but not exactly. Therefore, it's not accurate to say I'm an atheist to those Gods.

As my old Band teacher used to say, "close means wrong."

I think it is accurate. The question isn't if you believe in god, the question is if you believe in their god. It is quite normal to believe in one god and not believe in another. Not believe would mean atheist by any definition I have seen.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it is accurate. The question isn't if you believe in god, the question is if you believe in their god. It is quite normal to believe in one god and not believe in another. Not believe would mean atheist by any definition I have seen.

That's the thing; I do believe they exist. I said not necessarily for a reason. The word "atheist" is just too simple a term, and does not encompass accurately my views regarding these Deities.

...and I just realized something: the word "atheist" means "without theism." Huh. Seems like this word can't even properly used in this manner. Since I have theism, in no way am I an atheist. One can't be a theist or atheist towards any god, since the terms are general terms.

Therefore, the general meaning ought to be worded thusly:

"You don't believe in Zeus, right? It's in that same way that I don't believe in your God."

Since (I apologize; I can't think of any other way of saying this without using a double-negative) I don't disbelieve in these Gods in the same way that Dawkins doesn't believe in the Abrahamic God, even the general meaning doesn't apply to me.

 

[idav]

"You don't believe in Zeus, right? It's in that same way that I don't believe in your God."

That is the basic idea of the quote.

I think it is valid to still use the term atheist. From theists perspective does believing in a false God count as theism? For beings that likely don't exist or are not actually God?

 

[Riverwolf]

That is the basic idea of the quote.

I think it is valid to still use the term atheist. From theists perspective does believing in a false God count as theism? For beings that likely don't exist or are not actually God?

It counts as theism, because it's a theistic belief.

 

[gnomon]

It may be that the one particular quote which we all find so interesting is actually more of a throw away one liner. A "Oh ha. That's cute" kind of statement. It's hardly a line of argumentation used in debate.

Which means this thread has been rambling over pretty much nothing rather than anything substantive about Dawkins actual arguments.

 

[idav]

It counts as theism, because it's a theistic belief.

Saying I'm atheist towards other gods is different than saying I'm atheist. When the quote says atheist towards other gods it implies theism for at least one.

 

[idav]

It may be that the one particular quote which we all find so interesting is actually more of a throw away one liner. A "Oh ha. That's cute" kind of statement. It's hardly a line of argumentation used in debate.

Which means this thread has been rambling over pretty much nothing rather than anything substantive about Dawkins actual arguments.

I don't think anyone here thinks he is infallible or anything, lol.

 

[Riverwolf]

It may be that the one particular quote which we all find so interesting is actually more of a throw away one liner. A "Oh ha. That's cute" kind of statement. It's hardly a line of argumentation used in debate.

Which means this thread has been rambling over pretty much nothing rather than anything substantive about Dawkins actual arguments.

I already figured that out when I said that this line was probably said in passing, or in an interview when he was caught on the spot.

At this point, my main point is that, even in passing, these kinds of sentences should be phrased more carefully, since they can cause all kinds of misunderstandings. He knows that many theists have basically demonized him, and will be looking for, and latching on to, anything he may say to further make him look like a fool.

I, for one, know he's not a fool; it's just that religion is not his field of expertise, and thus he clearly doesn't know much about it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Saying I'm atheist towards other gods is different than saying I'm atheist. When the quote says atheist towards other gods it implies theism for at least one.

But the quote is using the word "atheist" improperly. You can't be an atheist towards specific Gods while holding theism for others. It doesn't make sense linguistically.

Atheism means holding no form of theistic belief.

 

[Erebus]

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.

More specifically he tends to talk about literal interpretations of those gods, It's easy to see why, literalism tends to be more dangerous and is much easier to argue against.

I don't get why Dawkins doesn't write in a manner more similar to his interviews and Q&As. A lot of the video's he's been in he's seemed fairly reasonable, his written material comes across as simplistic at best. I'd be more interested in him in general if he endeavoured to understand and experience what he argues against.

So I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I think that question is largely above our paygrade. I'll just say that his worldview is one that wouldn't suit me at all, I find it shallow, bland and simplistic.

 

[gnomon]

I already figured that out when I said that this line was probably said in passing, or in an interview when he was caught on the spot.

At this point, my main point is that, even in passing, these kinds of sentences should be phrased more carefully, since they can cause all kinds of misunderstandings. He knows that many theists have basically demonized him, and will be looking for, and latching on to, anything he may say to further make him look like a fool.

I, for one, know he's not a fool; it's just that religion is not his field of expertise, and thus he clearly doesn't know much about it.

I missed your earlier mention.

Who is an expert on religion?

 

[idav]

But the quote is using the word "atheist" improperly. You can't be an atheist towards specific Gods while holding theism for others. It doesn't make sense linguistically.

Atheism means holding no form of theistic belief.

Regardless of how he is using the term atheist, the theism of who he is talking about is assumed. Perhaps it would have read better if he said "All of us are all like atheists about most of the gods" but that is a bit nit picky for my tastes. We got the gist of what he is saying.

 

[Iti oj]

there are many interesting books on God - far more interesting in fact that all of Dawkins' offerings put together.

some well known titles : The Bible , The Koran , The Bhagavad-Gita, The mysteries of the Tarot.

Perhaps give them a try sometime and then compare with Dawkins' atheist ramblings.

I can not read the real koran I don't read arabic …i tried to learn.…tarot is all psycology I and symbolism …i did a socail experiment in a class once. Did a how to on tarot convicened every one it was legit and then explained how it really works by the end of the class every one was reading tarot cards …
the bible is a mash up of random writings from unknown authores. etc and this doesn't cover any the. Real problems wi5h holy books. Sorry I posted of my phone so it looks sloopy

 

[painted wolf]

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

It wasn't my only comment thus far... In general I agree with Dawkins on things.

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.

I thought he was saying that my religion discourages me from learning about nature... Which is about as opposite of reality as you can get.

Though, in truth I don't use prayer to change things but to express thankfulness and miracles are much more subtle things than people seem to think of.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

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.

I think this is a valid point... unfortunately it makes him seem rather limited in understanding when dealing with non-Judeo-Christian faiths.

wa;do