Richard dawkins

[dwaxe]

The guy who thinks that thinking is anathema to any belief system

Atheism is not a belief system, system. It is only absence of belief in a deity.

What's good for the atheist is what's good for the theist, right? Or does that only work in reverse?

A = not there
Theism = belief in deity

abacterial surface = no bacteria on that surface
anaerobic = oxygen is not there
anarchy = law is not there
atheism = belief in deity is not there

 

[Bei1052]

*looks at what he wrote out and wonders what you're talking about*

So... Lemme' get this straight. Saying that thinking is anathema to theism is a-okay, but to say thinking is anathema to atheism is, in effect, a non-sequitur? Really...?

 

[dwaxe]

*looks at what he wrote out and wonders what you're talking about*

So... Lemme' get this straight. Saying that thinking is anathema to theism is a-okay, but to say thinking is anathema to atheism is, in effect, a non-sequitur? Really...?

Yes really because you are "the guy who thinks that thinking is anathema to any belief system."

Lets take this step by step--I'll try to be as reductionist as possible. Premises are italicized, conclusion is bolded:

1. Thinking is anathema to belief systems.
2. Atheism = absence of a belief system in any deity.
3. Thinking is anathema to atheism.

Now for another logical proof:

1. The conclusion in the above proof did not follow from the premises.
2. Non-sequitur = it does not follow.
3. That conclusion is a non-sequitur.

 

[Bei1052]

Atheism needs not be a belief system for it to be anathema to thinking anymore than theism needs to be a belief system for it to be anathema to thinking. Therefore your claims of a non-sequitur make little sense-- Unless you're going to claim that both statements are non-sequiturs . I digress, though. Your syllogism is mad whack, especially since you constructed an argument where there was none. The first sentence isn't a premise nor a conclusion-- It's a statement. The second sentence isn't a premise, either. I dunno' where you pulled that from or what it had to do with anything. So this makes me wonder what you're talking about.

But you really did miss the point. I merely took one of Dawkins statements ("Thinking is anathema to religion"), and replaced religion with atheism. It's funny to see the number of people who up in proverbial arms about it.

 

[Bill3000]

Now for another logical proof:

1. The conclusion in the above proof did not follow from the premises.
2. Non-sequitur = it does not follow.
3. That conclusion is a non-sequitur.

That is so DEEEP, man.

 

[dwaxe]

1. Atheism needs not be a belief system for it to be anathema to thinking anymore than theism needs to be a belief system for it to be anathema to thinking. Therefore your claims of a non-sequitur make little sense-- Unless you're going to claim that both statements are non-sequiturs . I digress, though. 2. Your syllogism is mad whack, especially since you constructed an argument where there was none. 3. The first sentence isn't a premise nor a conclusion-- It's a statement. The second sentence isn't a premise, either. I dunno' where you pulled that from or what it had to do with anything. So this makes me wonder what you're talking about.

4. But you really did miss the point. I merely took one of Dawkins statements ("Thinking is anathema to religion"), and replaced religion with atheism. It's funny to see the number of people who up in proverbial arms about it.

1. Why then did you say that you think "that thinking is anathema to any belief system"?

2. That was the point...

3. Statements acting as premises for the conclusion, are premises.

4. Oh, that's why you said it. Now it all makes sense. Next time, however, please use a sarcastic smiley instead of a laughing one to avoid confusion.

 

[aneeshm]

If he's polite 70% of the time, but an arrogant jerk for 30% of the time, then he's still an arrogant jerk. That's still more than most average people, who are arrogant jerks less than 5% of the time.

I'm intrigued. I've read quite a few of his works, I've seen some of his speeches on the 'tube, and I couldn't come across anything which could be described as "jerkish" behaviour. Could you point me to an instance of something like this?

 

[dwaxe]

His tone in speech is often very supercilious.

His tone in his writing is rarely supercilious--the only book he wrote in this manner is The God Delusion.

 

[Mise]

For the people who think Dawkins is a jerk, I'd like to ask a few favors, if I may.

1) Can you please provide three examples of Dawkins, either videos or quotes, which to you are proof of him being a jerk, for us to examine. Please provide links or text boxes so we may have a better foundation for discussion, and explain what about them is jerk-like in your opinion.

You want me to provide proof for my opinion?

2) Can you please explain how you feel Dawkins (or any atheist) SHOULD go about discussing/debating religion without being a jerk?

There are many, many people who DO go about discussing/debating religion without being a jerk. If he wants to do so, he could follow their example.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Link to video.

Good example I feel how Richard Dawkins can be harsh but fair. You have to understand that this guy has been demonized by a lot of people so it's no surprise he can be a bit pissy sometimes.

And he keeps his composure here better than I perhaps would have been able to:

Link to video.

 

[Lillefix]

Just a small sidestep, how do you attach youtube videos in a post?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Every youtube link has "v=<identifier>" at the end, you put the identifier between youtube tags (as seen as you quote my post) and you're someone's uncle

 

[Winner]

And he keeps his composure here better than I perhaps would have been able to:

Link to video.

If I was Dawkins in this video, I'd have to punch the other guy in the face.

 

[Munch]

If I was Dawkins in this video, I'd have to punch the other guy in the face.

If I met Bill O'Reilly in the street I'd be sorely tempted to punch him, too.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, Bill O'Reilly's a much bigger jerk...

 

[Munch]

Yeah, Bill O'Reilly's a much bigger jerk...

Ha! I don't think we need a poll to ascertain that.

 

[Camikaze]

And he keeps his composure here better than I perhaps would have been able to:

Link to video.

If I was Dawkins in this video, I'd have to punch the other guy in the face.

I'm gonna agree with that. Dawkins was presenting reasonable arguments and listening politely, whilst O'Reilly was presenting reasonably ridiculous arguments and was constantly interrupting. But also keep in mind that just because Dawkins is less of a jerk in that video than O'Reilly, doesn't mean he isn't a jerk overall. Not that I'm saying he is. I'm just saying that that ain't proof.

 

[Harvin87]

I would like to hear Plotonious thoughts about this man.

 

[Algeroth]

Another Strawman to the rescue?

What he's actually saying is more like this: "There is no objective scientific evidence that God exists, ergo it is not rational to believe there is one. If you believe in something which is not supported by any evidence solely because you want it to be true, then you're deluding yourself."

That's a perfectly legitimate and rational argument - which is why it tends to infuriate religious people.

I can't see from your post why it's perfectly legitimate argument. Why Dawkins and his followers insist on something to be rational in order to be legitimate. Why can't i do and believe in irrational things?

And can you provide me some evidence for the existence of a state?

 

[El_Machinae]

A state is a concept that we attach to a circumstance. I would agree that there's also a concept of God that does exist, even if God does not. Hell, there's a concept of superman that exists.

I shouldn't need to prove the existence of the circumstances regarding the existence of states