What do you think about Dawkins?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy has put it, as usual, far better than me.

Dude!

I guess you would see it that way, but all this taken together is really what's troubling:

He could merely be saying that calling it those two words aren't particularly helpful, but at the same time he seems to be suggesting that there really is no point because we can't explain the details.

Honestly, it's not a stretch to take him as a Positivist.

I disagree. Did you watch the entire interview? In context of that it really is quite a stretch.

In an interview about the existence of god he is asked the question: But what about love? You can't expect him to specify every answer with: "in a discussion about the existence of god" when they've been going on about that for almost 10 minutes already.

Just like I can't believe we've been filtering and microscoping that sentence for a good number of posts already. You'd almost start to think this is important stuff

Sit back, grab a drink, watch the thing from the beginning and then tell me it's not clear what he's on about

 

[Bei1052]

A quote from wiki:

Gotcha

Apparently, you glossed over the following line of which I wrote out: "So, yes, I'd agree that you don't have to be a theologian to discuss theology, but you do have to have some understanding of theology to discuss theology, and Dawkins quite literally has none."

And, in case you didn't know, theology involves more than just "Does God exist?".

 

[aelf]

I disagree. Did you watch the entire interview? In context of that it really is quite a stretch.

In an interview about the existence of god he is asked the question: But what about love? You can't expect him to specify every answer with: "in a discussion about the existence of god" when they've been going on about that for almost 10 minutes already.

Just like I can't believe we've been filtering and microscoping that sentence for a good number of posts already. You'd almost start to think this is important stuff

Sit back, grab a drink, watch the thing from the beginning and then tell me it's not clear what he's on about

Well, then put my comments into context as well. All of them have had to do with how Dawkins presents himself. He may say things that are generally true, but in his delivery, through whichever medium, he tends to imply other things.

I grant that his intent was to respond to the assertion that since science can't explain love he might well be wrong about god. However, to me there clearly are other implications here that are consistent with how he generally seems to present his views - with a pretty strong Positivist tone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Context: An interview with Dawkins over the existence of god.

If I interview you about the Tour de France and I ask you a question about nuclear warfare, you could say, there's no point in talking about nuclear warfare. But you'd be in no way saying that we shouldn't talk about nuclear warfare ... ever.

And why are you asking me to put it in context? The video is right there. I posted it. What better way to get the context than to watch the bleeding thing

And now I'm dropping this

 

[Erik Mesoy]

How is this relevant to the matter at hand eludes me.

Again - "evidence" from within the subject of discussion is not admissible. Or perhaps I am ignorant here, but you can help me by pointing me to the post where Plotinus (I believe he's a non-believer) proved the existence of God. If he didn't actually do it, then the thread and all the posts it contains are quite irrelevant because this is what Dawkins want believers to give him.

If they can't, then theology is absolutely irrelevant to him and the things he's saying.

Way to miss the point (and demonstrate mine). You said "theology is based on a presumption that God exists". I take this statement as an honest indicator of your beliefs. Plotinus (being a non-believer, as you said) practices theology without presuming that God exists, so your belief is false, and Plotinus' threads are evidence against your false belief, so you are deluded.

Nnnnnno.

Yyyyyes.

Most believers do that, in america, in europe and eslewhere. Of course I compressed all this into one short dialogue, but it always comes down to

Make up your mind so I can figure out what I'm supposed to be rebutting.

 

[Phlegmak]

I in fact do have a quote


Link to video.

At 9:00: "I fully accept that science cannot actually explain love. I can;t say love is the uptake of that that or that chemical. But it's entirely believable that although we cannot explain it, we cannot explain the details, nevertheless there is nothing beyond that. But you've done nothing by calling it ineffable and transcending, you're just using words. We're not getting anywhere by doing that. I'm not getting anywhere either, but I'm admitting it"

The whole thing is quite good to watch

I watched the first 6 minutes. The internet connection here is bad right now so I couldn't see the rest. I agree with everything that Dawkins said. And nothing he said seemed irrational or mean. It was simply logical.

EDIT: Just listened to the whole thing, and watched only a small part. The interviewer does something that just annoys me to no end. He takes some analogy that Dawkins made regarding sex and tries to blow it out of proportion, and focus on it needlessly. I had a mild debate with a religious person on the train a few months ago and it was the same thing. Highly annoying. And some posters on this forum do the same.

 

[Munch]

Good find on the PZ Myers stuff Winner, that's what I was trying to get across.

And, in case you didn't know, theology involves more than just "Does God exist?".

We've established that, but however much more it involves is irrelevant to the question of "Does God exist?".

 

[Flying Pig]

99% of it assumes he does - I like that emperor's new clothes analogy

 

[classical_hero]

Or, that a guy was swallowed by a whale and survived for days in its belly? Or that at one point in human history, the whole Earth's surface was covered by water and the whole humanity today are descendants of Noah and his family?

Seriously, how can anyone take offense when I call these things crazy and delusional?

There has been evidence of a a few people being swallowed by large sea creatures, like sharks and the such (the actual term used in the Bible would just refer to a large sea creature, not just whales, since the method of describing animals is separated by there mode of transport and such, rather than method of reproduction, like nowadays). Also if you were to flatten out the earth, there is plenty of water to cover it and also there are underground sources of water that could well have been in the past above the ground, adding even more water than there is now. Alos it is not that hard to see how oddly shaped the population of the earth is considering today's birth rates and compare it to how long we are supposed to have been here on earth and the number is too low for the birth rate right now.

 

[Flying Pig]

So at the time of Noah the earth was flat?

 

[Yared]

Also it is not that hard to see how oddly shaped the population of the earth is considering today's birth rates and compare it to how long we are supposed to have been here on earth and the number is too low for the birth rate right now.

Are you saying that the amount of babies born today and the living conditions granted to us by technology was the same respectively existed 200 000 years ago?

 

[GenMarshall]

So at the time of Noah the earth was flat?

The Earth has been round for billions if years. Plus the amount of water needed to flood the entire earth, the water vapor levels would reach a point where it becomes crushing (pun intended in terms of atmospheres/pressure).

 

[Seon]

Back on topic, I think that what Dawkins says is highly logical, and agree with him on many points. I like Dawkins, but I don't really care about himas he can be quite a jerk compared to many other atheists. Also most of what was written on his book was already stuff I figured out

 

[Winner]

Way to miss the point (and demonstrate mine). You said "theology is based on a presumption that God exists". I take this statement as an honest indicator of your beliefs. Plotinus (being a non-believer, as you said) practices theology without presuming that God exists, so your belief is false, and Plotinus' threads are evidence against your false belief, so you are deluded.

You just monumentally shot yourself in the foot

Plotinus' OP states that theologians are divided into two categories - first, those who believe there is God and then speculate about his properties and second, people who study those of the first category ("... basically means someone who studies theologians in the former sense" - exact quote)

Ergo, since the first category theologians operate under presumption of God's existence ("Such a person is actually religious and tries to describe God" - again exact quote from Plotinus' OP) and the second category in turn study them, the whole subject of theology is indeed based on the presumption that God exists.

No wonder it's called theology

Yyyyyes.

Make up your mind so I can figure out what I'm supposed to be rebutting.

Semantics and nitpicking FTW, woo-hoo!

You said that my "LOTR is true" analogy/parody of a discussion with a believer is a strawman. I'll now ignore that it is very dubious to invoke strawman against something what was MEANT to be a simplification with a hint of absurd humour and move to your assertion that it applies only to a special branch of American evangelical believers.

I say it doesn't. And since you're so quick at exploiting my lesser English skills and the figures of speech I use, I can rephrase it: in no discussion with a believer I've ever witnessed has the believer come up with a rational justification/evidence supporting his assertion that there is a God - that God actually exists. Or any other religious claims when we're at it, for example that the Bible is the one true word of God, that the biblical stories are true, that there are miracles (miracle = observable macroscopic violation of natural laws) etc. etc. etc.

This is what I was making fun of in my analogy. So, if you're so eager to rebut something, you can start by this one - prove that believers actually do have rational justification/evidence for God's existence by giving me one or two.

But if you want to engage in a semantics excersise, you're welcome to do it in Czech or you can wait until I finish the 3-year "English language/literature" study programme I am gonna start in two months

 

[Lone Wolf]

and the second category in turn study them, the whole subject of theology is indeed based on the presumption that God exists.

I'd say that second category is based on the premise that religion exists.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I think that was fair, but it certainly didn't answer the question at all.

Making the audience think through the (rest of the) answer for themselves can be better than directly providing the whole answer. I have to agree with Winner on this one: not very jerk-like. Could have been better, but not too bad.

 

[Flying Pig]

I would second Winner's point that very few religious people have logical reasons for their beliefs, and challenge anyone to come up with a decent one that doesn't make my head hurt, because if it works then I should be able to understand it.

 

[Winner]

There has been evidence of a a few people being swallowed by large sea creatures, like sharks and the such (the actual term used in the Bible would just refer to a large sea creature, not just whales, since the method of describing animals is separated by there mode of transport and such, rather than method of reproduction, like nowadays). Also if you were to flatten out the earth, there is plenty of water to cover it and also there are underground sources of water that could well have been in the past above the ground, adding even more water than there is now. Alos it is not that hard to see how oddly shaped the population of the earth is considering today's birth rates and compare it to how long we are supposed to have been here on earth and the number is too low for the birth rate right now.

I hope this is just another "let's play devils advocate just for fun" type of post

1) "sea creature" - this was actually mentioned in one of the Atheist Experience videos I watched on youtube. Their reaction was like: ok, so it was a large fish or other big sea creature (some ichtyosaurus?), not a whale - so what? Does it make it any more plausible?

2) There is no archeological/paleontological /geological evidence that all Earth's surface was submerged (it might have been covered with ice, but that hardly qualifies as "flood") at one point (at the same time) - especially not since humans first appeared.

3) I am on a thin ice here, but I think genetic analyses debunk notions of "one family bottleneck" in human evolution. At no point since Homo sapiens sapiens appeared on Earth and spread a bit has there been an event which would wipe out all but one family.

I won't discuss this more since it's obviously just a funny break

 

[Flying Pig]

Also timeframe - when was the first ship of anything like that size built (answer - never, we can't build one). Therefore, either the ancient Jews were so technologically advanced that we haven't been able to equal their achievements in ship building, or...

 

[aelf]

Making the audience think through the (rest of the) answer for themselves can be better than directly providing the whole answer. I have to agree with Winner on this one: not very jerk-like. Could have been better, but not too bad.

What was the answer implied? The only legitimate answer to the question is, "If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I'm willing to take the chance, just as you're willing to take the chance that you're not wrong for not believing in the other religion instead."