There are also others such as Confucianism and Taoism from China, but no doubt he'll mix them in with Christianity and Judaism, as a fallacy on his own part.
He did do a fallacy when he said if Christianity is proven false so too is Buddhism because it does not talk about a God or divine being. He makes many fallacies, too many to get into.
"Why does the GP not understand what a fallacy is? I think it's you. A fallacy is an invalid argument. You said Dawkins makes many of these and therefore his arguments are invalid. The GP showed you that they were not false arguments and therefore you don't get to dismiss them so easily."
The GP did not show that they were not false arguments and made his own false arguments to do so.
All I did was call the GP on his/her own false arguments.
"Evolution doesnt support anything, it just is.
Dawkins does not argue 'Evolution happened therefore there is no god'.
He argues evolution happened and also god is a pretty ridiculous proposition."
While I have no beef with the evolution happened, I do have a beef with the also god is a pretty ridiculous proposition, as he hasn't proven that.
Actually the Amiga Research OS or AROS is being planned to be ported to the ARM platform. So all the XO-2 would need is drivers ported to AROS-ARM edition. Then it would be like having an Amiga laptop or notebook or whatever.
Use student discounts if you can buy a copy of XP for cheaper than pricewatch can offer an OEM copy.
VMWare will work as well, but the VMWare Player while free cannot create install virtual hard drives. You'd have to create it with the Free Server version or buy the Workstation version.
require you to turn off your firewall and pop-up blocker. Why they cannot write web software to work without needing pop-ups and can work with firewalls is beyond me.
In all honesty Dawkins himself does not understand these things he is talking about. He has no PHD in theology yet claims to be an expert in it. Many of these points he makes is unclear, and can easily be argued one way or another.
One thing for certain is that he has a bias in them, and does not completely think out his arguments.
Evolution could support Atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, why should it be either Atheism or Christianity as Dawkins states it should be? This makes no sense as there could be more than one answer, and why should we accept Dawkin's answer when he can offer no valid proof or evidence to support it? If I said it supported Christianity, I would be just as fallacious as Dawkins saying it favored Atheism, when we both could be incorrect and it favors nothing or Buddhism or Hinduism instead.
I honestly don't think you understand what a fallacy is, I could be wrong here. You've argued why they couldn't be fallacies, but you used faulty or unclear logic yourself to do so.
Thanks for taking the time to try and rebuttle some of Dawkins' fallacies. I'm sorry you didn't do better.
5. The Non Sequitar â" âComments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.â(TM) [24]
Stephen M. Barrâ(TM)s review of Dawkinsâ(TM) Unweaving the Rainbow is spot on:
It is not often that one can find exactly the point where an author goes off track, but here one can. It is in the fifth sentence of the preface of the book, which begins, âSimilar accusations of barren desolation, of promoting an arid and joyless message, are frequently flung at science in general.â(TM) However, what people object to in Dawkins is not the science but the atheism. Because he cannot see the difference, he writes a book that is a 300-page non sequitur.
3. The False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there are more choices possible.
When it comes to explaining biological reality, Dawkins asserts: âThe only thing [William Paley] got wrong â" admittedly quite a big thing â" was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer [that life was created by God]. . . The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin.â(TM) [14] Dawkins fails to point out that belief in the doctrine of creation and the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection are in fact compatible. Michael Poole explains why the choice between creation and evolution is a false dilemma:
7. Wishful Thinking - âa fallacy that posits a belief because it or its consequence is desired to be true.â(TM) [28]
Discussing the theory of âchemical evolutionâ(TM) or abiogenesis [29] (the supposed naturalistic appearance of life from non-life), Dawkins says: âNobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying â" a replicator.â(TM) [30] Dawkinsâ(TM) belief in abiogenesis is wishful thinking in that he wants it to be true because it is necessary for an atheistic account of origins, despite there being a large body of scientific evidence against the theory. [31]
9. Straw Man Argument - âa type of Red Herring that attacks a misrepresentation of an opponentâ(TM)s position. That is called to burn a straw man. It is a surprisingly common fallacy, because it is easy to misunderstand another person's position.â(TM) [36]
According to Dawkins: âScience shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.â(TM) [37] But as McGrath responds:
Dawkinsâ(TM)s caricature of Christianity may well carry weight with his increasingly religiously illiterate or religiously alienated audiences, who find in his writings ample confirmation of their prejudices, but merely persuades those familiar with religious traditions to conclude that Dawkins has no interest in understanding what he critiques. . . The classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality and does not hold that faith involves the abandonment of reason or the absence of evidence. Indeed, the Christian tradition is so strong on this matter that it is often difficult to understand where Dawkins got these ideas. [38]
10. Ad Hominem â" the fallacy of attacking the individual instead of the argument (Ad Hominem is Latin for âagainst the man.â(TM))
According to Dawkins: âFather Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are part of the charm of childhood. So is God. Some of us grow out of all three.â(TM) [39] Dawkins implies that anyone who believes in God is childish be
It is a fallacy because it is inductive logic, which is not always true.
Dawkins also uses "Strawmen" to describe religous people and religion, and does personal attacks on them as well. Not worthy of a great scientist.
Immanuel Kant proved that you cannot prove God exists or does not exist by Science long ago. Anything else is pure logical fallacies like inductive logic, which Dawkins uses as well as circular references and wishful thinking.
Not so, Flock and Black Bird have been forked from Firefox/Mozilla and they have been doing quite well.
I am not independently wealthy, but I write my own source code and do it on a shoe string budget. It is not pointless either, it is something people must learn that if they want an open source project to do everything they want it to do, they'd have to fork the original project and hire their own development team to do so. If they cannot afford that, just put up with the original project and submit bug reports and hope someone on the original team can add in what they want.
If anything it teaches them a lesson that it is not that easy to add in the features they want.
Let them try it, see if they can do it. I am one of the few people who can do that sort of thing because of my programming background. But as you said I'd need a team to do it, and money.
I am developing my own open source software, I don't have the time to fork someone else's project. Now if someone forked over the money to hire my own development team that is a different story.
But it is good to know that I can fork an OSS project if I wanted to, and develop into it whatever I wanted to develop.
If it was some other Atheist who doesn't have a track record of bashing religion and religious people, I think they would not object to him or her speaking about Evolution.
I feel that people should be able to have free speech and choose their own religion or choose not to choose a religion if they want.
Not all Christians are opposed to Evolution proof of that is here. What I think the majority in Oklahoma are objecting to is Dawking's bashing of religion and religious people which has made him a bigot over the years.
Most likely he does not want to use a Non-Windows solution. He wants a better web browser for Windows, without having to switch out his operating system.
Most people want the OS that ships with their computer, which is usually a version of Windows, and then an open source solution that works the way they want it to work on Windows sans the malware infections, etc.
The beauty of open source programs is that if you don't like one of them, you are free to fork their source code into a new project under a different name.
Actually H1B Visa Workers are used because they are willing to work for a fraction of the salary that a US born worker wants to work for.
Now that the US Economy has tanked thanks to Bush and now Obama, it is better for them to go back to their native country of origin and work there and take all the money they saved up back home and live like a King or Queen.
They aren't smarter than us, they aren't harder working either, they just are willing to work for less money. Otherwise Offshoring and H1B Visa legal fees and paperwork would not be worth it. Management is always trying to find ways to save money.
This means the US IT and Engineering jobs are going to go back to US Citizens as the Immigrants are going home in the masses.
So then what makes then different from each other? They all seem to waste taxpayer money on bailout bills like the Neocons did when they were in office.
I notice the liberals did not repeal the Patriot Act and other laws Bush and the Neocons passed. I wonder why is that if Liberals are supposed to be different from Neocons? Unless they are left-wing Neocons?
I find Wikipedia is vastly inaccurate in the description of political definitions anyway. After all why would a Liberal Congress do the same things that a Neocon Congress would do, and a Liberal President do the same things as a Neocon President can do?
Excuse me if I find it hard to tell the differences when they all act and behave the same. Same corruption, different political definition.
I bought the 1080 Commodore Amiga monitor as a bundle for my Amiga 1000.
I didn't learn about the Sony monitor until later. But I replaced the Commodore Amiga 1080 monitor with a generic one designed for the Commodore 128 and it worked quite well.
There were Amiga to SVGA adapters for multi-synch SVGA monitors by Sony etc to eliminate the interlace flicker problems. I just wore polarized sunglasses to avoid the flicker.
Slashdot Mirror
There are also others such as Confucianism and Taoism from China, but no doubt he'll mix them in with Christianity and Judaism, as a fallacy on his own part.
He did do a fallacy when he said if Christianity is proven false so too is Buddhism because it does not talk about a God or divine being. He makes many fallacies, too many to get into.
"Why does the GP not understand what a fallacy is? I think it's you. A fallacy is an invalid argument. You said Dawkins makes many of these and therefore his arguments are invalid. The GP showed you that they were not false arguments and therefore you don't get to dismiss them so easily."
The GP did not show that they were not false arguments and made his own false arguments to do so.
All I did was call the GP on his/her own false arguments.
"Evolution doesnt support anything, it just is.
Dawkins does not argue 'Evolution happened therefore there is no god'.
He argues evolution happened and also god is a pretty ridiculous proposition."
While I have no beef with the evolution happened, I do have a beef with the also god is a pretty ridiculous proposition, as he hasn't proven that.
Actually the Amiga Research OS or AROS is being planned to be ported to the ARM platform. So all the XO-2 would need is drivers ported to AROS-ARM edition. Then it would be like having an Amiga laptop or notebook or whatever.
Use student discounts if you can buy a copy of XP for cheaper than pricewatch can offer an OEM copy.
VMWare will work as well, but the VMWare Player while free cannot create install virtual hard drives. You'd have to create it with the Free Server version or buy the Workstation version.
require you to turn off your firewall and pop-up blocker. Why they cannot write web software to work without needing pop-ups and can work with firewalls is beyond me.
Virtual PC 2007 is free. Use Pricewatch's operating system price search to find a version of Windows to run under it. Windows XP can be bought in OEM version for under $100.
Run all college web sites in a virtual machine.
Use Avast Home for Antivirus as it is free for home and non-profit use.
As long as IE comes bundled with Windows whatever version, people will still continue to use it.
If Windows 7.0 comes with IE 9 people will still use it.
IE stands for Internet Exploder, which is what it really does.
the AROS or HaikuOS challenge.
Can someone go cold turkey from Windows to a GUI based operating system that is not Linux, but free and open sourced just the same?
No no we really really need the GNU Gurus!
apt-get install synaptics
Then GUI your way through APT packages.
In all honesty Dawkins himself does not understand these things he is talking about. He has no PHD in theology yet claims to be an expert in it. Many of these points he makes is unclear, and can easily be argued one way or another.
One thing for certain is that he has a bias in them, and does not completely think out his arguments.
Evolution could support Atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, why should it be either Atheism or Christianity as Dawkins states it should be? This makes no sense as there could be more than one answer, and why should we accept Dawkin's answer when he can offer no valid proof or evidence to support it? If I said it supported Christianity, I would be just as fallacious as Dawkins saying it favored Atheism, when we both could be incorrect and it favors nothing or Buddhism or Hinduism instead.
I honestly don't think you understand what a fallacy is, I could be wrong here. You've argued why they couldn't be fallacies, but you used faulty or unclear logic yourself to do so.
Thanks for taking the time to try and rebuttle some of Dawkins' fallacies. I'm sorry you didn't do better.
Sorry but you are wrong and here is why thank you for playing. But that is yet another fallacy in the debate.
Which is a stereotype of what Christianity really is, and is a big strawman argument.
Others have done so many times over.
5. The Non Sequitar â" âComments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.â(TM) [24]
Stephen M. Barrâ(TM)s review of Dawkinsâ(TM) Unweaving the Rainbow is spot on:
It is not often that one can find exactly the point where an author goes off track, but here one can. It is in the fifth sentence of the preface of the book, which begins, âSimilar accusations of barren desolation, of promoting an arid and joyless message, are frequently flung at science in general.â(TM) However, what people object to in Dawkins is not the science but the atheism. Because he cannot see the difference, he writes a book that is a 300-page non sequitur.
3. The False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there are more choices possible.
When it comes to explaining biological reality, Dawkins asserts: âThe only thing [William Paley] got wrong â" admittedly quite a big thing â" was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer [that life was created by God]. . . The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin.â(TM) [14] Dawkins fails to point out that belief in the doctrine of creation and the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection are in fact compatible. Michael Poole explains why the choice between creation and evolution is a false dilemma:
7. Wishful Thinking - âa fallacy that posits a belief because it or its consequence is desired to be true.â(TM) [28]
Discussing the theory of âchemical evolutionâ(TM) or abiogenesis [29] (the supposed naturalistic appearance of life from non-life), Dawkins says: âNobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying â" a replicator.â(TM) [30] Dawkinsâ(TM) belief in abiogenesis is wishful thinking in that he wants it to be true because it is necessary for an atheistic account of origins, despite there being a large body of scientific evidence against the theory. [31]
9. Straw Man Argument - âa type of Red Herring that attacks a misrepresentation of an opponentâ(TM)s position. That is called to burn a straw man. It is a surprisingly common fallacy, because it is easy to misunderstand another person's position.â(TM) [36]
According to Dawkins: âScience shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.â(TM) [37] But as McGrath responds:
Dawkinsâ(TM)s caricature of Christianity may well carry weight with his increasingly religiously illiterate or religiously alienated audiences, who find in his writings ample confirmation of their prejudices, but merely persuades those familiar with religious traditions to conclude that Dawkins has no interest in understanding what he critiques. . . The classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality and does not hold that faith involves the abandonment of reason or the absence of evidence. Indeed, the Christian tradition is so strong on this matter that it is often difficult to understand where Dawkins got these ideas. [38]
10. Ad Hominem â" the fallacy of attacking the individual instead of the argument (Ad Hominem is Latin for âagainst the man.â(TM))
According to Dawkins: âFather Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are part of the charm of childhood. So is God. Some of us grow out of all three.â(TM) [39] Dawkins implies that anyone who believes in God is childish be
It is a fallacy because it is inductive logic, which is not always true.
Dawkins also uses "Strawmen" to describe religous people and religion, and does personal attacks on them as well. Not worthy of a great scientist.
Immanuel Kant proved that you cannot prove God exists or does not exist by Science long ago. Anything else is pure logical fallacies like inductive logic, which Dawkins uses as well as circular references and wishful thinking.
Not so, Flock and Black Bird have been forked from Firefox/Mozilla and they have been doing quite well.
I am not independently wealthy, but I write my own source code and do it on a shoe string budget. It is not pointless either, it is something people must learn that if they want an open source project to do everything they want it to do, they'd have to fork the original project and hire their own development team to do so. If they cannot afford that, just put up with the original project and submit bug reports and hope someone on the original team can add in what they want.
If anything it teaches them a lesson that it is not that easy to add in the features they want.
Let them try it, see if they can do it. I am one of the few people who can do that sort of thing because of my programming background. But as you said I'd need a team to do it, and money.
I am developing my own open source software, I don't have the time to fork someone else's project. Now if someone forked over the money to hire my own development team that is a different story.
But it is good to know that I can fork an OSS project if I wanted to, and develop into it whatever I wanted to develop.
I think it has to do with Dawkin's bashing of religion and religious people in his TV programs and books by using fallacies which some people call it as "Hate Speech".
If it was some other Atheist who doesn't have a track record of bashing religion and religious people, I think they would not object to him or her speaking about Evolution.
I feel that people should be able to have free speech and choose their own religion or choose not to choose a religion if they want.
Not all Christians are opposed to Evolution proof of that is here. What I think the majority in Oklahoma are objecting to is Dawking's bashing of religion and religious people which has made him a bigot over the years.
Most likely he does not want to use a Non-Windows solution. He wants a better web browser for Windows, without having to switch out his operating system.
Most people want the OS that ships with their computer, which is usually a version of Windows, and then an open source solution that works the way they want it to work on Windows sans the malware infections, etc.
The beauty of open source programs is that if you don't like one of them, you are free to fork their source code into a new project under a different name.
So what stops you from making Syousefox?
Agreed, the US Citizens had a hand to play in this recession as well as the US government.
Why not also OS/2, Linux, BSD Unix, AROS, HaikuOS, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, GEOS, GEM, and anything else you can think of?
Actually H1B Visa Workers are used because they are willing to work for a fraction of the salary that a US born worker wants to work for.
Now that the US Economy has tanked thanks to Bush and now Obama, it is better for them to go back to their native country of origin and work there and take all the money they saved up back home and live like a King or Queen.
They aren't smarter than us, they aren't harder working either, they just are willing to work for less money. Otherwise Offshoring and H1B Visa legal fees and paperwork would not be worth it. Management is always trying to find ways to save money.
This means the US IT and Engineering jobs are going to go back to US Citizens as the Immigrants are going home in the masses.
needs BitTorrents of various Linux distros. That way we can download Linux better.
So then what makes then different from each other? They all seem to waste taxpayer money on bailout bills like the Neocons did when they were in office.
I notice the liberals did not repeal the Patriot Act and other laws Bush and the Neocons passed. I wonder why is that if Liberals are supposed to be different from Neocons? Unless they are left-wing Neocons?
I find Wikipedia is vastly inaccurate in the description of political definitions anyway. After all why would a Liberal Congress do the same things that a Neocon Congress would do, and a Liberal President do the same things as a Neocon President can do?
Excuse me if I find it hard to tell the differences when they all act and behave the same. Same corruption, different political definition.
I bought the 1080 Commodore Amiga monitor as a bundle for my Amiga 1000.
I didn't learn about the Sony monitor until later. But I replaced the Commodore Amiga 1080 monitor with a generic one designed for the Commodore 128 and it worked quite well.
There were Amiga to SVGA adapters for multi-synch SVGA monitors by Sony etc to eliminate the interlace flicker problems. I just wore polarized sunglasses to avoid the flicker.