I find it funny that my Dawkins apologist tone was apparently harsh enough to warrant a second Dawkins apologist to step in.
Are all theists this paranoid? Do you really think there's a great atheist conspiracy to track your comments and respond, and if necessary, call in backup? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, I just happened to read your comment as well, and wanted to respond on behalf of myself and no one else?
Dawkins refers to the beliefs that many people base their entire lives on as "infantile", and their God as an "imaginary friend".
Quote mining, eh? Typical creationist tactic. I looked up "infantile", and here's a bit more context: "There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point [or the view that] somebody else must be responsible for my well being and somebody else must be to blame if I am hurt."
And the "imaginary friend" thing: "I do discuss all those things especially the imaginary friend which I think is an interesting psychological phenomenon in childhood and that may possibly have something to do with the appeal of religion."
Or: "Wouldn't it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course it's satisfying, if you can believe it."
But insulting someone's faith, even if it's justified, isn't the best way to convert them.
Dawkins isn't looking to convert fundies. He's talking to the fence-sitters. And it works.
There is no middle ground. It's either a major revision or a minor revision.
Apparently, Mozilla and many others disagree.
When counting how many atoms there are in Glucose (C6H12O6), do you count 24 of them or do you count Hydrogen as 1/12 the atom that Carbon is and Oxygen 1 1/3 times (26)?
It has worked very nicely so far, wouldn't you agree? And considering its excellent track record, does it not make sense to keep relying on it in the future as well?
I certainly know for sure that Dawkins regularly labels theists as being, as a general rule, superstitious, ignorant, unintelligent, unsubtle, simpletons, archaic, unprogressive, etc.
That's great, but I didn't ask for "general rule" (as in your subjective and biased opinion). I asked for specific examples.
And what's more, he seems to be in a crusade to go all over the world giving talks where he does so.
This is just silly. Comparing giving talks across the world to slaughering people? Yeah, it takes a theist to come up with something like that I guess:)
I've gradually come to see that Dawkins, while quite intelligent, isn't really very knowledgeable outside a very narrow field, but goes around acting as if he is, and won't listen to reason when people try to enlighten him about his errors and misunderstandings.
Once again, an example? You people never seem to be able to come up with a single example!
He doesn't know enough about, for example, philosophy or the social sciences to understand that the scientistic, atheistic worldview he's crusading for is not nearly as solid as he thinks it is.
Yawn. More pointless personal attacks rather than addressing the issue. That's theism for you right there. You are merely asserting that he doesn't know enough. You have not managed to show that assertion to be true.
Once you realize how many problems Dawkins' whole worldview has, you start to think that perhaps he is a bit intellectually lazy.
What do you mean by "Dawkins' whole worldview", specifically? What are these problems?
The argument that "We don't host the files so we are not at fault" is extremely weak.
No it isn't. Google does the same thing: They are hosting links.
But the act of aiding and enabling those who commit a crime to do so does make them liable.
Then Google is liable.
No Star Wars, No Star Trek, No Family Guy, No Indiana Jones, No DailyShow, No SNL (pick the year you like), No Office, No Office Space... you get the point...
Complete and utter bullshit. You are nothing but an industry shill who dishonestly makes the argument that commercial information cartels are necessary for content to be created, which is obviously nonsense. Furthermore, you are wrongly assuming that money can't be made from free content. You may want to talk to Google about that.
Atheism and agnosticism are not related. Atheism means that you don't believe in God. Agnosticism says nothing about whether you belief in God or not, but whether you believe it's possible to actually know.
I was just extremely surprised at the level of the hate.
So, you fucking retard, are you going to answer the questions, or are you going to continue to be a fucking retard who just spews out nonsense and then runs off like a fucking pussy?
he seems to have blind faith that religion is the cause of every single problem in the entire universe
Nonsense. This just proves that you haven't even bothered to listen to what he says. Instead, you are relying on lies about him or making up lies yourself about what he is saying.
I don't like religion, but he takes it to quite a ridiculous extreme.
The small exposure I've had to him (a documentary he did supposedly on Darwinism) portrayed him as a fundamentalist nutbar intent on dismissing and arguing with people who are trying to have a reasonable conversation.
Oh yeah? Which documentary was that exactly? And how did he "dismiss" them? Did he dismiss them because their arguments were invalid? If so, he is perfectly justified in doing so.
Were I an impartial viewer, I'd have come away seeing the Church as the more reasonable and rational movement, and this fervent 'darwinism' as quite worrying and deluded.
Nonsense. You are not impartial. It is in your interest to lie about Dawkins because you cannot argue factually and rationally against him.
But basically when I say "science has become someone's religion". It means that they are going beyond the limits of science to try and argue for science.
They are not. It is you who don't understand their arguments.
That also means that it can not be disproved. Those that try to disprove an unprovable hypothesis are just as silly as those that do.
Religion cannot be falsified, but that doesn't mean that one can't deal with specific claims within the religion.
they as humans should be open to all of the experiences humans can experience
They are extremely open. And, in fact, they are so open that they have explained many or most of the "supernatural" experiences by natural means.
Just as they are open to falling in love, despite a lack of concrete exacting scientific understanding of emotion.
That comparison sucks. We know that love is chemicals and electical impulses. We also know where love came from.
But, I hate listening to his talks. His voice is annoying, he's prissy, he's rude. He is, in the words of the GP "callously disrespectful" of questioners.
Nonsense. Just because you don't like the way his voice sounds(!) doesn't mean that he's prissy, rude and disrespectful. If you believe that he is, please come up with some specific examples. Every time I've seen him in debates, he's so polite he even lets his opponent stomp all over him!
He is, unfortunately, a poor spokesman for atheists. I think when he gives talks he is counterproductive to his own mission.
Nope. He convinces a lot of fence-sitters. He isn't even trying to convert the religious fundies.
Atheism is a belief because you don't know the answer and you have no way of getting the answer, but you assert it anyway.
False. Atheism is the lack of belief. Otherwise not believing in Santa is "asserting that Santa does not exist", as if there is any evidence that he does.
You may be denying the supernatural, but you are making a assertion about the lack thereof, which in itself requires proof.
False. There is no evidence of the supernatural, that's the point.
You can hold your belief in good faith, confident that it explains the world to your satisfaction.
Atheism is not a belief, and doesn't explain anything what so ever.
Uh, how can you estimate the possibility of a completely untestable assertion being true as having ANY value at all short of simply holding a belief? How does he know the true probability isn't in fact 99.99% and that he is being needlessly uncertain of his convictins?
The point here is that Dawkins thinks it's extremely unlikely that God exists because there is no evidence that God exists, and what evidence we do have points somewhere else.
Then again, there is no such thing as probability in the absence of data.
There is not an absence of data. Read The God Delusion.
The argument goes like this: if there is a God (generally defined as an infinite being/force), then the existence of such is so far beyond our understanding that it is pointless to try to say anything about it, as anything we could possibly say is provably false.
This is a completely irrational position. Why is it "provably false"? Why is the existence beyond our understanding? You are ASSERTING these things. It is as irrational as theism, whereas atheism is the lack of belief, which is completely rational when there's no evidence.
Perhaps I'm too diplomatic, I just feel when debating something, one should strive to win the argument by facts and logic in a calm, rational manner
Which is exactly what Dawkins is doing.
I think a good summary of my feelings is the old forum-ettiquette of "don't attack the poster, attack his point of view", Dawkins sometimes steps over that line.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way?
Are all theists this paranoid? Do you really think there's a great atheist conspiracy to track your comments and respond, and if necessary, call in backup? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, I just happened to read your comment as well, and wanted to respond on behalf of myself and no one else?
Quote mining, eh? Typical creationist tactic. I looked up "infantile", and here's a bit more context: "There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point [or the view that] somebody else must be responsible for my well being and somebody else must be to blame if I am hurt."
And the "imaginary friend" thing: "I do discuss all those things especially the imaginary friend which I think is an interesting psychological phenomenon in childhood and that may possibly have something to do with the appeal of religion."
Or: "Wouldn't it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course it's satisfying, if you can believe it."
Dawkins isn't looking to convert fundies. He's talking to the fence-sitters. And it works.
Yay, take a quote out of context and declare victory. It's the creationist way.
Which is why it's a good thing that scientists have to show other scientists that they are correct.
Sigh. You are really grasping for straws now.
No, because science is not claimed to be an all-powerful being which tells us how to live our lives.
Woo-suk was *shock* exposed by OTHER SCIENTISTS.
Apparently, Mozilla and many others disagree.
This has got nothing to do with anything.
It has worked very nicely so far, wouldn't you agree? And considering its excellent track record, does it not make sense to keep relying on it in the future as well?
That's great, but I didn't ask for "general rule" (as in your subjective and biased opinion). I asked for specific examples.
This is just silly. Comparing giving talks across the world to slaughering people? Yeah, it takes a theist to come up with something like that I guess :)
Once again, an example? You people never seem to be able to come up with a single example!
Yawn. More pointless personal attacks rather than addressing the issue. That's theism for you right there. You are merely asserting that he doesn't know enough. You have not managed to show that assertion to be true.
What do you mean by "Dawkins' whole worldview", specifically? What are these problems?
He does address that. Did you even bother to read his books?
Almost. But 3.6.1 after 3.6, for example. Perfectly reasonable.
What makes you say that?
No it isn't. Google does the same thing: They are hosting links.
Then Google is liable.
Complete and utter bullshit. You are nothing but an industry shill who dishonestly makes the argument that commercial information cartels are necessary for content to be created, which is obviously nonsense. Furthermore, you are wrongly assuming that money can't be made from free content. You may want to talk to Google about that.
Yeah, just like Google is responsible for the content of the sites in their search index.
And TPB wouldn't? How could they refuse to do so, exactly? Have they been above the law? Untouchable by the police?
You are an industry shill, aren't you? I recognize those irrelevant, braindead arguments...
Atheism and agnosticism are not related. Atheism means that you don't believe in God. Agnosticism says nothing about whether you belief in God or not, but whether you believe it's possible to actually know.
I call BS.
So, you fucking retard, are you going to answer the questions, or are you going to continue to be a fucking retard who just spews out nonsense and then runs off like a fucking pussy?
How is he disrespectful? Examples, please. You can't be RELIGIOUSLY atheist. Atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is NO FAITH.
Examples?
Actually, he isn't aiming to convince religious fundies. He appeals to fence-sitters, and it works. I was one of them, and was convinced.
Why? Please be specific.
In what way?
Pure and utter nonsense. You don't even know what Dawkin's arguments are, so why are you making these retarded claims about him?
How? Please be specific.
Nonsense. This just proves that you haven't even bothered to listen to what he says. Instead, you are relying on lies about him or making up lies yourself about what he is saying.
How? Please be specific.
Oh yeah? Which documentary was that exactly? And how did he "dismiss" them? Did he dismiss them because their arguments were invalid? If so, he is perfectly justified in doing so.
Nonsense. You are not impartial. It is in your interest to lie about Dawkins because you cannot argue factually and rationally against him.
They are not. It is you who don't understand their arguments.
Religion cannot be falsified, but that doesn't mean that one can't deal with specific claims within the religion.
They are extremely open. And, in fact, they are so open that they have explained many or most of the "supernatural" experiences by natural means.
That comparison sucks. We know that love is chemicals and electical impulses. We also know where love came from.
Nonsense. Just because you don't like the way his voice sounds(!) doesn't mean that he's prissy, rude and disrespectful. If you believe that he is, please come up with some specific examples. Every time I've seen him in debates, he's so polite he even lets his opponent stomp all over him!
Nope. He convinces a lot of fence-sitters. He isn't even trying to convert the religious fundies.
False. Atheism is the lack of belief. Otherwise not believing in Santa is "asserting that Santa does not exist", as if there is any evidence that he does.
False. There is no evidence of the supernatural, that's the point.
Atheism is not a belief, and doesn't explain anything what so ever.
The point here is that Dawkins thinks it's extremely unlikely that God exists because there is no evidence that God exists, and what evidence we do have points somewhere else.
There is not an absence of data. Read The God Delusion.
This is a completely irrational position. Why is it "provably false"? Why is the existence beyond our understanding? You are ASSERTING these things. It is as irrational as theism, whereas atheism is the lack of belief, which is completely rational when there's no evidence.
Which is exactly what Dawkins is doing.
When? Examples, please.