Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by romansh , Friday, April 25, 2014, 02:00 (3866 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, April 25, 2014, 02:17

What's the problem?-The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant-> Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.
 
> You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. -Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition. But whatever attachment I have to 'my' preffered definition is just that - an attachment.->(My Collins dictionary offers: "rejection of belief in God or gods".)
Your Collins dictionary I find ambiguous on the subject. It could be strong or weak.-> I don't know how you can apply the term to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. 
You don't? OK I can drop that for the moment.-> But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. 
And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????-> And I'm afraid I'd find it ridiculous for the Pope to call the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollahs, or a billion Hindus atheists because they don't believe that Christ was the son of a virgin, was resurrected, and is now in heaven with his father God. Clearly you don't find it ridiculous, so yet again we need a definition.
Quite ... yet there appear to be ancient historical examples'-> As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.-For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. -It is like theists saying all self described atheists have an active disbelief in god, whereas the majority I speak to would be agnostic by your definition.
 
> I'm also a little sad that you think of your approach in terms of strong and weak atheism (a commonly used linguistic device to devalue agnosticism).
I am a little sad that you are so attached to definitions that you think your view can be devalued.-I describe myself as agnostic and not as an atheist in the same way I don't go around telling people I am a non-stamp collector. Agnosticism for me is about the way we handle knowledge ... the original meaning c/o Huxley was not limited to the subject of god(s) but was aimed at the metaphysical (I would include the so called supernatural in this). -Unlike Huxley I expand my agnosticism to the physical world ... and that is a more contentious debate. -> And let's say 25% is the borderline where theist/agnostic/atheist overlap (= agnostic leaning towards...). I'm 50/50. Where do you stand?-Here you revert to a childlike (Dawkins like) scale ... In the engineering world we can calculate probabilities of a project coming in on time and on budget. I need some data ... what is the data I should use?-I can dismiss a literal Christian god to all intents and purposes as it does fit the data I experience. Do I know this? No but I think this.-David's panentheistic god ... does not make sense to me either. Frankly I don't trust David's interpretation of probabilities and his ultimate arguement from incredulity. 
regarding
some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter-I don't buy the word intelligence ... primarily I am far from sure it exists. 
What is is intelligence other than something where I can see a pattern or make sense of? Otherwise you have nailed down pantheism ... which is so far the "godism" I can not eliminate.
 
> In science classes, I think we should teach science, including evolution as a scientific theory, stating whatever "facts" are known and unknown at the time. We should not draw conclusions. These should be discussed in philosophy lessons, which would include atheism, agnosticism, and all the major religions. For instance, it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives. Teachers should not impose their own philosophies. I myself am in favour of pupils being given as wide a range of views as possible, though I know that this could initially lead to conflicts between school and home. One's hope is that after a generation or two, the broader view might lead to ever increasing tolerance. No harm in dreaming, is there?-You did not answer my question ... let me reformulate it ... I have no problem with various religions being being taught in schools as religions ... including intelligent design. Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?