Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 25, 2014, 09:08 (3865 days ago) @ romansh

DHW: What&apos;s the problem?&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;>Romansh: The problem is we assign values to others (as well as &apos;ourselves&apos;) and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant-Of course we do... how else are we supposed to make sense of the world or express ourselves to each other if we do not assign values to things. Dawkins is arrogant, having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one&apos;s own importance or abilities, by claiming that he is right and anyone that disagrees with him is an idiot, anyone that believes in a god(s) is a &apos;religidiot&apos; and should be persecuted. I think he is wrong. I could be wrong. I have faith that there is a god, and whatever mechanisms were used in creation are explainable by science, however.-> &#13;&#10;> > DHW: Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.&#13;&#10;> Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.&#13;&#10;> -Yup. I stand by that too.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;> > DHW: You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word &quot;atheism&quot; from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;>Romansh: Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition. But whatever attachment I have to &apos;my&apos; preffered definition is just that - an attachment.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> >(My Collins dictionary offers: &quot;rejection of belief in God or gods&quot;.)&#13;&#10;> Your Collins dictionary I find ambiguous on the subject. It could be strong or weak.&#13;&#10;>-Ok, think of it as a ternary question. Do you believe in god(s) Yes, No, or I don&apos;t know.-If you admit the possibility, but can not decide one way or the other, select I don&apos;t know. If you do not admit the possibility, select no. This is not difficult or ambiguous.--> > 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. &#13;&#10;> And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????&#13;&#10;>-Dawkins is not agnostic on the subject of deities. Period. He is quite militantly atheist (by his own admission) towards even the remotest possibility of a deity of any sort.- &#13;&#10;> >DHW?(lost track): As for agnosticism, for me it&apos;s neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Romansh: For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don&apos;t particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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.&#13;&#10;>-You either believe, disbelieve. In this one particular sense, agnostics and atheist are on common ground. It is fairly binary. Choosing not to believe because of lack of &apos;proof&apos; is disbelief. &#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;<Insert &quot;More debate on shifting definitions of agnostic and atheist here that are rather meaningless because they have already been defined quite thoroughly in dictionaries, literature, and discussions alike&quot; here.>-- &#13;&#10;> > In science classes, I think we should teach science, including evolution as a scientific theory, stating whatever &quot;facts&quot; 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&apos;s hope is that after a generation or two, the broader view might lead to ever increasing tolerance. No harm in dreaming, is there?&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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?-&#13;&#10;My two cents here: Ok, suppose for a moment that there IS(are) a god(s). If that were true, would it make good science any more or any less valid? No. Does it stop people from asking questions? No. Does it stop people from trying to reach as far back into the past as they can? No. Does it negate the possibility of evolution? No. Does it negate the possibility of the Big Bang? No.-What does it do then? It allows for a different framing of the questions. It allows a scientist to shelf unverifiable speculation in favor of the gradual uncovering of knowledge. In short evolution does not HAVE to be true. It reverts back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It allows the BBT to revert back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It removes the impetus for making unfounded claims or overreaching the explanatory power of a given theory out of some misguided attempt to disprove god. So yes, I think it should be taught.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.