Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by romansh , Friday, April 25, 2014, 16:54 (3646 days ago) @ dhw

ROMANSH: The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant
> You're not the first to discover that human relations are problematical. 
That was not the intent of my problematic ... There is a logic issue ... Dawkins is arrogant and I find Dawkins is arrogant are two very different things.
>>> Dhw: Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
>> ROMANSH: Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.
> I'm far too polite to have accused you of deceit. But it might have helped Tony and myself if you'd explained what you hoped to achieve by citing the causal responsibility of the sun when we were discussing the moral responsibility of Hitler.
Is not politeness in the eye of the beholder? 
>>> Dhw: 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. 
>> ROMANSH: Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition.
> Please explain the difference between my definition and "strong" atheism.
Yours is a strong definition of atheism. I have no problem with the strong sense of the word ... I prefer this sense. My point remains ... if someone wants to identify themselves as an atheist in the weak sense of the word that is fine by me. I understand what they are trying to say.
>>> DHW: I don't know how you can apply the term [atheism] to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. 
>> ROMANSH: You don't? OK I can drop that for the moment.
> According to current scientific knowledge, humans came long after dinosaurs, and therefore I do not believe that humans walked with dinosaurs. What has this to do with belief in God? 
For certain variations of theism Christianity it is believed man walked with dinosaurs. I am definitely atheistic (or an atheist in the strong sense of the word) to that kind of god. Do you remain agnostic towards a god that created an Earth where man walked with dinosaurs?
>>> Dhw: 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. 
>> Romansh: And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????
> You gave me the example of your disbelief in Christian positions. Dawkins used the example of disbelief in ancient gods. You both refer to these as examples of atheism. I am pointing out to you that they are examples of disbelief in particular versions of god(s). See the next point.
The example I gave was a video of Dawkins talking with the then-Archbishop of Canterbury and saying he was agnostic wrt to god ... I took it as a some form of deistic god ... not any literal version.
>>> Dhw: 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.
>> ROMANSH: Quite ... yet there appear to be ancient historical examples'
> Does "quite" mean you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours? 
Generally I take on the definition of atheist of the atheist I am talking to. I don't believe there is some intrinsically correct definition. But I would point out some of the most strident atheists I have come across might label themselves as agnostic atheists. 
>>> Dhw: As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
>> ROMANSH: 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. 
> If they "lack belief" but don't disbelieve, then they are indeed agnostic by my definition. You are at present discussing the subject with me. See below. 
And yet agnosticism is not about belief ... it is about how we handle knowledge. 
>>> Dhw: 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).
>> ROMANSH: I am a little sad that you are so attached to definitions that you think your view can be devalued.
> Of course I reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism under "weak" atheism. "Attached to definitions" really won't do. There's no possibility of our reaching any kind of understanding if we don't define our terms, as I have tried to do. Please give us your own definitions.
That you reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism shows that you believe there is some intrinsically correct definition ... which in of itself is not agnostic.