Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by romansh , Saturday, April 26, 2014, 22:29 (3864 days ago) @ dhw

Romansh, this discussion began when I gave examples of what I regard as Dawkins' superficiality. You picked on one: "He comes up with the usual sneer at all the past gods that people are now "atheistic" about (just as some theists might sneer at all the different theories of abiogenesis), but he seems not to realize that all god figures are approximations ... simply our attempts to identify (maybe anthropomorphize, maybe dream up) whatever as yet unknown power(s) led to our existence.-It did not begin in this thread and I don't recall particularly picking on any particular bit of your "invective".-I think Dawkins realizes all too well that all god figures are metaphors for something we might feel. I think Dawkins has a problem with those that think the metaphor should be taken literally.-> By picking on the soft target of individual religions, he can raise easy laughs and play with the word "atheism", but one would have hoped for something more discerning at this level." -You call them soft targets, I might call them obvious ones. But he addresses the deistic ones in The God Delusion. Saying a god did it just does not answer any questions. We can't help but wonder if god is the cause of this universe what caused god? It is an ancient question.->I am not, of course, defending any god(s) or the idea that men walked with dinosaurs. I object to language games that trivialize a subject which Dawkins, you and I deem worthy of prolonged discussion. -Well stop playing language games and concentrate on what the other person is trying to say. What is trivial for you just might be important for the other person.-> However, if you really think a devout Christian who disbelieves in men walking with dinosaurs (with or without a flood) can be called atheistic, then we should agree to disagree. This covers several points in your latest post. Let me deal with some others that you raise:-I am not saying this at all ... is this what you mean by language games?
 
> David quoted a critique of Dawkins which described him as arrogant. You wrote: "There is a logic issue ... Dawkins is arrogant and I find Dawkins is arrogant are two very different things." I don't think anyone on this forum is unaware that such personal judgments are subjective.-Good ... but is this not true for Dawkins too? Even if Dawkins does not realize it himself ... the people on this forum should. 
 
> You wrote:"And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject...?????" This was in reply to my pointing out that you and Dawkins were referring to disbelief not in God or gods but in different versions of God or gods. As a response to my criticism of his and your use of language, it is and remains a non sequitur. -Yes the video was in reference to Dawkins taking the weak theist position and not the strong one you claimed for him.-> What a pity you can't take on the definition of the agnostic you are talking to now! And what a pity you didn't answer my questions.-What was the question I did not answer?-> A remarkably authoritative statement from someone who doesn't believe in intrinsically correct definitions. I wonder how an agnostic handles such knowledge when he believes there is no such thing as such knowledge-Fair point ... but then I will give some leeway to the person who coined the modern usage of the word. But you are right, I should not be so authoritative.