Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, April 27, 2014, 15:25 (3863 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: I don't find it a concern that you might disagree with me, but I do find it concerning, that I have not seen a glimpse of you actually understanding my position.-It is indeed. And we just don't know whether this is due to my ignorance and/or stupidity, or your lack of clarity. Perhaps our latest conversation will shed light on which it is.-ROMANSH: 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.-(a) It is not a matter of just "feeling" for some. David says he has reached his God through science; (b) when it comes to the individual details of the "metaphor" I'm sure you are right, but Dawkins goes beyond the details to the very essence of the image: he 6.9 out of 7 rejects the very concept on which the image is based ... namely, a conscious power that created the universe and life. I think we need to separate the trappings of individual religions from the power people call god(s). -ROMANSH: 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.-Agreed. But saying chance did it is not an answer either unless or until science can show that chance is capable of doing it. That is why I simply cannot judge (= agnosticism) whether the material world as we know it represents the limits of what BBella calls ALL THAT IS.-Dhw: ...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. 
ROMANSH: I am not saying this at all ... is this what you mean by language games?-Yes. You asked the following question: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" I do not believe man walked with dinosaurs, and I do not believe there was a literal world flood. Now please explain why you chose the word "atheistic" and what it has to do with whether I believe in a deity or deities.
 
Dhw: 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. 
ROMANSH: Yes the video was in reference to Dawkins taking the weak theist position and not the strong one you claimed for him.-Please reread the above, which was once more a complaint about the misuse of language. I made no reference to Dawkins' weak or strong atheism, and your response was and remains a non sequitur, which never helps when it comes to our understanding one another.-Dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: What was the question I did not answer?-In response to your ambiguous response of "quite" (ambiguities are not uncommon in your posts), I asked if it meant "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?" You frequently ignore questions and requests for definitions.
 
Dhw: 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-ROMANSH: 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.-Thank you. You wrote that "agnosticism is not about belief in gods....It is about how we handle such knowledge." The definitions you referred me to are quite explicit in their references to belief in gods. Even if you tone down your rejection of the Wikipedia definitions, you still haven't given me your own definition, and we have the same problem with your use of "atheistic". You wrote, concerning definitions of agnosticism, "I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with." (Sorry to reproduce the typos, but I don't want to take words out of your mouth!) Is it just possible that you understand me because I try to clarify my meanings, whereas your not particularly caring maybe...might...just possibly...perhaps...sort of...well...make it more difficult for me to understand you?