Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by romansh , Sunday, April 27, 2014, 18:52 (3863 days ago) @ dhw

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.-I asked a similar question (of David think) whether it is due to different formation of our brain structures ... through our experiences, education, genes, foods eaten etc-> (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). -A direct quote from David
>> David: I then came up with sn explanation for me taht I find emotionally comfortable.
And my use of the word feel was in response to this quote.-That it [6.9] rejects for you I can't argue with. What it rejects for Dawkins I would have to ask.-> 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.-Chance is happening all around us all the time. What is there to show? 
 
> 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.-Here is a question and I hope the context was adequate, that you did not answer directly.->> rom: Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood? Personally I completely dismiss the vast number of Christian positions I am atheistic in the strong sense of the word. Whereas I am agnostic towards panentheism or atheistic in the weak sense of the word.-It was a very definite question ... and you did not answer. Your answer was essentially atheism meaning a belief that not one god exists. But I will actively rephrase my question ... do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?-> 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.-I never claimed you did. Also it is not Dawkins' weak or strong atheism ... it is the language that of philosophy-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism -> In response 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.-And you think you answer all my questions DHW?-Did you look at my belief bubbles?-As phrased it is a ridiculous proposition. But I did phrase the question that way. I think I phrased it as atheistic (atheist like) or atheist with respect to a particular god.
 
> 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. -From the opening line of Wikipedia 
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.-If you recall I mentioned I extended this to other non metaphysical concepts ... I also noted this could be quite contentious.