Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, April 28, 2014, 20:12 (3862 days ago) @ romansh

David: I then came up with sn explanation for me taht I find emotionally comfortable.
ROMANSH: And my use of the word feel was in response to this quote.-Fair comment. David also says he reached his God through science, but he can speak for himself!-ROMANSH: Saying a god did it just does not answer any questions.
Dhw: Agreed. But saying chance did it is not an answer either unless or until science can show that chance is capable of doing it. 
ROMANSH: Chance is happening all around us all the time. What is there to show?-Perhaps you haven't followed our discussions over the last six years. The reference is to whether chance is capable of creating the complexities necessary for life and evolution.
 
Dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: Here is a question and I hope the context was adequate, that you did not answer directly.
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.-I answered it directly, but I do not accept your use of the word "atheistic". See below.
 
ROMANSH: It was a very definite question ... and you did not answer. Your answer was essentially atheism meaning a belief that not one god exists.-My answer ("I do not believe...") had nothing to do with atheism, because in my view your question had nothing to do with atheism, which I've defined as disbelief in the existence of god(s). I object to your use of the word "atheistic" in relation to disbelief in any particular god (e.g. Roman gods), in a particular story (the flood), in individual tenets of individual religions, or in the theory that men walked with dinosaurs. You have approvingly quoted a similar definition to my own ("the rejection of belief in deities....the position that there are no deities"), and yet you continue to use "atheistic" as if somehow the meaning of the adjective is divorced from that of the noun.-ROMANSH: But I will actively rephrase my question ... do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?-More ambiguity. Do you mean the god who is reputed by some story-tellers to have caused a flood, or do you mean the story some story-tellers have told about their god? I'll answer both questions, plus the third. Until and unless science can prove to the contrary, I actively disbelieve the story about the OT God flooding the whole earth (AND about Noah's ark!). I also actively disbelieve in men walking with dinosaurs. I do not actively disbelieve in the existence of a single god concerning whom some humans have told a story about a flood. (For further objections, see my post under "Agnosticism".) Now please explain what men walking with dinosaurs has to do with disbelief in the existence of god(s). -Dhw: 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)? [Plus more questions you didn't answer.]
ROMANSH: 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.-As above, the definitions you claim to use yourself specifically refer to non belief in the existence of deities, NOT to a particular religious position. You are really scraping the barrel with "atheist like": What is your purpose in comparing disbelief in men walking with dinosaurs to disbelief in the existence of god(s)?
 
dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: I never claimed you did. Also it is not Dawkins' weak or strong atheism ... it is the language that of philosophy-You wrote: "Yes, the video was in reference to Dawkins taking the weak theist position and not the strong one you claimed for him." You claimed that I claimed the strong position for Dawkins, and I claim that I never made any such claim. And now you wish to tell me all about strong and weak atheism. Another non sequitur.-ROMANSH: And you think you answer all my questions DHW?-I certainly try (which is why these posts get longer and longer!).-ROMANSH: Did you look at my belief bubbles?-I'm not sure what this has to do with any of the preceding points, but I do remember vaguely. If you think it will help, please give me the reference again.-I'll deal with "agnosticism" on the other thread.