The God Delusion

[De_Maria]

But this is how science and debate works as opposed to religion,

It is religion, especially Christianity which is open to debate. Atheistic governments have shown and continue to show that they are intolerant to religion. No debate is permitted.

you present different arguements and evidence and some you find compelling and some you don’t. It’s not dishonest to hold an opinion.

Precisely what the Church teaches. And God’s teachings through the Church have been found persuasive by the majority of people throughout history.

I can’t speak for Dawkins as to why he didn’t include that research, but I can think of a number of reasons more likely then that he’s a unflinching ideolog:

Of course. But you can’t make the same exception for Christians. We are inflexible and dogmatic.

he wasn’t aware of them, they were cherry picked studies out of many, he didn’t find the studies valid(which is likely given that it’s very hard for a study to show much of anything, experiements are needed to draw any definitive conclusions).

More than likely, being that he is atheist, he simply decided that HE knows what is right and wrong and he believes that is all that is important.

An important point for christians to learn, just because something upsets you does not make it untrue.

That is an important point for all people. But especially for atheists. You see, we learned a long time ago to submit to the teachings of God. Sometimes we don’t agree with them, but we submit anyway.

Atheists have no such discipline. If one doesn’t agree with their particular dogma, they get real irate.

Biology started at the big bang?

Do you have any proof that it didn’t? Doesn’t science teach that all the components for life on earth came from the stars?

I think much of that is just due to the era in which the murders happened. It’s easier to kill people with a blitzkriegs and gas chambers then with pointy sticks. I think many of the big evil in this century has come out of agnostisms and athiesm because to get in a position of power you generally have to be educated and smart, and in this century educated and smart people are athiest.

Another false assumption. Unless you can prove it.

In the past the power lied in the hands of the Catholic church, so big evil had to go through there.

Evil never went through the Catholic Church.

I do generally ascribe to the idea that it is faith and the rejection of reason that causes evil,

1. Human reason is a form of faith. Simply said, reason is faith in one’s ideas.
2. Faith in God is superior to human reason because God is the author of reason.

The cause of evil is the rejection of God’s teachings which are based upon God’s wisdom and reason for humanity.

not any particular religion. And yes, I am just as anti-socialism as I am anti-christian/islam.

Socialism is simply an economic theory. It is the misapplication of Socialism by certain governments which led to the evil subjugation of their citizens.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Donald45]

Educating yourself is not the same as simply reading something…

Again, at least I’ve actually read both Dawkins and McGrath in their entirety. Now, I may not have demonstrated my self-education to your satisfaction (an irrelevancy), but your claim that I have not educated myself in these matters is a point that you simply cannot prove. Therefore, the claim is, like your basic position on Dawkins, nothing more than a bare assumption made in the absence of evidence, a declaration without a demonstration, an exclamation without a point.

If true, that must be a joke university, given that you don’t even know what an ad hominem is. It’s not an ad hominem to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Do you know longer need to understand philosophy to get a philosophy degree?

"We argue ad hominem when we try to refute an argument by arguing against the character of the man who brings it forward or his dubious motives in so doing" (Joseph Gerard Brennan, A Handbook of Logic, 2nd ed., p. 217).

Your accusation that I’m just “running [my] mouth” is a personal insult directed at my character and intelligence, rather than addressing the issue under discussion. This is the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy. Therefore, it’s clearly you who has no clue concerning the proper definition of an ad hominem argument. Better keep your day job, Einstein (now, that’s an ad hominem barb).

I read one of your articles and it did not answer my question.

Good for you, a whole article?

Therefore I think we are done.

Sadly, you were done before you started. Apparently, you actually believe that scoring points on a purely rhetorical level equates to “being right.”

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Therefore, it’s clearly you who has no clue concerning the proper definition of an ad hominem argument. Better keep your day job, Einstein (now, that’s an ad hominem barb).

Not it’s not. It’s just an insult.

Most insults are not ad hominems, and ad hominems can be entirely polite.

You make the * ad hominem * fallacy when you say that an argument is fallacious because of the person making it, not because of what is said. It is a dangerous fallacy because, as a heuristic, it works quite well. Certain people are more trustworthy than others, or have an interest in promoting falsehood. Government economic projections always show a return to steady, sustainable growth at the end of their forecasting period, for instance. They would, wouldn’t they, and it is tempting to simply dismiss that. However to reject a projection responsibly, really you’ve got to look at the assumptions and say why you don’t think they hold.

Note that there’s no name-calling here. Nor is the identification of the bias unfounded. The fallacy is in assuming that, because the projection is from a government department, it must have been doctored to show a return to sustainable growth. That isn’t always true. Countries do enjoy periods of sustainable economic growth, sometimes because of rather than despite official policy.

 

[Donald45]

Not it’s not. It’s just an insult. Most insults are not ad hominems, and ad hominems can be entirely polite.

I respectfully disagree. True, ad hominems can be entirely polite, but they might very well not be as well. So, then, not all insults are ad hominems, but some ad hominems may be insults. According to one source:

"When we infer from the character, professions, or conduct of an individual the truth or falsity of a general proposition not relating solely to that individual, we argue beside the point. (This is sometimes called the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.)… We evade the issue by drawing attention from the merits of the principle to the personal merits of the one who advocates it" (William T. Foster, Argumentation & Debating, revised edition, p. 204).

In light of this, one would conclude that my particular insult was also an ad hominem barb, since it sarcastically implied that my opponent is rather unintelligent, and that his evaluation of the topic under discussion is therefore necessarily dubious. (Of course, I don’t in actuality believe that my opponent is unintelligent, but was merely illustrating a point.)

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Mersenne]

So you’d agree that Dawkins is at least careless in suggesting that the American situation is normative?

I would say that he did not suggest that… All he said was that there were people out there that felt that way. Clearly, there are people out there that feel that way. I don’t see how you can interrept that as “this is a vast and encompasing problem the effects a great majority of the people and is a problem across all nations and peoples” Stretch the truth much?

 

[Mersenne]

but your claim that I have not educated myself in these matters is a point that you simply cannot prove.

A point supported by your repeatedly demonstrating that you have no knowledge of Dawkin’s ideas.

Your accusation that I’m just “running [my] mouth” is a personal insult directed at my character and intelligence, rather than addressing the issue under discussion.

The issue I was discussing was your character and intelligence, therefore it’s not an ad hominem falacy. I’ll slow this down for you.

Ad Hominem: You are a communist, therefore we shouldn’t believe you when you say X

Not Ad Hominem: You are a liar, because of X, Y, and Z

Good for you, a whole article?

I only need one to prove that you are dishonest, and your response drives that point home.

 

[Mersenne]

Did he express this as an opinion, or did he make it out as a fact?

He expressed it as within the realm of objective reasoning.

Strange statement, religion consumes resources? What do you mean exactly?

It consumes manhours, goods and services in the form of sacrifices, materials and time for buildings, workers within the clergy, time for prayers and rituals, materials used as part of rituals, ect. I think it wise to point out that, if I have to explain this to you, then obviously you haven’t tried very hard to understand dawkins work

Religions consumption of resources explain why religion exists outside it being true?

This is not only half truth, but it is obfuscation of the highest order.

It’s not a half truth, you’re misunderstanding me, something I think you’re not trying very hard to avoid. Religion’s benefit to primitive society explains could be one explination for why it exists. It explains why it does not neccisarily have to be true to exist.

First. All religions are true in the sense that they exist.

The existence of a belief is now proof of it’s truth?

Well now, I’m a Christian who was once an atheist. I didn’t consider myself intolerant, dogmatic and inflexible then and I don’t now. In fact, as I remember my atheists friends, they were much more inflexible, intolerant and dogmatic than my Christian friends are today.

But lets continue examining your half truths. Do you have any quantifiable data to show that most Christians are inflexible and intolerant?

Do you have any quantifiable data to show that you’re an athiest turned Christian?

Of course not, it’s silly to ask for such a thing for a statement obviously made from personal experience.

The above is a statement by Dawkins. Can you explain why this statement is not dogmatic?

because if you showed proof that the statement wasn’t true he’d stop believing it, and he believes it due to evidence not edict. This is the difference between dogma and non-dogma. Again, you seem to be pushing a definition of dogma that would encompass any claim anyone made ever. Again, classic projection, trying to make everyone out to be as bad as yourself.

In this articles, note how he lumps all religions in with the religion of the Taliban. That seems at the very least, an implied half truth and a misrepresentation of religion as all being like the Taliban.

Except that he argues, in the article, WHY he thinks one can fairly lump together all religions as such. If you disagree with him, fine, but just because you disagree with someone’s conclusion does not make them a liar.

Thats the problem with atheists. Your thoughts are your whole world. If you don’t understand it, it isn’t so.

So, I start my statement with a qualifier indicating an opinion and you take that as a dogmatic statement of feverent unyielding belief? Really, projection, look it up. You’re getting into “off the deep end” realm now.

To what does he associate the teaching of atheism to the young in Public School?

He doesn’t support the teaching of atheism to the young. I hope you’re learning something here about how non-religious people think.

But you are defending Dawkins religion of atheism.

You’re just making things up whole cloth now. I’m disagreeing with you about specific instences where you claim Dawkins makes half truths.

But atheism has no leadership, so far as I can see it is a confusion of voices. Some teach one thing and others another. The only thing that unites you is your dismissal of God’s influence in the world. Unless you can show me different.

…and then you ramble on about things irrelevent to what we are talking about.

Atheistic governments have shown and continue to show that they are intolerant to religion. No debate is permitted.

That’s a property of totalitarian governments. Religious totalitarian governments have never permitted debate. Secular democracies such as the united states, most of Europe, ect, permit debate.

CONT

 

[Mersenne]

Of course.

But this is exactly the opposite of what you said in your first post

More than likely, being that he is atheist, he simply decided that HE knows what is right and wrong and he believes that is all that is important.

Which I think demostrates how divorced from reality you are.

That is an important point for all people.

But a point seamingly lost on you.

You see, we learned a long time ago to submit to the teachings of God. Sometimes we don’t agree with them, but we submit anyway.

Yeah, so if god says to crash a plane into the world trade center, you don’t argue with god, you just do it.

Atheists have no such discipline.

A point you seem to be missing, Athiests aren’t like a conglamorate or anything, it’s a lack of a belief, that would be like lumping together everyone who doesn’t play hockey and calling them “non-hockeyiers”, and complaining about the beliefs of “non-hockeyiers”.

Do you have any proof that it didn’t? Doesn’t science teach that all the components for life on earth came from the stars?

Right, but BIOLOGY didn’t start until life started, and life didn’t start at the big bang. And yes, I do have proof that life didn’t start at the big bang. Do you really need it?

Another false assumption. Unless you can prove it.

You’re the one who has made an assertion of fact, the onus is on you to prove it. I stated my beliefs, based on a number of things that I can go over, but it’s really getting out of the scope of the discussion. You turned about and made a unflinching factual decleration that I was definately wrong. So where is YOUR proof?

Classic Christian tactic, demand proof and then push back the standards of proof back to a point where no one could prove anything about anything ever. Fortunately I’ve obviously had more practice avoiding this non-sense this you have in pushing it.

Evil never went through the Catholic Church.

Child molestations.

Human reason is a form of faith. Simply said, reason is faith in one’s ideas.

Reaons is an absolute supported by logic. It is a conviction, not faith.

Faith in God is superior to human reason because God is the author of reason.

Baseless assumption that god is the author or reason.

Socialism is simply an economic theory. It is the misapplication of Socialism by certain governments which led to the evil subjugation of their citizens.

No, socialism always went to where it has to go, where it was predicted it would go and where it did go. It puts forward a false idea of a “the people” which, in reality, doesn’t exist, and like religion, because it is untrue, it must spread through violence and brainwashing.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having departed from topic this thread is now closed.
MF