Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...
Discussion
Blue Meanie said:
ludo said:
See my first post on the thread, you will find that I demonstrated quite clearly that I knew what Dawkins had or hadn't done (so less of the insults please). His involvement in this particular case was minimal, but that doesn't mean he is not a "nobber"
[b]That is called an Ad Hominem attack, Ludo. You address nothing of what he says, and attack character instead.BlueMeanie said:
You might want to look that up. I do find it slightly hypocritical that you object to insults in the same paragraph you call someone a nobber.
The difference is that your insults were mis-directed as you failed to understand that I had already agreed with the point you had made. I don't think it unreasonable to call Dawkins a "nobber" for being unnecesarily offensive in putting across his views. If the Pope called atheists "deluded", I would think that was "nobber"-ish as well. BlueMeanie said:
As for your notion of a "me too!" role, he was asked by someone else. he did not go to the papers, or attaract attention. He was called by a journo.[/b]
Yes, I know, what do you think I meant be a "me too!" role? He heard of the idea and thought it a good idea and supported it (by trying to find a lawyer to help). BlueMeanie said:
ludo said:
You asked for an example of self-publicising, I provided one. Do you really not find it hypocritical that Dawkins calls religion "the root of all evil" and then goes carol singing?
No, you never.. What example? You simply said "he gets in the papers".. That is not an example. He does call religion "the root of all evil"... He also backs that up with 2 documentaries, and a book. Again, you say nothing about what you disagree with, and simply 'attack'. BlueMeanie said:
I like some songs that talk about the devil, and yet I am not a satanist.
Do you think that satanism is the root of all evil? If not, then it is hardly the same thing is it?BlueMeanie said:
You can like something, without believing what it is talking about. Pretty poor argument on your part. Carol singing, gregorian chanting, etc, all have artistic merits that are apart from their religious meaning.
Not that Dawkins goes carol singing because of the artistic merits of the songs. He does it because he identifies himself as a "cultural christian", which is rather ironic as it makes the point quite nicely that many so called "religious wars" are actually ethic/cultural conflicts, where the ethic/cultural boundaries happen to coincide with religious ones.BlueMeanie said:
Anything to say about the child abuse scandal, or the vaticans role in this, or are you simply going to attack someone who had feck all to do with the article in the OP.
Sure, any case of child abuse should be dealt with according to due process and the guilty should be punished. Anyone that covers up allegations of child abuse has broken the law and should also be punished, regardless of who they are. Strewth it is almost as difficult to agree with people on this forum as it is to disagree!
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?
i beleive in the tooth fairy, please can i have diplomatic imunity?s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Pun intended
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Note that since it can't be proven either way that god exists, there isn't any sound basis for calling believers or non-believers deluded. The only rational position is agnosticism. The good thing about Dawkins is that he has at least given the matter some serious thought; but he would be more convincing at least IMHO if he had some humility and didn't over-play his hand.
However, I suspect some reading this thread are more upset about the abuse issue, so perhaps we ought to leave the rest of the thread to that topic?
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the point in question then?
The difference is that your insults were mis-directed as you failed to understand that I had already agreed with the point you had made. I don't think it unreasonable to call Dawkins a "nobber" for being unnecesarily offensive in putting across his views. If the Pope called atheists "deluded", I would think that was "nobber"-ish as well.
Yes, they were directed at you, and the others who spent more time attacking someones character, rather than the issue at hand
Yes, I know, what do you think I meant be a "me too!" role? He heard of the idea and thought it a good idea and supported it (by trying to find a lawyer to help).
Because you inferred he did it for attention
So doing something to get in the papers is not self-promotion?
What has he done to get in the papers?
Do you think that satanism is the root of all evil? If not, then it is hardly the same thing is it?
No, I think religion of any sort is irrational. My point still stands. he may enjoy carols, but that has nothing to do with his beliefs
Not that Dawkins goes carol singing because of the artistic merits of the songs. He does it because he identifies himself as a "cultural christian", which is rather ironic as it makes the point quite nicely that many so called "religious wars" are actually ethic/cultural conflicts, where the ethic/cultural boundaries happen to coincide with religious ones.
He doesn't?
Sure, any case of child abuse should be dealt with according to due process and the guilty should be punished. Anyone that covers up allegations of child abuse has broken the law and should also be punished, regardless of who they are.
This is the only bit we agree on. The pope should be held accountable for the cover up he oversaw, putting the church ahead of the lives of children under his care
Strewth it is almost as difficult to agree with people on this forum as it is to disagree!
We agree on one point, the rest we do not.Nothing whatsoever to do with the point in question then?
The difference is that your insults were mis-directed as you failed to understand that I had already agreed with the point you had made. I don't think it unreasonable to call Dawkins a "nobber" for being unnecesarily offensive in putting across his views. If the Pope called atheists "deluded", I would think that was "nobber"-ish as well.
Yes, they were directed at you, and the others who spent more time attacking someones character, rather than the issue at hand
Yes, I know, what do you think I meant be a "me too!" role? He heard of the idea and thought it a good idea and supported it (by trying to find a lawyer to help).
Because you inferred he did it for attention
So doing something to get in the papers is not self-promotion?
What has he done to get in the papers?
Do you think that satanism is the root of all evil? If not, then it is hardly the same thing is it?
No, I think religion of any sort is irrational. My point still stands. he may enjoy carols, but that has nothing to do with his beliefs
Not that Dawkins goes carol singing because of the artistic merits of the songs. He does it because he identifies himself as a "cultural christian", which is rather ironic as it makes the point quite nicely that many so called "religious wars" are actually ethic/cultural conflicts, where the ethic/cultural boundaries happen to coincide with religious ones.
He doesn't?
Sure, any case of child abuse should be dealt with according to due process and the guilty should be punished. Anyone that covers up allegations of child abuse has broken the law and should also be punished, regardless of who they are.
This is the only bit we agree on. The pope should be held accountable for the cover up he oversaw, putting the church ahead of the lives of children under his care
Strewth it is almost as difficult to agree with people on this forum as it is to disagree!
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Applying logical reasoning to the understanding of religious belief, surely "deluded" is an accurate description?
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Note that since it can't be proven either way that god exists, there isn't any sound basis for calling believers or non-believers deluded. The only rational position is agnosticism. The good thing about Dawkins is that he has at least given the matter some serious thought; but he would be more convincing at least IMHO if he had some humility and didn't over-play his hand.
However, I suspect some reading this thread are more upset about the abuse issue, so perhaps we ought to leave the rest of the thread to that topic?
And you are mistaken about your assertion regarding agnosticism. Most atheists ARE agnostic.
Edited by s2art on Monday 12th April 19:05
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Note that since it can't be proven either way that god exists, there isn't any sound basis for calling believers or non-believers deluded. The only rational position is agnosticism. The good thing about Dawkins is that he has at least given the matter some serious thought; but he would be more convincing at least IMHO if he had some humility and didn't over-play his hand.
However, I suspect some reading this thread are more upset about the abuse issue, so perhaps we ought to leave the rest of the thread to that topic?
And you are mistaken about your assertion regarding agnosticism. Most athiests ARE agnostic.
Agnosticism is "I don't know if there is a God"
Atheism is "I see no reason to do so", or "I do not think there is a God"
They are both very different to "There is NO god"
They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they entirely separate positions.
Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 19:07
Blue Meanie said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the point in question then?
The difference is that your insults were mis-directed as you failed to understand that I had already agreed with the point you had made. I don't think it unreasonable to call Dawkins a "nobber" for being unnecesarily offensive in putting across his views. If the Pope called atheists "deluded", I would think that was "nobber"-ish as well.
Yes, they were directed at you, and the others who spent more time attacking someones character, rather than the issue at hand
Yes, I know, what do you think I meant be a "me too!" role? He heard of the idea and thought it a good idea and supported it (by trying to find a lawyer to help).
Because you inferred he did it for attention
So doing something to get in the papers is not self-promotion?
What has he done to get in the papers?
Do you think that satanism is the root of all evil? If not, then it is hardly the same thing is it?
No, I think religion of any sort is irrational. My point still stands. he may enjoy carols, but that has nothing to do with his beliefs
Not that Dawkins goes carol singing because of the artistic merits of the songs. He does it because he identifies himself as a "cultural christian", which is rather ironic as it makes the point quite nicely that many so called "religious wars" are actually ethic/cultural conflicts, where the ethic/cultural boundaries happen to coincide with religious ones.
He doesn't?
Sure, any case of child abuse should be dealt with according to due process and the guilty should be punished. Anyone that covers up allegations of child abuse has broken the law and should also be punished, regardless of who they are.
This is the only bit we agree on. The pope should be held accountable for the cover up he oversaw, putting the church ahead of the lives of children under his care
Strewth it is almost as difficult to agree with people on this forum as it is to disagree!
We agree on one point, the rest we do not.Nothing whatsoever to do with the point in question then?
The difference is that your insults were mis-directed as you failed to understand that I had already agreed with the point you had made. I don't think it unreasonable to call Dawkins a "nobber" for being unnecesarily offensive in putting across his views. If the Pope called atheists "deluded", I would think that was "nobber"-ish as well.
Yes, they were directed at you, and the others who spent more time attacking someones character, rather than the issue at hand
Yes, I know, what do you think I meant be a "me too!" role? He heard of the idea and thought it a good idea and supported it (by trying to find a lawyer to help).
Because you inferred he did it for attention
So doing something to get in the papers is not self-promotion?
What has he done to get in the papers?
Do you think that satanism is the root of all evil? If not, then it is hardly the same thing is it?
No, I think religion of any sort is irrational. My point still stands. he may enjoy carols, but that has nothing to do with his beliefs
Not that Dawkins goes carol singing because of the artistic merits of the songs. He does it because he identifies himself as a "cultural christian", which is rather ironic as it makes the point quite nicely that many so called "religious wars" are actually ethic/cultural conflicts, where the ethic/cultural boundaries happen to coincide with religious ones.
He doesn't?
Sure, any case of child abuse should be dealt with according to due process and the guilty should be punished. Anyone that covers up allegations of child abuse has broken the law and should also be punished, regardless of who they are.
This is the only bit we agree on. The pope should be held accountable for the cover up he oversaw, putting the church ahead of the lives of children under his care
Strewth it is almost as difficult to agree with people on this forum as it is to disagree!
Now agreeing with you doesn't mean that I can't also agree with Busa Rush that Dawkins is a "nobber", even if he isn't being a "nobber" in this particular case.
As it happens IF the vatican have covered something up, the it is for a court of law to decide, not the press and not PH.
However, this sort of thing is an example of why I think heirarchically organised religions are not a good idea (and not what Jesus wanted anyway from my understanding), power corrupts, and the place where the corruption starts is when you are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. In this case, the lesser of two evils is the embarassment caused to the church by abuse scandals, the greater evil would be to deny the truth. But with a heirarchical structure, such choices become inevitable.
ludo said:
Calm down old chap. I agreed with you that Dawkins had little involvement in this issue, and you are still trying to make something of it (I wasn't inferring that Dawkins was trying to get himself in the papers on this issue, that is your invention. Later, you asked for evidence of him having done so in the past, and I supplied it. Don't ask questions if you can't cope with the answers.)
You supplied what link/evidence? I can't find it.
Now agreeing with you doesn't mean that I can't also agree with Busa Rush that Dawkins is a "nobber", even if he isn't being a "nobber" in this particular case.
Nothing to do with the topic, hence the Ad Hominem
As it happens IF the vatican have covered something up, the it is for a court of law to decide, not the press and not PH.
Which court?
However, this sort of thing is an example of why I think heirarchically organised religions are not a good idea (and not what Jesus wanted anyway from my understanding), power corrupts, and the place where the corruption starts is when you are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. In this case, the lesser of two evils is the embarassment caused to the church by abuse scandals, the greater evil would be to deny the truth. But with a heirarchical structure, such choices become inevitable.
Agree with the last bit as well. You supplied what link/evidence? I can't find it.
Now agreeing with you doesn't mean that I can't also agree with Busa Rush that Dawkins is a "nobber", even if he isn't being a "nobber" in this particular case.
Nothing to do with the topic, hence the Ad Hominem
As it happens IF the vatican have covered something up, the it is for a court of law to decide, not the press and not PH.
Which court?
However, this sort of thing is an example of why I think heirarchically organised religions are not a good idea (and not what Jesus wanted anyway from my understanding), power corrupts, and the place where the corruption starts is when you are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. In this case, the lesser of two evils is the embarassment caused to the church by abuse scandals, the greater evil would be to deny the truth. But with a heirarchical structure, such choices become inevitable.
ShadownINja said:
That might answer one question I have, "What is the point in Dawkins?" He's turning into a really tedious tosser. He might be right. There might be no god. I'm sure he's infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than me but he's tediously smarmy. The Gordon Brown of the scientific world. Smarmy... yet miserable inside.
You know, one day in a perfect world, people might actually be in favour of someone who is 'right' than someone who seems to be a 'nice guy'. The is probably the single biggest failing of democracy since day one - letting emotion get in the way of invariably doing what must be done.s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Note that since it can't be proven either way that god exists, there isn't any sound basis for calling believers or non-believers deluded. The only rational position is agnosticism. The good thing about Dawkins is that he has at least given the matter some serious thought; but he would be more convincing at least IMHO if he had some humility and didn't over-play his hand.
However, I suspect some reading this thread are more upset about the abuse issue, so perhaps we ought to leave the rest of the thread to that topic?
And you are mistaken about your assertion regarding agnosticism. Most atheists ARE agnostic.
Edited by s2art on Monday 12th April 19:05
The distinction between atheism and agnosticim is pedantry. There are many people with religious beliefs that are also agnostic in that sense that they don't know that god exists. I should have thought it obvious that I was using atheism to mean those who deny the existence of god as I was using it as a contrast to agnostic.
Once thing we can be sure of is that Dawkins is not agnostic, if he were agnostic he wouldn't say religious belief is delusional as that implies he knows that it is a mistaken belief.
ludo said:
Once thing we can be sure of is that Dawkins is not agnostic, if he were agnostic he wouldn't say religious belief is delusional as that implies he knows that it is a mistaken belief.
You're misrepresenting his position IMO. He is saying to be religious is to be delusional as there is no evidence to support the position. That does not conflict with an agnostic view, as should evidence arise, belief would no longer be held to be delusional.Blue Meanie said:
ludo said:
Calm down old chap. I agreed with you that Dawkins had little involvement in this issue, and you are still trying to make something of it (I wasn't inferring that Dawkins was trying to get himself in the papers on this issue, that is your invention. Later, you asked for evidence of him having done so in the past, and I supplied it. Don't ask questions if you can't cope with the answers.)
You supplied what link/evidence? I can't find it.
Now agreeing with you doesn't mean that I can't also agree with Busa Rush that Dawkins is a "nobber", even if he isn't being a "nobber" in this particular case.
Nothing to do with the topic, hence the Ad Hominem
As it happens IF the vatican have covered something up, the it is for a court of law to decide, not the press and not PH.
Which court?
However, this sort of thing is an example of why I think heirarchically organised religions are not a good idea (and not what Jesus wanted anyway from my understanding), power corrupts, and the place where the corruption starts is when you are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. In this case, the lesser of two evils is the embarassment caused to the church by abuse scandals, the greater evil would be to deny the truth. But with a heirarchical structure, such choices become inevitable.
Agree with the last bit as well. You supplied what link/evidence? I can't find it.
Now agreeing with you doesn't mean that I can't also agree with Busa Rush that Dawkins is a "nobber", even if he isn't being a "nobber" in this particular case.
Nothing to do with the topic, hence the Ad Hominem
As it happens IF the vatican have covered something up, the it is for a court of law to decide, not the press and not PH.
Which court?
However, this sort of thing is an example of why I think heirarchically organised religions are not a good idea (and not what Jesus wanted anyway from my understanding), power corrupts, and the place where the corruption starts is when you are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. In this case, the lesser of two evils is the embarassment caused to the church by abuse scandals, the greater evil would be to deny the truth. But with a heirarchical structure, such choices become inevitable.
(ii) You need to look up what an ad-hominem is, an ad-hominem is an attack on the source of an argument in place of an attack on the content of an argument. As I wasn't attacking his argument in the first place, it can't be an ad-hominem. Instead it was a (rather mild) insult, that IMHO is deserved by his needlessly offensive presentation of his argument.
I note that you have not admitted that your inference that I suggested Dawkins was trying to get media attention in this particular case was unfounded. I made no such claim.
(iii) Which court? How should I know, I am not a lawyer. What I do know is that any allegations should be investigated thoroughly and the truth should come out, regardless of the consequences (arguably that would be in the best interests of the church in the long run anyway).
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.
Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?Note that since it can't be proven either way that god exists, there isn't any sound basis for calling believers or non-believers deluded. The only rational position is agnosticism. The good thing about Dawkins is that he has at least given the matter some serious thought; but he would be more convincing at least IMHO if he had some humility and didn't over-play his hand.
However, I suspect some reading this thread are more upset about the abuse issue, so perhaps we ought to leave the rest of the thread to that topic?
And you are mistaken about your assertion regarding agnosticism. Most atheists ARE agnostic.
Edited by s2art on Monday 12th April 19:05
The distinction between atheism and agnosticim is pedantry. There are many people with religious beliefs that are also agnostic in that sense that they don't know that god exists. I should have thought it obvious that I was using atheism to mean those who deny the existence of god as I was using it as a contrast to agnostic.
Once thing we can be sure of is that Dawkins is not agnostic, if he were agnostic he wouldn't say religious belief is delusional as that implies he knows that it is a mistaken belief.
Asserting that there is a God without any evidence to support that is delusion.
The distinction between agnosticism and atheism is not pedantry. Wiki does quite well here for a change;
'Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.'
Atheism, OTOH, is merely about belief, or rather a lack of.
One can be agnostic about many things, such as who would make the best Prime Minister, or which Football team is best.
Most atheists would say that they do not believe in a God AND are agnostic in that they have no way of knowing the truth. Hence atheist AND agnostic.
Marf said:
ludo said:
Once thing we can be sure of is that Dawkins is not agnostic, if he were agnostic he wouldn't say religious belief is delusional as that implies he knows that it is a mistaken belief.
You're misrepresenting his position IMO. He is saying to be religious is to be delusional as there is no evidence to support the position. That does not conflict with an agnostic view, as should evidence arise, belief would no longer be held to be delusional.ludo said:
Marf said:
ludo said:
Once thing we can be sure of is that Dawkins is not agnostic, if he were agnostic he wouldn't say religious belief is delusional as that implies he knows that it is a mistaken belief.
You're misrepresenting his position IMO. He is saying to be religious is to be delusional as there is no evidence to support the position. That does not conflict with an agnostic view, as should evidence arise, belief would no longer be held to be delusional.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff