Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...
Discussion
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.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.Empiricially speaking there is nothing to suggest there is a god by any current human definition.
But should empiricism uncover something tangible that proves there is a god, then so be it.
mattikake 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.Empiricially speaking there is nothing to suggest there is a god by any current human definition.
But should empiricism uncover something tangible that proves there is a god, then so be it.
Marf said:
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.ludo said:
[
(i) I read it on the Beeb web-site and IIRC also heard a radio interview (R4?)
That's all you could come up with? Hardly sounds like a repetitive characteristic of the man. You read about this topic on the BBC site, the same topic that Dawkins had little to do with? That is him trying to get attention?
(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.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below." - An attack on the person, not the argument. As you made no such comment on the argument, what else can it be taken as? What is the point of the 'attack' on the person?
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.
You said "just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians" on this thread... What else were you referring to?
(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).
Well, that is the question, isn;t it. The vatican is a 'state', and is that state going to prosecute, or bring charges? I highly doubt it. Thereofre another entity should do so. Hence why the lawyers are looking into it being a 'universal jurisdiction' type case, similar to the Pinochet case.(i) I read it on the Beeb web-site and IIRC also heard a radio interview (R4?)
That's all you could come up with? Hardly sounds like a repetitive characteristic of the man. You read about this topic on the BBC site, the same topic that Dawkins had little to do with? That is him trying to get attention?
(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.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below." - An attack on the person, not the argument. As you made no such comment on the argument, what else can it be taken as? What is the point of the 'attack' on the person?
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.
You said "just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians" on this thread... What else were you referring to?
(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).
Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 19:43
ludo said:
Marf said:
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.delusion - a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
For a belief to be delusional it merely must be 'unfounded'. In other words you need good reasons to hold a belief otherwise you are delusional.
s2art said:
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.
ludo said:
s2art said:
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.If the latter than you would be delusional.
ludo said:
Is it delusional to believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life? There is no evidence to support that either, you can make reasoned arguments but none that prove anything, but is it a perfectly rational belief, it certainly isn't delusional.
that 'you can make reasoned arguments' to estimate a probability for somethings existance is precisely why it isn't a delusion. has dawkins ever said 'god doesn't exist', i hope not, just that the chance is infinitesimally small.ludo said:
Is it delusional to believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life? There is no evidence to support that either, you can make reasoned arguments but none that prove anything, but is it a perfectly rational belief, it certainly isn't delusional.
It certainly is if you have a firm belief in intelligent extra-terrestials.Blue Meanie said:
ludo said:
[
(i) I read it on the Beeb web-site and IIRC also heard a radio interview (R4?)
That's all you could come up with? Hardly sounds like a repetitive characteristic of the man. You read about this topic on the BBC site, the same topic that Dawkins had little to do with? That is him trying to get attention?
(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.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below." - An attack on the person, not the argument. As you made no such comment on the argument, what else can it be taken as? What is the point of the 'attack' on the person?
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.
You said "just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians" on this thread... What else were you referring to?
(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).
Well, that is the question, isn;t it. The vatican is a 'state', and is that state going to prosecute, or bring charges? I highly doubt it. Thereofre another entity should do so. Hence why the lawyers are looking into it being a 'universal jurisdiction' type case, similar to the Pinochet case.(i) I read it on the Beeb web-site and IIRC also heard a radio interview (R4?)
That's all you could come up with? Hardly sounds like a repetitive characteristic of the man. You read about this topic on the BBC site, the same topic that Dawkins had little to do with? That is him trying to get attention?
(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.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below." - An attack on the person, not the argument. As you made no such comment on the argument, what else can it be taken as? What is the point of the 'attack' on the person?
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.
You said "just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians" on this thread... What else were you referring to?
(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).
Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 19:43
(ii) there was no point in the attack (there wasn't actually an attack, I was just agreeing with Busa Rush that he is a "nobber"). Your own definition of an ad-hominem demonstrates that calling Dawkins a "nobber" wasn't an ad-hominem as I made no attempt to address his arguments (and indeed made it clear that my major objection is of style rather than content).
(iii) That was related you your challenge to provide evidence of Dawkins self-promotion. That doesn't mean I implied he was aiming for self-promotion in this particular case, just that he had done so in the past. Note I wrote "in this particular case".
Blue Meanie said:
ludo said:
Is it delusional to believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life? There is no evidence to support that either, you can make reasoned arguments but none that prove anything, but is it a perfectly rational belief, it certainly isn't delusional.
s2art said:
It certainly is if you have a firm belief in intelligent extra-terrestials.
No it is not, because we have evidence that life is possible in the universe, (ourselves), so there is the slightest chance that it could be found elsewhere.Edited by s2art on Monday 12th April 19:56
fbrs said:
ludo said:
Is it delusional to believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life? There is no evidence to support that either, you can make reasoned arguments but none that prove anything, but is it a perfectly rational belief, it certainly isn't delusional.
that 'you can make reasoned arguments' to estimate a probability for somethings existance is precisely why it isn't a delusion. has dawkins ever said 'god doesn't exist', i hope not, just that the chance is infinitesimally small.ludo said:
fbrs said:
ludo said:
Is it delusional to believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life? There is no evidence to support that either, you can make reasoned arguments but none that prove anything, but is it a perfectly rational belief, it certainly isn't delusional.
that 'you can make reasoned arguments' to estimate a probability for somethings existance is precisely why it isn't a delusion. has dawkins ever said 'god doesn't exist', i hope not, just that the chance is infinitesimally small.delusion - a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
s2art said:
Depends on whether you are using 'belief' in the colloquial sense of 'I believe that Fred is on holiday this week, I need to check', that is expressing uncertainty. Or belief in the absolute sense ' I believe in Jesus!'
If the latter than you would be delusional.
As I pointed out to you before in response to your quibble that most atheists are agnostics, most christians don't believe in Jesus in an absolute sense. Very few people are capable of being without doubt of any kind, and if you look at the gospels you will find plenty of examples of the disciples demonstrating doubt. If the latter than you would be delusional.
However it still wouldn't be delusional as it is not demonstrably incorrect (unless you happen to know god doesn't exist) just irrational.
BTW being a Bayesian I usually use belief to mean the degree of plausibility of an assertion.
OED said:
Delusion: Anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.
Note the Oxford English dictionary makes it clear that it must be a false impression, or false opinion or belief with regard to objective reality. If you say that a belief is delusional, you are saying that it is an objectively false belief, not that you are agnostic about it.Edited by ludo on Monday 12th April 20:09
ludo said:
s2art said:
Depends on whether you are using 'belief' in the colloquial sense of 'I believe that Fred is on holiday this week, I need to check', that is expressing uncertainty. Or belief in the absolute sense ' I believe in Jesus!'
If the latter than you would be delusional.
As I pointed out to you before in response to your quibble that most atheists are agnostics, most christians don't believe in Jesus in an absolute sense. Very few people are capable of being without doubt of any kind, and if you look at the gospels you will find plenty of examples of the disciples demonstrating doubt. If the latter than you would be delusional.
However it still wouldn't be delusional as it is not demonstrably incorrect (unless you happen to know god doesn't exist) just irrational.
BTW being a Bayesian I usually use belief to mean the degree of plausibility of an assertion.
Its not demonstrably incorrect to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but if you had a firm belief that there are said fairies then you would be delusional. Your belief is not well founded therefore you are delusional;
delusion - a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff