Just for the record, as a member of the peanut gallery, I’m not swayed by your argument that “no deities can be shown to exist” counts as a statement as to the meaning, purpose or cause of the universe.
Except that if you were to infer that since there is no god, there is no cause, purpose or meaning.
In as much as “having no belief in x” is somehow an actual ‘belief’.
And yet another thread that turns atheism into something far more complicated than the plot to Primer.
Someone will provide the obligatory XKCD link. I’m too lazy.
I didn’t say that.
Dawkins has a deep belief that God does not exist. He knows as an article of faith that there is no God. He thinks that the Universe doesn’t have a meaning, cause or purpose. And this is a belief system in itself.
See the difference?
What differentiates a deep belief from a belief? What does it mean to know as an article of faith as opposed to simply knowing or assuming?
Do I know as an article of faith that 1+1=2?
Thing is, these are all very easy criticisms for people to trot out, but having read his work pretty thoroughly and heard him speak on many occasions, I just don’t get that from him. He is very visible and vocal and doesn’t shy from criticising religion but when his comments are taken in context they are pretty mundane.
It always seems a classic case of playing the man and not the ball. Challenge his critics on what exactly it is he has got wrong and they are very slow to provide quotes and context.
It is a small thing because you are, of course, free to dislike him as much as you want but at least acknowledge that it is his demeanour and not his words that niggle. (or provide evidence of his error and jerkishness)
I’ll go further than that. If the situation were reversed, and he were making the same remarks on behalf of, say, Christianity, they’d be unremarkable. He wouldn’t even be considered particularly strident. “Militant Atheist” is a term for any atheist who doesn’t couch their atheism in “well, I’m probably wrong and all” terms. The equivalent speech from the other side gets a pass.
This is where you lose all respectability in your arguments.
This specific point, his “certainty” of god not existing, has a whole chapter devoted to it in his book. He clearly states that he does not claim that god does not exist.
At least do him the courtesy of reading the damn thing before you spout clear untruths.
And if the same level of criticism were aimed at a purely political or philosophical worldview, again, there would be a bit of verbal jousting and a general shrugging of shoulders.
As Douglas Adams said very nicely, religion and the religious expect special treatment and seem taken aback when their views get treated like everyone else’s.
I suspect you haven’t actually read Dawkins or seen him speak. He’s more provisional than you give him credit for. Typically he’s more conservative in his language - saying things like “your particular idea of god almost certainly does not exist” which is actually a significantly different position.
I used to have this mental image of Dawkins as this screaming fundamentalist who was foaming at the mouth and randomly throwing things at religious people entirely based on religious people portraying him that way.
And then I actually saw them. He’s a soft-spoken polite old British guy who actually goes out of his way to use conservative and precise language while fully explaining his ideas. He’s almost certanly nothing like what you actually envision him as. But he almost also certainly clearly articulates the failure of your positions, so it’s convenient to believe in him as some sort of extremist boogeyman.
Could I get a cite for this? I’ve read a fair amount of his stuff, and he always seem to be pretty careful about not saying that’s sure about any of that stuff and is always willing to be convinced otherwise, should evidence be presented.
Anyway, I think the not-stamp-collecting analogy is pretty on-point. I don’t collect stamps, I don’t restore old cars, I don’t believe in god, I don’t believe in the tooth fairy. There’s an infinite number of things I don’t believe in and hobbies I don’t do. Are they all religious beliefs and hobbies of mine? Is not believing in leprechauns a religious belief?
Do you really expect me to have read every single thing Dawkins wrote? Several books in which he declares that religion is the root of ALL evfil, attacking any religion at all, and one single chapter in which he says that *maybe * God exists after all. That doesn’t change his main message.
IMHO, atheism and theism both relate to religion in that they are positions that people can use in their process of meaning-making, or in other words, their religious practice. You can see this process ongoing in this thread.
As others have said, treating “atheist” as a religious identity is an improvement of policy in many places where leaving your religion is difficult or where open atheism is discriminated against.
Popular definitions of religion aren’t useful, in my opinion, but they are what they are and for many atheists part of their journey is rejecting not just specific beliefs or practices but this larger thing that they call religion. Many suffer for doing so. In that context, it can be pretty jerkish to tell someone “no no, you are still religious, don’t you see.” Dictating to other people what their claimed identity really is is pretty problematic.
And the award for wrongest comment in the thread goes to…
Peter Morris, for not knowing what atheist means!
It would be common courtesy, and would stop you having to make an embarrassing post like this, if you read what he* actually* says, rather than what you* think* he has said.
Personally, I’d expect you to have the slightest clue about what you’re talking about before making assertions.
By the way, I need to not-tithe to the atheist-notGod. Where do I not-go to make my not-donation?
What Dawkins books are you referring to?
I’ve tried reading some of his stuff, but I found it too obnoxious. I just couldn’t bring myself to continue. Maybe he made reasonable arguments later in the book, but he alienated me before I got to it.
Maybe you can give me a cite for him being reasonable?
Do you hate stamp collectors?
Have you written several books declaring that stamp collecting is inherently evil?
Do you devote a lot of time trying to convince people to stop collecting stamps?
If not, then there is no similarity.
I think you just have to spend an equivalent tithe amount on hookers, blow and booze and the notgod will then not see what you haven’t done and pronounce it not good.
I think.
Wow, now that is a ballsy stance.
You are hardly a novice round here and yet you still went for it. That is an intellectual “all-in”. Perhaps it has worked as well because I’m so gobsmacked that I can’t quite process a suitable response.