Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Wiki's listing of his academic papers. It lists 33. Not sure if it's complete. There's a CV here that appears current through 2005 at least that has about 90 articles, but it doesn't clearly distinguish academic publications from submissions titled things like "Why I won't debate creationists"
    Well I was way off on that one. I need to check them out because my atheist buddy and I looked hm up about 6 years ago and we only found two. Where did I get two from?!? Maybe it'll come back to me but I am certainly wrong about that one.

    When I get to work tomorrow, I can actually get the papers. Maybe that will jog my memory.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      As usual you've got it completely backward. Initially I wasn't interested because it would require me rereading TGD and taking notes, but I am now actually rereading the book and taking notes and so am discussing it with element somewhat as I go with a view to at least somewhat taking him up on his challenge.

      I think we can do without your completely backward posts in this thread and bizarro claims about me where you repeatedly make very basic mis-statements. Please refrain from posting further in this thread.
      I coulda swore you put me on ignore... That didn't last long.

      As much as I hate this new rule where thread starters can arbitrarily decide at any point to tell someone to leave, as I understand it, you can't kick people out that you're replying to.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by element771 View Post
        Well I was way off on that one. I need to check them out because my atheist buddy and I looked hm up about 6 years ago and we only found two. Where did I get two from?!? Maybe it'll come back to me but I am certainly wrong about that one.

        When I get to work tomorrow, I can actually get the papers. Maybe that will jog my memory.
        Maybe you were thinking of Neil Degrasse Tyson? He's been slammed by folks for being more of a celebrity scientist than for doing anything notable or for churning out peer review work. They're both popularizers so it's an easy mistake to make.

        Comment


        • #64
          Adrift, please leave.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by element771 View Post
            Yeah I don't buy that.

            If I make the claim that there are no apples in the barrel, you would be justified in asking me for justification of my position.
            Only if there was an apple-barrel in existence, but if there’s no barrel then the question doesn’t arise.

            Claiming that there is no God (A-theism) is a claim, even if it is a negative one.
            This assumes that 'god exists' is a claim that's warranted, it’s not.

            I never understood this position other than to simply get out of the need for justification. I believe that any belief should be backed with justification.
            The onus for justification belongs to those making the positive claim namely, in this instance, god exist.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I think some fields are very different to others in this regard. I think in the sciences there is just so many facts to be learned that it's only possible to brush the barest surface in a simplified way in undergrad, and there are so many sub-fields and there's just not time to get onto the 'real stuff' and thus very few undergraduate science courses would have students directly reading recent journal articles, for example, because that would be way too advanced and specific.
              Mine must have been an exception, then - one of the requirements for our final year project was that we cite at least 20 published journal articles.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                I believe that atheism does indeed make a claim concluding that Philosophical Naturalism is the justified result based on Methodological Naturalism, which makes no claim one way or another.
                Atheism does no such thing, nor is such a conclusion justifable.

                It is the claim that objective falsifiable knowledge is the only basis for belief. This Dawkins view in a nutshell.
                That may be Dawkins' view, but if so it is in addition to his atheism, and not part of it.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Only if there was an apple-barrel in existence, but if there’s no barrel then the question doesn’t arise.



                  This assumes that 'god exists' is a claim that's warranted, it’s not.



                  The onus for justification belongs to those making the positive claim namely, in this instance, god exist.
                  Then how does an atheist convince an agnostic, in your opinion? "No, believe me, you are ALREADY an atheist, there's no need for me to argue anything to you. Search your feelings, you know it to be true"???
                  We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
                  - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
                  In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
                  Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    That sounds more like some type of agnostic than an atheist. An atheist says that there is no God which sure sounds a lot like a claim to me.
                    No.

                    Agnosticism -> it cannot be known whether or not there is a god
                    Atheism -> I don't believe in any god(s)

                    Few atheists would ever say "there is no God" because that is limiting the concept to a rejection of just one religion. That's typically how theists describe atheism - as a rejection of their own beliefs, with the implicit assumption that theirs is the correct religion, and not understanding that to an atheist their religion is nothing special.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      As usual you've got it completely backward. Initially I wasn't interested because it would require me rereading TGD and taking notes, but I am now actually rereading the book and taking notes and so am discussing it with element somewhat as I go with a view to at least somewhat taking him up on his challenge.

                      I think we can do without your completely backward posts in this thread and bizarro claims about me where you repeatedly make very basic mis-statements. Please refrain from posting further in this thread.

                      As far as the Western world goes, at any rate, the main advocates of the pro-life position have been the RCC and the US evangelicals. Mainstream protestant denominations in the rest of the Western world have not tended to be such strong opponents of abortion.
                      I don't know if you would count Latin America as Western world (the maps in the wiki page for the term do include us, so... ), but here I see broadly the same attitudes on the topic -- in RCC and evangelical stances. In fact, some friends from several different Christian denominations (I met most of them through a non-denominational Bible study group at uni) are attending a pro-life protest of sorts tonight in the city I study in. The coincidence is weird, I know.
                      We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
                      - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
                      In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
                      Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Bisto View Post
                        Then how does an atheist convince an agnostic, in your opinion? "No, believe me, you are ALREADY an atheist, there's no need for me to argue anything to you. Search your feelings, you know it to be true"???
                        How does an atheist convince an agnostic of what?

                        Agnosticism isn't an intermediate position between theism and atheism. It's an orthogonal axis. A different question. Some agnostics are atheisms. Some are theists.

                        Believe in a god or gods and believe that the god(s) can be shown to exist: Theist, non-agnostic
                        Believe in a god or gods but don't believe the god(s) can be shown to exist: Theist, agnostic
                        Don't believe in any gods but don't believe it can be shown that no god exists: Atheist, agnostic
                        Don't believe in any gods and believe it can be shown that none of the gods theists believe in exist: atheist, non-agnostic
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          Atheism does no such thing, nor is such a conclusion justifable.
                          You need to clarify the above. What is it at that atheist do not do? Is the conclusion of atheism not justifiable?

                          Every belief justifies its case in one way or another. The possible exception is an indifferent agnostic that simply believes there is no evidence one way or another for an argument for or agianst the existence of God.

                          That may be Dawkins' view, but if so it is in addition to his atheism, and not part of it.
                          The question of objective evidence is very much a part of Dawkins world view as described in The God Delusion when he concluded;

                          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion


                          Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Source: http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/dawkins-delusions-faith-and-evidence


                          Another area where I agreed with Dawkins concerns the relationship between science and religion. Some people argue that these subjects are completely different and separate, but Dawkins rejects this – and so do I. We both agree that evidence should be used to decide the truth of questions such as whether God exists or not. So, like a good scientist, Dawkins puts forward what he calls his “God Hypothesis”.[1] He states this as: “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.” I agree with Dawkins that if God does exist, then that fact would make a significant difference to the nature of the world in which we live – and that is potentially a scientific, or historical, matter – one in which evidence can be used to decide it.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-12-2017, 08:02 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Only if there was an apple-barrel in existence, but if there’s no barrel then the question doesn’t arise.
                            You are switching the noun we are talking about. No one has said anything the barrels existence. We are talking about the apples.

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            This assumes that 'god exists' is a claim that's warranted, it’s not.
                            Just because you don't think it is warranted, doesn't mean that it isn't.

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The onus for justification belongs to those making the positive claim namely, in this instance, god exist.
                            Again, just because a claim is a negative one doesn't alleviate the one making it from justifying it.

                            You are an atheist yet you feel that you should not have to provide justification for your belief.

                            Do you think that people who claim the absence of evolutionary forces in biology should not have to justify their claim?

                            ....me either.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by element771 View Post
                              Yeah I don't buy that.

                              If I make the claim that there are no apples in the barrel, you would be justified in asking me for justification of my position. Claiming that there is no God (A-theism) is a claim, even if it is a negative one.

                              I never understood this position other than to simply get out of the need for justification. I believe that any belief should be backed with justification.
                              In fact, the vast majority of atheists do not claim that God does not exist. The supernatural God is regarded instead as an ill-defined and unproven concept; one that seriously distracts from a proper understanding of how things actually are. There are supposed to be strong-atheists that do claim that God definitely does not exist but I have never seen this opinion laid out in any detail. Anyone who doubts the existence of God is an atheist. Strictly, a Baptist is atheist in respect of the Catholic God or the God of Islam to the extent that there are incompatibilities in the definitions of those Gods. If that were not the case the terms Baptist and Muslim would be interchangeable were it not for their different religious habits and rituals. The fact that they are opposed means that they are atheist relative to each other. So a Christian is also atheist by rejecting any other religion or God. Interestingly, this is not a barrier to cooperation when there is common interest such as positions on gay marriage and abortion. We observe that what is most important is faith in God even though any God will do.

                              We also see that theists want to share the burden of proof with atheists because they know that God is not provable but they still want to say that even the atheist requires faith. In fact, the atheist position is a rejection of faith altogether as a means of acquiring knowledge. Faith itself is a sin to use Christo-speak; I am not sure how well you understand atheist-Christo-speak but it is a special formulation to assist theists here at Tweb understand what I am telling them (not that they really want to know).
                              You might want to think of atheists as pioneers in the post-religious age that we are all moving towards. This movement is inevitable because of the true nature of God. And what is that true nature? – This is what is discovered when a person grows into atheism – a state of enlightenment above spirituality.

                              Note that atheists and theists alike seek to hold the moral and intellectual high ground while disputing what and where that high ground is – an insight that the theist lacks due to the imagined superiority of his God – He who is above all other matters – an impenetrable ceiling from the theists point of view- through which the atheist looks down at the theist – I know this is difficult to follow. You might think this sounds far too arrogant, but no, I am simply trying to stand my full height – truly, really, honestly. To put it another way; the theist looks down his nose, contemptuously, at the atheist, while the atheist looks down from an even greater height at the theist, but with the hand of friendship outstretched before him.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                Atheism makes no claim therefore requires no justification. It is a position about being unconvinced of someone else's claim.
                                uh, no. That would be Agnosticism, who says "I don't know and have no opinion on the matter"

                                Atheism has a definite claim, that there is no God.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                137 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X