Richard Dawkins vs Conall and Donall

FireDragon76 said:

It's not just ridiculing ideas, it's ridiculing people, because people are intimately connected with ideas as deeply held as religious ones are. When Dawkins talks about religion, it's no different than when a Klansmen gets up and starts a racist diatribe about how Black people supposedly "are". He doesn't care how black people see themselves, only how he sees them through his own narrow, bigoted lense.

Click to expand...

I think you just outed yourself. You obviously haven't read any of Dawkins books.

FireDragon76 said:

The evidence we do have is very good. The New Testament canon is one of the best documented collection of books in the world, not only in terms of primary texts but in terms of secondary source quotations. People like Dawkins just dismiss it because it's tied to religion, something he personally doesn't like/doesn't understand.

Click to expand...

Come now. Don't be ridiculous.

We don't even know who the authors of the gospels even are. And the book of Acts is a complete work of fiction.

HitchSlap said:

Come now. Don't be ridiculous.

We don't even know who the authors of the gospels even are.

Click to expand...

That's not completely true, even by the standards of liberal Biblical scholars. We can make guesses about the sorts of communities they were written for, and also who the authors are, what sort of people they were. You can look at the Greek in Luke and tell it was written by an educated person, and look at John and tell it was written by somebody for whom Greek was a second language. And there's more I could go into, but for the sake of space I'll just say that the traditional authorship is not so far-fetched.

And the book of Acts is a complete work of fiction.

Click to expand...

I take it you have some evidence for this? I'm not sure its history in the modern sense but that's a far cry from saying it is fiction.

FireDragon76 said:

From my religious understanding, it's tied in very much with my person. That's the whole point.

Click to expand...

What happened to "hate the sin, not the sinner" mentality? Oh that doesn't apply to Christianity?

GrimKingGrim said:

What happened to "hate the sin, not the sinner" mentality? Oh that doesn't apply to Christianity?

Click to expand...

It's not in the Bible, and it's a paraphrase of Augustine.

I don't believe in hating anybody.

My point is that yes, in some cases a religion is part of your self-identity. I know that's hard for atheists to believe, but some people do take it seriously and view it as part of who they are. It's not just a bunch of propositions you happen to believe about the world, it's also what you believe about yourself.

FireDragon76 said:

It's not just ridiculing ideas, it's ridiculing people, because people are intimately connected with ideas as deeply held as religious ones are. When Dawkins talks about religion, it's no different than when a Klansmen gets up and starts a racist diatribe about how Black people supposedly "are". He doesn't care how black people see themselves, only how he sees them through his own narrow, bigoted lense.

Click to expand...

What hogwash. Religion is a body of ideas that some people identify with, often very strongly. It's a creed, not a race. Criticising religious ideas is not the same as hating religious people. You mistakenly believe that criticism of your ideas is the same as malice toward you as a person.

Archaeopteryx said:

What hogwash. Religion is a body of ideas that some people identify with, often very strongly. It's a creed, not a race. Criticising religious ideas is not the same as hating religious people. You mistakenly believe that criticism of your ideas is the same as malice toward you as a person.

Click to expand...

No, it's a way of life, not just a creed.

FireDragon76 said:

No, it's a way of life, not just a creed.

Click to expand...

And criticising aspects of it is not hate.

Conall & Donall are still absolutely correct about condescending arrogance in cartoon-richard-dawkins comments and since the actual Richard Dawkins makes many such condescending and arrogant statements in the video clips included in this thread it follows that Conall & Donall are right about the real Richard Dawkins too.

MoreCoffee said:

Conall & Donall are still absolutely correct about condescending arrogance in cartoon-richard-dawkins comments and since the actual Richard Dawkins makes many such condescending and arrogant statements in the video clips included in this thread it follows that Conall & Donall are right about the real Richard Dawkins too.

Click to expand...

As fallacies go, are you poisoning the well, or committing an ad hominem? Or both?

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the debate here is has been about condescending attitudes, it should also be about the modern error of allowing methods to become mentalities.

I don't really care if Richard Dawkins is condescending thats the weakest argument. No doubt he is sometimes, but hey there is hope for everyone.

Herein is the difficulty - Mr Dawkins either did or still does subscribe to some sort of philosophical positivism. Positivism was never the scientific method, in fact the scientific method pre-dates philosophical positivism by a couple of centuries, and also pre-dates the Enlightenment. Confidence in 'logical positivism' has been at an all time low following philosopher of science Michael Polanyi's writing on knowledge.

Secondly but no less importantly there is a major difference between method and mentality. Methods are circumscribed to particular purposes, limited in their application.


One's framework can prevent one recognising and accepting what others recognise and accept. Destructive analysis is useful in some instances but certainly not in all.

Take for instance the pianist's art.

"Musicians regard it as a glaringly obvious fact that the sounding of a note on the piano can be done in different ways, depending on the "touch" of the pianist. To acquire the right touch is the endeavour of every learner, and the mature artist counts its possession among his chief accomplishments. A pianst's touch is prized alike by the public and his pupils: it has a great value in money. Yet when the sounding of a note on the piano is analysed it appears difficult to account for the existence of 'touch'...This result relies erronously on an incomplete analysis of the pianists skill....This example should stand for many others which teach the same lesson; namely that to deny the feasibility of something that is alleged to have been done or the possibility of an event that is supposed to have been observed, merely because we cannot understand in terms of our hitherto accepted framework how it could have been done or could have happened, may often result in explaining away quite genuine practises or experiences." Michael Polanyi - Personal Knowledge


If someone isn't willing to consider evidences, there can be no discussion about proof.

What had the first disciples to gain from inventing this particular story? They didn't even understand what Jesus was saying most of the time anyway. Peter had already denied his association around the time Jesus was taken in for questioning. How could he regain his confidence, acceptance with the other disciples and become a leader in the early church, or Jesus movement? Unless something took place which brought the disciples back together, why did they go from hiding in fear to boldly talking about Jesus and His Resurrection? People can only sustain a complete fabrication for a limited duration of time unless of course its not a fabrication and rests on something objectively true.

If the disciples were mesmerised who mesmerised them? The Romans?, the Jewish Religious leaders who conspired to have Jesus crucified? If this is your claim then who and why and what would be the point, if Jesus of Nazareth was to them another messianic imposter out of the way? And he was clearly witnessed as having died by the centurion overseeing the crucifixion. Additionally Jesus disciples despaired and fled , not understanding - so who re-vitalised them? One of the disciples didn't even believe the others. Hypnosis wears off, and the person doesn't remember what they were doing, they don't go on to write detailed accounts, but four of Jesus disciples wrote orderly and detailed accounts of Jesus teachings, travels, healings and other events during his public ministry, and following his resurrection

It all turns on whether it really is so 'rational' to deny the possibility of the miraculous, when it can be demonstrated by argument free-rational thought cannot arise in a closed system of nature.

One has to consider the possibility that the naturalistic presupposition is wrong.

dms1972 said:

Not at all, evidence is the basis for coming a conclusion of whether something is true or false.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Like that fact that there is zero evidence for the resurrection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTAYfrZYqZQ

Originally Posted by dms1972

Exactly! Like that fact that there is zero evidence for the resurrection.


Well its convenient that you have Youtube to speak for you rather than form your own arguments. But theres no intellectual credibility in denying obvious evidence which you are doing, the evidence is there for belief.

I can't tell what your confusion is but it seems you may be failing to differentiate evidence and proof, one is not the same as the other. But if you have contrary material evidence, that is serious and hasn't already been dismissed, that Jesus of Nazareth is still dead please present it. I don't mean theories, I mean evidence because that is what you are asking about. I will then decide for myself based on the evidence for and against , because each person decides for themself on this. You see christians are not bound to wait for a consensus, or to wait for 'scholars' to believe, or anyone else.

This thread started with a video clip from a Lutheran Pastor who creates satirical videos about religious topic and about areas of dispute between religious and non-religious views of truth and the world.

I think that the clip has some salient points to make about evidence used in debates about the scientific method, religious beliefs, and atheist views.

It's a short, amusing, pithy summary of some objections to the sorts of things that Professor Richard Dawkins actually says in interviews, televised discussions, and lectures about religion and atheism.

If you don't like what the video clip says then point to the specific parts you dislike and state your reasons for disliking it. Generalities will not help.

For example, I like the point made 50 seconds into the clip and up to 63 seconds. The resurrection stories in the four canonical gospels are significant for Christians. One cannot expect to argue the point saliently simply by dismissing the possibility of resurrection.

Conall points to Jesus' resurrection as evidence for God's existence.

Similarly one cannot make a sound argument by dismissing the four canonical gospels as unreliable or irrelevant because one wishes to treat them as pious mythology. Something more substantial is needed. Thus the usefulness of the analogy about Barium samples and the existence of Barium in the clip at 117 seconds up to 160 seconds.

Conall detects a potential flaw in the argument that dismisses the resurrection as mere myth.

So even if one discounts the words put into Cartoon-Richard-Dawkins mouth there is still a case to answer even if one thinks it is absurd. After all, if it is absurd then demonstrating its absurdity will be relatively straight forward, right?

The video clip also points out the bankruptcy of that the often repeated argument that Yahweh is mean, nasty, and horrible and cannot be taken seriously as God and thus the God that Christians worship is absurd and worthy of ridicule. That kind of argument is in itself absurd as the video says at 250 seconds to the end.

Cartoon Richard Dawkins claims that God is nasty.

dms1972 said:

Originally Posted by dms1972

Not at all, evidence is the basis for coming a conclusion of whether something is true or false.
​

Exactly! Like that fact that there is zero evidence for the resurrection.


Well its convenient that you have Youtube to speak for you rather than form your own arguments. But theres no intellectual credibility in denying obvious evidence which you are doing, the evidence is there for belief.

I can't tell what your confusion is but it seems you may be failing to differentiate evidence and proof, one is not the same as the other. But if you have contrary material evidence, that is serious and hasn't already been dismissed, that Jesus of Nazareth is still dead please present it. I don't mean theories, I mean evidence because that is what you are asking about. I will then decide for myself based on the evidence for and against , because each person decides for themself on this. You see christians are not bound to wait for a consensus, or to wait for 'scholars' to believe, or anyone else.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in the resurrection, because there is no evidence (or proof) for such an event. And based on the scholarship I've been reading over the last few years, I might even be convinced that the Jesus character is a complete myth.

I dislike the tone of the video even though it is satire. as far the philsophical issues are concerned I have made my points.

I don't believe in the resurrection, because there is no evidence (or proof) for such an event. And based on the scholarship I've been reading over the last few years, I might even be convinced that the Jesus character is a complete myth.

Click to expand...

That would be a pity for even Mr Dawkins seems to acknowledge in a debate with John Lennox that there was a historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't expect you to believe the resurrection at an early stage in examining the evidence, some things would come first, belief in God, and in the historical personage Jesus of Nazareth. I appreciate you are skeptical. GK Chesterton said it was a claim that should meet initially with stark staring incredulity. Initially, not that it could not sustain investigation, it is a matter of belief finally, but not blind faith. Not all the disciples believed at first, in fact John was the first who believed at the empty tomb. But why gradually close off the possibility with skeptical books, what do those authors actually know?

It would be really futile to continue a discussion however with anyone who disagreed Jesus was a historical figure, and its not a debate philosophy could settle.

dms1972 said:

That would be a pity for even Mr Dawkins seems to acknowledge in a debate with John Lennox that there was a historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't expect you to believe the resurrection at an early stage in examining the evidence, some things would come first, belief in God, and in the historical personage Jesus of Nazareth. I appreciate you are skeptical. GK Chesterton said it was a claim that should meet initially with stark staring incredulity. Initially, not that it could not sustain investigation, but its a matter of belief finally, but not blind faith. Not all the disciples believed at first, in fact John was the first who believed at the empty tomb. But why gradually close off the possibility with skeptical books, what do those authors actually know?

It would be really futile to continue a discussion however with anyone who disagreed Jesus was a historical figure, and its not a debate philosophy could settle.

Click to expand...

I am not confident that philosophy can settle any debate about the historical accuracy of any written account of people's words and their day to day low-impact actions. Such things leave no detectable evidence except for the written record of them.