Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 2:57:27 GMT -5
Quote Dmmichgood and me. Quote Bert.re Dawkins God Delusion - I had to laugh, amidst a torrent of strawmen and red herrings he brings up the EXPERIENCE OF GOD and THE BIBLE. He talks about strange voices people can hear and how the brain, and the eye, can be fooled, then says "I won't go any further than this." Then he refers to the bible, specifically the xmas story of Jesus and his father's genealogy. Then says something similar, "I won't go any further than this." Quote DmmichgoodDawkins probably realized that people who had keep up with the latest knowledge about brain would understand what he was talking about. Therefore, he didn't need to go any further with an explanation. Perhaps he also realized that there are some people, like yourself, who hadn't bothered to keep up with knowledge of brain who wouldn't understand what he was talking about anyway so why bother! As for the "xmas story of Jesus and his father's genealogy." Anyone who read the "xmas story of Jesus and his father's genealogy" has to wonder what they were talking about! According to the Gospels, God was the father of Jesus, not Joseph! Yet what do the gospels then proceed to do? They turn around & trace Jesus genealogy back through Joseph! Why? They did so in order to try say that Jesus birth fulfilled a prophecy in the OT! Dawkins probably figured the very inconsistancy of that story spoke for itself. So again, why should he bother remarking on it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 3:04:06 GMT -5
Dawkins famous book is a defense of militant atheism. It's detractors accuse him of missing the point in his discussion about God. Dawkins employs the very same stratagems he accuses his opponents of using, ie "dazzling with science", "argument by ridicule", "strawman argument" etc.. In fact it's hard not to find ANY of the large list of logic fallacies he doesn't employ.
I find the book interesting, and often quite informative. It's not my book but I might go buy a copy so I can footnote it.
I accept maybe 99% of his work as being true. But like sites such as TTT and books like the Secret Sect - the devil is in the presentation, assumptions, missing material and most of all - conclusions.
And for those who find appeal in TTT and Secret Sect "research" I ask you, "Why stop there? Why don't you go read The God Delusion"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 3:15:20 GMT -5
Bert, you have sunk to the lowest of the low. Comparing Richard Dawkins and his God Delusion with works such as The Secret Sect and TTT.
I can only refer you to a quote which I am attributing to yourself.
"Yeah tho' you achieve the docility of the wombat, ye will not long after the cry of the gull. As the sea retreateth with its whisper, thine ears remain secured against it!"
Your own words offer up self condemnation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 3:24:14 GMT -5
The connection Ram, as if you can't see it yourself, is that people are so impressed with "research" and "scholarship." Such as it is.
Using "research" and "scholarship" I can come up with a diametrically opposing point of view. And again, many would be impressed.
The trick is, for people who REALLY want to know, is to arm yourself with the facts, understand how people use word play and be vigilant to author's MOTIVES.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 3:29:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 21, 2014 5:51:44 GMT -5
Ddmichgood, I consume a lot of science. Tonight i have read two articles on the brain. I didn't go looking for them as they aren't my area of interest. Just started reading this one now, and recall your comments about the brain, so include it here www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120141442.htmand another, less interesting, was this one I read about 15 minutes ago. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120141442.htmkinda gross. I think the kind of people who think God is a trick of the brain might not be wrong - in SOME instances. But like a lot of science, it aint the whole story. :) Bert, you have linked two times to the same article.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 21, 2014 5:55:42 GMT -5
The connection Ram, as if you can't see it yourself, is that people are so impressed with "research" and "scholarship." Such as it is. Using "research" and "scholarship" I can come up with a diametrically opposing point of view. And again, many would be impressed. The trick is, for people who REALLY want to know, is to arm yourself with the facts, understand how people use word play and be vigilant to author's MOTIVES. Would you please give an example of "word play" in The Secret Sect and/or in "The God Delusion"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 5:57:27 GMT -5
Ddmichgood, I consume a lot of science. Tonight i have read two articles on the brain. I didn't go looking for them as they aren't my area of interest. Just started reading this one now, and recall your comments about the brain, so include it here www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120141442.htmand another, less interesting, was this one I read about 15 minutes ago. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120141442.htmkinda gross. I think the kind of people who think God is a trick of the brain might not be wrong - in SOME instances. But like a lot of science, it aint the whole story. Bert, you have linked two times to the same article. Thanks Matisse Re word play - I will keep track of them in future.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 21, 2014 11:58:29 GMT -5
Bert, you have linked two times to the same article. Thanks Matisse Re word play - I will keep track of them in future. :) Why did you start the thread, Bert?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 13:29:06 GMT -5
The connection Ram, as if you can't see it yourself, is that people are so impressed with "research" and "scholarship." Such as it is. Using "research" and "scholarship" I can come up with a diametrically opposing point of view. And again, many would be impressed. The trick is, for people who REALLY want to know, is to arm yourself with the facts, understand how people use word play and be vigilant to author's MOTIVES. Whilst you have a point or two here, your correlation in this instance denies you the credibility they should otherwise have!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 15:24:29 GMT -5
Thanks Matisse Re word play - I will keep track of them in future. Why did you start the thread, Bert? To avoid "off topic" accusations on another thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 15:34:33 GMT -5
Quote - "Whilst you have a point or two here, your correlation in this instance denies you the credibility they should otherwise have!" Not really. People get blinded by science, so to speak. And when the science goes the "wrong way" they find something else to get blinded by. Just been having an angry debate elsewhere about a similar topic concerning Greenpeace successfully lobbying to remove the Scottish lass Anne Glover from her role as "chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission."
Not removing her ..... removing the entire office as it contradicts Greenpeace on a raft of issues.www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/european-sciences-great-leap-backward
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 21, 2014 17:39:57 GMT -5
Dawkins famous book is a defense of militant atheism. It's detractors accuse him of missing the point in his discussion about God. Dawkins employs the very same stratagems he accuses his opponents of using, ie "dazzling with science", "argument by ridicule", "strawman argument" etc.. In fact it's hard not to find ANY of the large list of logic fallacies he doesn't employ. I find the book interesting, and often quite informative. It's not my book but I might go buy a copy so I can footnote it. I accept maybe 99% of his work as being true.But like sites such as TTT and books like the Secret Sect - the devil is in the presentation, assumptions, missing material and most of all - conclusions.And for those who find appeal in TTT and Secret Sect "research" I ask you, "Why stop there? Why don't you go read The God Delusion"? Bert, I would like to see your list for at least one instance for every " logic fallacy" you claim the Dawkins uses in his book, God Delusion.
I would also like to see your list of the names of Dawkins "detractors" & their arguments.
If you accept (maybe) 99% of Dawkins work as being true, -why are you condemning Dawkins "presentation & conclusions?"
What is the "missing material" & "assumptions" of which you accuse Dawkins ?
You are making a lot of statements with no substance of any of the statements. Since it is you who started this thread, I expect you to give us some examples.
PS:
Why are you bring the TTT and Secret Sect "research" into the conversation?
What have you got against that research? Cherie has done a excellent & very in depth job of research for many years that has proved to be true. We all owe her a big debt for her work in exposing the truth behind The TRUTH.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 21, 2014 17:44:33 GMT -5
The connection Ram, as if you can't see it yourself, is that people are so impressed with "research" and "scholarship." Such as it is. Using "research" and "scholarship" I can come up with a diametrically opposing point of view. And again, many would be impressed. The trick is, for people who REALLY want to know, is to arm yourself with the facts,understand how people use word play and be vigilant to author's MOTIVES. Can you show where YOU have "armed yourself with any facts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 17:51:06 GMT -5
Quote - Bert, I would like to see your list for at least one instance for every " logic fallacy" you claim the Dawkins uses in his book, God Delusion. Fallacy one - argument by ridicule.
Quote - I would also like to see your list of the names of Dawkins "detractors" & their arguments. Ouch... bit much isn't it? People have been reviewing that book for years.
Quote - If you accept (maybe) 99% of Dawkins work as being true, -why are you condemning Dawkins "presentation & conclusions?" I accept most arguments of the American gun lobby, but I don't accept guns.
Quote - What is the "missing material" & "assumptions" of which you accuse Dawkins ? I was quite shocked (so far) that in presenting the bible he barely touched the sides. He describes the God of the OT as a "monster" on the basis (presumably) of some verses. Others, the majority in fact, showing God's love and God's covenant with His people - are not factored.
Quote - You are making a lot of statements with no substance of any of the statements. Since it is you who started this thread, I expect you to give us some examples. That's how its all done on the TMB, isn't it?
Quote - Why are you bring the TTT and Secret Sect "research" into the conversation? Some laud the "research" of Secret Sect. I trawled through it to figure out what wasn't mentioned. It's the same with most advocacy books. I can be thoroughly persuaded by the gun lobby's argument, presentation, facts and statistics - yet forget it's largely a monstrous piece of counter advocacy and an assault on public safety.
Quote - What have you got against that research? Cherie has done a excellent & very in depth job of research for many years that has proved to be true. We all owe her a big debt for her work in exposing the truth behind The TRUTH. I suggested to someone who was convinced by this particular bit of bile to go read The God Delusion if they like "researched" work. Their response was quite predictable, "Don't be silly Bert. He doesn't believe in God!" I also listed a number of HEAVILY RESEARCHED exposes on Jesus and the foundation church (ie Robert Eisenman "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity & the Dead Sea Scrolls") and got no interest because these authors are critical of Jesus. So we are persuaded if we already believe, and not persuaded if we already don't believe.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 21, 2014 18:05:45 GMT -5
Bert, you have linked two times to the same article. Thanks Matisse Re word play - I will keep track of them in future. You say that you consume a lot of science, Bert? But your "area of interest" isn't about the brain?
Then I'm wondering why you started this thread commenting on Dawkins, saying that Dawkins "talks about strange voices people can hear and how the brain, and the eye, can be fooled."
Isn't that about the science of the brain?
Isn't that about the science of the brain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 18:09:33 GMT -5
Yes but Dawkins isn't a brain guy either. He just bought into yet another argument by atheists that people who claim to have a relationship with God are suffering some sort of brain disorder or psychological trick of the mind. Lots of copy and past stuff in this book. But oddly, I have enjoyed reading it.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 21, 2014 18:35:12 GMT -5
Quote - Bert, I would like to see your list for at least one instance for every " logic fallacy" you claim the Dawkins uses in his book, God Delusion. Fallacy one - argument by ridicule.Quote - I would also like to see your list of the names of Dawkins "detractors" & their arguments. Ouch... bit much isn't it? People have been reviewing that book for years.Quote - If you accept (maybe) 99% of Dawkins work as being true, -why are you condemning Dawkins "presentation & conclusions?" I accept most arguments of the American gun lobby, but I don't accept guns.Quote - What is the "missing material" & "assumptions" of which you accuse Dawkins ? I was quite shocked (so far) that in presenting the bible he barely touched the sides. He describes the God of the OT as a "monster" on the basis (presumably) of some verses. Others, the majority in fact, showing God's love and God's covenant with His people - are not factored. Quote - You are making a lot of statements with no substance of any of the statements. Since it is you who started this thread, I expect you to give us some examples. That's how its all done on the TMB, isn't it?Quote - Why are you bring the TTT and Secret Sect "research" into the conversation? Some laud the "research" of Secret Sect. I trawled through it to figure out what wasn't mentioned. It's the same with most advocacy books. I can be thoroughly persuaded by the gun lobby's argument, presentation, facts and statistics - yet forget it's largely a monstrous piece of counter advocacy and an assault on public safety.Quote - What have you got against that research? Cherie has done a excellent & very in depth job of research for many years that has proved to be true. We all owe her a big debt for her work in exposing the truth behind The TRUTH. I suggested to someone who was convinced by this particular bit of bile to go read The God Delusion if they like "researched" work. Their response was quite predictable, "Don't be silly Bert. He doesn't believe in God!" I also listed a number of HEAVILY RESEARCHED exposes on Jesus and the foundation church (ie Robert Eisenman "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity & the Dead Sea Scrolls") and got no interest because these authors are critical of Jesus. So we are persuaded if we already believe, and not persuaded if we already don't believe. Whew! where should I start!
1. "Quote - Bert, I would like to see your list for at least one instance for every " logic fallacy" you claim the Dawkins uses in his book, God Delusion.
"quote- Bert Fallacy one - argument by ridicule.
I wanted a quote from Dawkin's that was a fallacy, not just the kind of fallacy!
2. "Quote - I would also like to see your list of the names of Dawkins "detractors" & their arguments. Ouch... bit much isn't it? People have been reviewing that book for years."
I want a NAME of a detractor & what they said!
3. Quote - If you accept (maybe) 99% of Dawkins work as being true, -why are you condemning Dawkins "presentation & conclusions?" I accept most arguments of the American gun lobby, but I don't accept guns.
I can't see any comparison between the "gun lobby" that works toward providing the gun manufacturers a market for their product and a scientist like Dawkins showing the how the brain can cause the delusion that results in supernatural beings such as a god.
( I must stop here for awhile - be back later)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 18:55:11 GMT -5
You are drilling down to the n'th degree here... I didn't start reading this book with pencil and paper, and I can't do footnotes in someone else's book. Nor do I keep track of very review of Dawkins I read - there's plenty on the internet!
IMO Dawkins most vulnerable point (to date, not finished reading it yet) is that he points to physical processes, ie DNA, evolution etc to somehow "demonstrate" there's no God. He doesn't mention, and probably doesn't know, that Genesis gave the world the first ever reference to life coming out of the sea. So the laws of physics don't "demonstrate" anything other than the fact that the universe works! God brings the rain, yes, but the rain ALSO comes via condensation of atmospheric vapor. One doesn't disprove the other, as he insists. Dawkins rightly points to many silly things Christianity does or believes, ie hierarchical levels of angels, but that shouldn't be the point as to whether there is a God or not.
I thought he would at least skip through the Old Testament, cherry picking here and there, but he didn't - as if he couldn't bring himself to read it - even for his book. And that's the first major let-down I have encountered because a Christian's view of God begins with the bible.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 21, 2014 23:09:17 GMT -5
Dawkins said in an interview he is 6.9 out of 7 sure there is no God, so I guess that makes him agnostic, not atheist? ? He just not sure, I appreciated him admitting that. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2014 1:06:18 GMT -5
Quote - Bert, I would like to see your list for at least one instance for every " logic fallacy" you claim the Dawkins uses in his book, God Delusion. Fallacy one - argument by ridicule.Quote - I would also like to see your list of the names of Dawkins "detractors" & their arguments. Ouch... bit much isn't it? People have been reviewing that book for years.Quote - If you accept (maybe) 99% of Dawkins work as being true, -why are you condemning Dawkins "presentation & conclusions?" I accept most arguments of the American gun lobby, but I don't accept guns.Quote - What is the "missing material" & "assumptions" of which you accuse Dawkins ? I was quite shocked (so far) that in presenting the bible he barely touched the sides. He describes the God of the OT as a "monster" on the basis (presumably) of some verses. Others, the majority in fact, showing God's love and God's covenant with His people - are not factored.Quote - You are making a lot of statements with no substance of any of the statements. Since it is you who started this thread, I expect you to give us some examples. That's how its all done on the TMB, isn't it?Quote - Why are you bring the TTT and Secret Sect "research" into the conversation? Some laud the "research" of Secret Sect. I trawled through it to figure out what wasn't mentioned. It's the same with most advocacy books. I can be thoroughly persuaded by the gun lobby's argument, presentation, facts and statistics - yet forget it's largely a monstrous piece of counter advocacy and an assault on public safety.Quote - What have you got against that research? Cherie has done a excellent & very in depth job of research for many years that has proved to be true. We all owe her a big debt for her work in exposing the truth behind The TRUTH. I suggested to someone who was convinced by this particular bit of bile to go read The God Delusion if they like "researched" work. Their response was quite predictable, "Don't be silly Bert. He doesn't believe in God!" I also listed a number of HEAVILY RESEARCHED exposes on Jesus and the foundation church (ie Robert Eisenman "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity & the Dead Sea Scrolls") and got no interest because these authors are critical of Jesus. So we are persuaded if we already believe, and not persuaded if we already don't believe. ( I'm back, Bert.)4. Quote - What is the "missing material" & "assumptions" of which you accuse Dawkins ? "I was quite shocked (so far) that in presenting the bible he barely touched the sides. He describes the God of the OT as a "monster" on the basis (presumably) of some verses. Others, the majority in fact, showing God's love and God's covenant with His people - are not factored."
Why should you expect Dawkins to go through the whole bible? A lot of us here has told you time & again where the god you extol was a monster! Just the fact that god (supposedly)drown his own creation should be enough.
5. Quote - You are making a lot of statements with no substance of any of the statements. Since it is you who started this thread, I expect you to give us some examples.
"That's how its all done on the TMB, isn't it?"
That's may be how its done with you Bert, not everyone. My tag line is "Prove it!"
6. Quote - Why are you bring the TTT and Secret Sect "research" into the conversation?
"Some laud the "research" of Secret Sect. I trawled through it to figure out what wasn't mentioned. It's the same with most advocacy books. I can be thoroughly persuaded by the gun lobby's argument, presentation, facts and statistics - yet forget it's largely a monstrous piece of counter advocacy and an assault on public safety."
OK, tell us what you know that "wasn't mentioned" in the "research" of Secret Sect, since you say you trawled through it to figure out what wasn't mentioned.
7. Bert's quote "I suggested to someone who was convinced by this particular bit of bile to go read The God Delusion if they like "researched" work. Their response was quite predictable, "Don't be silly Bert. He doesn't believe in God!"
I" also listed a number of HEAVILY RESEARCHED exposes on Jesus and the foundation church (ie Robert Eisenman "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity & the Dead Sea Scrolls") and got no interest because these authors are critical of Jesus. So we are persuaded if we already believe, and not persuaded if we already don't believe."
I'm sorry that you got no interest in your list of "exposes on Jesus and the foundation church" What thread is it under? Maybe I'll have some time to look at it.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2014 1:43:01 GMT -5
You are drilling down to the n'th degree here... I didn't start reading this book with pencil and paper, and I can't do footnotes in someone else's book. Nor do I keep track of very review of Dawkins I read - there's plenty on the internet! IMO Dawkins most vulnerable point (to date, not finished reading it yet) is that he points to physical processes, ie DNA, evolution etc to somehow "demonstrate" there's no God. He doesn't mention, and probably doesn't know, that Genesis gave the world the first ever reference to life coming out of the sea. I thought he would at least skip through the Old Testament, cherry picking here and there, but he didn't - as if he couldn't bring himself to read it -even for his book. Just one of each, Bert, just one of Dawkin's fallacies such as "argument by ridicule, -just one example of a Dawkin's detractors. Surely you can name one of each!
You say that Dawkins "doesn't mention, and probably doesn't know, that Genesis gave the world the first ever reference to life coming out of the sea." & "as if he couldn't bring himself to read it (the bible)-
Those are absolutely ridiculous statements on your part!
Here is a bit of Dawkin's biography "Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.[8] --Dawkins self-identifies as being English and currently lives in Oxford, England. Having been born in Kenya, he is a British citizen.
His father was called up into the King's African Rifles during World War II; he returned to England in 1949, when Dawkins was eight. His father had inherited a country estate, Over Norton Park in Oxfordshire, which he turned into a commercial farm.[9] Both his parents were interested in natural sciences; they answered Dawkins's questions in scientific terms.[16]
Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing".[17] He was a Christian until halfway through his teenage years, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god."
from wiki
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 19:32:02 GMT -5
Dawkins says he was a "Christian" till he read Darwin's "Origin," which he said contradicted the bible. This assumes people believed the bible because they couldn't explain the natural world. This is a false assertion. It's also misleading because the bible not only says that God created life, but it tells us how:
Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (note: NOT "teemed" with life as some translations put it.) (note: not just sea life, but ALL life, including birds.)
Dawkins found a contradiction where none existed. He either demonstrated he hadn't actually read the bible, duplicity in ignoring it or stupidity in not grasping what the bible was telling him.
• Argument by ridicule • Argument by selective reading • Internal contradiction • Appeal to Improper Authority: cite Darwin, authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious
But Dawkins' first assertion which comes to mind: 1 - God is a "monster." 2 - Jesus is a "milk sop."
Is this the caliber you expect when you buy this book? This demonstrates Dawkins infantile reasoning and disregard for consistency. It is contradictory. It is selective reading of both God and Jesus. It presumes there can't be a God if God possesses characteristics deemed offensive. And, assuming Jesus himself possessed the correct characteristics, Dawkins then reviles Jesus as being a weak person.* For any logically consistent person the only way out is not to challenge the nature of God - but His existence. And if God appears to be cruel or capricious then it is up to the skeptic to prove only that this didn't happen to the Jews. And history of the Old Testament, and modern history (post AD 68) demonstrates that it did.**
So how many logic fallacies are here? I would have to invent new ones to describe Dawkins' logic. The main one which comes to mind (I am up to about page 120):
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premise. Used when God is viewed as capricious and cruel, therefore He can't exist. (same as Inductive fallacy - conclusions don't follow the premise.)
But in general Dawkins' main errors include:
Strawman argument - the one he is criticized the most for Appeal to emotion Fallacy fallacy Black-or-white Cherry picking Appeal to ignorance Reductio ad absurdum Reductive fallacy
* Dawkins is remarkably dismissive of the OT's God covenanted love for His people. He obviously does not know that HALF of everything Jesus said referred to judgment, works, slaying, narrow way, hell and even the killing of Jerusalem's children because their parents would not obey.
** Not only Jesus but Daniel, Ezekiel and other OT writers spoke of the Jews losing their nation - twice. They would go back to slavery, and, like Jerusalem itself, be trodden under the feet of Gentiles till the "time of the Gentiles be complete." Luke 21:24
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Nov 23, 2014 0:12:44 GMT -5
I agree with Bert. Why not get Dawkins' opinion too?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 2:38:42 GMT -5
Dawkins says he was a "Christian" till he read Darwin's "Origin," which he said contradicted the bible. This assumes people believed the bible because they couldn't explain the natural world. This is a false assertion. It's also misleading because the bible not only says that God created life, but it tells us how: Genesis 1:20 " And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (note: NOT "teemed" with life as some translations put it.) (note: not just sea life, but ALL life, including birds.) Dawkins found a contradiction where none existed. He either demonstrated he hadn't actually read the bible, duplicity in ignoring it or stupidity in not grasping what the bible was telling him. • Argument by ridicule • Argument by selective reading • Internal contradiction • Appeal to Improper Authority: cite Darwin, authority on biology, on religious matters is fallaciousBut Dawkins' first assertion which comes to mind: 1 - God is a "monster." 2 - Jesus is a "milk sop." Is this the caliber you expect when you buy this book? This demonstrates Dawkins infantile reasoning and disregard for consistency. It is contradictory. It is selective reading of both God and Jesus. It presumes there can't be a God if God possesses characteristics deemed offensive. And, assuming Jesus himself possessed the correct characteristics, Dawkins then reviles Jesus as being a weak person.* The only way out for a logically consistent person is not to challenge the nature of God, but His existence. And if God appears to be cruel or capricious then it is up the skeptic to prove only that this didn't happen. And history of the Old Testament, and the modern (post AD68) history of the Jews demonstrates that it did.** So how many logic fallacies are here? I would have to invent new ones to describe Dawkins' logic. The main one which comes to mind: Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premise Used when God is viewed as capricious and cruel, therefore He can't exist.
Inductive fallacy - conclusions don't follow the premise.But in general Dawkins' main errors include: Strawman argument - the one he is criticized the most for Appeal to emotion Fallacy fallacy Black-or-white Cherry picking Appeal to ignorance Reductio ad absurdum Reductive fallacy* Dawkins is remarkably dismissive of the OT's God covenanted love for His people. He seems to not know that half of everything Jesus said referred to judgment, works, slaying, narrow way, hell and even the killing of Jerusalem's children because their parents would not obey.
** Not only Jesus but Daniel, Ezekiel and other OT writers spoke of the Jews losing their nation - twice. They would go back to slavery, and, like Jerusalem itself, be trodden under the feet of Gentiles till the "time of the Gentiles be complete." Luke 21:24 Of course that WAS why people people believed the bible, because they couldn't explain the natural world!
Isn't that what I have been saying?
When science does explain any part of the natural world, the god of the gap slinks quietly away!
Isn't that what bible believers always say about any of us who don't believe? That we " HAVEN'T actually read the bible, duplicity in ignoring it or stupidity in not grasping what the bible was telling us."
You just can't accept that we have read the bible & that we certainly do grasp what it says!
You still haven't given me even one concrete example of any of your statements, -no actual quotes of Dawkin's of what you call:
Non sequitur(Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premise
Where is any actual quote frOm Dawkin's to that effect?
Inductive fallacy - conclusions don't follow the premise.
Any Actual quote from Dawkin's?
Strawman argument - the one he is criticized the most for Appeal to emotion Fallacy fallacy Black-or-white Cherry picking Appeal to ignorance Reductio ad absurdum Reductive fallacy YOU have still not given even one quote of Dawkins as an explanation for any of your accusations! NOT ONE!
Why should he go into all of that?
He doesn't believe all that stuff . Why should he try to explain every bit of somethin he doesn't even believe? Dawkins isn't agruing from the point of view of a theologian, he is a biologist.
NOW UNTIL YOU GIVE ME ACTUAL QUOTES OF WHAT DAWKINS SAYS TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS i HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING.
I HAVE ASK SEVERAL TIMES NOW & YOU NEVER PRODUCE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 2:51:05 GMT -5
I have referred to things he said with enough precision for you to agree, had you read his book. I gave you these two quotes verbatim 1 - God is a "monster." 2 - Jesus is a "milk sop."
and addressed them with more thought than he did in his assertion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 3:11:21 GMT -5
Religion, like sex and politics, speaks to the individual in every one of us. We tend to support our positions with whatever tools we have. I had lunch beside a lake today with a very intelligent woman who takes me to science conferences. One subject was Dawkins God Delusion book. She quoted Steve Hawkings to support her atheism - Hawkins!!!!
Hawkins used the logic fallacy called "Appeal to Improper Authority" - ie Hawkings is an authority on science, not an authority on God. Would you quote the "New Age" Shirley MacLaine as an authority on science?
I don't care what someone believes, but I do care how they support that view. My friend was impressed that Hawkings said that "God couldn't create the big bang because time was created during that event, and nothing can operate outside time." Lots of fallacies and wrong assertions there. Hawkings should know that religious people believe that God exists OUTSIDE of the universe - so to take on religion he must take on what religious people believe. "Dazzling with Science" is actually just another logic fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 3:40:06 GMT -5
I don't care what someone believes, but I do care how they support that view.. Bert, I note that you quote from the bible a lot and use quotes from the bible to support your views on a regular basis in a manner which indicates that you believe the words written in the bible have some special significance not only for you as a believer but for non believers too. May I enquire; 1. What is your belief as regards the bible being the Word of God or inspired by God? 2. How do you support that view? Matt10
|
|