A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[Guest]

Anyway, you guys should really not be reading only one side of anything on any subject. Isn't that exactly what you criticize religionists for? There are plenty of reasonable answers to Dawkins aside from McGrath. If you don't want to pick up the book or spend money on it, then here are some other alternatives:

I'm certainly interested in reading McGrath's book - 'Dawkins God'. I may well buy that.
I'm going to take a look over your links as well.

I had a look over some of the other refutations you provided. I see the argument provided more to be that belief in a God isn't daft. And I actually have no problem with that. I don't see it as 'daft'... And I think I've made that very clear already - many times...

I don't see a convincing argument to actually believe in God - not to me at least - but I think that's something quite different...


EDIT: Incidentally, I find this whole 'meme' thing pretty shrug-worthy. Kind of interesting. Might be 'something' there (But if anything is there - it isn't anything owned by religion...) But the idea of 'memes' isn't something I'm particularly bought by - at all... It certainly isn't a scientific idea - I agree with that. And I haven't heard how anybody is even attempting to pass it properly through the rigors of the scientific method.

I actually have no idea how one would even start to be honest...

[_Doctor Steuss]

Brilliant. Thanks for posting that Schmo.
[...] He also mused on the notion of 'dangerous ideas' that - even if true - should not be investigated.
[...]

Wait a second... is he saying that not all truth is useful?

;-)

[_Ren]

Wait a second... is he saying that not all truth is useful?

;-)

Haha :)
...they were certainly flirting with that idea...! Yeah - interesting huh...
(They might be closet Packer fans!)

[_Chap]

Dartagnan again gives us his views on a particular advocate of atheism, and at length.

I think (though I may always be wrong on this as on other questions) that his motives are basically to render atheism less attractive to his readers, and to persuade them to view theism more sympathetically. I wonder how many people find that the style and content of his posts does actually move them in that direction?

Perhaps there are many readers of this board who will put up their hands and answer in the affirmative. But there is at least one tiny minority, consisting of me, who will not be joining them.

I am an atheist because I see no good reason for supposing that any entity resembling the deity supposedly shared by the Abrahamic religions actually exists. Nor do I think that there is any reason to suppose that the gods of the Olympian, Nordic or Celtic, or Shinto or Hindu, or .... [fill in names at will] pantheons exist.

I believe dartagnan agrees with me about almost all of the deities referred to above. He has however claimed to "know" that the Abrahamic deity exists, though he is apparently unable to explain in any coherent way how he "knows" that alleged fact. Considered as a theist, I find dartagnan profoundly unpersuasive. His sustained abuse of selected atheists may be fun, for him, but does nothing to remove a burden of proof from him that he has, as dartagnan, so far done nothing to sustain.

Why DO you believe in the existence of your particular deity, dartagnan? Why should the rest of us agree with you? Try not to talk about anybody else but yourself in your answer, even if that takes all the fun away from posting by making it (I presume) less likely that you will feel able to use your favorite word, "idiot".

[Guest]

I think (though I may always be wrong on this as on other questions) that his motives are basically to render atheism less attractive to his readers

No, chap I am speaking specifically of Dawkins because he is the most notorious and most loved among radical atheists. I have plenty of atheist friends, even on this forum, that I don't consider a threat. I just find it ironic that the most threatening atheists insist that all religions are dangerous. Dawkins has a tribe following him, and he is making them more antagonistic by convincing them that "the other" poses a threat to their livlihood. There are scary parallels to this attitude in recent history, and I don't think they should be overlooked. Even on this forum we have a rabid atheist threatening my life. Why? Because he didn't like my argument against Dawkins. He has been convinced by Dawkins and his ilk, that I am the one who is going to pose a threat to him sometime in the future, so he might as well kill me before I get that chance.

I have tried to emphasize the point, which I hope doesn't escape you, that there are rational thinking atheists on this board, and I have included you in that group. I have also noted that many atheists have become Dawkins' strongest critics.

I don't see atheism is an idiotic philosophy comparable to belief in the tooth fairy. I resent the mentality that says theists don't reason, never rely on logic, suffer from a mental disease, believe in fairy tales, are inherently dangerous, etc,. I am not here to convince anyone that God exists. If someone started a thread like that you'd probably never see me in it. Frankly, I don't believe any person can actually do that for another person. But likewise, you cannot prove to me that my knowledge is in fact knowledge of God's existence. I am not going to pretend the arguments against God are not without flaws and simply swallow every silly argument published by the tiny minority of extreme atheists. Dawkins is just one symptom of the overall problem.

Most of what I have said of atheism in the past few months has been in defensive mode. Responding to specific attacks by specific atheists. Not all atheists agree with one another, I realize that. Thank God for that.

[_Sethbag]

I haven't read McGrath's book. I'll just state that up front. I have watched that interview with Dawkins several times in the past, and just watched it again.

McGrath's strongest "evidence" for God's existence seems to be that the belief in God and Jesus helps him make sense of the world. This is maybe a half-step up from saying "I believe in God because it makes me feel better." In reality his argument is circular. He has a Christian worldview, and judges the world, science, reality, social problems, etc. on the basis of this Christian worldview and - tada! - finds that things stack up just the way his Christian faith would predict. A person with a strong Muslim worldview might well view the world, and its problems, in light of his Muslim faith, and find his worldview confirmed.

He admits that when you can't prove one thing over another, you have to make some judgment calls based on estimations of probability that one or the other is true, and then he basically decides that Christianity is more likely true because it helps him make sense of the world.

In the article snippet Kevin quoted earlier I see McGrath basically saying he moved away from atheism because he disagreed with the tone of some atheists' positions. That smacks of "he just left because he was offended" as a way of TBMs explaining someone's apostasy.

I've read the "God Delusion", and I've listened to hours worth of Dawkins' interviews and shows and whatnot, and I find I agree with what he says almost always. I don't appreciate the characterization of Dawkins as some shrill God bigot, and people who agree with what he says as dogmatic tribemembers. Dawkins' positions are worthy of far better, more meaningful consideration.

[_Some Schmo]

I think (though I may always be wrong on this as on other questions) that his motives are basically to render atheism less attractive to his readers, and to persuade them to view theism more sympathetically. I wonder how many people find that the style and content of his posts does actually move them in that direction?

I too have wondered if darte actually thinks he is convincing anyone of anything (other than things about the kind of person he is). I get the feeling (unsubstantiated, of course) that most people don't bother responding to him because of his shrill tone, and it's simply not worth it to them to engage him. It didn't take long before I stopped taking him seriously (of course, to darte, it's because I couldn't refute his points.... LOL). It's pretty clear his brain is set in concrete, or really is concrete, so what would be the point?

Obviously, I couldn't care less about his nonsense. I mean, how could anyone take someone seriously who claimed they knew god exists? Even theists I've talked to wouldn't make that claim; they generally respond with "you can't know; that's what faith is for."

If there is someone that is actually persuaded by him, it's likely more to do with confirmation bias than any debating elegance he's so mistakenly convinced he has.

Got to admit, though; his antics do make for some entertaining reading.

[_TAK]

Chap:

Why DO you believe in the existence of your particular deity, dartagnan?

I would like to expand on that question if I may to ask.. Assuming it was critical thinking and analysis lead you away for Mormonism, how did that same critical thinking lead you to conclude there is a god?

[Guest]

Responding to specific attacks by specific atheists.

Dart,

A mellow question that I would appreciate a mellow answer to.
Is an atheist that contends that Christianity should be held solely responsible for the downfall of slavery:

a. Attacking Christianity / theism
b. A 'militant' atheist
c. An 'idiot'

I'm genuinely interested in what - in your view - counts as an 'attack'.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't appreciate the characterization of Dawkins as some shrill God bigot, and people who agree with what he says as dogmatic tribemembers. Dawkins' positions are worthy of far better, more meaningful consideration.

It's always amusing to me that often, when people want to really criticize atheism, they apply characteristics to it normally associated with religious folks.

Ouch! That hurts!

LMAO