Ask a Theist!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2011, 11:34 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-12-2011 12:54 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Drew
I have read it. I can tolerate Dawkins, but I find him too pretentious; and he argues in fallacies. But, I read it awhile ago, I might give it a go again.

This is something that another friend of mine said too. I think Dawkins is great and I thoroughly enjoyed his book. I didn't find that any of his arguments were fallacies, although I haven't finished the book. But I noticed that for example he states somewhere that St Paul invented Christianity or something like that, which is at best contentious and at worst incorrect, and he also gives no reference. Because of numerous other such minor things, Christians who read the book tend to think of it as a polemic. Also, he uses this quite forthright tone, which was an absolute revelation to me when I first read it. I didn't realise we were allowed to be *rude* and actually say exactly what we think about another person's belief. It was so refreshing Smile But it does mean that any Christian, who is not used to such a confrontational style, again comes away with the impression that the man is a bit of a lunatic who's just got a personal axe to grind.

Not that I'd change the book in any way, I think it's wonderful. Just, I think there are factors which mean that hardcore Christians will not at all be won over by being encouraged to read it, just as I'll never be won over by being encouraged to read the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 11:46 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-12-2011 11:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 12:54 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Drew
I have read it. I can tolerate Dawkins, but I find him too pretentious; and he argues in fallacies. But, I read it awhile ago, I might give it a go again.

This is something that another friend of mine said too. I think Dawkins is great and I thoroughly enjoyed his book. I didn't find that any of his arguments were fallacies, although I haven't finished the book. But I noticed that for example he states somewhere that St Paul invented Christianity or something like that, which is at best contentious and at worst incorrect, and he also gives no reference. Because of numerous other such minor things, Christians who read the book tend to think of it as a polemic. Also, he uses this quite forthright tone, which was an absolute revelation to me when I first read it. I didn't realise we were allowed to be *rude* and actually say exactly what we think about another person's belief. It was so refreshing Smile But it does mean that any Christian, who is not used to such a confrontational style, again comes away with the impression that the man is a bit of a lunatic who's just got a personal axe to grind.

Not that I'd change the book in any way, I think it's wonderful. Just, I think there are factors which mean that hardcore Christians will not at all be won over by being encouraged to read it, just as I'll never be won over by being encouraged to read the Bible.

Oh yeah, dude... I get this. I had just converted when I read his book, so I still had a fresh view from the other side.

I just prefer fairness and balance in any argument. Since I was a communications major, this is firmly impacted in my head. Also, there is a way to get your point across firmly and confidently without coming across like a jerk.

If you are arguing a point, you should build your argument on facts and evidence. Your personal views should remain mostly transparent (impossible to do, though). In an argument, as soon as your start letting your personal bias infiltrate your evidence, it will begin to weaken your position.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 12:00 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2011 12:02 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-12-2011 11:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 12:54 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Drew
I have read it. I can tolerate Dawkins, but I find him too pretentious; and he argues in fallacies. But, I read it awhile ago, I might give it a go again.

But I noticed that for example he states somewhere that St Paul invented Christianity or something like that, which is at best contentious and at worst incorrect, and he also gives no reference.

You are m-t-f-n kidding me. I was just talking about what I am, and here's another "sign." Good thing I don't do "sign language" no morez. Wink

But it's all about the Paul. Considering the "hypothesis of I" has advanced to the "Witwiki symbolism," it is quite possible I'm incorrect; right in this now I'd say I could prove it - but there ain't really no point, is there? Wink
(15-12-2011 11:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  In an argument, as soon as your start letting your personal bias infiltrate your evidence, it will begin to weaken your position.

That's exactly why Dawkins sucks at the theology, IMHO.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 12:31 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-12-2011 11:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  If you are arguing a point, you should build your argument on facts and evidence. Your personal views should remain mostly transparent (impossible to do, though). In an argument, as soon as your start letting your personal bias infiltrate your evidence, it will begin to weaken your position.

Yeah, but look closer. He's not arguing from authority. He tends to say "Well, if God exists and has these attributes then we deduce X and since we do not observe X then..." It's the FLUFF, the extraneous non-argument shit that weakens his argument because it antagonizes some readers. The actual argument is laid out usually clearly and you're free to attack any part of it. He's an honest man at any rate. The great pity is that because of the fluff, some people don't look past that. He also uses fairly complex language sometimes and I had to read a couple of chapters twice before I got what he was talking about. If at the same time as reading those chapters you were getting a whole bunch of "religion is kinda stoopid" thrown in your face, you probably wouldn't read 'em twice, or even at all.

That said, I don't think he has any obligation to be polite and again, it's nice to have someone lead by example in not being polite. The religions of the world have done a very good job in making challenging their basic truths seem as bad as racism...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 01:06 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-12-2011 11:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 11:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 12:54 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Drew
I have read it. I can tolerate Dawkins, but I find him too pretentious; and he argues in fallacies. But, I read it awhile ago, I might give it a go again.

This is something that another friend of mine said too. I think Dawkins is great and I thoroughly enjoyed his book. I didn't find that any of his arguments were fallacies, although I haven't finished the book. But I noticed that for example he states somewhere that St Paul invented Christianity or something like that, which is at best contentious and at worst incorrect, and he also gives no reference. Because of numerous other such minor things, Christians who read the book tend to think of it as a polemic. Also, he uses this quite forthright tone, which was an absolute revelation to me when I first read it. I didn't realise we were allowed to be *rude* and actually say exactly what we think about another person's belief. It was so refreshing Smile But it does mean that any Christian, who is not used to such a confrontational style, again comes away with the impression that the man is a bit of a lunatic who's just got a personal axe to grind.

Not that I'd change the book in any way, I think it's wonderful. Just, I think there are factors which mean that hardcore Christians will not at all be won over by being encouraged to read it, just as I'll never be won over by being encouraged to read the Bible.

Oh yeah, dude... I get this. I had just converted when I read his book, so I still had a fresh view from the other side.

I just prefer fairness and balance in any argument. Since I was a communications major, this is firmly impacted in my head. Also, there is a way to get your point across firmly and confidently without coming across like a jerk.

If you are arguing a point, you should build your argument on facts and evidence. Your personal views should remain mostly transparent (impossible to do, though). In an argument, as soon as your start letting your personal bias infiltrate your evidence, it will begin to weaken your position.

No offence, logic and semantics have their limitations refer (W.V.O. Quine,) let he who is without sin casteth the FIRST stone AND this post has become anathema to me
Byeee Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2011 10:15 AM by Chas.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(16-12-2011 12:00 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 11:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  In an argument, as soon as your start letting your personal bias infiltrate your evidence, it will begin to weaken your position.
It may get in the way of people listening, but it in no way affects the logic or legitimacy of the argument.
He states up front that while he does not intend to be rude, he also will not give religion undue repect.
Quote:That's exactly why Dawkins sucks at the theology, IMHO.

Dawkins isn't practicing theology, he is dismissing it as an actual field of study.

He is not a theologian, he doesn't claim to be a theologian, he demolishes theology as a field with any truth value.
(15-12-2011 12:54 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Drew
I have read it. I can tolerate Dawkins, but I find him too pretentious; and he argues in fallacies. But, I read it awhile ago, I might give it a go again.

Fallacies? Please cite one.

Pretentious? "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."

And I think you mistake erudition for whatever it is you do mean by pretention.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 08:51 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
lol no, I can't cite anything... I read that book like 4 years ago, dude. That's why I said that I need to reread it and get a fresh perspective.

I'm just telling you what I felt when I read it years ago. When I read it again, I'll let you know.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 01:11 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
i dont have a question, but i have a statement of absolute truth
'i love your doggy avatar!' Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 01:17 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(16-12-2011 01:11 PM)seljusisk. Wrote:  i dont have a question, but i have a statement of absolute truth
'i love your doggy avatar!' Heart

rofl, thanks. He's very "special". There are a few more pics of him the picture thread. They're near the end.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 01:25 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(16-12-2011 01:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(16-12-2011 01:11 PM)seljusisk. Wrote:  i dont have a question, but i have a statement of absolute truth
'i love your doggy avatar!' Heart

rofl, thanks. He's very "special". There are a few more pics of him the picture thread. They're near the end.

aw, i lovz du puppy. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: