Dawkins Demolished

[Serial_Apologist]

No, the Daily Telegraph article is refutation of what you asserted, scotty

My use of 'theoretically' was a reference to the scientific method outlined in that programme and in other posts in this thread, scotty.

You know as well as I do that the recent history of Cardinal Ratzinger's response to the child abuse scandal was initially a series of denials, attempted cover-ups and then refusals to turn priests over the secular law officers, scotty.

As to this being a diversion, I'm sorry that it doesn't suit your book scotty

That's already four scotties too many!

[Serial_Apologist]

As for racism, it's strongly implied in Dawkins and picked up by contributors on the website of his foundation, that in some quasi-evolutionary sense certain populations (Protestant, European / North American) are more ready for atheism than others.

I'm sorry John, but I'd have to see that to substantiate a racist interpretation.

[french frank]

My was in response to your original french frank

Oh. The bit you missed out from your quote? I assumed you hadn't noticed it

Do I still have to do detention now?!

A detention never did me any harm! (I only ever had one )

[scottycelt]

No, the Daily Telegraph article is refutation of what you asserted, scotty

My use of 'theoretically' was a reference to the scientific method outlined in that programme and in other posts in this thread, scotty.

You know as well as I do that the recent history of Cardinal Ratzinger's response to the child abuse scandal was initially a series of denials, attempted cover-ups and then refusals to turn priests over the secular law officers, scotty.

As to this being a diversion, I'm sorry that it doesn't suit your book scotty

Passing over the glaring falsehoods and heavily subjective interpretations of some of your favourite historical events, can we now veer back from the rather off-topic diversion that most patently suits your very own Book of Preference, Ams ... ?

[John Skelton]

I'm sorry John, but I'd have to see that to substantiate a racist interpretation.

Starting with Dawkins' "Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future ...." and reading the comments on the site I think an argument could be made that there are racist assumptions made about 'developed' people and 'primitive' people. Given James Watson's theorising about 'Africans' and 'intelligence' Dawkins' comment is at least unfortunate.

Meanwhile: Dawkins Foundation care packages go to atheists in foxholes.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644969-dawkins-foundation-care-packages-go-to-atheists-in-foxholes

[scottycelt]

That's already four scotties too many!

There's only really two of us ... here's a pic of me and the wife ...

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images14/SCOTTISHTERRIERKokaKluska22VI 05.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/scottishterrier.htm&h=331&w=400&sz=52&tbnid=rAn2g9ZqxmdLhM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=111&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bscottish%2Bterriers%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+scottish+terriers&docid=a0vCKhw4RvXyrM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oJVCT4OoGtHm8QPR1ICMCA&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAQ&dur=28

It's not mother and daughter at all ...

[Flosshilde]

[I]You've emphasised the make, but perhaps it's the unto thee that should be emphasised - it's quite an odd phrase, echoing the Vulgate's Non facies tibi. I don't know the Hebrew.

I think the argument has usually been that this commandment should be taken in the specific context of golden calves and the like, which were a serious issue at the time.

i.e. specific to a time, place & peoples. Rather like Dawkins said.

[scottycelt]

This rather illustrates how I feel about this sort of discourse as a whole. It's impossible to have a discussion where one side introduces terms of reference which are not recognosable or verifiable in any way by others.

But can't you see that you haven't answered the perfectly valid question posed in return ?. Why should God be restricted to human understanding and experience? It's no good saying you can't relate to the question, so let's just forget it. The fact that it is 'unanswerable' to humanity does not necessarily indicate invalidity!

[vinteuil]

Why should God be restricted to human understanding and experience? It's no good saying you can't relate to the question, so let's just forget it. The fact that it is 'unanswerable' to humanity does not necessarily indicate invalidity!

Of the seven theses of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus it is perhaps the seventh that is most relevant here -

1.The world is everything that is the case.
2.What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
3.A logical picture of facts is a thought.
4.A thought is a proposition with a sense. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
5.A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
6.The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function.
7.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[... even better in the German - „Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ ]

[John Skelton]

[... even better in the German - „Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ ]

(Can't resist it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksg...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57PWqFowq-4&feature=related

[scottycelt]

Of the seven theses of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus it is perhaps the seventh that is most relevant here -

1.The world is everything that is the case.
2.What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
3.A logical picture of facts is a thought.
4.A thought is a proposition with a sense. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
5.A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
6.The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function.
7.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[... even better in the German - „Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ ]

If so, No 7 must logically apply to other members as well ...

The base first statement is decidedly dodgy, though, don't you think ... why didn't you see fit to highlight that as well?

[aeolium]

Starting with Dawkins' "Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future ...." and reading the comments on the site I think an argument could be made that there are racist assumptions made about 'developed' people and 'primitive' people.

But an argument could just as well be made that it is an observation on the climates of opinion in African countries being unreceptive 'for the foreseeable future' to atheism, in the same way as they would be (for the most part) unreceptive to Hinduism. An argument could equally be made that the failure by some intellectuals to criticise the practices in some Islamic theocracies that are demeaning to women and oppressive to homosexuals - on the grounds that to do so would be cultural imperialism - is a sort of racism of a different kind, one that suggests that this kind of treatment in Islamic countries is acceptable because it is part of the culture ("this is what these people are used to"). But to make that argument of course would be to fall into the trap of 'intolerance of cultural difference', the accusation the leninology blog levies at Dawkins.

[amateur51]

That's already four scotties too many!

Ooops! You're quite right, S_A - one is quite enough for anyone.

My apologies all round

[amateur51]

Passing over the glaring falsehoods and heavily subjective interpretations of some of your favourite historical events, can we now veer back from the rather off-topic diversion that most patently suits your very own Book of Preference, Ams ... ?

Quite right, scotty .. never intrude on private grief

[scottycelt]

Ooops! You're quite right, S_A - one is quite enough for anyone.

My apologies all round

I do sometimes wonder if you are actually my wife, Ams ...