This is just more of the theological spindoctoring or sophisms on the banal fact that you can't prove a negative (i.e. "god does not exist"). My response: extraordinary claims about an "all-powerful" (a logical fallacy in itself) "all-knowing", "all-good" entity that supposedly created the universe demand extraordinary evidence, but none such is to be had! Also: the deeds of that god (according to the bible as well as to everyday experience) absolutely defy any sound definition of "goodness"!
for ur kind info richard dawkins hindus have no identity the word hindu was kept by christians during british invasion of india the followers of vedas(hindu scriptures) have no identity and vedas itself tells follow ur self why the fuk u shud follow others
Dr. Craig is careful not to ask the wrong questions and to keep his argument air tight. A dishonest and cheap tool used by a philosopher when he knows his logic is based on a false premise. It is as disprovable as talking to someone who believes in the Matrix. He does a good job at avoiding having to talk about things that would disprove theism.
@leejs but that isn't neccesarily true. I know MANY people brought up in christian homes and in the church but are in fact NOT Christian , so Dawkins' point is not neccesarily valid.
Dawkins should not debate with Craig unless he wants to be publicly exposed to be a fool for venturing beyond his area of competence and into unfamiliar waters.
I hate all this logic and philosophy shit. That is all Craig uses to support his belief. An argument can be logical and still not be true. if any of the variables cannot be verified a logical statement can still be false.
Philosophy is not a science. Furthermore I hope someone informed him that babies knowing an object still exists when it goes out of sight is NOT a belief. It is based on an understanding of the VISIBLE world and how PHYSICAL objects interact with each other.
@DanDanthechiroman Philosophy is science and science is heavily supported by philosophy. Dont hate rational and logical contemplation because a dishonest philosopher uses cheap tricks to make his argument air tight.
Anyone who practices philosophy can tell you what Dr. Craig is doing.
its not genetic fallacy... its based on the idea of necessity is the mother of invention. by this idea u can distinguish that an event was naturally occurred or engineered by some one. based on the purpose (need for the invention). on practical example to this case is search for motive behind the crime by police depart to connect suspect n crime its perfectly logical
in this case Dawkins just connected need of god n various faiths around the globe to prove man created god not the other way
This is either a misunderstanding or a manipulation of the argument.
I'd be hard-pressed to believe that these Christians are stupid, but that unfortunately leads me with nothing else to believe but that they're deliberately being deceitful and manipulative.
Either Dr. Craig is responding to a completely different argument or he has missed the point entirely. Nothing Dawkins says involves genetics whatsoever. He is merely stating the basic truth that if you are brought up in a culture/country where christianity is not prominent, chances are good that you won't be christian. Likewise, if you are brought up in a predominantly christian chances are you will be christian. So what makes one persons particular juju more correct than any other.
Man made, and makes, gods. It is in your nature. Even the Creator knows nothing of Krishna, Shiva, Allah, Votan, Zeus, Apollo, or Yaweh.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
I can't see the connection between believing in god and genetics. To have faith in a deity is not genetically encoded in us. To wonder and ponder the nature of things and use imagination to try to find solutions may be genetically in us, but the concept of serf-hood to an intangible fantasy creation.... That would defy all evolutionary genetic logic.
This isn't a genetic fallacy, because the claim that Dawkins was refuting deals precisely with the origin of certain feelings. Christians claim the experience of God comes from God, therefore God exists. Atheists show that the experience of God has social and cultural origins, therefore the Christian argument doesn't hold up. This doesn't disprove this existence of God, it simply refutes the Christian argument in favour of God's existence.
@Fray2221 you're wrong. i have a gold watch. I never met or saw the creator of this watch. I never saw the blue prints. I never saw the raw materials going into making the watch. But I never doubt for a second that there is there is a creator of this watch. And neither would you.
You people don't get it, do you? Dawkins does not say that a belief is not true, it is impossible to assert that, he simply points out that any belief is as good as the other. The burden of proof is on the ones that believe.
Dawkins isn't trying to prove that the mans beliefs are false... he's just comparing his beliefs to others and pointing out that their beliefs contradict each other and therefore at least the majority are wrong. No genetic fallacy.
And does Craig really believe that children are born believing in god? This is ridiculous. Children aren't born believing in anything. Why does he think children born into atheist families that never talk about god are atheist?
@Hannodb1961 Dawkins doesn't debate the likes of Craig because he doesn't want to participate in a farce. If you agree to a debate you're giving your opponent some respect. You're saying "I take you seriously enough to debate". Craig isn't on the level of debating Dawkins, he's on the level of keeping his mouth shut and getting schooled. Astronomers don't debate astrologers, geologists don't debate flat-earthers, cardiologists don't debate witch doctors, and Dawkins doesn't debate Craig.
@devourerofbabies This is the most pathetic attempt to defend Dawkins. WLC is one ot THE most respected Christian Apologists out there,and RD has debated other Christians with far lesser credentials than WLC . The only person who's credibility suffers from him not participating, is Dawkins himself. In fact, WLC is so well respected, that even fellow atheists called Dawkins a coward. Fact is: "The God Delusion" is logically incoherent, and RD knew he could not defend it against the logic of WLC.
@Hannodb1961 Defending yourself against the logic of WLC is easy.... if you care about logic. None of his arguments hold water. All of them have been refuted ad nauseum, even his famed Kalam Cosmological. These refutations are plentiful and easily available, and easy to understand as well. If you care about what is actually true instead of just defending your side, you'll go and read them. Then you'll understand why Dawkins isn't a coward for refusing to debate a lightweight like Craig.
@devourerofbabies I have heard many ATTEMPTS of refuting WLC's logic, I haven't heard one who succeeded yet. But you sound like one of those people who fell under the spell of RD upper class English accent, which makes him sound more intelligent than he really is. I've spoken to the head of Skeptics SA, and in his opinion, RD is an "embarrassment" to the skeptics movement.
@Hannodb1961 No, there isn't a point in further discussion. I hope that some day you'll form your opinions on evidence and argumentation instead of evaluating evidence and argumentation according to whether it supports the position you already hold.
@devourerofbabies Likewise, I hope that one day, you'll be able to judge evidence on its own merits, rather than prejudging it on materialistic assumptions.
WLC once again trying to shift all the burden of proof onto those skeptical of a claim, rather than onto those making the claim. Hats off to you sir, you are a master at that!
I'm sorry but given so many people in the world believe in "god", but have totally different & contradictory views on "god", and given it's USUALLY the god of their culture they believe in... that's pretty convincing to me that God is just a man-made concept.
Now present some evidence of your Christian deity or STFU.
@ninetails009 The statistics say it's pretty unusual for a person to believe in a different god to their culture. For example, most theist americans are christians (77% out of 83%), almost all iraqis are muslims (~97%), etc.
I personally don't know anybody who worships a different god to that of their parents... but about 10% of people change their religion from that of their upbringing...I'd consider that a pretty small percentage.
@andyjs2008 You said you don't know anyone who worships a different god. People worship differently all the time. You're saying it as if converting to a different religion is astronomically rare. It happens all the time. Some people go to church, others in their family don't. That's how new religions are born. There are thousands upon thousands. They didn't just pop out of nowhere. People follow different paths all the time.
You chose to be atheist/agnostic contrary to your family haven't you?!
@ninetails009 What i meant is i don't know anyone who now worships a different god to one of their upbringing (eg. christian to hindu or vice-versa). Of course it does happen, but statistically it's rare (i never said astronomical), eg it's not common for an american with christian parents to become a hindu, or vice versa. I never meant changes of denomination within a particular religion...
No, my parents are mixed, and they stayed out & left it up to me... OK, all the best.
Craig objects to the assertion "God doesn't exist BECAUSE belief in God is the result of upbringing." But Dawkins doesn't make that assertion. Dawkins says that one is unjustified in claiming a chosen deity to be independently "true" solely on the grounds that one believes in it. Such a claim fails because the origin of the belief is arbitrary, with no basis in evidence; one could easily have adopted any alternative belief, and there's no objective basis for ranking any of them more plausible.
@ottotellick Actually Dawkins does make that assertion, albeit not as explicit as you put it because that would be too easy for the theist/deist. The observation is a direct implication of his reasoning and conclusion which he attempts to logically lead to but ends up using a fallacy in the process. A person's religious claims are more plausible based on the evidence, whether it be historical, archaeological, scientific, etc. They aren't all fairy tales based on nothing though some may be.
"Craig objects to the assertion "God doesn't exist BECAUSE belief in God is the result of upbringing." But Dawkins doesn't make that assertion"
Exactly right. That's why this charge of "genetic fallacy" fails entirely. Notice how none of the critics actually respond to the substance of Dawkins remark - the game is always to recharacterize Dawkins position until one can say "Aha! Fallacy!"
It's a classic strawman. Ironic since THAT is the fallacy being committed here.
This is silly. It's not a genetic fallacy to observe that the principle reason why people believe in Christianity is because they were brought up to believe it. And it's not a genetic fallacy to observe that the arguments in defense of Christianity can be made for most any religion.
It would only be a genetic fallacy if someone is arguing that this observation is the REASON why Christianity's claims are false. But of course nobody is.
As usual, Craig and his fans are taking on strawmen.
@citizenghosttown "It's not a genetic fallacy to observe that the principle reason why people believe in Christianity is because they were brought up to believe it." Dawkins commits the fallacy when he uses this man's western upbringing to discredit his beliefs. Why his upbringing is even mentioned is beyond me as it does nothing to disprove the validity of a theist's claims. Indoctrination only goes so far and many people of different backgrounds have many different beliefs.
"Dawkins commits the fallacy when he uses this man's western upbringing to discredit his beliefs"
Nope. It's an observation that goes right to the heart of his critique.
Remember, Dawkins isn't obliged trying to "disprove" theism - that would be silly as well as impossible. But if the man standing before Dawkins said that he knew Shiva existed because he felt the presence of Shiva , the comment was be the same and the observation would be equally valid.
@citizenghosttown His observation is inherently a critique, seeing that he responds to the man's question with 'that'. His obligation/observation is irrelevant as the issue is the critique being based on the source of this man's belief rather than dealing with the belief itself. Instead of answering the delusion issue, he cites cultural/geographical influences to discredit him (i.e. genetic fallacy). Btw, classic Greeks and others today reasoned toward 'god'/universal rather than just accept it.
I would think there's enough to criticize about Dawkins without the empty sort of criticism being made here.
A genetic fallacy - like any logical fallacy - is flawed argumentation because it resorts to an irrelevant point. What argument is Dawkins making here?
He was asked to comment on the man's faith in Jesus and he responded with a useful - though stinging - observation. So, is the way people are raised IRRELEVANT to why they believe what they believe? Hardly.
@citizenghosttown A genetic fallacy is not merely an irrelevant point but also one that attacks irrelevant origins/sources. The man is asking for reasons why his personal experiences aren't a delusion. Dawkins' response? Well, if you're born in 'x' then you'd believe in 'x'. No, that's a genetic fallacy in his reasoning and conclusion. Where you are born does not not affect the truth claims of a religion nor does it follow that if I'm raised in India, I will be a Hindu following Shiva, Krishna.
You can't have a "genetic fallacy" if the origin of the experience is the very thing you are trying to explain.
Q: Why do I believe I experienced Jesus?
A: Reports of such experiences are common and have culutral explanations. Yours concerned Jesus because you were raised in that tradition.
You may find such explanations insufficient. Fine. You can argue that. But Is the observation about origin & culture relevant to the actual point being asserted? Of course it is.
@citizenghosttown The genetic fallacy is not in the origins explanation as mentioned before, but the use of that explanation in the wider context (ie. failing to attempt to provide an argument against the truth claims of a religious follower and attacking the man's background). It's not just an observation. It's a critique and a proposition contrary to the questioner's claims. But it fails to provide a serious response since it addresses his background via genetic fallacy, not his 'truth' claim.
"Where you are born does not not affect the truth claims of a religion"
That's true. But it's relevant to observe that there are countless religions that make contradictory claims. Is it reasonable to ask for a a better explanation than "personal experience" before concluding that one supernatural claim is more likely to be true than another? I think so.
"nor does it follow that if I'm raised in India, I will be a Hindu"
@citizenghosttown I can agree that most religions do make contradictory claims and Dawkins' observation is a popular one, though I wouldn't say relevant which is the whole reason behind the video. Different religious truth claims isn't the topic and we digress from the central issue because Dawkins didn't even ask for a better explanation in this clip. Just rhetoric. Statistical probability? Possibly. But my point is that such a claim is irrelevant. He just assumed with his opening response.
the response of Craig to Prof. Dawkins with genetic fallacy (or argumentum ad hominem, if you want) is another pathetic display of this deluded apologist.
@TheSysDef "the response of Craig to Prof. Dawkins with genetic fallacy (or argumentum ad hominem, if you want) is another pathetic display of this deluded apologist." Oh the irony.. I guess the other atheist and agnostic philosophers who called Dawkins out are also pathetic and deluded too.
Dawkins isn't saying it has to do with where you're born. He's saying that there are many beliefs, and ALL of them could be asked "What if YOU'RE wrong?"
In other words, EVERYONE is an atheist regarding one deity or another, and any of us could be wrong, and any of us could be sent to eternal suffering.
Point is: It is failed logic (and actually it's impossible) to choose a belief based on consequences of believing otherwise.
@pburto "Dawkins isn't saying it has to do with where you're born. He's saying that there are many beliefs, and ALL of them could be asked "What if YOU'RE wrong?" Yea....except where he rants about India (Hinduism), Afghanistan (Islam), Norway/Denmark (Thor), etc. and then claims that where you're born by accident determines what you believe.
@keepitincontext I guess you got me (or got him.) that he was indeed suggesting (accurately) that a person's religion has more to do with how they were brought up than a careful analysis of all religions. Call that a genetic fallacy if you wish... Because it's true that truth alone doesn't discredit any belief.
But he said that "en route" to highlighting that EVERYONE is an atheist regarding "other people's deities". That was his point.
@pburto HIs point is understood yet still reached thru a genetic fallacy. He reasons to it by assuming that geography and culture play a greater role in one's religious beliefs than reasoning and logic. Those in the academic arena strongly disagree here. Some conclude after reasoning that a religion is true. Dawkins' response of "What if you're wrong?" isn't an argument and he uses rhetoric to back it up based on the source (geography/culture) of someone's beliefs which is a genetic fallacy.
@logosisreal "Dawkins' response of "What if you're wrong?" isn't an argument..." You're absolutely correct that it's not. But it is the PERFECT response to the question HE was asked... That is, the very same question, which in the very same way, is not an argument.
You said: "Some conclude after reasoning that a religion is true." Really? Frankly, I'm not aware of a single person, famous or otherwise, whom I believe actually did so. If someone can do that, faith is unnecessary.
@pburto A better response would be to show her that he's right instead of spouting rhetoric. He makes a hasty generalization which is demonstrably false that culture and geography will determine what you believe. C.S Lewis, Flew, Ward, Polkinghorne, Plantinga, Craig haha, Collins, Swinburne, the list goes on. And that's just those who came to believe in theism/deism. Several classical philosophers believed in universals (god in the impersonal sense). I hope you don't mean famous like Dawkins..
@logosisreal I get the impression you're smart enough to know the group you're describing, who came to their religious beliefs contrary to their upbringing are in the minority. Among those who came to their belief outside their family upbringing, VERY FEW consider religious views vastly outside their greater culture. Example: Someone raised Catholic is far, far, far more likely to switch to another form of Christianity (or atheism) than to accept, say Islam. The reverse is also true.
@pburto I completely agree that cultural influence can play a role and in fact does for some. To say however that the majority believe only because of that rather than at some point in their life reasoning, would be hard to argue. My point is that is that Dawkins doesn't even consider the possibility that the first man or the girl even, reasoned and struggled to come to their conclusion. He assumes and responds on that [genetic fallacy] presupposition.
"Dawkins doesn't even consider the possibility that the first man or the girl even, reasoned and struggled to come to their conclusion"
Why would he assume that? The man didn't present an argument for theism. He spoke of his personal experience of Jesus and asked Dawkins to respond. The point made by Dawkins is directly relevant to the explanation he offers.
The charge of "genetic fallacy" misses the mark entirely. It's an attempt to avoid the point and change the subject.
@citizenghosttown Why would he assume the complete opposite? The questioner is not obligated to present an argument in this setting since it's q&a. He indirectly implies an argument by claiming that God is not a delusion for him and so a counter-argument would be to show why God is a delusion. Again, Dawkins' explanation is not the issue but its context and implications in his reasoning/conclusion. The genetic fallacy isn't strictly his observation but why he uses that explanation.
hmm would this mean its also not ok for christians to say atheists are only atheists because they were raised to be an atheist? This of course only applying to atheists raised under atheism or would that also be considered a genetic fallacy?
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Dawkins is in no way saying "Religious belief is false *because* religious belief is largely determined by where you are born." He's simply saying "Because religious belief is so very largely determined by where you are born, your claim about which religion is correct, which you claim is objective, is largely a subjective one when obviously religious belief is influenced by geographical, human culture rather than some manifest spirit of truthfulness."
lol he's not showing you how the PoV originated but rather that by ruling out all the other religious deieties you are adhering to a tradition rather than a thought-through logical PoV
Craig would have a point, but he's kind of using a straw man here. Richard Dawkins might not have necessarily meant that it invalidates their claims, BUT even if he did mean that, then he still has a good point. Clearly there's no divine calling, because the majority of people always follow the country's main religion, or the religion of their parents. This isn't always the case, but this is most definitely the case for the majority.
It is HYPOCRITICAL of William Lane Craig to criticise Dawkins for not debating him, when for many years Craig has refused to debate the American atheist author John Loftus.
Loftus is a former student of Craig's and published the book 'why I became and atheist'.
This guy is really trying hard to substantiate himself as an intellectual, when in truth, he's merely a fast talking snake oil salesman.
He goes into social imprinting and over simplifies to the point of obscurity. Furthermore, all his energy is used to refute because he simply cannot prove.
Craig is once again creating a simple argument that he thinks he might be able to handle because the real issue is beyond him.
Will Craig insist that all religions are true because of this conviction that it is true?
The child in Craig's example also believes that his parents can protect him from all harm, that the magician really did conjure a rabbit out of a hat, in the tooth fairy, santa and the easter bunny.
"the misfortune to be born in the Dawkins' household"?! I think I would have had a lot less of a troubling childhood if nonsense that contradicted our innate human nature to seek truth wasn't being pounded into my malleable young brain.
@plilgeberg you want to live in dawkin's house as a child? he's pro infanticide. you better be biologically perfect or else he'll throw you off a cliff.
@lovellespice "you want to live in dawkin's house as a child? he's pro infanticide. you better be biologically perfect or else he'll throw you off a cliff."
Why such a sick comment, you're christian? that's the only reason I could come up with?
Craig didn't even understand what Dawkins argued... Craig just tries to avoid answering by distorting Dawkins claim and then tries to knock down this distorted version. Well, Dawkins did not make an argument about truth values...
Dawkins said that if for e.g. Craig would be raised up in area of some other religion, he wouldn't propably be a christian then - it has nothing to do with the truth value of any religion. It's just which religion will you "learn" to believe.
@karrpoff If Dawkins didn't dispute the truth value of Christianity in his response to the audience-member's question... what exactly was he doing? His implied meaning seems obvious: "You only believe as you do because of how you were raised. Your belief could have been different, and therefore it has no merit." In what way is this not a claim about truth? It's a clear-cut use of the genetic fallacy.
@JWHurwitz I think Dawkins just says that if someone were living in different areas of the Globe, he may be "raised up" to some other religions. That statement does not involve truth values of any religion. I think truth value is completely different thing than geological "position" of religion x/y.
@karrpoff Okay... so it remains to be seen what, if anything Dawkins was saying. "There are different religions" doesn't have a lot of value. It seems starkly clear that he is implying "therefore none of them are true". It's so much more likely that a demagogue like Dawkins was attempting to make a rhetorical point than just mouthing meaningless statements of well-known fact that it's almost undebatable that that was his point. If it was, then he's committing the genetic fallacy.
Then his point is irrelevant. So what if he is just stating the fact that people raised in world-view x are more likely to view world-view x as true. Does Dawkins not see that this applies just as much to himself as the man he is addressing? If he was born in some different scenario he would not believe in his atheism. So what? I think it's clear that Dawkins is trying to get at the idea that this man is incorrect because of his location.
@MrZazomy "I think it's clear that Dawkins is trying to get at the idea that this man is incorrect because of his location." -I don't think so, because it's not same thing to say: "you are wrong because your location is X". It's just that you might "believe" some other thing to be true, if you located originally at Y - it doesn't say which one, X or Y is really true. I think Dawkins tries to think deeper and get people to really ponder the basis of their faith.
Dawkins was talking in reference to Pascals Wager. What he was implying that there is more options then 2, be atheist or be Christian, hence showing the fallacy of the basic logic behind the commonly used arguement.
WLC was "I hope" completely unrelated, stating that not believing in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, among other random obvious facts.
You posted this, probably, in hopes people are too stupid to catch on.
@onelerv1 The four discussions cited in the video, are, in fact, totally unrelated, and none of them were given as specific responses to the others, it's just an interesting set of ideas about an argument. It's not clear how there being other religions invalidates Pascal's wager (not that I particularly care for that argument).
Um. While Dawkins is indeed not addressing the question of whether or not God exists, his argument is not an example of the genetic fallacy: he is not talking about the _genesis of the idea_. Instead he is pointing out that there are many other ideas with equal claim to the truth. Please don't use technical terms unless you know what they mean.
Yes...? It's still not the genetic fallacy, which takes the form of "this idea is wrong because XXX invented it", where for whatever reason XXX is not credible (or assumed not to be credible by the person making the argument). It can also take the form of "the inspiration for this idea was in Nazi/sexist/insert antagonist here philosophy", or even "when it was originally invented it was on the basis of a false assumption".
The point Craig is making is interesting but doesn't deal with the Genetic Fallacy. If the brain was hardwired to believe in Jesus, then I would say it was interesting evidence on the side of Christianity. Because this hardwiring isn't of a specific God, nor of a God as such as a need for fairness and justice because they've been brought up with right and wrong, I would say this means the brain looks for reasons, and God is a child's quick reasoning. Adults think better than kids.
Dawkins was not trying to prove that a god did not exist by pointing out ones parents beliefs are imposed on their children. Dawkins was merely trying to point out that one would have different beliefs. But, we should not forget the time factor allow. If one was born in ancient Egypt one would have believed in Isis and Osiris. We sometimes forget that these people actually believed their gods existed. Now we think "How foolish of them for believing such thing."
Isn't it even simpler? In this specific case, Dawkins did not commit the fallacy because he has many times refuted belief-systems on so many levels, he has probably refuted at least all the belief systems he mentioned, in so many ways and on so many levels.
Besides, if you listen to what Dawkins says, he is not explicitly saying that all religions are false. He is merely stating that the man will say the same ("it has been no delusion for me") be he a Hindu or Islam.
The genetic fallacy isn't really a fallacy. Finding out about the origins of a belief certainly has relevance to whether it is reasonable to think the belief is true. For instance, what if I discover that I currently believe that Obama is the president becasue a mad neuroscientist wired my brain up so that I would have that belief? The belief may or may not be true, but having discovered how I acquired it I have reason to be sceptical about it, don't I. Genetic fallacy or just good reasoning?
@LouigiVerona but the point is that finding out how we have come to acquire a belief is relevant to an assessment of how reasonable it is to take it to be true. It is relevant to its justification. So, discovering that we are hard wired to believe in god because belief in god has historically made us happy and happy people have been more effective breeders, provides one with good reason to be sceptical about that belief becasue the account of how we acquired it did not mention god.
@Clear404 At the same time I would question the importance of what appeared in what way in relation to the content of what we are speaking about. How did music appear? Thought? Art? Many things we know today began as something else, with different motives. It does not make the things themselves to be false or irrelevant. It is a subtle point, I think.
@LouigiVerona music is not a belief though. Nor is art. The genetic fallacy is not a fallacy. There's simply no mistake being made in thinking that the causes of a belief can have ramifications for the justification for that belief. I believe there's a computer in front of me right now. But if I discover that I've ingested mind-altering drugs then I have reason to doubt whether there really is a computer here, precisely because my belief may be caused by the drugs
@Clear404 Well, beauty of music is a sort of belief. There is no scientific way to prove that beauty of music actually exists.
But again, I agree with what you say. If you belief may be caused by the drugs - then yes, you have doubt. What you don't have, is the ability to say with certainty - because I am affected by drugs, computer does not exist. Because it might exist anyway. I think this is the only thing Dr. Craig is saying.
@LouigiVerona beliefs in irreducible aesthetic properties and (say) moral properties are not exempt from this. There is, I believe, an ongoing debate over whether an evolutionary account of our moral beliefs debunks them. But there are many who would deny that moral beliefs require the existence of irreducible moral properties to be true.
Incidentally, if that is all Craig is saying then he is saying very little indeed and isn't doing anything to make religious belief reasonable.
@Clear404 Yeah, it's an on-going debate, although these popularistic debates lack the depths, you know, of philosophy. I have read several philosophical books and after that a lot of TV debates seem even more superficial than before.
As for what Dr. Craig is saying, I agree that in this argument he is doing anything to make religious belief reasonable. As far as I understand, he is just refuting the argument, that's all.
@Dante666 Wow, you have such low self-esteem. I understand you are in pain... being obnoxious isn't going to make it go away though. And insulting peoples intelligence with your distortions of truth, and misrepresentations seems to quite in character for you mr.666. You claim that you were raised with Taoism you ignore the first two sentences of the Tao Te Ching, The way that can be told of is not the eternal way. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Ok go ahead, be a contrarian.
Craigy says that it doesn't prove that god doesn't exist if your belief would be different depending on the origin. Well, not fully. But it does incinuate that every existing religion is made up, false and of no value or truth. And with some logic and rationality, you realise that this is true. Then God in all the ways we imagine him is false. But NOT in ALL possible ways. So fine craigy, we can't (yet) prove that God doesn't exist. But all religions are false bullshit, and that's good enough.
Dawkins was _not_ trying to explicitly disprove anyones beliefs in this statement. He said: "If you had been born in India I dare say you'd be saying the same thing [that is: "I assure you that my belief is no delusion"] about lord Krishna and lord Shiva.". This is quite plain.
Of course, most deities are based around the same ridiculous ideas, and Dawkins has on many occasions refuted (probably) most of them.
So.. William Lane Craig shows his inability to understand the issue here, dare I say..
I don't think anyone has committed the fallacy he's talking about, Dawkins was asked what he would say to a christian whose met the lord Jesus Christ and only pointed out his beliefs are not special amongst many others the questioner was ignorant of and would discard himself.
Craig is trying to play the fact God is an unfalsifiable belief as a strength in it's favor, I don't understand how this huckster has any place lecturing others on philosophy.
@ tsantini13 Out of a population of more than 1 billion people, there are only 23 million Christians in China. While it's growing, it's completely insignificant in many rural regions. In many middle east cultures, you risk death by being Christian. There is virtually NO chance that these people will convert and that is Dawkins point. Continue to look at history and ask yourself why a God that cared would isolate Christianity to such a small region of the world.
"If you had been born in India I dare say you would be saying the same thing about lord Krisna or Shiva" False. There are many Indians who dont believe in Krishna or Shiva and in fact there are many well known Indian Christians & agnostics etc.
What Dawkins never says or doesn't even seem to contemplate is that if you had been born in Stalins Rusia or Mao's China, you (may) believe in the world view of atheism. This is why Dawkins response is a fallacious argument.
This is the worst argument i have seen for a long time. Can you seriously believe what you are saying?
You are retarded. That is the only logical conclusion. I cant even begin to tell you where you are wrong. Not enough space or time. Know this though, I know that you know that you dont really believe what you posted, you cant. It's irreconcilable with any possible theorem.
@Dgoosh1000 The old faithful your just retarded argument. That train is never late. You cant begin to tell me where I'm wrong because you have no logical response. Dawkins was raised an Anglican and he despises Christianity. His own reasoning contradicts his argument because he also believes in the "I'm smart and everyone else is retarded" paradigm.
"Dawkins was raised an Anglican and he despises Christianity"
Not only is this irrelavent, it also shows how retaded you are. There are many reasons to despise Christianity. Dawkins is just more knowledgable on a science that entirely contradicts the bible. The point is those who seek shall find. Those who want a religious experience get it. And its all in your head because you're scared to die and we seek answers and to justify our own world view.
@Dgoosh1000 "Dawkins was raised an Anglican and he despises Christianity"
Not only is this irrelavent retarded retarded etc"
How old are you man?
Yes it is irrelevant, & thats my point. That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Again its based on the I cant take my own medicine school of thought. I never brought up my own metaphysical views which are again irrelevant to the points made concerning his and your logic, or should I say, lack of it. I'm not interested in red herring arguments.
The fact of the matter is unless you are willing to change your views to suit the evidence not the other way around then you will fail.
Just as you did. "Yes it is irrelevant, & thats my point." No it was never your point. Your point was that since Dawkins was raised in a christian home and became an Atheist that disproves that people born in certain parts of the world have their own, independent religious experiences. This is what your original post stated.
@Dgoosh1000 Let me make this clear since you are having a hard time with this. Dawkins proposes the notion that just because you were raised a Christian, Hindu etc. then this will dictate your religious beliefs. I make the point that his logic is fallacious because he in fact was raised an Anglican yet he despises Christianity. So therefore his argument is that (I'm smart enough to change but your not, because your are to stupid) So you can add arrogance on top of that.
I'll let the general readers decide who made the most solid points.
My last word will be, though, that no-one ever has built a solid argument on. "It doesn't really matter where you are born or what religion you were raised with" I think thats what you're saying. Its just too stupid to really grasp.
@Dgoosh1000 I wasn't aware there was a contest or a skirmish. As for you bringing up stupidity. What I find stupid is your use of quotation marks concerning what you think I was saying, even though I already made it very clear what my point is, and it is right below. The words were meant to be taken literally and not open for abstract interpretation, but I cannot control how your mind works or how it processes thought. Quotation marks are used to quote not to paraphrase.
@benthemiester I'm sorry you're so offended by quotation marks, im sorry..... I have literally never come across someone will to defend such a deranged point of view. OF COURSE IT FUCKING MATTER WHERE YOU ARE BORN AS TO WHICH RELIGION YOU FOLLOW AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THAT IS THE RELIGION YOU HAVE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE! I'm sorry if this point of view is not compatable with you but there it is that is what I believe and i think you'll find is the only sensible way of looking at it. Derrrr.
Nice try, but you're logic fails. Mostly because you're refuting only half of the argument.
The argument that Dawkins is making is not that a belief is false merely because we know how it originated.
What he is saying is that the belief is false because the link between belief and geographical location corroborates and demonstrates it's falsehood, in conjunction with it's origin.
The origin of the belief, in this case, is nothing more than a tendency to be credulous.
While Craig is correct in his assessment of the debate minutia, he misses the larger point and he knows it. Dawkins isn't arguing that as a reason for the non existence of God, what he is saying is that is inconsistent with the belief in an all loving God. How can God be all loving if people that live in these area's have NO chance of entering heaven? By having them be born in India, Iran or China, they have virtually no chance of being exposed to Christianity thus being subjected to Hell.
@khughesdc "By having them be born in India, Iran or China, they have virtually no chance of being exposed to Christianity thus being subjected to Hell. "
This is a fallacy atheists have about Christianity. Christians (at least most of us) believe that those who are innocently ignorant of God, who are not responsible for their own lack of knowledge of God, can be saved.
@khughesdc China has the fastest growing Christian population in the world. Muslims+Christians+Jews are part of the same Abrahamic faith. India also has a Christian population. But regardless, you must also understand the difference between following, and being a follower. God knows the heart.
Dawkins just stopped too soon. He should have also said, "And if you were born into Communist Russia, you would have believed atheism."
...but if he had said this, he would have made it obvious and clear that atheism too is a set of beliefs which can be inherited from parents, which believes that 90+% of the world's population is wrong, and which believes that it points to a superior way of living.
This drives home Craig's point: how one comes to believe is irrelevant. What matters is truth.
@JosiahAnneJisca "how one comes to believe is irrelevant. What matters is truth."
Agreed. Truth that is based on evidence and logocal reasoning.
People can and do believe what they want but only those that believe something based on evidence can say they are not deluded. Religions claim a god exists but have no evidence to support it. That is a delusion.
You can believe pigs can fly but until you prove it I would say you are delusional.
@JosiahAnneJisca The most important conclusion when can derive is that when one groups up in a house that doesn't believe in something, you tend to continue to not believe in it. You don't believe in Athiesm.... it's a non belief.
What Dawkins is doing is fine. What the origin of the belief is is irrelevant. Using your belief in your god as evidence is false because those from other religions would be willing to do the same.
WLC misses the point --just because a chirstain claim "I assure you for my life it is no delusion" dosent make it so. Deluded people often don't know ( or admit) they are deludede
If a Muslim say " I assure you it is no delusion" dose that make the Muslim guy correct
This is the "great" WLC's takedown of a very clear point made by RD? No wonder RD won't talk to this guy. WLC's implicit claim in this "rebuttal", whether he realizes it or not, is that RD is essentially a raving racist. I am not inclined to believe WLC is too stupid to not see that, so either he was out to lunch upstairs when he came up with this, or he's trying to paint his foe in a very unseemly way that goes far beyond the bounds of respect.
@SurelyYewJest -By 'genetic' fallacy Dr. Craig is not refering to the DNA molecule. The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is based solely on the -origin- of something. Dawkins suggest that if he explains the -origin- of a persons belief then he has also explained away the object of the belief itself. When, where or how a belief in God originated is irrelevant because it still cannot answer the question, "Does God Exist?". The -origin- of the tooth fairy is a waste of time.
WLC intentionally miscasts what RD said. It is not the "genetic fallacy". Culture is the turning point, not genetics. Big difference WLC. You have to redefine the word "genetic" to get to the conclusion WLC lands on in this video. Nothing RD said implies person A in country A believes what they believe because they are genetically programmed to believe it. That would be massively racist on RD's part. Religion is culture, not genetics. Are theists really this dense?
Craig's arguments are invalid because he didn't understand what Dawkins tried to say. He did not mean that none religion is right because it depends on birth location, rather that you can't claim your religion is right because it wasn't a "delusion" for you, for to almost all believers it isn't a "delusion" but nonetheless they can't be all right.
Dawkins meant that people that believe in various religions think they're right, and that the experiences of the asking sir on religion would differ
0:55 If how the view originated is an invalid argument, then it is invalid also for Islam, so, Islam is true, and so is Hinduism, and all of the others. Dawkins offers a reasonable explanation on how religions originate in several places and they die with time. If the christian god intended this to be so, why allow Islam etc. This guy Craig is dishonest, his arguments can be used for any religion.
@Inigobalboa Completely false statement. Craig doesn't disbelieve in Islam and hinduism because they come from the middle east he disbelieves them because of the many arguments he gives such as the ontological teleological etc. as well as his innate cognitive inclination to believe in it which he refers to as the instant experience.
William Lane Craig puts a lot of time and energy into claiming fallacies on the part of Atheists with regard to our arguments against belief.What he clearly fails to realize is that the burden of proof lies with the Theists not the Atheists. Were not the ones making outragous claims. Nor are we the ones instilling fear or asking for a life of servitude, your guilt, fear, shame and your money.
@fukinblowme The burden of proof lies on both sides, actually, especially when you're dealing with a universal negative claim such as the atheist creed that there is no god. We have provided our share of the proof, i.e. Cosmological Argument, Design Argument, Moral Argument, Ontological Argument, etc. Neither are we instilling fear or asking for a life of servitude, guilt, fear, shame, money, etc. so this straw man needs to be stopped.
@ssam00 Richard Dawkins claim adds greatly to both the probability and logical arguments on the part of Atheists. One of the things that Professor Dawkins is doing here is pointing out the fact that belief in any of man's religions is foolish. He makes the point that it is more logical to believe that all religions are wrong based on the fact that religious cultures are largely territorial. SEE NEXT
@ssam00 CONT'D The guy who posted this video and WL Craig are deluded to the point where they've not only missed Dawkins' point, but they've based their strawman argument on their incorrect presumption that Dawkins was attempting to prove religion false with his comment here...yet he was not. In addition, as Theists, they're still attempting to maintain that the god who rules their corner of the Earth is the right one.Their belief is egotistical,delusional,childish etc. Dawkins points this out.
This is just more of the theological spindoctoring or sophisms on the banal fact that you can't prove a negative (i.e. "god does not exist"). My response: extraordinary claims about an "all-powerful" (a logical fallacy in itself) "all-knowing", "all-good" entity that supposedly created the universe demand extraordinary evidence, but none such is to be had! Also: the deeds of that god (according to the bible as well as to everyday experience) absolutely defy any sound definition of "goodness"!
macmarine 2 weeks ago
dawkins himself is in delusion without knowing reality
iamthatiamalll 4 weeks ago
for ur kind info richard dawkins hindus have no identity the word hindu was kept by christians during british invasion of india the followers of vedas(hindu scriptures) have no identity and vedas itself tells follow ur self why the fuk u shud follow others
iamthatiamalll 4 weeks ago
Dr. Craig is careful not to ask the wrong questions and to keep his argument air tight. A dishonest and cheap tool used by a philosopher when he knows his logic is based on a false premise. It is as disprovable as talking to someone who believes in the Matrix. He does a good job at avoiding having to talk about things that would disprove theism.
matthewmaraimages 4 weeks ago
It's odd that Dawkins doesn't use that same argument when dealing with atheists who were born in China, North Korea, etc.
EvanKism 1 month ago
@leejs but that isn't neccesarily true. I know MANY people brought up in christian homes and in the church but are in fact NOT Christian , so Dawkins' point is not neccesarily valid.
tnmusicman1 1 month ago
Dawkins will never debate Criag. Especially after Dawkins book made so many philosophical blunders.
teahouse100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins should not debate with Craig unless he wants to be publicly exposed to be a fool for venturing beyond his area of competence and into unfamiliar waters.
wbarquez 1 month ago
I hate all this logic and philosophy shit. That is all Craig uses to support his belief. An argument can be logical and still not be true. if any of the variables cannot be verified a logical statement can still be false.
Philosophy is not a science. Furthermore I hope someone informed him that babies knowing an object still exists when it goes out of sight is NOT a belief. It is based on an understanding of the VISIBLE world and how PHYSICAL objects interact with each other.
I an sure he is
DanDanthechiroman 2 months ago
@DanDanthechiroman Philosophy is science and science is heavily supported by philosophy. Dont hate rational and logical contemplation because a dishonest philosopher uses cheap tricks to make his argument air tight.
Anyone who practices philosophy can tell you what Dr. Craig is doing.
matthewmaraimages 4 weeks ago
William Lane Craig, all mirrors and smoke
daverigby23 2 months ago
its not genetic fallacy... its based on the idea of necessity is the mother of invention. by this idea u can distinguish that an event was naturally occurred or engineered by some one. based on the purpose (need for the invention). on practical example to this case is search for motive behind the crime by police depart to connect suspect n crime its perfectly logical
in this case Dawkins just connected need of god n various faiths around the globe to prove man created god not the other way
hellobal100 2 months ago
a genetic fallacy? i think wlc is one
MGsven 2 months ago
This is not a genetic fallacy.
This is either a misunderstanding or a manipulation of the argument.
I'd be hard-pressed to believe that these Christians are stupid, but that unfortunately leads me with nothing else to believe but that they're deliberately being deceitful and manipulative.
Ps1locyb1n 2 months ago
Either Dr. Craig is responding to a completely different argument or he has missed the point entirely. Nothing Dawkins says involves genetics whatsoever. He is merely stating the basic truth that if you are brought up in a culture/country where christianity is not prominent, chances are good that you won't be christian. Likewise, if you are brought up in a predominantly christian chances are you will be christian. So what makes one persons particular juju more correct than any other.
leejs 2 months ago
Man made, and makes, gods. It is in your nature. Even the Creator knows nothing of Krishna, Shiva, Allah, Votan, Zeus, Apollo, or Yaweh.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 2 months ago
I can't see the connection between believing in god and genetics. To have faith in a deity is not genetically encoded in us. To wonder and ponder the nature of things and use imagination to try to find solutions may be genetically in us, but the concept of serf-hood to an intangible fantasy creation.... That would defy all evolutionary genetic logic.
OrionVulcan 2 months ago
'Ol Rich is to have us believe only by location or family one is born in or at, that automatically determines faith?
Brucev7 2 months ago
"When an object they SEE disappears behind a screen, and then Re Appears, they believe that the object continues to exist when it goes out of sight"
We have yet to SEE...GOD.
Tell me Mr Lane Craig do you not astound yourself sometimes??
jonjon2034 3 months ago
This isn't a genetic fallacy, because the claim that Dawkins was refuting deals precisely with the origin of certain feelings. Christians claim the experience of God comes from God, therefore God exists. Atheists show that the experience of God has social and cultural origins, therefore the Christian argument doesn't hold up. This doesn't disprove this existence of God, it simply refutes the Christian argument in favour of God's existence.
Fray2221 3 months ago 17
@Fray2221 you're wrong. i have a gold watch. I never met or saw the creator of this watch. I never saw the blue prints. I never saw the raw materials going into making the watch. But I never doubt for a second that there is there is a creator of this watch. And neither would you.
jpgrygus 2 months ago
You people don't get it, do you? Dawkins does not say that a belief is not true, it is impossible to assert that, he simply points out that any belief is as good as the other. The burden of proof is on the ones that believe.
dinoalberini 3 months ago
Dawkins is correct and Craig gets more debate points.
AutoBahnForever 3 months ago
he doesn't see his own hypocrisy. "he owes us something to prove the belief is false." don't you owe the world something to prove it isn't??
TheRaellz 3 months ago
Not a genetic fallacy. Craig supports the ontological argument, so Craig should just STFU before I ROFL.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
Dawkins isn't trying to prove that the mans beliefs are false... he's just comparing his beliefs to others and pointing out that their beliefs contradict each other and therefore at least the majority are wrong. No genetic fallacy.
And does Craig really believe that children are born believing in god? This is ridiculous. Children aren't born believing in anything. Why does he think children born into atheist families that never talk about god are atheist?
flackz16 3 months ago
Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig. Enough said!
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Dawkins doesn't debate the likes of Craig because he doesn't want to participate in a farce. If you agree to a debate you're giving your opponent some respect. You're saying "I take you seriously enough to debate". Craig isn't on the level of debating Dawkins, he's on the level of keeping his mouth shut and getting schooled. Astronomers don't debate astrologers, geologists don't debate flat-earthers, cardiologists don't debate witch doctors, and Dawkins doesn't debate Craig.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies This is the most pathetic attempt to defend Dawkins. WLC is one ot THE most respected Christian Apologists out there,and RD has debated other Christians with far lesser credentials than WLC . The only person who's credibility suffers from him not participating, is Dawkins himself. In fact, WLC is so well respected, that even fellow atheists called Dawkins a coward. Fact is: "The God Delusion" is logically incoherent, and RD knew he could not defend it against the logic of WLC.
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Defending yourself against the logic of WLC is easy.... if you care about logic. None of his arguments hold water. All of them have been refuted ad nauseum, even his famed Kalam Cosmological. These refutations are plentiful and easily available, and easy to understand as well. If you care about what is actually true instead of just defending your side, you'll go and read them. Then you'll understand why Dawkins isn't a coward for refusing to debate a lightweight like Craig.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies I have heard many ATTEMPTS of refuting WLC's logic, I haven't heard one who succeeded yet. But you sound like one of those people who fell under the spell of RD upper class English accent, which makes him sound more intelligent than he really is. I've spoken to the head of Skeptics SA, and in his opinion, RD is an "embarrassment" to the skeptics movement.
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Then you've either heard bad attempts, or, as I rather suspect, you don't have a handle on logic yourself.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies The feeling is quite mutual. Suffice to say, there is no point to discuss it further.
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@Hannodb1961 No, there isn't a point in further discussion. I hope that some day you'll form your opinions on evidence and argumentation instead of evaluating evidence and argumentation according to whether it supports the position you already hold.
Good luck.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies Likewise, I hope that one day, you'll be able to judge evidence on its own merits, rather than prejudging it on materialistic assumptions.
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies unfortunately most religious types don't care about what is true only about what they believe.
Xellith 3 months ago
WLC once again trying to shift all the burden of proof onto those skeptical of a claim, rather than onto those making the claim. Hats off to you sir, you are a master at that!
I'm sorry but given so many people in the world believe in "god", but have totally different & contradictory views on "god", and given it's USUALLY the god of their culture they believe in... that's pretty convincing to me that God is just a man-made concept.
Now present some evidence of your Christian deity or STFU.
andyjs2008 3 months ago
@andyjs2008 but people believe in God's that contradict their culture all the time . . .
ninetails009 3 months ago
@ninetails009 The statistics say it's pretty unusual for a person to believe in a different god to their culture. For example, most theist americans are christians (77% out of 83%), almost all iraqis are muslims (~97%), etc.
I personally don't know anybody who worships a different god to that of their parents... but about 10% of people change their religion from that of their upbringing...I'd consider that a pretty small percentage.
andyjs2008 3 months ago
@andyjs2008 You said you don't know anyone who worships a different god. People worship differently all the time. You're saying it as if converting to a different religion is astronomically rare. It happens all the time. Some people go to church, others in their family don't. That's how new religions are born. There are thousands upon thousands. They didn't just pop out of nowhere. People follow different paths all the time.
You chose to be atheist/agnostic contrary to your family haven't you?!
ninetails009 3 months ago
@ninetails009 What i meant is i don't know anyone who now worships a different god to one of their upbringing (eg. christian to hindu or vice-versa). Of course it does happen, but statistically it's rare (i never said astronomical), eg it's not common for an american with christian parents to become a hindu, or vice versa. I never meant changes of denomination within a particular religion...
No, my parents are mixed, and they stayed out & left it up to me... OK, all the best.
andyjs2008 3 months ago
WLC is such a tool. He totally missed the point. The fallacy of missing the point.
redchango 3 months ago
Craig objects to the assertion "God doesn't exist BECAUSE belief in God is the result of upbringing." But Dawkins doesn't make that assertion. Dawkins says that one is unjustified in claiming a chosen deity to be independently "true" solely on the grounds that one believes in it. Such a claim fails because the origin of the belief is arbitrary, with no basis in evidence; one could easily have adopted any alternative belief, and there's no objective basis for ranking any of them more plausible.
ottotellick 3 months ago 7
@ottotellick Actually Dawkins does make that assertion, albeit not as explicit as you put it because that would be too easy for the theist/deist. The observation is a direct implication of his reasoning and conclusion which he attempts to logically lead to but ends up using a fallacy in the process. A person's religious claims are more plausible based on the evidence, whether it be historical, archaeological, scientific, etc. They aren't all fairy tales based on nothing though some may be.
logosisreal 3 months ago
@ottotellick
"Craig objects to the assertion "God doesn't exist BECAUSE belief in God is the result of upbringing." But Dawkins doesn't make that assertion"
Exactly right. That's why this charge of "genetic fallacy" fails entirely. Notice how none of the critics actually respond to the substance of Dawkins remark - the game is always to recharacterize Dawkins position until one can say "Aha! Fallacy!"
It's a classic strawman. Ironic since THAT is the fallacy being committed here.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
This is silly. It's not a genetic fallacy to observe that the principle reason why people believe in Christianity is because they were brought up to believe it. And it's not a genetic fallacy to observe that the arguments in defense of Christianity can be made for most any religion.
It would only be a genetic fallacy if someone is arguing that this observation is the REASON why Christianity's claims are false. But of course nobody is.
As usual, Craig and his fans are taking on strawmen.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
Comment removed
keepitincontext 3 months ago
@citizenghosttown "It's not a genetic fallacy to observe that the principle reason why people believe in Christianity is because they were brought up to believe it." Dawkins commits the fallacy when he uses this man's western upbringing to discredit his beliefs. Why his upbringing is even mentioned is beyond me as it does nothing to disprove the validity of a theist's claims. Indoctrination only goes so far and many people of different backgrounds have many different beliefs.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
@keepitincontext
"Dawkins commits the fallacy when he uses this man's western upbringing to discredit his beliefs"
Nope. It's an observation that goes right to the heart of his critique.
Remember, Dawkins isn't obliged trying to "disprove" theism - that would be silly as well as impossible. But if the man standing before Dawkins said that he knew Shiva existed because he felt the presence of Shiva , the comment was be the same and the observation would be equally valid.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@citizenghosttown His observation is inherently a critique, seeing that he responds to the man's question with 'that'. His obligation/observation is irrelevant as the issue is the critique being based on the source of this man's belief rather than dealing with the belief itself. Instead of answering the delusion issue, he cites cultural/geographical influences to discredit him (i.e. genetic fallacy). Btw, classic Greeks and others today reasoned toward 'god'/universal rather than just accept it.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
@keepitincontext
I would think there's enough to criticize about Dawkins without the empty sort of criticism being made here.
A genetic fallacy - like any logical fallacy - is flawed argumentation because it resorts to an irrelevant point. What argument is Dawkins making here?
He was asked to comment on the man's faith in Jesus and he responded with a useful - though stinging - observation. So, is the way people are raised IRRELEVANT to why they believe what they believe? Hardly.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@citizenghosttown A genetic fallacy is not merely an irrelevant point but also one that attacks irrelevant origins/sources. The man is asking for reasons why his personal experiences aren't a delusion. Dawkins' response? Well, if you're born in 'x' then you'd believe in 'x'. No, that's a genetic fallacy in his reasoning and conclusion. Where you are born does not not affect the truth claims of a religion nor does it follow that if I'm raised in India, I will be a Hindu following Shiva, Krishna.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
@keepitincontext
You can't have a "genetic fallacy" if the origin of the experience is the very thing you are trying to explain.
Q: Why do I believe I experienced Jesus?
A: Reports of such experiences are common and have culutral explanations. Yours concerned Jesus because you were raised in that tradition.
You may find such explanations insufficient. Fine. You can argue that. But Is the observation about origin & culture relevant to the actual point being asserted? Of course it is.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@citizenghosttown The genetic fallacy is not in the origins explanation as mentioned before, but the use of that explanation in the wider context (ie. failing to attempt to provide an argument against the truth claims of a religious follower and attacking the man's background). It's not just an observation. It's a critique and a proposition contrary to the questioner's claims. But it fails to provide a serious response since it addresses his background via genetic fallacy, not his 'truth' claim.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
@keepitincontext
"Where you are born does not not affect the truth claims of a religion"
That's true. But it's relevant to observe that there are countless religions that make contradictory claims. Is it reasonable to ask for a a better explanation than "personal experience" before concluding that one supernatural claim is more likely to be true than another? I think so.
"nor does it follow that if I'm raised in India, I will be a Hindu"
No, but it's a huge statistical probability.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@citizenghosttown I can agree that most religions do make contradictory claims and Dawkins' observation is a popular one, though I wouldn't say relevant which is the whole reason behind the video. Different religious truth claims isn't the topic and we digress from the central issue because Dawkins didn't even ask for a better explanation in this clip. Just rhetoric. Statistical probability? Possibly. But my point is that such a claim is irrelevant. He just assumed with his opening response.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
the response of Craig to Prof. Dawkins with genetic fallacy (or argumentum ad hominem, if you want) is another pathetic display of this deluded apologist.
TheSysDef 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSysDef "the response of Craig to Prof. Dawkins with genetic fallacy (or argumentum ad hominem, if you want) is another pathetic display of this deluded apologist." Oh the irony.. I guess the other atheist and agnostic philosophers who called Dawkins out are also pathetic and deluded too.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
How does what I MIGHT have been make an argument that therefore God does not exist?
Satarack 4 months ago
Dawkins isn't saying it has to do with where you're born. He's saying that there are many beliefs, and ALL of them could be asked "What if YOU'RE wrong?"
In other words, EVERYONE is an atheist regarding one deity or another, and any of us could be wrong, and any of us could be sent to eternal suffering.
Point is: It is failed logic (and actually it's impossible) to choose a belief based on consequences of believing otherwise.
pburto 4 months ago
@pburto "Dawkins isn't saying it has to do with where you're born. He's saying that there are many beliefs, and ALL of them could be asked "What if YOU'RE wrong?" Yea....except where he rants about India (Hinduism), Afghanistan (Islam), Norway/Denmark (Thor), etc. and then claims that where you're born by accident determines what you believe.
keepitincontext 3 months ago
@keepitincontext I guess you got me (or got him.) that he was indeed suggesting (accurately) that a person's religion has more to do with how they were brought up than a careful analysis of all religions. Call that a genetic fallacy if you wish... Because it's true that truth alone doesn't discredit any belief.
But he said that "en route" to highlighting that EVERYONE is an atheist regarding "other people's deities". That was his point.
pburto 3 months ago
@pburto HIs point is understood yet still reached thru a genetic fallacy. He reasons to it by assuming that geography and culture play a greater role in one's religious beliefs than reasoning and logic. Those in the academic arena strongly disagree here. Some conclude after reasoning that a religion is true. Dawkins' response of "What if you're wrong?" isn't an argument and he uses rhetoric to back it up based on the source (geography/culture) of someone's beliefs which is a genetic fallacy.
logosisreal 3 months ago
@logosisreal "Dawkins' response of "What if you're wrong?" isn't an argument..." You're absolutely correct that it's not. But it is the PERFECT response to the question HE was asked... That is, the very same question, which in the very same way, is not an argument.
You said: "Some conclude after reasoning that a religion is true." Really? Frankly, I'm not aware of a single person, famous or otherwise, whom I believe actually did so. If someone can do that, faith is unnecessary.
pburto 3 months ago
@pburto A better response would be to show her that he's right instead of spouting rhetoric. He makes a hasty generalization which is demonstrably false that culture and geography will determine what you believe. C.S Lewis, Flew, Ward, Polkinghorne, Plantinga, Craig haha, Collins, Swinburne, the list goes on. And that's just those who came to believe in theism/deism. Several classical philosophers believed in universals (god in the impersonal sense). I hope you don't mean famous like Dawkins..
logosisreal 3 months ago
@logosisreal I get the impression you're smart enough to know the group you're describing, who came to their religious beliefs contrary to their upbringing are in the minority. Among those who came to their belief outside their family upbringing, VERY FEW consider religious views vastly outside their greater culture. Example: Someone raised Catholic is far, far, far more likely to switch to another form of Christianity (or atheism) than to accept, say Islam. The reverse is also true.
pburto 3 months ago
@pburto I completely agree that cultural influence can play a role and in fact does for some. To say however that the majority believe only because of that rather than at some point in their life reasoning, would be hard to argue. My point is that is that Dawkins doesn't even consider the possibility that the first man or the girl even, reasoned and struggled to come to their conclusion. He assumes and responds on that [genetic fallacy] presupposition.
logosisreal 3 months ago
@logosisreal
"Dawkins doesn't even consider the possibility that the first man or the girl even, reasoned and struggled to come to their conclusion"
Why would he assume that? The man didn't present an argument for theism. He spoke of his personal experience of Jesus and asked Dawkins to respond. The point made by Dawkins is directly relevant to the explanation he offers.
The charge of "genetic fallacy" misses the mark entirely. It's an attempt to avoid the point and change the subject.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@citizenghosttown Why would he assume the complete opposite? The questioner is not obligated to present an argument in this setting since it's q&a. He indirectly implies an argument by claiming that God is not a delusion for him and so a counter-argument would be to show why God is a delusion. Again, Dawkins' explanation is not the issue but its context and implications in his reasoning/conclusion. The genetic fallacy isn't strictly his observation but why he uses that explanation.
logosisreal 3 months ago
Isnt it that if I were born in lets say Iraq, I would be a muslim and therefore the cosmological argument would prove to me the existance of Allah?
moroney1 4 months ago
This is not rocket science.
Rocketryman 4 months ago
hmm would this mean its also not ok for christians to say atheists are only atheists because they were raised to be an atheist? This of course only applying to atheists raised under atheism or would that also be considered a genetic fallacy?
Intellectual4God 4 months ago
Dawkins was making a statement re upbringing, not genetics. He was not talking of origins, but upbringing after those origins had been established.
akrifasouth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Dawkins is in no way saying "Religious belief is false *because* religious belief is largely determined by where you are born." He's simply saying "Because religious belief is so very largely determined by where you are born, your claim about which religion is correct, which you claim is objective, is largely a subjective one when obviously religious belief is influenced by geographical, human culture rather than some manifest spirit of truthfulness."
CarlSagan6 4 months ago
lol he's not showing you how the PoV originated but rather that by ruling out all the other religious deieties you are adhering to a tradition rather than a thought-through logical PoV
goofydog07 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Craig would have a point, but he's kind of using a straw man here. Richard Dawkins might not have necessarily meant that it invalidates their claims, BUT even if he did mean that, then he still has a good point. Clearly there's no divine calling, because the majority of people always follow the country's main religion, or the religion of their parents. This isn't always the case, but this is most definitely the case for the majority.
Weraisethenerdyflag 4 months ago
Comment removed
Weraisethenerdyflag 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is HYPOCRITICAL of William Lane Craig to criticise Dawkins for not debating him, when for many years Craig has refused to debate the American atheist author John Loftus.
Loftus is a former student of Craig's and published the book 'why I became and atheist'.
althusser2 4 months ago
This guy is really trying hard to substantiate himself as an intellectual, when in truth, he's merely a fast talking snake oil salesman.
He goes into social imprinting and over simplifies to the point of obscurity. Furthermore, all his energy is used to refute because he simply cannot prove.
AlphaDogmatist 4 months ago
Craig is once again creating a simple argument that he thinks he might be able to handle because the real issue is beyond him.
Will Craig insist that all religions are true because of this conviction that it is true?
The child in Craig's example also believes that his parents can protect him from all harm, that the magician really did conjure a rabbit out of a hat, in the tooth fairy, santa and the easter bunny.
charlesmaunder 4 months ago
"the misfortune to be born in the Dawkins' household"?! I think I would have had a lot less of a troubling childhood if nonsense that contradicted our innate human nature to seek truth wasn't being pounded into my malleable young brain.
plilgeberg 4 months ago 9
@plilgeberg you want to live in dawkin's house as a child? he's pro infanticide. you better be biologically perfect or else he'll throw you off a cliff.
lovellespice 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lovellespice "you want to live in dawkin's house as a child? he's pro infanticide. you better be biologically perfect or else he'll throw you off a cliff."
Why such a sick comment, you're christian? that's the only reason I could come up with?
saintpine 3 months ago
Comment removed
plilgeberg 4 months ago
The genetic falacy has no merit.
DuskOnVega 5 months ago
Craig didn't even understand what Dawkins argued... Craig just tries to avoid answering by distorting Dawkins claim and then tries to knock down this distorted version. Well, Dawkins did not make an argument about truth values...
Dawkins said that if for e.g. Craig would be raised up in area of some other religion, he wouldn't propably be a christian then - it has nothing to do with the truth value of any religion. It's just which religion will you "learn" to believe.
karrpoff 5 months ago
@karrpoff If Dawkins didn't dispute the truth value of Christianity in his response to the audience-member's question... what exactly was he doing? His implied meaning seems obvious: "You only believe as you do because of how you were raised. Your belief could have been different, and therefore it has no merit." In what way is this not a claim about truth? It's a clear-cut use of the genetic fallacy.
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
@JWHurwitz I think Dawkins just says that if someone were living in different areas of the Globe, he may be "raised up" to some other religions. That statement does not involve truth values of any religion. I think truth value is completely different thing than geological "position" of religion x/y.
karrpoff 4 months ago 11
@karrpoff Okay... so it remains to be seen what, if anything Dawkins was saying. "There are different religions" doesn't have a lot of value. It seems starkly clear that he is implying "therefore none of them are true". It's so much more likely that a demagogue like Dawkins was attempting to make a rhetorical point than just mouthing meaningless statements of well-known fact that it's almost undebatable that that was his point. If it was, then he's committing the genetic fallacy.
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
@karrpoff
Then his point is irrelevant. So what if he is just stating the fact that people raised in world-view x are more likely to view world-view x as true. Does Dawkins not see that this applies just as much to himself as the man he is addressing? If he was born in some different scenario he would not believe in his atheism. So what? I think it's clear that Dawkins is trying to get at the idea that this man is incorrect because of his location.
MrZazomy 4 months ago
@MrZazomy "I think it's clear that Dawkins is trying to get at the idea that this man is incorrect because of his location." -I don't think so, because it's not same thing to say: "you are wrong because your location is X". It's just that you might "believe" some other thing to be true, if you located originally at Y - it doesn't say which one, X or Y is really true. I think Dawkins tries to think deeper and get people to really ponder the basis of their faith.
karrpoff 4 months ago
Dawkins was talking in reference to Pascals Wager. What he was implying that there is more options then 2, be atheist or be Christian, hence showing the fallacy of the basic logic behind the commonly used arguement.
WLC was "I hope" completely unrelated, stating that not believing in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, among other random obvious facts.
You posted this, probably, in hopes people are too stupid to catch on.
onelerv1 5 months ago
@onelerv1 The four discussions cited in the video, are, in fact, totally unrelated, and none of them were given as specific responses to the others, it's just an interesting set of ideas about an argument. It's not clear how there being other religions invalidates Pascal's wager (not that I particularly care for that argument).
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there are som fake money,does that mean that there is no real money?
Same with God and faith in God,if there are many false beliefs about God, does that mean automatically that there is no true God?
Nallebjorn1 5 months ago
If there are som fake money,does that mean that there is no real money?
Same with God and faith in God,if there are many false beliefs about God, does that mean automatically that there is no true God?
Nallebjorn1 5 months ago
Um. While Dawkins is indeed not addressing the question of whether or not God exists, his argument is not an example of the genetic fallacy: he is not talking about the _genesis of the idea_. Instead he is pointing out that there are many other ideas with equal claim to the truth. Please don't use technical terms unless you know what they mean.
dkt80 5 months ago
@dkt80 I was going to say what you said, but you said it better :)
mofukr 5 months ago
@dkt80 This is regarding the origin of the person's belief. Not God's existence. To be clear.
blondetrumpetboy 5 months ago
@blondetrumpetboy
Yes...? It's still not the genetic fallacy, which takes the form of "this idea is wrong because XXX invented it", where for whatever reason XXX is not credible (or assumed not to be credible by the person making the argument). It can also take the form of "the inspiration for this idea was in Nazi/sexist/insert antagonist here philosophy", or even "when it was originally invented it was on the basis of a false assumption".
I don't see that any of these apply.
dkt80 5 months ago
The point Craig is making is interesting but doesn't deal with the Genetic Fallacy. If the brain was hardwired to believe in Jesus, then I would say it was interesting evidence on the side of Christianity. Because this hardwiring isn't of a specific God, nor of a God as such as a need for fairness and justice because they've been brought up with right and wrong, I would say this means the brain looks for reasons, and God is a child's quick reasoning. Adults think better than kids.
MBAYMZTU 5 months ago
Craig is a good lawyer, but a poor preacher. Not enough fire and brimstone.
It would also help if he added more cow bell.
gjsterp 5 months ago
Dawkins was not trying to prove that a god did not exist by pointing out ones parents beliefs are imposed on their children. Dawkins was merely trying to point out that one would have different beliefs. But, we should not forget the time factor allow. If one was born in ancient Egypt one would have believed in Isis and Osiris. We sometimes forget that these people actually believed their gods existed. Now we think "How foolish of them for believing such thing."
How foolish is it for us?
gjsterp 5 months ago
If I was born and raised in an italian restaurant I would believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Mmmm, spaghetti...
dummychaos 5 months ago
@Clear404 & @LouigiVerona
Isn't it even simpler? In this specific case, Dawkins did not commit the fallacy because he has many times refuted belief-systems on so many levels, he has probably refuted at least all the belief systems he mentioned, in so many ways and on so many levels.
Besides, if you listen to what Dawkins says, he is not explicitly saying that all religions are false. He is merely stating that the man will say the same ("it has been no delusion for me") be he a Hindu or Islam.
ttcmp0 5 months ago
The only person who has failed here is Graig... and anybody else who takes his arguments seriously.
danieljliversLXXXIX 5 months ago
The genetic fallacy isn't really a fallacy. Finding out about the origins of a belief certainly has relevance to whether it is reasonable to think the belief is true. For instance, what if I discover that I currently believe that Obama is the president becasue a mad neuroscientist wired my brain up so that I would have that belief? The belief may or may not be true, but having discovered how I acquired it I have reason to be sceptical about it, don't I. Genetic fallacy or just good reasoning?
Clear404 5 months ago
@Clear404 You can be skeptical, true, but you would not have enough ground to say "Obama is not a president".
LouigiVerona 5 months ago
@LouigiVerona but the point is that finding out how we have come to acquire a belief is relevant to an assessment of how reasonable it is to take it to be true. It is relevant to its justification. So, discovering that we are hard wired to believe in god because belief in god has historically made us happy and happy people have been more effective breeders, provides one with good reason to be sceptical about that belief becasue the account of how we acquired it did not mention god.
Clear404 5 months ago
@Clear404 You are correct. It cannot prove as evidence, but it may invoke scepticism.
LouigiVerona 5 months ago
@Clear404 At the same time I would question the importance of what appeared in what way in relation to the content of what we are speaking about. How did music appear? Thought? Art? Many things we know today began as something else, with different motives. It does not make the things themselves to be false or irrelevant. It is a subtle point, I think.
LouigiVerona 5 months ago
@LouigiVerona music is not a belief though. Nor is art. The genetic fallacy is not a fallacy. There's simply no mistake being made in thinking that the causes of a belief can have ramifications for the justification for that belief. I believe there's a computer in front of me right now. But if I discover that I've ingested mind-altering drugs then I have reason to doubt whether there really is a computer here, precisely because my belief may be caused by the drugs
Clear404 5 months ago
@Clear404 Well, beauty of music is a sort of belief. There is no scientific way to prove that beauty of music actually exists.
But again, I agree with what you say. If you belief may be caused by the drugs - then yes, you have doubt. What you don't have, is the ability to say with certainty - because I am affected by drugs, computer does not exist. Because it might exist anyway. I think this is the only thing Dr. Craig is saying.
LouigiVerona 5 months ago
@LouigiVerona beliefs in irreducible aesthetic properties and (say) moral properties are not exempt from this. There is, I believe, an ongoing debate over whether an evolutionary account of our moral beliefs debunks them. But there are many who would deny that moral beliefs require the existence of irreducible moral properties to be true.
Incidentally, if that is all Craig is saying then he is saying very little indeed and isn't doing anything to make religious belief reasonable.
Clear404 5 months ago
@Clear404 Yeah, it's an on-going debate, although these popularistic debates lack the depths, you know, of philosophy. I have read several philosophical books and after that a lot of TV debates seem even more superficial than before.
As for what Dr. Craig is saying, I agree that in this argument he is doing anything to make religious belief reasonable. As far as I understand, he is just refuting the argument, that's all.
LouigiVerona 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 You are a waste of space-time.
tubebooboob 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 You are a waste of space.
tubebooboob 5 months ago
@Dante666 You are a waste of time.
tubebooboob 5 months ago
@Dante666 Wow, you have such low self-esteem. I understand you are in pain... being obnoxious isn't going to make it go away though. And insulting peoples intelligence with your distortions of truth, and misrepresentations seems to quite in character for you mr.666. You claim that you were raised with Taoism you ignore the first two sentences of the Tao Te Ching, The way that can be told of is not the eternal way. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Ok go ahead, be a contrarian.
tubebooboob 5 months ago
Craigy says that it doesn't prove that god doesn't exist if your belief would be different depending on the origin. Well, not fully. But it does incinuate that every existing religion is made up, false and of no value or truth. And with some logic and rationality, you realise that this is true. Then God in all the ways we imagine him is false. But NOT in ALL possible ways. So fine craigy, we can't (yet) prove that God doesn't exist. But all religions are false bullshit, and that's good enough.
Mooonkey01 5 months ago
Dawkins was _not_ trying to explicitly disprove anyones beliefs in this statement. He said: "If you had been born in India I dare say you'd be saying the same thing [that is: "I assure you that my belief is no delusion"] about lord Krishna and lord Shiva.". This is quite plain.
Of course, most deities are based around the same ridiculous ideas, and Dawkins has on many occasions refuted (probably) most of them.
So.. William Lane Craig shows his inability to understand the issue here, dare I say..
ttcmp0 5 months ago
I don't think anyone has committed the fallacy he's talking about, Dawkins was asked what he would say to a christian whose met the lord Jesus Christ and only pointed out his beliefs are not special amongst many others the questioner was ignorant of and would discard himself.
Craig is trying to play the fact God is an unfalsifiable belief as a strength in it's favor, I don't understand how this huckster has any place lecturing others on philosophy.
Chinomareno 5 months ago
@ tsantini13 Out of a population of more than 1 billion people, there are only 23 million Christians in China. While it's growing, it's completely insignificant in many rural regions. In many middle east cultures, you risk death by being Christian. There is virtually NO chance that these people will convert and that is Dawkins point. Continue to look at history and ask yourself why a God that cared would isolate Christianity to such a small region of the world.
khughesdc 5 months ago
"If you had been born in India I dare say you would be saying the same thing about lord Krisna or Shiva" False. There are many Indians who dont believe in Krishna or Shiva and in fact there are many well known Indian Christians & agnostics etc.
What Dawkins never says or doesn't even seem to contemplate is that if you had been born in Stalins Rusia or Mao's China, you (may) believe in the world view of atheism. This is why Dawkins response is a fallacious argument.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester No, you have got to be joking.
This is the worst argument i have seen for a long time. Can you seriously believe what you are saying?
You are retarded. That is the only logical conclusion. I cant even begin to tell you where you are wrong. Not enough space or time. Know this though, I know that you know that you dont really believe what you posted, you cant. It's irreconcilable with any possible theorem.
Dgoosh1000 5 months ago
@Dgoosh1000 The old faithful your just retarded argument. That train is never late. You cant begin to tell me where I'm wrong because you have no logical response. Dawkins was raised an Anglican and he despises Christianity. His own reasoning contradicts his argument because he also believes in the "I'm smart and everyone else is retarded" paradigm.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester No really you are retaded.
"Dawkins was raised an Anglican and he despises Christianity"
Not only is this irrelavent, it also shows how retaded you are. There are many reasons to despise Christianity. Dawkins is just more knowledgable on a science that entirely contradicts the bible. The point is those who seek shall find. Those who want a religious experience get it. And its all in your head because you're scared to die and we seek answers and to justify our own world view.
Dgoosh1000 5 months ago
@Dgoosh1000 "Dawkins was raised an Anglican and he despises Christianity"
Not only is this irrelavent retarded retarded etc"
How old are you man?
Yes it is irrelevant, & thats my point. That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Again its based on the I cant take my own medicine school of thought. I never brought up my own metaphysical views which are again irrelevant to the points made concerning his and your logic, or should I say, lack of it. I'm not interested in red herring arguments.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Again, Retarded.
The fact of the matter is unless you are willing to change your views to suit the evidence not the other way around then you will fail.
Just as you did. "Yes it is irrelevant, & thats my point." No it was never your point. Your point was that since Dawkins was raised in a christian home and became an Atheist that disproves that people born in certain parts of the world have their own, independent religious experiences. This is what your original post stated.
Dgoosh1000 5 months ago
@Dgoosh1000 Let me make this clear since you are having a hard time with this. Dawkins proposes the notion that just because you were raised a Christian, Hindu etc. then this will dictate your religious beliefs. I make the point that his logic is fallacious because he in fact was raised an Anglican yet he despises Christianity. So therefore his argument is that (I'm smart enough to change but your not, because your are to stupid) So you can add arrogance on top of that.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester I think I've won this skirmish.
I'll let the general readers decide who made the most solid points.
My last word will be, though, that no-one ever has built a solid argument on. "It doesn't really matter where you are born or what religion you were raised with" I think thats what you're saying. Its just too stupid to really grasp.
Dgoosh1000 5 months ago
@Dgoosh1000 I wasn't aware there was a contest or a skirmish. As for you bringing up stupidity. What I find stupid is your use of quotation marks concerning what you think I was saying, even though I already made it very clear what my point is, and it is right below. The words were meant to be taken literally and not open for abstract interpretation, but I cannot control how your mind works or how it processes thought. Quotation marks are used to quote not to paraphrase.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester I'm sorry you're so offended by quotation marks, im sorry..... I have literally never come across someone will to defend such a deranged point of view. OF COURSE IT FUCKING MATTER WHERE YOU ARE BORN AS TO WHICH RELIGION YOU FOLLOW AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THAT IS THE RELIGION YOU HAVE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE! I'm sorry if this point of view is not compatable with you but there it is that is what I believe and i think you'll find is the only sensible way of looking at it. Derrrr.
Dgoosh1000 5 months ago
Nice try, but you're logic fails. Mostly because you're refuting only half of the argument.
The argument that Dawkins is making is not that a belief is false merely because we know how it originated.
What he is saying is that the belief is false because the link between belief and geographical location corroborates and demonstrates it's falsehood, in conjunction with it's origin.
The origin of the belief, in this case, is nothing more than a tendency to be credulous.
TheSmackerlacker 5 months ago
While Craig is correct in his assessment of the debate minutia, he misses the larger point and he knows it. Dawkins isn't arguing that as a reason for the non existence of God, what he is saying is that is inconsistent with the belief in an all loving God. How can God be all loving if people that live in these area's have NO chance of entering heaven? By having them be born in India, Iran or China, they have virtually no chance of being exposed to Christianity thus being subjected to Hell.
khughesdc 5 months ago
@khughesdc "By having them be born in India, Iran or China, they have virtually no chance of being exposed to Christianity thus being subjected to Hell. "
This is a fallacy atheists have about Christianity. Christians (at least most of us) believe that those who are innocently ignorant of God, who are not responsible for their own lack of knowledge of God, can be saved.
nanagaga2001 5 months ago
@khughesdc China has the fastest growing Christian population in the world. Muslims+Christians+Jews are part of the same Abrahamic faith. India also has a Christian population. But regardless, you must also understand the difference between following, and being a follower. God knows the heart.
tsantini13 5 months ago
Dawkins just stopped too soon. He should have also said, "And if you were born into Communist Russia, you would have believed atheism."
...but if he had said this, he would have made it obvious and clear that atheism too is a set of beliefs which can be inherited from parents, which believes that 90+% of the world's population is wrong, and which believes that it points to a superior way of living.
This drives home Craig's point: how one comes to believe is irrelevant. What matters is truth.
JosiahAnneJisca 6 months ago
@JosiahAnneJisca "how one comes to believe is irrelevant. What matters is truth."
Agreed. Truth that is based on evidence and logocal reasoning.
People can and do believe what they want but only those that believe something based on evidence can say they are not deluded. Religions claim a god exists but have no evidence to support it. That is a delusion.
You can believe pigs can fly but until you prove it I would say you are delusional.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@JosiahAnneJisca The most important conclusion when can derive is that when one groups up in a house that doesn't believe in something, you tend to continue to not believe in it. You don't believe in Athiesm.... it's a non belief.
What Dawkins is doing is fine. What the origin of the belief is is irrelevant. Using your belief in your god as evidence is false because those from other religions would be willing to do the same.
Stanium7 5 months ago
richard darwkins point is simple -- all relgious people will claim they are correct ( and not deluded)
The Muslims ,christains , mormons etc.. will all say they are correct.
but obviously they can't all be correct.
badpanda84 6 months ago
WLC misses the point --just because a chirstain claim "I assure you for my life it is no delusion" dosent make it so. Deluded people often don't know ( or admit) they are deludede
If a Muslim say " I assure you it is no delusion" dose that make the Muslim guy correct
badpanda84 6 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 6 months ago
"where or how a belief in God originated is irrelevant because it still cannot answer the question, "Does God Exist?"
The question is which one-- even if God dose exisit what is the chances it just happens to be the god that you happen to worship.
badpanda84 6 months ago
This is the "great" WLC's takedown of a very clear point made by RD? No wonder RD won't talk to this guy. WLC's implicit claim in this "rebuttal", whether he realizes it or not, is that RD is essentially a raving racist. I am not inclined to believe WLC is too stupid to not see that, so either he was out to lunch upstairs when he came up with this, or he's trying to paint his foe in a very unseemly way that goes far beyond the bounds of respect.
SurelyYewJest 6 months ago
@SurelyYewJest -By 'genetic' fallacy Dr. Craig is not refering to the DNA molecule. The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is based solely on the -origin- of something. Dawkins suggest that if he explains the -origin- of a persons belief then he has also explained away the object of the belief itself. When, where or how a belief in God originated is irrelevant because it still cannot answer the question, "Does God Exist?". The -origin- of the tooth fairy is a waste of time.
libertatus 6 months ago
WLC intentionally miscasts what RD said. It is not the "genetic fallacy". Culture is the turning point, not genetics. Big difference WLC. You have to redefine the word "genetic" to get to the conclusion WLC lands on in this video. Nothing RD said implies person A in country A believes what they believe because they are genetically programmed to believe it. That would be massively racist on RD's part. Religion is culture, not genetics. Are theists really this dense?
SurelyYewJest 6 months ago
Craig's arguments are invalid because he didn't understand what Dawkins tried to say. He did not mean that none religion is right because it depends on birth location, rather that you can't claim your religion is right because it wasn't a "delusion" for you, for to almost all believers it isn't a "delusion" but nonetheless they can't be all right.
Dawkins meant that people that believe in various religions think they're right, and that the experiences of the asking sir on religion would differ
MarceloMuzzi 6 months ago
WLC completely misses the point. The point is not genetics but culture.
Dawkins is talking about nurture and WLC is talking about nature. People are
the particular religion they are conditioned to believe by society not what they are
genetically programmed to believe.
humansaretheworld 6 months ago
very good video
FeignofCordor 6 months ago
0:55 If how the view originated is an invalid argument, then it is invalid also for Islam, so, Islam is true, and so is Hinduism, and all of the others. Dawkins offers a reasonable explanation on how religions originate in several places and they die with time. If the christian god intended this to be so, why allow Islam etc. This guy Craig is dishonest, his arguments can be used for any religion.
Inigobalboa 6 months ago in playlist bill craig
@Inigobalboa Completely false statement. Craig doesn't disbelieve in Islam and hinduism because they come from the middle east he disbelieves them because of the many arguments he gives such as the ontological teleological etc. as well as his innate cognitive inclination to believe in it which he refers to as the instant experience.
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 Therefore, Islam has a Craig, Judaism has a Craig, Hinduism has a Craig... Instant experience is not a valid argument
"the ontological argument would only be meaningful to someone who knew the essence of God completely" Thomas Aquinas.
Teleological argument not valid either: 99'999999% of life has become extinct
C'mon.
Inigobalboa 6 months ago
William Lane Craig puts a lot of time and energy into claiming fallacies on the part of Atheists with regard to our arguments against belief.What he clearly fails to realize is that the burden of proof lies with the Theists not the Atheists. Were not the ones making outragous claims. Nor are we the ones instilling fear or asking for a life of servitude, your guilt, fear, shame and your money.
God can neither be proven nor disproven.
Atheists understand this and deny man's claims.
WLC=Strawman
fukinblowme 6 months ago
@fukinblowme The burden of proof lies on both sides, actually, especially when you're dealing with a universal negative claim such as the atheist creed that there is no god. We have provided our share of the proof, i.e. Cosmological Argument, Design Argument, Moral Argument, Ontological Argument, etc. Neither are we instilling fear or asking for a life of servitude, guilt, fear, shame, money, etc. so this straw man needs to be stopped.
Dante666 6 months ago
There's no fallacy in his argument. Can anyone prove that their religion is right and others are wrong?
ssam00 6 months ago
@ssam00 Richard Dawkins claim adds greatly to both the probability and logical arguments on the part of Atheists. One of the things that Professor Dawkins is doing here is pointing out the fact that belief in any of man's religions is foolish. He makes the point that it is more logical to believe that all religions are wrong based on the fact that religious cultures are largely territorial. SEE NEXT
fukinblowme 6 months ago
@ssam00 CONT'D The guy who posted this video and WL Craig are deluded to the point where they've not only missed Dawkins' point, but they've based their strawman argument on their incorrect presumption that Dawkins was attempting to prove religion false with his comment here...yet he was not. In addition, as Theists, they're still attempting to maintain that the god who rules their corner of the Earth is the right one.Their belief is egotistical,delusional,childish etc. Dawkins points this out.
fukinblowme 6 months ago
@fukin