Daniel Dennett on Danish TV (Part 1/3)

Corresponding article on RichardDawkins.net: http://www.tinyurl.com/dke2d6

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• religion
• atheism

[ecco1mi]

um, richard dawkins definitely didn't say that religion is the root of all evil. but hey, whatever right?

[MidgardEagle]

According to Dawkins himself, he really didn't want it to be named this - it was the producer of the DVD that named it. He managed to get them to add the Question mark at the end, but that was it.

[IdaABC]

I can't see why religion and science can't live together in peace.

I don't think he is right (him thet old man), because he is OLD and CRAZY!!!!

[Baal1985]

Sayin Lawson isnt important is saying Comte isnt important for positivism n Kierkegaard isnt important for existentialism. Lawson introduced cognitivity to the subject religion. Pritchard is the guy of structuralism, Malinowski is the guy who invented fieldwork, before him the only fieldworkers were missionaries who had a special agenda. Read some books! U have no idea how much more trustworthy u become. Send a mail is u want to talk more and let the audience judge yours and mine argumentation.

[Baal1985]

Dennett is not important. Untill you know the difference between the subject of religion and the subject of theology you are nothing and furthermore it shows your complete lack of qualifications. To accept your correctness of Dennett's postulations that would be a deductive error big time . I have asked you to mention just one source that agrees with Dennett. Instead you continued your ad hominem argumentation. I havent apologists for or against religion I have apologists against Dennett.

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985 And until you manage to provide a compelling argument, outside of appealing to the authority of (and performing verbal fellatio on) leading authorities you just happen to agree with, nobody will ever take your empty bullshit arguments seriously.

We're done here. I don't have any more time or patience for an idiot apologist for religion who cites his own degree in religion as proof of authority on the subject.

And yes, that's exactly what you did initially. Have a good one.

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985

Look. Saying shit doesn't make it so. You're incredibly annoying and very hard to follow because, simply put, you aren't exactly coherent. Your arguments aren't just bad. They're virtually nonexistent.

Dennett's assertion that religion is a parasite has, and will continue to, meet with opposition from a number of people, many of them authorities. That does NOT DISQUALIFY his idea, or render it untenable.

You agreeing with one side doesn't automatically make it right, you idiot.

[Baal1985]

At last u consider me 4 been a fool n I consider u 4 been a fool. U claim I dont know anything about my subject, an accusation I find laughable not necessary rofl but close. Dennett's cognitivity-views contradicts Lawson, Boyer and Sørensen (my former prof). The idea religion as a parasite furthermore contradicts Malinowski, Girard, Evans-Pritchard, V. Turner, Whitehouse, Sosis n Bellah. Instead of taking my word for it start reading Lawson, Boyer n Sørensen yourself then review Dennett.

[Baal1985]

Talking of knowing the scripture you disqualified yourself a long time ago for challenging my knowledge since you showed your complete lack of knowledge :) Just the fact you thought I was religious even my name (Baal) is screaming heretic and nonbeliever. You wouldnt call a person naming "go-darwin" for creationist, would u? That was actually what u did. Im still laughing, a person acting clever is after all an empty bag. PS I can just imagine you reading wiki to find out who Baal is...too late

[Baal1985]

Like I said cognitivity is part of this subject, would you like me to spell that out for you? I didnt say we didnt dig deep into the scriptures but the understanding of the scriptures is hermeneutics. We need to see how people read it since we cant read people's mind we have to observe their behaving. Just because you study cognitivity doesnt automatically give you an advance knowledge of religion again his main focus is philosophy and biology not religion. Personally I favour Pascal Boyer more

[Trumpetz81]

@Baal1985

How can you study god without reference to some sort of scripture? That's the only "evidence" attesting to the possibility of a deity existing, and it's terrible evidence at that.

I never said Dennett can't be criticized. I simply said your criticism is unfounded. Like I said, cognition is directly related to religion. Would you like me to spoon-feed to you the reason for this?

[Baal1985]

@Trumpetz81 and I did not critize all Dannett's work I know he is a respected man. I have no reason to doubt his work regarding biology or his work regarding cognitivity, but concluding that because of that he cant be critized is a wide and dangerous path and again his work where he mixes his thoughts with the subject of religion hasnt been peer viewed and none of my professors (when I asked) found him even remotely important, I put my trust in them not u who has shown no knowledge in this area