Re: Richard Dawkins, Insults, and Thinking Critically (A Response to Veritas48)

A response to Veritas48's video about how Richard Dawkins dealt with a question from a believer.

Links:

Veritas48's video--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AstW2hHr34w

Richard Dawkins's Q&A at Randolph College in Lynchburg, Virginia--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

Demographic data cited in the video--

India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

Pakistan:

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf

United States--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Religion


Music: "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong" by Spin Doctors

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• God
• Delusion
• science
• religion
• belief
• faith
• intellectual
• Oxford
• atheist
• theist
• believer
• unbeliever
• Randolph
• College
• Lynchburg
• Virginia
• cosmology
• morality
• ethics
• positive
• ontology
• truth
• nature
• coherence
• Islam
• Muslim
• Judaism
• Jew
• flying
• teapot
• spaghetti
• monster
• Allah
• gods
• Jesus
• Bible
• Trinity
• scriptures
• exegesis
• hermeneutics
• apologetics
• philosophy
• Christianity
• reason
• Liberty
• University
• professor

[L4Pyro]

Well said

[ProfMTH]

@L4Pyro Thanks.

[csnowutube]

Wonderful video, thanks.

[ProfMTH]

@csnowutube You're welcome.

[goobergel]

Wow...you go into extreme detail explaining the blatantly obvious. The correct response would be, "Veritas, I like you...buddy...but you are being an intentionally obtuse prick."

[ProfMTH]

@goobergel "The correct response...."

LOL. Well, I think mine was correct, too. Thanks just the same.

[Kailoa36]

@Jonstern1983 The thing is, Jews don't really need apologetics the same way or to the same extent that Christians do because we don't proselytize.

[Jonstern1983]

Huh, I would have thought Jewish apologetics would have been more well developed considering it has been around longer than Christianity.

[PlasteredDragon]

Any atheist who answers theist questions eventually gets tired of the same old (fallacious) arguments such as Pascal's Wager, and the veiled (or direct) "God-as-the-bogeyman" threats of damnation. "What if you're wrong?" Is both rolled into one. Since he's written books on this, she could have gotten the answer simply by reading The God Delusion (or any good book on Atheism). I'm sure Dawkins is tired of such questions and I don't fault him at all. She SHOULD question her own beliefs.

[finderfinder100]

Dawkins comes off as prickly many times but that part of his "charm" But with a British accent he could rattle off total bile and it would still sound good. Hell he could read a shopping list and it would sound good.

[Hektor88]

@MrLittletomdj Agreed, let's move to private messages.

[MrLittletomdj]

@Hektor88 I think we're misunderstanding one another here, simply because of the limitations of Youtube comments (500 characters). Gravity is not a subjective idea, it can be measured and predicted. What I said was not a false dichotomy as objective purpose & subjective purpose are two different things. The desire to reproduce is still subjective. I wasn't sugesting LOTF was an authority. I'll send you a message if you are interested. We're getting nowhere like this.

[Hektor88]

@MrLittletomdj pt 2: You say "just subjective ideas." Yeah, in the same way that "gravity" is a subjective idea used to describe the behavior of matter under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean it's useless. an "Absolute" morality isn't something I think any of us want. I would rather have a thought out, reasoned morality that can function no matter its context, not an inflexible, dictatorial morality.

[Hektor88]

@MrLittletomdj pt 1) Well, if you need purpose for morality (not something i am sure i agree with), we all have purposes in our respective lives. It's a false dichotomy to say "We don't have universal purpose bestowed by a god, therefore we don't have ANY purpose." Individual lives have purpose, life itself does not (other than reproducing).

LOTF is an great novel, but I don't think it's an authority on anything. It's one persons perspective on the moral understanding of kids.

[MrLittletomdj]

@Hektor88 2) I'm not making the claim that God exists & I'm not using to the Bible as a valid dictation of moral values. The religious tend to have a more polorized view of right and wrong, whereas athiests tend to view morality in higher definition. But Atheists live in a religious world & thier values stem from religious ideals (you're still playing by their rules). Unless we have a purpose right & wrong are just subjective ideas. It's too hard to get this into 500 letters or less... =/

[MrLittletomdj]

@Hektor88 1) Are you sure good moral values dont equate to majority rule.. Have you ever read/seen Lord of the Flies? Electing a prefered authority fugure & claiming he/it is the source of absolute morality is not my point, but for absolute morality to exist we must have an objective pupose & for us to have an objective purpose there must be some form of "God". It doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. It maybe that morality has evolved in a way that has been dictated by a higher power.