Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

[element771]

Wiki's listing of his academic papers. It lists 33. Not sure if it's complete. There's a CV here that appears current through 2005 at least that has about 90 articles, but it doesn't clearly distinguish academic publications from submissions titled things like "Why I won't debate creationists"

Well I was way off on that one. I need to check them out because my atheist buddy and I looked hm up about 6 years ago and we only found two. Where did I get two from?!? Maybe it'll come back to me but I am certainly wrong about that one.

When I get to work tomorrow, I can actually get the papers. Maybe that will jog my memory.

[Adrift]

As usual you've got it completely backward. Initially I wasn't interested because it would require me rereading TGD and taking notes, but I am now actually rereading the book and taking notes and so am discussing it with element somewhat as I go with a view to at least somewhat taking him up on his challenge.

I think we can do without your completely backward posts in this thread and bizarro claims about me where you repeatedly make very basic mis-statements. Please refrain from posting further in this thread.

I coulda swore you put me on ignore... That didn't last long.

As much as I hate this new rule where thread starters can arbitrarily decide at any point to tell someone to leave, as I understand it, you can't kick people out that you're replying to.

[Adrift]

Well I was way off on that one. I need to check them out because my atheist buddy and I looked hm up about 6 years ago and we only found two. Where did I get two from?!? Maybe it'll come back to me but I am certainly wrong about that one.

When I get to work tomorrow, I can actually get the papers. Maybe that will jog my memory.

Maybe you were thinking of Neil Degrasse Tyson? He's been slammed by folks for being more of a celebrity scientist than for doing anything notable or for churning out peer review work. They're both popularizers so it's an easy mistake to make.

[Starlight]

Adrift, please leave.

[Tassman]

Yeah I don't buy that.

If I make the claim that there are no apples in the barrel, you would be justified in asking me for justification of my position.

Claiming that there is no God (A-theism) is a claim, even if it is a negative one.

I never understood this position other than to simply get out of the need for justification. I believe that any belief should be backed with justification.

The onus for justification belongs to those making the positive claim namely, in this instance, god exist.

[Roy]

I think some fields are very different to others in this regard. I think in the sciences there is just so many facts to be learned that it's only possible to brush the barest surface in a simplified way in undergrad, and there are so many sub-fields and there's just not time to get onto the 'real stuff' and thus very few undergraduate science courses would have students directly reading recent journal articles, for example, because that would be way too advanced and specific.

Mine must have been an exception, then - one of the requirements for our final year project was that we cite at least 20 published journal articles.

[Roy]

I believe that atheism does indeed make a claim concluding that Philosophical Naturalism is the justified result based on Methodological Naturalism, which makes no claim one way or another.

Atheism does no such thing, nor is such a conclusion justifable.

It is the claim that objective falsifiable knowledge is the only basis for belief. This Dawkins view in a nutshell.

That may be Dawkins' view, but if so it is in addition to his atheism, and not part of it.

[Bisto]

Then how does an atheist convince an agnostic, in your opinion? "No, believe me, you are ALREADY an atheist, there's no need for me to argue anything to you. Search your feelings, you know it to be true"???

[Roy]

That sounds more like some type of agnostic than an atheist. An atheist says that there is no God which sure sounds a lot like a claim to me.

No.

Agnosticism -> it cannot be known whether or not there is a god
Atheism -> I don't believe in any god(s)

Few atheists would ever say "there is no God" because that is limiting the concept to a rejection of just one religion. That's typically how theists describe atheism - as a rejection of their own beliefs, with the implicit assumption that theirs is the correct religion, and not understanding that to an atheist their religion is nothing special.

[Bisto]

As usual you've got it completely backward. Initially I wasn't interested because it would require me rereading TGD and taking notes, but I am now actually rereading the book and taking notes and so am discussing it with element somewhat as I go with a view to at least somewhat taking him up on his challenge.

I think we can do without your completely backward posts in this thread and bizarro claims about me where you repeatedly make very basic mis-statements. Please refrain from posting further in this thread.

As far as the Western world goes, at any rate, the main advocates of the pro-life position have been the RCC and the US evangelicals. Mainstream protestant denominations in the rest of the Western world have not tended to be such strong opponents of abortion.

I don't know if you would count Latin America as Western world (the maps in the wiki page for the term do include us, so... ), but here I see broadly the same attitudes on the topic -- in RCC and evangelical stances. In fact, some friends from several different Christian denominations (I met most of them through a non-denominational Bible study group at uni) are attending a pro-life protest of sorts tonight in the city I study in. The coincidence is weird, I know.

[Roy]

Then how does an atheist convince an agnostic, in your opinion? "No, believe me, you are ALREADY an atheist, there's no need for me to argue anything to you. Search your feelings, you know it to be true"???

How does an atheist convince an agnostic of what?

Agnosticism isn't an intermediate position between theism and atheism. It's an orthogonal axis. A different question. Some agnostics are atheisms. Some are theists.

Believe in a god or gods and believe that the god(s) can be shown to exist: Theist, non-agnostic
Believe in a god or gods but don't believe the god(s) can be shown to exist: Theist, agnostic
Don't believe in any gods but don't believe it can be shown that no god exists: Atheist, agnostic
Don't believe in any gods and believe it can be shown that none of the gods theists believe in exist: atheist, non-agnostic

[shunyadragon]

Atheism does no such thing, nor is such a conclusion justifable.

You need to clarify the above. What is it at that atheist do not do? Is the conclusion of atheism not justifiable?

Every belief justifies its case in one way or another. The possible exception is an indifferent agnostic that simply believes there is no evidence one way or another for an argument for or agianst the existence of God.

That may be Dawkins' view, but if so it is in addition to his atheism, and not part of it.

The question of objective evidence is very much a part of Dawkins world view as described in The God Delusion when he concluded;

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

[element771]

You are switching the noun we are talking about. No one has said anything the barrels existence. We are talking about the apples.

Just because you don't think it is warranted, doesn't mean that it isn't.

The onus for justification belongs to those making the positive claim namely, in this instance, god exist.

Again, just because a claim is a negative one doesn't alleviate the one making it from justifying it.

You are an atheist yet you feel that you should not have to provide justification for your belief.

Do you think that people who claim the absence of evolutionary forces in biology should not have to justify their claim?

....me either.

[firstfloor]

Yeah I don't buy that.

If I make the claim that there are no apples in the barrel, you would be justified in asking me for justification of my position. Claiming that there is no God (A-theism) is a claim, even if it is a negative one.

I never understood this position other than to simply get out of the need for justification. I believe that any belief should be backed with justification.

[Sparko]

Atheism makes no claim therefore requires no justification. It is a position about being unconvinced of someone else's claim.

uh, no. That would be Agnosticism, who says "I don't know and have no opinion on the matter"

Atheism has a definite claim, that there is no God.