Richard Dawkins is but a speaker, just like Hitler.

[scifes]

guys, i'm all for debating morality, but that's not the subject here.

dawkins dodging questions and atheists clapping their hands in glee is.

i'd like to hear what those who voted "yes, VERY" think now.

 

[phlogistician]

dawkins dodging questions and atheists clapping their hands in glee is.

Dawkins answered the question. Fully. You just didn't like the answer. Tough.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

guys, i'm all for debating morality, but that's not the subject here.

dawkins dodging questions and atheists clapping their hands in glee is.

i'd like to hear what those who voted "yes, VERY" think now.

The question was answered - when asked if in the absence of scriptural morals, did atheists have to take a leap of faith in determining what is right and wrong, he responded by pointing out that secular morality codes are arrived at through a process of reasoned debate and discussion - only the very hard of thinking could perceive that as dodging the question.



Hoe long have you been hard of thinking?

 

[Kennyc]

Actually, I've always thought that Dawkins was a little clumsy in his presentations. His arguments are very well thought out and sound though.

The ones with the real public speaking charisma (with little moral guidance) are the ones behind the pulpits! That's how they make millions conning their congregations.

KRR

PS. Dawkins answer to the question posed in the video is pretty damn good!

This!

 

[Spud Emperor]

guys, i'm all for debating morality, but that's not the subject here.

dawkins dodging questions and atheists clapping their hands in glee is.

i'd like to hear what those who voted "yes, VERY" think now.

Scifes, when I clicked the link, I was pleasantly surprised to see it was the quality Australian program ( Q&A, that's Questions and Answers or Quanda as it's affectionately known), The front man, that's Tony Jones, quality all the way, I bet you didn't even pick the Aussie accent did you? this program includes audience members from all interest groups and given that Dawkins was a guest there would certainly have been a fifty fifty mix of theists and atheists in the audience (hence the question from the religious laddy). It appeared that more than fifty percent of the audience was in agreeance with Dawkins in his assertion that informed intellectual and cultural input was the basis on which to form a human morality.

Do you really have anything else to say here?
Anything with a hint of intelligence apparent on any level?
You're the only one in your own thread who can't see how daft you are.

 

[Kennyc]

Who's Hakins?

 

[scifes]

i've just started watching the video again.
the question was about whether or not atheists who don't have absolute morality talking and believing in right and wrong is an irrational leap of faith[which as he comments atheists themselves so harshly condemn] or not?

dawkins's face is blank, he looks into the distance, removes his glasses, starts by saying "absolute morality..." then remembers he has none, which is exactly where the asker wants him, then a bulb lights on his head, he remembers theists morality, and plays the tape of" stoning people and yeda yeda yeda...."

the audience applauds his near save, and pretend [or not] they didn't see the goalposts shifted..but the save was magnificent!

after going on for a minute or so babbling in his favorite irrelevant topic of how religious morals are evil..he "addresses the point"..uh, how??? uh.. by saying he DOESN'T NEED absolute morality...

well i have a news flash to you bozo, we didn't ask you if you needed it or not, it was implicitly included in the question that you don't[which is the case], so whether you need absolute morality or not is irrelevant, just how the flaws of theists morals is irrelevant.
what is relevant -and you wouldn't have missed if you payed some attention kiddo- is that your morality which isn't absolute would make you speaking of right and wrong an irrational leap of faith, which you so harshly condemn.
of course, that relevant part was not addressed, dawkins talked a lot without saying anything, he bashed the theists,his audiences favorite exercise, he strung up some sentences with "rationality" and the usual stuff in it, and his intellectual slugs stood up in appreciation.

but lets forget those who might've been carried away in the atmosphere of the moment, and see those who we have here in this thread, those who i explained and iterated the whole thing to slowly and clearly, not that it's that hard to grasp or understand, i mean wtf? the question was about atheists and their morals and the answer STARTS OFF with theists stoning people and punishing them, are you guys idiots? stupid? or just the usual online bigots? if that wasn't a red herring, then i don't know what is!

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

in dawkins' case,he introduced, TWO "topic B"s, one is the brutality and flawness of theistic morals, which is irrelative, as the subject is atheist morals. the other is how atheists don't want or need an absolute morality, and how they like to change and think theirs through and refine it, all the time avoiding topic A, that their well thought out and debated and reasoned and shitty morality is a fudging leap of faith, one they can't convince others with, otherwise they wouldn't be fudging discussing and "improving" it.

and athiests worldwide??.......how pa-theticuke:

 

[phlogistician]

i've just started watching the video again.
the question was about ...:

Yeah, we saw the video. Beardy asked a stupid question. It's the sort of stupid question atheists get asked all the time. Dawkins is probably bored of dispensing with the same tired, lame old arguments over and over again.

The question was answered well. He doesn't need an absolute morality. He cited examples of how that fails, and how secular morality is arrived at by agreement.

Anyway, let this one drop, you need to go over to the 'pi' thread you started, and mop up the mess you left.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Yeah yeah yeah Scifes... Because there IS a god, there IS there IS there IS, and if you scream and piss your pants enough that'll make it true, and atheists are just morally corrupt bitches and bastards.

Please take your "point" and shove it up your fevered theist anus.

 

[spidergoat]

o~k..
it seemed the asker didn't make his point, or it's somehow a question only theists can catch on the fly.

the asker was referring to atheist morals having no real incentive but a personal subjective one, and so simply, they are arbitrary and up to the individual, if he chooses to be moral, he becomes so just for the heck of it, he also defines his moral code to his leisure and however he wants, BUT, he has no logical reason or compulsion that requires him to be moral. at the very least, such compulsion varies from individual to individual, and so, atheist morality is not absolute, but a choice, a flavor one decides to add to his life.

if you sat in a debate ring with a serial killer, dear atheist, you wouldn't be able to prove to the audience that what he does is morally wrong.
and i volunteer for such an events' simulation here if anyone thinks he's up to it.

religious morality, on the other hand, introduces god, who is inescapable, and whose rewards and punishments are irresistible, with those two values fixed to infinity, you have sealed your moral code, and you'd have any logical person unable to say he can logically ignore your moral code or not go by it.

human law is escapable for some, and resistible for others, where would those get their morals from, if they didn't care for society hating them, or wouldn't even be detected by society to begin with?

when an atheist spouts the words "good" or "evil" he is making a leap of faith that such things actually exist, and that others should be bound by or even just recognize them.

universal "good" or "evil" is to atheists like pixies or santa clause or invisible unicorns or like.... god
they can have their own personal "good"s and "evil"s, they can even agree for the most part on their definitions of them, but they can't really prove anything about their "good" or "evil".
ironically similar to how atheists regard theists' god.

sigh, now, while this wasn't really my point, i hope it makes THE point of this thread clear now, the asker wanted dawkins to comment on something like the above, instead dawkins went on telling us how brutal and immoral theist morals are.
... he ignored the question..
... answered one of his own[one he could answer actually]...
... and the audience gobbled down the red herring and clapped...
it goes to say that dawkins has many dumb followers around, some proudly proclaimed themselves in this thread, but as string concluded in the first reply ever, what else is new?

Muslims couldn't "prove" that their morality is truly moral either. In the case of atheists, they use their personal subjective judgement to decide what is moral. In the theists case, they don't use God as a guide, they use their own personal subjective judgement to decide to follow a particular religious text. Now tell me how is it absolute and objective to follow Islam vs. say, Zoroastrianism or Wicca, both of which have their own pre-determined outlook on morality.

 

[AlexG]

But Scifes is told what his morality should be by god, as written in the original English in the Bable. Doesn't that make it absolute?

 

[spidergoat]

Only for those people who believe that Christian morality is the correct one. Isn't there an aspect of personal judgement involved in picking a particular moral code? It's the same thing that an atheist secular humanist would do, they accept a set of moral codes based on their apparent merits in relation to that person's worldview.

Religious people like to say that all theistic moral codes are the same, but they aren't. So which one is correct?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

It appeared that more than fifty percent of the audience was in agreeance with Dawkins in his assertion that informed intellectual and cultural input was the basis on which to form a human morality.

Do you really have anything else to say here?
Anything with a hint of intelligence apparent on any level?
You're the only one in your own thread who can't see how daft you are.

Och! Give the wee laddie a chance will ya Tattie !

Scifes - the Tater-man has a point though, what have you got?

here's a poser for you:

Describe a better theistic/scriptural way to form human morality than through a secular methodology of informed intellectual and cultural input.

Describe WHY your way is better

 

[Pinwheel]

Dawkins also pointed out that theists are sometimes very selective about wich parts of their books they agree with, and ignore trhe rest. So on what basis do you choose which bits are acceptable or not.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

if that wasn't a red herring, then i don't know what is!

Yes - you've made it abundantly clear that you are lacking a single clue in that respect

 

[iceaura]

the question was about whether or not atheists who don't have absolute morality talking and believing in right and wrong is an irrational leap of faith

One way to back out of this hole you've dug for yourself is to attend to some habits of phrase, and introspectively consider their basis.

Here, for example, let's never mind the bizarre jump from "no absolute morality" to "faith", and start after it: you go from "faith" to "leap of faith" to "irrational leap of faith" without appearing to notice the various transitions.

The lack of justification for these transitions makes it appear as though you don't understand the positions of people like Dawkins. He has disagreements with your idea of "faith", he doesn't think his kind of faith requires a "leap", and he flatly denies the irrationality of any of it - with argument and evidence. You don't appear to recognize these issues.

 

[scifes]

Yeah, we saw the video. Beardy asked a stupid question. It's the sort of stupid question atheists get asked all the time. Dawkins is probably bored of dispensing with the same tired, lame old arguments over and over again.

no, beardy asked a smart question, it isn't his fault if atheists including dawkins mistake any question by a theist concerning their morality as "atheists can't be moral", if atheists get told that all the time and are sick of it, that's not exactly my or the beardy's problem, dawkins should learn to comprehend a question before answering one of his own.

The question was answered well. He doesn't need an absolute morality. He cited examples of how that fails, and how secular morality is arrived at by agreement.

if an answer is "good" but doesn't address the question then it isn't an answer at all.
what dawkins have said might've been right, but it's irrelevant.

Anyway, let this one drop, you need to go over to the 'pi' thread you started, and mop up the mess you left.

thank goodness there is still some good in sciforums, some there have mopped you up already.

Yeah yeah yeah Scifes... Because there IS a god, there IS there IS there IS, and if you scream and piss your pants enough that'll make it true, and atheists are just morally corrupt bitches and bastards.

Please take your "point" and shove it up your fevered theist anus.

sorry VI, you seem to have gotten the wrong thread.

Only for those people who believe that Christian morality is the correct one. Isn't there an aspect of personal judgment involved in picking a particular moral code? It's the same thing that an atheist secular humanist would do, they accept a set of moral codes based on their apparent merits in relation to that person's worldview.

Religious people like to say that all theistic moral codes are the same, but they aren't. So which one is correct?

while a theist and atheist both choose an a/theistic moral code based on their subjective worldview, a theist is logically compelled and obligated to follow his code while the atheist isn't.
that's whatit means for a moral code to be absolute or sealed.

Och! Give the wee laddie a chance will ya Tattie !

Scifes - the Tater-man has a point though, what have you got?

he has a point?
that the program is australian?
that he paused the video and counted those who stood up and clapped and added to them those who clapped while sitting and found them more than those who didn't clap? what about the ones who nodded? did he count them too?
i can't think of an appeal logical fallacy he didn't commit.
that's the "point" you think he has?

here's a poser for you:

Describe a better theistic/scriptural way to form human morality than through a secular methodology of informed intellectual and cultural input.

appearantly you have a hard time reading. or maybe comprehending what you read, or maybe rememebring what you comprehended, or maybe caring
for what you remembered. in any case, this isn't the place for you.
i've repeated it at least twice, in a manner a neither a blind man nor a child would miss it, that discussing morality isn't my subject here.
yet...

Describe WHY your way is better

it's not, happy?
theistic morality is junk, that good with you?
now that we got that settled, how about you tell me why dawkins dodged the faith included in atheistic morals,which he was asked about? hmm? or maybe now's the time for you to go troll in another thread.

Dawkins also pointed out that theists are sometimes very selective about wich parts of their books they agree with,

when did he point it out? did he do that in the video?
and speaking of selectiveness, his presentation of theistic morals was certainly not selective now, was it?

and ignore trhe rest. So on what basis do you choose which bits are acceptable or not.

they all have god in them, god is inescapable, so you have no logical choice but to follow theistic morals, end of story.

Yes - you've made it abundantly clear that you are lacking a single clue in that respect

look who's talking:facepalm:

One way to back out of this hole you've dug for yourself is to attend to some habits of phrase, and introspectively consider their basis.

Here, for example, let's never mind the bizarre jump from "no absolute morality" to "faith", and start after it: you go from "faith" to "leap of faith" to "irrational leap of faith" without appearing to notice the various transitions.

you caught me there, you're right, i wasn't aware of that.
but why didn't dawkins address it? why didn't he explain the difference between "no absolute morality" to "faith" and then "leap of faith" and finally an "irrational leap of faith"? why did he instead bash theistic morals and tell us how atheistic moralities aren't absolute as if we didn't already know that?
do you deny that his tactic was a red herring?
and even though he didn't address it clowns here and there jumped around in glee like fools.

The lack of justification for these transitions makes it appear as though you don't understand the positions of people like Dawkins.

i surly don't.
and he didn't show that he did either.
you're the first here.

He has disagreements with your idea of "faith", he doesn't think his kind of faith requires a "leap", and he flatly denies the irrationality of any of it - with argument and evidence. You don't appear to recognize these issues.

good, that seems like the right way to start answering the question, those are the things which should've been cleared, discussed and pointed out.

however, they were not.

 

[phlogistician]

no, beardy asked a smart question, it isn't his fault if atheists including dawkins mistake any question by a theist concerning their morality as "atheists can't be moral", if atheists get told that all the time and are sick of it, that's not exactly my or the beardy's problem, dawkins should learn to comprehend a question before answering one of his own..

It wasn't a smart question. It was a lame attempt to tar atheists with the faith brush. Ultimately, had he not failed to do so, he'd simply have brought the idea of faith into question, and that would be shooting himself in the foot. He clearly hadn't seen the ramafications of his own line of questioning, which was far from being 'smart'.

Dawkins didn't take it as a stab that atheists can't be moral, in fact, if you actually BOTHERED to listen to him, he explained just how atheists arrive at their morality. And how we don't think stoning people to death for apostasy is just fine and dandy.

Seems you need to watch the video yourself.

 

[Pinwheel]

when did he point it out? did he do that in the video?

Yes, did you not watch your own link?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

there isn't that much essence to his arguments, other than his charisma and how he maintains his composure when he debates. which is why atheists like him so much.

here. check this out, and look at the fools clapping their hands off.

Happy Clappy Atheists.
:runaway:

Bigots of all kinds are despicable aren't they?
There was a series of programmes by him on British TV where he brought a group of schoolchildren, of mixed backgrounds, to a quarry where they could see fossils.
He seemed to be surprised that they did not immediately abandon their cultural heritage, and become atheists like himself.

Imagine a Hindu schoolchild.
He might have said this:


"Well, Mr Dawkins, on the one side, we have a pageant of Gods and Goddesses, rituals and beliefs which support our way of life, and a richness of heritage which stretches back thousands of years, and on the other side, we can abandon all that in the interests of reason and science, and become just like the slightly repressed tweedy English intellectual of which you are an epitome. How can we possibly choose?"

(Note for Americans. Irony.)

In fact, none of the children put forward that argument, they just looked a bit confused at the purpose of it all.