filtherton

I think that anyone familiar with formal logic will find any logical system is doomed to incompleteness or inconsistency. One need not be religious to put too much faith in logic.

This isn't to say that logic isn't useful, just that it is what it is.

Well, yes, but I would include the belief in logic in there as one of those religions, provided of course that one has deified logic.

His style does take some getting used to, but once you do it can be pretty rewarding.

It's an interesting way of claiming that one need not understand the intricacies of that which one criticizes if one rejects its general conclusions. It's a way of rationalizing the apparently underwhelming scope of Dawkins' understandings of religious belief.

I see what you're saying, but roachboy's post is actually here, in the thread. Also, I think you'd find that if you pressured me a bit more I might be inclined to explain my interpretation of roachboy's post, whereas Johnny Rotten won't explain his interpretations of Dawkins at all.

Perhaps my response is more attributable to the fact that I infer much of my information about Dawkins from the things the people who are into him say. In retrospect, it isn't necessarily a very good way to get an accurate idea of the claims he's actually made.

It was pretty naive, and seemingly all too common. Science still satisfies my curiosity to a limited extent; it's just satisfaction that is immediately followed by apathy or more curiosity depending on whether I'm interested in getting further into whatever I happen to be studying. When I got into it, I wasn't expecting a neverending chain of whys. It required a slight mental adjustment.

I know what you're saying; it's difficult to reconcile young earth creationism with the fossil record without turning your god into a trickster. That being said, if one is inclined to go that route, to claim that god planted fossils to trick us is not falsifiable, despite how far-fetched.

I think the logic of religion is interesting in that its axioms are frequently created and modified based on the conclusions one hopes to draw from them. It's a very cart before the horse kind of thing. It isn't always a bad way of doing things, though. It seems like there is a fair amount of philosophical musing that uses logic in the very same way. It isn't generally a good way to carry out science, but then again, I think it is only a confused and insecure theist who would claim otherwise.


I read the wikipedia page on it. I'm sorry you brought it up. Clearly you think atheism can't be discussed without using it as a reference, and though millions of tfp philosophy board threads might be proof otherwise you seem unconvinced.

That being said, I can't quite make out why we're still talking here, you and I. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to read the book, for reason which I have stated over and over again.

Let's focus on the straw man of why having read The God Delusion is now a prerequisite for talking about atheism. Now, I don't want the discussion to get bogged down in discussions about whether this actually is a straw man or not, because that's not the point. The point is, apparently, that one cannot discuss atheism without having first read The God Delusion.

Okay, well here's what I originally responded to:

I said that there were, in my experience, plenty of people for whom your definition of atheism clearly didn't apply. I also said something about logic not necessarily being all that it was cracked up to be.

To which you essentially seemed to claim the it didn't matter why people were atheists, because atheism is essentially a conclusion of logic based on etc... Nevermind that you seemed to claim that atheism is defined independently from how it exists in reality.

You then said that the universe does, in fact, behave logically, a point with which I never disagreed.

When I pointed out that there does exist evidence to support theistic ideas and acknowledged that it doesn't in any way conform to scientific standards of evidence, instead of responding with any sort of rebuttal you said something to the effect of "but I just said that that wasn't the case." Indeed you had just said that, and apparently when you say things they are final.

Then, you said that it was ridiculous to separate science and logic. What you must have meant was that you find it philosophically unacceptable to separate science and logic. That's your prerogative. I disagree.

Onward from there, things spiral further out of control. If we are being so inclusive about labeling straw men, it should be pointed out that there was no shortage of them coming from you.

Let's start over then. Faith is incompatible with reason, why do you feel this way?