Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh get over yourself. The argument here has been that Dawkins in no way was attributing credibility, reasonableness or accuracy to the claims of deists on any level. He was making a form of "relative concession" to the arguments of deists in order to highlight the relative ridiculousness of theist arguments.
You're going a long and convoluted way to try to argue that when Dawkins said "reasonably respectable case", he didn't mean that it was a reasonable argument. Are you seriously saying that when he said it was a "reasonably respectable case", he meant that it wasn't a reasonable argument, just that it wasn't as unreasonable as other arguments?
Someone arguing that President Obama was born in Kenya may not be quite as loony as someone arguing that President Obama was born on Mars, but I wouldn't say that those arguing he was born in Kenya have made a "reasonably respectable case".
Quote:
The idea you appear to have that it being relatively respectable therefore means it is reasonable however... really is grasping. It is a linguistic backflip that nothing in logic or the dictionary supports to my knowledge.
Huh? There's no "linguistic backflip" in saying that a "reasonably respectable case" is more or less equal to "reasonable argument". Saying that you they aren't certainly is, though. Can you make a reasonably respectable case via an unreasonable argument? Of course not.
Again. He was not conceding that it was a reasonable argument. He was conceding it was somewhat respectable only when taken relatively to the even more ludicrous arguments of theism.
The person going the "long" way therefore is the one ignoring the debate, the dictionary, the later clarification and the context... all the while taking words out of the original quotes and inserting others ones in that are not synonymous in order to defend their baseless interpretation.
Saying something is reasonably respectable in comparison to something ludicrous is not to say the something is reasonable in and of itself.
Again. He was not conceding that it was a reasonable argument. He was conceding it was somewhat respectable only when taken relatively to the even more ludicrous arguments of theism.
So would you also then say that deism is a "reasonable argument" when compared to theism? Either statement, "reasonably respectable case" or "reasonable argument", can be matter of "in comparison to other arguments/cases", right?
It sounds to me like even if Dawkins had used the exact words "reasonable argument", you'd still be claiming that he didn't mean it was a reasonable argument, just that it wasn't as unreasonable as other arguments.
Quote:
The person going the "long" way therefore is the one ignoring the debate, the dictionary, the later clarification and the context... all the while taking words out of the original quotes and inserting others ones in that are not synonymous in order to defend their baseless interpretation.
I'm not doing any of the above. You're the one who kept trying to argue that when he said "serious case", he meant "a case being made by a serious person, even though the case itself isn't serious". When that failed, now you're turning to "he meant by comparison!", even though "reasonable argument" is also a statement of comparison. So that fails, also.
My only point with Dawkins is that he agrees that the deistic argument is a reasonable one. He clearly does, he just used "reasonably respectable case", which essentially means the same thing. Your counter-point seems to be that "reasonably respectable" case is a matter of comparison, while "reasonable argument" is an absolute. Obviously, they're not, so where will you go next?
Yes, if you take two unreasonable and stupid ideas, one incredibly more stupid than the other, I would concede that one is "reasonable" when compared to the other. What is NOT the same as saying it actually IS reasonable though which appears to be the conclusion you desperately want to reach, or to pretend Dawkins indicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
It sounds to me like even if Dawkins had used the exact words "reasonable argument", you'd still be claiming that he didn't mean it was a reasonable argument
You can imagine what I would do in that situation all you like. Fantasy is your department not mine. Rather than imagine what I would say in that situation however I will stick to commenting on what he actually DID say. At least one of us should anyway and thus far that someone is not you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
I'm not doing any of the above.
Yes you are given nothing in the debate, the dictionary or the later clarification indicates he thinks deism to be reasonable at all, just that it can appear more so when compared to something many times more ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
My only point with Dawkins is that he agrees that the deistic argument is a reasonable one.
No, I am aware of nothing he has said which indicates that conclusion at all.
Yes, if you take two unreasonable and stupid ideas, one incredibly more stupid than the other, I would concede that one is "reasonable" when compared to the other. What is NOT the same as saying it actually IS reasonable though which appears to be the conclusion you desperately want to reach, or to pretend Dawkins indicated.
So basically, it's a matter of comparison when it suits you, and an absolute when it doesn't. Gotcha.
Quote:
You can imagine what I would do in that situation all you like. Fantasy is your department not mine. Rather than imagine what I would say in that situation however I will stick to commenting on what he actually DID say. At least one of us should anyway and thus far that someone is not you.
He said it was a "reasonably respectable case", and you're the one who first argued that he was simply talking about the people making the case, not the case itself. and are now pretending that it's a matter of comparison when it's "reasonably respectable case", but an absolute when it's "reasonable argument". I'm the only one us dealing with the reality of the situation, and have been from the beginning.
Quote:
Yes you are given nothing in the debate, the dictionary or the later clarification indicates he thinks deism to be reasonable at all, just that it can appear more so when compared to something many times more ludicrous.
So he doesn't think it's reasonable at all, yet admits that he could potentially be convinced of it? "The Earth is as big as the moon" is more reasonable than "The Earth is as big as a bucket of fried chicken", but that doesn't mean I could potentially be convinced of it.
Quote:
DAVID:My only point with Dawkins is that he agrees that the deistic argument is a reasonable one.
NOZZFERRAHHTOO: No, I am aware of nothing he has said which indicates that conclusion at all.
Everything he said in the debate indicates it. He says you can have a serious debate about it, that it's a "reasonably respectable case", and that he could potentially be convinced of it. Would he really say all of this about an argument that he considers to be totally unreasonable?
2) The dictionary shows that "reasonable" is not synonymous with "serious" or "reasonably respectable" no matter how much you want to replace his words with this one.
3) His own later clarification about his own words shows he only meant it as a contextual comparison and that he does not put stock in the deistic case but that he can take it more seriously than the theistic one.
So really where you get the idea he thinks "the deistic argument is a reasonable one." is beyond me. You appear to be imagining that and putting it in his mouth for him despite him saying the opposite in his clarification talk linked above.
If I understand all of the pedantry here, is someone claiming that deism is the most reasonable approach to god because an atheist said so? Seems like a pyrrhic victory for a Christian if true, even if he can convince us that it's not quote mining and lying about what Dawkins believes.
OK, fine, deism is the most reasonable type of theism. If one actually believes this and yet remains a Christian, you're telling the world that you continue to hold your beliefs despite the fact that you know they are unreasonable. Or you hold your beliefs to be reasonable and really don't believe what you're claiming about the Dawkins' quotes. Either way, it's a really strange position to put yourself in and I can't see why you'd keep coming back to it rather than presenting a reasonable argument in favor of stuff you do actually believe.
I'm not sure why it really matters what Dawkins thinks. There are lots of really smart people who are deist, and make that conclusion on a rational basis. Einstiens position was very close to, if not in fact, Deism. Adam Smith, Ben Franklin, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, etc.
But why appeal to authority? Can't we determine if Deism reasonable on our own?
For the record, it's my position that Deism and Atheism are roughly equally reasonable. They both rely on an unproven assumptions about the origins of everything, based on little more evidence than "I think it may have happened this way." They are exactly identical after the beginning of the universe.
I challenge anyone that claims Deism is far less reasonable then atheism to prove exactly why their theory for the ultimate beginning of everything is clearly superior to the Deist belief.
I'm not sure why it really matters what Dawkins thinks. There are lots of really smart people who are deist
You are right, it does not. I do however have a personal issue with people pretending someone has said something they have not. It is useful to highlight when people do that in order to show what kind of person they are. When someone said X, all the dictionary definitions support the meaning of X, and in a later talk that someone clarifies that they meant X... then there is some utility in highlighting those who claims the someone said Y and doggedly stick to that in the face of all the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Einstiens position was very close to, if not in fact, Deism.
It was closer to pantheism in fact and was metaphorical at best.
As for your comparing deism and atheism, it is conversations like that which prevent me from even identifying with words like Atheist. I rarely, if ever, call myself one except as a term of convenience.
I am merely someone who entirely dismisses entirely unsubstantiated claims. If a claim comes before me totally unsubstantiated, I dismiss it, proceed without it, and actively resist it's use in our halls of power, education and science. That is all.
Now GIVEN the lack of any argument, evidence, data or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the idea that there is a god.... it is one of the ideas I dismiss. Simple as that. OTHER people call me atheist because of this, but they are welcome to throw about whatever labels make them feel better about themselves.
I am merely someone who entirely dismisses entirely unsubstantiated claims. If a claim comes before me totally unsubstantiated, I dismiss it, proceed without it, and actively resist it's use in our halls of power, education and science. That is all.
Now GIVEN the lack of any argument, evidence, data or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the idea that there is a god.... it is one of the ideas I dismiss. Simple as that. OTHER people call me atheist because of this, but they are welcome to throw about whatever labels make them feel better about themselves.
There are many theories in science that we generally don't call unreasonable simply because they are not supported by clear evidence. Typically, it would have to contradict known evidence to be unreasonable.
The potential causes of the "origins of everything", whether one ascribes that to a God or any other source, are all equally unsubstantiated. They are all just possible explainations that are not well supported by evidence.
Accordingly, if you believe Deism is unreasonable because it is unsubstantiated you should likewise believe every other theory of our origin is unreasonable.
Do you believe every scientific theory for the "origins of everything" is unreasonable because it is unsubstantiated?
Not just untrue, not just unproven, but unreasonable?
Or do you claim that a scientific theory for the "origins of everything" HAS been substantiated? If so, which one?
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-18-2011 at 09:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
