As I have observed, taking no stance(?) and attacking (though oddly enough not the OP or the original websites claims... how neutral are you pretending to be?)
You conveniently ignored this bit from my
first post:Then I read the bit about "irreducible complexity" and tuned out a little, since that's an outdated argument. Evolution has a decent (albeit incomplete and speculative) answer: individual systems did not pop suddenly into existence, but rather the organism as a whole gradually increased in complexity, adding vestigial systems that provided an unnecessary, but helpful benefit, and those systems eventually became indispensable.
I have been involved in very few threads in the Religion subforum. To assume that because I've criticized one viewpoint, I necessarily take the other, is a very big leap, especially with such a small set of examples.
Actually, just because you are going for the truth, doesnt mean you support something. It means you look at things critically. Say I am neutral about issue A. Someone said something that is untrue about it, so I decided to mention what was wrong with what they said. They kept saying things that I consider to be incorrect/giving the wrong impression so I kept correcting/setting the record straight. That doesnt mean I support issue A, that just means I want other people that look at it, not to get the wrong idea by an incorrect/misleading statement
Yep, that's pretty much what I've been doing in this whole thread.
==========
*Overall, this appears to be a bitter and less objective reply than usual johann.
I was being frank, I'm not bitter about anything. If Dawkins would rein in the emotional appeal a bit, he'd be a lot more credible, and I wish he would. The man is brilliant, but he lets his logic make jumps too often.
*Further, is it possible, that if Dawkin's is correct in his assumptions, then the case for religion as a menace to society, is a valid one?
Sure, no argument there. Problem is, they're still unsubstantiated.
*Please explain the use of worldview, as I am led to believe each religion is a minority.
Example: say I attack capitalism because it leads to corruption, and advocate socialism as an alternative. Many people who do this attack Capitalism (uppercase) as a whole, rather than the principles of which it is composed. Dawkins is fond of making generalizations against religion, claiming it stunts intellectual development and citing such examples as Galileo's model of the solar system being censored by the church. Rather, he ought to address specific contemporary cases and point to their immediate effects. Maybe he could branch off into sociology and study religious groups long-term? Instead he likes to make broad strokes and claim cause-and-effect relationships that aren't necessarily there - in the case of Galileo, the church had a lot more power, comparable to an oligarchy, and the congregation was being kept out of the loop about what the Bible really contained.
*Lastly, surely Darwin IS the poster boy for evolution, one whom it was falsely alledged recanted on his deathbed...
Yes, Darwin is the
original poster boy. But to draw an analogy from my discipline (music), John Williams would be the ultimate poster boy for film composers, but lately Michael Giacchino has taken a big share of the spotlight thanks to scores like The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Dawkins is plastered all over the internet. Every time I've seen a debate of this nature anywhere in the past year, Dawkins gets cited somewhere. He's in the spotlight right now.
I'm not sure I agree with anything you say here, apart from the observation that he made an assmption (followed by a choice assumption or two of your own).
That's fair. I guess I should have qualified that with "in my opinion." Good catch.
Surely this is a valid assumption, taking into account the circumstantial evidence, and the occassionally emotional rather than rational response from yourself? Further, it could be noted, that whilst never proposing any answers or debatable points, you do appear to relish in destroying, and picking holes in the cases proposed by others (which does seem rather cowardly). Lastly, I have yet to see you take this stance against Religious theories in any of the threads I have observed... as such you do appear to be a Papal Rottweiller! If this is not the case, then maybe you need to address it?
Please point to specific examples of emotional reactions. This is the internet, remember - just because I seem emotional doesn't mean I am... in fact while I pull no punches, I take no offense to anything and do not debate in the heat of emotion. Of any kind.
As for the not criticizing religion part, I just haven't run across any posts by Christians or Muslims or anyone else, far as I can remember. It's actually struck me as odd that the other side hasn't crawled out of the woodwork yet. Granted, I have been involved in very few threads so far, as I've said.
I keep my personal beliefs behind a smokescreen for one simple reason: neither side can "claim" me. A while back I noticed a tendency on internet forums to color someone's arguments according to prejudices about their worldviews - if I hold back my views, people are forced (unless they assume) to deal with my logic instead. If I claim to believe in evolution or to be atheist, religious people will write me off as antisupernatural and evolutionists will expect me to back them up. If I claim to believe in any particular god, the "scientific" crowd will write me off as superstitious and blind, and any religious person will whine when I make a jab at them.
It's worked well so far. And I'm not feeling you about the "attacking everybody" bit - just go look in the "Is the future Atheist?" thread - coincidentally started by you. I argued for a number of positions there, mostly demographic and historical ones rather than philosophical/religious.
If you want me to take sides on religion vs science, that's just too bad.
I don't know, but you mentioned plants early in the thread
Did I? I don't remember, but we're on other stuff right now. Just because I mentioned something at one point doesn't mean it can be imported anywhere without respect to context. Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the topic we were on.
No, this is an assumption. I am talking about nettles, of the common stinging variety, they may have another name outside of the United Kingdom.
OK, I was mistaken. "Ouch, is that a nettle?" really looked sarcastic, so it seemed like you were trying to goad me.
No, as I have tried to state, the world doesn't revolve around you, and neither do my comments :p but it must be nice having such a well developed ego.
My memory must be failing me. When did you say the world doesn't revolve around me? Because I would agree, I just don't see what that has to do with me saying you've been flailing. By that I meant you seemed to be appealing to my emotions, though I guess I was wrong about that.
