agnostic: the way to go.

[Mike]

Hazel wrote: "please do, I'd be interested."

So there are no “delusions” among those that will read this, I have found many of Richard Dawkins’ writings (since The Selfish Gene in 1976) of great benefit and along with Stephen Jay Gould, has made evolutionary biology quite interesting as well as very accessible to current readers.

I feel however that The God Delusion was written with a specific agenda in mind, not so much to educate, but rather to sway the uneducated.

In one instance, he, without considering it, has espoused an analogy that is severely flawed: he and many others compare ALL religious belief in the same light as believing in Santa Clause of the Tooth fairy. Such things are abandoned early in childhood. What makes this analogy so flawed is that there is quite a number of previous atheists that now believe in God, either theistically or Deistically. No one to my knowledge has ever “not believed in Santa Claus” as a youngster, only to find reason to believe in him as they grow older.

I do agree with Dawkins’ point on early indoctrination by parents. We have to be careful to leave all roads open, even ones that the parent may not “believe in”, which Dawkins does not want to do. It comes very close to being much like the antireligious propagation of Soviet children in the 1950’s. Indoctrination is indoctrination.

The problem with The God Delusion is it “centers” on the fundamentalist fringe, it literally makes the pathological, “normal”, making crackpots the mainstream. Of course it works well for the audience the book was intended for, as many are only familiar with the “fringe” and pretty much ignore those that do not go about beating on doors. But in my opinion, this focus on the few making them the many is both unacceptable and most certainly not scientific.

He proclaims that belief in God is “a persistently false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.” (TGD: page 5) So in order to persuade us of this, he needs to take his poorly defined version of faith and make it irrational. In earlier writings he even asserted that the 3rd century writer Tertullian said some immensely stupid things, including: “it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd.” Thus he can say: That way madness lies.” (Richard Dawkins; “A Devils Chaplin” p139). He has stopped quoting this now since it was pointed out to him that “Tertullian actually said NO SUCH THING. Not checking your sources is not scientific by any means.

Some of his quotes from Martin Luther he has mined from the internet concerning Luther’s “anxieties about the reason for life and faith”. (TGD page 190: the citations are of an English ‘translation’ without the original German NOR Latin, nor any indication of their sources while making NO attempt at any scholarly engagement. ). NO attempt was made to discover what Luther meant by “reason” and how it differes from what Dawkins takes to be a present day meaning of the word.

Luther’s whole point was that human reason could not fathom the entire spectrum of the faith espoused. But, I will leave that to a study for those wishing to engage; I have references if you would like them.
Dawkins’ lack of proper understanding of writings he is obviously not familiar with demonstrates how he abandons even the pretense of rigorous evidence-based scholarship he espouses in his other books on biology. Anecdote is substituted for evidence; selective internet mining for quotes displaces rigorous and comprehensive quoting of actual sources.
I enjoyed most of his other books immensely, but this one left me as cold as it did the reviewers of The Prospect, who formerly had praised Dawkins's scholarly books, now turn their attention to The God Delusion: The title of the review? Dawkins the Dogmatist.

[Hazel]

Thanks Mike, tell you what, when I get my copy back, I'll reread it, and see if I can spot what you're mentioning here, ie, I'll read it with a more critical eye.

Its a shame cs has disappeared, as I'd like to get back to what we were discussing with him, but I suspect that won't be happening anytime soon.

[Mike]

Hazel wrote: "Thanks Mike, tell you what, when I get my copy back, I'll reread it, and see if I can spot what you're mentioning here, ie, I'll read it with a more critical eye.

Its a shame cs has disappeared, a..."

YW: To get even that, I had to reread it and a few other books of his (not all the way through again, but in a cursory manner) looking for what and where I remembered it from. I really have nothing against the man except for this one book, that even many of his constituents find offensive. Stephen Jay Gould took a much different approach, as an example.
A few even feel it has done damage to the idea of atheism, as much as any fundamentalist approach would.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Thanks Mike, tell you what, when I get my copy back, I'll reread it, and see if I can spot what you're mentioning here, ie, I'll read it with a more critical eye.

Its a shame cs has disappeared, a..."

No I have not disappeared and I can't walk on water but if I did have a super power I would like time travel. :)

I did read the book but after the hype it received, and I skip read it because after the first few chapters I got bored and it was not going to change my mind. I sort of wondered who it was aimed at.

[Hazel]

cs, skip reading a book is not reading a book. What that translates as is that you glanced at it, but didn't actually pay any attention to what it had to say.

But that wasn't actually what we were discussing, was it cs, we were discussing certain claims you made, but didn't actually then substantiate.

[Daniel]

cs wrote: "I did read the book but after the hype it received, and I skip read it because after the first few chapters I got bored and it was not going to change my mind. I sort of wondered who it was aimed at."

So you didn't really read it?

I would suggest, based on comments Dawkins has made about it, that it was aimed at people who are capable of changing their minds about something.

[Shaun]

What what? You mean a claim made by CS turns out not to be true?

This does not surprise me. It only surprising that he has admitted it.

I am intrigued however, how a book that he said he would score highly - "I rate it high because Dawkins has done what he wanted to do very well" he now describes as so boring that he couldn't read it properly, and couldn;t tell who it was aimed at.

[Hazel]

cs explained that he hadn't got round to rating the book yet as he'd not been a goodreads member long (you'd have thought that would have put it to the fore of his mind, and resulted in him putting the rating, but obviously not, maybe cs's brain just doesn't work that way?), in msg 94, which is also where he claimed to have read the book. A claim now shown not to be true in msg 464. In msg 94 he also claimed that he would rate the book highly because Dawkins did what he wanted to do very well, but msg 464 also contradicts this, as it says he found it boring, so how could it be done well, if it was boring? Surely boring would not do what Dawkins wanted to do well, neither could, as shaun points out, being unable to work out who it was aimed at. Another claim shown to be false.

This doesn't bode well for other claims cs has made.

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "What what? You mean a claim made by CS turns out not to be true?

This does not surprise me. It only surprising that he has admitted it.

I am intrigued however, how a book that he said he woul..."
Maybe your meaning of 'skip reading' and mine differ.

[Shaun]

Wow, you threw that into reverse so hard I can hear the gears crunching from here.

[Hazel]

go on then, when you skip read, what do YOU mean?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs explained that he hadn't got round to rating the book yet as he'd not been a goodreads member long (you'd have thought that would have put it to the fore of his mind, and resulted in him putting..."

Lets stick to the script and not twist words to form other meanings, meanings that suite the word twister.

I could find a well written book about football boring if I do not like football and still manage to read it.


I did say after the hype because I watched Dawkins giving many interviews and quite ofter he came out second best. He struggled to answer many questions and quite often he seemed out of his depth.

It was a bit like reading a book after you had watched the movie.

[Hazel]

I don't recall twisting words, simply reiterating yours from two different messages, and comparing them, and demonstrating that they are contradictory.

You haven't defined what you mean by skip reading.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "I don't recall twisting words, simply reiterating yours from two different messages, and comparing them, and demonstrating that they are contradictory.

You haven't defined what you mean by skip r..."

Well it's a while since I read the book but as an example I might skip read paragraphs that Dawkins put into the book to convince the reader of something the reader should already have their own option of.

For example: at the start of the book (which I did not skip read) Dawkins spent a while telling us of his interpretation of Albert Einstein's work. That was to get the reader agreeing with Einstein and so by default agreeing with Dawkins.

[Mike]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Thanks Mike, tell you what, when I get my copy back, I'll reread it, and see if I can spot what you're mentioning here, ie, I'll read it with a more critical eye.



I would appreciate that Hazel, honestly. I have pointed out things like the above along with numerous other "problems" to atheist friends of mine, some nearby a few on line; one that endorsed the book formerly but now doesn't like it at all. He, at my suggestion, read more from Stephen Gould and found him to be less dogmatic and insensitive.
In each case (except one that didn't like the book from the start), they all saw what I meant. Not trying to sway anyone to any "side" just asking for a balanced look at the writings.

[cHriS]

Dawkins believing that there is no god scores himself a 6. something out of 7 (his words). Because he is not able to prove that there is no god he can't give himself a 7.

Me believing that there is a God would also score myself a 6. something out of 7 (my words). Because I am not able to prove that there is a God I also can't give myself a 7.

[Nsmith]

There have already been numerous books and articles written which refut every single contention Dawkins made in his book, point by point, so I don't see any need to reiterate. Those who claim to be open minded can go read them for themselves. I did.

The difference however, is that they are simply defending their beliefs against Dawkins vicious attack.

You don't believe in God? So don't! You have every right to your opinion, and I have every right to mine.

Dawkins attempts to claim that his atheist beliefs are somehow more "scientific." Real scientists develop a theory, and then attempt to prove their theory using a process called "the scientific method." Perfectly reasonable scientific theories are postulated every single day, many of which are subsequently disproven, again, by use of the scientific method. I see nothing scientific about Dawkins philosophical musings. They are nothing more than his personal opinions regarding the unproven theories he's developed, only for some reason, he seems to imagine that the scientific method doesn't apply to him. Yeah, well,I'm sure everyone here knows the old sayings about opinions.

The difference is that Dawkins is attempting to schlep off his personal opinions as "science." I at least know my beliefs are based on faith, and wouldn't even think of trying to pretend otherwise.

Attempting to claim there is something called an "agnostic atheist", yeah, well, by that same token, another person could claim to be an "agnostic theist". I see that as nothing more than a desire to play silly semantic games, in an attempt to rationalize away reality, and remain in denial. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if you look and quack like a duck, I will still call you dinner.

If anyone actually had been able prove or disprove the existence of God, we'd all believe! The simple fact remains that the existence of God can neither be proven, or disproven. What you chose to believe is your opinion, and in reality, both opinions are based on nothing more than pure faith.

Agnostics on the other hand, have no faith. They simply state that lacking proof, they don't know.

Atheism is actually a faith-based belief regarding creation, I would say that fits the definition of a religious belief. No?

The fact is that atheists have gone to court, to have their religious beliefs declared a religion, in order to seek court protection, and gain the right to worship their beliefs as a religion, and they won! In the United States, the courts have officially declared a religious belief, and if you don't believe me, google it for yourself. Here, let me give you some search terms to input, "courts declare atheism a religion".

Atheists won these court cases (in federal court no less) for the reasons I just stated, and any atheist who doesn't agree? Sorry, but you can't have your beliefs declared religious, only when it works to your advantage. You can't have it both ways.

Please do not bother arguing that atheism isn't a religion because you do not worship a diety. There are other religions which do not believe in or worship dieties either, nonetheless, there is no question that they are religions. Such as the Buddhist religion, and no, Buddha never claimed to be a God, and is not regarded or worshipped as one.

In Dawkins book, he ridicules any religious belief which contradicts his, which is about as intolerant as it gets. I would say his religious fanaticism borders on bigotry, but that ship sailed long ago. I'm not saying there aren't other religions that do the same, but rather, I don't see any difference between them, and Dawkins.

The definition of the word "Proselytism" is the act of attempting to convert, by persuasion, another individual from a different religion or belief system. Dawkins starts out proselying right in the very title of his book, "The God Delusion". Is there really any doubt that he's seeking converts to his religious beliefs? Not to mention the fact that he holds his religious beliefs as far more superior, and looks at others with downright contempt.

The title of this thread is "Agnostism, the way to go", however in coming to this thread, I'm not seeing much (if any) discussion focused on that topic. Why is that?

The definition of the word "bigot" is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

I learned long ago that attempting to discuss anything rationally with those who fits the above definition is about as pointless as W.C. Field's classic quote regarding singing Sus Domesticus, so this will be my only post.

I will not respond further. Have a nice day :)

[Daniel]

Nsmith wrote: "I will not respond further."

By ending this way, you state that you are here to advertise (or sell) your particular imaginings, not to have a discussion. Credibility score = zero.

You are not open to conversation on the subject so your thoughts are pretty much pointless. You might as well not have posted.

The sad thing is that you probably don't even grasp how silly it is to post a message on a discussion forum saying that you won't discuss things.

Obvious troll is obvious. And you, nsmith, are quite obvious.

[Devin]

Nsmith wrote: "There have already been numerous books and articles written which refut every single contention Dawkins made in his book, point by point, so I don't see any need to reiterate. Those who claim to b..."

You make some interesting points, and your argument is sound. However, I would take issue with the way you ascribe the term "religion" to atheism. The latter part of your argument is dependent on this term's application to atheism, but let me present some alternatives that seem to fit more properly (in my opion, of course):

Might atheism be called a philosophy, or better yet, an epistemology? It seems to me that the word atheism only exists as a semantic necessity to describe an absense of religion (like the term "dark" for the absense of light). Those who identify as atheist subscribe to a more general mode of thinking (this is why I like "epistemology") that precludes the possibility of devotion to a religion.

Further, you employ the example of Buddah, who is not a deity, as proof that the term "religion" has been and continues be applied to belief systems that differ from the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is a fine point, but (and I hope you decide to continue the conversation) can we have a clarification of what characteristics constitute a "religion?" I am curious as to whether each and every characteristic of a "religion" may be fairly applied to atheism. I am not certain myself, and would very much like to hear your thoughts.

[Daniel]

Devin wrote: "You make some interesting points, and your argument is sound."

I'm not convinced that there is anything sound about an argument where "other people have already disproved it so there is no need to disprove it" is the foundation. If other people have disproved it, and you want to use that as an argument, then you must show how they have disproved it. Otherwise, you cannot reasonably use their conclusions. Not that any of the other assertions he makes are any more rational (like suggesting that the number of times google finds words is proof of their accuracy or that a few people, whatever their job, saying something is true proves it to be true.)

I'm only bothering to point this out to you. I have a general rule not to feed trolls and anyone who posts onto a discussion thread and is unwilling to discuss anything is, by definition, a troll. Best not to feed them or we'll be swarmed by them.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "In one instance, he, without considering it, has espoused an analogy that is severely flawed: he and many others compare ALL religious belief in the same light as believing in Santa Clause of the Tooth fairy. Such things are abandoned early in childhood. What makes this analogy so flawed is that there is quite a number of previous atheists that now believe in God, either theistically or Deistically. No one to my knowledge has ever “not believed in Santa Claus” as a youngster, only to find reason to believe in him as they grow older. "

That is not an argument that something is true, it's an argument that one of the beliefs is popular among adults and one is not.

Mike wrote: "I feel however that The God Delusion was written with a specific agenda in mind, not so much to educate, but rather to sway the uneducated. "

I don't know if you meant to, but the phrasing here indicates that your opinion is that he is intentionally dishonest. Maybe you didn't mean that, but if you did, please explain further why you think he has willfully lied (as opposed to you disagreeing with him).

Mike wrote: "I do agree with Dawkins’ point on early indoctrination by parents. We have to be careful to leave all roads open, even ones that the parent may not “believe in”, which Dawkins does not want to do. It comes very close to being much like the antireligious propagation of Soviet children in the 1950’s. Indoctrination is indoctrination. "

I'm not sure where you're getting this. He has specifically stated in interviews and debates that he doesn't think one should indoctrinate a children with any perspective, even if he agrees with it.

Mike wrote: "The problem with The God Delusion is it “centers” on the fundamentalist fringe, it literally makes the pathological, “normal”, making crackpots the mainstream. Of course it works well for the audience the book was intended for, as many are only familiar with the “fringe” and pretty much ignore those that do not go about beating on doors. But in my opinion, this focus on the few making them the many is both unacceptable and most certainly not scientific."

I think you may have misunderstood something, or else I'm not getting your point. His concern, as he has stated repeatedly, is with whether there is truth to the idea of god, not with one sect of christianity or another.

Mike wrote: "He proclaims that belief in God is “a persistently false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.” (TGD: page 5) So in order to persuade us of this, he needs to take his poorly defined version of faith and make it irrational."

What makes faith rational to begin with? The only way he can "make it irrational" is if you are assuming it is rational from the beginning. Otherwise, he's just stating the obvious.

Mike wrote: "Not checking your sources is not scientific by any means."

What makes you assume he willfully didn't check instead of just making an error? Scientists never make errors? Really?

Mike wrote: "Some of his quotes from Martin Luther he has mined from the internet concerning Luther’s “anxieties about the reason for life and faith”. (TGD page 190: the citations are of an English ‘translation’ without the original German NOR Latin, nor any indication of their sources while making NO attempt at any scholarly engagement. ). NO attempt was made to discover what Luther meant by “reason” and how it differes from what Dawkins takes to be a present day meaning of the word. "

For someone who is arguing that Dawkins makes assertions with no basis, you sure claim to know (mystically?) exactly what he attempted to do and did not attempt to do.

I'm not saying your interpretation of what Luther meant is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm not sure you do a service arguing in the name of "being more scientific" by claiming to know a person's motives and actions without any real basis for those conclusions.

Mike wrote: "He has stopped quoting this now since it was pointed out to him that “Tertullian actually said NO SUCH THING. Not checking your sources is not scientific by any means. "

It's true that he didn't use those exact words, but he did say something that, if anything, is more extreme. Why imply that he said nothing like that? He did misquote him (a common quote attributed to him and Dawkins used the general phrasing) but not in a way that affected the thrust of the argument.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_qu...)

So instead of saying "I believe it because it's absurd", Tertullian actually said "it's certain because it's impossible." I think we can agree that the more precise version is even more ridiculous.

What's interesting to me is that the only reasonable complaints I see about the book are essentially nitpicking. They seem perfectly fair to make (and should be made) and some of those nitpicks may even be correct, but I find it fascinating that people disagree with the whole book based on a few nitpicks while avoiding the actual arguments. Dismissing them as "dogmatic" does not undo the arguments. Calling them "insensitive" serves no purpose at all other than name calling. I'm not sure why you imagine that his argument is less valid because it's not nice enough to people he disagrees with. Is that how you contend science should function? Niceness first, then maybe get around to studying the truth?

Maybe you have only put up the nitpick arguments and have some really specific reasons why his larger arguments are invalid. If so, please share them. I would like to see them.

If, on the other hand, your objection (as it seems to be) has more to do with tone than content (disputes on interpretations notwithstanding), then that is certainly fine as well, but let's not pretend that you object to the book on a scientific basis when really you just think it's not nice enough to people you seem to think are too fragile for a real argument.

[Mike]

I don't object to the book "on a scientific basis" per se`, I object to some of his methodology and some of the content. I have no qualms with concluding that faith, even if one uses the one biblical difintion (faith is the "evidence" of things unseen) where evidence is required, is not scientific, I am not defending faith. I dislike this book, which trends away from what he is trained in: biology. I love his books on biology.

You wrote: It's true that he didn't use those exact words, but he did say something that, if anything, is more extreme. Why imply that he said nothing like that? He did misquote him (a common quote attributed to him and Dawkins used the general phrasing) but not in a way that affected the thrust of the argument.

And that is your interpretation. Others, of course, disagree, and even Dawkins himself has since stopped using this argument in lectures for that reason as far as I know.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "I dislike this book, which trends away from what he is trained in: biology. I love his books on biology. "

And this is a fair point. You do not like books by Richard Dawkins that are not strictly about his area of expertise. But I ask myself: who then can write this book? What field must a person be from or what background must they have to be able to write a book like this? Is there even a field in which one can be an expert that would make one qualified to write a book on this subject?

Mike wrote: "And that is your interpretation. Others, of course, disagree, and even Dawkins himself has since stopped using this argument in lectures for that reason as far as I know. "

It IS my interpretation, but that's kind of my point. It isn't fair to act like he's wrong on matters of fact when he's really only interpreting things a different way. It's not invalid because it doesn't match your interpretation any more than your interpretations are invalid wherever I disagree with them.

I don't know if he has stopped using that as an example in his debates, but I would think it's a good point to drop since it's been a very long time since the average christian had any idea who Tertullian was. If your audience doesn't know who you are quoting or why they should think that person's opinion valuable, then why would it matter to them if you have a point of contention with his statements?

[Mike]

Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "I dislike this book, which trends away from what he is trained in: biology. I love his books on biology. "

And this is a fair point. You do not like books by Richard Dawkins that are..."

Who could write this book? It would NOT be a book on "delusion" it would be a book on weighing in on the side of evidence. To refer to delusion, makes him out to be what he is not...he is NOT a psychiatrist in any sense of the word...period.

Daniel wrote: It's not invalid because it doesn't match your interpretation any more than your interpretations are invalid wherever I disagree with them.

Actually, his doesn't match "most" interpretations I have read. Sure, we COULD interpret that virtual particles in the universe are popped into and out of existance by little fairies, but then, where's the sense of that? Most astrophysicists would not agree with that interpretation.

One of the reason I like Gould's books more is that he doesn't claim to be a pschychoanalist, nor does he claim to know everything. But he does a simply wonderful job of explaining what he DOES know. And so does Dawkins, within his field. If he's so bent on writing things outside his field of study, I want his next book to be one dark matter and theoretical physics.....it might be hilarious. :-)

To be honest, I have presented long winded arguments about this subject to a few of my athiest friends (again, I am not stating my position other than to say I can't see a "theistic" god being in existance) and in each case, having promoted the book before, they agreed that Dawkins had gone, as one science teacher put it; over the top. :-) A theoretical physicist I know in CA agrees. Does that prove anything? Of course not. But it does show me that a lot of the book made a lot of people upset, and not all of them believed in a god of any kind.

[Devin]

Daniel wrote: "Devin wrote: "You make some interesting points, and your argument is sound."

I'm not convinced that there is anything sound about an argument where "other people have already disproved it so there..."

I agree that it was a weak argument argument, but I used "sound" in the sense that his conclusion followed logically from his premises. However, if even one premise were to be proved false, the soundness of the argument would no long exist. I share many of your views, and respect your ability to express them. So I must admit that I was pandering to Nsmith, or "feeding the troll" as it were, in hopes that an appeal to his ego might spur further commentary on his wildly unfounded opinions.

I would like to know what you (or anyone else) think(s) about the argument I posed above regarding atheism being a term to describe an absence of religious belief. Do you think "atheist" and "dark" lack material import? If so, do you think this is a good way to counter the silly contention that atheist are "religiously" devoted to non-belief?

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "Who could write this book? It would NOT be a book on "delusion" it would be a book on weighing in on the side of evidence. To refer to delusion, makes him out to be what he is not...he is NOT a psychiatrist in any sense of the word...period."

Isn't it already a book weighing in on the side of evidence? You just don't like that he drew conclusions from that evidence (i.e. used the word "delusion".)

Only shrinks can use that word. But I'm guessing if a shrink wrote the book you would point out that they don't know anything about evolution or philosophy or are not trained in logic. Let me ask:

In your mind, is it possible that god IS a delusion?
If god is a delusion, who is allowed to say so?

Mike wrote: "Actually, his doesn't match "most" interpretations I have read. Sure, we COULD interpret that virtual particles in the universe are popped into and out of existance by little fairies, but then, where's the sense of that? Most astrophysicists would not agree with that interpretation. "

I don't think that interpreting what a single person was thinking when they wrote a phrase hundreds or thousands of years ago is the same as following evidence in astrophysics. I also don't think because one interpretation is more popular that it is necessarily correct. It might be correct but it might not be.

Mike wrote: "One of the reason I like Gould's books more is that he doesn't claim to be a pschychoanalist, nor does he claim to know everything. But he does a simply wonderful job of explaining what he DOES know. And so does Dawkins, within his field. If he's so bent on writing things outside his field of study, I want his next book to be one dark matter and theoretical physics.....it might be hilarious. :-) "

I might have missed it, but I didn't see Dawkins claim to be a psychoanalyst. Or do you mean that only someone like that is allowed to use the word "delusion"? I also didn't even see anything to remotely indicate that Dawkins thinks he knows everything. Where do you get that idea from?

I have to say that writing a book pointing out that a very popular idea has no basis in evidence whatsoever and writing a book about an actual field of study like theoretical physics don't seem at all the same to me. Maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Mike wrote: "To be honest, I have presented long winded arguments about this subject to a few of my athiest friends (again, I am not stating my position other than to say I can't see a "theistic" god being in existance) and in each case, having promoted the book before, they agreed that Dawkins had gone, as one science teacher put it; over the top. :-) A theoretical physicist I know in CA agrees. Does that prove anything? Of course not. But it does show me that a lot of the book made a lot of people upset, and not all of them believed in a god of any kind. "

I'm really not sure why you keep pointing out that you've convinced other people with these arguments. Is it your contention that I should be more willing to accept them because the hypothetical other people you've mentioned believed them?

You keep using phrases like "a lot of the book made a lot of people upset" but I can't seem to get a straight answer on what any of those things could possibly be. I can see it upsetting someone who believes in god to have the silliness of the concept pointed out to them, but you're saying people who are non-believers.

You've pointed out a few perfectly fair nitpicks and it's important that people point out small errors or possible errors (in the case of interpretation), and you've said that he shouldn't use the word "delusion". Is that all it really boils down to? Gould walks on egg shells not to offend religious people and Dawkins doesn't?

[Hazel]

I often suspect that the word "delusion" was chosen by the publishing house, not by dawkins himself, of course, I have no evidence to support this, and so its purely conjecture.

[Mike]

Daniel wrote: I might have missed it, but I didn't see Dawkins claim to be a psychoanalyst.

That (the statement that ANYONE is delusional) is a psychological diagnosis which Dawkins and/or the publishers are not qualified to make.

No, Gould never walked on eggshells. He stated what "is known" and left what can not be shown one way or another to those that want to speculate about it.

I invited others to take some things into consideration, and appearently the minds are set here, and can not consider other avenues. I am tired of having to spell it out (yet again, as I have several times for others in the past). Believers in god will believe no matter what, those that see Dawkins as their saviour will do the same. I am one of the rare ones that made a move in both directions, and have now settled on logic, lucibation, and pragmatic thought in spite of what others may think.

[Daniel]

I notice that you dodged my question about whether you are open to the possibility that it actually is a delusion. Should I take that to mean that you are not even open to the possibility?

Mike wrote: "That (the statement that ANYONE is delusional) is a psychological diagnosis which Dawkins and/or the publishers are not qualified to make."

How so? I know it seems obvious, but have you actually thought about it? "Delusion" is a word. That word has a meaning. Dictionary.com gives one of the definitions as "a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur."

What makes a psychologist capable of determining this? Or are you saying that only psychologists are allowed to determine if something is true or false? That is, after all, the only relevant standard in the definition.

Of course, there is a different definition that it lists as a "psychiatry" definition, but isn't it clear from the the book that the definition I gave is the one he refers to?

Not that it matters to you, but there is a big difference between calling something a delusion and declaring a person "clinically delusional".

Mike wrote: "No, Gould never walked on eggshells. "

Yes he did. NOMA is walking on egg shells. It's saying "You make up whatever stories you want and brainwash children with them and I'll sit quietly over here and pretend it's okay because there is not absolute proof against you. I won't hold anything else to that standard, of course. If someone asks me if trolls are real, I'll say 'no', but in this one case, I'll make an exception because it's politically expedient."

If that's not walking on egg shells, then nothing is.

Mike wrote: "I invited others to take some things into consideration, and appearently the minds are set here, and can not consider other avenues."

Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we cannot consider other avenues.

As a matter of fact, other than nitpicking about the word "delusion", the interpretation of a luther quote and a few other nitpicks (none of which are really "avenues to consider"), I haven't see you make any real arguments against his position. You basically just declared him wrong and moved on from there. You did indicate that he is not very nice about it, but that's not a truth judgement or even a point against his argument. That's a disagreement with presentation style. Disagreeing with presentation styles are fine, but they are not actually arguments against his position.

It may be that I somehow didn't notice your arguments against his position. There have been a lot of posts here so it's certainly possible. If so, feel free to point me toward those posts or restate them.

Mike wrote: "Believers in god will believe no matter what, those that see Dawkins as their saviour will do the same."

This is demonstrably false. I don't know what else to say about. It's just wrong in every way.

Mike wrote: "I am tired of having to spell it out (yet again, as I have several times for others in the past)."

Why do you keep trying to use the idea that you've supposedly convinced others at some point in the past as evidence here? It seems like in half your posts you're talking about how you convinced these people, you showed those other people the error of their ways, you explained it to a third group, a fourth group agreed once you'd pointed it all out to them, but here you don't make any arguments at all. Why?

Mike wrote: "I am one of the rare ones that made a move in both directions, and have now settled on logic, lucibation, and pragmatic thought in spite of what others may think."

You cannot make a case for your position so you just declare yourself the only intelligent and freethinking person around? Really?

I suppose the standard in your mind of intelligence is determined by how much someone shares your views? Or maybe you are one of those people that thinks that if there are two sides to something, the middle ground must be correct. Another demonstrably false position, but it's not an uncommon one.

You keep talking as if you have real arguments to make. You even keep bragging that your arguments are so convincing that there is a seemingly endless line of unknown people who have been totally turned to your view by them. But your actual arguments make no appearances. They are nowhere to be found. I'm not being sarcastic when I say I want to hear them. If I am wrong about something or if someone else is wrong and you can explain why, then by all means do so. I never want to be wrong, but it happens.

If your arguments are so bullet proof, then please share them. I've been convinced by many a strong argument in my life. I can handle it.

In the meantime, you don't get any points for bragging about convincing some other people. You don't get any points by just announcing that you are the only logical person around. You don't get any points for trying to make anyone who disagrees with you sound absurd by declaring them all "people who see Dawkins as their savior". If you want points, then please make an argument.

[Mike]

I didn't say anything about bullet proof, I am simply stating that those I have shared with in the past have understood my POV. People "pick" what they like, and tend to defend it. I tend to see the "problems" within statements. IF I find some time, I will present somethings here if you'd like. But I haven't a lot of time left to fool with trying to convince anyone of anything....once a "belief" is intrenched, it is difficult to dislodge.

[Hazel]

Mike, you've seemed to have plenty of time to post so far, how come all of a sudden its "IF I find some time"? You've had no issue finding time so far, so this just seems to be a "safe" way to retreat from the discussion, and I'd really rather you didn't, because I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion between yourself and Daniel, I'm finding it very interesting, and it would be a shame if it stopped now. Of course, if you do want to leave the conversation, I'm not going to stop you, but it would be a shame if you did, instead of actually answering Dans questions and requests. Dan has said he's open to being shown he's wrong, yet you've decided his belief is entrenched, well, I counter that your belief is entrenched too, and at no point have you stated you're open to be shown that you're wrong.

Please don't give up on the conversation now, its interesting to watch.

[Mike]

Hazel wrote: "Mike, you've seemed to have plenty of time to post so far, how come all of a sudden its "IF I find some time"? You've had no issue finding time so far, so this just seems to be a "safe" way to ret..."

I have time during backups and such at work to post, and on rare occasion, from home, where all my books and references are.From work, I can offer unsubstantiated opinion, only from home can I back up what I say. I can take some time at home to look up what I had assumed others could also do, given a few ideas to seek out. I apologize for even having tried. But, let me see what I can do:

What I have presented so far, has been called nit-picking; for me, it is known as detail.
In the book in question, Dawkins makes a GOOD POINT in pointing out that the God of the Gaps ideas are outdated and unuseful. THEN he weakens his good argument by suggesting that "all" religious persons try to stop scientists from exploring these gaps ("one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." p.126.
There are, in fact, a LARGE number of believers that see the words of Scripture, in defining 'faith' as "the evidence of things unseen" in complete contradiction to this rather false statement and crass generalization that simply ruins an otherwise good argument. These generalizations tend to wreak havoc on a book that, entitled differently and worded a bit differently, could be a very valuable book.

And Hazel, I may not have ever stated that I am open to being wrong, but my existence literally depends on the idea that I was once a pretty hard lined Christian, and then Atheist, and then one that studied the Bible, and now quite agnostic (except I can not see the existence of a truly "theistic" god of any kind). I have always been open to change for a more "substantial" understanding; I presented an opinion, and wanted to see if anyone could run with it, consider it, or simply dismiss it because I didn't "give all the detail I see". I am sorry about that. I assume too much.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "Hazel wrote: "What I have presented so far, has been called nit-picking; for me, it is known as detail. "

My point is not about whether you use the word 'detail' or 'nitpick' or any other term. My point was that they weren't issues that affect the thrust of the argument. As I said a few times, it's good to point them out, and he should be held to a high standard on things like this.

Mike wrote: "In the book in question, Dawkins makes a GOOD POINT in pointing out that the God of the Gaps ideas are outdated and unuseful. THEN he weakens his good argument by suggesting that "all" religious persons try to stop scientists from exploring these gaps ("one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." p.126."

I may have missed the part you're talking about, but the part you quote does not say that "all religious people" do anything. He does say that religion teaches those things, but that doesn't preclude some not teaching it or others teaching different things. None of that would make the statement you quoted untrue. I might have missed the part you're talking about.

Mike wrote: "There are, in fact, a LARGE number of believers that see the words of Scripture, in defining 'faith' as "the evidence of things unseen" in complete contradiction to this rather false statement and crass generalization that simply ruins an otherwise good argument."

In regard to 'defining faith as evidence of things unseen', I agree that it sounds pretty (it's very poetic) but the problem is that it doesn't mean anything. Faith is not evidence. Actually faith is the opposite of a an evidence-based position. That's the whole point of faith. Taking one thing and calling it something else doesn't actually change what it is. It would be a lot more honest to just admit that it's not in any way affiliated with anything resembling an evidence-based position. If religious people were to stand up and admit "I know there's no basis for this but I like believing it anyway so I'm going to believe it regardless of whether it's true or not" I could have more respect for them. But the problem for me comes in with the central dishonesty of pretending things like "faith is evidence."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it isn't a common argument and I'm not saying that people don't explain it to themselves that way, but I am saying that it isn't any more true just because they explain it to themselves that way than it would be if no one anywhere made that claim.

Mike wrote: "These generalizations tend to wreak havoc on a book that, entitled differently and worded a bit differently, could be a very valuable book."

I keep coming back to this, because with each comment you make it seems more like your overall point is that you think he should have been nicer (you used the word "sensitive") about it. That seems to be your real beef with him using words like "delusion" and saying that "one of the truly bad effects of religion....". That's perfectly fair, as I've said before. But how nice he is about it doesn't have anything to go with whether what he's saying is true or not.

You say above that if the book were titled differently (delusion is too mean?) and worded differently (not so harsh?) that it would be a very valuable book. I'd suggest (in addition to what I said above) that it's been a very valuable book already for millions of people. The "nicer" books on the subject haven't had any notable effect at all.

Have you considered that it may take a certain level of directness in order to shake people out of their stupor?

Mike wrote: "I presented an opinion, and wanted to see if anyone could run with it, consider it, or simply dismiss it because I didn't "give all the detail I see". I am sorry about that. I assume too much. "

Once again you play this game where you try to elevate yourself as a more reasonable person while insulting everyone else. Why do you keep doing that? I'd like to request that you stop.

Just because a person doesn't agree with you does not mean they didn't consider the issue. I feel like you already know that's a silly argument to make. Your seemingly constant need to compliment yourself and insult everyone else is especially sad when you couch it in false humility as you did above. Seriously, please stop doing that.

[Mike]

Sadly, you say faith is not evidence, but the Bible, understood literally demands evidence in order to have faith in something (i.e. Faith is based on the evidence of things unseen). The words are plain enough.

I am not elevating myself (that is a common viewpoint of others dealing with like myself), I am saying I see things "differently". I am wired differently. Not better not worse, just differently. TIA

[Shanna]

Mike wrote: "I am not elevating myself (that is a common viewpoint of others dealing with like myself), "

Mike you're being an arrogant ass. You came in here expecting all would bow to your "superior" wisdom and in the beginning were highly offended when you where largely ignored. Now you proclaim your superior intellect and fail to offer anything substantive, all the while pointing out how others have been swayed by your irrefutable argument, so present it, already..

[Mike]

Shanna wrote: "Mike wrote: "I am not elevating myself (that is a common viewpoint of others dealing with like myself), "

Mike you're being an arrogant ass. You came in here expecting all would bow to your "super..."

That is an opinion.

Everytime I do present something it is ignored or dismissed. Meh.

[Shanna]

Mike wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Mike wrote: "I am not elevating myself (that is a common viewpoint of others dealing with like myself), "

Mike you're being an arrogant ass. You came in here expecting all would bow..."

Perhaps

But what have you presented but your opinion?

[Mike]

I have presented a few facts, and ideas, and when I did so to some of my local peers, some believers, some athiests, they "looked into it" and most were able to see that I had some valid points, one person even added more information that clarified the points. I didn't expect everyone to "see things my way" but, except for Hazel, no one has even made an attempt to do anything but dismiss them outright. Thankfully most scientists do not do this or we wouldn't have anything but flint rocks to start fires with. Again, at the moment, I do not have my books "with me" so I will not make any attempt at quoting "off the top of my head".

[Shanna]

Again the appeal to the third party conversions.
Yes Hazel is one of the most diplomatic people I know and she has a knack for explanation and seeing what people might be trying to say, and IMHO she'd be a fantastic teacher. Daniel has spent much time requesting actual information and not dismissing anything, except (you acknowledge) you're not providing back up and keep insisting that because you changed someone's mind at sometime that this should be enough to convince us.

[Mike]

Shanna wrote: "Again the appeal to the third party conversions.
Yes Hazel is one of the most diplomatic people I know and she has a knack for explanation and seeing what people might be trying to say, and IMHO sh..."

Only in addition to what I have already written here. As I mentioned already, I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, I like to invoke thought where I can.

[Mike]

Hazel: "Mike..."

I seem to rub certain personality types the wrong way, and am sorry about this, it happens more often than not. it is one of the difficulties in life I face, and normally walk before it comes to name calling (Mike you're being an arrogant ass).

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "except for Hazel, no one has even made an attempt to do anything but dismiss them outright."

I've said at least three times that your disagreement over things like the Luther quote are perfectly fair. I'm not sure what fantasy you're living in where that counts as dismissing everything you say outright.

Meanwhile, you consistently ignore my questions and points to you. Some are points I've brought up several times. For instance, I've asked if you think it's even a possibility that god is a delusion (a false belief or opinion). You keep ignoring that.

I've also asked you repeatedly if your primary complaint is with his tone (he's too harsh) since many of the things you say indicate that it is and you ignore that question.

Why are you dodging these questions?

Mike wrote: "Everytime I do present something it is ignored or dismissed."

Demonstrably false. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep making statements that anyone who is even casually reading this thread can see are patently untrue. Are you intentionally being dishonest or are you just not paying attention to the conversation?

You still seem to be confusing "making no attempt to do anything but dismiss your ideas" with "agreeing with your statements" even though I've pointed this out to you numerous times.

Consistently in this conversation, you have made comments and I've taken the time to write out a thoughtful reply and you ignore virtually every point in your reply back. Why?

Mike wrote: "you say faith is not evidence, but the Bible, understood literally demands evidence in order to have faith in something "

Leaving aside the fact that if anyone believed that, they would cease to be religious because there is no evidence, there is a more disturbing issue with your point.

You claim that faith is evidence because the bible demands evidence in order to have faith. I'm wondering if you realize that your statement has no bearing on whether or not faith is evidence. You cannot claim that evidence is required for faith, and then use that as proof that faith is evidence. Do you understand what I'm saying?

It would be like claiming that a door is a saw because a saw is required to make a door.

Now I'd like to come back to the other issue of whether faith requires evidence. The primary problem with this notion is that there is no evidence in religion's favor. Having understood that, you would either have to say that there is no faith in the world (literally no one has it) or that faith and evidence are separate and not dependent on each other in any way.

In actual practice it's easy to see that the two (religious faith and evidence) never co-exist on the same issue within a person. If a person has evidence, they do not need faith. And, as the huge population of christians prove, when one has faith, you do not need evidence (at least that's how they see it).

Mike wrote: "I am not elevating myself (that is a common viewpoint of others dealing with like myself), I am saying I see things "differently". I am wired differently. Not better not worse, just differently. TIA"

Don't be disingenuous, Mike. You are not claiming that you see things differently (as opposed to better). You are claiming that we are closed-minded and you are the only open-minded one. [Note: Your only evidence for that seems to be that you are the only one who holds your view.]

That's clearly displayed when you comment (as you have a couple of times) that every time you say anything, everyone (except Hazel) just ignores/dismisses it and doesn't even attempt to consider it. This despite the obvious falsity of that claim. Then you follow it by indicating that if all scientists were like us "we wouldn't have anything but flint rocks to start fires with."

If this is not a claim on superiority, then nothing is. It clearly indicates that you think you are the model of a correct scientist and if people like us were the model, we'd all be cavemen.

Mike wrote: "I am not elevating myself (that is a common viewpoint of others dealing with like myself)"

Have you considered the possibility that people have that viewpoint because that is, in fact, what you're trying to do?

I don't doubt that you've encountered people who buy into your assumed position of superiority, but that kind of thing won't fly when you're talking to anyone with enough of a brain to listen to what you're actually saying.

Mike wrote: "I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, I like to invoke thought where I can."

Do you realize what this statement says? Maybe you don't pay attention to what you say. This statement is another example of you assuming a position of authority/superiority. It implies that you just came in here to give all us little minds something to think about. This contrasted with why I think most of the rest of us are here, which is to have good discussions and strengthen or adjust our viewpoints according to good old fashioned debate and discussion.

In other words, you're not here to see if there are any issues with your views or even to have a discussion really. You just want to point out how stupid we all are out of the kindness of your heart. That's what your statement implies.

The funny thing is that you do that, but then fail to actually throw down any real arguments.

Where do you imagine you "superiority" comes from?

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "Everytime I do present something it is ignored or dismissed."

I'd also like to point out, Mike, that while I have on a number of occasions acknowledged the fairness of some of your points, whenever I have made a point you cannot refute, you have not acknowledged it (not even once). Instead, you just ignore it.

Do you find it odd that the thing you are accusing us of is actually the thing you are the only one doing?

[Shanna]

Mike wrote: "Hazel: "Mike..."

I seem to rub certain personality types the wrong way, and am sorry about this, it happens more often than not. it is one of the difficulties in life I face, and normally walk bef..."
Oh poor you! having to deal with the stupid plebs who don't just take your word for it.
We all rub all sorts of people the wrong way from time to time, it's not a difficulty, you alone, face.
Have you ever wondered, if you are the common denominator, rubbing various personality types the wrong way, the problem lies not with them, but you?
I was describing behavior not calling names... I was particularly careful about wording that to avoid name calling.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "I seem to rub certain personality types the wrong way, and am sorry about this, it happens more often than not. it is one of the difficulties in life I face, and normally walk before it comes to name calling (Mike you're being an arrogant ass)."

Wow. This paragraph is seriously impressive, Mike. I'm not being sarcastic. In two sentences you accomplish (or rather, you attempt to accomplish) the following seven things:

1. You throw all the blame off yourself for people being rubbed the wrong way by indicating that it's just something about you, something rather mysterious, but it's at least partially the fault of these other "personality types".

2. Then you declare you're the bigger man by apologizing for what really amounts to a problem that cannot be controlled, "certain personality types" and all.

3. Then claim yourself a martyr for it and decry it as if we are in such an unfair world where you are so harshly judged. After all, this happens more often than not, right?

4. Then you compliment yourself for facing this terrible burden. It is one of those terrible difficulties you face, isn't it?

5. Then you praise your own wisdom for usually walking away before things get out of hand.

6. Then you imply that things get out of hand because others, unable to deal with your greatness, are reduced to name calling.

7. Then you bring back the false humility by pretending to take the blame on yourself for not walking away before the foolish people act as they do when confronted with your awesome presence.

Wow. Really.

[Mike]

Daniel: I've asked if you think it's even a possibility that god is a delusion (a false belief or opinion). You keep ignoring that.

Yes, we both seem to be doing a bit of not reading well....I did post I that I did not think a Thiestic god of any kind was possible. That is an opinion, and so doesn't mean it is not possible.

I am sorry if I missed some of your acknowledgments. Reading on the computer is hard on my eyes (I'd much rather have a "book" then the screen).
It is difficult for me to read long posts too because of this. I apologize.

Daniel wrote: after Mike wrote: "I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, I like to invoke thought where I can."

Do you realize what this statement says? Maybe you don't pay attention to what you say. This statement is another example of you assuming a position of authority/superiority. It implies that you just came in here to give all us little minds something to think about.

I am sorry that you read it that way. I don't know another way to put it that you'll understand. It doesn't imply (from my POV) any form of superiority, it implies I have an idea, and we could consider it. If you're here to not consider ideas, then I don't need to be here either. From where I come from, no one assumes such things. Not anymore then someone bringing a b-day treat to "share" is in any way superior. It simply is. I don't think like that (although, as I have learned in for the past 50+ years, many people "view" it that way). Again, I can apologize but I am wired for a certain amount of pragmatic style thinking / communication.
As I have mentioned before, when I have the time and when I am at home, I will again look into some of what you've asked...I can't do it from here.

[Mike]

Shanna wrote: Oh poor you! having to deal with the stupid plebs who don't just take your word for it.
We all rub all sorts of people the wrong way from time to time, it's not a difficulty, you alone, face

No, but it IS a difficulty I face hourly, except with a very VERY few persons very close to me. Those that understand why I communicate the way I do.


Shanna wrote: Have you ever wondered, if you are the common denominator, rubbing various personality types the wrong way, the problem lies not with them, but you?

That is only partly true. Those that do not understand my condition will always misinterpret me, and those that know me well, almost never, but I communicate with both in the same manner.

Shanna wrote: You are being an arrogant ass

Is still pretty much an Ad Hominem attack on me whether my bahavior or me personally, it doesn't have anything to do with the subject because it is an opinion of someone that doesn't know me at all.
I also feel a certain "guilt by association" creeping in here.

I realize that some of my initial statements came "somewhat loaded"; for that I again apologize.

[Mike]

Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "I seem to rub certain personality types the wrong way, and am sorry about this, it happens more often than not. it is one of the difficulties in life I face, and normally walk before i..."

Again, I am sorry you interpret things that way.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "Yes, we both seem to be doing a bit of not reading well"

If I have not responded to a point of yours, let me know which. I've worked very hard to carefully respond to all your key points. I don't think it's really a matter of us both doing it.

Mike wrote: "I did post I that I did not think a Thiestic god of any kind was possible. That is an opinion, and so doesn't mean it is not possible."

I saw you say that (twice), but you realize that it has nothing to do with my question, don't you? My question was if you consider it possible that god is a delusion.

Mike wrote: "I am sorry if I missed some of your acknowledgments. Reading on the computer is hard on my eyes (I'd much rather have a "book" then the screen). It is difficult for me to read long posts too because of this. I apologize."

You haven't missed them because you complained about the word choice I used when acknowledging them. You don't have to pretend you didn't see them now just because it makes it easier to not admit being wrong. Nor do you need to blame your eyes. You might have vision trouble but it didn't cause any problem with you seeing my acknowledgements.

I also don't see the point in your pretending to apologize. An apology is when you accept responsibility for something, not when you blame something out of your control (like your eyes).

Mike wrote: "I am sorry that you read it that way. I don't know another way to put it that you'll understand."

Classic. First you blame me for reading it wrong, not even considering that it's built into the phrasing. I notice you ignored the part where I quoted you talking about how we'd all be cavemen if scientists saw things less like you and more like the rest of us do.

But it doesn't end there. Right after blaming me for reading it wrong, you then insult me by indicating that I might not be capable of understanding the vast majesty and subtlety of your point ("I don't know another way to put it that you'll understand").

Mike wrote: "From where I come from, no one assumes such things."

Oh, you're from somewhere where people are all more sophisticated and don't make silly assumptions like we do?

You're going to have to reach deeper into your bag of tricks than just thinly disguised insults.

Mike wrote: "From where I come from, no one assumes such things. Not anymore then someone bringing a b-day treat to "share" is in any way superior. It simply is. "

Except that built into your argument is that while you are capable of giving us the gift of your insight, we cannot possibly hope to give you any insight. So it's not really like "sharing" at all, because sharing goes both ways.

Mike wrote: "Again, I can apologize but I am wired for a certain amount of pragmatic style thinking / communication. "

I see. So you can apologize again for just being a more practical thinker, can you? That's nice of you. So, like, not only are you the more pragmatic thinker (than everyone else on here), but you're also willing to apologize (repeatedly, no less!) for how hard it must be for us to deal with your awesome thinking/communication abilities.

Mike wrote: "As I have mentioned before, when I have the time and when I am at home, I will again look into some of what you've asked...I can't do it from here. "

Please do so. I am not being insincere when I say that I want to hear your arguments. I'd prefer it without all your self-congratulations and the barely veiled insults being hurled at all of us, but I still want to hear your arguments.

I have to say though, that I don't really understand the issue you have with putting forth the arguments from where you are. I can see you needing source materials to make points like you did earlier (that Dawkins interpreted something differently than you would or that he got dates wrong or something of the sort), but I don't understand why you need source material to simply make a reasoned argument.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "Again, I am sorry you interpret things that way. "

Master of the non-admission. You won't even acknowledge that it can reasonably be read that way. That would even allow you to pretend you didn't do it on purpose. But, no. It has to be just me, all me. I must just want to read it that way for no reason at all.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there's no reason I should prefer to interpret it that way if it did not read that way.