Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[Belacqua]

Can you be more specific? Exactly what did Dawkins have to say that you disagree with? How did he fail to rebut Thomas Aquinas?

He says that Aquinas intended the Five Ways to be comprehensive reasons as to why we should believe in God. But they aren't that. They are more like the table of contents for fuller arguments, useful for students. No one would find the Five Ways persuasive on their own.

He doesn't understand the Aristotelian idea of primary and secondary causation, so he thinks a "first cause" is a beginning temporal cause, which it isn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas argues for a temporal beginning to the universe, which in fact Aquinas specifically argues against. 

He thinks the argument from natural teleology has something to do with intelligent design, which it doesn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas' discussion of motion involves local movement from one point to another, when in fact it is about act and potency. 

He mistakes arguments about transcendental perfection for something about quantitative magnitude, which it isn't. 

He doesn't rebut any of them because he doesn't understand a single one. Granted, the terms are not familiar to a lot of modern people. But a lot of modern people have the good sense not to think they understand things they don't.

[Angrboda]

I would say that philosophy is a skill, like any other. Sure, nothing than an inclination is required to do philosophy, but to do it well requires talent, knowledge, experience, and practice. Obviously if you have no raw talent, you will find it difficult to make up for this defect through experience, knowledge, and practice. A good philosopher needs to be well read in the literature, both to know what has been thought already, as well as to expand their mental openness and exercise their ability to understand ideas. A creative writer or a poet is a better one if they are well read. The same with philosophy. It requires knowledge, obviously, and academic training is the most assured route to this knowledge. It requires experience and practice because it is a skill like any other. So while these things aren't necessary to do philosophy at all, they are largely the means by which one comes to do philosophy well. Thus while to road that leads to destruction is wide, a good philosopher enters through the narrow gate.

(As a personal note, I'm not well read at all, which is my main failing at philosophy.)

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Dawkins is painful to listen to. Just goes around in circles much of the time without substantiating anything.

[Gwaithmir]

Can you be more specific? Exactly what did Dawkins have to say that you disagree with? How did he fail to rebut Thomas Aquinas?

He says that Aquinas intended the Five Ways to be comprehensive reasons as to why we should believe in God. But they aren't that. They are more like the table of contents for fuller arguments, useful for students. No one would find the Five Ways persuasive on their own.

He doesn't understand the Aristotelian idea of primary and secondary causation, so he thinks a "first cause" is a beginning temporal cause, which it isn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas argues for a temporal beginning to the universe, which in fact Aquinas specifically argues against. 

He thinks the argument from natural teleology has something to do with intelligent design, which it doesn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas' discussion of motion involves local movement from one point to another, when in fact it is about act and potency. 

He mistakes arguments about transcendental perfection for something about quantitative magnitude, which it isn't. 

He doesn't rebut any of them because he doesn't understand a single one. Granted, the terms are not familiar to a lot of modern people. But a lot of modern people have the good sense not to think they understand things they don't.

I find your objections rather odd. When I was in Catholic high school, Aquinas' arguments were used to "prove" God's existence exactly the way Dawkins says they were used.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Why I don't pay much attention to Dawkins

Dawkins = Snake Oil Salesman trying to get your $$$

[Mister Agenda]

[vulcanlogician]

[Belacqua]

When I was in Catholic high school, Aquinas' arguments were used to "prove" God's existence exactly the way Dawkins says they were used.

It's unfortunate that there are so many bad teachers in the world. Each of us has a responsibility to be as accurate as possible.

---

It is hard to imagine any of those hardships listed above happening in any other context. 

Have you read about the CIA? They inflicted widespread torture and murder in many countries, to anyone who challenged US capitalism. 

The CIA top guy in Uruguay, for example, got beggars off the street and tortured them to death for training purposes. It was worse than what Spinoza went through. When the Uruguayan resistance finally assassinated this murderer, Frank Sinatra did a benefit concert for his widow. 

It's really easy to imagine (because we don't have to imagine it) death and destruction committed by anyone who thinks he's right and the other guy's wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that a person can mount a credible defense of the abuses of religion by comparing them to the CIA at the height of their own assholery.  I think that the CIA would -love- to have had the ability that religion had..and, in point of fact, they use religion for it's known assholish abilities. /  shrugs

[Belacqua]

I'm not sure that a person can mount a credible defense of the abuses of religion by comparing them to the CIA at the height of their own assholery.  I think that the CIA would -love- to have had the ability that religion had..and, in point of fact, they use religion for it's known assholish abilities. /  shrugs

I am not attempting to mount a defense of any abuses. I am against all abuses. 

I am responding to a particular sentence in a previous post.