Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Critique of Richard Dawkins book

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:40:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find several logical flaws in Richard Dawkin's book "magic of reality" and i would like to debate someone who is familiar with it.

This will be a judge-based debate, you can volunteer to judge if you want.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:13:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.

First, he talks about the many different religious beliefs about our origins and labels it "what people believe" then he has a label titled "what really happened " Subtly, it sounds as if he's committing the masked man fallacy in saying because science has disproven that the world came from gods, that means that God had no part in the creation.

He also introduced a materialistic concept of reality when reality itself covers more than just nature. He ignores the arguments of other philosophers on it.in a way he commits the naturalistic fallacy saying "Science has discovered the origins of life, therefore you shouldn not be religious. "

He also makes generalizations of the Bible which are clearly false and I address them in some of my debates.first, the Bible does not rely on magic as implied in the book. The Torah forbids magic. 2nd he points that it was okay for tribes to kill each other (even the Hebrews) which is a distortion of the truth. The near East was full of war mongering tribes who killed and enslaved for power. What made the Hebrews different was that they killed not in the name of religion, but to prevent immoral acts which are clearly frowned on even by modern societies.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 8:13:55 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.

First, he talks about the many different religious beliefs about our origins and labels it "what people believe" then he has a label titled "what really happened " Subtly, it sounds as if he's committing the masked man fallacy in saying because science has disproven that the world came from gods, that means that God had no part in the creation.

I find this sentence the most interesting sentence to read. It is basically saying the same thing, but coming to two different conclusions.

He also introduced a materialistic concept of reality when reality itself covers more than just nature. He ignores the arguments of other philosophers on it.in a way he commits the naturalistic fallacy saying "Science has discovered the origins of life, therefore you shouldn not be religious. "

He also makes generalizations of the Bible which are clearly false and I address them in some of my debates.first, the Bible does not rely on magic as implied in the book. The Torah forbids magic. 2nd he points that it was okay for tribes to kill each other (even the Hebrews) which is a distortion of the truth. The near East was full of war mongering tribes who killed and enslaved for power. What made the Hebrews different was that they killed not in the name of religion, but to prevent immoral acts which are clearly frowned on even by modern societies.

BTW, this will be an interesting debate. I would like to read it. Unfortunately I have not read this Dawkins book so I cannot engage you as I would not know where to begin. Good luck.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:27:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 8:23:06 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:13:55 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.

First, he talks about the many different religious beliefs about our origins and labels it "what people believe" then he has a label titled "what really happened " Subtly, it sounds as if he's committing the masked man fallacy in saying because science has disproven that the world came from gods, that means that God had no part in the creation.

I find this sentence the most interesting sentence to read. It is basically saying the same thing, but coming to two different conclusions.

He also introduced a materialistic concept of reality when reality itself covers more than just nature. He ignores the arguments of other philosophers on it.in a way he commits the naturalistic fallacy saying "Science has discovered the origins of life, therefore you shouldn not be religious. "

He also makes generalizations of the Bible which are clearly false and I address them in some of my debates.first, the Bible does not rely on magic as implied in the book. The Torah forbids magic. 2nd he points that it was okay for tribes to kill each other (even the Hebrews) which is a distortion of the truth. The near East was full of war mongering tribes who killed and enslaved for power. What made the Hebrews different was that they killed not in the name of religion, but to prevent immoral acts which are clearly frowned on even by modern societies.

BTW, this will be an interesting debate. I would like to read it. Unfortunately I have not read this Dawkins book so I cannot engage you as I would not know where to begin. Good luck.

What books have you read?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 8:27:37 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:23:06 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:13:55 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.

First, he talks about the many different religious beliefs about our origins and labels it "what people believe" then he has a label titled "what really happened " Subtly, it sounds as if he's committing the masked man fallacy in saying because science has disproven that the world came from gods, that means that God had no part in the creation.

I find this sentence the most interesting sentence to read. It is basically saying the same thing, but coming to two different conclusions.

He also introduced a materialistic concept of reality when reality itself covers more than just nature. He ignores the arguments of other philosophers on it.in a way he commits the naturalistic fallacy saying "Science has discovered the origins of life, therefore you shouldn not be religious. "

He also makes generalizations of the Bible which are clearly false and I address them in some of my debates.first, the Bible does not rely on magic as implied in the book. The Torah forbids magic. 2nd he points that it was okay for tribes to kill each other (even the Hebrews) which is a distortion of the truth. The near East was full of war mongering tribes who killed and enslaved for power. What made the Hebrews different was that they killed not in the name of religion, but to prevent immoral acts which are clearly frowned on even by modern societies.

BTW, this will be an interesting debate. I would like to read it. Unfortunately I have not read this Dawkins book so I cannot engage you as I would not know where to begin. Good luck.

What books have you read?

The greatest show on Earth
Selfish Gene
God Delusion
Parts of the blind watchmaker & climbing mount improbable (not in their entirety however)
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 8:30:12 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:37 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:23:06 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:13:55 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.

First, he talks about the many different religious beliefs about our origins and labels it "what people believe" then he has a label titled "what really happened " Subtly, it sounds as if he's committing the masked man fallacy in saying because science has disproven that the world came from gods, that means that God had no part in the creation.

I find this sentence the most interesting sentence to read. It is basically saying the same thing, but coming to two different conclusions.

He also introduced a materialistic concept of reality when reality itself covers more than just nature. He ignores the arguments of other philosophers on it.in a way he commits the naturalistic fallacy saying "Science has discovered the origins of life, therefore you shouldn not be religious. "

He also makes generalizations of the Bible which are clearly false and I address them in some of my debates.first, the Bible does not rely on magic as implied in the book. The Torah forbids magic. 2nd he points that it was okay for tribes to kill each other (even the Hebrews) which is a distortion of the truth. The near East was full of war mongering tribes who killed and enslaved for power. What made the Hebrews different was that they killed not in the name of religion, but to prevent immoral acts which are clearly frowned on even by modern societies.

BTW, this will be an interesting debate. I would like to read it. Unfortunately I have not read this Dawkins book so I cannot engage you as I would not know where to begin. Good luck.

What books have you read?

The greatest show on Earth
Selfish Gene
God Delusion
Parts of the blind watchmaker & climbing mount improbable (not in their entirety however)

We can debate the greatest show on earth if you want
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:37:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 8:31:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:30:12 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:37 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:23:06 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:13:55 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:42:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
btw, i'm not going to attack the science he presents because i agree with it, only when he brings up religion.

The Magic of Reality is basically a kids book. It was very simplistic. It has been a while since I read it, so maybe you can remind me/point out what flaws you are referring to.

First, he talks about the many different religious beliefs about our origins and labels it "what people believe" then he has a label titled "what really happened " Subtly, it sounds as if he's committing the masked man fallacy in saying because science has disproven that the world came from gods, that means that God had no part in the creation.

I find this sentence the most interesting sentence to read. It is basically saying the same thing, but coming to two different conclusions.

He also introduced a materialistic concept of reality when reality itself covers more than just nature. He ignores the arguments of other philosophers on it.in a way he commits the naturalistic fallacy saying "Science has discovered the origins of life, therefore you shouldn not be religious. "

He also makes generalizations of the Bible which are clearly false and I address them in some of my debates.first, the Bible does not rely on magic as implied in the book. The Torah forbids magic. 2nd he points that it was okay for tribes to kill each other (even the Hebrews) which is a distortion of the truth. The near East was full of war mongering tribes who killed and enslaved for power. What made the Hebrews different was that they killed not in the name of religion, but to prevent immoral acts which are clearly frowned on even by modern societies.

BTW, this will be an interesting debate. I would like to read it. Unfortunately I have not read this Dawkins book so I cannot engage you as I would not know where to begin. Good luck.

What books have you read?

The greatest show on Earth
Selfish Gene
God Delusion
Parts of the blind watchmaker & climbing mount improbable (not in their entirety however)

We can debate the greatest show on earth if you want

But that's purely evolution. So I am not sure there is much to debate. If you disagree we can talk about it, I just really doubt there is too much to debate as the book does not deal with the god question.