Richard Dawkins responds to the suggestion atheists are violentTell that to the Kulaks, the Chinese, the Cambodians, the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Nicaraguans, etc., etc., etc. I really don't know how Dawk gets around what with his head up where he keeps it. He's an ever increasing embarrassment to his cause.
'If you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means'
"The evolutionary biologist, 75, gave his response to the question "Why is the Atheist Religion so violent?" during a Reddit AMA.
"There is no atheist religion," Dawkins replied. "And 'violent'? Did you say 'violent'?
"Oh yes, I was forgetting. All those atheists beheading people, setting fire to them, cutting off their hands, cutting off their clitorises.
"If you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means."
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Dawkins: No Atheist Violence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Just like Islam, those aren't "true atheists". Yet he, and others, will incessantly drone on about the Crusades.
To paraphrase a commenter elsewhere:
The Atheist/Communist 20th Century was long, long ago.
The Crusades were yesterday.
Theists and atheists have enormously divergent beliefs within their ranks.
It is core beliefs that drive behavior. For some theists and atheists, belief or lack thereof is core; for others, they hold other beliefs that have primacy over the question of the existence of God.
One of my core beliefs is that I was meant, biologically or by theistic decree, to protect my children. This will hold sway over any theistic instructions to the contrary, and also over any logical extensions drawn from my "atheistic belief system".
Want to do naive, inaccurate, morally bankrupt cohort analysis? Lump me in with communist atheists, which requires dishonest injection of attributes that contradict my core beliefs, such as that I am more likely to support oppressive, dangerous communist regimes.
What is actually being said here is that it is false to claim that Atheists have not been violent. Of course they have. Historically Atheism has enabled violence against more humans than has any religion. What Dawkins has said implicates both Christians and Muslims with violence while simultaneously claiming none for any Atheists. That is false.
In the past he has qualified that with "in the name of" Atheism, another false claim, with falsification being given in the recent declaration of the Chinese communists who declared that communism - at least Chinese style - could not exist if it were not under Atheism. Hence the current violent purge of religion in China.
Atheism might well be the most numerous worldview on the planet; a very large percentage is, in fact, deadly violent.
Can someone please forward this link to Dick?
Left-Wing Bloodbaths
He wouldn't read it. No antithetical input is allowed. The "Truth" has been declared and is now dogma.
"What is actually being said here is that it is false to claim that Atheists have not been violent."
Everyone can be violent. Analyzing causes that separate violent atheists/theists from non-violent atheist/theists requires understanding which beliefs hold primacy for individuals. You haven't done that, nor has Dawkins. Don't stoop to his level.
"Chinese style - could not exist if it were not under Atheism"
Atheism is one of many conditions for atheistic communism. Is this a complete, ethical cohort analysis that gives you the ability to do robust predictions for atheists, without knowing their individual core beliefs, including which ones hold primacy over others?
The fact that Atheism has led to hundreds of millions of bloody deaths seems a good place to start. However, if you have different criteria to present as having enabled that, then present them. If you have not, then you cannot claim any fallacy in the deduction that Atheism disables objective cultural morals, thereby allowing the Atheist to enable his personal proclivities as being moral. When those proclivities entail elitism and hegemony, deaths of others can and has and will result, due to lack of any objective restraint.
If you wish to argue otherwise, feel free. So far you have not, other than to wave vague concepts of "primacy of core beliefs". Atheism starts with a rejection of standard beliefs. What happens next after rejection is open to any and all non-standard beliefs. Whatever an Atheist holds as "core" is unknowable except by his actions. The cumulative actions of the huge hegemony of worldwide Atheists speaks to that.
Steve11:Atheism is one of many conditions for atheistic communism.
Atheism is a necessary pre-condition for Communism/Marxism. You can have a look for yourself what ACTUAL Marxists have to say on the issue.
Why Marxists Are Atheists
Since Marxism is a subcategory of Atheism, therefore promoting Marxism also by implication promotes Atheism. And if one promotes Marxism via violence then one is also by implication promoting Atheism via violence.
Phoenix,
Good link. That comports with the Chinese Marxist position. I think it deserves a post, so that it can be archived for easy recovery.
"Atheism is one of many conditions for atheistic communism"
"Atheistic communism" does not definitionally include cruelty and killing, nor does it presuppose active suppression of religion. I am an atheist, one who couldn't possibly care less who prays for what, nor with any inclination to kill for any reason. I could easily decide to be against free market systems (I live in Canada!), without the desire to kill or suppress prayer by others. Perhaps you should call it atheistic communism with cruelty and suppression of religion? This would be more intellectually honest, as well as conforming to actual definitions. It would also reveal that one needs more than atheism and anti-free market inclinations to become a killer.
"Marxism is a subcategory of Atheism"
Islam is a subcategory of theism. Does that mean theists are implicated in killing done by islamists, just as you are trying to show that free market atheists are implicated in the actions of Marxists? The answer is: yes, if your goal is the dishonest association of good people with horrible behavior.
I usually refer to "AtheoLeftists" in that regard. However, Dawkins referred to the class: Atheists. That class contains a huge global subset of Communist dictators who definitely refute Dawkins' claim (the original point). Most Atheists do flock to the Left. And certainly there is a spectrum of "Leftism". But Progressivism never sits still and pushes ever Leftward in Hegelian persistence, relentlessly toward anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, collectivist (free stuff), i.e., proto-communist. And those who achieve their New Man revolutionary objectives have bloody purges in common.
"Atheistic communism" does not definitionally include cruelty and killing, nor does it presuppose active suppression of religion.
Communist ethics like most Atheistic subgroups are Consequentialism, i.e., the ends justify the means. Ridding the world of religious dogma is one important aspect and objective of Communism and if the gulags can hasten that goal then it is welcomed with open arms. There is no Atheist principle which prohibits such cruelty either.
I am an atheist, one who couldn't possibly care less who prays for what, nor with any inclination to kill for any reason. I could easily decide to be against free market systems (I live in Canada!), without the desire to kill or suppress prayer by others.
OK, so you are now claiming to be apathetic towards theism. Seems odd since you are over here defending Atheism and bashing theism.
Perhaps you should call it atheistic communism with cruelty and suppression of religion? This would be more intellectually honest, as well as conforming to actual definitions. It would also reveal that one needs more than atheism and anti-free market inclinations to become a killer.
No need for all those tags. The adjective "atheistic" already indicates those suppressive ideals.
Islam is a subcategory of theism. Does that mean theists are implicated in killing done by islamists, just as you are trying to show that free market atheists are implicated in the actions of Marxists? The answer is: yes, if your goal is the dishonest association of good people with horrible behavior
First, your response is a fallacious tu quoque. You have done nothing to disprove the fact that Communism/Marxism is a subset of Atheism.
Second, no one claimed "all Atheists are implicated in the actions of Marxists". That's a straw man.
Third, yes, Islam is indeed one of many sub categories of theism, albeit, islam is a materialist form of theism. Meaning that the spiritual concepts in other forms of classical theism are interpreted literally in islam. For example, in Islam, heaven is a physical realm above earth, Allah is a king literally sitting on a throne, breaking wind can affect ones prayer, taking a life is an express ticket to paradise, which are filled with whores where slain fighters get to enjoy them with the male members in tact, etc, etc, etc.
" no one claimed "all Atheists are implicated in the actions of Marxists".
Phew - then this is a trivial issue.
Islam is indeed one of many sub categories of theism
Agreed.
"First, your response is a fallacious tu quoque. You have done nothing to disprove the fact that Communism/Marxism is a subset of Atheism."
You can make false accusations as to logical fallacies more succinct by leaving out the word fallacious. I never claimed to disprove the taxonomy. I was undermining its import by showing an analogous theistic taxonomy.
"Communist ethics like most Atheistic subgroups are Consequentialism"
Ok, so you are asserting that most atheists have consequentionalist leanings. What feature(s) delineates those who endorse state sponsored killing from those that do not? I suggest cruelty, an attribute that transcends belief in God, as evidenced by the fact that theists and atheists can be cruel.
"I never claimed to disprove the taxonomy. I was undermining its import by showing an analogous theistic taxonomy."
That is a Tu Quoque.
From Merriam Webster:
"A typical tu quoque involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation - an evasive strategy that may or may not meet with success"
[...]
"Communist ethics like most Atheistic subgroups are Consequentialism"
Ok, so you are asserting that most atheists have consequentionalist leanings. What feature(s) delineates those who endorse state sponsored killing from those that do not? I suggest cruelty, an attribute that transcends belief in God, as evidenced by the fact that theists and atheists can be cruel."
Another Tu Quoque. The issue is whether Atheists can be violent... or not, as Dawkins says. What this has to do with Christians is precisely nothing. Or Muslims or Hindus for that matter.
Atheism IS first and foremost Consequentialist, by default. If there is any other moral principle acquired by an Atheist, it is not because of Atheism, because Atheism takes no moral position on anything; Atheism merely rejects.
There is nothing about Atheism which requires violence. And there is nothing about Atheism which prohibits or inhibits violence, either. Atheism removes all constraints and restraints of any possible objective morality by rejecting that moral authority; the moral authority is retained by the Atheist for himself. That leaves an open hole (The Atheist VOID) which can be back-filled by any behaviors at all. Usually, the Atheist's new morality is based on behaviors which are his own desired behaviors, and that leaves the Atheist entirely and wholly moral under his own system of morality.
Thus, being morally unblemished by any behaviors he chooses, the Atheist finds that he can be moral and unconstrained at the same time, by merely choosing which behaviors are moral.
This is a form of institutional insanity. And it is ideologically induced. Once induced, it is nearly impossible to restrain under any conflicting ideological morality.
Ah, lesson learned on the dictionary definition for tu quoque, thanks! I'll elaborate below why the issue of non-theist tendency towards violence must be considered in assessing Dawkins' statement.
Here is Dawkins' statement:
if you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means
The most applicable definition from Merriam Webster for violent is prone to commit acts of violence, where prone means having a tendency or inclination.
So, there are two ways of assessing Dawkins:
a) Within the context of the article: The author of the article and I think Dawkins is trying to say, as per the opening line, that Richard Dawkins has said people who think atheists are violent because of their lack of belief "don't know what violence means". This cannot be refuted by counting atheist atrocities - it would require proof of causality independent of other human beliefs and traits.
b) Isolate the statement from its context and attack it. I don't consider this to be an effective way of understanding what someone is trying to convey, especially as regards unedited conversation, but here goes: In referring to atheists as having a tendency or inclination to commit violence, then either:
1) Dawkins is making a statement about this inclination relative to those who are not atheists - theists and possibly agnostics. This is testable. In order to measure this, one requires theistic tendency as a point of comparison. Without this information, there is no refutation.
2) Dawkins is referring only to the violence of atheists, not relative to other categories. There is no generally accepted absolute metric for tendency. If there is no metric, there is no refutation.
1) Dawkins is making a statement about this inclination relative to those who are not atheists - theists and possibly agnostics. This is testable. In order to measure this, one requires theistic tendency as a point of comparison. Without this information, there is no refutation.
2) Dawkins is referring only to the violence of atheists, not relative to other categories. There is no generally accepted absolute metric for tendency. If there is no metric, there is no refutation.
I see, you have hoped to sidestep your tu quoque...pardon the redundancy...fallacy by providing a false dilemma which forces us to evaluate theist violence as well. But in fact we can assess Atheist atrocities, current and past, without using theist atrocities as a gauge.
Now, Dawkins' quote had a single unstated assumption, which is that violence committed by Atheists are inconsequential (no biggie).
This can be examined by listing atrocities committed by groups and organizations where Atheism is a prerequisite which does not even require the mention of Islamic or other theist atrocities.
Steve11,
" Dawkins is referring only to the violence of atheists, not relative to other categories. There is no generally accepted absolute metric for tendency. If there is no metric, there is no refutation."
You can't be serious. No metric for violence? no metric for Atheist violence?
Of course there is. Body count works. Just the body count of tiny Cuba, due to one Atheist, Che Guevara, is enough to say that Atheists can be, have been measurably incredibly violent. Then there is the torture-for-laughs, of course.
Dawkins tried the Tu Quoque excuse:
"Islam is violent, so there! I am not violent compared to Islam, despite my advocacy for removal of chldren from their parents by force using my specifications, AND my excusing of Hitler from any "evil", AND my incitement of Atheists at the "Reason" festival.
Violence is redefined as necessary by the relativist Dr. Dawk.
"You can't be serious. No metric for violence? no metric for Atheist violence?"
Of course you can measure violence by absolutes, such as by counting bodies. Violence identifies the behavior, violent the tendency. Dawkins challenged the validity of the assertion that atheists are violent.
Just the body count of tiny Cuba, due to one Atheist, Che Guevara, is enough to say that Atheists can be, have been measurably incredibly violent.
Body count is an insufficient measure for whether or not atheists are violent. To measure tendency, you would need to establish a ratio of atheist violence relative to non violence, and then, since it is intrinsically subjective and relative, compare it to another cohort.
And for such a metric to be relevant within the context of this discussion, it would need to be developed by/with Dawky himself. Otherwise, it's always at the risk of being dismissed as "not what he meant". You can actually take his metric from the article:
"Oh yes, I was forgetting. All those atheists beheading people, setting fire to them, cutting off their hands, cutting off their clitorises."
There is no need for numbers, apparently - a few example practices would suffice.
And for such a metric to be relevant within the context of this discussion, it would need to be developed by/with Dawky himself.
There is no measurement, formally proposed by Dawkins or otherwise, for tendency to commit violence, without comparison to other cohorts. So, for it to be relevant, it would have to be relative.
You can actually take his metric from the article: "Oh yes, I was forgetting. All those atheists beheading people, setting fire to them, cutting off their hands, cutting off their clitorises."
This is not a metric for tendency. It is a sarcastic metaphor for the theistic cohort. If you think professor Dawkins proposed a metric, that was, by definition, in error, I respectfully disagree. This would not undermine his challenge to the bolded statement in any way - only his ability to measure tendency.
"Body count is an insufficient measure for whether or not atheists are violent. To measure tendency, you would need to establish a ratio of atheist violence relative to non violence, and then, since it is intrinsically subjective and relative, compare it to another cohort."
This is some serious groping for an excuse. The issue is this: Are (any) Atheists violent. Dawkins did not word-hack to establish "tendency". He clearly said that "you don't understand violence" if you think they have ever been violent.
This is becoming too absurd; you are clearly looking for a way out. Atheists have, in fact, produced incredible quantities and degrees of violence. And that's a fact.
Dawkins did not word-hack to establish "tendency".
No word-hacking required. Right from Merriam Webster, and note that I used the same form of word and tense from the quote:
violent:
prone to commit acts of violence - violent prison inmates
prone:
likely to do
likely:
having a high probability of occurring or being true
high:
of greater degree, amount, cost, value, or content than average
Violent is intrinsically and inarguably relative, since it must be high, which by dictionary definition must be of greater degree than average.
This average cannot therefore come from within the atheist cohort, but rather from another separate cohort, or else atheists are violent would always evaluate to false.
I see your (deeply embedded definition) and raise you three:
Oxford Dictionary on-line:
Definition of violent in English:
violent
Pronunciation: /ˈvī(ə)lənt/
adjective
1 Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something: a violent confrontation with riot police
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1(Especially of an emotion or unpleasant or destructive natural force) very strong or powerful: violent dislike the violent eruption killed 1,700 people
More example sentences Synonyms
1.2(Of a color) vivid.
Example sentences
1.3 Law Involving an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force.
Dictionary.com
violent
[vahy-uh-luh nt]
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force:
a violent earthquake.
2.
caused by injurious or destructive force:
a violent death.
3.
intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme:
violent pain; violent cold.
4.
roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent:
violent passions.
5.
furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.:
violent haste.
6.
of, relating to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.
Bouvier, John; "A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States; Pub 1856:
VIOLENCE. The abuse of force. Theorie des Lois Criminelles, 32. That force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Merl. h. t, 2. In cases of robbery, in order to convict the accused, it is requisite to prove that the act was done with violence; but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits. Alison, Pr. Cr. Law of Scotl. 228; 4 Binn. R. 379; 2 Russ. on Cr. 61; 1 Hale P. C. 553. When an article is merely snatched, as by a sudden pull, even though a momentary force be exerted, it is not such violence as to constitute a robbery. 2 East, P. C. 702; 2 Russ. Cr. 68; Dig. 4, 2, 2 and 3.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
You cannot use definitions to deny the genocides and mass killings/tortures and atrocities by world wide Atheists.
I would say Dawkins would be right to refute the assertion that atheists are violent with most or all of your definitions of violent as well. They also include relative terms that mean nothing without a comparison cohort. This one is hilarious: atheists are roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent.
You cannot use definitions to deny the genocides and mass killings/tortures and atrocities by world wide Atheists.
Why do you keep repeating this - has someone denied it? I thought atheists merely questioned the cause of the violence, or the relative tendency of an atheist vs a theist toward violence, not the mere fact that cruel people have been within the atheist cohort?
Why do you keep repeating this - has someone denied it? I thought atheists merely questioned the cause of the violence, or the relative tendency of an atheist vs a theist toward violence, not the mere fact that cruel people have been within the atheist cohort?
So your suppostion is then two-fold:
1) The cause of Atheist violence is NOT Atheism.
2) Theists (specifically muslims) are more prone to violence than Atheists.
1- The cause of Atheist violence could originate from many sources (including Atheistic groups) since there is nothing inherent in Atheism which could place a constraint on them.
2- True, Islam is incredibly violent but what Atheists fail to comprehend and admit is that the only other category which rivals Islamic brutality stems from Atheist Marxists. Their atrocities are not as trivial as Dawkins would have us believe. I think the only difference between Islamic and Marxist terror is that the latter is rarely witnessed in Western Europe and North America.
There are two possibilities here.
Case 1. You think you are defending some principle of logic, and not the particular content of the position Dawkins is taking.
If that is the case, it is not apparent what principle of logic it is which you are defending, or why it is so important to you.
Case 2. You wish to defend Dawkins' position, and have chosen to make up logic in his favor in order to form your defense.
I tend to think that it is the second case. You make claims for some unknown principle without any allusion as to the actual principle, except that you claim that a thing is truth: relativism must be accounted for, rather than actual data being matched to firm definitions.
If you need another condition, such as relativism, then elaborate what the condition is in precise terms, why logic demands it and under what exact principle, the point you are trying to prove (not apparent at this point) and then we'll have grounds for a conversation.
"the point you are trying to prove the point you are trying to prove (not apparent at this point) "
I was defending Dawkins' statement, using the dictionary, which specifically addressed the attack raised on it via this post. You even suggested it within Case 2 above.
"relativism must be accounted for, rather than actual data being matched to firm definitions."
Words that are relative, according to the dictionary, are relative, without requiring that someone assert general relativism. You disagreed with my choice of definition, and provided other ones that were inapplicable by reductio and by mismatched dictionary examples. Mine was the only one that referenced a human subcategory - and still yours evaluated to false when used.
"So your suppostion is then two-fold:"
"1) The cause of Atheist violence is NOT Atheism."
Under the hypothesis variant of supposition, yes. I think the possibility that factors like cruelty, a desire to cause others to suffer, are more causally related to violence, within atheist and theist cohorts, than religious beliefs, is strong enough to form a hypothesis.
"2) Theists (specifically muslims) are more prone to violence than Atheists."
No one has this knowledge, so assertions that atheists are violent, or theists are violent, which are most accurately disambiguated by dictionary definition to atheists are more prone to violence, or theists are more prone to violence, are both unjustified.
the only other category which rivals Islamic brutality stems from Atheist Marxists
From my dictionary reading, stems from denotes causality. Could you elaborate on how you have come to knowledge, as opposed to a mere hypothesis, that brutality is caused by the atheism attribute in marxist atheists, rather than from factors such as role models, economic position and desire to harm others? I work in the analytics field - new ways of determining causality are intriguing to me.
Atheism is not causal for anything. Atheism is merely rejection of all standards which emanate from authority which is not human. This is the Atheism VOID.
The VOID is the enabler. By removing previous restrictions on behaviors, especially in a culture of revolution, the natural Consequentialism is fully enabled, and only the end - Nietzsche's Will To Power and the Marxist New Man - is considered moral, and the means to the end are given moral clothing by their attachment to the end (Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, p26: "The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means".).
Without having been enabled by the moral freedom of the Atheist VOID, the march into self-anointed moral authority and the adoption of personal proclivities as "morality" would not be enabled. Whether a enabler is causal is up to you to decide. Does a light switch when flipped cause the bulb to light the room? Or is it the electricity which flows only when enabled? Or are the causes multiple and deeper? The pertinent cause is the state change of the switch, from off to on, allowing existing pre-conditions, previously constrained, to flow into fruition. The rest is rhetorical, or at least secondary.
As for the definitions and Reductio, I find it differently. The history of the universe contains a great many Atheists who produced human harm and death, including genocide by the natural cause of starvation, induced by food denial caused by Atheists. The opposite is not the case. How does your reductio change that?
I should identify the elements in the electricity analogy (all analogies fail at some point, and this one probably has its flaws; go ahead and criticize or ignore it).
The switch is the Atheist VOID, enabling the flow.
The flow is revolution ending in totalitarianism.
The power generation is the moral voltage of Marxism.
The light bulb is the population, and the lighting of the bulb is the influence of the Atheism-enabled, Marxist-driven, flow of revolution into the population, which is forced into the state of violent revolution, genocide and totalitarian control of the state of existence (heating of the filament and the constant state of heat until the switch state is changed).
"Atheism is not causal for anything"
Ok. This is a little different from my assertion - that it's causal effects are in the hypothesis stage.
"The history of the universe contains a great many Atheists who produced human harm and death"
Agreed, as phrased.
"The VOID is the enabler. By removing previous restrictions on behaviors" ...
This could well be true. However, it can best be understood as an untested hypothetical claim of propensity to commit violence with restrictions relative to propensity without restrictions. I do respect the concept of the void and it's potential actual influence on human behavior. I just consider the impact on behavioral propensities to be a hypothesis, in competition with other untested hypothesis, which I personally find much more compelling.
"Does a light switch when flipped cause the bulb to light the room?"
In order to avoid the fallacy of the single cause, I would rephrase the question.
From my dictionary reading, stems from denotes causality. Could you elaborate on how you have come to knowledge, as opposed to a mere hypothesis, that brutality is caused by the atheism attribute in marxist atheists, rather than from factors such as role models, economic position and desire to harm others? I work in the analytics field - new ways of determining causality are intriguing to me.
Whether the violence stems "from factors such as role models, economic position and desire to harm others" is of no concern for the following reasons:
1) Atheists should know better than to cause great suffering. After all they have declared themselves to be morally and intellectually superior.
2) The magnitude of violence perpetrated by Atheist Marxists proves Atheism is impotent as a moral guide and places no constraint on ill behaviors.
3) Marxism and even Fascism (founding father Mussolini) are Atheist constructs, with violence as a necessary tool for propagation.
steve 11,
You are still are making judgments without giving any criteria other than mystery terminology, which is likely used out of some mystery "analytics" to which you are giving us no clues.
Since neither your methods nor your criteria seem to be in any alignment with the known processes of Aristotelian deductions, validations, grounding, with the exception of the mention of Reductio (presumably "Ad Absurdum"), unless you deign to share the source of your techniques, then no actual conversation will connect our thoughts in any meaningful fashion.
What is your judgment process? What are your criteria? What is the name of your analytic process? What books outline the details? Why does it deviate from known deductive analysis?
"The magnitude of violence perpetrated by Atheist Marxists proves Atheism is impotent as a moral guide and places no constraint on ill behaviors."
It proves only that atheism was less influential than competing factors, and only for the atheist sub-cohorts that committed violence.
Marxism and even Fascism (founding father Mussolini) are Atheist constructs, with violence as a necessary tool for propagation.
Agreed with Marxism, in practical reality. I don't know enough about Fascism to comment.
You are still are making judgments without giving any criteria other than mystery terminology, which is likely used out of some mystery "analytics" to which you are giving us no clues.
You know precisely what I claimed - that there was no justification for claiming Dawkins was incorrect when he questioned the statement atheists are violent. You know precisely my reasoning - dictionary definition, which leads one to the conclusion that the test is comparative. You know exactly my proposed test for actual knowledge that atheists are violent: Compare the propensity to commit violence between atheist and theist cohorts, isolating for other causes. There is no mystery to my position at all.
steve 11,
"You know precisely my reasoning - dictionary definition"
Ah. So you choose the definition you like, interpret it to mean what you want, and then jerk our chains as if you have some sort of special insight based on your exclusive interpretation. No actual disciplined deduction involved.
I get it. And I thought so.
"So you choose the definition you like"
I explained clearly and openly how i chose the definition. I'll tell you what - if I ask someone from Merriam Webster to choose, without prejudice, which one best fits the grammar of the phrase, and it happens to be the one I chose - will you take that back?
No. Here's why: When you were given several other sources, you warped them sufficiently to fit your argument, which is just this: no one can be judged violent unless compared to someone else rather than a fixed concept of what constitutes violence. You were even given a legal description of violence. Those definitions had no possible reference to any need to compare to other people rather than to standards of observed behaviors. Yet you forged on and on and still will not relent, holding onto a failed concept which you cannot release in the face of evidence to the contrary.
If ONLY comparison to other people is allowed, then only one person EVER could be violent: no other person or demographic could be anything BUT less violent than that one "violent" person or demographic - and that most violent person or demographic has no objective standard against which to be judged in the first place. It is an irrational concept from the start. No court is based on comparison between people or demographics. They use observed behaviors compared to objective standards.
I can't imagine why you are pushing this issue into the zone of complete absurdity.
"You were even given a legal description of violence."
Not sure if you're serious. Dawkins did not challenge the assertion that atheists were violence. The lexical differences between violent and violence prohibit honest substitution with any notion of precision. There was also no legal context whatsoever in Dawkins' challenge. Even so, my logic still works when you use your legal definition of violence noun, inserting it into the definition of violent adjective Merriam Webster provided - prone to commit acts of violence - violent prison inmates.
"can't imagine why you are pushing this issue into the zone of complete absurdity."
I want people to make more accurate, more ethical, less leading statements about cohorts.
atheists are violent is undermined by the fallacy of ambiguity, where one uses a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. This would be true even if your assertion that I cherry-picked my definition was true. It can only be asserted to be the truth if you remove some definitions of violent from the dictionary, including the one that seems precisely matched to context and example.
And thus you continue to avoid the actual obvious fact and actual subject, which is that millions of Atheists have performed acts of serious harm, torture and death upon many millions of innocent humans, including genocide by several means, upon several very large populations.
The words Dawkins used might have been in an attempt to avoid the specifics of an actual semantic admission of any Atheist culpability using the same definitional word prestidigitation which you are promoting. In real life he was using that term to imply that no Atheist is culpable for any harm/deaths/genocide - and that implication is false; those Atheists who are culpable do exist and have existed, and obviously so. Semantic games don't change the facts.
So your complaint is pointless. You need to find a semantics blog if you want to endlessly argue the meaning of words while avoiding that which is obvious.
We're done, right here, unless someone else wants to play your word game with you.
"We're done, right here"
Sounds good - I won't reply to your final comments.
Post a Comment