A few Dawkins quotes to think about.

by AK - Jeff 328 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  Sab - how do you mean? You think that 'suffering' is only possible if we can reason at the human level? No - animals suffer. Watch one in the throws of death, mortally wounded. That is suffering - defined by humans, but suffered by the animal undergoing the pain and anguish is it not?

  We see them "writhing in pain" which gives us evidence that it experiences pain similar to us. Is pain suffering? Maybe by dictionary definition, but who are we to speak for the animal's perspective? We cannot fathom the animal perspective because their brains work so differently. In this respect we have the limitation of our human senses not necessarily the advantage of.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Dawkins is trying to compare animal suffering and human suffering. It's a nice tactic because the animals can't help themselves (nor speak for themselves), but we can.

  -Sab
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Ok. So replace Dawkins words with 'writhing in pain' then. Same message. You are seeking to overturn his obvious statements of reality with a slant on his semantics, aren't you?

  Jeff
• 

  sabastious

  You are seeking to overturn his obvious statements of reality with a slant on his semantics, aren't you?

  Nope.

  Ok. So replace Dawkins words with 'writhing in pain' then. Same message.

  A human writhing in pain, from a data standpoint, cannot be held equal to an animal writhing in pain simply because we don't hold both perspectives. In fact we have no idea what it is like to be an animal therefore arguments that assume that perspective are automatically fallacious.

  -Sab
• 

  PSacramento

  If my faith was defined by how Richard defines it then YES, that is a horrific faith !

  I have always liked Richard when he sticks to science and lets science speaks for itself.

  Beyond that, he comes off as an arrogant ass that doesn't know as much as he thinks he does about subjects he is NOT well versed in.

  As for suffering of animals and such, I though he was a Darwinist? survival of the fittest and what not, no?

  What does suffering have to do with the "natural order" of things?

  And if Richard relaly thinks that RELIGION was the CAUSE of 9/11 then he really is "gone".
• 

  sabastious

  Jeff don't get mixed up in 2057's "Atheists have Faith" argument it's bunk and we both know it.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Beyond that, he comes off as an arrogant ass that doesn't know as much as he thinks he does about subjects he is NOT well versed in.

  I have noticed that Englishmen like to hide ad hominem's within their "intellectual speak." I think they do it because they think it's funny and I would have to agree with them. Doesn't make it right though

  -Sab
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Well, just the same, he makes far more sense to me than anything I have ever heard from the lips of those pushing 'faith' and 'belief' over reason and rational thinking.

  Toothfairy faith is goofy as hell IMO.

  But that's just me.

  Jeff
• 

  PSacramento

  Toothfairy faith is goofy as hell IMO.

  Yeah, but Tinkerbell is hot ;)
• 

  sabastious

  But that's just me.

  If I had to choose to be marooned on an island with Richard Dawkins or Kirk Cameron I'd pick Dawkins in a heartbeat.

  -Sab