Pour vous

The same basic human rights as all others (or at least those which could apply). As for who enforces them, the same people who enforce human rights for everyone else.

I was unaware Richard Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about. Thank you for enlightening me. You must be a very accomplished intellectual.

As far as philosophy he has no idea what he is talking about. I've studied it more than he has. I don't need to be an accomplished intellectual to know this. Although the accomplished intellectual philosophers who openly slate the God Delusion helps. Stephen Hawkins is even worse when it comes to philosophy though. I don't know why admittedly fantastic scientists think they can just change their field and without any education on the new subject become an authority on it.

So you mock the God Delusion because accomplished philosophers have mocked it? You're simply letting them think for you? This gives YOU authority?

Yeah you aren't listening to what I'm saying are you? If you were you would actually have read my post: [quote]As far as philosophy he has no idea what he is talking about. I've studied it more than he has. I don't need to be an accomplished intellectual to know this.[/quote] As I said, the fact that other accomplished philosophers also agree help, but that is not the reason why I find it a unintentional comedy. The man has no idea about so many of the issues he is talking about. There are one or two good parts, but in those he is just repeating other peoples ideas. It's a crime that it became a best seller, there are much better atheistic books out there.

You said before you "started reading" it. Now you're telling me there's only "one or two good parts" so, you did finish it? Now that we are aware Dawkins committed a crime, can you direct us to whom we should report him? What does your highly evolved understanding of philosophy deem to be an appropriate punishment for Dawkins's crime(s)? "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens is quite good. Tell me about how dreadful that one is, after you only started reading it.

[quote]You said before you "started reading" it. Now you're telling me there's only "one or two good parts" so, you did finish it?[/quote] After the initial few sections I gave up, and instead read several summaries. I also read several responses to the book. One of which I had started reading before I started the God Delusion, but thought it must be being unfair and Dawkins couldn't really be how this person was claiming, so I started reading his book and before I finished the first page I knew it was true. I pushed on a bit though. [quote]Now that we are aware Dawkins committed a crime, can you direct us to whom we should report him? What does your highly evolved understanding of philosophy deem to be an appropriate punishment for Dawkins' crime(s)?[/quote] Do you feel like your back is up against the wall that you have to resort to high levels of literal-ism? I used to be a bit like that until I realized it achieves nothing apart from making you look like you are not aware of the way people use language. It makes you look somewhat ignorant (I am not for a moment saying that you are) of language. [quote]God is Not Great by Hitchens is quite good. Tell me about how dreadful that one is, after you only started reading it.[/quote] I haven't read God is not Great, but Hitchens is I respect a lot more than Dawkins though. I have read a number of books that reference and discuss his ideas. It's a shame he passed away. In any case though, he to knows very little about philosophy. I saw him in a debate pretty much only rage against the crimes of religion (this was a debate about the existence of God) until at the end he admitted that you cannot judge the existence of God on the actions of his followers. He also thought deism meant the same as theism, which is somewhat embarrassing.

So you read a response before reading the book. You had expectations and a bias, going in. You then read several summaries with others' opinions. This is further proof you've been programmed by your superiors to think as they do. I do not feel my "back is against the wall", as I do not view you as the authority that you view yourself to be. Even if you were, I am sitting on a couch. My back is therefore, against its cushion. I take the things you say literally, because it's fun, and what else aside from your text do I have to go on? This is an Internet forum. There is no tone of voice or body language. Surely, sarcasm and irony do not exist in such a context. I must be completely serious right now.

So how much has he studied philosophy (and what is your source for this) and how much have you studied it?

By the fact that there is no mention of any philosophical qualification anywhere I find it highly likely that he hasn't got any. Coupled by the fact that he doesn't understand some rather more simple philosophical terms a part of me dearly hopes he hasn't studied it at all. If he has, and he is still so ignorant of such things, that would be far more worrying. As for me, I'm majoring in it at university.

My suspicions are correct. You make assumptions. Allow me to make one, you believe what you are told by your professors to be undeniable truth. You absorb what they teach without question, to water it down and regurgitate it on a game developer's Internet forum to feel a sense of superiority? Do you feel the knowledge you've gained from your pursuit of philosophy has prepared you for a debate with Mr. Dawkins?

[quote]My suspicions are correct. You make assumptions.[/quote] Also called inductive reasoning. You know that kind of reasoning which every scientific theory ever made uses? But I guess you haven't studied logic either. [quote]Allow me to make one, you believe what you are told by your professors to be undeniable truth.[/quote] No? I disagree with my lectures as much as I agree with them. In not one of my essays have I agreed with the view they have. So nice incorrect assumption. I have no idea what you thought constituted as evidence for that, maybe you aren't very good at analyzing evidence and working out where it leads. Maybe that is why you agree with Dawkins. [quote]You absorb what they teach without question, to water it down and regurgitate it on a game developer's Internet forum to feel a sense of superiority?[/quote] Again no. I don't feel superior debating you, if this was face to face then maybe. But as it is your wild and incorrect predictions and presumptions do remind me of Dawkins and his army of followers. But your whole post is just one huge ad hominem (a fallacy where you attack the person you are debating rather than their argument, look it up if you want to read more about it).

[quote]But your whole post is just one huge ad hominem (a fallacy where you attack the person you are debating rather than their argument, look it up if you want to read more about it).[/quote]Delicious irony. You tell me I am unfamiliar with inductive reasoning and logic, when I am not. If you are unable to see how you are also guilty of ad hominem attacks, then we are done here. We are both being hilariously hypocritical. My hypocrisy has been intentional. This thread and most of my responses have been designed to bring about a discussion of this nature. You played right into it. That makes ME stupid?[quote]Dawkins and his army of followers[/quote]You have been attacking me and Dawkins since you first noticed that the things I quoted were from his book. Clearly, that's your agenda. You aren't debating the topic of this thread either, you are attempting to belittle Dawkins and anyone that respects him (This thread was not intended to be about him. Way to go one further on the hypocrisy meter there, bud.) while simultaneously attempting to boost your ego, asserting your advanced understanding of philosophy from your brief study at a university.

I said I guessed that you didn't know what it meant I didn't tell you that you were unfamiliar. I was trying to be helpful, how am I to know that you have studied some logic? I have been drawn into some ad hominem attacks that is true, and I am sorry for that. Other than that I have not be hypocritical in the slightest. You don't look stupid, you just look un-informed. Oh and the idea that is one huge act, well good for you I'm glad you aren't really like this, I can't argue against your inner thoughts, just what you say, and that is what I have done. [quote]This thread and most of my responses have been designed to bring about a discussion of this nature. You played right into it. That makes ME stupid?[/quote] This is a rather interesting section. You have done responses to get a reaction to bring about what discussion exactly? How did I play into it? I'm interested in hearing a more in-depth analysis of your thoughts here.

The title of the thread is "Pro-Life? Just say NO to abstinence". If you couldn't tell I intended to troll people with this, you may want to delete yourself from the Internet. I'd say I feel bad for you, but I'm in no way responsible for the ignorance from which you are so quick to claim others suffer.

It's a way of trolling people, but also a serious way of trying to make people see why you think their arguments are dumb. Obviously I thought you were trying to get a reaction with that title, but notice most of our discussion thus far hasn't been about that argument and rather about the larger picture of Dawkins. I don't see the point in continuing a dialogue with you. Nothing will be gained and I'll just get dragged back into a form on anti-intellectual debate, where both sides just insult each other. I've tried to put an olive branch out to you in my last post repenting for my use of ad hominem, and in response you fill your reply with a condescending tone. I'm not going to enter into a insult flinging competition, and neither am I going to try and have a civil debate when you just insult me. As such I'm backing out. There is nothing to gain from continuing this line of discussion. See you around.