Richard Dawkins says trans activists 'bullied' JK Rowling for standing up for women's rights

Always the last Sunday in March and the last Sunday in October, that’s how I remember it. But I’d prefer GMT all year round. I don’t like going to bed while it’s still light outside, even when past ten.

One problem with the concept of “belief” is that we use the expression “I believe” so frequently when we really mean “I think” or “I feel” or “Someone told me”.
IMO genuine “belief” - in anything - invariably includes elements of irrationality or delusion.

Me too. I always spend a good couple of hours the night before trying to figure out if I'll be getting up earlier or later and last year in Autumn we put the clocks back a whole week early which lead to all manner of confusion!

Be gone with your pesky research and fact checking!

I couldn't remember Dawkins questioning the historicity of Jesus so I had a leaf through my copy of The God Delusion and - surprise, suprise - he does no such thing. He does note that there have been some scholars who have doubted Jesus' existence, but that this view is not well supported and that Jesus probably did exist.

There is something ironic about people claiming that Dawkins isn't well read when those same people clearly haven't actually read the person that they're criticising.

It's the clocks, Signalbox. Takes me about six months to recover from the discombobulation.

Ha ha I’m struggling to work it out too. Also reaching for the coffee ☕️

Love is a feeling. Presumably there is some evidence that human beings have various types of feelings. Maybe not though.

Well, I blurted that out and am now wondering if love counts as a belief or if I'm framing that clumsily.

Feelings are often based on thoughts and beliefs, was my point. I think.

Maybe I'll have some coffee.

Do you love anybody?

NotDavidTennant · Yesterday 20:28

I wish people would state which of Dawkins' arguments are actually wrong...

I'd like to know that, too! And what supplementary evidence, outwith the Bible, support his existence as a real person.

I'm trying to think of a belief I have that can't be proven, if we all have them then this should be fairly easy, but so far I'm coming up blank. What kind of things do you mean?

Again, we ALL have beliefs in things that can't be proven or scientifically investigated.

Do we? What type of things are you talking about?

Good. JK Rowling was and is being bullied and more people should stand up for her.

I haven’t read enough about Dawkins but he seems to be ‘on the right side of history’ as in, debate, talk about facts, disagree, voice opinions.

It's now Dawkins' birthday - he's 82.

But - reading and learning about mythologies tells us so much about the human condition, it is definitely both worthwhile and stimulating.

I love reading and I find all kinds of topics fascinating, including theology, but no - I think you’re missing the essential point. Which is a very basic one: an invention like the concept of a god cannot ever be qualified by spurious arguments that can be cyclically discussed or written about with no end point.

Those who believed in Zeus might insist others read widely about that mythology but it makes no difference to the fact that Zeus doesn’t exist.

One can learn and delve into history and conceptual positing and that’s of great interest, but it’s not connected.

Yes, there's a reason that the "Courtier's Reply" was inspired by the responses to Dawkins' The God Delusion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

I have. Apologies. I suppose I was making a quite different point which was actually off-topic. Certainly one does not need to read to come to a lack of belief in God. Many believers would, of course, say that their belief is based in experience. It is this idea that actually fuels the trans agenda and it needs heavily pointing out that feelings are not facts. Oddly, I had this pointed out by a Christian who said that belief (any belief) should be based on fact, before any reliance on feelings.

I wish people would state which of Dawkins' arguments are actually wrong, rather than telling us that he hasn't read enough theology/epistemology/whatever to have an opinion.

Sorry, but that’s a lot of
bluster. I’m not arguing for Dawkins and his work - but if you believe in an invisible being, with no proof, the amount of reading involved is irrelevant.

You could write a thousand interesting books about an invented being. It doesn’t make a jot of difference to the core issue.

So it’s largely a waste of time, unless of course you enjoy it.

he doesn't seem to understand that it assumes a whole shedload of things about the nature of reality and how we know what we know

But nothing in epistemology tells us that either, does it?