1. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127603 by SebastianSylvan on February 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I have to say that she seems quite stupid to me too. Specifically she sounds like someone who thinks she is very intelligent, but actually isn't This is evidenced by her constant interruptions, and dodgning of the opponents argument - she knows better after all, so why should she care about what the other party is saying? Combine this with the fact that she said absolutely nothing of substance in that whole segment and you end up with "stupid, but thinks she's smart". The worst combination. Our old friend Dinesh D'Souza is in the same camp (the only real difference being that they're in different camps politically).

Absolutely maddening to listen to!

2. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #103865 by SebastianSylvan on December 27, 2007 at 6:32 am

I think this suffices:

Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

3. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97102 by SebastianSylvan on December 11, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Here's how I see it.

What does it take for us to consider a religion in some way responsible for the actions of its members?

Is it enough that a murderer *is* a member of a religion for that religion to share blame?
No, of course not. There are many reasons to commit murder, religion is only one of them.

Is it enough then, that the murderer says plainly that the *reason* for the murder is his religion?
No, not even that will suffice, as the murderer could simpy have misunderstood the religion, or maybe he is simply trying to cover up his real motives with a more pious facade.

What we require in order to implicate a religion in the actions of its followers is that a plausible argument that can be made, that the action was *required* by the religion.

For example, all can easily see how someone may get the impression that christianity endorsers the murder of homosexuals. Individual christians may reach a different conclusion, but it's easy to see that the shared set of christian doctrine and scriptures *could* lead to the conclusion that a christian is *required* to murder homosexuals.


Now, how does this apply to atheism? It doesn't, as there is no atheistic common doctrine or holy scripture. There may be atheists who are also murderers, and there may be murderers who claim to kill in the name of atheism, but there is simply no shared doctrine on which to make a plausible argument that atheism *requires* murder, or anything else for that matter.

Atheism is a conclusion, not a premiss.

The *lack* of a common ideology, is *not* a common ideology in itself!

4. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92919 by SebastianSylvan on December 1, 2007 at 6:41 pm

D'Souza strikes me as a very unintelligent person, who has also been graced with large amount of arrogance and smugness.
He regurgitates naive ideas that are not even his own, as if they were slam dunk arguments for his case, and completely ignores the other side's case, relying instead on transparent and by-the-book rhetoric (see for example the classical opening joke to disarm the audience, the over-reliance on analogies that conveniently avoid the troublesome parts of the argument he "refutes" etc.).

It's as if he cares more about "winning", by intellectually dishonest persuation tactics, rather than actually furthering the debate by adressing the points made in an honest and reasoning manner.

What makes it infuriating is the overall arrogance and smugness. Like when he basically declares Dawkins an idiot, while simultaneously completely misrepresenting his points (e.g. that giving someone a seat on the bus couldn't be explained by evolution, as if natural selection was a conscious process, when in fact Dawkins is extremely clear in explaining this point).

5. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92373 by SebastianSylvan on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 am

I think a worthwhile thing to point out when people say "You can't prove it, and you can't disprove it" is that the two endeavours (of proving or disproving) are very very different.

Disproving god is, as Dawkins points out, impossible (but a very weak argument as many things are impossible to disprove).

There is, however, absolutely no reason for why proving the existence of god should be said to be impossible! It's perfectly plausible, assuming that the right evidence could be demonstrated. It just so happens that nobody has succeded yet, but that's an issue of practical difficulties, not a problem in principle.

So no, it's not impossible to prove the existence of god, it's just that nobody has succeded yet (the prime practical difficulty being his non-existence, in my opinion).