3 ms·
Not sure I follow you. Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically use
by davesims 15y ago
Not sure I follow you. Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically useful to get a rise out of your opponent? How is that productive? This was the point I was making: all too often the specific brand atheism that Dawkins' writing seems to inspire is more interested in tweaking fundamentalists than engaging faith as such. Hell, I love to tweak fundamentalists as much as the next guy, but where does that get us? Might as well go cow-tipping...
- burgerbrain 15y ago"Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically useful to get a rise out of your opponent?" Yes. Exactly. "How is that productive?" It's not, nor is it meant to be. It's entertainment for atheists, nothing more. You should not attempt to determine the philosophical sophistication of anyone who uses it from the fact that they are using it. There are tons of atheists who will be willing to have level headed and informed philosophical conversations with you. I however, and many others, are not interested in such things. Dawkin's is often appreciated by both groups.