This is how I would have understood the words about 20 years ago, yes.

Me too, but I didn't know anything about epistemology when I was 8 years old.

Epistemology != beliefs. I think this why it is difficult to keep it all straight. None of those labels are applied to epistemic claims.

Could you link to some of these compelling cases? Anything I have ever seen of Dawkins on this discussion is laughable at best.

a pretty silly argument against dawkins. its meant to be an accessible book for nearly all readers. any book that delves into intense philosophical discourse will be virtually impenetrable to anyone without significant philosophical training. those books are the worst.

are there any atheist authors you don't find laughable? if so, which one(s) and why?

What is the information that is meant to be accessed?

If the question of the existence of God is an intense philosophical discussion, this would imply that the argument on either side is difficult to make. If this is so, then why would anyone think that the philosophical conclusion Dawkins is claiming can be made accessible (or even that Dawkins is adequately knowledgeable in the appropriate field to make such an argument)?

Agnosticism is pretty clearly an epistemological claim (as you say, it is about our ability to know that God exists). I think the simplest way to distinguish between agnosticism and atheism is to say that atheism refers to the content of the belief ("There is/are no god(s)"), and agnosticism refers to our epistemic relationship to this belief (whether we think we know the belief).

However, there is another kind of atheism that most of the people on this forum accept. They accept "weak atheism," which is typically described as being in the psychological state of not believing any propositions about the existence or non-existence of god(s). This type of atheism is typically considered compatible with believing that certain god tokens do not exist, but not that the god type doesn't exist.

I don't think Gutting's argument against Dawkins is that Dawkins doesn't delve into an intense philosophical discourse. Rather, it is that his main arguments against theism fail. He claims that the argument from complexity ignores the fact that Christian philosophy has claimed for hundreds of years that God is not complex, but simplel and that the rebuttal of the design argument is a non sequitur.

I haven't read Dawkin's book, so I can't say if Gutting's presentation of his argument is fair. However, I will say that it is no defence of Dawkins to say that his errors are excused because he is trying to write an accessible book. He is writing a popular book on a philosophical topic, so it is legitimate to criticize him for leaving out crucial information if it is relevant.

Ugh. That's an obvious error in my framing of the issue. Thanks.

it isnt?

it seems like that is exactly what he is claiming. dawkins fails because he doesn't get into a penetrating philosophical blah blah blah.

well i dont buy your "if" statement. so i can ignore the implication.

Would you like to address the first question?

Edit: FWIW - I find that some people like to defend Dawkins not because they think his arguments are strong, but because they agree with his conclusion. I'm trying to figure out which category you are in, and this is the purpose for my inquiry.

god, etc.

How about the guy that wrote this article? I don't find him laughable. And ftr, I criticized Dawkins arguments, not Dawkins.

in that case, im not critical of God, simply his methods.

I just had a chance to read this article. I just have to say it was very enjoyable. I would ask what everyone thought of one of his closing paragraphs,

Agree/Disagree?

You are mistaking Gutting's diagnosis of how Dawkins goes wrong for his actual arguments against Dawkins. Gutting specifically addresses the arguments made by Dawkins and identifies the errors in them. He then says that the reason that Dawkins is making these errors is that he is ignoring the philosophical complexity of the issue--the blah, blah, blah part I guess.

But since I haven't read Dawkin's book, I really don't want to say much more.

So you are saying that it is impossible to think that someone's arguments for a certain discussion are laughable without thinking that the person is laughable? That one follows the other necessarily?

You know what I think of Craig. I have a lot of respect for him, but when it comes to his arguments against open theism, I find the laughable. Do you now believe that I dislike Craig?

i didnt realize i was defending him, nor his arguments. im actually not a huge dawkins fan. the only thing ive done in itt is point out that the criticism against his arguments are silly. id say something similar if karen armstrong was attacked for not being philosophically rigorous enough. its a moot point when the goal of a book is to be read and understood by as many people as possible.

um, no. im not saying this at all. clearly there is a divide here. wtf?

do you play 9/7 fr or something?

This is basically defending Dawkins (at least his writings). It's hard to view it as taking a neutral position in the discussion.

This makes no sense. It needs more words to be a coherent statement.

i dont think i could possibly disagree anymore. we dont need conclusive proof against a hypothesis with no evidence in order to dismiss the hypothesis.

I don't think Gutting is an atheist.

lol, oh whoops.