Why does Dawkins insist on reducing all religion to fundamentalism? Is it for ease of attack in an area where he lacks expertise?

Karen Armstrong noticed the same thing I did and wrote about it in her book "The Case for God". I may post the excerpt later if I get the time.

This really bugs me because from my earliest posting days several of the atheists on here seemed to have dedicated themselves to forcing this cariacature on me. To top it off the more weakling Christians have accomodated them.

Anyways the Dawkinite view is the simplified bunk view of religion so they can escape examining themselves and higher truths.

So the question is why do they continually do this?

You've read a lot of Dawkins now, have you? Which books did you read?

Irrelevant.

Then what are you basing your claims about Dawkins on?

Excerpts from books written by Christian authors trying to discredit Dawkins, obv.

Anyway, part of the MO of the new atheists is to make moderates address fundamentalism directly. I think, and Dawkins probably thinks, that moderates tend to be much more likely to adjust religion to their preset worldviews.

Not to rational people. You said you "noticed the same thing about him" which is kind of hard to do if you haven't read any of his works. Not that anyone thought you did. We don't expect you to suddenly form opinions about people by actually reading them first hand. That would be un-splendour like.

What about the dozens of videos on youtube? I have never read anything by Dawkins but I most certainly have watched dozens of videos of him and can concur that he most definitely attacks a caricature of christianity.

because moderates aren't the problem. many (possibly most?) atheists really don't care if you believe in X religion as long as it doesn't affect them directly. it's the fundies (not all of them, i'm sure) that cause the majority of the problems (causing violence and public unrest in the name of their faith, passing faith-based legislation, trying to govern other people's lives through social stigmas, causing general harm like the Africa/AIDS/condoms issue, etc.)

it is imperative that we get people to address fundamentalism directly, and limit the damage it does to society.

(and in the US there is a huge "fundie" population)

that's fine. I'm just teasing Splendour because she's been writing continuously about Dawkins for probably years now before she's read or seen anything firsthand. I would be suprised if she's seen any more then 2 minutes of footage. On top of that, she rarely shows any understanding of much of anything she talks about.

I was just amused that she's formed so many deep opinions about Dawkins, she's constantly psychoanalyzing him and drawing conclusions about why he thinks certain things, how he's come to certain conclusions, without ever reading what he's written (I mean... he's mostly famous as a writer). I wouldn't be surprised if she's never seen more then a minute or two of footage of him either.

She's constantly shown that lack of familiarity with a subject is not a hindrance to posting about something endlessly for years.

I've watched several of his debates, read his letter to his child, read a small part of his "God Delusion", and read two or three philosohical refutations of his views. Even DeWaal, Hamer and Francis Collins don't agree fully with him. I've also seen Dawkins on TED.

Plus several of the old timers on here imitate his views. But he's not religiously literate enough.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you didn't know anything about Dawkins (although it seems like you've only spent a combined total of about 2-3 hours reading or listening to words that Dawkins actually said from the description you just gave). Rather, I was more trying to see if you would say what I bolded.

You claimed it was irrelevant to have read the books of an author in order to make claims about him, yet you seem to think being religiously literate is a prerequisite to making claims about religion.

The question is then: Does one have to be religiously literate to make claims about religion? If so, then doesn't one also have to be literate in Dawkins to make claims about him?

Strawmen are standard equipment in the propaganda toolkit.

More like ease of attack where his intended audience lacks expertise.

Splendour, I'm trying to get a sense of what you are saying here. Are you saying that when Dawkins talks about religion, he only refers to fundamentalists? Are you saying that Dawkins only knows about fundamentalism or thinks all religious people are fundamentalist?

Say you saw two people arguing. One person believes his fairy god mother watches over him and can keep him out of trouble with a wave of her magic wand. Another person disagrees, because there is no such thing as magic wands.

Watching from afar, how would you position yourself in this disagreement? After all, belief in magic wands is only slightly more silly than belief in fairy god mothers.

It's all about how religious moderates provide a stage so that religious fundamentalists can flourish.

The logical fallacy you just committed in comparing fairy godmothers to God is typical of a fundamentalist.

That wasn't his point, nor was it a fallacy.

He didn't compare fairy godmothers to god. He made an analogy argument.

Doctor is to hospital, as mayor is to city hall. (relation being, the first thing works in the second). That is not comparing doctors to mayors.

Lestat was saying fairy godmother believers are to magic wand believers, as moderate god believers are to fundamentalist god believers. (relation being, the first thing is less extreme in its beliefs than the second) That is not comparing fairy godmother to god.

I think you misunderstood.

I'm also not sure how a comparison can constitute a logical fallacy, but w/ever.

Why address only part of the post in question? You missed this:

That is where the analogy turned into an implication of intrinsic silliness. The fallacy lies in the evidently intentional (i.e. inevitable in the mind of the reader) suggestion (though unstated) that beings A and B are both invisible, etc; being A is a childish fantasy, therefore, etc. You're familiar with that old warhorse.

Yeah, that's still not a logical fallacy. Besides which, Lestat was trying to clarify Dawkins' perspective. The objection you're raising is an objection to Dawkins' perspective, not Lestat's elucidation of it.

Sure it is. It's a textbook example of over-generalization.

That attribution is not in the post and wouldn't make it less bogus anyway.

In both cases it comes down to " They're quibbling over details".

Sigh... you can disagree, and you can even say it's demonstrably wrong. That doesn't make it a 'logical fallacy'.

The following sentence is intended to demonstrate All-In Flynn's view of the sentence quoted above

It's blindingly obvious from the context that this is the intention of the post. Its being 'bogus' depends rather on... uh... one's perspective, no?

We now return to normal programming

No kidding, which is why I explained how it is a logical fallacy. Whether I disagree with it or not is beside the point.

You said it was, and then you said it was 'over-generalisation', which isn't the same thing.

'The sky is green' = untrue statement; != 'logical fallacy'.

'Lemons taste like strawberries' = untrue statement; != 'logical fallacy'.

'Fundie:Moderate = Godmotherandwandist:Godmotherist' = true or untrue statement; != 'logical fallacy'.

Done with this.