|
|
|
|
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/15/2009 9:31:37 PM | | I think Dawkins is just as bad as theists, just on the opposte end. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/15/2009 10:23:22 PM |
Well, no, mate. We're merely tasting the same medicine we've been fed since the beginning of atheism. What you're witnessing is a backlash, as atheists begin to assert themselves, and move from atheism to active, militant antitheism.
We've been attacked and oppressed by religious fundamentalists for so long, that it's given rise to a fundamentalist atheist: an antitheist - I personally believe religion to be backward savagery; anyone who subscribes to religion deluded; and feel that these people should be broken of their delusions by force, if necessary. I realize this makes me no different from the religious fundies, but I'm tired of turning the other cheek or taking the moral high ground. If the religious fundamentalists won't live and let live, I see no bloody reason why I should, and I'll do my best to convert people of all these soon-to-be-obsolete religions to my frankly superior and correct viewpoint.
The beautiful thing about it is, unlike any world religion, our "faith" is the end viewpoint, the omega conclusion - once a society goes atheist, it really doesn't go back to being stupid, superstitious and deluded, barring the collapse of civilization. Already, the secularization of the West continues un-checked, with fewer and fewer identifying themselves as religious. In a few more generations, the religious in the West will be relegated to a minority, and despised by the rational majority for their ebbing attempts to impose their savage, barbaric rules on a society which has by then largely outgrown the need for such theologically inspired rigour.
Great post. Well said.
I'm an athiest myself, and find it difficult at times to keep quiet about it. Only reason I do is because I don't want to insult or offend anyone. It is a fine line to balance on when trying to tell anyone, regardless of what it is, that something they've believed in so strongly for their entire lives is pure fiction. The proof is everywhere, all you have to do is read, and keep a logical head. For so long, generation after generation has been sort of brainwashed, in a subtle and sneaky way. Over the generations, that brainwashing has gotten less extreme. In some places it is still quite prevalent, most obvious being the extremist muslims of the world, although I'm sure there are other religions and places in the world that are just as bad, and are just not in the news as much. In the most extreme cases, you are killed if you do not believe what you are told to believe.
In much less extreme cases, you are ridiculed by your classmates as a child if you question christianity (in a christian school)... I have been there, it took everything I had to turn down confirmation when i was 13. Note that by the way. Catholic children must "confirm" that they are catholic, conveniently JUST before the age that they start to question what their parents and teachers have been feeding them.
Now as adults, speaking one's mind about atheism is viewed by some as "nutty" (which is a hilarious irony to me), and by others as "mean" or "misled". Faith is blind, science tries to prove theories. If we get blasted back to the stone age, is someone going to find a copy of star wars in a few thousand years and think Luke Skywalker is Jesus? It's incredibly silly to me to accept the story of genesis. There's so much proof to debunk it... you just have to accept that just maybe what you've been led to believe is myth.
Anyways... Dawkins is amazing. I pretty much never read long books of any kind because my attention span is horrible, but I've watched some debates and watched a few interesting youtube videos. Here's an interesting interview he had:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1832255-british-tv-richard-dawkins-interview
A couple of my favorite quotes from here:
"If someone is genuinely interested in what's true, they need to look to science.
A doctor can comfort you by saying you don't have cancer when you do, some people like that sort of comfort other people would rather hear the truth."
"It's abusive to label children with the religion of their parents before they've had a chance to know what they REALLY think." | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/15/2009 10:25:23 PM | I am a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. I think he is picking up where Carl Sagan left off after his untimely death. I watch alot of his speeches and debates he has with opponents on you-tube. I find him very intriguing to say the least, very articulate and knowledgable in his chosen field of evolutionary biology.
I also admire him for his courage to challenge some of the extreme religius fundamentalist views and some of the most barbaric practices carried out in the name of religious dogma.
Although he lacks the charisma that Carl Sagan had, he should be judged by his own merits. He is his own person, and so was Sagan. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/25/2009 8:49:03 PM | Dawkins writing is entertaining and informative. He is logical and easy to read.
- aboslutely a fan | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/27/2009 6:57:14 PM | if you need him to fill in the blanks, go for it.
I kinda like to think for myself, you? | |
|
O.B.I
|
Joined: 6/20/2009
Msg: 106 | |
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/28/2009 5:30:04 AM | "If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. (1) His witty repartee, (2) his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words... (3) would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy..." - Richard Dawkins on 'God Is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens
(1) In what way does Hitchens' "witty repartee" reinforce his points?
(2) He's arguing a case against something that he cannot fully prove is fallacious. His argument requires the communication of hard scientific facts, not "historical quotations".
Having gotten through about a quarter of the book I am aware that he does cite scientific evidence to suggest that humans are not the greatest organism in the natural world - our eyes were fitted-in backwards and upside-down, whereas the eyes of an Osprey are far more sophisticated and better implemented - and therefore we clearly cannot be the chosen sons of the Earth's creator, who is believed to be the very pinnacle of perfection.
But at the end of the day, it still amounts to nothing.
(3) It would appear that Dawkins prioritises piss-taking over a sensible, constructive and intelligent debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRpbkpNpgw
I do believe that Dawkins has a point when he says that many are sick of having the religious right's beliefs thrust upon them, but the 'Church of Athiesm' (yes, it's a faith, and I can elaborate on this) has become similarly didactic and condescending. What right has Dawkins to label those of faith "unintelligent"? What exactly is his problem with people who wear their caps backwards? (He actually said this, but I fully understand his dislike of chewing gum)
It's as though he's trying to forge a super-race of tweed-sporting boffins. It's rather ironic that "Dawkinsian" rhymes with "Aryan"...
"DEFER DAWKINS!!"
P.S. I am neither a Thiest or an Athiest, nor am I an Agnostic (which basically equals "apathetic"). | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:12:01 AM | he slept with mr garrison not realising he was sleeping with a man who used to be a woman.
as admiral akbar says: its a trap | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/8/2009 8:16:00 PM | Alli oop,
Am a admirer of Professor Hawkins and his books and his website that has many a bright person. Also like Christopher Hitchens who has a great wit. And I also like Michael Shermer. Each has written some good pieces for Skeptic Magazine as well as Free Inquiry magazine. ~Beth~ | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/8/2009 11:15:18 PM | About Dawkins. Why would you suppose he thinks others who do not endorse his particular favoured flavour of Evolution should be compared to Holocaust deniers...and they get prison sentences or minimum the very strong social penalty of shunning.
He might have said they were like Flat Earth folks. Why demonize other respected scientists with comparisons to the Holocaust denier, one who is denying such an atrocity ...when one is denying Dawkins ?
Or perhaps he really does know how to compare atrocity with atrocity ? Still, I think that's a bit strong, even he is just being overly humble :)
Naturally, to Dawkins, Evolution IS what he thinks it is - and what he does not accept, is not Evolution. People not agreeing well enough for him, are then heretic - and subject to social punishment as called for.
I think that is one fine bit of outrageous showboating... it's actually disturbing, that he indicates social punishment for not agreeing on an intellectual matter is a good way to handle things.
here is a passage from DS WILSON containing a sample of Mr. Dawkins
Consider his response to my recent article with Edward O. Wilson in American Scientist magazine titled "Evolution 'For the Good of the Group'"
*******************************************************************************
Genes Still Central: David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion--and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him--is of no more scientific interest than semantic double talk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E.O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error [that the replicator concept provides an argument against group selection]...I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them. D.S. Wilson should apologize. E.O. Wilson, being the gentleman that he is, probably will.
*******************************************************************************
Gracious! What a hierarchical guy! Dawkins acts as if he is the No. 2 monkey, kowtowing to the No. 1 monkey (Ed) while dishing it out to the No. 3 monkey (me)! As Ed commented to me after reading Dawkins' comment, "What does he think--that you slipped me a Mickey?"
hehe :) I like that DS Wilson. "Stealth Religion" is nice term , too.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/truth-and-reconciliation_b_190008.html&cp
| |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 5:26:45 AM | I had the pleasure of meeting Richard Dawkins back in March. He came to my university to deliver a public lecture, and the topic was loosely based on the question of whether life has any purpose to it. I even have some pictures of us standing together on Facebook. 
You may all commence getting consumed by jealousy now. 
I agree with you though OP, his writing style is pretty run of the mill and blah. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:14:09 AM | Dawkins vs. Darwin.
who is lying ?
Darwin
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection."
but Dawkins claims he regained "Darwin's Ground" against the wily Jesuitically ... uhhhh???
Dawkins
The intervening years since Darwin have seen an astonishing retreat from his individual-centered stand, a lapse into sloppily unconscious group-selectionism We painfully struggled back, harassed by sniping from a Jesuitically sophisticated and dedicated neo-group-selectionist rearguard, until we finally regained Darwins ground, the position that I am characterizing..
and EO Wilson is the enemy of reason ? | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:50:57 AM | And yet here is Dawkins again
David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion--and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him--is of no more scientific interest than semantic double talk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E.O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error [that the replicator concept provides an argument against group selection]...I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them. D.S. Wilson should apologize. E.O. Wilson, being the gentleman that he is, probably will.
Excerpt of response from DSWilson :)
Gracious! What a hierarchical guy! Dawkins acts as if he is the No. 2 monkey, kowtowing to the No. 1 monkey (Ed) while dishing it out to the No. 3 monkey (me)! As Ed commented to me after reading Dawkins' comment, "What does he think--that you slipped me a Mickey
| |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:53:50 AM | | But it is the likes of EOWilson and DSWilson, that are to be likened to the Holocaust deniers ? He suggests isolation from fellowship, public humiliation, shunning of such liars. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:59:26 AM | Don't get me wrong. The man could do with some work with regards to his humility and modesty, to name but two, however I do like the man for his razor sharp, no nonsense, straight to the bloody point, intellect. Something which, these days, is in serious decline.
So although I would definitively not classify myself as a fan, I do like listening to him. I don't agree with him on all points and I suppose my biggest gripe with him is his "belief" that God does not exist. A petty wild claim since such a concept is beyond Science to even answer and is thus a question which has no objective, definitive answer either way. However, I have been warmed to the man when he retracted such claims slightly, by aptly inserting the word "probably" right after God in that sentence. Since even he has to acknowledge that, smart he may be, he does not know everything and that some things are simply unknowable.
So yeah... I do like the man. Enough to have an interesting chat over a couple of beers. But I have yet to buy any of his books (even though I've been meaning to) and I certainly don't follow his every move. Nonetheless, we NEED people like Richard Dawkins, especially in a world that is going completely nuts! | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:44:42 AM | Nonetheless, we NEED people like Richard Dawkins, especially in a world that is going completely nuts! look at the stuff above your post. Dawkins is completely nuts - lying, suppressing science. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:49:15 AM | | If i may loosely interpret your *point* of why you like Dawkins.. GWBush is to Saddam as Dawkins is to the Religious ? | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 4:20:11 PM | LOL!
I think we can safely establish that rug doctor is obviously NOT a Richard Dawkins fan. 
Neither am I as it goes... And perhaps I should clarify one or two points. Being a non-fan who has better things to do than take a deep look into the Life of Richard Dawkins, I am unsure about his political affiliations or his personal views on various subject matters.
However, one area that does interest me, is his die hard views on Science, especially Genetics and Evolution, which is taking a serious battering these days.
I also firmly believe in our current scientific models... Sure, they are NOT perfect, but as models go, they are bloody useful and are in a process of constant refinement. And heck, we have to start somewhere right? Lest we go back to primal forms of superstitious clap trap!
So yes... In terms of defending Science as a whole, Evolution in particular... He's got my vote hands down. As for the rest... It doesn't really interest me to be honest. Hence why I rightly claim not to be a fan.
Oh… And yes… If it is not already obvious, I do have some serious concerns about certain aspects of main stream Religion. Something that Dawkins also takes very, very seriously. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 6:28:31 PM |
I realize this makes me no different from the religious fundies, but I'm tired of turning the other cheek or taking the moral high ground. If the religious fundamentalists won't live and let live, I see no bloody reason why I should, and I'll do my best to convert people of all these soon-to-be-obsolete religions to my frankly superior and correct viewpoint.
Self-defeating argument at its finest. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:53:15 PM | I believe Richard Dawkins is fomenting battles in order to protect himself , as one might see done in a western movie when someone in a saloon needs to escape; so he then starts a roundhouse brawl.
As to attacks on secular society that many religions are engaged in, it is ULTRA STOOPID to return same in kind.
Look at it this way; when the Abrahamist Religions announce their intention to outbreed the infidel, is the Rationalist to attempt to outstupid the Religionist and further degrade the environment ?
Not so swift, eh ? He better talk to them, as friends, rather than join in the stupidity.
The recent example in an Ontario Canada Election, fought almost entirely over Religious School Public Funding, was a perfect example of how a Rationalist can take on every religion's simultaneous attack and win; convince them to cut themselves, for the common good. Atheist screaming for equality could do nothing but further deteriorate the situation.
It needed a smart person to just stick to Secular Humanist values, and show how if we split the Public Funds into schools for every sect and every sect of every sect, it would allow any cult acces to public money...and destroy Public Education. The Public ( a religious public) responded by embracing the idea of not splintering the system into thousand pieces, and in grand fashion dismissed the Conservative ( read Republican)
platform with no futher complications. Screaming for Atheist rights or abolition of Religion would never had done the job.
And the job of rationalist was done by a sSunday School TEacher, Dalton McGuinty. Smart strategy.
Not Dawkins kind of rabble- rousing bullshit. Problem-maker trying to hang on when he's known to other scientists now as 'The Voldemort of Science" | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:33:16 PM |
You may all commence getting consumed by jealousy now
oh shush :) | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/10/2009 5:46:46 AM | I don't think that any of his arguments are brilliant.
Not this
Richard Dawkins"
<div class="quote">I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage
Because most of what was documented was on boys 11 to 15..he seems to have preferred to indicated differently, and he seems also to offer suggestion of no physical damage as if hehad never ever heard of STD's.
not so good an argument, to mimiize the damage from the sex assaults MERELY to drive home a point on how dangerous indoctrination can be.
no, not a good mind at work.
if you had to choose this Sunday...take your child to chuurch or an hour, or take your child to be sexually molested for an hour...why, if you had to do that part yourself, or teach bible for an hour...
and the next week and the next week...
how good would Mr Dawkins arguments be to you, when that young man gets big enough to ask you why you did that to him ? | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/10/2009 6:08:54 AM | what would you tell your son as the reason you had to take him for a sex assault every week, instead of religion once a week ?
that you thought so highly of Richard Dawkins that you chose as he indicated would be better ?
and if indoctrination is worse than sex assault, then why does Mr. Dawkins not support it being made illegal, as rape is illegal ??
because it might be "good to study it", is the answer.
You tell your son that. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/10/2009 6:47:58 AM | The problem I have with Dawkins is primarily in his rally. Many of his "fans" claim to be so when they have perhaps read only 1 of his works fully, or only halfway through. How on earth can you solicity yourself to the ideas of a man and claim him a herald in his field when you have barely touched upon his ideas?
That's exactly what Dawkins criticses the religious for, for not thinking through their choices, and yet, a fair number of his camp do exactly the same. They make the dinstinction "I am an atheist" and see/read a smidgeon of Dawkins and decide "His viewpoint is similar enough to mine" and that's enough for them to revere the man.
He is a man in the field of science, so his works should be treated as such, falling under rigoruous scrutiny and testing. From what I have read of his works I am in agreement with Scorpio that when it comes to concrete of the argument, he leaves more to be desired. The genus behind his thoughts are indeed provoking, but you have to follow them through to separate them from sheer opinion. I would expect this to be textbook for an atheist such a Dawkins.
Another problem is his arguments levelled against the religious are overtly condescending and bashing. It's a case of Dawkin's condemning the subject, and they "showing you" how they are condemned by using his condemnations. It's not sound. If he took a more neutral approach and built his arguments systematically to illustrate his point, then maybe he'd hold more favour with me. From my reading, it's a case of a lot of calling theists "stupid" or assuming the intellectual superiority of an atheist, so readers will of course agree because "they don't want to be stupid" treating the man's opinion like some be-all-and-end-all. He never provides any proof for his claims of the intelligence distinctions between the theist and the atheist at all, only referring to what I see as distinctly HUMAN behaviours which can be taken on by the atheist or theist alike and display similar amounts of lack of autonomy.
I'll take him more seriously when he stops the abrupt bashing and the field of commotion that surrounds his position, it is precisely what he criticizes he generates himself, but it's ok because it's not about a God, it's about an assertion that there is no God. Despite the criterion being exactly the same in the method of absolute proof (afaik, there is none whatsoever on either side) how on earth one can be so arrogant as to claim "This is inherently more rational and intelligent" is simply adding a stir to the soup.
Alister McGrath has written some excellant books replying to Dawkins. If one has actually read Dawkin's work cover to cover, and then reads through McGrath's work, you will indeed notice that whether you agree with him or not, there is much of his argumentation style and format that needs further investigation before we serenade the man as the absolute pioneer he is thought to be by so many.
- As for justified under persecution of the irrelgious, obviously the absolutely massive amounts of religious persecution that has occured in the swirls of history escapes your notice. Atheism has never suffered by large the amount of grief and persecution religiosity has suffered.
TLDR version: most certainly not a fan. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/19/2009 3:57:13 PM | Great guy.
There is of course a difference from revering someone (or allying yourself with what you believe they believe) and worshiping them !
Why do theists get so upset when an atheist questions the scientific basis of their beliefs and simply says "where is your evidence ?'
Dawkins defends peoples right to believe what they want, even though he clearly thinks people who don't base their beliefs on scientifically derived evidence are deluded at best.
| |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 11/19/2009 4:43:19 PM | | Atheists are mostly silent because they are scorned or pitied by thiest knowitalls who are laying down the law according to their particular religion, they want to control, convert and assimilate us. We need someone to defend our belief that there is no supreme being controlling the universe that we have to please and pray to. I think Carl Sagan was a better advocate for us, too bad he's gone. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
