Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

Gunga Dim's obsessional delusions are just fantastic . . .

@farmerman,

Quote:

His jumps in logic are similar in kind to those that we have gotten used to herein by some who claim that "Christianity has been the eentire source of our culture and our science" Different message , but same envelope.

I don't recall anybody claiming that Christianity has been the entire source of our culture. I regularly read Pagan literature.

Nor do I recall anybody claiming that Christianity has been the entire source of our science. Only that it has been the entire source of the western science of dynamic force. Science was obviously involved in increasing the effects of man power with simple machine before Christianity. Experts I have read assert by factors of less than 10. Our science has increased the effects of man power by factors of thousands.

There are no jumps in logic involved. The historical record is there for anybody's perusal who cares to look.

Anybody who reads Dawkins is limiting his intelligence because there is nothing new in anything I have seen him say. The only benefit I can see from reading him is the provision of reassurance for those in need of it as they plough the same furrow over and over again such as the last 2 paragraphs of the above where the same old washed out circularities are dusted off and shown to public view in the service of presenting their author in a superior glow of that golden sunshine which is only allowed to illuminate certain chosen objects in a narrow field. Heavy curtains being drawn over the rest.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Read R QWRights "The EVolution of God" if ya wanna get a dispassionate view from someone of faith who recognizes the "thinning of the herd of gods" betyween the Neolithic to Rome.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

If there is a God, why is there vegemite? or lite beer?.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Or . . . (shudder) . . . the "Real Housewives . . . " series . . .

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown wrote:

This is a religious assertion.

No, it's a sociological conclusion, with evidence to back it up. You may disagree with the conclusion, but that doesn't make it a religious assertion.

ebrownp wrote:

This is not how I think Dawkins uses the term.

In all due respect, I'm getting bored arguing against what you think Dawkins says, and how you think Dawkins uses terms. Let's resume this conversation after you've actually read the texts you're so confidently dispensing opinions about.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If there is a God, why is there vegemite? or lite beer?.

Because the god I do not believe in is a loving god.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

No, it's a sociological conclusion, with evidence to back it up. You may disagree with the conclusion, but that doesn't make it a religious assertion.

The fact that there is "evidence" doesn't mean that it is not a "religious" assertion-- there are many, if not most, religious assertions are backed up by "evidence".

The evidence has to be subjectively measurable by repeatable experiments. The problem with religious assertions is that the assertion comes first, then whatever "evidence" there is available is used to back up the initial assertion.

1 Reply

Quote:

Dawkins argues that whatever his personal value judgments are, people's approach to moral questions is fundamentally the same across cultures, largely independent from their religion or lack thereof.

Which cultures? What moral questions?

Is there a culture which lacks a religion?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

. . . there are many, if not most, religious assertions are backed up by "evidence". [sic]

Jesus Christ, that's one of the stupidest things you've posted at this site . . . and that's saying a lot.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The evidence has to be subjectively measurable by repeatable experiments. The problem with religious assertions is that the assertion comes first, then whatever "evidence" there is available is used to back up the initial assertion.

HAMANAH HAMANAH HAMANAH

0 Replies

That boy surely is a comedian . . . but i don't think he should give up his day job just yet . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

HOLY ****. Look at the bottom of the page about "THE GOD WHO WASNT THERE"

ASOmebodys been peeking

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

ebrown p wrote:
. . . there are many, if not most, religious assertions are backed up by "evidence". [sic]

Jesus Christ, that's one of the stupidest things you've posted at this site . . . and that's saying a lot.

Setanta has obviously got the Malleus Malificarum on Ignore despite it being a seminal document to which he owes his very existence.

The next time he watches himself in the mirror squeezing a zit the evidence is staring the nonnie in the face.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I went back to "Greatest Show..." and I have to re-revise my opinion re" the manner in which Dawkins presents his core theses. While the book does present an excellent brekdown of the evidence for evolution and development, he does , a bit too often in my book, Compare Creationists with Holocaust deniers. IF, as hes stated , he wants to draw the community of believers into dialogue, maybe calling them Holocaust deniers wont be a successful leading line. Its a powerful series of lines in the way he presents this comparison. I have no personal problem with it and agree fully. However , if hes trying to gather converts, calling their God Hitler, may be a bit heavy handed.

MAybe Dawkins doesnt give a squat about some dialogue with Creationists and IDers. MAybe hes just lying to me.

1 Reply

Maybe he just says he wants dialogue because he thinks he should say it, while childishly enjoy the barbs he throws at the community of believers.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

IF, as hes stated , he wants to draw the community of believers into dialogue, maybe calling them Holocaust deniers wont be a successful leading line.

Not all believers are creationists though. The believers Dawkins wants to draw in with The Greatest Show on Earth, but which he argued against in The God Delusion, are those who accept evolution. I think he's given up on the community of hardened creationists -- as well he should.

As to Dawkins offending believers in The God Delusion: I simply don't think non-offense is an option when you talk about these things clearly. There is no non-offensive way of telling people that they've wasted significant portions of their lives on an imaginary-friend illusion. That doesn't mean one shouldn't say it, as long as one has good reason to think it's true.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

There is no non-offensive way of telling people that they've wasted significant portions of their lives on an imaginary-friend illusion.

There's also no non-offensive way of telling people that they are monkeys or mobile tubes in which nutrient goes in one end and **** comes out the other from which more nutrient can be made.

But that is a Darwinian fact so it shouldn't be offensive to those brought up on the theory of evolution.

However, it is not a fact that people have wasted "significant portions of their lives on an imaginary-friend illusion". Whatever significant is supposed to mean or what waste consists of.

It is an opinion.

Hence, there is more scientific and intellectual justification for telling people that they are monkeys or mobile tubes in which nutrient goes in one end and **** comes out the other from which more nutrient can be made, than there is for telling people that they've wasted significant portions of their lives on an imaginary-friend illusion.

Enough of a difference to make that latter statement offensive in intelligent company.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

As to Dawkins offending believers in The God Delusion: I simply don't think non-offense is an option when you talk about these things clearly. There is no non-offensive way of telling people that they've wasted significant portions of their lives on an imaginary-friend illusion. That doesn't mean one shouldn't say it, as long as one has good reason to think it's true.

I agree with Spendius.

Thomas, are you really claiming that the illusions on which you base your life are any less illusionary or that your life (not being wasted) is of any more import?

Any attempt to give meaning to life is based on illusion; there is no scientific argument that gives any meaning to being human. The very idea that life can be wasted is, in this sense, a religious argument.

4 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Any attempt to give meaning to life is based on illusion; there is no scientific argument that gives any meaning to being human. The very idea that life can be wasted is, in this sense, a religious argument.

Although it pains me to acknowledge it, i agree, to a limited extent, with Brown. Life needs no "excuse," it is its own justification.

1 Reply

Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know