Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@Thomas,

The fact that you can't differentiate between a belief in God and belief in the Easter bunny means you suffer from the same mental disability as Dawkins. I'm guessing you take pride in that.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The fact that you can't differentiate between a belief in God and belief in the Easter bunny means you suffer from the same mental disability as Dawkins. I'm guessing you take pride in that.

Pride in being as mentally-disabled as Dawkins? Guilty as charged!

3 Replies

@Thomas,

I rest my case...

1 Reply

@Thomas,

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

There is no penalty for mental disability. You are free to go.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Now the jury will have to decide whether you had a case to rest in the first place. I think ehBeth and I are pretty safe, but maybe that's just the mental disability talking.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

PS on Farmerman's assertion that Dawkins used to be a scientist but isn't anymore: In standard American usage, as documented in my dictionary, a scientist is "a person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science." Richard Dawkins fits this definition. Nothing in it says that you lose your membership in the scientific community when you stop publishing academic papers. If Farmerman wants to say that Dawkins isn't a scientist anymore, that is his right, but it's him speaking a made-up language of his own rather than plain English.

Farmerman's explanation would best help someone like me, who sought to understand why E O Wilson would suggest that Dawkins is a journalist and not a scientist.

Farmerman's message was easy to understand and informative. In this context, no more can reasonably be asked of language.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
OK, so every generation and every individual has to reinvent the wheel, ignoring what has gone before. You stay that course, dood. Again, good luck with that.
You are dangerously close to the truth there. If there is a God and you are going to know him, that is exactly the case.

Same deal here where you have read varied opinions on Dawkins and perhaps read his books. We can get an idea of his attitudes and what he believes from that but we really don't know him as a man unless we personally meet and chat over a brew or two. Same story with God.

So your god boils down to nothing more than a preferred subjective opinion or a mental image. That's why it can't be objectively tested. I'll wait for something more substantial, thanks.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I'll wait for something more substantial, thanks

That is every man's prerogative. Enjoy your choice.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

So your god boils down to nothing more than a preferred subjective opinion or a mental image

That came out of the blue. You're reading something into my statements that isn't there.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

but we really don't know him as a man unless we personally meet and chat over a brew or two. Same story with God.

Well, it seems that we'd have to imagine/assume/pretend that your god exists in the first place in order to get to know him.

https://www.google.co.kr/#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=circular+reasoning

Before I restructure my entire cosmology and lifestyle, I still need something more substantive and fallacy-free than anything you've posted so far.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
So your god boils down to nothing more than a preferred subjective opinion or a mental image
That came out of the blue. You're reading something into my statements that isn't there.

If so, seems like the shoe is on the other foot with regards to making claims about things that aren't there, then. Wink

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Just curious, Leddy. Are you a Christian? Belong to any particular denomination?

1 Reply

@layman,

Tried a few denominations. None would have me but I would have eventually left on my own anyway. Sounds like you'd be about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl there too. Ultimately they were as dogmatic in their theism as some are about their atheism. You find any otherwise?

Christian? That's a hard one to answer. Let's just say I have two imaginary friends. Don't want to offend my buddy FBM ya know.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Ultimately they were as dogmatic in their theism as some are about their atheism. You find any otherwise?

Yeah, I've been excommunicated from every denomination there is. They're all very dogmatic about one thing: They absolutely prohibit stealing from the collection plate. Not open-minded enough for my purposes.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Well, it seems that we'd have to imagine/assume/pretend that your god exists in the first place in order to get to know him.

Well ****, all those wonderful talks we had about logic, reason & scientific method were wasted words.

Was there ever a scientist who said "If X is true then ....". But then he would have to be curious about the answer in the first place.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

They absolutely prohibit stealing from the collection plate. Not open-minded enough for my purposes.

You think that's not open minded? They wouldn't even let me put my filthy money IN.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Was there ever a scientist who said "If X is true then ....".

Well, Leddy, scientists (i.e., those who actually do science) may sometimes use their imagination to come up with a possible solution to a problem and, for the purposes of testing a hypothetical assumption, pretend that it's true (at least provisionally). But those are scientists.

Then ya got your non-scientists who worship scientists and assume their omnipotence and infallibility They aint the preacher-man, they just the choir. Which is good. Ya need somebody to sing your praises, right?

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know