Author Topic: Richard Dawkins  (Read 268823 times)

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #80 on: August 14, 2007, 11:54:12 am »
i'm sure the 1000's of people who have had their lives ruined throughout the ages by paedophile priests and rapist holy men wouldn't agree with your sentiments.

Yeah i'd go along with that. As i said it would be idiotic to claim that some people don't do good from a religous perpective.

I'm taking these two points together, as just as people do good and bad from all walks of life, there are also paedophiles in all walks of life, from priests, teachers, football coaches, pop stars, comedy actors...

Quote

Work. work is for people who get raises....

You'd think.

Quote
Jerry Springer and the BBC.

They didn't stop it going out.  That the nation's public broadcaster can air a play which was always going to offend a significant amount of people of the main religious demonimation in that country is further evidence of the 'inarguable' demise of the influence of Christianity on contemporary Europe.

Quote
Certainly their power is out of proportion to the size of the group but thats what religion does it enforces people to put them on a pedestal and be treated in a special way. 

how representative are Al Queyda of Islam?, but they still have a tremendous influence on the world we live in.

Is it religion that does that or the media?  I think it's the media.  On any contentious debate on religion the media look for a voice from Christianity and get better soundbytes from that nut from Christian Voice than they would from say, Cormack Murphy-O'Connor or The Archbishop of Cantebury.  Similarly Al-Qaeda are famed for their media awareness and their iconic terrorism is perfectly placed to stir emotions in the twenty-four hour news environment.

Quote
Once they're in power they are our overlords and can do whatever their conscience dictates.

Within the constraints of the numerous checks and balances which are in place on any democratically elected government and do not effect future electoral success, popularity with their own parties, support from businesses, focus groups, global markets, other supranational organisations, support from media organisations, the country's constituion (written or unwritten).

Quote
Fine but don't for one minute impose your views on other people where it could affect their lives. Unless of course you're happy to look after these children yourself. 

Would do, but am having a cracking season on football manager at the moment so don't think i'd have the time when i get home from work to do it.

Quote
I notice you ommitted to say anything on the undefensible position of contraception?

My favourite form of contraception is the time-honoured Getting Off At Edge Hill method of coitus interuptus but that has more to do with personal reasons and the aesthetics of jizzing on one's bird than any religous compulsion to do so.

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #81 on: August 20, 2007, 07:55:10 pm »
second part on in 5 minutes
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #82 on: August 20, 2007, 08:09:05 pm »
second part on in 5 minutes

What channel mate?
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #83 on: August 20, 2007, 08:15:24 pm »
four
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #84 on: August 20, 2007, 08:15:59 pm »
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #85 on: August 20, 2007, 08:18:47 pm »
fucking angels are like teas.......
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline M(oaning) B(ecomes) E(mbarrassing)

  • Worthless.
  • RAWK Embarrassment
  • Legacy Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 4,587
  • Thoroughly thought through
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #86 on: August 21, 2007, 08:21:53 am »
fucking angels are like teas.......

Have YOU asked angels to accompany you? 
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #87 on: August 21, 2007, 08:35:55 am »
Have YOU asked angels to accompany you? 


Then you'll have NONE......
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline M(oaning) B(ecomes) E(mbarrassing)

  • Worthless.
  • RAWK Embarrassment
  • Legacy Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 4,587
  • Thoroughly thought through
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #88 on: August 21, 2007, 09:57:56 am »

Then you'll have NONE......

And that must be worrying! 
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Offline ♠Dirty Harry♠

  • Michael Pain the tittie-fixated inflatable doll salesman
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,031
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #89 on: September 1, 2010, 11:50:28 pm »
Anyone watching this series again? Fucking comedy genius is this man.

I know he's a marmite man to a lot of people (even those who agree with his message), but it's hard to argue with some of the stuff he is laying to dust in this series, I love watching faith healers, spiritual leaders and these stupid fucking alternative therapy c*nts squirm as he reveals them to be the true money grabbing exploiting bastards they are.

Swear to fuck some people would eat skittles if some dickhead in a poncho and sandals told them the colours matched their chakra.

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #90 on: September 2, 2010, 12:20:05 am »

He's as big a fucking charlatan as any of em though...
87:13

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #91 on: September 2, 2010, 12:24:31 am »
He's as big a fucking charlatan as any of em though...


In order for him to be a charlatan, he'd have to be peddling lies or be some sort of fraud. Give us some examples of when he does those things.

Offline Fiend

  • Want's a Mod to 'give him one'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,375
  • Never Got Weird Enough For Me
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #92 on: September 2, 2010, 01:05:17 am »
He's as big a fucking charlatan as any of em though...


Awww... Whats wrong Barney? Is the bad man mocking your invisible friend?

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #93 on: September 2, 2010, 01:30:51 am »

He preys on the eagerly credulous, no skin off my nose.

87:13

Offline Mouth

  • Loretta the Wool. Closely related to SHF's Trousers....and thought Thomas Müller was down to miss a penno. He's behind yooo. Wants you to say "what?" one more time! Dreams about anal sex but couldn't come even if he wanted to.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 33,097
  • Filmed in front of a live studio audience
    • www.bigassfans.com
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #94 on: September 2, 2010, 01:54:15 am »
He's as big a fucking charlatan as any of em though...

He is as big a prick as the people he targets. His religion is science, he just wont admit it. He is just as dogmatic and fundemental in his belief as the people he attacks.

"Paranoia is a very comforting state of mind. If you think they're out to get you, it means you think you matter"

Jurgen! What is best in life?

Crush your enemies. See dem driven before you. Hear d'lamentations of der vimmen.

Offline Gobias Industries

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,164
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #95 on: September 2, 2010, 02:18:02 am »
He is as big a prick as the people he targets. His religion is science, he just wont admit it. He is just as dogmatic and fundemental in his belief as the people he attacks.

Science can change its mind. It can hold it's hands up and say "We got that one wrong, here's the working that led us to realise that". Show me where ANY religion does that. And I don't mean the times the Catholic church has caved in to popular opinion and changed its stance on things. Hypocritical bunch of utter shite that it is.

Offline Mouth

  • Loretta the Wool. Closely related to SHF's Trousers....and thought Thomas Müller was down to miss a penno. He's behind yooo. Wants you to say "what?" one more time! Dreams about anal sex but couldn't come even if he wanted to.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 33,097
  • Filmed in front of a live studio audience
    • www.bigassfans.com
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #96 on: September 2, 2010, 02:48:38 am »
Science can change its mind. It can hold it's hands up and say "We got that one wrong, here's the working that led us to realise that". Show me where ANY religion does that. And I don't mean the times the Catholic church has caved in to popular opinion and changed its stance on things. Hypocritical bunch of utter shite that it is.
Ha science might be able to, but its often that scientists once entrenched within a position will not give it up or even give an inch that they might possibly be wrong. Look at what happened to Hugh Everett and his many-worlds interpretation, one of the most important theories ever, now I'm simplifying, but because Niels Bohr didnt understand or 'believe' and rubbished the theory it got put on a shelf for years, wasnt until after Bohrs death that it was even looked at again, when people who werent so dogmatic and blind as Bohrs and his followers were able to see what it was and what it meant.

I'm not defending or saying that religion does any of that, just that as 'belief' systems if you will, they are generally as bad as each other at times about certain things. The way that religion will not accept that some kind of God didnt create the world, is the same in that science will not conceed that it doesnt know for sure that one didnt.

I would say the evidence does not support the god theory, but I do not know for sure, and I am not so arrogant as to say I know for sure. The current evidence though leads me to believe that its not true, but see comes down to belief again. ;)
"Paranoia is a very comforting state of mind. If you think they're out to get you, it means you think you matter"

Jurgen! What is best in life?

Crush your enemies. See dem driven before you. Hear d'lamentations of der vimmen.

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #97 on: September 2, 2010, 03:00:29 am »
Believing that a god created the universe is deus-ex-machina in reasoning.

"I have no current reasonable answer to this problem, so let's assume it was magically done by an omnipotent being"

It's the arbitrariness of it that I don't like. Sure, it's possible that the Judeo-Christian God created the universe. But what makes it any more possible than just about any fairytale you can dream up?

I haven't read The God Delusion by the way, and I'm inclined not to read it because I'm not particularly militant about my atheism and I don't feel it'd do anything for me except to offer reasons for believing what I already do.

Offline MichaelA

  • MasterBaker, honey-trapper and 'concerned neighbour'. Beyond The Pale. Vermin on the ridiculous. Would love to leave Ashley Cole gasping for air. Dupe Snoop Extraordinaire. RAWK MARTYR #1. The proud owner of a new lower case a. Mickey Two Sheds.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 29,365
  • At the Academy
  • Super Title: MichaelA
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #98 on: September 2, 2010, 08:49:42 am »
He is as big a prick as the people he targets. His religion is science, he just wont admit it. He is just as dogmatic and fundemental in his belief as the people he attacks.

And as stubborn and opinionated. He's an honorary RAWKite in that respect.

Offline fivein05

  • Rawkite most likely to take his ball home in a huff #2
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,017
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #99 on: September 2, 2010, 08:58:50 am »
Is it because I like science??
One poster on this site is going to let me down this season! Don't let it be you!

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #100 on: September 2, 2010, 09:06:12 am »
The question I would ask of Dawkins is this:  If science is the answer and religion is just supersticious nonsense, then why have you abandoned a successful career in science to concentrate solely on discussing religion?
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Zeppelin

  • Funds hate.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,047
  • Hammer of the Gods
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #101 on: September 2, 2010, 09:40:32 am »
The question I would ask of Dawkins is this:  If science is the answer and religion is just supersticious nonsense, then why have you abandoned a successful career in science to concentrate solely on discussing religion?
I would imagine that he would point to his publications  -


The Selfish Gene.
The Extended Phenotype.. 
The Blind Watchmaker.   
River Out of Eden. . 
Climbing Mount Improbable. 
Unweaving the Rainbow.
A Devil's Chaplain.
The Ancestor's Tale.
The God Delusion.
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

The only one directly about religion is 'The God delusion'. His latest book 'The greatest show on earth' makes a deliberate
point of not bringing religion into it. He may be a spokesman for antitheism, but he certainly hasn't abandoned his scientific career and most of his work promotes the greater understanding of science.

Offline Ginamos

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,311
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #102 on: September 2, 2010, 09:47:08 am »
The only one directly about religion is 'The God delusion'. His latest book 'The greatest show on earth' makes a deliberate
point of not bringing religion into it. He may be a spokesman for antitheism, but he certainly hasn't abandoned his scientific career and most of his work promotes the greater understanding of science.

Agreed. The bothering the god botherers part of his career is relatively minor, it also fits into his promotion of science and rationalism. Rather than abandoning science he's choosing to find facets that he can use to promote it.

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #103 on: September 2, 2010, 10:01:09 am »
The question I would ask of Dawkins is this:  If science is the answer and religion is just supersticious nonsense, then why have you abandoned a successful career in science to concentrate solely on discussing religion?

I'm not sure that's strictly true, I expect he does other less contentious things that perhaps don't quite grip the imagination of the media in the way a pro/anti religious debate does.

But even if it is true, maybe the reason is prosaic and simply because at the age of 69 he's retired from full time academia and can now spend his remaining time doing what he does, arguing forcibly for reason and rationality, the foundation of science, and railing against blind and unsupported superstition, the pernicious enemy of reason.

And as a trained scientist, one of the best, why shouldn't he?

I do agree though that some of these guys do become a bit obsessive, it seems to be in their nature though I knew of one Prof who simply turned off at retirement and devoted his time to playing with his model railway.



Quick edit...hot news flash....Stephen Hawking gets in on the act too...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
« Last Edit: September 2, 2010, 10:11:57 am by The Gulleysucker »
I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #104 on: September 2, 2010, 10:15:46 am »
He is just as dogmatic and fundemental in his belief as the people he attacks.

This is something which comes up regularly so we may as well deal with it. Again.

Dogma is when you believe something unequivocally, without evidence or testing. For example, "there is definitely no such thing as a god" is a dogmatic statement because you can't prove it. Dawkins has never said any such thing. He says that it is distinctly unlikely that there is a god, which is a different matter entirely.

Offline Lusty

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,283
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #105 on: September 2, 2010, 10:21:45 am »
The question I would ask of Dawkins is this:  If science is the answer and religion is just supersticious nonsense, then why have you abandoned a successful career in science to concentrate solely on discussing religion?

Simple, he hasn't.  In fact lately he seems to have switched his focus from attacking religion to promoting science which IMO opinion is much better.  Even in his recent program about faith schools, the overall point was that kids are not being taught science properly.

I'm no fan of his, or the cult that has sprung up around him.  But he makes valid points, and there's so many loudmouth religous campaigners out there (especially in the US) that it's probably good that there's someone just as loud on the other side of the argument.

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #106 on: September 2, 2010, 10:26:56 am »
I enjoyed this interview he did with Derren Brown from 'The Enemies Of Reason' where they discuss the fraudulency of
mediumship and psychics etc.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xswt8B8-UTM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Xswt8B8-UTM</a>
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline Raul!

  • No nude LFC topics - Sir Raul la di Dah of Coverpoint - Imminently Female
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,037
  • My nipples explode with delight
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #107 on: September 2, 2010, 10:27:19 am »
Nothing new to say about him so I will keep my mouth shut and not post about him at all.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #108 on: September 2, 2010, 11:14:27 am »
I would imagine that he would point to his publications  -

The Selfish Gene.
The Extended Phenotype.. 
The Blind Watchmaker.   
River Out of Eden. . 
Climbing Mount Improbable. 
Unweaving the Rainbow.
A Devil's Chaplain.
The Ancestor's Tale.
The God Delusion.
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

The only one directly about religion is 'The God delusion'.

Hahahahahaha...

Just look at the titles of all the books following on from The Extended Phenotype.

"The Blind Watchmaker" is a direct answer to religious criticisms of The Selfish Gene, in particular to William Paley's "Watchmaker Analogy".

"River out of Eden" is a direct biblical reference from Genesis.

"Climbing Mount Probable" is specifically a rebuttal of the Creationist claim that the chances of life developing spontaneaously are infinitessimal. The jar of peanut butter argument.

"The Devil's Chaplain" includes essays on religion and it's title, referring to the dangers of disagreeing with the church, shows where he is coming from.

However, as I intimate in my post, I was referring to his decision to "abandon a successful career in science".  By which I meant resigning the Simonyi chair at Oxford, writing the God Delusion and making a raft of anti-religious TV series.

Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #109 on: September 2, 2010, 11:22:26 am »
However, as I intimate in my post, I was referring to his decision to "abandon a successful career in science".  By which I meant resigning the Simonyi chair at Oxford, writing the God Delusion and making a raft of anti-religious TV series.

Couldn't you just as easily say "made a raft of TV series extolling the virtues of rational analysis"?

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #110 on: September 2, 2010, 11:24:05 am »
Couldn't you just as easily say "made a raft of TV series extolling the virtues of rational analysis"?


No.  I'm not necessarily defending the targets of his programmes, I just think that he is wasted making them.  Any chump could point out the problems inherent in religious schools or expose the frauds involved in the "paranormal". Dawkins has a particular God-given ;)  talent for explaining evolutionary biology and gene theory in an entertaining and lucid manner.  I personally think his time would be better spent doing that. 

Clearly what he does with his life is his decision not mine, but that doesn't stop me thinking that he is a tit for making the decisions he has made.
« Last Edit: September 2, 2010, 11:28:08 am by Veinticinco de Mayo »
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Ray K

  • Loves a shiny helmet. The new IndyKalia.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,622
  • Truthiness
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #111 on: September 2, 2010, 11:25:55 am »
So a guy in his late 60's retires from a post created specifically for him, a non-teaching university chair that he held for 15 years, and you feel this is abandoning his career in science?
"We have to change from doubters to believers"

Twitter: @rjkelly75

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #112 on: September 2, 2010, 11:29:12 am »
So a guy in his late 60's retires from a post created specifically for him, a non-teaching university chair that he held for 15 years, and you feel this is abandoning his career in science?

Yes, as explained in the preceding post.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #113 on: September 2, 2010, 11:31:58 am »
No.  I'm not necessarily defending the targets of his programmes, I just think that he is wasted making them.  Any chump could point out the problems inherent in religious schools or expose the frauds involved in the "paranormal". Dawkins has a particular God-given ;)  talent for explaining evolutionary biology and gene theory in an entertaining and lucid manner.  I personally think his time would be better spent doing that. 

Maybe. David Attenborough shares Dawkins' views on religion, he would probably be a better option. It's a little harsh, though, to say that he is wasted on it. That's a little like saying that an eminent surgeon is wasting his time campaigning for fresh water in African villages. Sure, it's below his pay grade but it all helps...

Offline Zeppelin

  • Funds hate.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,047
  • Hammer of the Gods
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #114 on: September 2, 2010, 11:33:02 am »
. Dawkins has a particular God-given ;)  talent for explaining evolutionary biology and gene theory in an entertaining and lucid manner.  I personally think his time would be better spent doing that. 


But that's exactly what he does in almost all of his books - especially in his latest 'The greatest show on earth'. Just because the titles may have religious connotations, that doesn't make them about religion.

Offline Something Else

  • that car's fine lookin' man (clearly insured with confused.com)
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 33,204
  • Bazinga
  • Super Title: something else required
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #115 on: September 2, 2010, 11:36:51 am »
No.  I'm not necessarily defending the targets of his programmes, I just think that he is wasted making them.  Any chump could point out the problems inherent in religious schools or expose the frauds involved in the "paranormal". Dawkins has a particular God-given ;)  talent for explaining evolutionary biology and gene theory in an entertaining and lucid manner.  I personally think his time would be better spent doing that. 

Clearly what he does with his life is his decision not mine, but that doesn't stop me thinking that he is a tit for making the decisions he has made.

A career in science is not easy nor does it pay the types of money he is now earning.

I dont think he has much more research to do that interests him. A lot of the work he does he has known about for some time, and thats where his interest lies and is his way of making money.

I actually like what the guy writes, im not a fan of his presenting style on TV and think he comes across as a bit of a dick, but if you can get past the sensationalised comments, which no doubt are used to gain a reaction and draw in audiences, the writing he does and his ability to explain things is second to none.

When i meet young biologists now who are studying evolution and other such biological things i advise them to read his books, they give you a very good ground knowledge to a lot and allow you to build principles in your head that you can add to through further study.

Science is a very difficult area as you are always talking about things that are difficult to visualise or build a mental image. He manages to build those images very easily, as do a few other science authors, and as such allow people to understand and build on it.

I personally think his work now is very useful, as it engages people in science, which sadly is seemingly more and more difficult.

However having said all that I could imagine a conversation may well reveal a side of him i would not like.

Offline Fiend

  • Want's a Mod to 'give him one'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,375
  • Never Got Weird Enough For Me
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #116 on: September 2, 2010, 11:49:03 am »
I think he's said himself that he'd leave religion alone if it would leave science alone. It hasn't done that. Increasingly it is muscling its way into the science classroom.
In America they are changing science textbooks to suit religious desires. 'Teach the controversy' about evolution? Please...

Faith School Menace? showed that its happening in Britain too. You should reserve your mocking for the ignorant fools in that program that believed the Earth was 6000 years old and the Science teacher who said that of her 60 pupils, not one them believed in evolution.  This is fundamental to how Biology works and not one thought it was true because of their idiot teacher!

Dawkins is doing what he thinks is right for science by making these programs. He hasn't 'abandoned a career science' to attack religion; he is doing what he can to stop religion from hindering science!

Offline Dr Cornwallis

  • Ministry of Scilly Talks :)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,132
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #117 on: September 2, 2010, 11:55:30 am »

Swear to fuck some people would eat skittles if some dickhead in a poncho and sandals told them the colours matched their chakra.

Good point, where's Kesey these days?

Offline Something Else

  • that car's fine lookin' man (clearly insured with confused.com)
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 33,204
  • Bazinga
  • Super Title: something else required
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #118 on: September 2, 2010, 11:59:43 am »
I think he's said himself that he'd leave religion alone if it would leave science alone. It hasn't done that. Increasingly it is muscling its way into the science classroom.
In America they are changing science textbooks to suit religious desires. 'Teach the controversy' about evolution? Please...

Faith School Menace? showed that its happening in Britain too. You should reserve your mocking for the ignorant fools in that program that believed the Earth was 6000 years old and the Science teacher who said that of her 60 pupils, not one them believed in evolution.  This is fundamental to how Biology works and not one thought it was true because of their idiot teacher!

Dawkins is doing what he thinks is right for science by making these programs. He hasn't 'abandoned a career science' to attack religion; he is doing what he can to stop religion from hindering science!

Indeed, science is one of the only areas that i know of that is truely peer reviewed.

When publishing any paper, you send it to the journal and then they send it to people in your field to be reviewed, sometimes you may know them, sometimes they may be your rivals, sometimes you may never had heard of them, but whats certain is that they understand your area. They then read the paper and make sure it stands up and the claims it makes are true and are proven by the evidence in the paper.

We are doing work now, which could have a decent impact, however we are doing all we can to try to disprove our results. If then they stand up to all the tests we can be confident what we are seeing is true and publish the results with our conclusion. The reviewers will have the data, they will have the knowledge and if at any point they disagree with what we are saying it will be sent back for things to be checked.

Thats how science evolves and its how it works.

Religion however is not tested in such a manner, you are told things and meant to believe them, even if they seem a little odd it is more a question of ones own faith, that the story told if you choose not to believe them

Evolution is where science and religion hit head on. The 6000 year debate has been proven to be incorrect by Physicists, chemists and Biologists all in differeing research streams for different studies. They have been peer reviewed and stand up as scientific papers.

Evolution is a fact, it is undeniable once all the knowledge is presented. It has little or no missing parts, it tells a continual story of life.

As time goes on this divide between science and religion is only going to get greater.

When i speak with people who are religious they always look for an unanswerable question and then use that as a reason that God muct exist.

If you dismiss the creationalism debate by backing evolution they then say well how did the world start, you say the big bang, because science proves it to be most probable, they then say what put all the stuff in that minute amount of nothingness, to create the big bang, if you cant answer they state it was God and get all high and mighty.

Religion would rather dismiss science rather than use it to question its beliefs. Science uses all it can to destroy its own theories with only the true and most probable surviving.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #119 on: September 2, 2010, 12:01:26 pm »
Maybe. David Attenborough shares Dawkins' views on religion, he would probably be a better option. It's a little harsh, though, to say that he is wasted on it. That's a little like saying that an eminent surgeon is wasting his time campaigning for fresh water in African villages. Sure, it's below his pay grade but it all helps...

That depends how many people are waiting for operations while he is away campaigning really does it not?

I'd say it is like the world's foremost expert in water sanitation going to work in Africa but then insisting that he doesn't want to work on planning water delivery infrastructure but wants to set up a little shop making buckets.

And Zep, I am not contesting the quality of his work, my contention is that he has become increasingly driven off course by criticism from religious cranks.  He has as a result devoted more and more time to attacking said cranks rather than explaining the newer science to dullards like me.  I think that's a criminal waste of his talents.  There are any number of people out there who are more than capable of mocking religion, many of them far better at it than Richard Dawkins in fact, indeed some of them got so good at it that their fans elevated them to messiah like status.

EDIT: Fiend and Something Else - the above answers your questions too I think
« Last Edit: September 2, 2010, 12:05:16 pm by Veinticinco de Mayo »
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'