Author Topic: Richard Dawkins  (Read 270588 times)

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 #120 on: September 2, 2010, 12:32:31 pm »

EDIT: Fiend and Something Else - the above answers your questions too I think

Working in science is all about having a passion for what you do.

I am currently working on three projects, 1 i have a massive passion about, the other links in with the first and the third, well it does not turn me on.

Needless to say I spend most my time doing the one that i am passionate about, and at conferences, if anyone tries to knock the work i do, i defend it to the hilt.

If his passion is in this line, yet his passion to go further has gone, he still has strong beliefs, and can make good money out of them, and no doubt that fires him on as well as the defence of his previous work.

Maybe his passion for new work has gone, maybe he has reached what he wanted to reach and rather than continue wants to enjoy life, make money and be happy?

Lets face it there are few alive who have a better way of describing their field than he, but maybe his passion has gone to find new things.

Offline Tommy_W

  • Jol-ly. Constipated.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,605
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #121 on: September 2, 2010, 12:41:36 pm »
Anyone that titles a book "The God Delusion" is a bit of an attention seeking cock if you ask me. I'm sure he talks a lot of sense, but I can't stand people that aren't at least respectful of other peoples beliefs

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: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #122 on: September 2, 2010, 12:44:10 pm »
Anyone that titles a book "The God Delusion" is a bit of an attention seeking cock if you ask me.

I presume if you were writing a book, you would do everything you could to ensure it got no attention whatsoever?

Offline Zeppelin

  • Funds hate.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,051
  • Hammer of the Gods
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #123 on: September 2, 2010, 12:55:36 pm »
Anyone that titles a book "The God Delusion" is a bit of an attention seeking cock if you ask me. I'm sure he talks a lot of sense, but I can't stand people that aren't at least respectful of other peoples beliefs

Strikes me as a reasonable enough title, bearing in mind he explains in it why he thinks that belief in god is a delusion.

Offline Zeppelin

  • Funds hate.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,051
  • Hammer of the Gods
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #124 on: September 2, 2010, 12:57:07 pm »

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.


Fair enough - point taken

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 #125 on: September 2, 2010, 01:04:12 pm »
Anyone that titles a book "The God Delusion" is a bit of an attention seeking cock if you ask me. I'm sure he talks a lot of sense, but I can't stand people that aren't at least respectful of other peoples beliefs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXHJ-hLjuxM

Offline mulfella

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,308
  • Hedgehogs are boss
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #126 on: September 2, 2010, 02:47:56 pm »
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!

Perhaps he's wrong to do so, but the trends listed above clearly bother him, as they do me.

Still great lampooning in South Park.
A place full of grammer Nazi's?
'Grammar' and no apostrophe in 'nazis'.

Offline walshys_mullet

  • Aka walshys_mullet. Thinks manager is a coward. Only posts in match threads every other week due to rotation. We suspect this is John Aldridge or Andy Gray posting under a pseudonym.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,615
  • We all live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #127 on: September 2, 2010, 04:58:47 pm »
Give him a break the poor guy married Lalla Ward.
"If you're in the penalty area and don't know what to do with the ball, put it in the net and we'll discuss the options later."

The Great 'Should have been Sir' Bob Paisley

Offline Devastatin' Dave

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,420
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #128 on: September 2, 2010, 07:44:01 pm »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zdyJkKA5L4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/0zdyJkKA5L4</a>

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 #129 on: September 2, 2010, 09:50:21 pm »
Dave, you now own the thread mate.  Gotta love Stew.
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 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 #130 on: September 3, 2010, 04:06:05 pm »
Well whatever you say about the man I'm sure even his worst detracters must admit that he can be an inspiring speaker.
Below are two of my favourites. 

'Copy me' robots - The Strangeness of Science
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0k9FUZruJo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0k9FUZruJo</a>

We are going to die - Unweaving the Rainbow
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IOXMjCnKwb4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/IOXMjCnKwb4</a>

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 #131 on: September 4, 2010, 02:00:18 am »
Well whatever you say about the man I'm sure even his worst detracters must admit that he can be an inspiring speaker.
Actually I cant stand the way he talks, his voice annoys me.

I like the way Tim Minchin does it though...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/RFO6ZhUW38w?fs=1&amp;amp;hl=en_US&amp;amp;rel=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/RFO6ZhUW38w?fs=1&amp;amp;hl=en_US&amp;amp;rel=0</a>
"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 Livbes

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,643
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #132 on: September 4, 2010, 09:37:40 am »
Amazing man.

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: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #133 on: November 10, 2010, 05:44:16 pm »
Just to note that I am re reading The Selfish Gene at the moment and it is magnificent, probably the best, clearest, most accessible science book I have ever come across. Plus, almost finished and still no real mention of religion. The man is capable of writing about other stuff, too.

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 #134 on: November 10, 2010, 11:33:04 pm »
Just to note that I am re reading The Selfish Gene at the moment and it is magnificent, probably the best, clearest, most accessible science book I have ever come across. Plus, almost finished and still no real mention of religion. The man is capable of writing about other stuff, too.

Amen to that.
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 Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,812
  • Trada
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #135 on: February 9, 2013, 10:27:28 am »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxDLkoK8vQQ?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxDLkoK8vQQ?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US</a>


Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Online bobadicious

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,230
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #136 on: February 9, 2013, 06:16:50 pm »
Football is a lie

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #137 on: April 22, 2013, 03:03:53 pm »
Richard Dawkins' latest anti-Muslim Twitter spat lays bare his hypocrisy

Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins' technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:



"Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."


But this is only half the fun. The real comedy comes when he lifts his face from the pie, dripping scorn and custard, to glare at the audience who can't see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who don't understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of reason.


For instance, Tom Watson, the MP who pursued Murdoch, tweeted back almost at once: "You really are a gratuitously unpleasant man". To this Dawkins replied "Actually no. Just frank. You'd ridicule palpably absurd beliefs of any other kind. Why make an exception for religion?"


"You are gratuitously unpleasant; I am just frank" comes straight out of the Yes Minister catechism of irregular verbs.


But it gets better. Dawkins continues: "A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticise A and you're rational. Criticise B and you're a bigoted racist Islamophobe." It is of course horribly unfair to call Dawkins a bigoted racist Islamophobe. Anyone who follows him knows he is an equal opportunities bigot who is opposed to Christians of every colour as well.


But if you will tweet, as he has previously done, that "I have often said that Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today", then us inferior, less rational types can easily suppose that he means what he says, and that therefore he does think that Muslims, especially proselytising ones like Mehdi Hasan, are spreading evil and should not be employed by respectable magazines.


Of course Dawkins would probably deny with complete sincerity that this is what he means – until the next time he says it. This doesn't make him unusually hypocritical. It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories that are differently ridiculous to his – that the twelfth imam will return, or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobic



What a snide little shithouse article that is!
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

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 #138 on: April 22, 2013, 03:36:19 pm »
....What a snide little shithouse article that is!

It's by Templeton winner Brown.

He hates Dawkins with a passion, which I find strange behaviour for a Christian.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-guardian-strikes-back-templeton-and-rees-are-wonderful-gnu-atheism-is-dead/

and....

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/sackandrewbrown/
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 JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,433
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #139 on: April 22, 2013, 04:11:16 pm »
I will confess that I haven't read any Richard Dawkins. Honestly, I'm not all that interested in his work, although I understand it's extremely well written and interesting. It's not a religious thing; my father-in-law is a deacon in the Catholic church, and he has read and discussed Dawkins. I also appreciate that it is better to have read someone's material before you criticise them, so as to get the most balanced view possible.

What I will say though is he comes across as an utter pr*ck whenever I have seen him on TV, or read his comments in newspapers/journals/Twitter. Margus Brigstocke, in his excellent book 'God Collar' discusses religion and atheism in an engaging and humerous way. His mission isn't to beat down religion, or specific religions, but to explore the issues in a way that I found compelling. He jokingly regrets his lack of faith, wishing he had something to believe in but conceding that the beliefs of all religions he considers are too implausible. He is perfectly entitled to this view, and doesn't ram it down my throat. He enjoys and welcomes debate with all believers of all beliefs, and never seeks to patronise or dismiss anyone. In this, he cites Dawkins' as both the best and worst exponent of atheism. RD's arguments are well founded, reasonable, compelling and engaging. But his smugness and twattish nature end up alienating people from his cause.

I cite as my most irritated example the recent C4 documentary on secular life, in which during the advert he calls out "most of us have now realised there is no God." The word 'realised' really irked me. It implies that atheists are more intelligent than those with faith and, having applied this intelligence, have come to the 'truth'. I don't believe in Hinduism or Sikhism, but I would never say "The day I realised they were wrong was..." I don't KNOW they are wrong, and frankly I can't. It's a matter of belief and faith. I don't share their faith but I respect it.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:32:43 pm by JerseyKopite »

Offline Pistolero

  • BELIEVE. My bad. This. Lol. Bless. Meh. Wow just wow. Hate on. The Ev. Phil.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,850
  • A serpent's tooth...
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #140 on: April 22, 2013, 04:23:07 pm »
I will confess that I haven't read any Richard Dawkins. Honestly, I'm not all that interested in his work, although I understand it's extremely well written and interesting. It's not a religious thing; my father-in-law is a deacon in the Catholic church, and he has read and discussed Dawkins.

What I will say though is he comes across as an utter pr*ck whenever I have seen him on TV, or read his comments in newspapers/journals/Twitter. Margus Brigstocke, in his excellent book 'God Collar' discusses religion and atheism in an engaging and humerous way. His mission isn't to beat down religion, or specific religions, but to explore the issues in a way that I found compelling. He actively regrets his lack of faith, wishing he had somethign to believe in but conceding that it is all too implausible. In this, he citers Dawkins' as both the best and worst exponent of atheism. His arguments are well founded, reasonable, compelling and engaging. But his smugness and twattish nature end up alienating people from his cause.

The recent C4 documentary on secular life, in which during the advert he calls out "most of us have now realised there is no God." The word 'realised' really irked me. It implies that atheists are more intelligent than those with faith and, having applied this intelligence, have come to the 'truth'. I don't believe in Hinduism or Sikhism, but I would never say "The day I realised they were wrong was..." I don't KNOW they are wrong, and frankly I can't. It's a matter of belief and faith. I don't share their faith but I respect it.

Excellent post mate........I find the lofty intolerance of the Dawkins evangelists incredibly patronising ....
They have life in them, they have humour, they're arrogant, they're cocky and they're proud. And that's what I want my team to be.

Offline LiverLuke

  • RAWK's Respectable Poster Boy :)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,144
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #141 on: April 22, 2013, 04:26:05 pm »

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: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #142 on: April 22, 2013, 04:46:01 pm »
What I will say though is he comes across as an utter pr*ck whenever I have seen him on TV, or read his comments in newspapers/journals/Twitter. Margus Brigstocke, in his excellent book 'God Collar' discusses religion and atheism in an engaging and humerous way. His mission isn't to beat down religion, or specific religions, but to explore the issues in a way that I found compelling. He jokingly regrets his lack of faith, wishing he had something to believe in but conceding that the beliefs of all religions he considers are too implausible. He is perfectly entitled to this view, and doesn't ram it down my throat. He enjoys and welcomes debate with all believers of all beliefs, and never seeks to patronise or dismiss anyone. In this, he cites Dawkins' as both the best and worst exponent of atheism. RD's arguments are well founded, reasonable, compelling and engaging. But his smugness and twattish nature end up alienating people from his cause.

I cite as my most irritated example the recent C4 documentary on secular life, in which during the advert he calls out "most of us have now realised there is no God." The word 'realised' really irked me. It implies that atheists are more intelligent than those with faith and, having applied this intelligence, have come to the 'truth'. I don't believe in Hinduism or Sikhism, but I would never say "The day I realised they were wrong was..." I don't KNOW they are wrong, and frankly I can't. It's a matter of belief and faith. I don't share their faith but I respect it.

I respect their right to hold such beliefs but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves, any more than I have to respect a Christian's belief that homosexuality is an abomination, or that women are inferior to men. And, for what it is worth, this...

Quote
"A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticise A and you're rational. Criticise B and you're a bigoted racist Islamophobe."

...is correct.

You rail against Dawkins for being a prick, but there is no way to tell someone their most cherished beliefs are entirely without foundation without seeming like a prick to them. Try being the one who has to tell all the children that there's no Santa Claus and you'll get the flavour. You can call him smug and twattish all you like but in circumstances where you agree that his "arguments are well founded, reasonable, compelling and engaging", it seems a bit irrelevant. A bit like going to hear a great tenor and then complaining about the cut of his tux....

By the way, Dawkins used to write about non religious matters. I would try The Selfish Gene if I were you, it is a stunning read.

Offline MULLENEDWINE

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,548
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #143 on: April 22, 2013, 05:01:32 pm »

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,433
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #144 on: April 22, 2013, 05:41:40 pm »
I respect their right to hold such beliefs but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves, any more than I have to respect a Christian's belief that homosexuality is an abomination, or that women are inferior to men.

I'm not saying he has to respect the beliefs. I'm saying his attitude shows contempt for the believers themselves, hence the whole "We know better, we're so clever" advert point.

We had 'lent addressers' come to my secondary school. They spent easter telling us how wonderful God was and how people who didn't believe in him would go to hell. They came accross as unpleasant, patronising, know-it-all pricks who did their own religion and beliefs a disservice. I consider myself a Christian DESPITE them. Dawkins is no different, he is a holier-than-thou atheist and as a result I find him just as irritating as any religious individual who tells me that I'm wrong and should know better.

You rail against Dawkins for being a prick, but there is no way to tell someone their most cherished beliefs are entirely without foundation without seeming like a prick to them. Try being the one who has to tell all the children that there's no Santa Claus and you'll get the flavour. You can call him smug and twattish all you like but in circumstances where you agree that his "arguments are well founded, reasonable, compelling and engaging", it seems a bit irrelevant. A bit like going to hear a great tenor and then complaining about the cut of his tux....

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. I have had interesting and passionate debates with memebers of other religions (who don't believe in mine, and therefore implicitly are telling me my beliefs are without foundation) and atheists (who tell me EXPLICITLY my beliefs are without foundation). Most agree that differences come down to faith. In many of these discussions, none of these people have patronised or belittled me for what I believe, and seldom have I come away thinking any of them are 'pricks'. Some of these discussions have eevn been on RAWK! People tend to be born into a religion due to their place of birth and brought up in that religion due to the society they find themselves in. It would be spectacularly arrogant of me to tell them theat they are 'wrong'. We just have different beliefs. I'm not goign to try to convert anyone - faith is a personal decision and journey people should make themselves, without others attempting to indoctrinate them. I'm not saying that Dawkins necessarily tries to indoctrinate others, but his condescenion of their beliefs (in person rather than print) is similar in my view to telling them to abandon their faith.

I'm not denying that his message has the potential to be antagonistic, but it's the manner in which he deals with people on a one-to-one basis, usually off the cuff (as opposed to his literature, which I suspect is edited, re-edited, considered etc.) that I find objectionable. You don't have to be smug, or adopt an 'I know something you don't' attitude.

When I was doing my degree I read a large variety of material. People have an enormous plethora of beliefs and opinions, some well founded and robust, others less so. Being right or wrong dosen't give you carte blanche to be a prick to other people about it. To use your example, I might be wowed by the superb quality of the tenors voice, but I doubt I'd recommend him to others if he broke off half way through a song to tell me how much better a singer he was than me, and call me a dick.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 05:48:10 pm by JerseyKopite »

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 94,188
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #145 on: April 22, 2013, 06:16:36 pm »
I think the reason for this spat has been misunderstood.  Partly I think this is to do with twitter in 140 characters or less.

He's tried to make the point that we should perhaps question the work of people when they say they believe in flying horses.

Ok, their  work may have positives, but when they also believe in winged horses, should we not question their judgement?

It's a kop out to just say its a religious belief, it's also utterly ridculous.

The point is, why is it ok for people to believe in ridiculous things if it's under the banner of religion.  These rules would never normally apply and they would be labelled as lunatics.
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #146 on: April 22, 2013, 06:21:24 pm »

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. I have had interesting and passionate debates with memebers of other religions (who don't believe in mine, and therefore implicitly are telling me my beliefs are without foundation) and atheists (who tell me EXPLICITLY my beliefs are without foundation). Most agree that differences come down to faith. In many of these discussions, none of these people have patronised or belittled me for what I believe, and seldom have I come away thinking any of them are 'pricks'. Some of these discussions have eevn been on RAWK! People tend to be born into a religion due to their place of birth and brought up in that religion due to the society they find themselves in. It would be spectacularly arrogant of me to tell them theat they are 'wrong'. We just have different beliefs. I'm not goign to try to convert anyone - faith is a personal decision and journey people should make themselves, without others attempting to indoctrinate them. I'm not saying that Dawkins necessarily tries to indoctrinate others, but his condescenion of their beliefs (in person rather than print) is similar in my view to telling them to abandon their faith.

Make your mind up?

The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #147 on: April 22, 2013, 06:28:53 pm »
I think the reason for this spat has been misunderstood.  Partly I think this is to do with twitter in 140 characters or less.

He's tried to make the point that we should perhaps question the work of people when they say they believe in flying horses.

Ok, their  work may have positives, but when they also believe in winged horses, should we not question their judgement?

It's a kop out to just say its a religious belief, it's also utterly ridculous.

The point is, why is it ok for people to believe in ridiculous things if it's under the banner of religion.  These rules would never normally apply and they would be labelled as lunatics.

Yep, well said.
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,433
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #148 on: April 22, 2013, 06:39:48 pm »
Make your mind up?



That's not contradictory. Most people have no say on their religion when they are young due to society. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing - people will try to impart their religion to their children in the same way they will try to pass on ther other moral values.

Once someone has got to an age at which they can make their own mind up by reading about various beliefs in a critical way, they should be allowed to do so without anyone telling them that they are 'wrong'. I'm capable of reading and understanding without a Christian, atheist or pastafarian telling me 'the answer'.

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #149 on: April 22, 2013, 07:01:29 pm »
That's not contradictory. Most people have no say on their religion when they are young due to society. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing - people will try to impart their religion to their children in the same way they will try to pass on ther other moral values.

Once someone has got to an age at which they can make their own mind up by reading about various beliefs in a critical way, they should be allowed to do so without anyone telling them that they are 'wrong'. I'm capable of reading and understanding without a Christian, atheist or pastafarian telling me 'the answer'.

Yes it is. Most people don't have a say on "their" religion because of their parents, family and school etc. then maybe that's reflected and reinforced in society. But you can't say if that's a good or a bad thing, seriously?

faith is a personal decision and journey people should make themselves, without others attempting to indoctrinate them.

How can it be a personal decision if it is all you have ever known? But I agree with you, indoctrination should be done away with, starting with the parents. If as a parent you belive this, that or the other, fine don't brain wash your child though. Simple.
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,433
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #150 on: April 22, 2013, 07:26:00 pm »
Yes it is. Most people don't have a say on "their" religion because of their parents, family and school etc. then maybe that's reflected and reinforced in society. But you can't say if that's a good or a bad thing, seriously?

How can it be a personal decision if it is all you have ever known? But I agree with you, indoctrination should be done away with, starting with the parents. If as a parent you belive this, that or the other, fine don't brain wash your child though. Simple.

I think it's far more complicated than being 'good or bad'. If you're a devout believer in a faith, and you think that faith has the correct moral and ethical code, combined with the prospect of heaven, you would be doing your children a disservice not to teach them about it. Also, if you go to church every Sunday, you can hardly leave your kids behind. What's more, as a child you'd be deeply upset if your parents didn't include you. It's something you can share as a family, and as a community. The argument is - my son or daughter cannot possibly understand the complex nature of faith, so I am trying to teach them about my own so as to improve their life. It's not "we need more christians, indoctrinate the children lest they develop independent thought!"

I only consider it bad if it's harmful to others, i.e. bringing children up to be zealous, intolerant or aggressive towards other faiths. If my son or daughter wanted to follow Islam, or Buddhism, I would not stand in their way.

I don't want to get too far off the point though - this is supposed to be about Richard Dawkins rather than the implications of religion for children, and I'll admit that I am as culpable as anyone for derailing it.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 07:28:34 pm by JerseyKopite »

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: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #151 on: April 22, 2013, 08:38:03 pm »
I'm not saying he has to respect the beliefs. I'm saying his attitude shows contempt for the believers themselves, hence the whole "We know better, we're so clever" advert point.

We had 'lent addressers' come to my secondary school. They spent easter telling us how wonderful God was and how people who didn't believe in him would go to hell. They came accross as unpleasant, patronising, know-it-all pricks who did their own religion and beliefs a disservice. I consider myself a Christian DESPITE them. Dawkins is no different, he is a holier-than-thou atheist and as a result I find him just as irritating as any religious individual who tells me that I'm wrong and should know better.

I really am curious why it bothers you so much. Personally, when I listen to someone, I am much more interested in what they have to say rather than the manner in which they say it. Dawkins isn't peddling anything except common sense, he's not asking you to sign up for anything, all he repeatedly asks is that people think for themselves. If you apply rational analysis to everything else in your life, your health, family, work, sport, why not apply it to religion, is the message and then people get offended and think he's a prick.

I've long since stopped caring about what people think of Dawkins, to be honest. He can come across as supercilious but I don't care. What comes out of his mouth is sensible. He has pretty similar views on religion to David Attenborough and yet I imagine you would be more well disposed to hearing Sir Dave say these things. As I said, it really shouldn't matter.

Quote
I'm afraid I disagree with you here. I have had interesting and passionate debates with memebers of other religions (who don't believe in mine, and therefore implicitly are telling me my beliefs are without foundation) and atheists (who tell me EXPLICITLY my beliefs are without foundation). Most agree that differences come down to faith.

If any of the atheists were happy to leave it at "faith", they're not very good atheists. Faith is a meaningless word for atheists, you may as well say it comes down to not being able to think rationally. In a deliciously ironic twist, atheists don't believe faith exists, even as a meaningful concept. I mean, really, why would any half way sane person accept without question the existence of something you are told will not be testable or evidenced in any material way? Would you buy a car on that basis? Choose a partner? Decide on medical treatment?

Quote
You don't have to be smug, or adopt an 'I know something you don't' attitude.

I am a stone cold atheist. I don't even think the word should exist. There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in unicorns. Please tell me how I can honestly explain to you what I think of your religious beliefs without you thinking I think I know more than you. Is it possible?

Offline Anywhichwayicant

  • Clique member #2,367, #FakeNews. Banned Closet Bluenose. "Captain, I am sensing the bleeding obvious!"
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,603
  • I'm too moist and tender to retire.
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #152 on: April 22, 2013, 08:44:33 pm »
It's true though. If you tell someone that a fairy left a pint of milk and a croissant on your doorstep this morning, people would assume you were either steamed, or hadn't slept for a week. If you told enough people, you'd probably be sectioned.

You tell someone that this man, spirit, or whatever you deem God to be, created the universe and sent his only son - which happens to be a a man, not a tiger or bear or blue whale or dandelion, but a human, just like all of us, down from Heaven to save us, that's apparently an acceptable view to hold.

If God sent Jesus to save us humans, did he send Miguel to cleanse the sins of the planet's trees, and Julio to forgive the sins of the ocean's whales?

« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 08:46:41 pm by Anywhichwayucan »

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,433
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #153 on: April 22, 2013, 09:03:31 pm »
I really am curious why it bothers you so much. Personally, when I listen to someone, I am much more interested in what they have to say rather than the manner in which they say it. Dawkins isn't peddling anything except common sense, he's not asking you to sign up for anything, all he repeatedly asks is that people think for themselves. If you apply rational analysis to everything else in your life, your health, family, work, sport, why not apply it to religion, is the message and then people get offended and think he's a prick.

I've long since stopped caring about what people think of Dawkins, to be honest. He can come across as supercilious but I don't care. What comes out of his mouth is sensible. He has pretty similar views on religion to David Attenborough and yet I imagine you would be more well disposed to hearing Sir Dave say these things. As I said, it really shouldn't matter.

If any of the atheists were happy to leave it at "faith", they're not very good atheists. Faith is a meaningless word for atheists, you may as well say it comes down to not being able to think rationally. In a deliciously ironic twist, atheists don't believe faith exists, even as a meaningful concept. I mean, really, why would any half way sane person accept without question the existence of something you are told will not be testable or evidenced in any material way? Would you buy a car on that basis? Choose a partner? Decide on medical treatment?

I am a stone cold atheist. I don't even think the word should exist. There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in unicorns. Please tell me how I can honestly explain to you what I think of your religious beliefs without you thinking I think I know more than you. Is it possible?

It doesn't bother me THAT much. The name popped up on so I thought I would have a snoop through and post what I think of him. Nothing more than that; he is one of life's many minor irritations ;D

I don't want to get into an argument about personal faith here. I only wanted to note that I disliked the way he delivered his message. That's all there is to it. Whether you like his message is up to you, I respect you in whatever you choose to believe. I just don't think he does.

Faith and religion, to believers, is the answer to everything. It's the beginning and the end, birth and death, heaven and hell. It's no wonder people get prickly about it; to them, little is more important. Dawkins going on about people 'believing in a flying horse' or whatnot is picking out the literal absurdities of a group of folk stories. I don't believe that Noah put two of every animal on a boat while the world flooded. I don't believe Jonah lived inside a whale for days. They're just stories told to convey a moral message.

They're not good atheists? Because they're happy to let me have my faith and understand that tat is why I believe the things I do? I'd much rather they respected me enough to acknowledge my position, allow me to believe what I believe and let us both get on with our lives and talk about something else.

Yes, I would be rather more disposed to hearing things from David Attenborough because I think he would respect my opinions and beliefs more. I value that in a debate or conversation with anyone. If you don't care what I think about him, might I suggest we leave it there :) I will say no more on the topic!


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: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #154 on: April 22, 2013, 09:11:32 pm »
Yes, I would be rather more disposed to hearing things from David Attenborough because I think he would respect my opinions and beliefs more.

I'll see what I can organise. Did you know he got hate mail from Christians for not crediting God in his documentaries? Morgan Freeman would be another good candidate, I understand he's an atheist.

Anyway, do try The Selfish Gene, as originally recommended to me by VdeM, (a non atheist!). It really is beautiful stuff.

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,433
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #155 on: April 22, 2013, 09:14:00 pm »
I'll see what I can organise. Did you know he got hate mail from Christians for not crediting God in his documentaries? Morgan Freeman would be another good candidate, I understand he's an atheist.

Anyway, do try The Selfish Gene, as originally recommended to me by VdeM, (a non atheist!). It really is beautiful stuff.

Much appreciated :)

I will have a look see on Amazon.

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 94,188
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #156 on: April 22, 2013, 09:15:31 pm »
Much appreciated :)

I will have a look see on Amazon.
I would recommend the ancestors tale.
More of a narrative journey for a non scientist (if you are)
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #157 on: April 23, 2013, 09:12:03 am »
I think it's far more complicated than being 'good or bad'. If you're a devout believer in a faith, and you think that faith has the correct moral and ethical code, combined with the prospect of heaven, you would be doing your children a disservice not to teach them about it. Also, if you go to church every Sunday, you can hardly leave your kids behind. What's more, as a child you'd be deeply upset if your parents didn't include you. It's something you can share as a family, and as a community. The argument is - my son or daughter cannot possibly understand the complex nature of faith, so I am trying to teach them about my own so as to improve their life. It's not "we need more christians, indoctrinate the children lest they develop independent thought!"

This is a topic about Dawkins, so I will temper my response. You seem a well meaning sort but what you say there regarding teaching a child about the "complex nature of faith" is the very thing that people like Dawkins cannot abide because it is indoctrination dressed up to be teaching. And I'm sorry but it is bullshit and you need to be told so. Do you teach them with equal enthusiasm and vigour the beauty of evolution? Does that child truly have a fair and open opportunity to think for him/herself?

This indoctrination does not prevent free thinking in an individual, but it hampers it, delays it, casts a shadow over it, instils guilt and superstition. It is a truly hateful thing to do to a child.

I only consider it bad if it's harmful to others, i.e. bringing children up to be zealous, intolerant or aggressive towards other faiths. If my son or daughter wanted to follow Islam, or Buddhism, I would not stand in their way.

The issue of good or bad then should be a little clearer. It is harmful to children to "teach" them your version of the great lie just because it’s what you believe. You really only believe what you believe because you were brought up to believe it, as were your parents, and their parents. The difference now is today we hear that you’re teaching kids openly and they are free to think or choose whatever they wish but in fact you are just better at disguising your hateful indoctrination techniques.

I don't want to get too far off the point though - this is supposed to be about Richard Dawkins rather than the implications of religion for children, and I'll admit that I am as culpable as anyone for derailing it.


This is about Dawkins and also his views. You say you think he's a prick, Corky has demonstrated that regardless of his "ways" the message of Dawkins is always a consistent, open, honest and fair one; he asks you to look at the evidence and see for yourself. Think about that and compare that honestly to the point I'm making regarding parenting and the "teaching" of children with regard to faith and religion. Do you really think your moral and ethical code gives you the right to treat women as lesser beings? To deny gay people their basic human rights? To deny a seriously ill pregnant woman an abortion which would save her life, allowing her to die a few days later because your fairytale God likes it that way?

Don't talk to me about doing your children a disservice by not teaching them about your morals, your ethics and the eternal bondage you call heaven because I will tell you to fucking grow up. You think Dawkins is a prick, you may now think I'm a prick, that is ok, I can handle that. But why not get on Amazon after reading this and order yourself a copy of The Selfish Gene, or if you would rather something lighter to begin with try The Magic of Reality rather than bury your head in the myths and deceit you’ve been brought up to hide behind and find comfort in?

Incidentally, the universe and the true nature of things are infinitely more beautiful, more amazing and more life affirming then anything religion could ever hope to offer, just look for yourself.
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #158 on: April 23, 2013, 09:32:13 am »
There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in unicorns.

Ancient greek for unicorn is μονόκερως

So using a similar derivation to atheist, we get: amonocerist

Thus you point is falsified.


Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #159 on: April 23, 2013, 09:33:27 am »
Ancient greek for unicorn is μονόκερως

So using a similar derivation to atheist, we get: amonocerist

Thus you point is falsified.

Bah, it already had 7 hits on Google. It is not even a Googlewhack (in so far as you can have a single word Googlewhack).