Richard Dawkins is happy the religionists have left town

[newmac]

Run time: 61:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu1iZW29GTw   Posted on YouTube: April 19, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 20, 2009 By DU Member: newmac Views on DU: 5516

 
Yes even people who don't close their eyes tight and beseech sky gods can be moral.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Dawkins is truly a phenomenon.

The only man I know who makes a living preaching about what he does not believe in -- the evangelical atheist.

[Peggesis1]

2. Would you call him a compulsive truthteller?

OK, I see him as a man who is trying to hold up a light for people who are struggling to live in a religious/superstitious/anti-intellectual/brute power driven world. People who did exactly this were burned at the stake in earlier times. I suspect he's had his share of death threats even in the 21st century. He is a truthteller. I think he finds satisfaction in it. His audience was grateful.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Truth teller? His version. It's good money. I'm sure he's not complaining.

[AlbertCat]

18. Truth teller? His version.

No...just the 21st century version....not the Late Stone Age version.

And this is not ALL he does. He's also a scientist & teacher...first and foremost.

I wonder if you've ever read one of his science books? Try "The Selfish Gene". It's been revised since 1975.

[SkyIsGrey]

3. Versus people that "preach"...

about things that cannot be proven to exist. Completely gullible fools.

I always like the comparison that of Dawkins and Religious types in the respect that They are both religious hence both are "preaching".

The problem with that is. One bases their convictions on things that can be proven by logic and rationality. The other bases their convictions based solely on made-up, hand-me-down claptrap.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Dawkins's atheism is just another belief system.

If not for the money, he'd have tired of his crusade years ago.

[Peggesis1]

6. interesting word choice there, Buzz Clik

Are you familiar with the word "crusade"? Do you know it's history? Was that really the word you wanted to use, and, if so, why?

[Buzz Clik]

12. Carefully chosen. Thanks for noticing.

[liberation]

62. Too bad the term "crusade" does not mean what you think it means...

please enlighten us how Dawkins expressing his opinions constitute in any way shape or form a "crusade." When all you have is intellectually dishonest arguments, maybe it is time to double check the validity of your position?

Alas, I find it hilarious when religious people complain of "atheist" crusades. Talk about projection gone wrong...

[jgraz]

64. Also, "belief" does not mean what he thinks it means

Sorry, what he *believes* it means. No thinking allowed.

[Buzz Clik]

95. You've taken this to a different level than the rest. Interesting.

Insulting me in third person. At least the others have the stones to insult me head on.

[jgraz]

103. Sorry, I generally find talking to dumb people to be a waste of time

How was that?

[Buzz Clik]

97. Your lack of understanding of my point of view doesn't make me dishonest.

Perhaps if you gave me a moment to respond before trashing me personally this might go in a different direction.

If Dawkins limited his discussions to simply providing evidence that God does not exist; if Dawkins only appeared on the popular media when he released yet another book on the subject; if Dawkins was even trying to be objective, dispassionate, and non-judgmental; then, I would consider him to be purely intellectual and purely putting forward his opinions. But, that is not the case. He attacks those with religious beliefs for being fools. He abandons his rigorous logic for emotional responses and transparent baiting of his opponents while throwing red meat to his rabid followers.

Here's the definition (number 3) of crusade from dictionary.com:

3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

It applies quite nicely to Dawkins's evangelism.

Considering the number 1 definition of crusade, I thoroughly enjoyed using the term in this context:

1. (often initial capital letter) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.

[SkyDaddy7]

101. LOL!

If you look at religion from a rational perspective free of the emotional bonds that come with "faith" it does look very foolish! I think it is extremely funny to see Christians say Tom Cruise is foolish and crazy for what he believes...BUT DON"T YOU DARE SHOW HOW FOOLISH SOUNDING CHRISTIANS ARE!!!

[roguevalley]

126. you lump all religionists together when that is absolutely not the

case. nice.

[SkyDaddy7]

135. Lump all "religionists" together?

Do they all not believe in magic & the supernatural? The problem is the ones who follow the Bible as the inerrant word of god are pumping millions into hate campaigns, millions into forcing public schools to teach Bronze Age creation Myths as science, attacking women's right to privacy, blocking scientific research, and attacking those of us who think "In God We Trust" should not be on our secular money...Where are the so-called moderates? SILENT! Scared to stand out of fear they will be labeled an "ATHEIST" by their fellow "religionists"!

Until the so called moderates step up and begin pumping money into campaigns that mute their fellow "religionists" then they are no better...It could be argued the so-called moderates are empowering their fellow "religionists" by sitting silent yet complaining when Agnostics/Atheist stand up and say, "ENOUGH!"

If the moderates do not come together and defend their brand of magic & supernatural worship and publicly denounce the hateful & Bronze Age Brand of magic & supernatural worship then who will? ...Us evil nasty godless heathens are forced to!

I find it odd that Atheist are openly criticized by all brands of Christians for wanting "In God We Trust" off the our secular money yet these same Christians sit silent while millions go into openly hating others, denying them equal rights and standing in the way of science.

It is up to you and your fellow "religionists" to stand on the side of Agnostics & Atheist when it comes to the issues I have raised here...Until then you are lumping yourself in with the Bronze Age Thinkers, not I.

I understand it is hard to stand up for what is right. And no one likes being the hated one in society, like us Atheist are.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Excuse me.

I was paged to this thread.

Heh.


I aspire to be more like Dawkins. Unfortunately I spend too much time in the trenches, sapping awful supersitions, so I don't come off as a classy guy at all.

[SkyIsGrey]

7. Yep you read Him like an open book.

He is going to start a series of non-beveling believers gathering places where He makes his untold fortune by nobody showing up.
:sarcasm:

"Dawkins atheism" is based on a lot of frustration in trying to communicate reality.
It is akin to having to explain to a child the complexities of the world. You are either met with a blank stare or an out of control temper tantrum.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Never suggested he had a traveling revival tent. Funny you should mention books:

etc etc etc

Yeah, he's riding the money train.

And why, exactly, did you capitalize "Him"? Sigmund Freud would like to talk to you..

[newmac]

19. Where's your book?

Well you too; can write a book; but it probably would not be as good....

[Buzz Clik]

25. You might recall that this thread is not about me...

Why would you make the decision to bring this to a personal level?

[jhrobbins]

40. The thing that I have noticed in DU is that when it comes to the subject of God

and religion, the attacks come from the non-believers. I have watched a lot of posts in here and I have yet to see a 'religionist' start a post about how ignorant, deluded, etc those are that don't believe in God/religion. (incidentally, the two are not synonymous, but they are almost always used interchangeably). I'm not sure why there is a need to make someone wrong in order to feel right, but it must be the case since the arguments are so fervent. My belief in a higher power, is not inconsistent with any scientific theory because any scientist will tell you that all the laws of physics work just fine until about a few nano seconds before the Big Bang and then they all agree that at that moment quantum physics breaks down.
I've often thought it queer that non believers seem to have no problem believing that everything in the universe was once the size of a pin head, but that the notion of some sort of creation of the universe is ignorant. To me, they both require more 'something' than the human brain is capable of at present.

[AlbertCat]

57. To me, they both require more 'something' than the human brain is capable of at present.

Except of course one has mathematics and logic on its side, and the other has superstition and a bunch of "feel good" guesses.


Look.....we ALL know how one is indoctrinated in Stone Age beliefs from birth (The ideas of souls and supernatural beings like spirits....not just gods) But unless you're a physicist working on the Big Bang, doing the math and models all day, it's hard to imagine it run of the mill daily activity. Of course it seems amazing to ...me. But I go with the logic rather than the superstition. That "higher power" are just the laws of physics...which cannot be circumnavigated.


One clue is how human oriented something is. The miracles of every religious text are earth bound. Usually just the opposite of what happens in real life. Raising the dead....walking on water. Can you not see the difference in those lame miracles and say, quarks or the big bang..with an inflation period. You don't "make them up" from your own experiences or what usually happens. They are worked out and deduced and reviewed and spring out of actual, sometime controversial evidence. Not just "most of the time people can't walk on water. If someone does it must be divine." The Big Bang is not magic.

[jgraz]

65. You haven't been looking hard enough

Projection is a a favorite pastime of religionists.

For example:
"I've often thought it queer that non believers seem to have no problem believing that everything in the universe was once the size of a pin head, but that the notion of some sort of creation of the universe is ignorant. To me, they both require more 'something' than the human brain is capable of at present."

I've often found it queer that someone who has never opened a textbook on 20th-century cosmology could pretend they know enough to critique it (hint: Timothy Ferris doesn't count). Paul Krugman has kindly given us a name for people who discount something just because it sounds funny: it's the "Beavis and Butthead" defense. When you can show me a differential equation that results in a talking snake or a virgin birth, I'll start paying attention.

You also may want to rethink your "God of the gaps" theology. Where will you go when they solve the math all the way up to (and through) the Big Bang? Maybe all those vibrating strings are being wiggled by Baby Jesus.

[Gator_Matt]

67. I loved this post

"When you can show me a differential equation that results in a talking snake or a virgin birth, I'll start paying attention."

Best thing I've read today. Very well put!

[jhrobbins]

105. First of all, you don't any idea about books I may have opened. And this wasn't the point

of my post, but you bore it out perfectly. I'm still not sure why atheists feel the need to crap on someone's beliefs, and usually with such vehemence. It has brought you to insult my intelligence and for what - what is gained from this. What do all of y'all get from trashing what I may (or may not) believe in?

[jgraz]

109. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

If you've actually read a cosmology textbook and you still think like you do then... damn.


I'm not "crapping on your beliefs". I'm registering my personal objection to your arrogance. You obviously have no training in anything resembling modern science, yet you somehow know enough to find a supreme being lurking "a few nano seconds before the Big Bang" -- a feat that Einstein, Bohr, Shrödinger, Feynman, Hawking et al were unable to achieve.

If you truly understood basic science, you would know that 1) "nanosecond" is one word, 2) it makes as much sense to say "before the Big Bang" as it does to say "north of the North Pole" and 3) if you meant a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, then you're smack in the middle of the Quark Epoch and there's really no way that Baby Jesus could survive a quark-gluon plasma heated to a few quadrillion degrees.

As someone who's spent years studying this subject, I often see religionists "crapping on" our discipline through their arrogant assumption that all you need to do is watch the Discovery Channel for three nights and you can intelligently comment on any scientific subject. This ain't Sunday school. You actually *do* need to do the math.

[jhrobbins]

133. Explain the people in 'your' field that don't believe as you do. You're

telling me that there is lock step belief in the Cosmology you have stated. There is no way you can make that claim. Also, in the second paragraph you start in on me again and you talk about my 'arrogance'. You will note I did not (and will never) say that you are ignorant for your beliefs and yet you persist in this onslaught.
I do know basic science and I know it well enough to know that it is and has been a very fluid system that has changed radically over the last 200 years and the things that Einstein posited are now being challenged (as they should be). I believe very much in science and I know it well enough to know that humans as we stand today might as well be single-celled animals for our understanding of the ways of the universe. That is the hubris that your position brings to the table. You think you know and you don't-maybe in a thousand years you may be close. Y'all are as arrogant as the religious fundamentalists that you rightly condemn.

[jgraz]

137. Almost all cosmologists believe as I do. So do most physicists, biologists, mathematicians, etc.

Do a little googling and you'll find that a very high percentage of scientists are atheists. Again, you are stating things as fact that are in direct opposition to established data, yet you would prefer I not call you ignorant. Is there another word that fits better?


Also, in the second paragraph you start in on me again and you talk about my 'arrogance'. You will note I did not (and will never) say that you are ignorant for your beliefs and yet you persist in this onslaught.

I grant you complete permission to call me ignorant. You just have to provide the evidence, as I have clearly done in your case.


I do know basic science and I know it well enough to know that it is and has been a very fluid system that has changed radically over the last 200 years and the things that Einstein posited are now being challenged (as they should be).

Oh really? Exactly what did Einstein "posit" -- i.e. assume the existence of without establishing an evidentiary foundation? And which of these alleged "postulates" are now being challenged? And how does your imagined challenge of an Einsteinian postulate show that science lacks understanding of the universe?


You say you know basic science, but then you prove in the next clause that you don't have the first clue on one of the most important, fundamental tenets of scientific progress: that refinement of a theory does not necessarily invalidate that theory. That's why NASA can still use Newtonian equations for most of their calculations.

The equations of relativity and quantum mechanics will still be in use 200 years from now because they are so damn good at predicting things. We may have new equations for new discoveries, but that won't suddenly make the Schrödinger wave equation useless.


Y'all are as arrogant as the religious fundamentalists that you rightly condemn.

Wrong. How many fundamentalists would change their world view in response to new data? How many churchgoers would be practically giddy with joy at the prospect of having one of their long-held beliefs shown to be wrong? Many of my friends are in this position as we wait for the Large Hadron Collider to come on line. I almost think they'll be disappointed if they're proved right.

That's the attitude of a scientist, and it's the polar opposite of the religious fanatics. Until you figure that out, you can't really truthfully say that you "know basic science".

[jhrobbins]

138. That's just BS and you know it. To make a claim that almost all cosmologists

believe as you do. How many cosmologists are we talking about in the world and how would one google all of them. What an idiotic presumption.
Now, you have been talking a lot about your cosmological credentials - can you tell what they are? Where you work, where you studied. If someone is telling me they are the gold standard for cosmological expertise, I'd like to know?
But again, you have skirted the point I have been trying to make all along and that is why are people like you so nasty - why is it necessary to attack me and belittle me when you know what I am saying and you twist it around to indict. Like when I used the phrase nano second - you knew exactly what I meant and yet you thought you would do a bit of grandstanding and show the religionists how smart you are. And again, you are exactly like the fundamentalists that you apparently despise. Flip sides of the same coin.
Now, come on and tell me again how stupid I am instead of answering my original question - Why do you fell it necessary to attack other people's deeply held beliefs. Do you think you are doing them some favor or is it simply to feel smarter than or better than. For all of your intelligence, this makes you very small.
One more thing - if your intelligence has taught you anything, you should know beter than to expound on what will be used in 200 years. Nothing, especially in science-is written in stone. You remind me of the Catholic Church in the middle ages and renaissance - they knew everything too. They didn't think they had it right - they knew it and killed people because of it. Be careful of the hubris of thinking you are the only one who knows the truth.

[jgraz]

140. Once again, I'm trying to find another word besides "ignorant"...

... but I'm really not having a lot of luck. Since you seem incapable of using The Google, I'll point you directly at one article: http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/Percentage_of_atheists That's the only link you'll get from me, so don't ask for more. I try to avoid doing work for the intellectually lazy.


Now, you have been talking a lot about your cosmological credentials - can you tell what they are? Where you work, where you studied. If someone is telling me they are the gold standard for cosmological expertise, I'd like to know?

Sure, right after you publish your home address and the names of your last three lovers. If it's ok with you, I'll avoid personal information and let my posts speak for themselves. As always, you're free to refute what I say by providing your own evidence.

And, btw, I never said I was the "gold standard for cosmological expertise." What I did say is that you were the "gold standard" for lack of cosmological expertise.


But again, you have skirted the point I have been trying to make all along and that is why are people like you so nasty - why is it necessary to attack me and belittle me when you know what I am saying and you twist it around to indict. Like when I used the phrase nano second - you knew exactly what I meant and yet you thought you would do a bit of grandstanding and show the religionists how smart you are. And again, you are exactly like the fundamentalists that you apparently despise. Flip sides of the same coin.

Oh please, QQ some more for me. Every time you equate scientists -- even arrogant scientists -- with religionists, you do more damage to your own image than I could ever do. If you really cared about how you appear in these online forums, you'd do a little homework before posting nonsense.


Now, come on and tell me again how stupid I am instead of answering my original question - Why do you fell it necessary to attack other people's deeply held beliefs. Do you think you are doing them some favor or is it simply to feel smarter than or better than. For all of your intelligence, this makes you very small.

To be fair, you never really asked a question. You posted an unsupportable statement about how mean we non-believers are (it's, like, right up there ^^^), but you never really showed sincere interest in arriving at any mutual understanding.

If you're actually interested (and you ask nicely), I'll be happy to tell you why (in your words) I "fell it necessary to attack other people's deeply held beliefs" -- but only if you actually ask a good-faith question rather than positing (see what i did there?) some baseless accusation.


One more thing - if your intelligence has taught you anything,

Intelligence has not taught me anything. Hard work and years of study have taught me things. You should try it sometime.


you should know beter than to expound on what will be used in 200 years. Nothing, especially in science-is written in stone.

I'm not "expounding", I'm using the fact that I understand the history of modern science to make a reasonable prediction. I may be wrong, but at least my statements have a grounding in actual fact rather than silly pseudo-intellectual babble like "nothing is written in stone". :eyes:


You remind me of the Catholic Church in the middle ages and renaissance - they knew everything too. They didn't think they had it right - they knew it and killed people because of it. Be careful of the hubris of thinking you are the only one who knows the truth.

See, this is why you get your poor self attacked. You pick the most objectionable image possible and draw some brainless comparison to it without a shred of evidence or even common sense. Then you sit back and cry when someone objects to your slander.

If I said that because of your sexuality you remind me of Jeffrey Dahmer, how would that make you feel? This kind of passive-aggressive bigotry is incredibly repellent ... but I expect you've been told that before.

[MrModerate]

113. Personally, I'm an accomodationist-atheist . . .

Which means I think religious people are deluded, but no more so than those who think their children are extraordinary or that that dreadful Angel Food cake they make every Mother's Day is actually edible.

[jgraz]

115. Except things like extraordinary children and edible cake actually exist

Talking snakes and virgin births? Not so much.

[MrModerate]

120. Agreed. But the same tendency in human beings to believe things unsupported by evidence . . .

Is responsible for the happy state of delusion.

[jhrobbins]

134. Thank you - I think this polarization about religion is an example of the

way we have become in this country. Everyone is SO angry and cannot bear any other opinion other than their own that they feel compelled to denigrate the 'others'. I would have thought that people in DU would eschew this approach to politics, religion, , well everything, but many seem to be as myopic as the extreme right. The 'my way or the highway, you ignorant son a of a bitch".

[SkyIsGrey]

72. So you want an explanation of the difference...

Atheism and Beliefs?

I have a gun, I am going to load it pull back the hammer and put it to your head. I will pull the trigger. I believe that the bullet will pass straight through your skull without killing you.

Or do you know otherwise?



Another way to say this.

Make a stupid augment get a harsh response.

[MrModerate]

112. Just out of curiosity, could you list . . .

The "religions" that don't depend on some god or gods to support their belief system? I'm wracking my brains and coming up with nothing.

[jgraz]

116. American Exceptionalism and Free-Market Fundamentalism come to mind

Any non-falsifiable belief system unsupported by evidence could be classified as a religion.

[MrModerate]

119. Why bother using the word "religion" when you could as easily use . . .

the word "anything"?

[jgraz]

125. The same reason you use any word that has a specific meaning

I'm not quite sure how "anything" would fit the description I gave.

[MrModerate]

130. Because your definition is so broad that it encompasses . . .

pretty much anything a person might think is true. The definition is so broad, in fact (i.e., nonspecific), that I can't see how it's at all useful.

[jgraz]

136. On the contrary, it's very narrow and involves a small percentage of most people's beliefs

For example:

I believe quarks exist: falsifiable, based on evidence
I believe my dog is 16 years old: falsifiable, based on evidence
I believe I have 10 fingers: falsifiable, based on evidence


Etc, etc, etc.



In fact, very little of what sane people believe fits my description.

[PassingFair]

132. LOL....the "attack" came in POST ONE.

But you never saw it.

Time for some specs.

[AlbertCat]

21. Of these books only 3 are about religion

The others are about his field of science as are:

"Unweaving the Rainbow"
"River out of Eden"
"The Extended Phenotype"
"Climbing Mount Improbable"
"The Ancestor's Tale"

You would know this if you had read any of them. Throwing up books that you haven't read to burn sorta sums up your position, doesn't it?
You seem more jealous that he's successful than anything else....because you sure don't know anything about the man.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Essentially all of his books contain his philosophy concerning religion.

Some are dedicated to the subject; some are not.

[AlbertCat]

32. See...haven't read one of them!

[jgraz]

111. Oh lighten up. Religionists only need one book. And they don't even read that one.

Remember: facts are the devil's testicles.

[SkyIsGrey]

66. Yes that is all he is about..

is riding the money train. Just like Einstein, Darwin, Sagan, Russell, Zappa, Vonnegut etc... trying to bring, in one form or another, reasoned discourse too people unwilling to listen or learn.

It is at some point you have to say enough of this, grow-up. There is no boogie man, and only to have the child yell back "Your not the boss of me!"

As for the capitalization error, sorry. As for Freud, I am not the one that believes in an invisible father figure that lives in the clouds.

I will tell you as I tell others.

"I can go any direction in this discussion. Weather it be on God, Zeus, Shiva or the Spaghetti Monster. If there is or is not proof of existence in all or one or some combination or just stories passed down through the generations that have morphed into a great farce. If the Religious texts are what gives us our morals or they are derived from them.
You on the other hand can only go in one."

You could argue that I am being agnostic, but I am an atheist because I require no beliefs at all. Not even in the mighty Dawkins Himself.

[Buzz Clik]

83. I think that Dawkins started out on a different track. Now, however, he is entrenched.

I suppose what irritates me about Dawkins (not as an author but as a speaker) is his willingness to paint in black and white -- those who believe are fools. Agnostics are cowards. And so on. It's as if he has completely abandoned his scientific underpinnings to advance his personal point of view.

I react this way any time a scientist turns to the popular press to make a point; it is far easier to wander from need for following the scientific method when talking on NPR or to a crowd of students than it is when expressing similar views in the scientific literature. And, considering Dawkins's publication record, he knows the difference.

[MrModerate]

114. Agreed, Dawkins has become a professional gadfly . . .

And is enjoying it thoroughly. As a public intellectual, he's decided that what most atheists do (shake our heads and sigh when exposed to religiosity) won't cut it. Given the unfair advantage that religion has been given -- especially in America over the last 30 years or so -- he appears to feel it his duty to opposed the fatuous certainty of public religious professionals with his own certainty. To beard the lion in his den, if you will.

It's not for me -- I don't tell 7-year-olds there's no Santa Claus either -- but I respect someone who's taken it as his mission to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

If you're a believer, I can see how that rubs your fur the wrong way. And you have every reason to object. Saying he's in it only for the money, however, appears counterfactual.

[SkyDaddy7]

10. Not True...

Dawkins has just recently come into the so-called "money" he has been on this "crusade" for decades!

[Buzz Clik]

14. And why do you suppose that Dawkins is so concerned that we NOT believe in God?

[AlbertCat]

22. And why do you suppose that Dawkins is so concerned that we NOT believe in God?

Uh....so you won't be the blithering idiot you are? Maybe?


Religion is dangerous...especially these days! Pakistan anyone?

And he believes it's a form of child abuse. I agree.

Besides...he's a science teacher....not a shaman or magician or snake oil salesman.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Oh, my. I'm a blithering idiot?

Tell me -- what are my religious beliefs? Do you know?

Do you suppose it is possible to not embrace religious faith yet think that Richard Dawkins is self-consumed?

(By the way -- he's a helluva lot more than a science teacher.)

[SkyIsGrey]

71. So are you willing to admit there is no God or Gods?

Right here and now in public?

If you think that Dawkins is self consumed, you really do have a closed mind.

To prove that you do not, please explain in detail as to why you think this.

Good luck with that.

[Buzz Clik]

82. Yes. I don't believe in God or gods.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Is it impossible to think Dawkins is a self-serving, self promoting egomaniac without believing in God?

[valerief]

46. Guess you haven't been paying attention to politics since Ray-Gun. nt

[Buzz Clik]

51. This would be a strange place to hang out to ignore politics, don't you think?

My problem with Dawkins is very similar to my problem with those who use religion to wedge issues into politics. I dislike both because they take very personal beliefs and try to ram them down other people's throats.

Stephen Colbert summed it up nicely on Fresh Air some years ago: he has no problem with religion, the religious, or the belief in God. He does, however, take great issue with things that are done in the name of God.

I agree, but I also take issue with what people are willing to do in pursuit of their disbelief.

[valerief]

52. Yeah, but he's religious, so why listen to his opinions if you're not going to listen to Dawkins? nt

[Buzz Clik]

54. How do you suppose I know so much about Dawkins if I never listened to him?

[valerief]

70. Oh, then I agree with you that we should listen closely to Dawkins. nt

[Buzz Clik]

77. I would hope that you also agree that we can both listen yet have contrary opinions.

[AlbertCat]

58. but I also take issue with what people are willing to do in pursuit of their disbelief.

Like...GIVE LECTURES and WRITE BOOKS...damn them!


:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Because Religion impacts us, regardless of whether we believe or not.

This would be more fun if I could be snarky about it, but I'll tone it down for the sake of conversation.

Religious activists, operating on the grounds that even a multi-celled blastocyst is a human being with a soul, have actively worked to inhibit, restrict, and even outlaw research or medical treatments based upon embryonic stem cells. To say nothing of anti-abortion activists.

If there is no soul, and that blastocyst is nothing more than information, and the tools to construct a human being, then all this debate and political warfare was for naught.

People like Dawkins, working to refine, and explain light years beyond what Darwin could have imagined, are constantly blasted by people who hold their religious ideals to be the unimpeachable truth, because everything about Dawkins' very job, fly in the face of religious dogma. I haven't followed his biography close enough to state for fact, but I would suspect that Dawkins did not fire the first shot in this debate.

I certainly didn't, growing up. I was attacked for being an agnostic. Even ruled 'unamerican' because I said the pledge in school, as it was originally written, not as the Knights of Columbus vandalized it in the red scare McCarthyism of the 50's. Any time I deviated from the 'social norm' of believing in some sort of supernatural, supreme being, I received negative treatment of all sorts, from misplaced pity, to outright hostility. Fine. I resolved long ago, instead of trying to just be me, and get along, I would go ahead and do battle on this subject. Hardly seems fair after all, I employ reason, they employ faith.

[Buzz Clik]

79. Of those supporting Dawkins on this thread, you hold the distinction of...

... being rational and making intelligent arguments. Funny what can happen when that approach is taken -- I agree with most of what you've said. We differ (I think) in that I don't believe that Dawkins's harping on the foolishness of religious beliefs will convince anyone that abortion should remain a choice and that Darwin is correct.

And when Dawkins declares that agnostics are cowards for refusing to take a stand, it makes me roll my eyes. He sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh in those moments.

[SkyIsGrey]

84. Agnostics are in a sense worse than believers .

"Maybe there is no god, but what if there is. Will she be vengeful if I do not believe in her? Best to just straddle the beam in the hope that the truth is found, whatever it may be. Would not want to rock the boat."

At least with believers you know where they are hunkered down at.

I on the other hand want to go for a swim, hope you both don't mind getting wet.

[Buzz Clik]

85. Do as you wish. I'm quite capable of making my own decisions as are you.

[SkyIsGrey]

89. Are you basing yours on reality and facts?

n.t.

[Buzz Clik]

91. Be more specific.

[SkyIsGrey]

92. You win...

Your superior intellect as baffled me to non-response.

[Buzz Clik]

93. You are the one who made this personal, not me.

If you want a conversation, I'm here. If you're seeking a pissing match, go elsewhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. I go by Atheist Crusader but, technically, I am an Agnostic.

I believe the evidence we have now does not support the existence of supernatural beings. I rate the probability of any sort of creator/god as approaching zero. BUT. I cannot claim to know for sure. I am open to the introduction of new evidence. I will weigh and consider it with an open mind.

I see no evidence that god exists.
I also see no evidence that god does NOT exist.

The latter is a useless attempt to prove a negative, when every last possible angle and shred of evidence from the former has not yet been examined.

So while I operate as an Atheist, and do not believe the existence of any god is likely, that openness to the opposite POSSIBILITY probably puts me officially in the Agnostic camp. Many people, like my brother, who fit into the 'agnostic' realm, are not actually straddling any sort of beam, pretending to please and trying to fool a supposedly omnipotent, and omniscient being, while behaving like an Atheist that does not believe in, or observe the supposed rules that supernatural being supposedly established.

Since I advocate for non-theism, and work to analyze and deconstruct myths, legends, and such, I don't think you could really call me 'worse' than believers.

[AlbertCat]

104. I also see no evidence that god does NOT exist.

Of course you ignore that things appear to be as they would be if only random interactions of the laws of physics had been going on for 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years. There is no real evidence because you cannot prove a negative, but the point is, there simply is no need to evoke supernatural powers...even with what little we know about the universe.

Even Dawkins doesn't rule out a super remote possibility simply because you cannot prove a negative. But the chances are so remote and there are so many better non supernatural explanations that gods need not even be bothered with.

Of course most people who would call themselves religious don't bother with god or the supernatural for 97% of their waking lives.

[SkyIsGrey]

107. Thats what is frutrating about agnostics...

There is no evidence that god or gods exist at all, other than the misinterpretation of life and the universe and its many complexities by the gullible human mind.
Where there is no knowledge of something, instead of saying "I do not know" it is filled with a belief to circumvent that.

Giving the "possibility" that god/gods exist is like being an enabler to a drug addict. There is no distinction or gray area, there is either fantasy or reality with religious beliefs. They can have their fantasies, but do not dare try to intermix that with reality.
This is like telling a drug addict that there is strong, thoroughly researched evidence that the substance they are taking is causing their addiction, but on the other hand the is no evidence to disprove your addiction is only being caused by invisible magic pixie dust, it might be possible. How long do you think a addict would use that to justify their addiction?

There are as many possibilities as we can imagine, only one reality we need to deal with.
Lets try to focus are energies into the latter.

[MrModerate]

117. This is why, IMO, agnostics give Dawkins the pip . . .

I see no evidence that god does not exist. I also see no evidence that the following don't exist: Leprechauns, unicorns, psychokinesis, Counselor Troi, a giant pool of oil at the center of the moon, Tony Perkins in my shower, or a dollar in the pocket of my other pants.

The list of things for which I have no negative confirmation is literally infinite. Does that mean that there's any rational reason to take the possibility of their existence into consideration?

The same is true of god. The fact that there is no evidence that god exists, *must* trump the incredibly unlikely possibility that god does. If you buy the first statement in this post, maintaining an "agnostic" viewpoint is perhaps not cowardly, but at least preposterous.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Look at it another way.

When you say "God does not exist" you are making a positive statement, and the burden of proof is on you to establish that. Proving a negative is difficult, especially when your hypothetical subject is, hypothetically, an omnipotent being with no desire to be seen.

I prefer to leave the burden of proof in the camp of the people who think their god DOES exist. At the very least, it's a lot less work for me.

So while I would say "I don't believe your god exists", I would not say "Your god does not exist". Subtle difference in wording, but puts the burden of proof in the correct location.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Dawkins' exhortations seem different to me, than say, Hitchens.

I definitely see what your are saying, but maybe I can help with another comparison. I do believe Christopher Hitchens when he says he's an Atheist, and I admire his powerful debate skills, and sheer volume of knowledge, but... (and maybe this is tainted by his support of the Bush administration**, and the Iraq War, and some positions he has reversed upon for seemingly profitable reasons) he lacks what I perceive as .. I guess I would call it selfless honesty. Dawkins certainly does make money off his books, both his biology books, and his a-theology books, and the books that mix the two. But it doesn't seem to be his primary motivation.

With Hitchens (I realize you didn't mention him, I'm just picking a contemporary of Dawkins) there is hate, pure, revulsion of religion. I listen to Dawkins, and read his books, and I don't hear hatred of religion. Sadness or regret perhaps. But overriding all that, powerful inspiration, a voice encouraging us to grow, to open our eyes and minds and move on to something better, more useful, and all the while cautioning us that the reality he is challenging us to see with our naked eyes, with no religious preconceptions, is so much more profound, and awe-inspiring than we have been able to imagine with the base assumptions we are led to by the things most religions ask us to believe (or disbelieve).


Hitchens seems to want to dig his rapier wit into a slow, low flying target, Dawkins seems to want us to grow. Not to hate, but to start a movement, an awakening. I believe he's genuine about it too.

The Limbaugh comparison I cannot see, because Limbaugh does not even live up to his own standards. If a guy wants to do drugs and marry again and again, and such, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But if he claims, as part of his profession, and personal morality, a standard that he does not live up to, such as fidelity, and not using illegal drugs, and then he does these things that his own morals deem 'bad' while preaching to everyone else that THEY ALSO must live up to his claimed standard of morality... Man. What a sad, tortured creature he must be, when he's alone with his thoughts. (I may be underestimating the power of a big fat pile of money to silence a conscience haunted by hypocrisy)

Dawkins not only claims a moral standard, but as far as I can tell, he lives up to it in every way.


**I agreed a bit with some of Hitchens criticism of the general state of mockery that was made of Bush. Comparing him to various photos of chimpanzees and assuming he's stupid and all that, detracted from more powerful debate and opposition. When the Patriot act was first laid on the table, we needed to make precise, effective attacks on the ideals that legislation represented, and instead many just went with the cheap bush=hitler jokes, and that was that, and damn if he wasn't successful getting it passed. Welp. Hopefully we'll know better next time. When our freedom, our rights, and our way of life were hanging in the balance, we need to be more Serious Business(TM) about opposing it.

(edit: Spelling (Sigh))

[Buzz Clik]

99. Great post!

I need to run. I'll respond this evening.

[Buzz Clik]

108. Let me reply briefly.

I definitely see what your are saying, but maybe I can help with another comparison. I do believe Christopher Hitchens when he says he's an Atheist, and I admire his powerful debate skills, and sheer volume of knowledge, but... (and maybe this is tainted by his support of the Bush administration**, and the Iraq War, and some positions he has reversed upon for seemingly profitable reasons)

I am not a fan of Hitchens. I always pay attention when he speaks, but I find him unnecessarily caustic. I must confess that when I think of spokespersons for atheism, Hitchens does not come to mind.

The Limbaugh comparison I cannot see, because Limbaugh does not even live up to his own standards...

I have no use whatsoever for Limbaugh, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. My comparison between Dawkins and Limbaugh was in one specific context -- Limbaugh calls centrists cowards just as Dawkins casts similar aspersions toward agnostics.

**I agreed a bit with some of Hitchens criticism of the general state of mockery that was made of Bush. Comparing him to various photos of chimpanzees and assuming he's stupid and all that, detracted from more powerful debate and opposition. When the Patriot act was first laid on the table, we needed to make precise, effective attacks on the ideals that legislation represented, and instead many just went with the cheap bush=hitler jokes, and that was that, and damn if he wasn't successful getting it passed. Welp. Hopefully we'll know better next time. When our freedom, our rights, and our way of life were hanging in the balance, we need to be more Serious Business(TM) about opposing it.

Nicely stated. This reminds me of some of the loftier discussions when my family (right wing to the core) gets together. They dislike Bush but brush aside the silliness you mention -- they go right to the heart of the matter and lament the lack of a focused response when it was needed.

Back to Dawkins: I guess I don't feel the need for any sort of inspiration to explore my attitudes about faith. He is brilliant as a scientist and generally fascinating as a speaker, but I dislike the focus on those who embrace religious ideals. I suppose it is necessary to draw contrasts. As for my accusations of "evangelism", in another post it was stated that he appears in multiple venues because he is invited; it's an excellent point.

I appreciate your well considered response. My comments did not do justice to the depth of yours, but it's been a long day.

Perhaps another time...

[MrModerate]

118. Having listened quite a bit to Hitchens, I think I understand where he's coming from . . .

He hates religionists more than he hates religion. Offenses from the horrific (burning at the stake) all the way to the obnoxious ("America is a Christian Nation," quoth a million assholes) have driven him to the point of savagery. Dawkins is a scientist at heart; Hitchens a commentator. Their styles reflect their personalities and professions.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Excellent point.

He's also been exposed to religion 'in the wild' in places where people don't know where their next meal is coming from, and might like that other tribe's piece of land, and oh, better pray to (XYZ) for a fortuitous battle, and the raping of the women after, etc.

He's probably seen some shit that I can't even imagine, done in the name of religion.

[SkyDaddy7]

102. Its dangerous!

You may not have the ability to see religion from a completely rational perspective free of the emotional bonds it has on believers. Read the Bible without redefining what it says or what the authors meant when they wrote it! Its dangerous!

[Steely_Dan]

141. I was asked a similar question the other day...

"Why are you so concerned about other people's beliefs.? "Can't you just live and let live.?

No I can't. I am concerned about other people's beliefs (in this specific area of religion) because their beliefs impact my life. They hold political office, make legislation and are instrumental in creating an environment that forces me to deal with their delusion. I can't do anything or go anywhere without running into their myths. I prefer NOT to have to deal with religious zealots, but they force me to on a daily basis.

THAT'S why I am so concerned about other people's beliefs.

-P

[mudesi]

11. SIGH!

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=channel_page

And admit you're wrong.

[Buzz Clik]

15. I never claimed an equivalence between science and religion.

Dawkins, however, is as evangelicistic in his beliefs as any pulpit-pounding born again idiot.

[baldguy]

23. Except that Dawkins has facts to back up his "beliefs".

[Buzz Clik]

27. Yes, he does. I never indicated otherwise.

[baldguy]

30. So, your problem is with - what? Capitalism? People writing books and then selling them?

Or are you just jealous that Dawkins can draw an audience? You seem to be criticizing him just for being.

[Buzz Clik]

33. Um,..... nooooo....

I cannot criticize Dawkins and his amusing Atheistic Evangelism without being jealous and/or anti-capitalism?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

36. ok, criticize him all you want.

Won't deter the people who are ravenous for informed reading outside of the imprimatur that jaysus has become in this country, with barely any other voice capable of breaking through the wall of noise.

[baldguy]

42. Dawkins' talking to a couple hundred people isn't "evangelism".

Unlike true evangelists, he isn't insisting that you accept anything he says at face value. If you claim a faith in an imaginary being, he's not going to lead the townsfolk to burn you at the stake. If a political leader stands up and says "God is the reason we do what we do," Dawkins is one (just one) of the people standing up to say "No, it isn't." Just what is your problem with that?

You've derided him for speaking the truth & exposing creationist lies, writing books & giving lectures, and basically presenting the world as it is rather than as some wish it to be. Yet you give no specifics. Many people do the same thing, but you seems to be so obsessed with Richard Dawkins that you reserve a special venom for him alone. Why?

[Buzz Clik]

47. I find it incredibly amusing that Dawkins has made a second career of preaching atheism.

Not just a reserved chuckle. Laugh out loud funny.

Summer camps where atheists send their kids to learn about not having faith is equally hilarious.

Atheism is the absence of faith, not a replacement faith. It requires no clergy, no theologians, no paid practitioners.

Dawkins is a scammer. He's the Jim Bakker of the godless set. It's a great job if you can get it.

[baldguy]

53. It's equally amusing that you can tag him as a charlatan

without being able to point out what he's being deceitful about.

Amusing in a pathetic, sad and small-minded way - but amusing nonetheless.

[Buzz Clik]

76. You don't have to be deceitful to be making money off of people's willingness to follow.

And... more with the personal attacks. What is it with you people that you find it necessary to attack me personally?

[baldguy]

78. Dawkins is a scammer - but he's not deceitful... yeah, right.

Is English a second language for you?

[Buzz Clik]

80. More insults.

You and I are through here.

[baldguy]

88. Was anything started?

First, you implied that Dawkins was being somehow deceptive, so I asked for an example. You weren't able to comply, so I made the assumption that while you may be an honorable & otherwise well-informed individual, you didn't quite understand the words you used. I came to a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Of course, there is another possibility - that you're able to answer but are unwilling to do so for whatever reason - and are therefore neither honorable nor well-informed.

[Buzz Clik]

90. You asked me for an example of him being a scammer? When? I missed.

Direct me to the post where you asked for an example, and I'll respond.

I cannot control the assumptions you make. The majority of the people responding to me so far have assumed I'm religious, and I am not. So, if you find comfort in thinking ill of me, there is nothing I can do to stop that.

[baldguy]

96. Well? How is Dawkins a scammer?

(Without him being deceitful?)

Its amazing that you can protest that the question wasn't asked & still avoid providing an answer.

[liberation]

45. The projection exercises regarding Dawkins by some religious folk are hilarious...

It is funny how they end up blaming Dawkins for some of their very own shortcomings. Quite telling really. It is also funny to see some two bit poster labeling an Oxford professor as an "idiot" for daring to write books about his philosophy, which seems to be a big no-no for some of the posters here.

[Buzz Clik]

48. I called Dawkins an idiot? When? Where?

[liberation]

63. Plausible deniability... now that is impressive, not. LOL.

.

[Buzz Clik]

73. Ah -- so you accuse me of something I didn't do, and then blame me for it.

Sweet.

[AlbertCat]

37. I've never seen him speak in tongues...

..or cry or heal people by slapping them on the forehead while evoking science.



it's statements like he's acting like " any pulpit-pounding born again idiot" that makes you appear to be a blithering idiot. You can't tell the difference between a lecture and a sermon.

And now you're trying to catch all of us with a back peddling "you think you know me but HA! you're wrong! Gotcha!" ploy.

You're a fool. I have better things to do than play games with a fool like you.

(Now he'll accuse me of running away....yawn)

[AlbertCat]

55. I just finished watching the hour long video

and the last question in the last moments sums up this troll's "argument" for me:

Questioner:"Have you ever had an interesting argument from the other side?"

Dawkins: NO!

[AlbertCat]

20. atheism is just another belief system.

So is driving a car....you have faith others will stop at the red light....and sometimes they don't.

"Belief system" is a bogus very broad term I could apply to many other things....like cooking, or gardening, or even sex.

He wrote "The Selfish Gene" in 1975....so he's been "raking in the dough" for decades before he went off on how stupid religion is.

Besides, if money negates the sincerity and value of a "belief system"...the church has much more to answer for.

You obviously are just personally offended by having your fairytale universe clearly and coolly....and thoroughly...debunked. You might do better by opening your mind instead of pouting.

[SteelPenguin]

35. Not really sure what you're saying here

Are you saying that the only reason people peddle belief systems is for money (at least over a long stretch)?

I think if you look at it the entire 'crusade' is generated by other people's interest. You don't start out contacting places looking to give lectures. They contact you. He wrote some scholarly biological books that made it into the public realm and were well accepted and people started inviting him to talk. People bought his books so the publisher came to him with offers of money for additional books.

If nobody was interested in what he was talking and writing about, would he be going around the world doing so? Of course not. He probably never would have started.

Does the fact that people want to hear what he wants to say, and are willing to pay him to come talk to them, devalue what he's talking about?

By using the words "just another" do you imply that all belief systems are the same, and either pointless or purely money making pursuits? What qualifies as a belief system, what doesn't?

[Buzz Clik]

87. You make a good point. But...

If he had left his musings at the point of stating his own beliefs and how he arrived at them, I would have been fascinated. It's the associated judgments that I find offensive and highly questionable because it is these same judgments that fire up his followers and sell books.

[liberation]

43. I take you don't have anything intelligent to say about the message...

... so you must take issue with the messenger.

[Buzz Clik]

50. If you're talking about taking issue with Dawkins versus atheism, you are correct.

I have no problem with atheism. I tend toward atheism my self. But, I find Dawkins unintentionally amusing.

[liberation]

44. I take you don't have anything intelligent to say about the message...

... so you must take issue with the messenger.

[SkyDaddy7]

9. You are 110% correct!

The problem is most people do like cold truth back by cold hard facts that ruin their "wanna-be" view of the world. Even Dan Dennett tried a much more passive approach in his book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" (Awesome book btw) and it produced the same outrage...People have been programmed to think religion is sacred and never to be looked at rationally and this is dangerous! Hopefully times are changing in this country but we will see?

[SkyIsGrey]

81. I keep an open mind.

But to try to have level discussion with someone that does not is infuriating. Especially when they try to equate having no need for beliefs (atheism) as a belief.

People like this deal in a world unto themselves. Anything that tries to get through to it is met with great resistance, like the statement in another response on this thread.

"The thing that I have noticed in DU is that when it comes to the subject of God and religion, the attacks come from the non-believers."

Because theirs is the only world and we are the invaders, and they are probably wondering why I equate them to children in some of my posts.

[SkyDaddy7]

98. I share your frustration!

There is a reason why we are part of the most hated group in America. We ask questions and read the Bible for what it is, a window into the thinking of Bronze Age Men! This angers those who want their special bubble where they can create their own special reality. I can't help but compare FOX News and its viewers to religion...Folks that buy into it do not want to hear the facts and they would never look outside their bubble for alternate points of view. What really puzzles me is the hoops the so-called moderates will jump through in order to justify their beliefs. They know what is written in their Bibles...Well, some do, others just follow the crowd for acceptance and the feeling of belonging to a group that by their definition is better than everyone else. I know there are those who believe in a god and do not take part in these heavily funded hate campaigns and do not support teaching Bronze Age Myths as science in public schools, but they go to church with folks who do and they never say anything! They are scared they will called an "ATHEIST"! The worse possible label known to believers! Yet these same moderates will attack us for speaking out about "In god we trust" on our secular money, or pointing out that Bronze Age Creation Myths are Myths...All the while the Wall of Separation is being torn block by block! In 1994 a poll was done in America and it said 41% of Americans thought The Theory of Evolution was a lie...That same poll was done earlier this year and that number is now 63% think Evolution is a lie! If those so called "moderate Christians" see nothing wrong with this then there is nothing "moderate" about them. And they wonder why the nasty evil Atheist are speaking up, if these so-called "Moderate Christians" would clean their own house they would not hear from us.


You don't hear Christians complaining that they live in comfort from all the hard work and discoveries the non-believers bring to our modern society. And you never will!

[AlbertCat]

16. Good try...but there's no equivalence. Thanks for playing.

[Buzz Clik]

17. I'm correct. Sorry to have wasted your time.

[AlbertCat]

24. Oh...well no need for you to learn anything anymore!

Faith is the end of inquiry.

QED

[Buzz Clik]

29. You are making some ridiculous assumptions.

If you chose to stick with the arguments about ideas rather than attempting to discredit me, you make actually be making headway.

[AlbertCat]

31. Why

argue with someone who just comes back with "I am correct"?

You wouldn't know an argument if it bit you in the ass....apparently.

So argue. Instead of informing us that Dawkins is in it for the money...prove it. Show us how he is doing ALL this for personal gain. A list of books isn't proof of anything except he can write. Does he have several huge houses and cars and a mega-church like American Evangelicals?
I find it amusing that you deduce his motives to be the same as Evangelical frauds. Projection?

Besides...I've heard all the arguments before. Religionists never come up with anything new that hasn't already been debunked. They never listen to the logical arguments that destroy their fantasies and circular logic but just repeat the same old crap. I'm tired of it all. Go ahead...live in ignorance. Just don't endanger or bother me.

[Buzz Clik]

34. More personal attacks.

Thank god for functional software.

[AlbertCat]

Hey..a troll is a troll

Run time: 61:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu1iZW29GTw   Posted on YouTube: April 19, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 20, 2009 By DU Member: AlbertCat Views on DU: 5516

 

[BlancheSplanchnik]

38. people who rely on cryptic replies in order to pump up their belief in their superiority

get boring fast.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Oh, bullshit. You replied to one of my posts above that was hardly cryptic.

As did the asswipe who started this subthread.

He/she declared flatly that I was wrong and "thanks for playing" with no further response. I responded in kind.

You people must get over yourselves. Truly.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

41. tee hee!!

pissed ya off, did I? :spank:

[Buzz Clik]

49. You posted nonsense with the single intent of irritating me? How mature.

[AlbertCat]

60. He/she declared flatly that I was wrong and "thanks for playing" with no further response.

You were wrong and still are.

[Gator_Matt]

69. I think that I can see where you are coming from, but...

Dawkins doesn't strike me as condescending, smug, nor proselytizing. He has made a career in very eloquently explaining "controversial" scientific issues. The fact that he is bringing this to the mainstream instead of publishing in esoteric journals doesn't make him a crusader. Stephen Hawking does much of the same thing, but doesn't get this sort of criticism since he happens to be prominent in a less controversial area of expertise.

[Buzz Clik]

75. Whoa. We view him totally differently.

He is brilliant and well spoken, for sure. But he is as smug and condescending as any I've ever encountered.

[AlbertCat]

106. He is brilliant and well spoken, for sure.

I don't think you've ever read a book of his. Maybe 1/2 of "The God Delusion"...


But he is as smug and condescending as any I've ever encountered.

He's less smug than you are!...laughing at a serious scientist trying to inform the public so they don't hurt themselves and others. And starting to succeed.


Sure...if you think pointing out the absurdities and inconsistencies of religion is smug. The religious certainly think it is. They think any criticism is condescending no matter how impersonal and reasoned.

Let'em be insulted. I don't care. They've been condemning me to eternal damnation for centuries. Fuck them!

[baldguy]

121. Buzz Clik is intimidated by the English accent.

[SkyIsGrey]

68. Its all about you/You.

n.t.

[Buzz Clik]

74. No, it isn't, and it was not until some of these responders attacked me.

This is classic bulletin board cluster fuck.

[SkyIsGrey]

86. Then do not respond to this..

Its all about you.

[baldguy]

122. .

:cry: :nopity: :cry:

[jgraz]

127. Oh right. AlbertCat forgot "whine like a bitty baby whenever anyone disagrees with you"

Thanks for the reminder. :hi:

[Puzzler]

8. Thanks for posting this...

... I was expecting the usual Youtube 6-10 minute clip, and found myself watching a great hour-long lecture.

[Peggesis1]

61. Yes, thanks for posting this

Yes, thanks for posting this video. On the recommendation of one of the respondants in this thread, I went to my local public library and checked out Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." It's been a very good read so far. Thanks all!

[defendandprotect]

110. Bookmarking to watch tomorrow . . . thanks!

[DuaneBidoux]

128. He's so good. It's too bad he is fighting a battle with 2000 yr. old mentality. He's so much bette

The guy is brilliant, and he is debating people that shouldn't even be asked to show up at the table.

There is so much good shit, so many incredible answers, that are out there and rationality, and the coming age of trans-rationality will get us there--that is my faith.

Faith in evolution--faith in our future.

[DuaneBidoux]

129. ps, thanks for posting. this was incredible

[DuaneBidoux]

131. Did I understand he likes the multiverse theory?

[Seldona]

139. Unified String Theory could be called a multiverse theory.

So I suppose so, since I believe I recall him talking about that at one lecture or another. One can say what they like about Richard Dawkins, but one can hardly help but admit he is trying to nothing less than change the world. In a way that he believes will be better for man-kind.

I happen to agree with a lot of what he says and writes. I also like his style, which pisses a lot of people off. :)

[JI7]

142. no, it's good he debates them since they are usually the type to spread their bs

to the masses.

he at least helps to show why they are wrong and helps people like myself in making certain points when debating these fools.