PDA

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins


Oblisk
03-01-2007, 04:58 AM
What are your views on Richard Dawkins and his writings?

Steppenwolf
03-01-2007, 05:53 AM
Humanitarian progressism cannot be conceptualized without taking into account the Western Christian tradition. He is simply one of those who have rejected God because "there is no compelling evidence behind his existence" and yet fully retained, with no logical reason whatsoever, all Christian ethics. A typical American liberal.

VAMPIR
03-01-2007, 11:37 AM
One day he will hear voice from above:
OK, Richard, now YOU don't exist....and I'm going to prove it.

Petr
03-01-2007, 11:39 AM
My opinion is that that mediocre God-hating schmoe has already gotten way more attention than he deserves.

Useless thread.


Petr

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:15 PM
My opinion is that that mediocre God-hating schmoe has already gotten way more attention than he deserves.

Useless thread.


Petr

That "mediocre God hating schome" is worth more then your life will ever be.

The Uber religious are a cancer that need to be wiped out.

Petr
03-01-2007, 12:17 PM
The Uber religious are a cancer that need to be wiped out.
Secularists are subhuman garbage that must be done away with.


Petr

Don Quixote
03-01-2007, 12:20 PM
My opinion is that that mediocre God-hating schmoe has already gotten way more attention than he deserves.

Useless thread.


PetrI agree. Dawkins is an overblown mediocrity who trades on the ignorance of his target audience concerning basic philosophical issues, theology and science. He's a religious fanatic himself, the religion of Scientism.

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:21 PM
Secularists are subhuman garbage that must be done away with.


Petr

Not really.

Religion is the cause of nearly every war in human history.

The world would be a better place without it. There is no place for religion in Schools or governments.

Religion is for the feeble minded who need guidance because they cannot live their lives through their own moral judgment.

Such weak minded scum should be destroyed.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 12:22 PM
I agree. Dawkins is an overblown mediocrity who trades on the ignorance of his target audience concerning basic philosophical issues, theology and science. He's a religious fanatic himself, the religion of Scientism.

'The Seflish Gene' is an important text, and it was and remains quite a beacon of reason amidst a burgeoning sea of neo-Lysenkoism in the academy.

I haven't read Dawkins' recent work on the God notion, but I can say that I find his work on ethology and evolutionary theory to be very much worthwhile.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 12:24 PM
Not really.

Religion is the cause of nearly every war in human history.


I'm not religious, but this is a completely fatuous argument.

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:26 PM
I'm not religious, but this is a completely fatuous argument.

It is subjective and something like this can never be proven but I stand by it.

Look at most of the major wars in History and tell me that religion has not played a major part.

Ahknaton
03-01-2007, 12:27 PM
It is subjective and something like this can never be proven but I stand by it.

Look at most of the major wars in History and tell me that religion has not played a major part.
So you admit that racism isn't really much of a problem in the world then, comparatively speaking?

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 12:29 PM
It is subjective and something like this can never be proven but I stand by it.

Look at most of the major wars in History and tell me that religion has not played a major part.

Religion (in various forms) is a universal characteristic of human societies...its arbitrary to assign ultimate, causal significance of conflict between nations to religion over other sociopolitical and geopolitical variables.

I'll also note that the two most destructive and costly conflicts in human history were not fought over secterian differences.

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:30 PM
So you admit that racism isn't really much of a problem in the world then, comparatively speaking?

Comparatively speaking no.

However I'm not sure why I have to "admit" anything.

In the short time I have been here I have given no indication that racism is a global problem.

Ahknaton
03-01-2007, 12:31 PM
However I'm not sure why I have to "admit" anything.

In the short time I have been here I have given no indication that racism is a global problem.
It wasn't an accusation. I meant "admit" in the sense of acknowledging something in a discussion as in "that is admissable".

Your first few posts on the forum did give a sense that you were here to tilt at racist windmills however. My apologies if I am mistaken.

Don Quixote
03-01-2007, 12:33 PM
It is subjective and something like this can never be proven but I stand by it.A troll confesses. ;)

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:38 PM
Religion (in various forms) is a universal characteristic of human societies...its arbitrary to assign ultimate, causal significance of conflict between nations to religion over other sociopolitical and geopolitical variables.

Which is EXACTLY why Religion is a bad thing.

Socio political and geopolitical variables would have been far less damaging.



I'll also note that the two most destructive and costly conflicts in human history were not fought over secterian differences.

Wrong

Think again.

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:39 PM
It wasn't an accusation. I meant "admit" in the sense of acknowledging something in a discussion as in "that is admissable".

Your first few posts on the forum did give a sense that you were here to tilt at racist windmills however. My apologies if I am mistaken.

Fair enough.

For the record I am not one of these Far left lunatic liberals.

= ۩ Black Dave II ۩ =
03-01-2007, 12:40 PM
A troll confesses. ;)

Troll how?

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 12:45 PM
Which is EXACTLY why Religion is a bad thing.
Its fatuous to suggest that men would be peaceful if not for Religion.

Socio political and geopolitical variables would have been far less damaging.
You don't understand the nature of conflict between nations. Nations go to war when enduring conflicts of interest between them cannot be resolved by means other than force of arms.





Wrong

Think again.

I'm not 'wrong'. The World Wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45 were not fought over secterian differences.

Jake Featherston
03-01-2007, 02:33 PM
I'm not 'wrong'. The World Wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45 were not fought over secterian differences.

You could stretch the definition to include World War II, but I'd like to see this guy's explanation for why World War One is a sectarian conflict.

Oblisk
03-02-2007, 02:48 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40433000/jpg/_40433207_dawkins203.jpg

Nyx
03-02-2007, 02:49 AM
He denies the existence of the Christian God, yet retains Christian ethics.

However, he is worth reading for his critique of religion and his defence of scientific materialism.

Oblisk
03-02-2007, 02:52 AM
Which Christian ethics?

Don Quixote
03-02-2007, 07:20 AM
He denies the existence of the Christian God, yet retains Christian ethics.That's true.
However, he is worth reading for his critique of religion and his defence of scientific materialism.What critique of religion? He is attacking a crude strawman. As for his defence of scientifc materialism, with advocates like that, critique can go on holiday.

Jake Featherston
03-02-2007, 10:10 AM
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matchgame/3x5pictures/RD11.jpg