Richard Dawkins is a brilliant, rational, intelligent thinker who articulates the feelings that a lot of people have in today's world. With the rise of religious fundamentalism (ie terrorism), must come the rise and proliferation of intelligent awareness to stop it. Spread the word. Tell everyone you know about Richard Dawkins and his writings.
I'm sick of this word accident - it's saturated in negativity. When I think of an accident I think of someone falling down the stairs, or an 'unfortunate car mishap'. Can't people just get their head round a flower blossoming as an inanimate, yet beautiful natural process?
In fact Thomas Huxley, the person who invented the term agnostic, did so to clarify his lack of belief. One can be an Atheist and Agnostic, simultaneously.
"Nobody is denying this fact." He implies (or rather, said) that religious scientists are bad scientists on one program, and denied this on another program.
It's a contradiction because he claimed that theists can't be scientists, yet he admits that there are theistic scientists out there. He also said that we can't be good scientist, but later said that he's not saying we can't be good scientists.
Yes, I think you're correct. I've have a vague recollection of him saying something like that. What I took away from that interview was Dawkins said that they were of course good scientists very capable of doing good science. But when examining the question "Is there a God". Then these same scientists just cop-out and use faith....and so are not acting like a good scientist regarding this particular question.
By the way, ronmackay, did you know that Richard Dawkins himself has admitted that religious people can be scientists? And when asked "how?" he simply said he doesn't know how we do it. He contradicted himself, like he always does.
No Disbelief is the issue. The Websters Dictionary definition is a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity. So Atheism can be the belief that there is no deity, or disbelief in a deity. Disbelief and Belief are not the same thing. Also I would like to say that most people by your definition would be agnostics, unless God has come down and spoken to theists personally.
I've heard him say it could be due to a compartmentalization of the mind. Nobody, as yet fully understands the mind and so of course he admits he doesn't know.
I've seen many videos of him; I can't remember which ones I saw each statement in. I think in the one with Alister McGrath he said he doesn't know how theistic scientists do it: he's amazed that they can somehow reconcile their theistic world views with science. That I can understand, but when he said they aren't good scientists (don't remember which vid) that really pissed me off. He did, like I said, seem to change his mind, tho.
Evolution is specifically, the NON-RANDOM result of random mutation. Simple ex.: A species of animal live long ago. There was a time when the animals had no fir. During successive generations, there were mistakes made in the replication of their DNA. One mistake led to the production of fir on their skin. The climate now starts to get colder. The descendants of the fir-bearing animal have an advantage since they are more adapted to the environment. Their young live, the bald ones don't, etc.
1. IF you were a good scientist, you would know that it doesn't matter what your motives are, as long as you produce good, feasible results. 2. Theistic scientists main motive is NOT to prove their beliefs; I should know, I AM one, and know many.
Science is objective. What you BELIEVE has nothing to do with it. Faith and Science are in two different domains; they are NOT mutually exclusive. Moreover, theism describes the universe in a general manner, whereas science describes it in a specific manner. Question: How do you account for the many theistic scientists in history AND today?
Why would beliefs not be true if they were wholly the product of the motion of atoms? What about a wholly 'mechanical' process necessarily makes thoughts untrue? The premise doesn't support the conclusion.
Good points, completely agree. I guess what was motivating my comments was the fear that I feel sometimes when I see what religious fundamentalism is doing to our world. It's true that fundamentalism is great for the atheistic movement, but the fundamentalist movement seems to be a bit of a snowball as well, gathering lemmings as it rolls along. I sometimes envision this apocalyptic clash between fundamentalists and atheists, and I just don't want it to reach that point.
Go back to Latin A- Without Theism- Belief in a god. As Betrand Russell once said when he was asked if he was an Atheist or Agnostic he replied. "If I were speaking to the Layman I would say I were an Atheist, If I were speaking to a philosopher I would say I am an Agnostic. I cannot disprove the notion of God, but I see no reason to believe." (paraphrased.)
Actually religious fundamentalism is doing a great service to atheism... It's making the droves of people that never even thought about their 'beliefs' finally starting to think about it. I would say about 30% - 50% of people that claim to be religious would give it up very quickly if presented with a decent debate on the topic. I find religion to be a complete and total insult to the human race and to our dignity. In the modern world, I find it embarrassing that we are even arguing it.
I can believe many many things, but then change my mind about them.....it's called being open-minded. Or do you just believe the first thing you're told and then never change your mind even if you are presented with new credible evidence?
right on! Myself and many of my friends have wached the discovery channel sinse we were small with BIG EYES =) Offcoures science is interesting! - Swedish Atheist
I don't agree with that either. A good scientist doesn't have to use the scientific method in every aspect of his/her life. There ARE things in life that science just cannot answer, such as whether you have a purpose in life. Of course answers vary, but that's because this is a subjective question (faith is acceptable here).
Speak to zealots in the tone they deserve. The truth is the truth. Zealots address me in the same tone; at least my tone was accompanied by truth, instead of a bunch of baseless assumptions and lies. The ironic thing is that they're zealots, yet they censure religious zealots.
You Dawkin-followers need to start thinking for yourselves instead of devouring everything he says just because he: a. converted you. or b. provided you with a reason to be proud of your atheism. Admiration is good; but when it resembles worship, something's wrong.
im hopping that was a joke...but if not, first i pitty you, second, looking around is not evidence, "study this field" is not evidence, anything which is claimed to be self evident realy just means "has no evidence" if you cant prove it, or even give a logical stream of reasoning therefore which themselves are grounded in evidence, there is no reason to believe you. disbelief is default, reason to believe must be given or the default wins.
I'd like to see exactly what he said. Link? I have seen Dawkins contradict himself before also. He's getting old and perhaps does too many interviews :D
Take Big-foot.....I believe he is a hoax and does not exist. But if someone captures him then I will change my mind. It's not about "flip-floping" It's about changing your mind when new evidence comes along.....that is what it is to be a rational human being.
Haha - these are great rebuttals... The burden of proof is always on the one making claims without evidence. Not on anyone else. aboosalman, I would suggest you do a bit more educating yourself before rejoining any of this debate.
"There ARE things in life that science just cannot answer" I would add "yet" and that some questions may just be meaningless nonsense questions. Besides, How do you go from thinking about the purposes in life to believing God doesn't want you to eat ham? By all means believe in some sort of God. But when you claim to know this Gods wishes/instructions(Religion) with no presentable evidence, it becomes absurd
I don't hate Dawkins. I actually respect the guy and think he's a genius; however, I do think he's flawed in assuming scientists cannot (or ought not) believe in God (of a religious variety) without having cognitive dissonance.
DRMABUSA- "LET'S SEE HOW HE FARES BEING *CRUCIFIED*.....Let's see his WORDS now" Do his *words* make you insecure about your petty delusional beliefs? Because that statement is one of the most repulsive examples of deadly idiocy I've ever seen.
Well, they have to laugh at him. They can't refute him. And I doubt Dawkins has converted many people. Dawkins simply encouraging atheists to come out of the closet is what will get the de-conversions going. Non-believers are the largest growing group, thank God. Theists will become like the dinosaurs in 300-500 years.
I'd be happy to share email addresses with you if you'd care to point out my misinterpretation. I understand epistemology well enough and I believe that before one can make an epistemological argument on this subject, it first needs to be demonstrated why a wholly mechanical system cannot have emergent qualities which can have true and justified belief. It begs the question, 'Does true belief require a soul?' Send me a PM if you wish to discuss this further. 500 chars is far too small. ^^
If God with me who can be against me sucker, can make me stronger and make me tougher. Athiest learn about Sikhism before you doubt God and you'll see the truth
And let me clear this up: I don't hate all theists. I just despise Religion. :D I do hate many theists (Haggard, bin laden etc) But I also hate many atheists ( Stalin, Mao)
Hahaha. If the race survives religion then Dawkins will be a major figure in the history of the human race. I happen to agree with Hitchens that religion or a quasi religion will be the cause of the next nuclear strike
You have a good reason to believe he didn't convert many people; too few unintelligent people read books to get converted by his crap. He appeals to ignoramuses, who hardly read anyway. People like me who are already well-versed in science already know that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.
Jedi, how about you study up on DNA/Biology, and you'll see how there is no possible way that there was not an intelligent designer who made the universe and everything in it. Looking all around you is enough "evidence" that God exists. Its just stupid how atheists refuse to believe that there obviously is a God, and they do this just to prove a point.
By the way, many philosophers and theologians laugh at Dawkins's crude way of arguing. He's GOOD at science, but BAD at everything else. That's why he mainly converts fundies. You former-fundamentalist converts make me laugh. lol... Atheism doesn't make you anymore rational than you were.
Inspiring stuff. Thanks for posting this.
My pleasure people. Glad you enjoyed it.
I dropped out of HS but went to Uni to study science 20yrs ago at age 30, best move I ever made.
spot on.
Tact is the ability to make a point without making an enemy. This man is tactless.
dawkins...legend!
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant, rational, intelligent thinker who articulates the feelings that a lot of people have in today's world. With the rise of religious fundamentalism (ie terrorism), must come the rise and proliferation of intelligent awareness to stop it.
Spread the word. Tell everyone you know about Richard Dawkins and his writings.
thanks again, jedihowie
I'm sick of this word accident - it's saturated in negativity. When I think of an accident I think of someone falling down the stairs, or an 'unfortunate car mishap'. Can't people just get their head round a flower blossoming as an inanimate, yet beautiful natural process?
He looks like a "mad professor" with this picture in the middle of the clip. Sorta like Fornsworth from Futurama!
In fact Thomas Huxley, the person who invented the term agnostic, did so to clarify his lack of belief. One can be an Atheist and Agnostic, simultaneously.
"Nobody is denying this fact."
He implies (or rather, said) that religious scientists are bad scientists on one program, and denied this on another program.
It's a contradiction because he claimed that theists can't be scientists, yet he admits that there are theistic scientists out there.
He also said that we can't be good scientist, but later said that he's not saying we can't be good scientists.
Yes, I think you're correct. I've have a vague recollection of him saying something like that.
What I took away from that interview was Dawkins said that they were of course good scientists very capable of doing good science. But when examining the question "Is there a God". Then these same scientists just cop-out and use faith....and so are not acting like a good scientist regarding this particular question.
By the way, ronmackay, did you know that Richard Dawkins himself has admitted that religious people can be scientists? And when asked "how?" he simply said he doesn't know how we do it. He contradicted himself, like he always does.
I'm going to send you an article.
No Disbelief is the issue. The Websters Dictionary definition is a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity. So Atheism can be the belief that there is no deity, or disbelief in a deity. Disbelief and Belief are not the same thing. Also I would like to say that most people by your definition would be agnostics, unless God has come down and spoken to theists personally.
And let me clear this up: I don't hate RD; I disagree with most of his points on theism, but that's not the same as hating him.
read "Letters to Richard Dawkins"
I've heard him say it could be due to a compartmentalization of the mind. Nobody, as yet fully understands the mind and so of course he admits he doesn't know.
I've seen many videos of him; I can't remember which ones I saw each statement in. I think in the one with Alister McGrath he said he doesn't know how theistic scientists do it: he's amazed that they can somehow reconcile their theistic world views with science.
That I can understand, but when he said they aren't good scientists (don't remember which vid) that really pissed me off. He did, like I said, seem to change his mind, tho.
Evolution is specifically, the NON-RANDOM result of random mutation.
Simple ex.: A species of animal live long ago. There was a time when the animals had no fir. During successive generations, there were mistakes made in the replication of their DNA. One mistake led to the production of fir on their skin. The climate now starts to get colder. The descendants of the fir-bearing animal have an advantage since they are more adapted to the environment. Their young live, the bald ones don't, etc.
bush and his administration too!
1. IF you were a good scientist, you would know that it doesn't matter what your motives are, as long as you produce good, feasible results.
2. Theistic scientists main motive is NOT to prove their beliefs; I should know, I AM one, and know many.
Tact isnt pretending to like someone...you misunderstood
At least, not without elaboration on the premise.
Science is objective. What you BELIEVE has nothing to do with it.
Faith and Science are in two different domains; they are NOT mutually exclusive.
Moreover, theism describes the universe in a general manner, whereas science describes it in a specific manner.
Question: How do you account for the many theistic scientists in history AND today?
Why would beliefs not be true if they were wholly the product of the motion of atoms? What about a wholly 'mechanical' process necessarily makes thoughts untrue? The premise doesn't support the conclusion.
Good points, completely agree.
I guess what was motivating my comments was the fear that I feel sometimes when I see what religious fundamentalism is doing to our world. It's true that fundamentalism is great for the atheistic movement, but the fundamentalist movement seems to be a bit of a snowball as well, gathering lemmings as it rolls along. I sometimes envision this apocalyptic clash between fundamentalists and atheists, and I just don't want it to reach that point.
You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist. Nobody has disproved Santa or fairies.
Buy his book.
Go back to Latin A- Without Theism- Belief in a god. As Betrand Russell once said when he was asked if he was an Atheist or Agnostic he replied. "If I were speaking to the Layman I would say I were an Atheist, If I were speaking to a philosopher I would say I am an Agnostic. I cannot disprove the notion of God, but I see no reason to believe." (paraphrased.)
Actually religious fundamentalism is doing a great service to atheism... It's making the droves of people that never even thought about their 'beliefs' finally starting to think about it. I would say about 30% - 50% of people that claim to be religious would give it up very quickly if presented with a decent debate on the topic.
I find religion to be a complete and total insult to the human race and to our dignity. In the modern world, I find it embarrassing that we are even arguing it.
Dawkins acknowledges that there are scientists who are religious. Nobody is denying this fact.
So what?
I can believe many many things, but then change my mind about them.....it's called being open-minded.
Or do you just believe the first thing you're told and then never change your mind even if you are presented with new credible evidence?
right on! Myself and many of my friends have wached the discovery channel sinse we were small with BIG EYES =) Offcoures science is interesting! - Swedish Atheist
The second description is what an agnostic is. Atheism is the rejection of any god.
I don't agree with that either. A good scientist doesn't have to use the scientific method in every aspect of his/her life. There ARE things in life that science just cannot answer, such as whether you have a purpose in life. Of course answers vary, but that's because this is a subjective question (faith is acceptable here).
In the beginning was nonsense, and the nonsense was with God, and the nonsense was God.
-Fredrick Nietzsche
Your questions don't make any sense. You can believe there is no God, but still be open to the possibility of a God.
Speak to zealots in the tone they deserve. The truth is the truth. Zealots address me in the same tone; at least my tone was accompanied by truth, instead of a bunch of baseless assumptions and lies.
The ironic thing is that they're zealots, yet they censure religious zealots.
You Dawkin-followers need to start thinking for yourselves instead of devouring everything he says just because he:
a. converted you.
or
b. provided you with a reason to be proud of your atheism.
Admiration is good; but when it resembles worship, something's wrong.
I wish i didnt hate science @ high school...id be studying biology right now instead of economics :(
im hopping that was a joke...but if not, first i pitty you, second, looking around is not evidence, "study this field" is not evidence, anything which is claimed to be self evident realy just means "has no evidence" if you cant prove it, or even give a logical stream of reasoning therefore which themselves are grounded in evidence, there is no reason to believe you. disbelief is default, reason to believe must be given or the default wins.
I'd like to see exactly what he said. Link?
I have seen Dawkins contradict himself before also. He's getting old and perhaps does too many interviews :D
It's because they know they're right. What's your excuse?
Ha ! You could ask "Is it by chance that you are so stupid, or did God just want some amusement ?"
Take Big-foot.....I believe he is a hoax and does not exist. But if someone captures him then I will change my mind.
It's not about "flip-floping" It's about changing your mind when new evidence comes along.....that is what it is to be a rational human being.
Haha - these are great rebuttals... The burden of proof is always on the one making claims without evidence. Not on anyone else.
aboosalman, I would suggest you do a bit more educating yourself before rejoining any of this debate.
"There ARE things in life that science just cannot answer" I would add "yet" and that some questions may just be meaningless nonsense questions.
Besides,
How do you go from thinking about the purposes in life to believing God doesn't want you to eat ham? By all means believe in some sort of God. But when you claim to know this Gods wishes/instructions(Religion) with no presentable evidence, it becomes absurd
I don't hate Dawkins. I actually respect the guy and think he's a genius; however, I do think he's flawed in assuming scientists cannot (or ought not) believe in God (of a religious variety) without having cognitive dissonance.
Yes. I'm not so much of a "religious" person myself. Church, for example, breeds hypocrisy and bigotry.
DRMABUSA- "LET'S SEE HOW HE FARES BEING *CRUCIFIED*.....Let's see his WORDS now"
Do his *words* make you insecure about your petty delusional beliefs? Because that statement is one of the most repulsive examples of deadly idiocy I've ever seen.
Well, they have to laugh at him. They can't refute him.
And I doubt Dawkins has converted many people. Dawkins simply encouraging atheists to come out of the closet is what will get the de-conversions going. Non-believers are the largest growing group, thank God.
Theists will become like the dinosaurs in 300-500 years.
I'd be happy to share email addresses with you if you'd care to point out my misinterpretation. I understand epistemology well enough and I believe that before one can make an epistemological argument on this subject, it first needs to be demonstrated why a wholly mechanical system cannot have emergent qualities which can have true and justified belief. It begs the question, 'Does true belief require a soul?'
Send me a PM if you wish to discuss this further. 500 chars is far too small. ^^
If God with me who can be against me sucker, can make me stronger and make me tougher. Athiest learn about Sikhism before you doubt God and you'll see the truth
And let me clear this up: I don't hate all theists. I just despise Religion. :D
I do hate many theists (Haggard, bin laden etc)
But I also hate many atheists ( Stalin, Mao)
I gave up trying to explain evolution to stupid people.
"HOW DID WE CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE!?!?!"
I simply lost hope lol
Hahaha. If the race survives religion then Dawkins will be a major figure in the history of the human race. I happen to agree with Hitchens that religion or a quasi religion will be the cause of the next nuclear strike
You have a good reason to believe he didn't convert many people; too few unintelligent people read books to get converted by his crap. He appeals to ignoramuses, who hardly read anyway.
People like me who are already well-versed in science already know that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.
Jedi, how about you study up on DNA/Biology, and you'll see how there is no possible way that there was not an intelligent designer who made the universe and everything in it. Looking all around you is enough "evidence" that God exists. Its just stupid how atheists refuse to believe that there obviously is a God, and they do this just to prove a point.
Nobody worships him.
We aren't as stupid as you born again plankton.
it would be brilliant if dawkins was god and was here to test humanities faith.
shame that can't happen as fairy tales are unfortunately fairy tales
By the way, many philosophers and theologians laugh at Dawkins's crude way of arguing. He's GOOD at science, but BAD at everything else.
That's why he mainly converts fundies.
You former-fundamentalist converts make me laugh. lol... Atheism doesn't make you anymore rational than you were.
richard is hot