Richard Dawkins reads his email

[CptStern]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlJdFf3hV7I

 

[Phobie]

I saw this on the Channel 4 Programme about Darwin. I loves me some Dawkins. And Darwin.

Shouldn't this be in the image and video dump?

 

[Krynn72]

Its great how he just laughs at them. No insult works if the person just laughs at it.

 

[Polaris]

I've seen all three episodes of "The Genius of Charles Darwin", pretty awesome programme.
Reminds me of Yahtzee...

 

[Krynn72]

Haha, while looking at related videos, I found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm1JYYIk-pI

 

[Phobie]

Wait

Was that pro religion or against? WTFWTWFTWTFW

 

[Kadayi]

Amusing, but Dawkins is still a pompous prick at the end of the day.

 

[Tyguy]

Amusing, but Dawkins is still a pompous prick at the end of the day.

why's that?

 

[Phobie]

Dawkins is not pompous, just INCREDIBLY intelligent and well spoken. There's a difference between full of yourself and genuinely deserving of praise. His ego should be a lot bigger in my opinion.

 

[Kadayi]

Dawkins is not pompous, just INCREDIBLY intelligent and well spoken. There's a difference between full of yourself and genuinely deserving of praise. His ego should be a lot bigger in my opinion.

Praise for what exactly? Writing a "controversial" book (God is a lie!!!) to keep the chattering classes a twitter? Or relabeling 'catchphrase' into 'meme'?

The Dawkins I want to see is the one that strides across the globe like a titan, wandering into the Amazon to educate the primitive tribes within as to the error of their ways and the foolishness of their quaint beliefs. A Dawkins that regales the conquered peoples of North America to accept their lot as losers to the whiteman and throw away their mysticism. A Dawkins that punches out the Dalai Lama for being an empty figurehead of an obsolete order and throws his support behind the authority of China in Tibet. A Dawkins that walks into Africa and drags Witch Doctors kicking and screaming from their huts into the sunlight to unmask their chicanery. A Dawkins who travels to Mecca to rally against Islam at it's very heart, with no fear of a fatwah and tell the masses that they are less than dogs to him whilst they cling to their beliefs. A Dawkins that asks under what right the Israelites lay claim to lands they long ago abandoned if there is no God?

Instead we have a Dawkins who does little more than beats the drum against Christianity, a religion, that is practically on the out and has very little fight in it, save for ire. Bravo, brave brave Sir Dawkins, bravo indeed.

So yes The Dawkins is a pompous prick imo. :dozey:

 

[Raziaar]

A Dawkins that regales the conquered peoples of North America to accept their lot as losers to the whiteman and throw away their mysticism.

A Dawkins that asks under what right the Israelites lay claim to lands they long ago abandoned if there is no God?

Sorry but the Dawkins who would do the former would also take the same stance in the latter. Otherwise he'd be inconsistent.

 

[Citadel]

Praise for what exactly? Writing a "controversial" book (God is a lie!!!) to keep the chattering classes a twitter? Or relabeling 'catchphrase' into 'meme'?

The Dawkins I want to see is the one that strides across the globe like a titan, wandering into the Amazon to educate the primitive tribes within as to the error of their ways and the foolishness of their quaint beliefs. A Dawkins that regales the conquered peoples of North America to accept their lot as losers to the whiteman and throw away their mysticism. A Dawkins that punches out the Dalai Lama for being an empty figurehead of an obsolete order and throws his support behind the authority of China in Tibet. A Dawkins that walks into Africa and drags Witch Doctors kicking and screaming from their huts into the sunlight to unmask their chicanery. A Dawkins who travels to Mecca to rally against Islam at it's very heart, with no fear of a fatwah and tell the masses that they are less than dogs to him whilst they cling to their beliefs. A Dawkins that asks under what right the Israelites lay claim to lands they long ago abandoned if there is no God?

Instead we have a Dawkins who does little more than beats the drum against Christianity, a religion, that is practically on the out and has very little fight in it, save for ire. Bravo, brave brave Sir Dawkins, bravo indeed.

So yes The Dawkins is a pompous prick imo. :dozey:

So because he doesn't hunt witch doctors, he's pompous?

 

[Kadayi]

Sorry but the Dawkins who would do the former would also take the same stance in the latter. Otherwise he'd be inconsistent.

If there is no god, then all claims of a holy land or rights to such no longer exist. The Israelis exist as nothing more than interlopers who have foisted themselves on an inhabited area on the pretext of divine right. The state of Israel existed prior to the invasion of Palestine Raz, driven out of a belief of Jewish right to the land as decreed by God in the Torah.

So because he doesn't hunt witch doctors, he's pompous?

He certainly lacks consistency which is a principal to my assessment. If you take the view that there is no God, then it's fair and reasonable to assume that it is across the board. Personally it's a view I share, however I don't foist it upon people, but if I were I'd make sure I did it with a degree of consistency. Some of the practices of more primitive religions are far more damaging than those of the more established one (female circumcision for one), why make make exceptions? Because it would be viewed as racist to verbally attack a less established culture?

 

[CptStern]

correct me if I'm wrong but kadayi is (practising) christian so would naturally have a bit of a problem with dawkins

 

[Raziaar]

If there is no god, then all claims of a holy land or rights to such no longer exist. The Israelis exist as nothing more than interlopers who have foisted themselves on an inhabited area on the pretext of divine right. The state of Israel existed prior to the invasion of Palestine Raz, driven out of a belief of Jewish right to the land as decreed by God in the Torah.

All claims of a holyland aside(it's not the factor here), they were given the land after the British Mandate of Palestine... and have since kept it. So going by the previous logic, Dawkins would say, "Suck it up, you got ****ed and you must deal with it."

 

[Tee Kyoo Em]

To me, Dawkins seems to speak with all the vigor of an aged scientist who's sick of continuing to make amends with the delusions of irrational people and he does so with all the cockiness of a stereotypical British scientist.

I'm a man of reason myself. I agree with many arguments that he puts forward, but I don't always agree with his choice of provocative rhetorics. The nature of the debate over reason versus faith is provocative enough in a world full of magical thinking and, as people of reason, we should know better. The better arguments are on our side, anyway.

Last but not least, I really enjoy listening to Sam Harris.

 

[Polaris]

Praise for what exactly? Writing a "controversial" book (God is a lie!!!) to keep the chattering classes a twitter? Or relabeling 'catchphrase' into 'meme'?
Instead we have a Dawkins who does little more than beats the drum against Christianity, a religion, that is practically on the out and has very little fight in it, save for ire. Bravo, brave brave Sir Dawkins, bravo indeed.

So yes The Dawkins is a pompous prick imo. :dozey:

Dawkins is an excellent scientist, writer and science educator, and he also wrote a one book about atheism. And yes, he is cares about role of Christianity in modern society.
Your understanding of the meme theory is very poor, you got it from 4chan?

 

[MJ12]

I like Dawkins, but he can also be a total pompous dickweed.

 

[Kadayi]

correct me if I'm wrong but kadayi is (practising) christian so would naturally have a bit of a problem with dawkins

Sorry Stern but you lucked out on that particular argument ('you see He's a Christian, therefore he hates The Dawkins naturally'). The only time I've step in a Church is either for a wedding/christening or funeral. I've studied religion (it was that or sports), but I'm not religious.

My problem with the Dawkins is I see a smart man picking fights with a weak opponent, rather than tackling bigger issues. The creationist/intelligent design movement pretty much sprung up out of a kneejerk reaction to people like the Dawkins rallying against the Christians. Do you honestly think that they'd be pushing for Creationist museums if they weren't constantly under attack? All the Dawkins and his kind (militant Atheists) do is stir up a hive that has long since been on the decline in the West. :dozey:

All claims of a holyland aside(it's not the factor here), they were given the land after the British Mandate of Palestine... and have since kept it. So going by the previous logic, Dawkins would say, "Suck it up, you got ****ed and you must deal with it."

You seem to be at odds in your arguments here Raz. Firstly the mandate was heavily driven by Zionist desires for a return to the holy land, secondly I'd be expecting the Dawkins to be telling the Israelis to leave, not the Palestinians to suck it up.

Dawkins is an excellent scientist, writer and science educator, and he also wrote a one book about atheism. And yes, he is cares about role of Christianity in modern society.
Your understanding of the meme theory is very poor, you got it from 4chan?

No I read a book by Susan Blackmore on the subject years ago. I think it's an interesting theory, but essentially it's a case of a handy phrase for something we already knew.

I like Dawkins, but he can also be a total pompous dickweed.

*hands $5

 

[CptStern]

Sorry Stern but you lucked out on that particular argument ('you see He's a Christian, therefore he hates The Dawkins naturally').

well it's a valid point even if it doesnt apply to you ..dawkins call into question pretty much the entire christian faith system

My problem with the Dawkins is I see a smart man picking fights with a weak opponent, rather than tackling bigger issues. The creationist/intelligent design movement pretty much sprung up out of a kneejerk reaction to people like the Dawkins rallying against the Christians. Do you honestly think that they'd be pushing for Creationist museums if they weren't constantly under attack? All the Dawkins and his kind (militant Atheists) do is stir up a hive that has long since been on the decline in the West. :dozey:

i disagree with this pov mostly because the creationist push didnt start or isnt an answer to people like dawkins. it's more a reaction to society and government not seeing things from their pov ..they see evolution as wrong, they dont think people should be forced into subscribing to something that in their eyes isnt valid. I think you have a point when it comes to those that advocate Intelligent Design but I see it more as a way of legitimising creationism ..or at least attempting to

there was a movement against atheism way before dawkins ...in fact it's been around for at least as long as I've been alive. it's just that there's far more christian fundamentalism than ever before

 

[Absinthe]

Creationist museums spring up in retaliation against evolution, not Dawkins. And if the "militant" atheist drive to push valid science into classrooms while butting out pseuodoscience is the height of pomposity and arrogance, then let it be so.

Furthermore, many of his arguments against Christianity can (and are) generalized to theism itself.

 

[Citadel]

Creationist museums spring up in retaliation against evolution, not Dawkins. And if the "militant" atheist drive to push valid science into classrooms while butting out pseuodoscience is the height of pomposity and arrogance, then let it be so.

Furthermore, many of his arguments against Christianity can (and are) generalized to theism itself.

He even states in "The God Delusion" that the only reason he criticizes Christianity more openly is because it happens to be the religion he is most versed in.

Oh, and QFT.

 

[Kadayi]

well it's a valid point even if it doesnt apply to you ..dawkins call into question pretty much the entire christian faith system

But why concentrate on just the Christians? Why not go after the Tibetians? (for example) Are their beliefs any more sacred or valid? Of course not? Is it a cultural thing? Would the Tibetan culture be inherently weaker for the lack of the Dalai Lama? How more so Christianity? I hate to play devils advocate here, but if you are against one, then you have to be against the others and with equal measure. Where in do you support a peoples beliefs because it is part of their 'culture' and not the other? Or is it that the Dawkins presumes we Westerners are somehow culturally superior enough to begin the process of removing the stain of Christian thinking from our cultural mindset? Where as others are not?

i disagree with this pov mostly because the creationist push didnt start or isnt an answer to people like dawkins. it's more a reaction to society and government not seeing things from their pov ..they see evolution as wrong, they dont think people should be forced into subscribing to something that in their eyes isnt valid. I think you have a point when it comes to those that advocate Intelligent Design but I see it more as a way of legitimising creationism ..or at least attempting to

there was a movement against atheism way before dawkins ...in fact it's been around for at least as long as I've been alive. it's just that there's far more christian fundamentalism than ever before

State and Church have long since been divided in many countries, the notion that Christian fundamentalists are suddenly galvanizing themselves to force a reunion without any form of stimulus from the likes of people like the Dawkins is misplaced.

He even states in "The God Delusion" that the only reason he criticizes Christianity more openly is because it happens to be the religion he is most versed in.

A man as supposedly learned as him has never read the Koran or the Torah? Somehow I doubt it. Attacking the Jews would probably cost him his media, and attacking the Muslims would probably cost him his life. Let's be honest here. :dozey:

 

[Citadel]

A man as supposedly learned as him has never read the Koran or the Torah? Somehow I doubt it. Attacking the Jews would probably cost him his media, and attacking the Muslims would probably cost him his life. Let's be honest here. :dozey:

I don't think he seems the sort of man who would stand down from a fight for such feeble reasons. In fact, attacking Judaism or Islam would probably get him more publicity. Perhaps, good publicity but only among the like-minded. But publicity nonetheless.

Oh, and "most versed" does not mean he has not read either of the aforementioned books. But as one is written in Hebrew and the other in Arabic, with very few English copies kicking about at bookstores, you surely can't expect him to be as familiar with them as The Bible. There are thousands of English translations of that one. He is many things, I might concede tenacious, but he is not stupid. He is unlikely to criticize something he does not fully understand. He uses Christianity as a metaphor for all religion. And before someone pipes up with "not all religions are the same," they are incredibly similar and influenced by thing which have a lot of common with eachother.

 

[Absinthe]

So, basically, Dawkins needs to write two or three more books before he's no longer a hypocrite. I guess I need to tell Sam Harris to get cracking on "Letter to a Muslim Nation".

 

[Mr Stabby]

That documentary was more about atheism than evolution, there was really no need to bring atheism into it so much. He even had a go at moderate Christians who accept evolution.

 

[CptStern]

But why concentrate on just the Christians? Why not go after the Tibetians?

probably for the same reason I dont go after the Hutus or liberians ..just dont know enough to formulate a valid opinion

(for example) Are their beliefs any more sacred or valid? Of course not? Is it a cultural thing? Would the Tibetan culture be inherently weaker for the lack of the Dalai Lama? How more so Christianity? I hate to play devils advocate here, but if you are against one, then you have to be against the others and with equal measure. Where in do you support a peoples beliefs because it is part of their 'culture' and not the other? Or is it that the Dawkins presumes we Westerners are somehow culturally superior enough to begin the process of removing the stain of Christian thinking from our cultural mindset? Where as others are not?

obviously he's taking a western-centric outlook ..and the west is dominated by christians, and some of these christians try to impose their pov on all of us, so he has plenty of fuel to feed his fire

State and Church have long since been divided in many countries, the notion that Christian fundamentalists are suddenly galvanizing themselves to force a reunion without any form of stimulus from the likes of people like the Dawkins is misplaced.

you give him far too much credit .. fundamentalists only care about dawkins because he calls their idiotic ideas idiotic or that he refutes ID ..Dawkins does not in any way shape or form shape the political landscape in north america

A man as supposedly learned as him has never read the Koran or the Torah? Somehow I doubt it. Attacking the Jews would probably cost him his media, and attacking the Muslims would probably cost him his life. Let's be honest here. :dozey:

let me guess the jews control the media? anyways even most orthodoz jews dont believe in a strict interpretation of the creation myth

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Nussbaum.cfm

 

[Kadayi]

I don't think he seems the sort of man who would stand down from a fight for such feeble reasons. In fact, attacking Judaism or Islam would probably get him more publicity. Perhaps, good publicity but only among the like-minded. But publicity nonetheless.

But feigning ignorance regarding the intricacies of a subject he claims to be an expert in seems somewhat contradictory. The Jewish God is the same God as that which is worshiped by the Christians and the Muslims.

Oh, and "most versed" does not mean he has not read either of the aforementioned books. But as one is written in Hebrew and the other in Arabic, with very few English copies kicking about at bookstores, you surely can't expect him to be as familiar with them as The Bible. There a thousands of English translations of that one. He is many things, I might concede tenacious, but he is not stupid. He is unlikely to criticize something he does not fully understand. He uses Christianity as a metaphor for all religion. And before someone pipes up with "not all religions are the same," they are incredibly similar and influenced by thing which have a lot of common with each other.

You can pick up an approved English language version of either at a decent sized bookstore or online from Amazon with little trouble. You seem to be clutching at straws to excuse him his bias.

 

[Adabiviak]

Woah, flame war aside, the email about, "I hope you get hit by a church van" made me lol.

 

[Polaris]

But he does write and speak quite a lot about Islam and Judaism.
Have you read The God Delusion?

 

[Raziaar]

You seem to be at odds in your arguments here Raz. Firstly the mandate was heavily driven by Zionist desires for a return to the holy land, secondly I'd be expecting the Dawkins to be telling the Israelis to leave, not the Palestinians to suck it up.

Yeah but see I was going on your whole comment that Dawkins would tell the Native Americans that they got their land stolen and just need to suck it up. Lacking any bias, why would he change that whole philosophy by telling the Israelis to give their land back to the Palestinians? It doesn't matter how it happened, it just matters that it happened. Acquisition of land from the Native Americans is just as bad as the acquisition of land from the Palestinians. They're both situations of groups of people moving in and taking over the land as their own.

I think from an unbiased eye, Manifest Destiny is no more wrong than "Zionist desires".

 

[Kadayi]

probably for the same reason I dont go after the Hutus or liberians ..just dont know enough to formulate a valid opinion

Then how much of an 'expert' on religion can he genuinely be? Joseph Campell wrote 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' back in 1949 having analyzed thousands of mythical tales from around the world to crystallize his opinions regarding the core dynamics of the eternal myth (the crux of which George Lucas used as the basis for Star Wars). If a man can do that in order to get to the root of myths, how much less so a man intending to get to the root of religion? There really aren't that many books to read. The phrase Half assed springs to mind. :dozey:

obviously he's taking a western-centric outlook ..and the west is dominated by christians, and some of these christians try to impose their pov on all of us, so he has plenty of fuel to feed his fire

America may be dominated by Christians perhaps, but here in Europe not so big an issue. I'd have to throw a lot of stones in a very big crowd to hit a die hard Christian fundamentalist there days.

you give him far too much credit .. fundamentalists only care about dawkins because he calls their idiotic ideas idiotic or that he refutes ID ..Dawkins does not in any way shape or form shape the political landscape in north america

Then why the sudden drive by them to attempt to legitimize intelligent design? What sparked this movement? I never said that the mighty Dawkins was solely responsible, but certainly men of his ilk know how to rile up a crowd and do so at every opportunity.

let me guess the jews control the media?

Amnesty international seem to think so, when it comes to how events in Israel are portrayed on the American News Networks. Still they are probably all Jew hating Nazis and should be disregarded.

I'm not too sure why your trying to argue with me Stern. (quote wars is so last century) You should know better by now. I deal in absolutes, and the Dawkins falls far from the mark imo. Feel free to continue to idolise him, whilst I'll continue to laugh at him. :dozey:

 

[Phobie]

Praise for what exactly? Writing a "controversial" book (God is a lie!!!) to keep the chattering classes a twitter? Or relabeling 'catchphrase' into 'meme'?

The Dawkins I want to see is the one that strides across the globe like a titan, wandering into the Amazon to educate the primitive tribes within as to the error of their ways and the foolishness of their quaint beliefs. A Dawkins that regales the conquered peoples of North America to accept their lot as losers to the whiteman and throw away their mysticism. A Dawkins that punches out the Dalai Lama for being an empty figurehead of an obsolete order and throws his support behind the authority of China in Tibet. A Dawkins that walks into Africa and drags Witch Doctors kicking and screaming from their huts into the sunlight to unmask their chicanery. A Dawkins who travels to Mecca to rally against Islam at it's very heart, with no fear of a fatwah and tell the masses that they are less than dogs to him whilst they cling to their beliefs. A Dawkins that asks under what right the Israelites lay claim to lands they long ago abandoned if there is no God?

Instead we have a Dawkins who does little more than beats the drum against Christianity, a religion, that is practically on the out and has very little fight in it, save for ire. Bravo, brave brave Sir Dawkins, bravo indeed.

So yes The Dawkins is a pompous prick imo. :dozey:

tl;dr.

However, it's the way he does it, not what he's saying, in a sentence.

 

[CptStern]

Then how much of an 'expert' on religion can he genuinely be?

he's a biologist ..I dont see "religious guru" anywhere in his CV

Joseph Campell wrote 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' back in 1949 having analyzed thousands of mythical tales from around the world to crystallize his opinions regarding the core dynamics of the eternal myth (the crux of which George Lucas used as the basis for Star Wars). If a man can do that in order to get to the root of myths, how much less so a man intending to get to the root of religion? There really aren't that many books to read. The phrase Half assed springs to mind. :dozey:

you mean this Joseph Campbell?

Joseph John Campbell (March 26, 1904 ? October 30, 1987) was an American mythology professor

that's his field of expertise, dawkins is evolutionary biology ..no real comparison there

America may be dominated by Christians perhaps, but here in Europe not so big an issue. I'd have to throw a lot of stones in a very big crowd to hit a die hard Christian fundamentalist there days.

he went after creationism ..surely there are creationists in europe

Then why the sudden drive by them to attempt to legitimize intelligent design? What sparked this movement?

creationism taught in schools ..that is the ONLY reason.

I never said that the mighty Dawkins was solely responsible, but certainly men of his ilk know how to rile up a crowd and do so at every opportunity.

I dont see what that has to do with anything ..the creationist movement did not begin with dawkins

Amnesty international seem to think so, when it comes to how events in Israel are portrayed on the American News Networks. Still they are probably all Jew hating Nazis and should be disregarded.

amnesty said jews runs the media? please link to their press statement that says as much

so amnesty are nazis because they criticse israel's human rights record ..god they MUST be nazis ..you're getting into hysterics. criticising policy =/= being a nazi

I'm not too sure why your trying to argue with me Stern. (quote wars is so last century) You should know better by now. I deal in absolutes, and the Dawkins falls far from the mark imo. Feel free to continue to idolise him, whilst I'll continue to laugh at him. :dozey:

man you're just being silly, I dont idolise him in the least but this whole kneejerkist reaction is kinda funny if it wasnt shared by so many people around the world ..dawkins and people like him threaten their existence mostly because they realise they dont have a leg to stand so they dismiss him because they couldnt possibly argue against him or any other person with even a shred of awareness of the world around them. Dawkins threats their way of life, of course they're going to vehemently defend it

 

[Kadayi]

Yeah but see I was going on your whole comment that Dawkins would tell the Native Americans that they got their land stolen and just need to suck it up. Lacking any bias, why would he change that whole philosophy by telling the Israelis to give their land back to the Palestinians? It doesn't matter how it happened, it just matters that it happened. Acquisition of land from the Native Americans is just as bad as the acquisition of land from the Palestinians. They're both situations of groups of people moving in and taking over the land as their own.

I think from an unbiased eye, Manifest Destiny is no more wrong than "Zionist desires".

What separates these people from those around them save their belief systems? If you remove the culture what is the difference? Is a native American still a native American if he /she no longer subscribes to a native American belief system? Or do they merely become an American, like everyone else? When do you stop categorizing people by their ethnicity alone? Should there not be people out there calling themselves, German-Americans, Norwegian-Americans as well as African- American, or Asian - American, or perhaps European-American would be an acceptable phrase? As regards Israel, the Jews are not strictly a race, many of those in Israel carry no lineage from the time of the Exodus, without either manifest destiny/zionist desire behind them what secular rights do they really have to the lands of Israel or Palestine?

However, it's the way he does it, not what he's saying, in a sentence.

Style over content then? :dozey:

 

[Phobie]

tl;dr goes everywhere, I am out of this.

Still, lol video.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

It's always too long for you :arms:

 

[Absinthe]

Dawkins has always framed his attacks on religion in light of scientific inquiry and rational thinking. Expecting him to address the finer details of the multitude of most religions out there when he thinks the fundamental assumptions and beliefs that support religious faith are bunk is to kind of miss his point.

The crux of his arguments has always been that theism requires an unquestioning acceptance of magical thinking that stifles scientific exploration and has been needlessly shielded from the kind of rational discourse and scrutiny we have applied to all other areas in life. You don't need to be an expert in religious studies to come to these conclusions or hold these opinions, regardless of whether or not you personally agree with them.

He is not out to rip apart the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) page by page. And if he employs much of his criticism against Christianity, it is to convey his argumentation in a way that his audience understands and can relate with; his audience being mostly comprised of citizens of the West who are more familiar with Christianity than any other faith.

 

[Kadayi]

he's a biologist ..I dont see "religious guru" anywhere in his CV

Then clearly he should stick to what he knows instead of wading into deep waters he's unclear about. Sorry to see you can't handle a spelling mistake but I suggest you get over it (I did). I'm also sorry to see that you can't see the comparison between a man whose actually an expert in his subject writing a book about it, Vs a man who isn't by his own admission. I can honestly say, hand on heart I've never yet met an avid creationist this side of the pond and certainly not any who wants to usurp the teaching of evolution in our schools. Are you claiming that the US media isn't remotely effected by powerful Israeli lobbies such as aipac? That the coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian situation is wholly fair and balanced? Because that would a complete about face from the Stern I know so well.I'd hate to think your going heel on me for the sake of saving face, friendo. Also you seem caught over telling me on one hand that the Creationists are acting on their own behalf, and the next that it's because righteous men like The Dawkins are taking them down line by line. What is to be then? They either are, or they aren't. :dozey:

The crux of his arguments has always been that theism requires an unquestioning acceptance of magical thinking that stifles scientific exploration and has been needlessly shielded from the kind of rational discourse and scrutiny we have applied to all other areas in life. You don't need to be an expert in religious studies to come to these conclusions or hold these opinions, regardless of whether or not you personally agree with them.

So theism possibly stops us from being beasts to ourselves through science? Is that necessarily always a bad thing? Personally I like the notion that another man might think real hard about whether to obliterate myself and my family because of some religious hangup, rather than unquestioningly following the instructions of his superiors. Magical thinking, now that is a wonderful phrase. You know it's physically impossible to demonstrate Multiplication? You just can't take 2 apples and another 4 apples and suddenly turn them into 8 apples, it just can't be done. Yet I see no one rallying against the madness of multiplication, a tenet of mathematics upon which myriad things are built and contrived. Utterly unprovable, much like the concept of Love. Yet even the mighty Dawkins believes in that delusion. :dozey:

 

[CptStern]

Then clearly he should stick to what he knows instead of wading into deep waters he's unclear about.

he has more than one book and guess what? most are in his field of expertise: evolutionary biology

Sorry to see you can't handle a spelling mistake but I suggest you get over it (I did).

I have no clue as to what you're talking about

I'm also sorry to see that you can't see the comparison between a man whose actually an expert in his subject writing a book about it, Vs a man who isn't by his own admission.

ya well you're being a hypocrite because then that would mean anything that Campbell wrote that wasnt in his field is invalidated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell#James_Joyce_and_early_works

I can honestly say, hand on heart I've never yet met an avid creationist this side of the pond and certainly not any who wants to usurp the teaching of evolution in our schools.

so you accurately represent 728 million europeans? you've asked them all?

Are you claiming that the US media isn't remotely effected by powerful Israeli lobbies such as aipac?

the burden of proof is on you, not me

That the coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian situation is wholly fair and balanced? Because that would a a complete about face from the Stern I know so well.I'd hate to think your going heel on me for the sake of face, friendo.

what? what the hell are you talking about?

Also you seem caught over telling me on one hand that the Creationists are acting on their own behalf, and the next that it's because righteous men like The Dawkins are taking them down line by line. What is to be then? They either are, or they aren't. :dozey:

I mentioned two groups: creationists and those that advocate intelligent Design be taught in schools. they are not the same thing