• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

Splossy said:
Just sounds well spoken to me.
.
Click to expand...
his family name appears in Burke's landed Gentry, and he has family connections to minor aristocrats. Oh and BTW, RP != "well spoken".
:p
 
Last edited:
plumjam said:
any English person, like me, will immediately recognise his aristocratic desire to be seen as some superior being, shame you americans seem to have such respect for him... he talks with a lot of hair-flicks and ideological pre-prepared nonsensey designed to impress society and the tv producers
Click to expand...

I've watched a lot of Dawkins on the tube (You or otherwise) and I have never witnessed him doing a "hair-flick".

But I think the phrase "ideological pre-prepared nonsensey (sic)" belies your underlying reasoning. It would seem that you disagree with his views. Would your problem be with his support of evolution or atheism?
 
well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity... he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)
 
plumjam said:
well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity...
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I don't think you are able to talk intelligently on matters pertaining to evolutionary theory - especially since you feel that 'neo-darwinism' is a sensible term.

he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie
Click to expand...

No. That's you speaking through Dawkins. I'm sure you have an emotional attachment to whatever belief it is that isn't supported by reality though.

when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)
Click to expand...

Which is why, of course, the educated English are increasingly atheistic and science facing?

Sorry, you're on the losing side of this debate. Deal with it.
 
Can I use that fallacy against plumjam?

Along with the fallacy of ad populam we can easily beat him since none of the English people here are going to support plumjam's bigotry.

Plumjam - you're not English.
 
he definitely is impressed by his own existence, and seems so attached to his own theories that he would never give a fair hearing to anyone arguing against his own dear dogmas
 
Hmm, plumjam's channelling himself through Dawkins again.

But then I don't have to listen to anyone who isn't a True Englishman TM.
 
plumjam said:
he definitely is impressed by his own existence, and seems so attached to his own theories that he would never give a fair hearing to anyone arguing against his own dear dogmas
Click to expand...

Congratulations!
You're on a forum surround by people(many of them English) interested in what Dawkins has said. Feel free to demolish which ever of Dawkins' arguments you like, and we'll let you know how you're doing.
 
No. Richard Dawkins, when he talks about stuff like religion and paranormal matters, he criticizes it quite innocently based on his scientific view of the world.
It just seems that it's arrogant and vain because these matters are rarely criticized.
Even when they're mildly criticized you suddenly find yourself facing a person who is about to cry or feel insulted.
His accent also might resemble stereotypes but....that argument is plainly stupid.
The fact is that the matters Dawkins talk about are sensitive, but even so should not be absent from scrutiny
 
Last edited:
So you're going to retract your prejudicial nonsense now then?
 
plumjam said:
well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity... he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)
Click to expand...

Ok, how 'bout you take a specific "pathetic excuse for neo-darwinism" and we can discuss it point by point? That way you can defend your interpretation of Dawkin's "emotional attachment to old Charlie".

Obviously, it is not Dawkin's accent or supposed arrogance that you have a problem with but rather the theory of evolution.
 
cyborg said:
Can I use that fallacy against plumjam?

Along with the fallacy of ad populam we can easily beat him since none of the English people here are going to support plumjam's bigotry.
Click to expand...
Yeah, go ahead, there's no DRM on it. Oh, you already have. I posted it in the hope that someone would go with it. Too easy really,................but fun:D
 
R. Dawkins is the most arrogant person I´ve ever seen. It gives Science a bad name. He needs to put his feet on the ground and stop attacking other people just because they are different. He is a major bully.
 
plumjam said:
Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...

Yes, I also am quite impressed by my own existence.
 
crikey Q-Source, finally someone with a bit of real intelligence (y) what a relief ;-)

Dawkins has always struck me as someone who has read all the books on one particular shelf in the library, and he thinks that gives himself the right to decry the value of all the other shelves in the library.
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom