Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

Big Les said:
Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.
Click to expand...

but his kitten was a turtle! I think this is about to fall foul of the erail rules in itself ;)
 
Big Les said:
Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you to look at the context of Chillzero's answer. Chill did not answer the kitten part of Cuddle's post. More, she was answering about one off topic post.

Kittening is a deliberate derail.

Further discussion about this should be done in the in the thread about the new MA in forum management.
 
Q-Source said:
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.
Click to expand...

What bullying? Show me. I know of only one time that he gave a minister some trouble but it was pretty mild. Since then, I think he's been very understanding and calm when trying to make a point.

plumjam said:
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"
Click to expand...

Ok, it's getting clearer. I don't believe you actually have a problem with Dawkins but are rather using this position to make a point with regards to evolution. I believe that Dr. Adequate put the lie to your claims of "species barrier" and the "statis nature of the fossil record". Next?

plumjam said:
I generally agree, I just find his arguments against religion particularly childish.. for example, one of them is that the religion of most people corresponds to the religion of their parents, therefore religion must be somehow false... how stupid is that?
would anyone, for example, say that the findings of a biologist were invalid because his/her father was a biologist rather than a physicist?
the problem is that most scientists have no grounding in philosophy and thus they have never been presented with a full range of alternative views of reality, so some of them end up being embarrassing bigots like Dawkins
Click to expand...

What "alternative view of reality" does science ignore? If it is the reality we all experience, it can be tested and supported by the resulting evidence.

???
 
Miss Anthrope said:
I'll ask you to look at the context of Chillzero's answer. Chill did not answer the kitten part of Cuddle's post. More, she was answering about one off topic post.

Kittening is a deliberate derail.

Further discussion about this should be done in the in the thread about the new MA in forum management.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Fair enough. Sorry for the derail-related derail. :(
 
Big Les said:
Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.
Click to expand...

I posted a 2 headed kitten, so I guess I went over the one kitten limit. We can still post them on the "forum members only" section-- but who knows what the children will think if they come to JREF and see recipes and kittens. (Actually, I think it's to curb "inside jokes" on the general section...they do have a new cat smiley though.)
:bigcat
 
Darat said:
And will you be supplying any evidence for your allegation of "bullying"?
Click to expand...

You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos. I am not even a believer but he is attacking people without considering whether or not they are good people who happen to have faith. Period.
He is a coward too. Why doesn´t he attack Muslim beliefs in Britain? No, he knows it is politically incorrect and he would be banned from UK TV. I am sure of that. Instead he goes to the US and flames everybody.
 
Q-Source said:
You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos. I am not even a believer but he is attacking people without considering whether or not they are good people who happen to have faith. Period.
He is a coward too. Why doesn´t he attack Muslim beliefs in Britain? No, he knows it is politically incorrect and he would be banned from UK TV. I am sure of that. Instead he goes to the US and flames everybody.
Click to expand...

He does criticise Muslim belief, in fact one of his TV shows he shows he went to an Islamic nation and criticised Muslim belief!
And he's not attacking the people, rather he attacks their belief- indeed throughout his writings he has lots of praise for people who happen to have faith.

I'm also interested in why you separate out Catholics and Christians, don't you believe that Catholics are Christian?
Now if he is bullying people so often perhaps you would like to point out one concrete example to support your case, it should be easy for you.
 
Poor old Dawkins, he should learn from a GREAT scientist and humanist like Carl Sagan. In fact I would say that most of the people in this forum should learn from Sagan. In his book The Demon Haunted World he wrote:

quote

...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: US vs. Them--the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....whereas a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.

If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes....such compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest also works to make science and the scientific method less off-putting, especially to the young.

Many pseudoscientific and New Age belief systems emerge out of dissatisfaction with conventional values and perspectives--and are therefore themselves a kind of skepticism. /quote
 
Ok….I’m going to throw the “intellectually dishonest” flag again on plumjam.

He started a tread, then insulted anyone that does not agree with his view (post #9), and then brought Darwinism into the thread (post #25).

It is clear, plumjam, that your desire is to debate evolution…why not just state that up front; why the games?
 
Q-Source said:
Poor old Dawkins, he should learn from a GREAT scientist and humanist like Carl Sagan. In fact I would say that most of the people in this forum should learn from Sagan. In his book The Demon Haunted World he wrote:

quote

...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: US vs. Them--the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....whereas a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.

If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes....such compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest also works to make science and the scientific method less off-putting, especially to the young.

Many pseudoscientific and New Age belief systems emerge out of dissatisfaction with conventional values and perspectives--and are therefore themselves a kind of skepticism. /quote
Click to expand...

Would you care to show where Dawkins has divided the world into us versus them? For instance, talking about two different types of people rather than two different ways of looking at the world which may be applied by the same person at different times,

Especially given that he speaks very fondly of a number of religious people who are sceptical in other areas of their life, perhaps you should read and listen to what he actually says rather than what people say he says. You know look at the evidence first hand.
 
brodski said:
He does criticise Muslim belief, in fact one of his TV shows he shows he went to an Islamic nation and criticised Muslim belief!
And he's not attacking the people, rather he attacks their belief- indeed throughout his writings he has lots of praise for people who happen to have faith.
Click to expand...

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.

I'm also interested in why you separate out Catholics and Christians, don't you believe that Catholics are Christian?
Now if he is bullying people so often perhaps you would like to point out one concrete example to support your case, it should be easy for you.
Click to expand...

I live in a country where Catholics and Christians hold slightly different beliefs.
For references about Dawkins being aggresive you can check a video which was posted in this forum. It was about a religious girl asking him a question, there is also another proof in the conference given at Beyond Belief 2006.
 
He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.
Click to expand...

Do you read The Sun perchance?

I live in a country where Catholics and Christians hold slightly different beliefs.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA.

...

HAHAHA.

There's not much more to say there. That you say this with no sense of irony...
 
Q-Source said:
I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, he has criticized all faiths. His program on C4 last week criticized Mullahs, TGD contains many quotes critical of Islam. You seem to be seeing just what you want to see, and wrapping it up with a PC conspiracy theory.

I live in a country where Catholics and Christians hold slightly different beliefs.
For references about Dawkins being aggresive you can check a video which was posted in this forum. It was about a religious girl asking him a question, there is also another proof in the conference given at Beyond Belief 2006.
Click to expand...
Catholics are a branch of Christianity- I don't see why you separated them out from Christians in general. Why not say "Christians and Protestants" or "Christians and methodists"?

Him being "bullying" is responding to the question "what if you're wrong" by answering "well, what if you're wrong?". I'm sorry I fail to see how that is bullying. Would you care to explain it?

And perhaps you would like to bring some actual quotes from Dawkins into this debate, to support your point of view, rather than making vague references, which on examination turn out not to support your position.
 
brodski said:
Would you care to show where Dawkins has divided the world into us versus them? For instance, talking about two different types of people rather than two different ways of looking at the world which may be applied by the same person at different times,
Click to expand...

Well, he calls himself and anyone who thinks like himself "Bright" :rolleyes:

From wiki
Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". ... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.
Click to expand...
 
Q-Source said:
Well, he calls himself and anyone who thinks like himself "Bright" :rolleyes:

From wiki
Click to expand...

So will you make the same claims against anyone who has the affront to call themselves gay?
Are they condemning all heterosexual people to a life of misery?
How DARE they! :rolleyes:

Is this worse than Sagan using the word "skeptic"?
Explain how please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom