Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[articulett]

Ummm... ok?

I DO wonder about those people who present very old and debunked arguments as though they were both original and unassailable... one must assume that the general religious mindset tends to force believers to make themselves look foolish to a more educated audience.

Yes... they have lost the ability to see themselves through the eyes of others... and to understand that we are not any more eager for their "opinions" than they are for ours. How come they never extend that "do unto other" thing to those who might believe differently? If they want their opinion respected, they might first try respecting the opinions of their "audience"-- rather than assuming they know more than that audience. Ugh.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes... they have lost the ability to see themselves through the eyes of others... and to understand that we are not any more eager for their "opinions" than they are for ours. How come they never extend that "do unto other" thing to those who might believe differently? If they want their opinion respected, they might first try respecting the opinions of their "audience"-- rather than assuming they know more than that audience. Ugh.

You have to remember that religion is inherently amoral... so you cannot assume or expect moral or ethical behavior from religious people. Everything that they claim as ethical or moral travels in one direction, towards them from others, and not the other way around.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ummm... ok?

I DO wonder about those people who present very old and debunked arguments as though they were both original and unassailable... one must assume that the general religious mindset tends to force believers to make themselves look foolish to a more educated audience.

Just a quick second-explanation: I presented the material because I was having doubts about the event itself. I know virtually nothing about genetics and evolution and genomes so I had no criteria to know that the question itself made "no sense" as it has been explained. That's why the post's title is "Has Dawkins lost credibility?" as opposed to "Dawkins looses credibility". I already pointed on a previous post that I had understood, thanks to the generous explanations, what Dawkin's reaction really meant. That's it.

 

[articulett]

Just a quick second-explanation: I presented the material because I was having doubts about the event itself. I know virtually nothing about genetics and evolution and genomes so I had no criteria to know that the question itself made "no sense" as it has been explained. That's why the post's title is "Has Dawkins lost credibility?" as opposed to "Dawkins looses credibility". I already pointed on a previous post that I had understood, thanks to the generous explanations, what Dawkin's reaction really meant. That's it.

PBS Nova has a special on the Dover trial tonight where you can get a quick update on evolution... http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Dawkins gives a great speech on the video canard here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Matthew Chapman is great too: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1809,Matthew-Chapman-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

This is really interesting stuff to understand... and you will understand why what "intelligent design proponents" are doing is smarmy, dishonest, and an attempt to keep you and others from understanding some of the most interesting information humans have assimilated of late. We get a lot of them here doing their dishonest obfuscating, and I hope you forgive us, if we presumed you might be one of them. Dick Atkinson certainly seems to be.

Don't miss this opportunity to understand more if you have the slightest interest in the subject. It is not hard to understand, and it is profoundly fascinating.

 

[CapelDodger]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

You are not alone. I too have seen it before, in many guises. It's a technique, not a fact. Any sound propaganda handbook features it. Appear to position yourself next to the mark, then steer them in the desired direction.

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't miss this opportunity to understand more if you have the slightest interest in the subject. It is not hard to understand, and it is profoundly fascinating.

And marvellous. Let's not forget the marvelling.

 

[articulett]

And marvellous. Let's not forget the marvelling.

That too! I don't want to sound preachy-- but what Darwin could only theorize-- we have illustrated in amazing detail with the advent of molecular genetics and genome mapping. We can SEE it. It's a fact-- and it's revealing so much, so quickly. (Darwin never even saw a chromosome.) And there is nothing in any old scripture that can begin to hold a candle to it. Plus it's true. You don't have to "believe" it... and it will keep being true just like the earth was a sphere even as people believed that it was flat. The only punishment for not knowing is ignorance... but that is a huge loss-- because we live in a time when we can finally KNOW our origins. All of life is related to each other. And we can see how... and know how far back in time we shared a common ancestor... and what that ancestor was like.

 

[VonNeumann]

...we live in a time when we can finally KNOW our origins. ...

Hey Art'. Just dropping in after a few months of absence. I think of you as a tireless crusader here for evolution, against those who'd dare dissent. ...but I don't think I remember what you think with regard to something more fundamental. I mean, you said we can finally KNOW our origins. But what about the physical laws. What do you think about the origin of such as that? ...and where does Dawkins stand on that subject?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Hey Art'. Just dropping in after a few months of absence. I think of you as a tireless crusader here for evolution, against those who'd dare dissent. ...but I don't think I remember what you think with regard to something more fundamental. I mean, you said we can finally KNOW our origins. But what about the physical laws. What do you think about the origin of such as that? ...and where does Dawkins stand on that subject?

That's easy! That's the gap that God fits into.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

PBS Nova has a special on the Dover trial tonight where you can get a quick update on evolution... http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Dawkins gives a great speech on the video canard here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Matthew Chapman is great too: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1809,Matthew-Chapman-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

This is really interesting stuff to understand... and you will understand why what "intelligent design proponents" are doing is smarmy, dishonest, and an attempt to keep you and others from understanding some of the most interesting information humans have assimilated of late. We get a lot of them here doing their dishonest obfuscating, and I hope you forgive us, if we presumed you might be one of them. Dick Atkinson certainly seems to be.

Don't miss this opportunity to understand more if you have the slightest interest in the subject. It is not hard to understand, and it is profoundly fascinating.

Thank you. I'll check that information out.

 

[VonNeumann]

That's easy! That's the gap that God fits into.

To each his own...

So Art', if you were to wildly speculate, would you entertain something like Smolin's baby universe idea? ...sort of a supra-cosmological Darwinistic idea?

 

[articulett]

To each his own...

So Art', if you were to wildly speculate, would you entertain something like Smolin's baby universe idea? ...sort of a supra-cosmological Darwinistic idea?

I like this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html


But my area of interest and expertise is genetics. And I'm trying to curb my discussion with maddening "intelligent design proponents", Von-- though, as always, you are my favorite. The rest lack your charm... that's for sure.

 

[Mashuna]

But what about the physical laws. What do you think about the origin of such as that? ...and where does Dawkins stand on that subject?

As far as I know, Dawkins leaves the origins of physical laws to physicists.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

When someone posts things that sound very much like religious-based nonsense and very little like anything most rationalists would post, and preface it by saying "I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"... well, it seems to me as though they are seeking to deceive. I could be wrong, but it simply doesn't ring true to me.

You mean you don't think Lee Strobel was an atheist/evolutionist and had a sudden epiphany just by studying "the evidence"? There have been some cases of folks I encounter in what used to be Chrisitanforums that spent some time agnostic or as an atheist in their teens or twenties and then returned to the flock, but they tend to not play that up or to offer the intellectual abortions that apologists like Strobel do.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Now, I remember why I had you on ignore...
{typo filled rant snipped}

Why did you ever take me off?

Sure. And I'm up there with Thor Haters, and I also hate Zeus. But I'm okay with FSM and the invisible pink unicorn.

Silly goof. Why don't you accuse people of something that would actually stick, m'kay?

Unless my post is a reponse to one of yours, please refrain from lecturing me on rhetorical devices when you don't seem to understand the rhetorical device I'm using.

TYIA.

 

[Lonewulf]

Unless my post is a reponse to one of yours, please refrain from lecturing me on rhetorical devices when you don't seem to understand the rhetorical device I'm using.

It's a pretty silly rhetorical device, whether I know it or not. Besides, FSM haters shouldn't have a right to talk.

TYIA.

Please refrain from telling me what to do.

TYIA.

 

[JoeEllison]

You mean you don't think Lee Strobel was an atheist/evolutionist and had a sudden epiphany just by studying "the evidence"? There have been some cases of folks I encounter in what used to be Chrisitanforums that spent some time agnostic or as an atheist in their teens or twenties and then returned to the flock, but they tend to not play that up or to offer the intellectual abortions that apologists like Strobel do.

Well, that's like that Kirk Cameron goon from that TV show, going on about how he is a "former evolutionist"... as though he was reading Origin of Species between takes or something.

 

[VonNeumann]

I like this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

But my area of interest and expertise is genetics. And I'm trying to curb my discussion with maddening "intelligent design proponents", Von-- though, as always, you are my favorite. The rest lack your charm... that's for sure.

Art'! I am shocked! Have I had some effect on you? Don't you realize Seth Lloyd favors the concept of our universe being as a computer? I thought you bucked me when I suggested the likes of that.

 

[VonNeumann]

As far as I know, Dawkins leaves the origins of physical laws to physicists.

I remember reading a response Dawkins wrote to Lee Smolin where Smolin was fishing for some blessing from Dawkins that his baby universe idea was in line with the darwinistic paradigm, and Dawkins declined. Publically, I can't see how it would help Dawkins to get into the territory of fundamental origins. He knows that, too.

 

[Cuddles]

Let's try to keep the bickering out of it, shall we?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles