Richard Dawkins - Too much Sherry

Nitefly said:
I think he's a bit of a dick because his passion doesn't seem to be in the truth....

Again, he's a total boss of a scientist but I think he'd come across better if he was more tolerant about things that, in actuality, have little consequence
Click to expand...

Do you have examples of the above?

He's all for the truth, if something is shown to be incorrect, he points it out, that's the whole point with science. You cannot find the right answer if everyone believes the wrong answer.
 
Last edited:
That's the thing the religious can't grasp.. When science is proven wrong, the scientifically minded will accept it, admit there's a gap in knowledge and rethink.

When the religious are challenged, wars start.
 
Hitchens was brilliant, check out the debate between him and Tony Blair on YouTube..

Christopher that is.. Not Peter his brother who's a complete nut job.
 
Angilion said:
If you do read those books, you'll read his explanation of why he thinks that religion is very far from having little consequence.
Click to expand...
I don't think you need to read any of his books to understand that religion is of consequence.

I'm agnostic btw, I'd love to be atheist.
 
D3K said:
I don't think you need to read any of his books to understand that religion is of consequence.
Click to expand...

The person I was replying to wrote (about Dawkins) "I think he'd come across better if he was more tolerant about things that, in actuality, have little consequence". Dawkins' books explain why he thinks that those things are very far from having little consequence, that they are very harmful. That explains why he isn't tolerant of them.

I'm agnostic btw, I'd love to be atheist.
Click to expand...
I'm both. Since I use the original definition of "agnostic", as given by the person who invented the word, they're about different things.

Really short version: (a)gnosticism is about how you decide what you know to be true and (a)theism is about whether or not you believe in a god or gods.

More detailed and therefore better version:

Agnosticism is the general principle that a person shouldn't claim something to be objectively true unless they can objectively prove it's true (or, for a less strict definition, provide sufficient objective evidence and reasoning for it to be reasonable to take it as being true).

In his own words:

This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
Click to expand...
Agnosticism applies to pretty much everything. It's a philosophical position, not a religious one. I'm agnostic about it raining at 1500 tomorrow, for example, just as I am agnostic about the existence of gods. Or which team will win the Chilean football league this year. Or a multitude of other things. Agnosticism is essentially a willingless to acknowledge not having certain knowledge of something when you don't have it. It's a literal word - 'agnostic' means 'without knowledge'.

Atheism is a different thing entirely. Firstly, it's specific to religion. Secondly, it's about not having belief, not about not having knowledge.

Using those definitions, there are 4 possible general positions:

Gnostic Theist. Rejects the idea that a person shouldn't claim something is objectively true unless they can objectively prove it. Believes in the existence of a god or gods. Due to that combination, their position is that they know that their god or gods exist, that this is objective truth.

Gnostic Atheist. Rejects the idea that a person shouldn't claim something is objectively true unless they can objectively prove it. Does not believe in the existence of a god or gods (and almost certainly believes in the non-existence of them - it would be weird for a gnostic atheist to take the atheist position of less certainty). Due to that combination, their position is that they know that no god or gods exist, that this is objective truth.

Agnostic Theist. Accepts the idea that a person shouldn't claim something is objectively true unless they can objectively prove it. Accepts that the existence or non-existence of a god or gods can't be objectively proven. Believes in the existence of their god or gods as an act of faith rather than claiming it to be objective truth.

Agnostic Atheist. Accepts the idea that a person shouldn't claim something is objectively true unless they can objectively prove it. Accepts that the existence or non-existence of a god or gods can't be objectively proven. Does not believe in the existence of a god or gods (and might or might not believe in the non-existence of them).
 
Last edited:
Interesting read. Before looking it up I would've been inclined to agree that the word had a more general meaning but that isn't the case according to all sources, most importantly for me as an ex-English teacher, the Cambridge dictionary.

You could argue that it can be applied to other aspects of life if the context is given, but without context it relates God and is therefore an adjective which has the same metric system as atheist. By that token you cannot be both.

The only other context I've used it in is with software file formats which appears to be it's second legitimate definition.
 
Hades said:
I mentioned his name in casual conversation at work recently and got a tirade of abuse back from someone. I realised afterwards that the person giving the abuse was a grade A sky pixie nutter. I couldn't be bothered to argue as I am a firm believer in allowing everyone to come to their own theories of how the universe works.
Click to expand...
And here is the answer to everything. Why do we all feel the need to belittle people? If some believes, leave them to it. No need to make them look stupid for your own gratification.
 
leaskovski said:
And here is the answer to everything. Why do we all feel the need to belittle people? If some believes, leave them to it. No need to make them look stupid for your own gratification.
Click to expand...

We belittle belief in unicorns or the flat Earth, why should religious belief get a special treatment? Religion is a social tool can be useful but when it goes against reason and science it loses any benefits it may have.
 
We need more people like Dawkins to be brave enough to ridicule religion. It's sad but in this age to be outspoken about religion is quite courageous.

Hopefully Dawkins, Krauss, Hitchens and others have kick started the abolishment of religion.

The reason religion is still so strong is because not enough are telling them otherwise. These people continue to be ignorant and would rather watch Coronation Street (here at least) than finding out about where they originate from.

If I was misguided in something I would be grateful to learn where I'm going wrong.
 
Last edited:
kedge said:
Do some of you secularists also want a bottle of violins to go with your cheese and whine?
Click to expand...

You read this somewhere and have been dying to quote it, albeit slightly forced and out of context? That's the only explanation my rational mind can arrive at for your lack of funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom