Richard dawkins

[RDM]

The evidence of "evolution" is simply what is used to back up the theory. As has been said, the evidence of its working isn't there. It's still a theory, and an incomplete theory.

That really isn't true. As a scientific theory (which is very different from normal usage of the word theory) evolution is pretty solid with an awful lot of evidence to back it up. It is in no way an incomplete theory. There is currently no evidence that disproves or sheds doubt on evolution.

Rubbish - evolution by natural selection has been observed in the lab - it's as proven as gravity!

You possibly need to choose a better example as gravity has quite a few problems and isn't fully understood scientifically. Newtonian Gravity is wrong at the really large end of the scale and Einstien isn't quite right at the very small end of the scale. Of all of the forces we are aware of gravity is one of the more mysterious.

 

[tang0]

Agreed 100%

An intellectual fundamentalist, and worse because of that intellect.

Yes its worse when people are clever isn't it, as they tend to know what they are talking about??

 

[Van_Dammesque]

Every God proposed by man science disproved by the initial claims of said religion.
Dawkins has never said there is no god and we should be technically agnostic, however, for the Dawkins bashers:
Which god are you proposing? What proof to you have of your initial claims?
Why is it up to science to DISPROVE something, why can't the supernatural people propose a belief and prove it? (Simple because the claims cannot be contained within reality.)

 

[TipTop]

forcing his belief structure on others.

I've never had him at my door asking for a minute of my time. I have however had some moonbats trying to push religion down my neck.

 

[Castiel]

A great man, one of the few scientists left now that does their own thing. Too much of science has been taken over by huge corporations with hidden agendas, a team is given a brief and fulfills it to the best of their ability, rather than lettings scientists be free thinkers, coming up with their own solutions to whatever problem they want.

And say what you will, i haven't heard a word out of his mouth that i disagree with. Religion is okay when people believe in it because they want to believe in it. Who he 'targets' however is people who believe in it because they think it's actually the truth, which makes it a direct enemy of science - the study of and quest for the truth. When these people start forcing it on other people at birth and in education while they're growing up it becomes a serious problem, and is the cause of a lot of what's wrong with the world today.

In his opinion, and that is the problem. He can no more scientifically prove the non-existence of God as an adherent of any given religion can scientifically he does.

Religion is not the enemy of science at all, many eminent scientist's have some form of faith.

You may agree with him and that is fine, but don't assume that he is right simply because of his opinion.

 

[jbloggs]

What a breath of fresh air this man is in a world full of madness and irrationality!

Such a humble and polite, well spoken ambassador of reason and thought, with the intellect of a man with 3 heads. His arguments are so articulate and well delivered, he really makes me proud to be British!

What a world we would live in if everyone could reason like this man! A national treasure and I'm happy to have shared my time on earth with such a fine human being!

He's only a ponced up prat!

Don't like him at all!

 

[ChroniC]

Your assuming all religion are the big ones. Many people do not follow any of the main relions and know full well that there faith is just that a faith, do question it and change it with experiences.

Im not assuming that, we all know that the majority of people on earth believe in the major religions (so its worthy in this discussion to assume we talk about them). The ones your talking about are probably the ones that go unnoticed, because the only religion I can say is anything but utter rubbish is probably buddism (or something similar) because it is the only one that ask you to be yourself, and change with the what you know by looking with in.
Any religion that ask you to call on someone fictional character is ****

 

[Glaucus]

Every God proposed by man science disproved by the initial claims of said religion.
Dawkins has never said there is no god and we should be technically agnostic, however, for the Dawkins bashers:
Which god are you proposing? What proof to you have of your initial claims?
Why is it up to science to DISPROVE something, why can't the supernatural people propose a belief and prove it? (Simple because the claims cannot be contained within reality.)

We aren't purposing any, or need or suggest prove. We are simply dismissing what he says, what he says is based on his own faith, not science and that he is an idiot. He should be well aware what science can and can't be used for and that he is pushing his own faith.

 

[kylew]

Who he 'targets' however is people who believe in it because they think it's actually the truth.

That is so incredibly backward.

Why would some one knowningly believe something they didn't think was the truth?

 

[RDM]

Im not assuming that, we all know that the majority of people on earth believe in the major religions (so its worthy in this discussion to assume we talk about them). The ones your talking about are probably the ones that go unnoticed, because the only religion I can say is anything but utter rubbish is probably buddism (or something similar) because it is the only one that ask you to be yourself, and change with the what you know by looking with in.
Any religion that ask you to call on someone fictional character is ****

The amusing bit being that there is actually less historical evidence of Buddha than there is of Jesus.

 

[ChroniC]

Acidhell 2, you annoy me a little as you see sitting on the fence and defending both sides as a worthy cause.
Its clear from your postings that your no fool, but to me you seem to stay there because instead of living in a world that is blank until the information is presented to you, you would rather live in a world were everything is possible until its prove not to be.
I cant fathom that as it leaves to many open doors, and allows to may ways for people to be manipulated.

The amusing bit being that there is actually less historical evidence of Buddha than there is of Jesus.

That doesnt matter, the words in that book ask you to follow a scientific method to your life, not a strict unchangable regime.

Also its a myth that there is a evidence of jesus. Find me some.
In fact I have read that lost books written by Peter I think make no mention of any man known as jesus. (but dont quote me on that)

 

[mmj_uk]

Atheists like Dawkins are just as bad as religionists tbh, both sides will probably top themselves if the answer is ever discovered to lie somewhere in-between, evolution could be driven my some underlying intelligence for all we know.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

They haven't changed based on evidence though, they have changed to fit the will of a person or situation to gain faith or standings in a commmunity.
Religions don't change because of testings and evidence.



It never has been, and isnt suppose to be. Its meant to be there to help improve our lifes by creating testable and recreatable situations. If its part of science then everyone in the world can try it for themselves via the same steps and come to the same conclusion everytime.
The truth is a stupid concept as it has no use to anyone.

Exactly my point - the absolute truth is a meaningless concept! The scientific truth, which in my eyes is the only truth, however, conveys actual benefit to human development and understanding!

 

[PermaBanned]

In his opinion, and that is the problem. He can no more scientifically prove the non-existence of God as an adherent of any given religion can scientifically he does.

Religion is not the enemy of science at all, many eminent scientist's have some form of faith.

You may agree with him and that is fine, but don't assume that he is right simply because of his opinion.

I remember seeing a video of him speaking at Ted, he gave some impressive figures on the percentage of the highly intelligent population that do follow a religion, i think this was it:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

As one of the, if not the, most renowned Biologists of our time his words are certainly not to be passed off as an opinion equal to that of any bloke who has no actual experience of the subject, and his use of logic is infallible.

 

[RDM]

I cant fathom that as it leaves to many open doors, and allows to may ways for people to be manipulated.

Surely that is a good thing? Closing doors when you have no real proof seems to be as narrow minded as those that state their door is the only truth?

Atheists like Dawkins are just as bad as religionists tbh, both sides will probably top themselves if the answer is ever discovered to lie somewhere in-between, evolution could be driven my some underlying intelligence for all we know.

From all accounts this is not really the case, some more complicated science and maths than I am ever going to understand seems to suggest quite strongly that there is no real underlying guidance in evolution per se.

Exactly my point - the absolute truth is a meaningless concept! The scientific truth, which in my eyes is the only truth, however, conveys actual benefit to human development and understanding!

The scientific "truth" changes and is also quite happy to be wrong as long as it can predict results (hence we still use newtonian gravity).

 

[Glaucus]

Acidhell 2, you annoy me a little as you see sitting on the fence and defending both sides as a worthy cause.
Its clear from your postings that your no fool, but to me you seem to stay there because instead of living in a world that is blank until the information is presented to you, you would rather live in a world were everything is possible until its prove not to be.
I cant fathom that as it leaves to many open doors, and allows to may ways for people to be manipulated.

Wouldn't say everything is a worthy cause. I have my opinions, but that doesn't make my opionions right. I'm very critical about some religions. But after all religion is a faith and most religious people are well aware of that, they belive their faith is true.
On the other hand you got a highly accredited scientific mind abusing the scientific model to push his own faith and he even tries to say it isn't faith.

 

[Haiku]

A brilliant scientific author.

It's a shame many people apparently find his style to be unduly combative. Personally I find it refreshing.

 

[RDM]

Also its a myth that there is a evidence of jesus. Find me some.

I am well aware of the lack of evidence with a contempoary historical Jesus. However what there is (the early accounts of Christians, the mentions of the person the cult is based around etc) still outweighs the amount of evidence that Buddha existed. There is little evidence of Jesus (outside the bible) there is even less of Buddha.

 

[ChroniC]

Surely that is a good thing? Closing doors when you have no real proof seems to be as narrow minded as those that state their door is the only truth?

Maybe I was said it wrong. It almost always better to only open a door when the evidence for it allows. Not otherwise.
Its probably just a crap analogy.

 

[andy@moFo]

I like him.