Wow, how condescending. That's why people dislike Dawkins. "Anyone who beleives otherwise is mentally ill" is his basic opinion.
"Jesus" is a translated name, as is "Peter".
Richard dawkins
- Thread starter NormanPorkinson
- Start date
Wow, how condescending. That's why people dislike Dawkins. "Anyone who beleives otherwise is mentally ill" is his basic opinion.
"Jesus" is a translated name, as is "Peter".
Thats the thing though, he does push no religion on people. He doesn't ever say that people should stop believing if they choose, (hence the posters that said thier "might not be a god")
He just trying to get a sense of reason, in a world that puts archiac books in the way of childrens health, wellbeing, and education.
Surely you can see that?
How is it condescending??? I didn't question his opinion I just asked him why he chooses it.
Ok, there is no mention of his untranslated name either. (now thats condescending)
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Its not about beliefs. It is about looking at the facts. Evolutionists look at the facts and can see clearly that evolution happens. The other camp simply ignors the facts and chooses to 'believe' something else entirely, such as God.
"You seem intelligent, how can you be sitting on the fence?"
You think that's not condescending?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Believes is the wrong word. He can see for himself the facts that show him the truth, so he doesn't need to believe it, he knows it.
Anyone else who "believes" something else, clearly don't embrace the facts fully.
Yes its worse when people are clever isn't it, as they tend to know what they are talking about??
As a biologist and a Evolutionary ethologist he does indeed know what he is talking about, when it come to comparative religions however, he has been found to be rather ignorant of the basis for many of their beliefs and values. Prof Alister McGrath accused Dawkins of this and Dawkin's response was "Do I have to read up on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
Well to be truthful, Yes you do. To criticise something like religion it would be helpful to actually have some understanding of the concept and philosophy behind it.
Even his peers in his own realm of Ethology are critical of his "overstatement of the case against religion" as Dr Margaret Somerville said.
Richard Dawkins is undeniably a great scientist and orator. He unfortunately has taken his desire for reason and evidence based science and attempted to apply it to a faith based medium and has found that unless you can disprove a theory then that theory will continue.
He attacks what he calls pseudo-science, yet at the same time waxes lyrical about his own Memetics hypothesis, which has no verifiable proof either.
God is a Hypothesis, it is up to those who disagree with the hypothesis to disprove it, it is up to those who support it to prove it. As neither group can do so, it remains a hypothesis.
Last edited:
And who says science is the right measuring tool for everything. It's a tool with limitations.
Of course, the evidence that evolutions happens is considered evidence by those who are a "fan" of the theory. The "evidence" is that a lot of specials of animals and creates have died out, the actual evidence of them "changing" isn't there because it hasn't been observed happening. The way things are, there are minute differences between different species of the same types of creates that it could very well look like they're "changing".
But at the end of it all, it's a theory made up by humans to fit in to a thought process, also made up by humans, and thus will never be great than that.
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
I don't see it at all! I've watched 100's of his stuff and never once have I seen him lose his temper or be anything but a true gentleman - he has a great sense of humour too! Believe me if I spoke to some of the idiots he's had to contend with then I'd probably goes nuts and do something rash! I admit he does poke fun sometimes but that's only with people who believe in talking snakes etc .... Also I've never once seen him say he totally 100% rejects an idea or belief and I'll challenge anyone to show me otherwise!
This comes down to scientific model and what it can be used for it certainly is not fact.
Ocarms razor is perfect example. Simplest mechanism doesn't mean that is the mechanism that the universe uses. Science can not tell between different mechanisms with identical outcomes.
Where?? I've watched them all. I've only ever seen him ask people about their faiths then when they mention something that holds no basis in the world we live in, he shows them evidence that what they are saying is incorrect.
Like for example when someone did understand the bridges between man and ape, claiming there was no evidence for it.
He calmy described about 5 different types.
Believing that they're facts is where his belief lays. I'm not saying whether they are or aren't facts, but that his believes they are, which is him putting his faith in that being the truth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
All science is approximations. No science is exact, its just that science gets a more detailed approximation to try to model the laws of the universe. The fact is, there is more evidence FOR things like evolution than there is against it.
Things against it are often made up, chocolate tea pot style and standing besides it because they KNOW that it can never truly be totally disproven.
Last edited:
Why bother, would a fruitless existence trying to disprove everything, as there is an infinite amount of things i can imagine.
Much rather try proving things that actually do exist. Would be rather stupid to waste of my short time of earth to do otherwise.
No he doesnt. Rewatch the show or re-read his books. He doesnt portray that at all. It would be a massive waste of time saying that some things arent facts are just perfectly amazing best knowsn guesses (which they are) but when something is tested, proveable and retestable 1 million times it becomes a fact, albiet a massive probable guess, but calling it anything other than a fact is just stupid.
Last edited:
That's not fact, it's still a man made tool with litations.
Dawkins still uses his credentials to push his faith and abate the scientific model.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Which is always going to be more robust than the other side of the arguement.
