Richard dawkins

[Uriel]

Dunno - I haven't changed my short term views but looking longer term, my outlook is very different to say 2006 when I joined these boards. I'm sure the odd OCUK post may have had something to do with it, or at least pointed me along interesting lines of inquiry.

"As iron sharpens iron" and all that...

 

[Tefal]

And where does it say that the big guy was starved of oxygen or glucose - assumptions made by yourself.

Romans made very very sure people where dead when they where brought down, unless he had an artificial pump instead of a heart his brain isn't getting anything.

 

[Tefal]

Well, I hope we've all had fun and that no one has changed their views - I know I haven't.

We once managed to get an atheist to become an agnostic and as such then disagreed with absolutely every atheist, agnostic, and religious person in the thread

 

[Castiel]

I have just watched "The Case for God" on BBC1. It put several atheists against Cheif Rabbi Lord Johnathan Sacks. It was very interesting, especially Prof Colin Blackmore's arguement which suggested that Humans are simply causal machines and that ultimately we have no free will. Something Rabbi Sacks says that is a basic denial of what makes us human. Free Will, I have to agree.

Also his observation that the Holocaust happened at the heart of a liberal secular scientific orientated Europe. I had never really thought of that.

While it is not a free for all debate, it is a respectful insight into someones faith and I found Rabbi Sacks to be quite inspirational.

Catch it on iplayer. I need to as I missed the beginning.

 

[ac1d1ty]

Same time next month?

¬_¬

Thats what the lesbian vampires said to each other.....

 

[ac1d1ty]

The point of the heart thing is that he was stabbed and a mixture of blood and water came out. I don't know the biology behind it, but that apparently means you are properly dead - something to do with a sac of water around your heart or something, I don't know.

Not to mention the theological implications of such an event.

 

[Naffa]

It was very interesting, especially Prof Colin Blackmore's arguement which suggested that Humans are simply causal machines and that ultimately we have no free will. Something Rabbi Sacks says that is a basic denial of what makes us human. Free Will, I have to agree.

The irony of the religious when it comes to free will is just stupefying... You ask a believer if they think we have free will, they will more often than not say, "Yes". You then ask them whether they think God gave it to us, they will invariably reply, "Yes".

So we have free will, because the boss insists upon it... Right...

And saying that humans have no free will, when advances evolutionary biology are ever more moving towards that hypothesis being a truthful one is a denial of what makes us human? I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.

Dawkins = potential next Hitler, angry man but still a part in the plan, trust him not i urge you.

I'm not his biggest fan, but let's do a quick check.

Is Dawkins a fascist? No. Is he a member of a National Socialist movement, or something of a similar ilk? No. Is he an anti-Semite? No. Does he show a slight distaste for religion? Yes. Is he a practising Roman Catholic? No. Is Dawkins prepared to commit mass genocide to advance his ideology? No. Does Dawkins wish to force his own ideology onto others? No. Is Dawkins a particularly good speaker? No.

I could go on, but hopefully some sort of point has been made.

 

[Boozebeard]

I haven't bothered to read every page in this thread but saying believing in God and believing in a scientific theory are pretty much the same thing is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[footman]

Also his observation that the Holocaust happened at the heart of a liberal secular scientific orientated Europe. I had never really thought of that.

I didn't watch this programme. As a secular Jew, listening to Rabbis (and him in particular) makes my blood boil, so it sounds as if it was my loss.
As to this notion of the Holocaust happening in this so-called secular,liberal and scientific orientated Europe,I simply don't buy into that as a cause although that's possibly not what he was inferring.


Of course there were sections of society with those values but European society was no more homogeneous then than it is today.
The predominant values were essentially religious. If countries were not Catholic and influenced by a Vatican paranoid about (Jewish) Bolshevism then it was Lutheran and dominated by Luthers violently anti-semitic philosophy.

Since the Dark Ages European Jewry had laboured under the yoke of being Christ killers. All it needed was world financial collapse and nationalism to ignite the fire.

 

[Castiel]

The irony of the religious when it comes to free will is just stupefying... You ask a believer if they think we have free will, they will more often than not say, "Yes". You then ask them whether they think God gave it to us, they will invariably reply, "Yes".

So we have free will, because the boss insists upon it... Right...

And saying that humans have no free will, when advances evolutionary biology are ever more moving towards that hypothesis being a truthful one is a denial of what makes us human? I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.

What is stupefying is that statement, you have Free-will, that those with faith believe it is a gift from God doesn't mean God has insisted against our freewill that we should use it. I can give you a toaster, it doesn't mean that you have to eat toast every day or at all.

As for the second part; you think that we are all automatons whose genetic and evolutionary make-up decide our every action in advance, that we do not have the freewill to decide whatever we want, that we are limited to follow some kind of evolutionary predestination. Frankly I think that is utter tosh.

Science has yet to prove anything regarding Self or how it fits into evolution, if it even does. I find it horrific to think that my life is predestined by evolutionary constructs.

I'm not his biggest fan, but let's do a quick check.

No. Does Dawkins wish to force his own ideology onto others? No. Is Dawkins a particularly good speaker? No.

I could go on, but hopefully some sort of point has been made.

Those two should both be in the affirmative, as he is a good orator and he does indeed attempt to force his own ideology onto others as his attempt to have the Pope arrested will testify to.

 

[Uriel]

Those two should both be in the affirmative, as he is a good orator and he does indeed attempt to force his own ideology onto others as his attempt to have the Pope arrested will testify to.

Indeed. That Dawkins held the chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford for so long was frankly embarrassing as he used it as a platform for blatant prosletysing.

Naffa, have you read the God Delusion? He basically says he's trying to convert people in the prologue - or did you just skip that bit?

 

[NormanPorkinson]

Those two should both be in the affirmative, as he is a good orator and he does indeed attempt to force his own ideology onto others as his attempt to have the Pope arrested will testify to.

That pope thing that Christopher Hitchens actually came up with is right on the money. Why should anyone be above the law? Especially someone who covers up a crime as disgusting as paedophilia. Just shows you what a daft world we live in and how power controls everything. It wasn't so much about trying to force their atheism down people's necks, but to highlight what they've been saying all along - Religion demands and receives way too much respect and protection. It's crazy.

How anyone can defend the pope and turn it back on Hitchens and Dawkins is shocking.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

Dawkins = potential next Hitler, angry man but still a part in the plan, trust him not i urge you.

This is the biggest load of tosh I've ever seen. You can tell a lot of people on here haven't seen his interview/debates or read his books. He's as soft as a brush, a total pacifist.

 

[Naffa]

What is stupefying is that statement, you have Free-will, that those with faith believe it is a gift from God doesn't mean God has insisted against our freewill that we should use it. I can give you a toaster, it doesn't mean that you have to eat toast every day or at all.

White noise.

As for the second part; you think that we are all automatons whose genetic and evolutionary make-up decide our every action in advance, that we do not have the freewill to decide whatever we want, that we are limited to follow some kind of evolutionary predestination. Frankly I think that is utter tosh.

Are you an evolutionary biologist? I'm not, and thus, feel I should refer questions regarding such things to somebody competent in that field.

Science has yet to prove anything regarding Self or how it fits into evolution, if it even does. I find it horrific to think that my life is predestined by evolutionary constructs.

I love this argument. You may find it an unwelcome conclusion that you're descended from apes, or may wish that it wasn't true, but it just is. Sorry. Bertrand Russell said that it's a fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.

Those two should both be in the affirmative, as he is a good orator and he does indeed attempt to force his own ideology onto others as his attempt to have the Pope arrested will testify to.

He's an ok orator, but stand him next to Christopher Hitchens (who is an exceptional orator) and he becomes distinctly average in my opinion.

And as for the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris trying to 'ram their atheist agendas down our throats' by prosecuting a man that's known to have concealed numerous cases of the rape and torture of children, that's known to be sheltering wanted men in the Vatican (Cardinal Law for one), I could go on... Are you aware that Geoff Robertson, the human rights council leading the case against the Pope, is a practising Christian?

Naffa, have you read the God Delusion? He basically says he's trying to convert people in the prologue - or did you just skip that bit?

I'll go and check, but does he not say that he simply wants to make people are atheists, but that didn't know they could be an atheist realise that in fact, they could? It's not really the same as 'trying to convert them'.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Dawkins = potential next Hitler, angry man but still a part in the plan, trust him not i urge you.

LOL this is what my evangelical nutjob friend says too (and also that he is the devil).

I'd say he's one of the least angry men you could meet. If you think he is, then you've either never read one of books, or entirely missed the point of them.

 

[Naff8000]

LOL this is what my evangelical nutjob friend says too (and also that he is the devil).

I'd say he's one of the least angry men you could meet. If you think he is, then you've either never read one of books, or entirely missed the point of them.

If he is angry I do not blame him. Bible bashers calling him every name under the sun like Hitler and the Devil. I guess when you're dealing with blind faith one must often feel it is a pointless debate.

 

[SteveOBHave]

My perspective on Dawkins is that in the face of so many people that want to ram their religions and moral judgements down everymans/womans throat, Dawkins represents the polar opposite. He's at times as vehement about his anti religion as they are for. Personally I sit firmly on his side. IMO Religion is a pox on society and the only thing going for it is some moral high ground.

He is, in my view, someone who doesn't feel the need to tiptoe around the idea that rationally arguing against the need for religion and against the insane delusion of male superiority in a patriarchal organisation. I'm all for the man.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Good point. On the one hand we have:

snipped for space

If anyone thinks that these two pieces of 'evidence' are in any way comparable, I think they are beyond help.

While I do appreciate the attempt at sarcasm I offered no view as to the relative merits of the evidence - the fact is that the Bible is evidence as is the lack of any successful attempts at resurrection along the same lines. What weight anyone wants to put onto those pieces of evidence is entirely up to the individual. I'm simply noting the process from a legal standpoint, you advance evidence and then it's rebutted or it remains to stand.

As has been pointed out before though science is not particularly good at dealing with one off events and may be inclined to discount them - what use in a predictively accurate model are events which are supernatural or single occurrence only? It's also worth remembering that for faith the evidence doesn't have to be good enough to convince everyone, to convince beyond a reasonable doubt or even on the balance of probabilities - it simply has to be enough to convince the individual who believes that it is right.

Is Dawkins prepared to commit mass genocide to advance his ideology? No.

While I think it unlikely to change you may be a little premature with that one, he's still got time on his hands.

Same time next month?

I'm there, unless I'm washing my hair.

 

[Combat squirrel]

My perspective on Dawkins is that in the face of so many people that want to ram their religions and moral judgements down everymans/womans throat, Dawkins represents the polar opposite. He's at times as vehement about his anti religion as they are for. Personally I sit firmly on his side. IMO Religion is a pox on society and the only thing going for it is some moral high ground.

He is, in my view, someone who doesn't feel the need to tiptoe around the idea that rationally arguing against the need for religion and against the insane delusion of male superiority in a patriarchal organisation. I'm all for the man.

This

 

[Naff8000]

While I do appreciate the attempt at sarcasm I offered no view as to the relative merits of the evidence - the fact is that the Bible is evidence as is the lack of any successful attempts at resurrection along the same lines. What weight anyone wants to put onto those pieces of evidence is entirely up to the individual. I'm simply noting the process from a legal standpoint, you advance evidence and then it's rebutted or it remains to stand.

That's the same as saying a hair on my forehead is connected to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three seconds in a court of law would see that evidence rebutted.