Hello
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 12:50 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
I'm rambling, I'm tired I think you get where I'm coming from.

I do get.

So what is your solution for world peace and the end of ignorance?

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-10-2013, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2013 02:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Hello
The "God Delusion" doesn't claim to be a "work of science".
Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.
His intention was to write a popular book. He succeeded.
If it even approaches the "undergraduate" level, then it's already over the heads of most of his audience.
Not everyone is an intellectual snob.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-10-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 12:50 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ... some slithering MLM narcissist that believes "the Universe" will help him sell more dishwashing liquid.

You take that back! Sadcryface2 Laughat

***

Hi Chippy.

I see where you're coming from and agree with a few of your observations.

I do see that some people might idolize Dawkins however, many people probably, as Cjlr noted, don't have the ability to educate further. I see Dawkins as more of a "popularizer" of social leanings which many people wouldn't be exposed to otherwise.

Maybe it's a matter of seeing where others come from, as well. Wink

Welcome to the forum. Smile

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2013 03:41 PM by absols.)
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 10:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is possible he has succeeded in the remarkable accomplishment of shutting up I and I and absuls, which none of us could accomplish.
I will credit him with that, if it's true.

it is about the pleasure to see another shit believing on shit superiority live more then u, for wat i guess you are also the opportunist type
while that shit is only the shit

his insistence to appear anything while it is nothing but verbal logorhee vomit of inferior that cant mean any end matter, when it is all about what dead persons didnt contribute to any value attached to their names or what people are not the standard required to believe...as if he has a phd on searching in google extra informations about hot topics on forums discussions

the only thing that it shows, is what is known already, what the majority of posters on forums do not represent the majority of people in the world
the reality of negative pleasures in way more clear here, which is weird bc animals are in life and suppositely unexisting in conscious reality
i guess it proves how powers cant possess all while the net is easy to control

but how that type of bullshit that has nothing to say about anything concrete, is getting so much credits bc he is bullshit head

anyway no one is waiting for u to kick shit way down
nor that anyone is waiting for u either to value positive freedom rights

unfortunately opportunists will stay as long as they know how to hide and shut their enthousiasm for shit living, bc facts is to what matter anyways, when opportunists by definition are willing else matters to live

it is funny how almost everyone here seem careless about real issues happening around the world, while enjoying using issues for literature of theories to brag about, proving my point, noone should b able to talk about smthg when obviously he is not talking nor meaning anything at all

anyway anyone is free, so without supports which is what rights are waiting for

like giving credits to such obvious shit is a contribution to state inequity force

in fact, kicking rights ass to get their shares is a way of evil life where any evil will would support another doing it

but how could rights support each others when rights are by definition free so never by touching anything nor anyother, which contribute to more inequity when all rights cant b but in truth so in positive way so always giving plus where they should stop and kick asses

this what prove the end, a lot is been said, as the introduction to what will come
truth justice always beyond doubt the only source and reasons of any and all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 04:05 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2013 08:25 AM by Dark Light.)
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 12:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "God Delusion" doesn't claim to be a "work of science".
Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.
His intention was to write a popular book. He succeeded.
If it even approaches the "undergraduate" level, then it's already over the heads of most of his audience.
Not everyone is an intellectual snob.

I agree with this. Keep in mind that I have never read a Dawkins book. What I know of him is what I've seen of him on debates, interviews and so forth. To be honest, I don't think he is a particularly good debater. I would call him sub-par for the level he is at even. I've seen him let emotion affect him, and as a result, snap at the audience. I can understand it. It can be frustrating, but for someone who has been doing it so long it makes you look weak. Eh, it's whatever for me. I was just curious as to why he didn't like Dawkins.

To the point of philosophy, again, not having read his books. I would say anyone who ponders morality and theology for any length of time becomes a philosopher. Might be a good philosopher, might be a bad philosopher, but a philosopher nonetheless. A PhD isn't required to ponder some of life's greatest questions and futilely attempt to 'solve' them.

To me it sounds like Chippy is mostly upset that Dawkins might not be up to his some of his 'idolizers' expectations. Not worthy of their praise. If that is it, then I'd say 'fine, fair point'. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

Chippy, it sounds to me as if you expect too much from the guy. You want his accomplishments in evolutionary biology to be more profound, and without the help of others, and you want him to be the next Aristotle, Hume, or whoever in works of Philosophy. If that is what you were hoping for then no, Dawkins may not be your man. If you do fine such a man, however, please share.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 04:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 12:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "God Delusion" doesn't claim to be a "work of science".
Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.
His intention was to write a popular book. He succeeded.
If it even approaches the "undergraduate" level, then it's already over the heads of most of his audience.
Not everyone is an intellectual snob.

I agree with this. Keep in mind that I have never read a Dawkins book. What I know of him is what I've seen of him on debates, interviews and so forth. To be honest, I don't think he is a particularly good debater. I would call him sub-par for the level he is at even. I've seen him let emotion affect him, and as a result he snap at the audience. I can understand it. It can be frustrating, but for someone who has been doing it so long it makes you look weak. Eh, it's whatever for me. I was just curious as to why he didn't like Dawkins.

To the point of philosophy, again, not having read his books. I would say anyone who ponders morality and theology for any length of time becomes a philosopher. Might be a good philosopher, might be a bad philosopher, but a philosopher nonetheless. A PhD isn't required to ponder some of life's greatest questions and futilely attempt to 'solve' them.

To me it sounds like Chippy is mostly upset that Dawkins might not be up to his some of his 'idolizers' expectations. Not worthy of their praise. If that is it, then I'd say 'fine, fair point'. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

Chippy, it sounds to me as if you expect too much from the guy. You want his accomplishments in evolutionary biology to be more profound, and without the help of others, and you want him to be the next Aristotle, Hume, or whoever in works of Philosophy. If that is what you were hoping for then no, Dawkins may not be your man. If you do fine such a man, however, please share.

DL, read a book, fer cryin' out loud.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: Hello
I've read plenty of books, just not by Dawkins.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
02-10-2013, 05:47 PM
RE: Hello
I think what Chippy wants to say is that he is smarter then Dawkins.

Why Dawkins? Because he thinks that people idolize Dowkins, and that he should , by demonstrating that he is smarter then him , get at least as much , if not more ,recognition from the community.

Welcome to the forum.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 09:46 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 08:14 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Welcome, Chippy.

I find you avatar really disturbing. Just saying.

You've made a few assertions above which could do with a reference or two. Specifically... who did originate the concept of the selfish gene?

Similarly, I'm no idolater but I reckon that 'popularising' is no mean feat so credit for that, at least.

But then, I didn't get as far as any year biology or any year philosophy so what do I know?

I'm looking forward to some edumacation from your speaking posts.

Welcome again (and what did you do to piss off Bucky so soon?)

The avatar is "Chippy" from Tim and Eric's Awesome Show, great job.

The two main figures behind the idea of the "selfish gene" (aka gene-centric view of evolution) were G.C Williams and W.D. Hamilton. See also this and this.

Dawkins central argument in The God Delusion--namely that a creator must be at least as complicated as its creation--is from philosopher J. J. C. Smart (I can't cite the paper off the top of my head but I can find it later if you want it) and the others arguments are just standard fair found in all introductory textbooks and reading compilations in the philosophy of religion. Without exaggeration The God Delusion is no better than an undergraduate essay but because it credits no sources it is in that sense worse than an undergraduate essay.

"[A]nd what did you do to piss off Bucky so soon?"
Contradict him.

(02-10-2013 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 09:46 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The avatar is "Chippy" from Tim and Eric's Awesome Show, great job.

The two main figures behind the idea of the "selfish gene" (aka gene-centric view of evolution) were G.C Williams and W.D. Hamilton. See also this and this.

Dawkins central argument in The God Delusion--namely that a creator must be at least as complicated as its creation--is from philosopher J. J. C. Smart (I can't cite the paper off the top of my head but I can find it later if you want it) and the others arguments are just standard fair found in all introductory textbooks and reading compilations in the philosophy of religion. Without exaggeration The God Delusion is no better than an undergraduate essay but because it credits no sources it is in that sense worse than an undergraduate essay.

"[A]nd what did you do to piss off Bucky so soon?"
Contradict him.

Hamilton and Dawkins were friends and colleagues. Dawkins acknowledges Hamilton profusely in his works.

Dawkins wrote Hamilton's obituary and arranged his memorial service.

Dawkins' strengths include original research and a remarkable talent for clearly explaining evolutionary theory and its implications in books and in lectures.

Like Chas said Dawkins never claimed to have originated the ideas and he references Hamilton constantly among others. The book has a very long bibliography.

The God Delusion is not a science book.

There is clearly a market for lay biology and lay physics, and Dawkins is an excellent author.

If you haven't read the selfish gene it's a great book if you are interested in getting a deeper understand of evolution and it's driving principals. Likewise 'The Greatest Show On Earth' is a great book for refuting creationist arguments and learning about some interesting experiments that have been done on the subject.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 09:14 PM
RE: Hello
(02-10-2013 05:47 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  I think what Chippy wants to say is that he is smarter then Dawkins.

Why Dawkins? Because he thinks that people idolize Dowkins, and that he should , by demonstrating that he is smarter then him , get at least as much , if not more ,recognition from the community.

Welcome to the forum.

Are you a 12-year-old? "You think you're smart!, You think you're smart! You think you're smart! Nah-nah-nahah-nah. Richard is smarter than you. Nah-nah-nahah-nah." That's the timbre of your post. Your're the fawning ignorant imbecile that wants to toss Dawkins' salad.

You misspelled your idol's name. Perhaps you should post "D-----s" instead as per Jews and "G-d".

So you think that a person posting under the name of a character of comedy series in an obscure forum on the web is seeking "recognition from the community"? How would that work? I have no books or shows to promote and were I--on the improbable chance--to produce any would they be in connection with the identity of a hirsute baby character?

Why Dawkins? Because he is overrated as a "public intellectual". There are many fighters for reason, knowledge and science, e.g. Lilienfeld, Beyerstein, Bunge, Sokal that don't have a wealthy benefactor that have taken real risks in their fight against superstition and ignorance that don't have the recognition they deserve. But I doubt you have heard of any of them in your little Dawkins-centric universe.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: