Knocking Dawkins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2012, 03:39 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
Stick it in nice and easy, wo' wo', hip-hip cheerio, blo'dy blimey, gov'nah?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 04:12 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 01:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 01:19 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Dawkin's can be a bit of a cock theres no doubt about it, his books on biology are good reads none the less. I tend not to bother with Dawkins when it comes to religion, if I wanna listen to people being rude about those of faith I use the internet.

On the whole though, I prefer Stephen J. Gould, his books are delightful and he keeps a civil tongue in his head when he disagrees with the religious. Which is not only nicer to read, its more contstructive.

While I agree that Gould was a graceful and communicative writer, he bent so far over backward for tolerance that he was in danger of getting his head up his butt.
NOMA is crap and is rightly called out by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Stenger, et al.

NOMA?

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 04:33 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
Have you all drank the Kool-Aid. He is wonderful and you must be foolish if you think not.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a
free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their
political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their
own purpose. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes N.E.OhioAtheist's post
28-08-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
The individual on the forum who has a problem with Dawkins and Harris, and who will not commit to an explanation, dislikes that fact that they both go after Islam.

If not them standing up in the face of the religious stupidity, then who else is going to.

Anyone who dislikes them can write their book and ask to debate the theists.
Step up and do better or shut the hell up. They're on our side.

It's one thing to make sarcastic comments on a forum, and completely another to stand behind a poduim and make your case against the best from the other side.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thomas's post
28-08-2012, 05:12 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 03:36 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The Brit's come off as pompous at times. It's just a cultural thing.
You know that they are not really arrogant, it's just style points.

Compare to Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. They say the same things, just softer. They stick the knife in slower, but they do stick it in and just as deep.

Brits ARE really pompous AND arrogant and don't you fucking forget it! Or-righ?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-08-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 05:12 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 03:36 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The Brit's come off as pompous at times. It's just a cultural thing.
You know that they are not really arrogant, it's just style points.

Compare to Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. They say the same things, just softer. They stick the knife in slower, but they do stick it in and just as deep.

Brits ARE really pompous AND arrogant and don't you fucking forget it! Or-righ?

Their debate style is far more eloquent, so it is often perceived as such.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
28-08-2012, 05:16 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 02:48 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, that was pretty lightweight.

You read that in 5 mins?
Chas-tastic!

I scanned through to see what the points were and read a couple of sentences from ones that weren't obviously featherweight.

I will read the whole thing later.

I knew someone was going to call me on that. Dodgy

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
28-08-2012, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2012 08:14 PM by Chas.)
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 04:57 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The individual on the forum who has a problem with Dawkins and Harris, and who will not commit to an explanation, dislikes that fact that they both go after Islam.

If not them standing up in the face of the religious stupidity, then who else is going to.

Anyone who dislikes them can write their book and ask to debate the theists.
Step up and do better or shut the hell up. They're on our side.

It's one thing to make sarcastic comments on a forum, and completely another to stand behind a poduim and make your case against the best from the other side.

Really? Is that the issue? Why won't he-who-shall-remain-nameless just fucking say so?

Edit: Meant to say "Why hasn't he ever fucking said so."

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
28-08-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
Thomas.

I thought that was unnecessary, inappropriate and really petty. For the record, I disagree with what you said about me. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Ghost's post
28-08-2012, 07:27 PM
RE: Knocking Dawkins
(28-08-2012 04:12 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 01:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  While I agree that Gould was a graceful and communicative writer, he bent so far over backward for tolerance that he was in danger of getting his head up his butt.
NOMA is crap and is rightly called out by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Stenger, et al.

NOMA?

Non-Overlapping MagisteriA. It's a belief that science and religion answer different questions and have nothing relevant to say about each other's domains. I personally think that would be true if religion made no claims of fact (such as "prayers are heard and answered"), but it does, so it's a bad belief.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: