Richard Dawkins Misquote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2011, 12:48 AM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
Actually, 17th knight and Ghost you all make perfect sense (... I bet you never saw that coming!)

Intellectual dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty. Personally I detest short, usually irrelevant, quotations from famous historical people, I believe people use them to add a validity to their argument, probably thinking (Whether or not they are aware of it)

...

See! Look! My argument is valid after all _________ (fill in George Washington, Gandhi, Attila the Hun...) thought the same thing.

I find it funny when people try and 'modernize' historical figures. We don't know what they truly think and never will because they were dead before we could ask them.

So please do not pepper your argument with pointless quotes, it makes you look like you are seeking affirmation, if your argument is good, it should stand on it's own.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes monkeyshine89's post
30-09-2011, 08:29 AM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
Hey, 17th.

I agree. For example, some people think they understand hockey because they're Sabres fans when they can't even comprehend that their division rivals, the almighty Habs, will crush them this season!

Hey, Jbyrd.

Quote:Meh, its not like the opposite side does not do the same, intentionally I might add. So, I do not really see the problem.

That defence always makes me throw up a little. For me, that kind of attitude gets us nowhere.

Hey, Azaraith.

Darwinism: it's not just for biology anymore Cool

Mmmmmmmmmm, evolution is good m'kay.

Hey, Monkey.

Not shocking at all. I knew you were an intelligent person Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2011, 10:13 AM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
(30-09-2011 08:29 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 17th.

I agree. For example, some people think they understand hockey because they're Sabres fans when they can't even comprehend that their division rivals, the almighty Habs, will crush them this season!

Hey, Jbyrd.

Quote:Meh, its not like the opposite side does not do the same, intentionally I might add. So, I do not really see the problem.

That defence always makes me throw up a little. For me, that kind of attitude gets us nowhere.

Hey, Azaraith.

Darwinism: it's not just for biology anymore Cool

Mmmmmmmmmm, evolution is good m'kay.

Hey, Monkey.

Not shocking at all. I knew you were an intelligent person Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt



Huh? Where'd you get the impression I thought otherwise? I of course was referring to Evolution in the biological sense...

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2011, 07:35 PM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
(30-09-2011 08:29 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 17th.

I agree. For example, some people think they understand hockey because they're Sabres fans when they can't even comprehend that their division rivals, the almighty Habs, will crush them this season!

If your name wasn't Matt, which is my name as well, I would hunt you down, I tell you what!!!

Let's go, Buffalo! Go Ryan Miller! Go Thomas Vanek!

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2011, 07:45 AM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
Hey, Azaraith.

Slow down. I'm with ya, homey. I was just basking in the warm glow of Universal Darwinism. Wasn't accusing you of anything... m'kay Smile

Hey, 17th.

You poor wayward soul. You'll feel better once you've accepted Price as your saviour Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2011, 12:06 PM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
(29-09-2011 10:16 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Does this bother anyone else? It seems like a mark that would diminish some of his credibility and provide a target for some theists as he spoke out against misquoting things earlier in the book...

His point in that chapter was to demonstrate that the founding fathers were not, as is often the portrayal, all Christian. And while this quote may be out of its full context, when put into context it doesn't suddenly make John Adams a Christian. It just makes John Adams less fanatical about secularism than he appears in the full quote.

But The God Delusion doesn't live or die based on Richard Dawkins' credibility, in any case. He's not claiming that he himself is an expert, demanding that you take his word for it. That is the only case where discredit logically shoots down an argument.

Remember the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? After being discredited, the boy was not believed when telling the truth. Perhaps one lesson to be taken from this is that even a bald-faced liar's words should still stand or fall on evidence rather than on whom is telling you to look at the evidence.

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
01-10-2011, 03:11 PM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
Hey, Starcrash.

So the moral of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is that no matter how many times someone lies to you or tricks you, you should ignore their reputation and simply look at their evidence? Somehow I don't think that's what Aesop was driving at.

There's far more truthful ways to demonstrate that they weren't all Christians. I was just watching a Dawkins video this morning and he was going on about how important evidentiary based beliefs were. For him to offer false evidence is weak sauce.

If he's not demanding that we take his word for it, then including false or misleading evidence is just as bad as lying to our faces.

Anyhoo, like I said before, I'm not crucifying the guy for this, but you seem to be offering him some pretty generous clemency that he probably doesn't deserve.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2011, 04:54 PM
 
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
Both quotes still convey a dislike of religion(at least it seems that way when I read it in context), but the primary message - religion's impact on society - is reversed by removing the context. Whether it was Dawkins or a secondary source he used, that's a blatantly dishonest quote-mine.
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2011, 01:19 PM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
(01-10-2011 03:11 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

So the moral of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is that no matter how many times someone lies to you or tricks you, you should ignore their reputation and simply look at their evidence? Somehow I don't think that's what Aesop was driving at.

No, I'm quite certain that's not his point... I just think it's a better moral than the one he gave.

Also on this note, I think the moral behind The Tortoise and the Hare is a poor one. Slow and steady does not win the race... steady does. Unlike the scientific method, Aesop changed 2 variables and credited them both (much like when the religious claim medicine and prayer heals people when applied together).

So I hope my explanation didn't hold Aesop up as a moral exemplar or an authority... I was just trying to use an analogy that you'd probably already be familiar with.

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
03-10-2011, 01:20 PM
RE: Richard Dawkins Misquote?
I dislike the misquote, and I dislike Dawkins, but I think his book is important in that it is helping bring certain ideas to light and spread the good word. I really felt let down when I read that book actually. I got it after hearing that it was the new atheist manifesto, you know the end all be all of atheist arguments. Then I read it, and while it was ok, it misses tons of points and doesn't really make a very compelling argument until it reaches the philosophy stage near the end, and that's where he just sort of ditches everything and ends the book.
Not good for someone that knows their shit, but great for someone who is on the other side of the fence peering over.

But yeah, the misquote should be addressed hopefully in all future iterations of said book, as it doesn't help the guys credibility and since he is standing at the forefront of something that I wish to succeed, it needs correction.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: