Richard Dawkins

Zombrex · 23-03-2010 2:16pm

Zulu wrote: »

I got your point; I think you missed mine, or else you've deliberately avoided it.

Your point was you never read a Simpsons book ....

How is that a point again? Are you saying that you enjoy the Simpsons but wouldn't in book form?

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 2:18pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It would be far better if you simply didn't bother. If, after 5 years of butting your head against the wall, you can't see any light, I suggest that it is time to move on.

It's really a catch -22 situation. If you leave a certain group positing false information go unchallenged, then you risk letting that group grow to potentially harmful to society levels. If you however you engage and try to correct the person on their mistakes you are providing the image of the controversy/debate that they so desperately want to crave and publicise. Where really there is none.

monosharp · 23-03-2010 2:20pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Good for you. But I notice that you just posted there :pac:

Its addictive :P I ... I .. can't stop!

Then we have a very different outlook on debate. While you think it is fine to point and laugh at this arbitrary 1% of people. I don't. Attack the post, not the poster and all that.

I agree. But when you have argued the point, when you have shown someones position not only to be wrong but insane, what do you do then ?

If someone kept arguing with you that the Earth was flat and continued to boadcast this what would you say to them ?

We have words to describe this people for a reason. Just because they tend to be overused these days does not mean they have no use.

Are you asking or telling? Whatever about your scenario, I certainly don't believe that someone should be brought to national television to be laughed at.

I'm not talking about bringing them there, I'm asking you about the ridiculousness of the situation.

prinz · 23-03-2010 2:21pm

monosharp wrote: »

May I point out yet again that Dawkins said "religion teaches that ..". He didn't say '(all) religious people believe that ...'. You understand the difference don't you ?

Yes I do. Yet I am still to come across anything in Christianity which tells me I must be satisfied with not understanding something.

monosharp wrote: »

Really ? Where in the atheist bible does it say that ? I mustn't be a very good atheist.

Illustrative purposes, to show the nonsense in making a claim and backing it up with a term such as "significant numbers".

monosharp · 23-03-2010 2:32pm

prinz wrote: »

Yes I do. Yet I am still to come across anything in Christianity which tells me I must be satisfied with not understanding something.

Well it all depends on how you take the bible doesn't it ?

Creationists for example think theres lots they can be satisfied with not understanding.

Before the theory of evolution most christians were satisfied they knew where species came from.

Fanny Cradock · 23-03-2010 2:32pm

Malty_T wrote: »

It's really a catch -22 situation. If you leave a certain group positing false information go unchallenged, then you risk letting that group grow to potentially harmful to society levels. If you however you engage and try to correct the person on their mistakes you are providing the image of the controversy/debate that they so desperately want to crave and publicise. Where really there is none.

Yes, I can understand this, and I can also understand Dawkins' refusal to debate creationists. If you aren't getting through to someone after multiple attempts perhaps it is better to move on, deny them the publicity and save you the hassle. Resorting to ridicule (and I hope it's that at least some of the people using the word don't fully understand what it means) can be quite a turn off to those of a more temperate nature - generally those looking on from the sidelines. If the debate was going nowhere before, it just becomes tawdry mess after the insults start coming out. That is why I am critical of Dawkins for some of his language.

Zulu · 23-03-2010 2:33pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Your point was you never read a Simpsons book ....

How is that a point again? Are you saying that you enjoy the Simpsons but wouldn't in book form?

You honestly don't understand it? Seriously??

Do you normally expect satire in, say, documentarys?
Do you normally expect satire in scientific explorations?

...or was your inital intention to suggest that Dawkins "The God Delusion" is in fact a comedy?

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 2:35pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I can understand this, and I can also understand Dawkins' refusal to debate creationists. If you aren't getting through to someone after multiple attempts perhaps it is better to move on, deny them the publicity and save you the hassle. Resorting to ridicule (and I hope it's that at least some of the people using the word don't fully understand what it means) can be quite a turn off to those of a more temperate nature - generally those looking on from the sidelines. If the debate was going nowhere before, it just becomes tawdry mess after the insults start coming out. That is why I am critical of Dawkins for some of his language.

+1.
Can't really disagree with anything here. I'm afraid to say I've started agreeing a Christian. Help Me!!!!!:D

monosharp · 23-03-2010 2:37pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Resorting to ridicule (and I hope it's that at least some of the people using the word don't fully understand what it means) can be quite a turn off to those of a more temperate nature - generally those looking on from the sidelines. If the debate was going nowhere before, it just becomes tawdry mess after the insults start coming out. That is why I am critical of Dawkins for some of his language.

+1 I agree with you here and actually I think I can find a video where the same point was made to him. Although I do think its a case of moderation as opposed to stopping it altogeather.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 2:41pm

monosharp wrote: »

+1 I agree with you here and actually I think I can find a video where the same point was made to him. Although I do think its a case of moderation as opposed to stopping it altogeather.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

I think it was Eugenie Scotto or Carolyn Porco that made this point expertly to a group that really needs to hear it. I'll see if I can find a link. Don't have time now to go looking.

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 2:47pm

And, I've just realised I was hypocrit. In the t'other forum Antiskeptic posted a question. I sorta ridiculed it subconsciously. Apologies.:o

Fanny Cradock · 23-03-2010 2:49pm

monosharp wrote: »

I agree. But when you have argued the point, when you have shown someones position not only to be wrong but insane, what do you do then ?

If someone kept arguing with you that the Earth was flat and continued to boadcast this what would you say to them ?

No matter how many times you provide different examples, I don't think my mind will change on this matter (ironic, eh!). I would also like to think that I wouldn't use a word like "insane". Yes, I believe that one can use forceful language, but at some point - if no real understanding on either side has been gained - I would simply move on and let them continue.

monosharp wrote: »

I'm not talking about bringing them there, I'm asking you about the ridiculousness of the situation.

Well then you are shifting the goalposts.

prinz · 23-03-2010 2:50pm

monosharp wrote: »

Well it all depends on how you take the bible doesn't it?

Yes you could argue that, but that is not 'religion'.

So Dawkins would have been more correct by saying some people's interpretation of religion teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world. On the other hand there are far more people to whom religion teaches that there is always something you don't understand and to try to get your head round it.

monosharp wrote: »

Before the theory of evolution most christians were satisfied they knew where species came from.

People are often satisfied with the current explanation of things, until a better explanation comes along. Religion has nothing to do with that.

Zulu · 23-03-2010 2:52pm

Don't beat yourself up - we're all hypocrits

Fanny Cradock · 23-03-2010 2:53pm

monosharp wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

I've seen that before. Love the anecdote! Maybe we should look into some similar for this forum.

Fanny Cradock · 23-03-2010 2:55pm

Malty_T wrote: »

And, I've just realised I was hypocrit. In the t'other forum Antiskeptic posted a question. I sorta ridiculed it subconsciously. Apologies.:o

I wont lie, Malty. I'm pushing for a site ban.

prinz · 23-03-2010 2:58pm

monosharp wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

When I opened it up I thought it was going to be a Celebrity Deathmatch between Dawkins and Mike Tyson :pac:. Is there a transcript anywhere? Have no speakers here.

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 2:58pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wont lie, Malty. I'm pushing for a site ban.

That may actually be of more benefit to me than you know. If your intention was punish me then you're not going to get that. Unless you too are being hypocritical.:)

monosharp · 23-03-2010 2:59pm

prinz wrote: »

When I opened it up I thought it was going to be a Celebrity Deathmatch between Dawkins and Mike Tyson :pac:. Is there a transcript anywhere? Have no speakers here.

Trust me, its worth waiting for speakers

Whether or not you like him, its hilarious.

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 3:02pm

monosharp wrote: »

Trust me, its worth waiting for speakers Whether or not you like him, its hilarious.

Depends on how sensitive you are though.

Fanny Cradock · 23-03-2010 3:02pm

Malty_T wrote: »

That may actually be of more benefit to me than you know.

Exams?

monosharp · 23-03-2010 3:02pm

prinz wrote: »

Yes you could argue that, but that is not 'religion'.

No ?

Last time I checked Christianity taught certain things as absolute 100% unquestionable facts which Christians must believe. Is this true or not ?

So Dawkins would have been more correct by saying some people's interpretation of religion teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

I suppose we can agree on that.

People are often satisfied with the current explanation of things, until a better explanation comes along. Religion has nothing to do with that.

Which is why Christianity embraced evolution with open arms ? :pac:

prinz · 23-03-2010 3:09pm

monosharp wrote: »

Trust me, its worth waiting for speakers Whether or not you like him, its hilarious.

Looks like it from the reaction of all present. Looking forward to it now.

monosharp wrote: »

No ? Last time I checked Christianity taught certain things as absolute 100% unquestionable facts which Christians must believe. Is this true or not?

I can believe things and still would love to understand them.

Turtwig · 23-03-2010 3:09pm

monosharp wrote: »

Which is why Christianity embraced evolution with open arms ? :pac:

To be fair it did. Shur, some Muslims oppose evolution because it is a Christian Idea. There's a sizeable group of atheists that think that Global Warming is religion. To be honest I'd be more tempted to thump their heads than those crazy creationists.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Exams?

Updating CVs actually.:(

Fanny Cradock · 23-03-2010 3:11pm

Malty_T wrote: »

There's a sizeable group of atheists that think that Global Warming is religion.

Really?

Malty_T wrote: »

Updating CVs actually.

You could ask for a temp site ban if Boards is consuming you time.

PDN · 23-03-2010 3:38pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You could ask for a temp site ban if Boards is consuming you time.

I don't think they do them anymore. You're expected to have some self-control.

Sam Vimes · 23-03-2010 4:05pm

prinz wrote: »

Was going to reply point by point but seeing as how it's all nonsensical I won't bother. A "significant number" of cases.. how significant? How have you come by that phrasing? What is significant? 0.0000001%? A significant number of atheists are totalitarians who idolise Stalin. You seem to have ignored the contradiction that one can be religious and not satisfied with not understanding when according to Dawkins that it exactly what religion teaches us.

What's actually happened there is that you seem to have missed the entire point of my post, ie that it wasn't meant to apply to every single religious person who has ever existed at all times in their lives and in all areas of their lives, so the fact that "one can be religious and not satisfied with not understanding" means very little. Yes one can be religious and not satisfied with not understanding but one can can also be religious and be more than happy to accept the easy answers that "god did it" gives and not try to investigate any further, or even occasionally criticise and fight against people who try to investigate further

Sam Vimes · 23-03-2010 4:06pm

Zulu wrote: »

I think your brain may have failed.

That's not a trait of being christian, or religious - thats a human trait.
Only SOME people will bother to study these things and seek out answers, MOST people don't - regardless of faith (or lack there of).

Regardless, there are people who do seek the answers but they find them in religion, where accepting on faith that god did certain things is considered a virtue.

Sam Vimes · 23-03-2010 4:07pm

PDN wrote: »

You know what? I'm sick of this idiocy.
If you can't discuss things sensibly then please don't bother.

Might I suggest that the honourable gentlemen take his own advice.

PDN · 23-03-2010 4:14pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Might I suggest that the honourable gentlemen take his own advice.

I promise that I will.

I will refrain from going into the A&A forum and saying stuff like "Atheists believe X, Y & Z, therefore they do A, B & C" when such statements would be completely untruthful.

Fair is fair.

Richard Dawkins

Comments