Sorry if this has already been posten but I'm in a rush to go to work


Just for Hits - Richard Dawkins

Well I totally expected that.

NOT.

≧◠◡◠≦✌ sʞɔoɹ oǝpıʌ sıɥ⊥ ≧◠◡◠≦✌

Well, I wasn't expecting that to happen.

Could the 'Dawk' look More uncomfortable...?

Haha!

DJ Dick DAWK the stony atheistic metronome.

(found it funny he prefers to spread memes than genes - is an aversion to sex common among dogmatic atheists? I thought that was the domain of the devout... Or is it just procreation he eschews? Selfish Gene or Selfish Dick?)

JBArk

Pretty neat!


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Not a huge fan there jbarque eh ?

Dawkins knows whats up

I've watched just about every Dawkins lecture / debate available.

This was the first time I've seen it end in a breakthrough.

Well.

That was odd?

created deliberately... by hedgehogs.

Cut to picture of dog.

Arrogance, intolerance, certitude, derision, dogma, hatred, deprecation, condescension, unguarded superiotity, self-appointed emissary of the irrefutable truth - odd, usually my favourite qualities in a pedant.



JBArk the dark lark

Jbark, can you show this in context my good sir, post an example where he is not absolutely correct in the context of what he says. Where he arrogantly just bashes people for the sake of it? I've read his work and watched countless hours of his lectures and discussions and have only ever seen him deliberately discredit those who seek to brainwash others with unsubstantiated pseudo-science or religious fundamentalism.

'self-appointed emissary of the irrefutable truth' ?
He has gone out of his way many times to humble himself and science as not being the absolute truth, but the best EVIDENCE we have, and that is the truth. Being a jackal tearing at the arse of religious fundamentalism is needed in this age.

Intolerance? Isn't his whole idea to overcome such intolerance?
Dogma? Are you sure? Not science ?

Just like I am taking your argument apart with this post, I would not be if you'd said: 'I just don't like old git!' , which is fair enough .

Have you read the God Delusion? Open to pretty much any page. If you haven't, I will quote some later, but have to get on with my day.

Basically his stance is that ALL religion should be eradicated, absolutely, and that ALL spirituality is antithetical to the advancement of humanity. I agree with a lot of what he says, but cannot abide the certainty, and certainly not the hate.

JBArk

PS and the man still doesn't seem to grasp the difference between atheism and agnosticism - astounding in a man of such formidable intelligence.

Yes, and yes he does. Page 50 onto 51:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'

3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

He has some interesting ideas and i agree with a lot of what he says

But IMO its hard to deny that dawkins is a closed minded dogmatic adherent of materialism who has a firewall against any information that goes contrary to his worldview. And yes i've read some of his books and listened to lectures..but i've also read books from those who have pointed out the shakey ground upon which materialistic beliefs are held.

BTW, have you ever seen any of his one-sided shows? Talk to the people who he interviews...they even say that Dawkins has said he doesn't want to talk about any evidence whatsoever, dismisses any of it that goes contary to the view he is espousing, and has even admitted- when questioned why he doesn't want to talk about the evidence and is just engaging in another low-grade debunking exercise- that "its not a low-grade debunking exercise, its a high-grade debunking exercise."

That is precicely the opposite of open-minded

I say all of this not to bash dawkins and his fans, but because i to used to look up to him as a light in an ocean of ignorance like many here seem to. I read some of his books back when i was 13 and essentially a fairly closed minded atheist/materialist ignorant of all of the information to the contrary

Those are his definitions that do not jibe with accepted ones:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable."

Atheist or agnostic: