Richard dawkins (1 Viewer)

[mikhail]

Richard dawkins someone whos books ive read extensively has released his new book the god delusion which i havent bought a copy of yet but will do soon.

Richard dawkins often comes under attack however no matter what you believe he speaks the truth and there is no evidence to prove personnel god in the world of logic.Espacally the holy texts within religion.

He also believes that religion can be harmful and some religious people are dangerous however all relgions teach blind faith as a virtue everyone may contribute to extremism.

I would like to know if any religous people christians or whatever have read into dawkins books or actually listened to what he has to say it seems when most people talk to dawkins on tv programmes they virtually stick their fingers in their ears and go laallalalalalalalaalla.Or get very angry at him.

 

[mikhail]

Thought i add a few vids

YouTube - Ted Haggard in "Root of All Evil?"

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on BBC News

 

[Thelost1]

fighting religion is pointless and stupid. It is one of the oldest institutions imaginable and exists pretty much everywhere. The probblem comes when religious people get the idea in their heads that their belief supercedes human rights/scientific evidence/whatever.

 

[RightinNYC]

Dawkins is a bit of a nut.

Aside from his claim that religion is the root of all evil, he also advocates for giving all great apes the same legal rights as humans, which is patently absurd.

 

[Voidwar]

Weak ad hominem. disappointed to see it from u R@NYU

Should quote what you want to refute, not strawman it.

I've read The Selfish Gene and the man is brilliant, not a nut.

I believe you have tried to label him a nut instead of doing the hard work that would be actually quoting his statements and refuting them, sad to say, its probably just because you disagree with his opinion of religion.

 

[RightinNYC]

Weak ad hominem. disappointed to see it from u R@NYU

Should quote what you want to refute, not strawman it.

I've read The Selfish Gene and the man is brilliant, not a nut.

I believe you have tried to label him a nut instead of doing the hard work that would be actually quoting his statements and refuting them, sad to say, its probably just because you disagree with his opinion of religion.

How was that an ad hominem? I simply pointed out that he's a bit of a nut (many in the athiest community agree with me).

Fine, if you want direct quotes that I take issue with, here you go:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.

Here Dawkins is absurdly reductionist. He equates any and all religion with the devastation wrought by the 9/11 hijackers.

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?

Here he is completely dismissive of an entire field of scholarly work.

The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me.

Here he advocates for eugenics.

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:

1. The Right to Life
2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
3. The Prohibition of Torture

Here he argues for extending legal protections to apes.

 

[Voidwar]

Dawkins is a bit of a nut.

Aside from his claim that religion is the root of all evil, he also advocates for giving all great apes the same legal rights as humans, which is patently absurd.

So you did strawman him.

1. The Right to Life
2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
3. The Prohibition of Torture

Once you quote him, "same legal rights as humans" seems like a deliberate exaggeration on your part, in order to then discredit both argument and arguer. That is pretty obviously a strawman.

How was that an ad hominem? I simply pointed out that he's a bit of a nut

Did you watch the video in the link ? The man is calm, intelligent, rational, and highly lucid. You call him a name. Nut. This is ad hominem.

Fine, if you want direct quotes that I take issue with, here you go:

Here Dawkins is absurdly reductionist. He equates any and all religion with the devastation wrought by the 9/11 hijackers.

Incorrect. Entirely. What he does is challenge the assumption that all religion is harmless. He puts forth that the September 11th attacks brought the danger that religions CAN do into the political spotlight, implying that the assumption of "all harmless" must be re-examined.

Here he is completely dismissive of an entire field of scholarly work.

No more so than you are of his point. He asked a question, and your silence on it is one kind of answer.

Here he advocates for eugenics.

No, he does not.
He examines an issue which a geneticist and brilliant polymath is very attuned to and fluent on.

"The future genetic changes in humans will be influenced, by many things, some chance, some sentient. Once parents can upgrade their childrens genes, will anything be able to stop it ? Will those children breed with "normals" ?"

Did I just examine the same question ?

Or will you now accuse me of "advocating eugenics" too ? Weak, very.

Here he argues for extending legal protections to apes.

I may not agree with it, but it does seem rational, ie, based on reason, ie, NOT NUTTY.

 

[RightinNYC]

So you did strawman him.

Once you quote him, "same legal rights as humans" seems like a deliberate exaggeration on your part, in order to then discredit both argument and arguer. That is pretty obviously a strawman.

I was incomplete in my explanation of his position on apes because I didn't feel that getting into the miniatue was necessary for a 2 line post.

Regardless, I maintain my original argument that his position on the legal rights of apes is patently absurd. If you want to dispute that point, feel free.

Did you watch the video in the link ? The man is calm intelligent , rational and highly lucid. You call him a name. Nut. This is ad hominem.

Being intelligent does not preclude one from being a nut. And while you may believe he's rational, I disagree. His opposition to religion goes beyond that of a traditional atheist and enters the realm of zealotry.

Incorrect. Entirely. What he does is challenge the assumption that all religion is harmless. He puts forth that the Aeptember 11th attacks brought the danger that religions CAN do into the political spotlight, implying that the assumption of all harmless must be re-examined.

Not true. You're ameliorating his claims, trying to say that all he believes is that SOME religion might be bad and that we shouldn't assume that it's all harmless. If that was it, it wouldn't be of note.

He goes far beyond that uncontroversial claim, attacking religion as a whole with a level of disdain that even irritates those who agree with his general premise.

“Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is – assumptions that he and I of course share.” - Stephen Rose

It's not only what he says, but the way he says it - such as his propensity to refer to religious believers as "faith-heads."

No more so than you are of his point. He asked a question, and your silence on it is one kind of answer.

Being dismissive of a poorly thought out argument =/= being dismissive of an entire academic field. One requires disagreement with a single statement, while the other requires disagreement with every single person who has ever participated in and every single university that has ever offered classes in an entire discipline.

And are you actually asking me what theology has ever done?

No, he does not.
He examines an issue which a geneticist and brilliant polymath is very attuned to and fluent on.

"The future genetic changes in humans will be influenced, by many things, some chance, some sentient. Once parents can upgrade their childrens genes, will anything be able to stop it ? Will those children breed with "normals" ?"

Did I just examine the same question ?

Or will you now accuse me of "advocating eugenics" too ? Weak, very.

This quote of his is the most damning for a different reason than you assume. Putting aside his morally ambiguous attitude towards genetic manipulation, here he argues that society should at least be open to discussing the possibility of using eugenics to shape humanity.

However, by offering his support for the Great Apes Project, he advocates the banning of any scientific experiements that would do the same thing for apes.

Does he actually believe that apes should be protected from the possibility of controlled genetic breeding while we should be open to discussing it in humans? Or is it more likely that he's just an attention seeker out to make another set of headlines?

I may not agree with it, but it does seem rational, ie, based on reason, ie, NOT NUTTY.

How is it rational? I find it irrational, i.e. contrary to reason, i.e. nutty.

 

[Voidwar]

I was incomplete in my explanation of his position on apes because I didn't feel that getting into the miniatue was necessary for a 2 line post.

Regardless, I maintain my original argument that his position on the legal rights of apes is patently absurd. If you want to dispute that point, feel free.

You tried to use it as evidence supporting your labelling him a "nut".

I think its wrong to beat a dog, am I a nut ?

He takes the same sentiment farther than I do, but it is only a matter of degree, and not some wildly irrational leap.

He is not a nut, he has a different opinion than you or I do.

Being intelligent does not preclude one from being a nut. And while you may believe he's rational, I disagree. His opposition to religion goes beyond that of a traditional atheist and enters the realm of zealotry.

You mean kind of like "Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me" ? ? ?

All beliefs in this arena, religious or not, are mutually exclusive of each other, and thus can fall prey to "zealotry" or being labelled thus.

Not true. You're ameliorating his claims

No more than you overstate them.

He goes far beyond that uncontroversial claim, attacking religion as a whole with a level of disdain that even irritates those who agree with his general premise.

Why mince words with people who believe in magic ?

And are you actually asking me what theology has ever done?

Read more carefully. Dawkins asked this question.

This quote of his is the most damning for a different reason than you assume. Putting aside his morally ambiguous attitude towards genetic manipulation, here he argues that society should at least be open to discussing the possibility of using eugenics to shape humanity.

The rich will genetically upgrade their children, as soon as technology permits, whether you legislate about it or not. Once a doctor can offer it to the super rich, they will get it, whether your local municipality has an ordinance against it or not. Pass all the laws you want, once a doctor on a boat or in Singapore can make the children of the rich immune to cancer, it will happen. A smart man can see this coming and discuss it. Humanity will be shaped. Do you find something "sacred" about letting it happen willy nilly ? Must I share your view and silence myself even if I don't share your view of "sacred" ? ? ?


As I already stated, I think its wrong to beat a dog. He takes the same thinking farther than I do, w.r.t. primates, and backs his case with rational examples, and I still don't agree with him, but this does not bring his sanity into question.

 

[RightinNYC]

You tried to use it as evidence supporting your labelling him a "nut".

I think its wrong to beat a dog, am I a nut ?

No. However if you argued that keeping dogs as pets was a violation of their right to personal liberty, then yes, you would be a nut.

He takes the same sentiment farther than I do, but it is only a matter of degree, and not some wildly irrational leap.

And if I took that one step further and said that all animals should be treated as humans, the killing of any living creature should be outlawed, and that plants should also have legal status, then that's just a matter of degree, isn't it?

Does that make it any less idiotic?

He is not a nut, he has a different opinion than you or I do.

A nutty opinion.

You mean kind of like "Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me" ? ? ?

All beliefs in this arena, religious or not, are mutually exclusive of each other, and thus can fall prey to "zealotry" or being labelled thus.

That's my point. He is that which he condemns.

Why mince words with people who believe in magic ?

So if you support his decision not to "mince words" with those he disagrees with, how can you disagree with my decision not to mince words with him?

Read more carefully. Dawkins asked this question.

Yes. I saw that he asked it. What I'm asking is if you actually want me to cite examples of why that's a incredibly stupid question.

The rich will genetically upgrade their children, as soon as technology permits, whether you legislate about it or not. Once a doctor can offer it to the super rich, they will get it, whether your local municipality has an ordinance against it or not. Pass all the laws you want, once a doctor on a boat or in Singapore can make the children of the rich immune to cancer, it will happen. A smart man can see this coming and discuss it. Humanity will be shaped. Do you find something "sacred" about letting it happen willy nilly ? Must I share your view and silence myself even if I don't share your view of "sacred" ? ? ?

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm pointing out a significant logical flaw in his argument. He believes we should discuss the possibility with regards to humans. At the same time, he believes we should outlaw the possibility with regards to apes. That is logically unsupportable.

As I already stated, I think its wrong to beat a dog. He takes the same thinking farther than I do, w.r.t. primates, and backs his case with rational examples, and I still don't agree with him, but this does not bring his sanity into question.

And as I pointed out above, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Voidwar]

That's my point.
He is that which he condemns.

Actually it was not your point.
It was mine.
You condemned him for zealotry.
I quoted a commandment to point out the "zealotry" of religion.

I did this to show that your disagreement with Dawkins was not about "zealotry", as that is not a standard you are willing to judge religion by. Do you condemn Moses's commandments for being exclusionary ? Apparently, being a zealot is ok, it is disagreeing with you that makes a sin.

So if you support his decision not to "mince words" with those he disagrees with, how can you disagree with my decision not to mince words with him?

If you want to namecall, be honest about it. Call him a heretic. Call him a blasphemer. Call him the name that fits the reason you don't like him. But your attempt to call him a nut, is dishonest. You attempt to discredit his opinion via an ad hominem attack on his sanity. Watch the video, the man is obviously sane and lucid. The only credibility you damage with your obviously innaccurate labelling, is your own.

 

[RightinNYC]

Actually it was not your point.
It was mine.
You condemned him for zealotry.
I quoted a commandment to point out the "zealotry" of religion.

I did this to show that your disagreement with Dawkins was not about "zealotry", as that is not a standard you are willing to judge religion by. Do you condemn Moses's commandments for being exclusionary ? Apparently, being a zealot is ok, it is disagreeing with you that makes a sin.

Uh, no. Where did I call anything a sin? I neither know nor give a **** if Dawkins is a "sinner." I don't like the fact that he's a hypocrite, and I don't like the fact that he's a reductionist thinker when it comes to things he doesn't agree with. That's my beef with him, and you have repeatedly failed to counter either of these points.

If you want to namecall, be honest about it. Call him a heretic. Call him a blasphemer. Call him the name that fits the reason you don't like him. But your attempt to call him a nut, is dishonest. You attempt to discredit his opinion via an ad hominem attack on his sanity. Watch the video, the man is obviously sane and lucid. The only credibility you damage with your obviously innaccurate labelling, is your own.

I notice that in returning to your earlier theme of attack, you completely neglect the multiple parts in the above post where I pointed out that his views on animal legal rights make him plain and simple, a nut. Just because he makes what you claim is a "rational leap" does not preclude him from being nutty.

 

[Synch]

Here he advocates for eugenics.

And? Just because a violent dictator aspired an idea does not make that idea instantly an intrinsic bad.

Here he is completely dismissive of an entire field of scholarly work.

He explicates in great detail why he does so doesn't he?

Aside from his claim that religion is the root of all evil

You speak as if this claim was ludicrous.

Dawkins is a bit of a nut.

Dawkins is hopelessly insolent to the religious community and radical to almost a deranged level, but calling him a nut would be blatantly irresponsible, have you read some of his works?

 

[RightinNYC]

And? Just because a violent dictator aspired an idea does not make that idea instantly an intrinsic bad.

That's not the main reason why it's bad, though that's a topic for another discussion. It's bad because it an example of his hypocrisy as I pointed out above.

He explicates in great detail why he does so doesn't he?

None of which makes it any less foolish. It's simply ignorant to make sweeping generalizations about an entire academic discipline, and no amount of pigheaded justification on his part will make it less so.

You speak as if this claim was ludicrous.

You don't think it's ludicrous to claim that religion is the root of all evil?:doh :roll:

Dawkins is hopelessly insolent to the religious community and radical to almost a deranged level, but calling him a nut would be blatantly irresponsible, have you read some of his works?

I've read the selfish gene and slogged through some of his articles. Again, as pointed out above, his stance on animal rights is enough to classify him as a nut in my book.

 

[Synch]

I've read the selfish gene and slogged through some of his articles. Again, as pointed out above, his stance on animal rights is enough to classify him as a nut in my book.

Such sweeping condemnation just because he wrote a couple of articles supporting the GAP? I have not read them but perhaps they could be satirical?

That's not the main reason why it's bad, though that's a topic for another discussion. It's bad because it an example of his hypocrisy as I pointed out above.

Maybe it's because of fatigue, but I fail to see the hypocrisy, from what I know of the GAP it advocates for equal rights for greater apes correct? Now if some sort of Eugenics is allowed to be implemented among humans, why not Apes if we follow the principle of equality?

None of which makes it any less foolish. It's simply ignorant to make sweeping generalizations about an entire academic discipline, and no amount of pigheaded justification on his part will make it less so.

Forgive the pun, but who has given the field of Theology the right of a Godly status equivalent to the other fields of science, particularly those that he specializes in? I'm sure you can at least see from his perspective how he is able to denounce Theology.

You don't think it's ludicrous to claim that religion is the root of all evil?:doh :roll:

I pick up a newspaper and I read about the suicide bombings in Iraq, pertinent to Sectarian feuds. I pick up The Economist and I read about the religious differences that has kept a country from joining conglomerate that would be mutually beneficiary. I open a history book and I read about the atrocities done in the name of God that are incomparable to crimes perpetrated from worldly desires. Surely you can understand?

 

[RightinNYC]

Such sweeping condemnation just because he wrote a couple of articles supporting the GAP? I have not read them but perhaps they could be satirical?

It's not a satire - it's dead serious. He's one of the main proponents of the group.

Maybe it's because of fatigue, but I fail to see the hypocrisy, from what I know of the GAP it advocates for equal rights for greater apes correct? Now if some sort of Eugenics is allowed to be implemented among humans, why not Apes if we follow the principle of equality?

GAP argues that apes should be given several of the same legal rights as humans, including the right not to be experimented on, such as through eugenics, which he calls immoral.

Then, he turns around and says that we as humans should be open to the possibility of eugenics with humans.

Well, which is it? Is eugenics something that should be possible, or is it immoral?

Forgive the pun, but who has given the field of Theology the right of a Godly status equivalent to the other fields of science, particularly those that he specializes in? I'm sure you can at least see from his perspective how he is able to denounce Theology.

I don't claim that theology has any sort of special status. I simply claim that its foolish to say that you can write off an ENTIRE field simply because you don't like something about it.

I don't like Dawkins, but it doesn't mean I'm going to say that all biology is a pile of ****.

I pick up a newspaper and I read about the suicide bombings in Iraq, pertinent to Sectarian feuds. I pick up The Economist and I read about the religious differences that has kept a country from joining conglomerate that would be mutually beneficiary. I open a history book and I read about the atrocities done in the name of God that are incomparable to crimes perpetrated from worldly desires. Surely you can understand?

But then surely you understand that in most cases, religion is not the cause for these incidents, but rather the vehicle being used by immoral leaders to perpetuate their agendas. And you must agree that if it were not for religion, they would find some other way to do it, through convincing their followers to believe in an ideology. Communist China and Russia are perfect examples of this - the leaders got rid of religion, but replaced it with ideology. They then proceeded to commit more murders than any religious regime in history.

The fact of the matter is, blaming religion for all our societal ills is shortsighted and neglects the fact that these incidents would occur anyways. Dawkins either knows that, and is a hypocrite, or doesn't, and is, well.....a nut.

 

[Synch]

Your initial and subsequent response painted him as a lunatic, which he obvious is not if you had seen his works. he may seem a little irrational to impulsive in many of his statements, but I believe they're just exaggerations of what he believes in. If you only read his most outlandish quotes they one can perceive him as as bit of a nut, but I don't believe those statements are serious. The only nuttiness in him is his support for the GAP.

GAP argues that apes should be given several of the same legal rights as humans, including the right not to be experimented on, such as through eugenics, which he calls immoral.

Then, he turns around and says that we as humans should be open to the possibility of eugenics with humans.

Well, which is it? Is eugenics something that should be possible, or is it immoral?

If he supports Eugenics on humans then the only logical conclusion we can draw is that he must also support possible Eugenics on Apes, because the GAP plainly calls for equal rights, currently Eugenics is not allowed on human beings, so the GAP nuts want equal rights, if humans were allowed to be experimented with, then naturally Apes should follow suit.

In addition, I don't consider Eugenics as an experiment. An experiment consists of trying to obtain knowledge through testing. Eugenics is more of a social movement to improve the gene pool of the human race, so by definition it's not an experiment analogous in nature to injecting different chemicals into gorillas and such in the pursuit if potential cures for humans.

I know Dawkins is overly vociferous in his vicious attacks on religion, but he's not your average teenage Atheist who resulted from the counter-culture. Many of his claims are outlandish, but I believe it's only in his effort to counterbalance against religion in the media.

Most people don't have a long enough attention span, intelligence, or time to ponder and investigate the nature of things such as evolution. They may only have a brief chance to hear a quote or watch a clip from the television set. Richards is a respected ethologist and perhaps his crude attacks on religion may have an impact towards achieving his goal of relieving man from what he believes to be most insidious.

You cannot take a man who's in the spotlight of the media seriously for every word he says, nor can one be brusquely disregard a person based on a few quotes without context.

I don't like Dawkins, but it doesn't mean I'm going to say that all biology is a pile of ****.

If you have valid reasonings and evidence behind that statement I'm willing to listen.

 

[Voidwar]

I don't like the fact that he's a hypocrite, and I don't like the fact that he's a reductionist thinker when it comes to things he doesn't agree with. That's my beef with him,

If that's your beef, why did you post this earlier . . .

He goes far beyond that uncontroversial claim, attacking religion as a whole with a level of disdain that even irritates those who agree with his general premise.

I think that is still a large part of your beef with him, but my quote from Moses pretty much smashes that angle so you've dropped it and hung your hat on a nonexistant hypocricy and your unfounded, unbacked claim that he is a reductionist thinker.

I don't like the fact that he's a hypocrite, and I don't like the fact that he's a reductionist thinker when it comes to things he doesn't agree with.

Those aren't facts, they are your opinions.

You claim he is a "reductionist thinker", from that one paragraph ?

( pot calling kettle, come in kettle )

You claim he is a hypocrite, and this is quite simply not true.

He is an incredibly well educated man who has written and spoken on many topics, including bioethics. Discussing what will happen as man's ability to manipulate life grows ever more powerful, and at the same time being a proponent of animal rights, does not make one a hypocrit.

If he says that life, even Human life, will come under the guidance and design of man, this does not contradict mankind treating the great apes with a greater level of respect.

I notice that in returning to your earlier theme of attack,

Lets wake up and review the thread. I had no earlier "theme of attack".

You attacked. Richard Dawkins. Ad Hominem & Strawman.

I then defended him from your inaccurate namecalling.

But that didn't stop you from trying to repeat the inaccurate namecalling, as we can see below . . .

you completely neglect the multiple parts in the above post where I pointed out that his views on animal legal rights make him plain and simple, a nut.

I neglected nothing. The man comes to his conclusions by rational means, in a forthright and logical manner. Watch that video, read some of his books. I may not agree with his positions, but neither they nor he are crazy.

Just because he makes what you claim is a "rational leap" does not preclude him from being nutty.

Again with the ad hominem. Weak, very. At least have the guts to use the accurate names I supplied you with.

 

[RightinNYC]

Your initial and subsequent response painted him as a lunatic, which he obvious is not if you had seen his works. he may seem a little irrational to impulsive in many of his statements, but I believe they're just exaggerations of what he believes in. If you only read his most outlandish quotes they one can perceive him as as bit of a nut, but I don't believe those statements are serious. The only nuttiness in him is his support for the GAP.

For me, that's quite enough nuttiness. And whether or not he really believes all of what he says, it doesn't excuse the fact that a bunch of it is just plain off the wall.

If he supports Eugenics on humans then the only logical conclusion we can draw is that he must also support possible Eugenics on Apes, because the GAP plainly calls for equal rights, currently Eugenics is not allowed on human beings, so the GAP nuts want equal rights, if humans were allowed to be experimented with, then naturally Apes should follow suit.

But you can't call something immoral for one group and then defend it in regards to another. By doing so, you're either saying that you don't mind things that you claim are immoral, or you're defining one group over the other.

I know Dawkins is overly vociferous in his vicious attacks on religion, but he's not your average teenage Atheist who resulted from the counter-culture. Many of his claims are outlandish, but I believe it's only in his effort to counterbalance against religion in the media.

Most people don't have a long enough attention span, intelligence, or time to ponder and investigate the nature of things such as evolution. They may only have a brief chance to hear a quote or watch a clip from the television set. Richards is a respected ethologist and perhaps his crude attacks on religion may have an impact towards achieving his goal of relieving man from what he believes to be most insidious.

But this is another thing I have a huge problem with. How do you fight the dumbing down of society with soundbytes? Hint: It's not with more soundbytes. By making such ridiculous and inflammatory statements, he's immediately turned off 3/4 of his audience who will instantly think he's an idiot (unfairly or not). Science is supposed to be about making your argument based on reason and rational thought, without unnecessarily excluding those things that you don't agree with.

You cannot take a man who's in the spotlight of the media seriously for every word he says, nor can one be brusquely disregard a person based on a few quotes without context.

If it was a misquote re: the apes, that would be one thing. But he's written articles, signed petitions, and pushed legislation for the cause.

If you have valid reasonings and evidence behind that statement I'm willing to listen.

What I'm saying here is that simply because I don't think Dawkins bases his conclusions on sound logic, I don't automaticall decry his entire field as useless. He doesn't believe in religion. Does that mean that the entire field of theology has never produced anything of use? He thinks so. I would disagree, because it's an absurd statement.

 

[RightinNYC]

If that's your beef, why did you post this earlier . . .

Because that's a clearcut example of him being a reductionist thinker.

I think that is still a large part of your beef with him, but my quote from Moses pretty much smashes that angle so you've dropped it and hung your hat on a nonexistant hypocricy and your unfounded, unbacked claim that he is a reductionist thinker.

Huh? The claims are part and parcel of the same thing. His broad sweeping generalizations about religion are absurd. It's impossible to draw such far-reaching conclusions about ANYTHING without being a reductionist.

Those aren't facts, they are your opinions.

Okay.

You claim he is a "reductionist thinker", from that one paragraph ?

No, from the fact that he makes idiotic, overly broad statements like "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?"

That's just dumb. You don't have to believe in god to recognize that there are things to be gained from studying every area of academic inquiry.

You claim he is a hypocrite, and this is quite simply not true.

He is an incredibly well educated man who has written and spoken on many topics, including bioethics. Discussing what will happen as man's ability to manipulate life grows ever more powerful, and at the same time being a proponent of animal rights, does not make one a hypocrit.

If you want to rebut my argument, put down your appeal to authority, step aside from your slavishly supportive reiteration of his C.V., and actually defend what he wrote.

If he says that life, even Human life, will come under the guidance and design of man, this does not contradict mankind treating the great apes with a greater level of respect.

Saying that humans should be subject to the same procedures he advocates banning for apes is not logically sound. Period.

I neglected nothing. The man comes to his conclusions by rational means, in a forthright and logical manner. Watch that video, read some of his books. I may not agree with his positions, but neither they nor he are crazy.

Again with this ridiculous "well look at him he doesnt sound crazy" defense. It doesn't matter how forthright or logical he presents himself if the ideas underpinning his speech are NUTS. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I'll point out that Hitler is incredibly rational, calm, and logical in Mein Kampf. He is forthright in laying out his plans, and was a charismatic speaker, winning many supporters.

Did any of that change the fact that his ideas were a load of crap? No.

Again with the ad hominem. Weak, very. At least have the guts to use the accurate names I supplied you with.

I like my name better.:mrgreen:

 

[Voidwar]

Because that's a clearcut example of him being a reductionist thinker.

You judging him on one paragraph is reductionist.

That's just dumb. You don't have to believe in god to recognize that there are things to be gained from studying every area of academic inquiry.

Really ? What good ever came of phrenology ?

If you want to rebut my argument, put down your appeal to authority,

That is your tactic, not mine.

You have set yourself up as the "authority" on nuts.

step aside from your slavishly supportive reiteration of his C.V.,

Snidely ad hominem, but just comes off as inadequacy and spite. His C.V. is very impressive, and he thinks religion is harmful bollocks and defends his opinion well, and that is why you hate him. Not even so much for what he says as for the fact that he is an obviously brilliant man saying it.

Saying that humans should be subject to the same procedures he advocates banning for apes is not logically sound. Period.

How bout you quote him saying that then strawman maker ? No cobbling together different quotes out of context, lets see his words, from the same document , that add up to the strawman you present.

 

[MrFungus420]

How was that an ad hominem? I simply pointed out that he's a bit of a nut (many in the athiest community agree with me).

Calling of names is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Fine, if you want direct quotes that I take issue with, here you go:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.

Here Dawkins is absurdly reductionist. He equates any and all religion with the devastation wrought by the 9/11 hijackers.

No, he is pointing out that September 11th made many realize that religion and religious beliefs aren't necessarily harmless.

The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me.

Here he advocates for eugenics.

No, he isn't. If you read the last sentence of your quote, you will see that he says that he could think up some good answers "which would probably end up persuading me".

That right there says that he is not advocating it at all. He is saying that he is now against eugenics.

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:

1. The Right to Life
2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
3. The Prohibition of Torture

Here he argues for extending legal protections to apes.

So? Also, that is a far cry from your initial claim that he "advocates for giving all great apes the same legal rights as humans".

 

[mikhail]

I would like to add dawkins never said religion is the root of all evil that was merely a title for one of his programmes made up by tv execs.

I think dawkins makes many good arguments everytime people tend critisise him rather than refute his claims.

also he gets accused by some people of being unscientific when he is making a social statement like "religion can cause good people to do terrible things".
I dont see how people need scientific evidence to back something like that out when its obvous.

Im mean you think them guys who flew into the towers where pure evil or just brainwashed by religion.

Also I believe reading richard dawkins books would have a fairly good chance of changing a fringe believer in god into an atheist I dont understand how someone can believe the bible as the word of god or deny evolution.I often believe people who argue against evolution havent really read about it in much detail or havent got there head around it.I know how difficult it is reading something that supports something you strongly disagree with.


And besides anything reading the bible is very convincing that god doesent exist i mean he is quite a nasty peice of work in the old testiment.

and by the way if your a christian you cant pick and choose what you believe and what not to believe i mean ether noahs arc is true or its all the storys are just philiosophical.

Lastly i think its very important to question religion when American schools are being encouraged to teach intelligent design in science class.When people dont have the freedom to critisize islam because of fear of being killed for just writing a book or just drawing a cartoon.

this video shows how easy someone can become a believer in something.

YouTube - Derren Brown "instant conversion" part 1

YouTube - Derren Brown "instant conversion" part 2

The brilliant derren brown

 

[RightinNYC]

You judging him on one paragraph is reductionist.

Uh, how so? If I walked into a room and shouted "Kill all the blacks!," one could fairly assume I was a racist/moron without being a reductionist thinker, despite only having one sentence to go on.

Really ? What good ever came of phrenology ?

From the wiki definition of phrenology:

Developed by German physician Franz Joseph Gall around 1800, and very popular in the 19th century, it is now discredited as a pseudoscience. Phrenology has however received credit as a protoscience for having contributed to medical science the ideas that the brain is the organ of the mind and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions.

This is my point. If something even as ridiculous and discredited as phrenology has resulted in some sort of contribution to the world of science, how can one make the argument with a straight face that theology has never said anything "that is of the smallest use to anybody?"

Its simply pandering to a lowbrow crowd who loves soundbytes, and its a shame when someone who purports to be a scientist of the highest caliber is reduced to such.

That is your tactic, not mine.

You have set yourself up as the "authority" on nuts.

:lol: takes one, eh?

Snidely ad hominem, but just comes off as inadequacy and spite. His C.V. is very impressive,

Indeed it is. Where did I dispute this?

and he thinks religion is harmful bollocks

bully for him.

and defends his opinion well

,

eh.

and that is why you hate him.

I don't hate him at all. I think he does a disservice to his argument with the way he presents himself, and he tends to be rather hypocritical in situations where convenience beckons.

Not even so much for what he says as for the fact that he is an obviously brilliant man saying it.

Yes, you're right, it's clearly the fact that I'm envious of him. That's the only possible explanation.

How bout you quote him saying that then strawman maker ? No cobbling together different quotes out of context, lets see his words, from the same document , that add up to the strawman you present.

I have showed you where he supported each statement over and over again. Why does whether he said it all in one specific published statement matter at all? If I say I like pie in one book and then come out with a speeh later saying I like ice cream, would it be safe to say that I like pie ala mode? Or would you refuse to believe that until I said it all at once?

 

[RightinNYC]

Calling of names is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem:

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

If I just said he was a nut and left it at that, that would be an ad hominem. By saying he's a nut and making several arguments to support that thesis, it's by definition, not an ad hominem.

No, he is pointing out that September 11th made many realize that religion and religious beliefs aren't necessarily harmless.

You're a few posts behind, this was discussed in several posts already where I pointed out that aside from his actual rhetoric, it's the venom with which he serves it that is depressing, because it does nothing but put off the vast majority of his audience who might otherwise be convinced to listen. I cited a quote from another prominent secularist who stated exactly that.

Furthermore, I explained how it's amusing how he tears into all religious believers as being such zealots when he hews to his own beliefs so closely as to fall into that category as well.

No, he isn't. If you read the last sentence of your quote, you will see that he says that he could think up some good answers "which would probably end up persuading me".

That right there says that he is not advocating it at all. He is saying that he is now against eugenics.

Again, this has been explained in the posts since that one. He's arguing that the discussion on eugenics should remain open, which is incongruous with his other positions.

Furthermore, you don't write an op-ed to say "The traditional school of thought? It's right, and I agree with it." It was clearly done to spark debate and discussion of the topic, which I have absolutely no opposition to. I think that discussion of possibly implementing any reform is worthy debate. But I have a problem with opening it on one avenue and closing it on another.

So? Also, that is a far cry from your initial claim that he "advocates for giving all great apes the same legal rights as humans".

Again, read the posts in between that one and now. I explained that that was a simplistic phrase in a 2 line post that I didn't imagine would turn into such a huge issue or warrant explanation.