How many of you like Dawkins

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumbseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. His books read like something written by an angry adolescent, mocking things that they don’t understand - and they appeal to that sort of person.

But like Jerry Springer knows, there is money to be made, and media exposure can be addictive. It’s sad that people think that he really does represent “science”.
 
  1. Rev. Dawkins holds that there is no objective morality; no good and no evil. How then can he rightly describe religion as “the root of all evil”?
That is one of the most obvious contradictions in his views. It’s a dillema for atheistic-evolutionism. Unintelligent natural laws acting on matter do not produce things like “good” and “evil”.
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
SOURCE: – Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85
After stating this, Richard Dawkins condemns various evils done in the name of religion. That’s a contradiction. He should merely view all the events of life as natural, evolutionary processes.

Another major contradiction is where he recommends that we should ‘only believe something if there is scientific evidence that it is true.’

This is self-contradictory because the statement itself cannot be proven scientifically to be true (it cannot be verified by empirical science).
 
If those weren’t misotheistic atheist ideologies you would have a point. Those holding non-atheist religious beliefs were tortured, interred, or exterminated precisely because their religious beliefs were considered a threat to those misotheistic atheist regimes.
I maintain that the victims of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Insert-Dictator-Of-Choice-Here were not killed in the name of *atheism. *Lack of belief in God/gods may have been an aspect of their ideologies, but it wasn’t what defined them. Also, Hitler’s extermination of the Jewish people was based on a racial perception of Jewishness, not the fact that they adhered to the religion of Judaism. (A few interesting facts to note, by the way - Hitler was raised Catholic, had the tacit support of the Vatican, and in addition to murdering Jews, also persecuted and killed homosexuals - something of which I suspect many nominal Christians might approve…)

For that matter, victims of the Inquisition - to use one example of religious persecution - weren’t killed in the name of theism. They were killed because of quibbling over elements of Christian worship. The people in power called it heresy.

I can’t help but notice that part of the religious backlash against atheism is to try to pretend that atheism is a religion. It isn’t. It’s an aspect of some religions, like Buddhism and shudder Scientology, but as I’ve posted on another thread previously, it doesn’t fit the bill for being a religion in its own right. Theism isn’t a religion either. It’s an aspect of many people’s worldview, and it’s an element of many religions. But it doesn’t tick the right boxes to qualify as a religion in and of itself.

The only reason Dawkins and others, such as Christopher Hitchens, are so outspoken - and in the opinion of many, so arrogant, abrupt and dismissive - is because they know the power of the religious mindset they are arguing against. Shock tactics are a way of getting people’s attention, in the hope that maybe later they might stop and think about your arguments.
 
That is one of the most obvious contradictions in his views. It’s a dillema for atheistic-evolutionism. Unintelligent natural laws acting on matter do not produce things like “good” and “evil”.

After stating this, Richard Dawkins condemns various evils done in the name of religion. That’s a contradiction. He should merely view all the events of life as natural, evolutionary processes.

Another major contradiction is where he recommends that we should ‘only believe something if there is scientific evidence that it is true.’

This is self-contradictory because the statement itself cannot be proven scientifically to be true (it cannot be verified by empirical science).
Hi all!

Well, talking about contradictions… You quote Dawkins saying that the UNIVERSE has no capacity for good and evil and then inerpret this as “so he says we don’t,either”? What **** is that? The universe is a purely physical structure! OF COURSE it has no capacity for emotions. Humans (and presumably other life forms as well) do have that, as a result of millions of years of evolution. By the way, Dawkins says so himself.He just does not aknowledge religions’ monopoly on ethics. A point of view, which I share.

Earlier on I came about a post about the atrocities of the Nazis, which honestly let my hair stand up. It seems, we do not all have the same history books, as the author of that post claims. Of course, WW2 and the Nazis killed millions of humans (a good part of which were killed by the allies in bombing all of Dresden and Hamburg and Hannover, never ever seeking military targets, which conveniently seldom is spoken of in the summing up of the morethan 20 millions of victims worldwide). Of course, this lunatic from austria was evil, no question of that. But was he atheistic? Or his planned new belief for the arian race? Let’s take a look on the facts, shall we?

Hitler, as was said earlier, was raised a catholic in Austria. He never ever denied that, nor did he change it throughout his life. The belt buckles of the SS and the Wehrmacht bore clearly religios (in this case even christian) mottos. In more than one speech (public as well in his table speeches) he clearly stated that he saw the planned extinction of the Jews, and homosexuals as the will of god (of which we can presume he thaught as the catholic god, based on his personal background). Furthermore, pope Pius (I tend to forget,which number goes with this specific Pius) and the catholic church in Germany not only turned a blind eye to what Hitler and the Nazis did, no, they even FUNDED this party!

Thinking on the other hand of the atrocities the catholic and protestanic church commited over the last 10 centuries, I am only and honestly relieved that they had not the technology and means of the 20th century at their beck and call (but even lacking that, they managed to “purge” an estimated 10-20 millions heretics, witches, scientists and members of other religions). I will never forget the words of the papal legat before the battle of Beziérs (a town of heretics): “Kill them all - GOD will know, who’s with him!”
 
Having grown up in the company of cranky, sometimes crotchety old professors, I have always felt it is their privilege to be a little short-tempered, eccentric, and nonconformist - in fact, I feel that way about people in general, especially if they have vast amounts of learning and experience to draw from! So naturally, I find Dawkins very likable - he doesn’t have a long fuse, to be sure, but he is well-spoken, interesting, and charming in his own unique style. And yes, I have a great deal of respect for his contributions to science.

I also very much agree with him that theists have no hegemony over moral and ethical matters, and understand his worries about the treatment of nonbelievers by those who consider the ‘correct faith’ as being a criterion for full and equal consideration as human beings. I worry too, and for good reason in my own experience.
 
This may or may not be correct. What Richard Dawkins is, is an Evolutionary Biologist. I would not expect him to be “oriented” towards mathmatics.

But, how well informed are you on Evolution and Biology?

The argument is that natural processes are enough to have brought about life. That would be Abiogenesis, a branch of biochemistry, and not Evolution. You are correct, a cake obviously must have had a cook to bring it into being. Life is not a cake.

No Evolutionary Biologist has ever said that a cake comes about by chance. Not even Dawkins.

Can you go out into the googles–unless you have some of his books to hand–and share with us his logical flaws? I’d be very interested in reading them for myself. A handful of examples would be adequate for a start.
 
In reference to your request for a couple references concerning logic flaws, please see The Blind Watchmaker, pages 159-160, page 161, page 139, and The God Delusion 137-138. I could go on, but these few examples are sufficient.
 
Hi all!

Well, talking about contradictions… You quote Dawkins saying that the UNIVERSE has no capacity for good and evil and then inerpret this as “so he says we don’t,either”? What **** is that? The universe is a purely physical structure! OF COURSE it has no capacity for emotions. Humans (and presumably other life forms as well) do have that, as a result of millions of years of evolution.
According to Dawkins’ philosophy of materialistic-atheism, humans are “purely physical structures” also. They are products of the very same things that make up anything in the universe – namely, unintelligent matter and natural laws.

Again, there is no more “good” or “evil” in humans than there is in a colony of bacteria. There is only the evolutionary process that directs things to their natural end (death). Dawkins assumes that death, tyranny and destruction are “evil”. This cannot be proven scientifically, in the first place (thus a major contradiction) and are merely a part of the natural laws of evolution which causes everything to happen.

Evolution cannot create obligations since material, natural forces eliminate the possiblity of free choice. Natural laws and material properties “choose” what is going to happen. Natural selection works without intelligence to allow some species to survive and others not to. There’s no “right” or “wrong” with that.
 
40.png
BacaRanch:
Thank for the correction with respect to Dawkins’ field of study.

I find it interesting. My brother has his degree in micro biology. While he had to take basic statistics in his curriculum, I would have never guessed that an Evolutionary Biologist does not. Therefore, I assume that his discussion concerning simple probably theory is out of his league. If so, why does he do it to portray his arguments? Could it be that simple logic would discredit his positions? Is this why a former atheist and academic, Anthony Flew, praised the work of Dr. Hahn and Wiker with respect to their book entitled “Answering the New Atheism – Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God?”
 
Said, Tongue, Nepenthe:

It is very sad to see you fall for this stuff. Seriously - you need to think a little harder.

First, Hitler was NOT a “Catholic”. Call him an “apostate Catholic” or a “fallen-away Catholic” if you must - but in no way did Hitler follow Catholic/Christian teachings. In fact, he persecuted the Church ruthlessly, and even drew up plans to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope.

Hitler was, however, a model “Evolutionist” (as Dawkins describes himself, by the way):

“It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society.” - Robert Hickman, “Biocreation”

“The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”. - Sir Arthur Keith, evolutionary anthropologist.
  • I’ll spare you countless other quotes that I could post (many from Hitler himself).
Stop getting your information from YouTube videos!
 
Oh, and this “in the name of” thing -

Can’t you see that it’s utterly retarded? It doesn’t even make any sense! Apparently, we’re all supposed to eliminate labels and names or something?!

Underlying belief systems are what matter! The fact is, mass genocide IS consistent with atheism, it is NOT consistent with Christianity. One holds that man is an animal (and an invasive species at that), the other holds that there is inviolable human dignity. Genocide is consistent with atheism, and NOT with Christianity.

Ding dongs. . .
 
Hate to break it to you, but we are animals, invasive and highly successful ones too, by definition. However, we are animals with the (so far as we know) unique ability to reason and actively assert such things as the inviolability of human dignity. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As for genocide, no one holds the patent on stupidity or evil, whether atheist, Christian, Muslim, Shinto, or any other shade of philosophy, just as no person or group has exclusive claim to virtue. As a certain gentleman from Missouri once said, “Man is the animal that blushes, and the only one that needs to.” 🙂

Hope I didn’t mangle that quote, but I’m pretty sure that’s verbatim.

😊
 
Okay, Smartie:

Why would “human dignity” be “inviolable”, as you say?

Where do human “rights” come from?
 
In reference to your request for a couple references concerning logic flaws, please see The Blind Watchmaker, pages 159-160, page 161, page 139, and The God Delusion 137-138. I could go on, but these few examples are sufficient.
This doesn’t help because I do not have access to those books. How about you post the pertinant quotes and go from there?
 
MzAnnThrope:

Human rights come “from law”?

What does that mean? Blacks wouldn’t have any rights if we voted them away?

You must disagree with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of course. . .
 
Said, Tongue, Nepenthe:

It is very sad to see you fall for this stuff. Seriously - you need to think a little harder.

First, Hitler was NOT a “Catholic”. Call him an “apostate Catholic” or a “fallen-away Catholic” if you must - but in no way did Hitler follow Catholic/Christian teachings. In fact, he persecuted the Church ruthlessly, and even drew up plans to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope.
This is the No True Scottsman fallacy. Yoo, hoo, calling BacaRanch.

Nazi belt buckles have the inscription “Gott mit uns” on them. Ask any German that lived in Nazi Germany if they considered themselves Christians. Most did. I guess they weren’t 'True" Christians either.
Hitler was, however, a model “Evolutionist” (as Dawkins describes himself, by the way):
Dawkins in no way describes evolution or his relationship to it in this way. The term is not used among scientists. The term “evolutionist” was mendaciously crafted by creationists and is intended as derogatory. It, in no way is a credible or accurate description for what are properly titled, Evolutionary Biologists. You are allowing yourself to act as a shill for creationist agenda. You really do need to invest the effort in finding some facts and leave the creationist talking points out of your arguments.
“It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society.” - Robert Hickman, “Biocreation”

“The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”. - Sir Arthur Keith, evolutionary anthropologist.
  • I’ll spare you countless other quotes that I could post (many from Hitler himself).
BTW, invoking Hitler and Nazi’s is called Godwin’s Law. It is a red herring, a strawman and an ad hominem.

What Hitler practiced was not evolution. It was genocide and eugenics. Eugenics, BTW started in the USA and was practiced there in the early 1900’s.
“Charles Davenport, a scientist from the United States stands out as history’s leading eugenicist. He took eugenics from a scientific idea to a worldwide movement implemented in many countries.”
Stop getting your information from YouTube videos!
I got my foundation in Biology and evolution via a university education. I also read books. You make an awful lot of unfounded assertions.

RE Richard Dawkins credentials. Easily found BTW.
This link comes from Oxford University itself.
Richard Dawkins CURRICULUM VITAE

Professor Richard Dawkins was the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

“A graduate of Oxford, he did his doctorate under the Nobel-prizewinning ethologist Niko Tinbergen. In 1967 he was appointed Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley, returning to Oxford in 1969. He has been a Fellow of New College since 1970.”
 
Oh hee, that’s right - he was an Asst. prof at Berkeley when my father was taking his PhD in Microbiology and Immunology there. Don’t know if they knew each other much besides saying ‘hey’ in the hallways, and I was too young to remember at the time.

One thing about coming from a big academic family - you actually lose track of all the Nobels, Pulitzers, and other Big Fat Brains you’ve met, known, been lectured by (both for courses and for being a little hooligan), tried not to spill coffee on, etc after a while! 😛
 
Oh, and this “in the name of” thing -

Can’t you see that it’s utterly retarded? It doesn’t even make any sense! Apparently, we’re all supposed to eliminate labels and names or something?!

Underlying belief systems are what matter! The fact is, mass genocide IS consistent with atheism, it is NOT consistent with Christianity. One holds that man is an animal (and an invasive species at that), the other holds that there is inviolable human dignity. Genocide is consistent with atheism, and NOT with Christianity.

Ding dongs. . .
So, the highest acheivement in your debate is childish name calling!? To anyone with a clue, that would be embarrassing.

I disagree with this statement, “Underlying belief systems are what matter.”
What matters is actual reality.

Asserting that atheism is consistent with genocide is absurd. What you don’t understand is that atheists are all around you. They are your neighbors, your co-workers, among your family members, some even sit in the pews on Sundays. The sweet part of this is that they are engaged in none of the “unchecked evil” you imagine they would be. And most will probably never come out to people such as you, so you will never know who they are. Morality is not by divine insistence, it is inherent in our biology because we are a social species.

Another fact often ignored is that many atheists–particularly in the US–were quite devout and sincere in practicing some religion prior to abandoning faith. Many of them even know the Bible intimately. They employed reason and thought their way out.

Birdstrike, I’m interested in how you justify all that hate for atheists? Didn’t your Savior say, “If you love me keep my commandments”? Didn’t he say, “Love your enemies” and “Love your neighbors?” What loophole do you invoke to make yourself an exception to that?
 
Dawkins calls HIMSELF an “evolutionist”, ladies. . .

Lots of bandwidth wasted here - and nobody answered the question (or refute any of my points, for that matter):

Do “inviolable rights” really come from civil law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top