Humanist Crusading

[John Scott]

I keep seeing Richard Dawkins refer to himself as a scientist (*smirk*) and an atheist. He is neither. He's not an atheist, insofar as he considers himself to be God, and humanism he treats as a religion, a worldview and lifestyle with all the irrational fanaticism of a Bin Laden. And neither is he a scientist. He's a pop science writer. The Madonna of science. Like Madonna, he specializes in cheap publicity stunts which keep his name on the charts.

[G10]

Couldn't agree more dude.

He seems to have all the answers, yet the more clever people like Stephen Hawkins and Roger Penrose state otherwise - 'science doesn't have the answers and can only guess'

The guys a class 'A' jerk.

[John Scott]

His arrogance is mind boggling.

[Julie]

Huh. I'm not familiar with him. I looked him up though, and he does come off as a bit of an ass....at least in how he is written about.

[John Scott]

He's against "peaceful coexistence between science and religion".

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articl...ichard-Dawkins

What a hack.

[Julie]

Wow. Thanks for sharing that. I read it. I don't like the guy already.

I hate when people make the arguement that they are smarter or more educated or something, and educated people don't find the need to believe in God or a religion. And I don't like when other people try to force their ideas on you.

Thinking about it...we have our very own atheist crusader here at v7 - jg_v7n.

[RobS]

Sounds like a right arsehole to me!

[ewomack]

Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, does have an incendiary title. He's part of a new movement, led partially by Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, that claims religious moderation has brought us today's fanatical positions. In other words, they're against the notion that religion remains unquestionable, that its premises are "mysteries" that should not be subject to scrutiny nor criticism. Moderates, in their view, have allowed religion to become more and more fanatical by not questioning how religion gets sold to the masses and what uses religious groups make of their authority and power over their followers. Dawkins and Harris do come off as intolerant ranters, but, unfortunately, they intentionally take that position to counter what they see as the wall of religious intolerance they want to break down. This approach will likely, and sadly, lead to yet another polarization: those who agree with them and those who don't. Just what we need in this world: more opposing and uncompromising polarized groups. Oh well.

For the curious, you can freely download a lecture that Sam Harris gave to the Long Now Foundation in 2005: Seminars in Long Term Thinking Download Page. Scroll about halfway down to 02005.

[Thanol]

I would take Dawkins with a grain of salt. I just see him as someone who's purpose is to counter the Evangelical leaders. Fight fire with fire.

[bytech]

lol, Dawkins not a scientist? Maybe if you're looking for some biblical definition of scientist, then Dawkins isn't one, but that's about it. He gained a BA degree in zoology in 1962, followed by MA and DPhil degrees in 1966, and a DSc in 1989

Science and religion cannot coexist peaceful because both make claims about the same realm. Sure, religion will argue that is not the case, but when the minute a theist steps up to make claims about how the world came about, you have to choose either religion or science. You can't have both.

As Thanol points out, Dawkins is on the extreme when it comes to some issues, but that is mainly an offset to the religious right blurring the line between church and state.

I'd like to see a single quote where Dawkins professes that science has all the answers. In all his books I read, he says the opposite. G10, you attack Dawkins' credibility due to lack of a proper counter argument to what Dawkins says (in fact, I doubt you know much at all about what he says ).

[John Scott]

lol, Dawkins not a scientist? Maybe if you're looking for some biblical definition of scientist, then Dawkins isn't one, but that's about it. He gained a BA degree in zoology in 1962, followed by MA and DPhil degrees in 1966, and a DSc in 1989

Biblical definition of scientist? Are you a complete and utter moron? Tell me, my educated friend, what is the Biblical definition of scientist?

And education does not determine whether somebody is a scientist or not. A lot of quacks have very respectable degrees under the belts.

Let's see if you, a supposedly intelligent person, can tell what makes the difference between a scientist and a quack:

a. He says he's a scientist.

b. He says God thinks of him as a scientist.

c. He makes statements that are supported by science.

[Maikunari]

I believe science and religion can co-exist.

I see Dawkins as part of the problem rather than the solution. He is, as people have already mentioned, much too polarizing. He seems to portray all religious believers as idiots. I watched one tv show he made in which he was mocking people who make religious pilgrimages to Lourdes to get healed. This is hardly appropriate, mocking people for showing their faith.

I believe that the power of religion is in the faith it gives people. Intolerance - whether from religious peoples or from scientists is not just unreasonable and irrational, it is just plain ridiculous.

The power of science is the method it gives us for finding solutions to complex problems, the development of reason and logic.

The fist step toward a peaceful co-existence of religion and science (as well as between the various religions) is acceptance of the fact that both sides have something to offer, the problem is when people say one is totally right and the other is totally wrong.

I believe someone more like Ken Wilber has a much more workable approach to the unity of science and religion.

[mr. impossible]

In the sequal to the God Delusion, the Dawkins Delusion he goes on to prove his own non-existence. that you all believe in him proves that you are all blinded by superstition and fairy-stories and, quite frankly, that you are all less intelligently designed than me.

[bytech]

lol, two can play at that game: what is your definition of quack? In his lifetime, Dawkins answered more questions about evolution than religion did in all existence.

You're right to point out that the bible doesn't define 'scientist', but it doesn't tell us how the universe got here either. If so many can make a claim that the bible DOES answer the universe question, finding a way for the bible to define 'scientist' should be peanuts.

[hyperspace]

I really liked Family Feud. Was The God Delusion after that?

[bytech]

Originally Posted by mr. impossible

In the sequal to the God Delusion, the Dawkins Delusion he goes on to prove his own non-existence. that you all believe in him proves that you are all blinded by superstition and fairy-stories and, quite frankly, that you are all less intelligently designed than me.

I suppose then that Dawkins' birth records are forged, his daughter Juliet doesn't really exist either, his wife Lalla married an imaginary man, Jean Mary Vyvyan Dawkins didn't really go through labour, Houghton Mifflin Company is paying a non existent man, all the videos of Dawkins are CGIs... I should have known Dawkins was a conspiracy theory!

[potchie]

Originally Posted by John Scott

He's against "peaceful coexistence between science and religion".

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articl...ichard-Dawkins

What a hack.

so what about that? i mean what he's against for in specific.. what about between science and religion.. you mean by human's existence?

[John Scott]

Quote: