Explosive talk given by by Richard Dawkins, highly recommended (page 4)

Kiera

Zagor.

That is all that mankind needs, " a fundamental athiest " !

zagor

Zagor.
That is all that mankind needs, " a fundamental athiest " !

LOL wouldn't that make for a 'spirited' debate?

Welcome to the board by the way. So I gather, you are fundamentally opposed to evolutionary theory, mind explaining why? :)

Kiera

Zagor,

Thanks for the tiny 'love bomb' and your welcome.

I am not opposed to anything only those who oppose everything by generalisation. I include Mr. Dawkins in the latter grouping. His basic theory is that he is right in expounding his own alternative theories and all those who dissagree with his theory or support other equally unsupported theories are wrong. His need to make his arguements heard do not include free dispersal of his theories and beliefs.

All soap box preachers need the compensatory comfort of our Sterling, Dollars and Euro before they are willing to let the rest of us ignorant fools obtain the wisdom of their words by puchasing their literature and seeing for ourselves the folly of their and our own actions.

Evolution has failed to weed out mind sets such as his and who or what can one blame now ?

SPAZnik

Fascinating.

Thanks for posting this zagor!

I enjoyed laughing the sugared pill down
along with Dawkins' "elite" "intelligentsia"
as various strategic points hit home.

I wondered how his audience interprets the word "sophisticated".
Do they swallow it whole?

The very political tone of this speech reminded me of something that
the "elite" "sophisticated" "intelligentsia" "Richard Dawkins'" of the world
cannot escape anymore than I: We are what we hate.

I must concede, however, that it seems there will ever be "a time for war". (or as Eccl. 3:1-8 puts it, a time to kill)
I maintain hope that the battle he is humbly stepping up to his high hoarse to pick,
between this particular thesis and the very antithesis that proves it's merit,
will give way to synthesis, sooner than later,
for himself and for many others on both sides of the equation,
'til the next battle.

To me, at least, that is what evolution is all about.
I am encouraged to see many commentators on the speech at the TED site appear to be already there.

My heart goes out to this newly "christened" man (or martyr?) of war, Richard Dawkins.
Your loyal allegiance to science, militance and money is noteworthy.
Rock that boat, baby,
(and may we all learn from your battle with your Nemesis)

Thank you in advance.

zagor

Thank you for taking time Kiera :)

Fundamentally I agree with you that one has to approach any issue with an open mind and not be frightened into believing anything her/his logical mind cannot accept. And to be true to you he was probably making a sales pitch for his book especially knowing the audience of TED extends far beyond those present at the conference. Having said that, Dawkins is, by profession, evolutionary biologist, hence one has to give him a credit for his expertise and also understand his frustration with people walking all over his research findings (and those of his field) without even trying to provide the weight of the evidence that would take into consideration wealth of research.
Hence, his talk was in my opinion a natural reaction to circumstances. For instance, Imagine yourself being a medical doctor, perhaps even a brain surgeon for the sake of argument, how would you react if someone was trying to sell your patients snake oil and not only that but telling then they didn't need your help at all. Regardless of the level of medical experience that would make any medical professional pretty ticked off ;)

integ

Richard DAWSON is dead. And when the hell did he become an atheist?

funkyderek

BurnTheShips:

Evolution is about how, not what.

What does that mean? Did you mean to say "not why" rather than "not what"?

It's hilarious how the Dawkins attacks religion for being absolutist and forcing conformity when the Dawkins itself despises anyone who doesn't share it's point of view

First of all, your repeated use of the unusual term of address "the Dawkins" and the associated impersonal pronoun is obviously deliberate but what's its purpose? I can't think of a good reason for doing so, and I don't want to assume a base motive on your part, so perhaps you can enlighten me.

Secondly, it's a complete misrepresentation of Professor Dawkins' views to suggest that he despised anyone who doesn't agree with him. He has repeatedly sung the praises of various people with whom he disagrees on some issues. These include theistic scientists and clergymen.

The Dawkins also reveals itself as shockingly ignorant on religious matters. Religion doesn't require a literalist biblical interpretation of creationism or any of that jazz, and it does not imply a lack of enthusiasm for anything scientific.

Of course not. Many modern forms of religion are broadly compatible with a scientific worldview, but for the most part this is only because the demonstrably unscientific parts of various religions have become metaphorical or allegorical as science disproves their literal truth.

Having such a discussion in the twentyfirst century is hilarious. The Dawkins' homily would have been much more apropos in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century when there were still some lights debating these things.

I wish I could agree with you, but you know as well as I do that some people genuinely believe that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old. Some of these people have positions of considerable political power and influence - not in most of the world obviously, but in your United States.

Religion is about connecting with the infinite source of Being from which we came, in which we live, and to which we will return. In that respect even the atheist brigades , as long as they have some sense of awe before the panorama of all that is, participate in the religious experience.

You can define "religion" broadly enough to include a sense of wonder or joie de vivre or whatever but what's the point? Then you have to think of a new word to mean what religion normally means.

That said, let me add that Dawkins will never be able to forge a movement out of that secular part of the pie of the type he lays out in his homily without it being..quite...religious.

What I think you mean here by "religious" is what the rest of us would call "organised". There would need to be mission statements, and administrative hierarchies and probably conventions and so on, but this would not make it religious any more than any other business or charity is religious just because it has a broadly similar structure. The Out Campaign is, as Dawkins said, more like similar campaigns that have been organised by gay rights groups, to raise awareness, correct misapprehensions and increase tolerance of an oppressed group.

Oh, and happy birthday!

nvrgnbk

Religion is in its death throughs man. It knows it. Thats why they are aggressive.
There is evidence that prehistoric man practiced religion more than 80 thousand years ago. The practice has been universal, and continuous, through all of prehistory and history. The memory of the Dawkins will no longer exist and humans will still continue the practice. I think there is nothing for religionists to worry about. The permanence of religion and belief in the supernatural has a deeper grounding than they realize.
Burn

How about this edit of your thoughts, Burn?

There is evidence that prehistoric man practiced religion as an attempt to understand natural phenomena. The practice has been universal, and continuous, through all of prehistory and history. As rational explanations are provided for that which was previously shrouded in superstitious ignorance, society has become increasingly secularized. That a resurgence of religious fundamentalism is now taking place does not change that.

I think there is nothing for religionists to worry about.

Agreed.

If the goal of religionists is to maintian religiosity, at all cost, in spite of new information, they will comfortably cling to their cherished beliefs.

So no worries there.

belief in the supernatural

Which beliefs in particular are you referring to?

Religionists seem to be very much at odds about which supernatural beliefs should have "permanence".

IP_SEC

Having such a discussion in the twentyfirst century is hilarious. The Dawkins' homily would have been much more apropos in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century when there were still some lights debating these things.
I wish I could agree with you, but you know as well as I do that some people genuinely believe that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old. Some of these people have positions of considerable political power and influence - not in most of the world obviously, but in your United States.

I disagree. So what if some people think the universe is less than 10k years old? Some people believe in fairies and witch doctors too. So what?

Evolution is almost univerally taught in school now. There are more athiest now than 50 years ago. Do you really think most of those with considerable political power are believers? I dont, I dont even believe a man with the education of the pope is a believer. Thats right! I dont think the pope even believes the crap he endorses.

So a lot of progress has been made. No its not perfect, but we are better off now than we were 100 years ago. A whole lot less people believe the universe is less than 10k years old now than say 200 years ago.

Religion is in the middle of dying a natural death. It might be 50 or 100 or 200 years before it is no more. We probably wont see its death in our life time. Im ok with that.

Explosive talk given by by Richard Dawkins, highly recommended

Share this