Interest - Richard Dawkins

Originally created by A β Pseudolonewolf
6 years ago.

on 2 Roots

22 Comments

Kowasaci
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
(On a serious note, isn't this guy over-rated and almost worshipped by atheists? What's so charming about him?)

(On a sarcastic and mean note that I will come to regret, therefore accept my early excuses, here's this:)


O praised be the one and only true god of atheism, RICHARD DAWKINS!!! O HE WHO IS THE KINS OF KINS!

O praised be his denouncing of other gods and hailed be his 10 commandments:

1. Thou shalt not have any -other- god.
2. Thou shalt see commandment 1.
3. Thou shalt not doubt his infinite wisdom, lest you be murdered by his enlightened angels- O MIGHTY FEDORA-WEARING, MOUNTAIN-DEW FUELED NECKBEARDS!!!
4. Thou shalt remember all they days are to be spent laughing at all the gods, inferior to O mighty Richard Dawkins!
5. Thou shalt not respect your mother and father, lest you be taken over by their gods.
6. Thou shalt kill, lest the other gods will sympathize with you.
7. Thou shatl commit adultery, lest something happens.
8. Thou shalt bear false witness against your neighbour, lest you preach of other gods.
9. Thou shalt steal, lest you see the other commandments, damnit!
10. Thou shalt covet yout neighbout's everything, lest he'll try to convince you of his gods.
Ribbit
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Ribbit 27 Germany MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 1127C
While I really don't know of any supposed 'worshipping' of Richard Dawkins by atheists, I can offer some points in favour for him. He is a very sensible and knowledgeable and highly capable biologist, who has some strong and very well reasoned opinions on what can be called a good explanation for life as it is and what not. He has a very high opinion on science and the scientific approach and he can explain it very well. He is one of the people who understood the theory of evolution very well and brought it to a more understandable level for alot of others too.

I do not at all appreciate when people insult serious scientists who are just doing their job, and exceptionally good too.

He had the misfortune that especially media misrepresented him as hating everything that has to do with religion or something. He was used as a figure head by some radical atheists, and the whole attention of the media and every religious nutcase out there may have formed his opinion on religion further negatively.

Just try reading the Blind Watchmaker. You won't find him insulting monotheistic beliefs or something, he clearly only expresses his view on the value of religion as a scientific theory. Which nobody will seriously argue that there is none. He views himself and a Christian priest who wrote about Intelligent Design some hundred years ago as brothers in minds who see that the world is wonderful and needs to be explained. He just disagrees, and can very well show why, that the explanation the priest had is the right one.

Even in view that you try to be funny, I don't see any connection of your '10 commandments' to Richard Dawkins.
Kowasaci
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
I can respect the fact he's a skilled scientist trying to simply explain a theory and educate the masses.(I'm an evolutionist, actually, even though my parents don't know it, but they probably won't do anything bad to me if they know.)
What I don't respect is that he takes religion as a bad thing(or at least, what people say make it seem so.), and the joke about the "10 atheist commandments" would be the opposite of the "evil" original commandments.
And, don't know about this(4chan is not by any means a good source of information.) isn't he racist? I heard he said "I really hate niggers".
Ribbit
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Ribbit 27 Germany MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 1127C
You may not like to hear it, but at its fundamental basics, religion is a bad thing, at least from the viewpoint of any scientifically oriented mind. Because religion forbids asking certain questions.Which is generally bad when you want to apply the scientific method.

Nobody has anything against morals, feeling of community and belonging and all that thingamajig that always gets somehow presented as equivalent to religion. But the thing is that everything positive that may stem from religion can come without religion too. Which is why 'the joke' does not work. Atheism does not at all mean to oppose anything that comes from religion, therefore it makes no sense, at all, to simply inverse the ten commandments and then call it atheist. Doing this seems pretty ignorant.

I never heard anything about Dawkins being racist, but then again I never actively informed myself about his entire personage, so I couldn't convincingly say anything about that. But yes, 4chan does not seem to be the most reliable source of information.
Kowasaci
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
1. Actually religion(Or at least Christianity, and probably eastern religions too.) doesn't stop scientific progress if you use a "doesn't disprove god=possible" logic, which, sadly, most religious people don't use.

2. I know that atheism is not supposed to oppose religion, but is merely lack of faith. My "joke" was made to mock people that claim religion is evil and if it disappeared the world would suddenly become a better place, which are in fact, not atheists, but anti-theists.
Yet I posted this here because most people that think they are atheists are in fact anti-theists.
Zazax
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Zazax 27 Canada MelancholicPhlegmatic INTJ 4w5 85C
What's this? Religious discussion? Haven't had one of these in a while. Okay, I'll bite.

The problem with something like 'a "doesn't disprove god = possible" logic' is that it completely undermines what science is supposed to be. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but that doesn't work if you start adding unbreakable conditions into the mix. Can you imagine how messed up the world would be if we were thinking with, say, a "doesn't disprove Earth is the center of the universe = possible" logic? Or a "doesn't disprove illness is caused by demons = possible" logic?
That also depends on how you define 'disproves God', which is a whole other can of worms.
Kowasaci
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
Earth centre of universe=Does not disprove God.

But that doesn't mean that it can't be replaced by another theory that doesn't disprove god.

Disprove God=Show that he is nonexistant in any way.
Tama Yoshi
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Tama Yoshi 24 Canada PhlegmaticCholeric INTJ 513 472C
Religion *can be* a bad thing, and it *can be* a good thing!
The existence of God is a metaphysical (read: beyond science) question that is incredibly pervasive throughout mankind. It helps us regulate our lives, and our societies... in a good or negative way.
I like the fact that it raises very deep questions, and lead us to investigate our morals and purposes in society. That would be the definition of a "good religion" for me.

Faith debates are annoying because they're the textbook example of people with strong and strongly (culturally) opposed beliefs trying to convince each other. But even then, in religion, people disagree on dogmas, and in science, people disagree on methodologies / values (because, yes, science is value-laden).

The reason they are so opposite, I believe, is because Religion was initially a very strong conservative *authority figure*, and science is nowadays becoming an increasingly prevalent *progressive authority figure*. Hell, you can say anything that *sounds* scientific, and gain in credibility.

Beliefs are also quite resistant, which is another thing.
TL:DR: Both religion and science can be either good or bad, in a broad sense.
Kowasaci
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
What you said is absolutely correct. It's completely up to the adherents what to make of their beliefs.
Ribbit
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Ribbit 27 Germany MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 1127C
The reason why religion is bad has near as nothing to do with the possibility of a god. It has to do with everything else. it has to do with the dogmatic certainty religions want to have about this hypothetical god and how we are supposed to worship him.

Religions aren't flexible. It's not that religion is able to develop easily and to adapt to new scientific discoveries. Galileo didn't have those problems with the church he had because he said there is no God. Because he didn't.

Religion does not leave room for erring. They can't easily admit that they are faulty and make mistakes because the whole fundation of religion is a 'don't ask questions because I'm always right' philosophy of the priests. If the church was wrong about their world view of how nature works who says they're right about everything else?

It's not that science excludes a God, because it doesn't as you correctly said. It's more that the absolut and unfalterable faith in God can disable and exclude science. If you start to assume something, anything, no matter what, with no proof or evidence at all for it and say that you will never even think about the possibility that that could be wrong, you hinder yourself of scientific thought processes.

That's what is bad about religion, nothing else. The rest is completely open to everything else and can be bad or good or nothing, depending on the circumstances we're talking about.
Kowasaci
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
Yes, I can agree that religion can hinder scientific progress, but that is up to it's adherents.

I really have one question: Do you really think that people that banish science because of their beliefs would have made any important scientific advances were they not religious?

Majority of religious people wouldn't advance science one bit were they not religious.
Zazax
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Zazax 27 Canada MelancholicPhlegmatic INTJ 4w5 85C
I never said that the Geocentric Model disproved God. I was using it and illness-causing demons as examples of things that humanity believed at one time, but that we now know to be false. But if for whatever reason there were structures in place, such as a "Does not disprove Geocentric Model = possible" logic, then the Geocentric Model would remain the accepted model of the universe despite any contradictory evidence and/or lack of evidence, since none of that matches the 'logic'/condition. If that makes any sense.
Similarly, if science operates under the constraints that anything that could possibly disprove God is bad and must be discarded, that undermines it and ruins its ability to self-correct. Which is the whole purpose of science.

As for disproving God, well, I did say it was a whole other can of worms. If you're talking about conclusive, scientific proof that God does not exist, then there's every possibility that that will never happen. Something can only be conclusively 'disproven' in that way if it was proven in the first place, which no religion ever has. If something never existed in the first place, there would be no way to disprove its existence other than a lack of proof for its existence, and if millions of people already believe it exists despite that, there's nothing you can do to change their mind since there is literally nothing else you can show them.
On the other hand, it is very possible to disprove and/or poke holes in everything else about religion. What if, for example, parts of a given holy book (Bible, Torah, doesn't matter) were shown to be provably false? Would that count as evidence against that religion's deity? It is, after all, supposedly the word of said deity.
As I said. Whole other can of worms, and probably best left closed.
Kowasaci
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kowasaci 17 Romania MelancholicPhlegmatic INTP 344 24C
1. There are two differences between the Geocentric model and God.

The first is related to nature and can be tested if technology is advanced enough. The second is a thing that no matter how advanced technology is it can never be seen or examined.

Honestly, right now, what science is doing is not disproving God, therefore it's allright.(The higgs bosson is related to the big bang, the big bang may even prove the existence of a creator, but, as we said, this cannot be fully proven, thats what religion is based on: faith. Evolutionism does not disprove God, and I think I identify as an evolutionist.)
By me if science doesn't start trying to disprove God it can go on.

Side note: before the Big Bang was discovered by a christian priest scientific people thought the universe had no beginning.
The universe has no beginning=Disproves God, and later that theory was proved to be wrong.
ThirdParty
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
ThirdParty 34 United States PhlegmaticCholeric INTJ 514 177C
I've been an atheist all of my life, and for over a decade--more like two--I've viewed Richard Dawkins as the de facto leader of my "religion". (If you do a Google search for "His Holiness, Richard Dawkins", you'll get a couple hundred hits, so evidently I'm not alone in this.) Certainly if I had to choose someone to represent my beliefs in the public square, he'd be the one: he's got a much deeper understanding of the scientific worldview than any other public intellectual.

The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are absolutely brilliant depictions of evolutionary theory, two of my favorite non-fiction books of all time; aside from perhaps Jared Diamond, I can't think of any other living author capable of producing work of that caliber. River Out of Eden and The Ancestor's Tale are fascinating tracts on the awesomeness of the natural world, the sort of things that I would want the representative of my "religion" to be producing. And if I found The God Delusion a disappointment, that was only because it didn't say much that I hadn't already figured out for myself--it still served to show how completely in tune Dawkins is with my worldview.