Activism by atheists

[Darkforbid]

You know who Richard Dawkins is, don't you? Emeritus fellow of Oxford? Accomplished biologist of significance? Widely published and read author? Saying "he just has a biology degree," he didn't just graduate with his bachelor's, and clearly you're trying to downplay and dismiss him on a baseless claim.

I live in Oxford, and Dawkins was advised many time during his university education to change his line of study to theology

And yes I do know Dawkins

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I live in Oxford, and Dawkins was advised many time during his university education to change his line of study to theology

And yes I do know Dawkins

Here are some quotes from Dawkins:

#1 If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.

#2 How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?

#3 When you make machines that are capable of obeying instructions slavishly, and among those instructions are 'duplicate me' instructions, then of course the system is wide open to exploitation by parasites.

#4 I think the world's always a better place if people are filled with understanding.

#5 Natural selection will not remove ignorance from future generations.

#6 It's an important point to realize that the genetic programming of our lives is not fully deterministic. It is statistical - it is in any animal merely statistical - not deterministic.

He doesn't understand this Science has limits: A few things that science does not do in regard to #1 He doesn't understand the limits of science.
When you combine #1 and #2, it is clear he find #1 comforting, despite not understanding the limits of reason, logic and evidence.
#3 and #6 contradict each other in some sense.
#3 is how some humans use Dawkins' quotes as 'duplicate me' instructions, so is he a parasite?
#4 is not science and without evidence as it is based on how he thinks and feels.
#5 could apply to him as well.
#6 is the only one, which makes sense, but that is also biology pure in a sense.

Basically the moment he moves outside biology, his subjective biases shows and his inability to check his own thinking for, how he promotes subjective values in the name of evidence, shows.

Sam Harris is even worse. Anybody who likes to know how can ask and I will answer.

I don't accept this stupid almost religious belief that reason, logic and evidence is the only answer to everything in practice. People including Dawkins, who push that idea, are apparently functionally unable to understand, when they are subjective and without reason, logic and evidence.

 

[Darkforbid]

Here are some quotes from Dawkins:












He doesn't understand this Science has limits: A few things that science does not do in regard to #1 He doesn't understand the limits of science.
When you combine #1 and #2, it is clear he find #1 comforting, despite not understanding the limits of reason, logic and evidence.
#3 and #6 contradict each other in some sense.
#3 is how some humans use Dawkins' quotes as 'duplicate me' instructions, so is he a parasite?
#4 is not science and without evidence as it is based on how he thinks and feels.
#5 could apply to him as well.
#6 is the only one, which makes sense, but that is also biology pure in a sense.

Basically the moment he moves outside biology, his subjective biases shows and his inability to check his own thinking for, how he promotes subjective values in the name of evidence, shows.

Sam Harris is even worse. Anybody who likes to know how can ask and I will answer.

I don't accept this stupid almost religious belief that reason, logic and evidence is the only answer to everything in practice. People including Dawkins, who push that idea, are apparently functionally unable to understand, when they are subjective and without reason, logic and evidence.

I know, also look up Sam Harris's degree

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I live in Oxford, and Dawkins was advised many time during his university education to change his line of study to theology

I have my doubts because he has consistently shown a misunderstanding and "verbal aggression" towards theism in general.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sam Harris is even worse.

Sam Harris tends to be way more informed than Dawkins about things outside of his degrees. He also doesn't show "tooth and claw" like Dawkins is known for.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sam Harris tends to be way more informed than Dawkins about things outside of his degrees. He also doesn't show "tooth and claw" like Dawkins is known for.

Yeah, but the idea, that if we agree on what harm is, then everything follows with science, because what harm is, is subjective and thus we can't agree. Basically he pulls an honest con trick. Think like me and everything will be fine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, but the idea, that if we agree on what harm is, then everything follows with science, because what harm is, is subjective and thus we can't agree. Basically he pulls an honest con trick. Think like me and everything will be fine.

I didn't say I agree with everything he says. But clearly there is a difference between how he would handle someone of opposing viewpoints compared to how Dawkins would (primarily and especially if they are theists - and his tongue and pen lashings have been called out by numerous other scientists).

 

[Audie]

I have my doubts because he has consistently shown a misunderstanding and "verbal aggression" towards theism in general.

Not that verbal aggression is cool, but in view of
the considerable imbalance between atheist
complaints and attacks on
the unbelievers by the righteous and the holy,
there is something a bit off about the overreaction
to this "dawkins" guy doing a bit of pushback.

Kinda like certain of America's dominant racial
group getting bent out of shape if someone else
gets even the least advantage over them for a change.

 

[Audie]

I don't accept this stupid almost religious belief that reason, logic and evidence is the only answer to everything in practice. People including Dawkins, who push that idea, are apparently functionally unable to understand, when they are subjective and without reason, logic and evidence.

Please list three religious beliefs that are not stupid.
Alphabetical order preferred.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, but the idea, that if we agree on what harm is, then everything follows with science, because what harm is, is subjective and thus we can't agree. Basically he pulls an honest con trick. Think like me and everything will be fine.

What fundamental aspect of Christianity is not
a con job and an attempt to coerce uniformity
of thought and behaviour?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not that verbal aggression is cool, but in view of
the considerable imbalance between atheist
complaints and attacks on
the unbelievers by the righteous and the holy,
there is something a bit off about the overreaction
to this "dawkins" guy doing a bit of pushback.

Kinda like certain of America's dominant racial
group getting bent out of shape if someone else
gets even the least advantage over them for a change.

That doesn't excuse a lack of civility, and that regards he does seem an idiot because he's giving the very Fundamentalists he is opposed to plenty of ammo to show science is anti-god, that there are those out to get them, and it's a real possibility he has, over all, caused a deeper entrenching of Fundamentalist beliefs rather than drawing people away from it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please list three religious beliefs that are not stupid.
Alphabetical order preferred.

All religious ideas are stupid, because they are about something, which is unknown, yet believed. So what?
I am somewhat stupid, I just realize that and understand the limitations of what I do. Then there is stupid stupid, someone how don't understand the limitations of thinking and feeling, including reason, logic and evidence.

So it is a question of which stupidity is better? That depends of the variant of stupidity, who claims better. That includes me, I just know it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What fundamental aspect of Christianity is not
a con job and an attempt to coerce uniformity
of thought and behaviour?

I am not Christian, so I don't speak on behalf of the belief system. But in general start here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
The limit to morality in regards to science also applies to philosophy, religion, politics and non-religious claims

 

[Audie]

All religious ideas are stupid, because they are about something, which is unknown, yet believed. So what?
I am somewhat stupid, I just realize that and understand the limitations of what I do. Then there is stupid stupid, someone how don't understand the limitations of thinking and feeling, including reason, logic and evidence.

So it is a question of which stupidity is better? That depends of the variant of stupidity, who claims better. That includes me, I just know it.

Degrees of stupidity...probably willful
stupidity might be the winner.
I would not know about good and bad stupidity.

Re your statement that dawkins does not know
limitations of science, I find that very implausible,
and unsupported by your post.

 

[Audie]

I am not Christian, so I don't speak on behalf of the belief system. But in general start here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
The limit to morality in regards to science also applies to philosophy, religion, politics and non-religious claims

I pretty much know what science is for.

I should have said "religion" rather than
"Christianity".

 

[Audie]

That doesn't excuse a lack of civility, and that regards he does seem an idiot because he's giving the very Fundamentalists he is opposed to plenty of ammo to show science is anti-god, that there are those out to get them, and it's a real possibility he has, over all, caused a deeper entrenching of Fundamentalist beliefs rather than drawing people away from it.

Possibly. Curing a fundy is more or less impossible
though.

As for civil / uncivil, I have never paid the least
attention to what a "dawkins" has to say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Degrees of stupidity...probably willful
stupidity might be the winner.
I would not know about good and bad stupidity.

Re your statement that dawkins does not know
limitations of science, I find that very implausible,
and unsupported by your post.

Well, I can't change you thinking and inability to see that there is more that reason, logic and evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Possibly. Curing a fundy is more or less impossible
though.

As for civil / uncivil, I have never paid the least
attention to what a "dawkins" has to say.

I can't cure you from the idea that not all religious humans are fundamentalists. So as long that you treat religion as only fundamentalism I will treat you as more or less impossible to cure. It works both ways, fundamentalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I pretty much know what science is for.

I should have said "religion" rather than
"Christianity".

Not all religion is fundamentalist.
Start here:
Unitarian Universalist Association
Look at our faith and beliefs and principle.

 

[Audie]

I can't cure you from the idea that not all religious humans are fundamentalists. So as long that you treat religion as only fundamentalism I will treat you as more or less impossible to cure. It works both ways, fundamentalism.

Ah making up something about me so you can
get in a cheap put-down.

You are certainly the charmer. Reminds me why I
kept you on ig for so long.