Dawkins banned due to atheism

[waitasec]

Just in the other video posted earlier i found him disrespectful... So no, i disagree that this is how he always is.

Unless you're referring to his tone or voice, way of speaking etc...sure he is 'cool' in that regard. The British accent sure doesn't hurt

However, respect or lack of it isn't dependent on these things only.

how was he disrespectful?

 

[Majikthise]

how was he disrespectful?

He is labeled disrespectful because, like any other atheist who speaks their mind, the points he makes are uncomfortable for theists to think about. They are not simply simply difficult to argue, but upsetting to their deepest sensibilities.
I don't think we're ever going to see a theist who is a fan of his or any other speaker or philosipher who draws public attention to the underside of religion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He is labeled disrespectful because, like any other atheist who speaks their mind, the points he makes are uncomfortable for theists to think about. They are not simply simply difficult to argue, but upsetting to their deepest sensibilities.

Yep.....I said something along these lines earlier...that their disdain for the man is fueled by their dogmatic emotional convictions.....:sad:

 

[Badran]

how was he disrespectful?

I already explained that earlier.

 

[Badran]

He is labeled disrespectful because, like any other atheist who speaks their mind, the points he makes are uncomfortable for theists to think about. They are not simply simply difficult to argue, but upsetting to their deepest sensibilities.
I don't think we're ever going to see a theist who is a fan of his or any other speaker or philosipher who draws public attention to the underside of religion.

Yep.....I said something along these lines earlier...that their disdain for the man is fueled by their dogmatic emotional convictions.....:sad:

Really?

Would you like me to offer you a list of Atheist RFers for example who speak their mind and criticisms yet who i find both very intelligent and respectful?

 

[waitasec]

I already explained that earlier.

i missed it...can you tell which post that was...

 

[Badran]

i missed it...can you tell which post that was...

Sure

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2642498-post155.html

 

[waitasec]

Sure

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2642498-post155.html

thanks...
i gotta go now but i will get back to you...

 

[Majikthise]

Really?

Would you like me to offer you a list of Atheist RFers for example who speak their mind and criticisms yet who i find both very intelligent and respectful?

If there were no rules here and they actually spoke their uncensored minds, I am certain your list would be considerably thinned.

 

[Majikthise]

This is hysterical.

They booked Dawkins sponsored by Center for Inquiry and had no clue he was an atheist!!.

LMAO, can they be more ignorant?

C'mon, they play golf.

 

[Badran]

If there were no rules here and they actually spoke their uncensored minds, I am certain your list would be considerably thinned.

And if so, then i would have simply mistaken them for someone who i would label as respectful, but i'm certain that some will remain, which beats your point.

If not, then another example is the fact that i'm a fan of someone like George Carlin, which would make it clear that my choosing to label someone disrespectful is not stemming from some insecure hurt feelings, since i wouldn't like him in that case.

 

[Majikthise]

And if so, then i would have simply mistaken them for someone who i would label as respectful, but i'm certain that some will remain, which beats your point.

If not, then another example is the fact that i'm a fan of someone like George Carlin, which would make it clear that my choosing to label someone disrespectful is not stemming from some insecure hurt feelings, since i wouldn't like him in that case.

Carlin is supposed to be disrespectful. He's a comedian who frequently used profane shock value in his act. Also ,I believe Carlin actually stated he was not an athiest. Doesn't really matter but I'll try to check it out.
I always loved Carlin, though he did get a bit crotchety and bitter towards the end, at least outwardly.

 

[work in progress]

Isn't the agency for meme propogation simply other humans, groups of humans, or entire cultures via various forms of communication? I don't think anyone was expecting to find little meme-cells inside our brain. The analogy with genes is simply that-- an analogy.

If it's other humans, then memes would be the wrong analogy for the evolution of ideas, since that would imply species-level natural selection...something that Dawkins fought zealously against to promote his idea that natural selection only occurs at the gene level. It's not the topic, but some biologists -- most notably those who study insects like E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson, have been trying to propose multilevel selection, and Dawkins has tried to do everything in his power to stamp it out, like it's some form of heresy:Open Letter to Richard Dawkins: Why Are You Still In Denial About Group Selection? The takeaway for the casual observer outside of the field of biology, is that Richard Dawkins is a zealot! And just as much a zealot as any religious leader who is sure that he is right.

In all likelihood, it is probably both biological and cultural predispositions that contribute to the popularity of religious beliefs. I don't think Dawkins denies that.

I think he does...especially when he claims in some interviews that 85% of Swedes are atheists. His arguments seem to be that religious and supernatural beliefs are the products of bad teaching.

Our brains are indeed sponges, and to deny that is to deny how children learn. Just because you are a sponge doesn't mean that you didn't have any substance to begin with-- in other words, you don't need to be a blank slate in order to be a sponge.

He used that sponge analogy to explain everything that children learn, and did not make any concessions that there might be built-in prejudices to understanding the world.

I don't argue that teleological explanations come naturally to us. Afterall, before we knew any better, it would make sesne to ascribe unknown phenomenon to unknown gods/spirits/etc, since we knew that people and animals can cause things to happen, but we didn't know that things like gravity or electromagnetism could cause things to happen. Humans are naturally curious, and we like answers, so we make 'em up to the best of our ability in order to get 'em.

Teleology is so universal and begins so early in the life of a child, that there is no other reasonable way to explain it, other than nature abhors a vacuum, even when it comes to how humans understand the world. There is psychology research which indicates that when adults are pressured by time-constraints, the intuitive decision-making system has to kick in and respond before we have time to rationalize, and our intuitive system is still prone towards vitalism and teleological explanations. And from research done by Bruce M. Hood on nursing home patients with dementia, it appears that they go back to applying teleological explanations as their higher mental abilities go into decline. This would imply that the intuitive system, with it's built-in prejudices pre-existed the ability for higher reasoning.

But how does any of that refute the power of memes, or that religious beliefs are passed on in that manner? We may be predisposed to believe in beliefs that give us answers about life, the universe, and everything, but surely you can't argue that we are predisposed to believe specific answers that result from religions. The rise of specific answers is the question that memology answers.

Religions are such a complex mixed bag, that it's hard to argue about how they got to where they are today. Can everything about religious doctrines and ethics be broken down into tiny bits of data for transmission as would be implied by the comparison with genes and computer viruses?

The point is to make us feel an aversion towards those beliefs. If you believe that a belief system is wrong, why would you pretend that it is something good?

It's not a matter of pretend! But my feelings on this are that people do not all have the same needs, and atheists who proscribe some form of naturalistic humanism as being the remedy for everyone are just as narrow-minded and dogmatic as any other fundamentalist.

And some beliefs or doctrines may be harmful for some or a few, and lead them towards bad actions, while being neutral or beneficial for the majority of that religion. Something as basic as a belief (or a wish) for an afterlife may lead some people to do strange and stupid things to try to win favour with God, or whatever else they have to do to achieve immortality, while it may be just a comforting innocuous belief for the majority. It depends on the kind of person the believer is more than the nature of the doctrinal belief. I recall something awhile back that either Dawkins or Hitchens, when confronted by a question of whether they would try to deconvert a cancer patient on their death bed, declared that it would be an exception to their rule of teaching correct beliefs and debunking wrong beliefs. But, ultimately why should it matter how close someone is to actual death? Some hypochondriacs live with fear of death for years, and debunking their hope in having a soul might create even more anguish for them than someone who is actually closer to death.

And no, it doesn't make people not respect believers; if anything, it aids in understanding of how so many otherwise intelligent, rational people can believe something that is so nonsensical.
Again, this also depends on the nature of the people. Some people love to mock those whom they feel are stupid or have stupid beliefs.

It seems like you are saying "We believe things irrationally, oh well." Why should our response be "Oh, well"? Why shouldn't we advocate rational, substantiated thought-processes over those that, well, aren't?

No, what I am saying is that none of us are completely rational all of the time, and when it comes to confronting beliefs that may be irrational, a lot depends on context. Even if it's that life-after-death thing, I don't go out of my way to debunk the claptrap that pops up on TV occasionally about NDE's, but there are occasions, especially when someone is trying to prove it to me, where I have to push back. But, when it comes to a basic question of 'is there a creator' and 'do we have a purpose or higher role in this universe', I haven't seen anything compelling to accept what's presented as evidence so far, and immense size and the chaos of our universe makes me very skeptical of this thinking. But, I wouldn't call these beliefs delusions, and whether they are likely to be correct or not, they are important to a lot of people on an emotional level.

What do you mean by "essentialism"? And if it is hardwired into our intuitive system, then wouldn't there be an evolutionary basis to that too?

Also, I don't think you have to be superstitious to not want to live in a house where murders take place. It's just a matter of aesthetics. You don't have to believe that ghosts or some bad mojo is going to latch onto you; it's just a natural revulsion towards heinous crimes-- which I do think we have evolutionary predispositions towards.

Heck, even carrying around lucky charms isn't necessarily superstitious, but simply comforting to have something known, that reminds you of good times, around you. I used to bring a little stone elephant with me to exams, just because it was comforting to hold and would relax me, not because I believed it would impart some magical luck on me.

Essentialism is a belief that things or objects that we possess, or are identified with, have some sort of us essential properties of the owner that remain. It could be the primary reason why vitalism was so universal, and so difficult to remove at the start of the modern scientific revolution. Research psychologists believe that essentialism begins as a category error in the earliest stages of childhood, as children begin dividing the world they are learning about into separate domains - such as living and non-living things. That demonstration that Bruce Hood uses in seminars (The Killer's Cardigan) consistently shows that the majority of a mostly academic audience reacts in horror and revulsion at first, and many times say they would never want to own or touch that item, even though they can provide no rational reason for their first reaction.....after all, it's just a sweater! Same with living in the house that Fred West once owned; if it's been cleaned up and there are no traces of what happened there, why should it matter? Except that it indicates a sense of discomfort that is below our normal rational ways of thinking. In his book "Supersense," Bruce Hood notes that most houses that formerly belonged to serial killers have to be demolished because it becomes impossible to sell them afterwards. This was also the case in one of the rare serial killer stories that happened near where I lived back in the 90's: a rented house belonging to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka was purchased by the Ontario Government in an agreement with the owner and demolished. As of the last I heard, there is still no house on the lot to this day....what are the rational reasons for this? And, after I get an answer for that, maybe we'll have a rational reason for the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy in New York last year.

And when we think about some of the fanatical pursuits like collectibles and memorabilia, why would a pair of Michael Jordan's basketball shoes be worth thousands of dollars to a fan? It's not like he's going to get some magic powers from them....or at least he'd never admit to it!

 

[Falvlun]

C'mon, they play golf.

hey now! Golf is actually a lot of fun, and kinda tricksy.

 

[Falvlun]

If it's other humans, then memes would be the wrong analogy for the evolution of ideas, since that would imply species-level natural selection...something that Dawkins fought zealously against to promote his idea that natural selection only occurs at the gene level.

What do you mean "that would make it species level natural selection"? Humans are the agent of transmittance for our genes as well, but that doesn't prove species level selection.

Also, why are you insisting on a literal one-to-one correlation between genes and memes? That was never the point of the meme concept. It is simply an analogy. It's not meant to be a perfect comparison, and particularly not in the mechanism of heredity!

I think he does...especially when he claims in some interviews that 85% of Swedes are atheists. His arguments seem to be that religious and supernatural beliefs are the products of bad teaching.

Find me a quote where Dawkins states that we are only the result of nurture and that nature has nothing to do with it.

That would be an incredibly strange stance for an evolutionary biologist, and one I'm sure you won't find.

And yes, the specifics of religious and supernatural beliefs are purely the result of cultural teachings. Kids wouldn't spontaneously dream up the concept of God sending down his Son to be crucified on a cross in order to pay for our sins. That has to be taught.

He used that sponge analogy to explain everything that children learn, and did not make any concessions that there might be built-in prejudices to understanding the world.

You said it yourself there: Everything they learn. That is what the sponge phrase was referring to. You are reading far too much into this. It would be like claiming I don't acknowledge the value of Vitamin C because I happened to be giving a talk specifically about calcium.

Religions are such a complex mixed bag, that it's hard to argue about how they got to where they are today. Can everything about religious doctrines and ethics be broken down into tiny bits of data for transmission as would be implied by the comparison with genes and computer viruses?

We certainly have predispositions regarding morals and tendencies regarding assigning agency to natural phenonmenon. I'm fairly certain I read that, from yes, Dawkins.

But mere predisposition or tendency does not explain how religion developed and evolved over the ages into the various complex concepts held today. This is where memes step in. It's basically stating that concepts are passed from generation to generation, and those that prove useful, or self-perpetuating, will survive, while those that are less useful, will eventually be abandoned. That's it.

Memes are to evolution that abiogenesis is to predispositions. You seem to be faulting memes for not explaining predispositions, but that isn't their purpose.

Essentialism is a belief that things or objects that we possess, or are identified with, have some sort of us essential properties of the owner that remain. It could be the primary reason why vitalism was so universal, and so difficult to remove at the start of the modern scientific revolution. Research psychologists believe that essentialism begins as a category error in the earliest stages of childhood, as children begin dividing the world they are learning about into separate domains - such as living and non-living things. That demonstration that Bruce Hood uses in seminars (The Killer's Cardigan) consistently shows that the majority of a mostly academic audience reacts in horror and revulsion at first, and many times say they would never want to own or touch that item, even though they can provide no rational reason for their first reaction.....after all, it's just a sweater! Same with living in the house that Fred West once owned; if it's been cleaned up and there are no traces of what happened there, why should it matter? Except that it indicates a sense of discomfort that is below our normal rational ways of thinking. In his book "Supersense," Bruce Hood notes that most houses that formerly belonged to serial killers have to be demolished because it becomes impossible to sell them afterwards. This was also the case in one of the rare serial killer stories that happened near where I lived back in the 90's: a rented house belonging to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka was purchased by the Ontario Government in an agreement with the owner and demolished. As of the last I heard, there is still no house on the lot to this day....what are the rational reasons for this? And, after I get an answer for that, maybe we'll have a rational reason for the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy in New York last year.

And when we think about some of the fanatical pursuits like collectibles and memorabilia, why would a pair of Michael Jordan's basketball shoes be worth thousands of dollars to a fan? It's not like he's going to get some magic powers from them....or at least he'd never admit to it!

I already responded to all that. I read the article. Why does it have to be superstition that causes us to recoil from murderer's cardigans, and not just the natural revulsion towards heinous crimes?

Also, as far as I know, most people don't buy celebrity owned apparel because they believe it imparts some magical skill. It is special simply because the celebrity owned it; to a fan, that is meaningful enough.

Regardless, none of this contradicts the fact that the vast majority of concepts are transmitted culturally by people communicating with each other, ie, memes. People may very well have a predisposition towards believing religion. I believe they do. No argument there. But that doesn't indicate that believing in religion is good. And more to the point of memes, neither does it tell us how various relgions developed, nor does it tell us why people end up believing the religion they do.

 

[atanu]

The cognitive sphere is where we humans have made our mark throughout our short history on this planet and it has always been our forte.
If a machine show signs of being able to 'out-think' us that would be far more humbling than a machine that kills/runs/lifts better than us, especially considering that the brain has traditionally been somewhat steeped in mystery and it's inner workings have been all but unsolvable.

THAT is why a machine that beat us at a cognitive competition would be humbling.

I said yes. Not only cognitive but in every sphere.

 

[atanu]

Alright. If you are not ignorant about the difference between something that is untestable and something that is unfalsifiable in relation to science, please explain what that difference is then. :sarcastic

I am ignorant. Ask this question to Ernst Mayr and the author of the article i cited.

Mayr said, “The term (gene as replicator) is, of course, in complete conflict with basic Darwinian thought…Since the gene is not an object of selection (there are no naked genes) any emphasis on precise replication is irrelevant. Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies as is claimed so often, but the maintenance or improvement of adaptedness and the origin of diversity. Changes in gene frequency are a result of evolution, not its cause. The claim of gene selection is a typical case of reduction beyond the level where analysis is useful.”

and


The Extended Phenotype - How Richard Dawkins Got It Wrong Twice

.......................

 

[waitasec]

Sure

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2642498-post155.html

ok i saw the video and honestly i didn't see him laughing in a disrespectful way.
consider his stance...he said that it is not a sign of rationality to be governed by faith based upon something other than evidence...when discussing miracles, i'm sure he was thinking of a few outlandish ones that i'm sure both you and i would smile at too..rainbows and seeing jesus in the clouds and so forth.

and when the interviewer wrapped it up, he said dawkins was one of the rare few who is fun to debate with...

now based on RF we know that those who are disrespectful are not fun to debate with...

 

[rusra02]

Richard Dawkins was banned from speaking at a Michigan country club after they found out he was an atheist.

Wow. If true, that's pretty blatant discrimination. How would people have responded if the country club banned a speaker after finding out he was a Muslim or a Catholic?

I've only seen variations on this one article, however. I wonder if the club literally said "You can't speak here because you are an atheist", or if that is simply what was assumed.

Almost as bad as discriminating against scientists and educators honest and courageous enough to admit they believe in creation rather than evolution, and who try to publish their reasons. (See movie Expelled for examples).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Really?

Would you like me to offer you a list of Atheist RFers for example who speak their mind and criticisms yet who i find both very intelligent and respectful?

To what end...? None of these people here are the subject.