Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[McBell]

It means that whenever the statement is its self uncounterable then by default the messanger is invariably attacked.

your blatant dishonesty is duly noted.

 

[Storm]

your blatant dishonesty is duly noted.

Now, now... whether or not it's fundamentally dishonest to assume everyone else uses your tactics is arguable.

 

[McBell]

Now, now... whether or not it's fundamentally dishonest to assume everyone else uses your tactics is arguable.

:biglaugh:
And what tactic are you assuming I am referring to?

Interesting that you think me dishonest.
One wonders if you are able to actually support said statement..?

 

[Photonic]

It makes no sense to hate a fictional character. Of course it makes no sense for me to expect Dawkins to make sense.

As Dawkins has said, on quite a NUMBER of occasions, is is not a fictional character he is worried with. It's the people that follow the fictional character. Those are very real people.

 

[Storm]

:biglaugh:
And what tactic are you assuming I am referring to?

Interesting that you think me dishonest.
One wonders if you are able to actually support said statement..?

I'm confused by the contrast between your smiley and your words, so I'll just point out that I wasn't referring to YOU, and leave it at that.

No, I changed my mind. I'll also state publicly that while I don't always agree with your points, I have the utmost respect for you and your strategies, and you're one of my favorite posters. Now go back and reread my post in context.

 

[McBell]

I'm confused by the contrast between your smiley and your words, so I'll just point out that I wasn't referring to YOU, and leave it at that.

No, I changed my mind. I'll also state publicly that while I don't always agree with your points, I have the utmost respect for you and your strategies, and you're one of my favorite posters. Now go back and reread my post in context.

My apologies for the knee jerk reply.

After careful review I see I am in error.

 

[1robin]

your blatant dishonesty is duly noted.

Man I haven't missed you and your charming wit.

 

[1robin]

As Dawkins has said, on quite a NUMBER of occasions, is is not a fictional character he is worried with. It's the people that follow the fictional character. Those are very real people.

Ok, Are you saying it's us he hates. I know all those hospitals, soup kitchens, rehab clinics, missionaries, and public school systems we built are enough to anger Job but come on.

 

[McBell]

Ok, Are you saying it's us he hates. I know all those hospitals, soup kitchens, rehab clinics, missionaries, and public school systems we built are enough to anger Job but come on.

Do you hate everyone you are worried about?

Nice strawman.

 

[Photonic]

Ok, Are you saying it's us he hates. I know all those hospitals, soup kitchens, rehab clinics, missionaries, and public school systems we built are enough to anger Job but come on.

My response isn't going to be very different from Mestemia, but;

Can you honestly say you hate everything you worry about?

 

[Storm]

My apologies for the knee jerk reply.

After careful review I see I am in error.

No worries. Misinterpretations happen even in the presence of nonverbal cues.

 

[jarofthoughts]

It makes no sense to hate a fictional character. Of course it makes no sense for me to expect Dawkins to make sense.

Sure you can hate a fictional character.
Haven't you ever hated a character in a book or a movie?
It is entirely possible, and in fact quite common, to have emotional responses to things that aren't real.

I know the debate very well. I have seen Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, etc.... butcher and distort morality enough to know they do not have a clue about the issue. Without God morality is a confused nihilistic mess based on opinion and completely insuffecient for the needs of society.

Right.
So, I guess all the secular countries in the world are nihilistic and messy when it comes to morals then, while the religiously run ones are heavenly utopias?

He should stay in the lab where he is competant and quit emberassing the atheist (evolutionist) community.

I can't speak for the 'community', but I'm not at all embarrassed by Dawkins.
I don't agree with everything he says, but I'm far from embarrassed.

It is taken out of context to the exact extant as it is found inconvenient and emberassing to an atheist. Context is important but there is no context that will make that statement say anything other than what it does. It is in fact a truthfull and honest statement.

Now, that is just plain and simply dishonest.

 

[Storm]

Re: emotional reactions to fictional characters:

Totally irrational, but happens every day. For instance, my dad, to this day carries an irrational loathing of Paul Reiser because he so deeply despised the man's character in Aliens. (Really, Paul. Sometimes it's a compliment when people wish you bodily harm.) I myself want desperately to take Dean Winchester home and give him soup and hugs and ideally a good psychologist. This despite not having watched the last two seasons of Supernatural cause it got plain stupid.

Oh, and Tyrion Lannister is made of awesome, though his brother deserves to die horribly (no spoilers, I'm behind!).

None of this makes a shred of rational sense, but humans are, let's face it, kinda weird.

To sum up, you're both right.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well that makes no more sense that an evolutionist does with morality.

Well, I for one, am a gravitationalist...

God exacts the highest payment possible for sin. He not only allows it to kill us but he then throws our soul in prison to be either anihilated (my view) of encarcerated forever (traditional view). Good night nurse what is harsher punishment than that. Even being saved only determines the final destination. We still physically die because of sin. Catholics and Muslims (not me) also believe we may suffer in hell or purgatory for a while even if we are saved. It does not get any more vengefull. Yet your conclusion is no accountability. You atheists or anti-theists are something else. If reality can't be countered then just make up one until it can be. Wow.

Actually, all you have to do is ask forgiveness, and it will be granted.
The only exception, as far as I can gather, is if you are mean to the Holy Ghost.

Accountability means taking responsibility for your life and for the actions you do in regards to other people.
Accepting that there is no easy way out and that there is no higher power looking out for you means that you yourself have to
take charge of your life, make sure you treat others properly, and take care of your loved ones.
I teach altruism to my pupils, not because it is mandated from some god, not because 'it's so nice', but because altruism works.
And that is the long and the short of it.

He said God can't both be a black mask on a white world and a white mask on a black world.

Except that an all-knowing all-powerful being is both good and evil (inasmuch as good and evil exist), is both the black and the white mask (if you like)
and is, in fact, responsible for all of it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Re: emotional reactions to fictional characters:

Totally irrational, but happens every day. For instance, my dad, to this day carries an irrational loathing of Paul Reiser because he so deeply despised the man's character in Aliens. (Really, Paul. Sometimes it's a compliment when people wish you bodily harm.) I myself want desperately to take Dean Winchester home and give him soup and hugs and ideally a good psychologist. This despite not having watched the last two seasons of Supernatural cause it got plain stupid.

Oh, and Tyrion Lannister is made of awesome, though his brother deserves to die horribly (no spoilers, I'm behind!).

None of this makes a shred of rational sense, but humans are, let's face it, kinda weird.

To sum up, you're both right.

I'll agree on the point that human beings aren't always rational and leave it at that.

 

[Storm]

I'll agree on the point that human beings aren't always rational and leave it at that.

>chuckle<

 

[PolyHedral]

He said God can't both be a black mask on a white world and a white mask on a black world. He went on to become the apostle of common sense and a master apologist.

Sure he can, if he's portrayed inconsistently.

 

[Sunstone]

Without God morality is a confused nihilistic mess based on opinion and completely insuffecient for the needs of society.

I guess you'll be moving to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia then?

 

[jtartar]

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

Paarsurrey,
No person can be a good scientist if he denies that God created all things. Trying to make a system work or make sense without God in the formula is comparable to Einstein trying to come up with the Energy formula while leaving out the C, the speed of light squared. Anyone who claims to be a true scientist and does not include God, is at the very best, a Morosoph, Ps 10:4, 14:1.
There have been untold numbers of Improbations by these pseudoscientists, that have tried to falsify evidence to make it appear as something it is not.

 

[Noaidi]

Paarsurrey,
No person can be a good scientist if he denies that God created all things. Trying to make a system work or make sense without God in the formula is comparable to Einstein trying to come up with the Energy formula while leaving out the C, the speed of light squared. Anyone who claims to be a true scientist and does not include God, is at the very best, a Morosoph, Ps 10:4, 14:1.
There have been untold numbers of Improbations by these pseudoscientists, that have tried to falsify evidence to make it appear as something it is not.

Who, then, would qualify as a "good" scientist in your view?