Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 07:07:38 PM
I think we should go back to discussing the article. I still haven't read much about the point it makes.

As for richard dawkins, he is irrelevant. He is useful as what he is, a scientist biologist. What is relevant is the text I presented, as I feel it makes a valid point.
He's relevant because he is the prophet for a popular, materialist outlook on spirituality.


Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 07:15:03 PM
I think we should go back to discussing the article. I still haven't read much about the point it makes.

As for richard dawkins, he is irrelevant. He is useful as what he is, a scientist biologist. What is relevant is the text I presented, as I feel it makes a valid point.
If you notice earlier, myself and history have destroyed your notions of morality. Yet, what, we aren't discussing the article?

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 07:17:13 PM
What I meant was that it is irrelevant to discuss the person richard dawkins here, since what I proposed was a discussion about the article. And obviously wanting to saw his head off is totally uncalled for and ridiculous, even if (as it is) meant as a joke.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 07:23:17 PM
I haven't read much of this, since it's pretty pathetic, but...

1) 'Morality' so-called has gone through many gradations. Just in recorded history we know that it was first what was useful, and than second, what was against first moralities conception. Morality is nothing other than beliefs engraved into us through social conditioning. As society and religion changes every few thousand of years, moralities change. Not only does this prove that morality is simply a reaction to environment, but that morality is ambiguous and is not 'born in us'.

2) Social conditioning is quite apparent in you. Why? You suggest that 'god' is a singular male. In other words, you are socially conditioned by white-anglo Saxon's. If god exists, you think he is a mirror of us? Triangles would conceive of a 'triangle god'...

3) Judging through your conduct here, you are of weak morality.


4) Please do not bring that invalid Dawkins into this forum again.

1) Everything may substitute morality in your declarations, I really don't see the point of it. Everything changes in history, or else it wouldn't be and existence would be like a giant still photograph. I don't really know what to make of this since morality is not the main point of the article.

2) I never suggested that. That goes to show who is the real conditioned one: I never said God was a male, even less, a white one. I just said the word God, you don't know what this means to me and assumed I meant it as a divine white male. That's whacked.

3) Then provide some examples so I can improve.

4) That's not worthy of a response.

It would be better to make a direct analysis of the article.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 07:57:21 PM
Quote
1) Everything may substitute morality in your declarations, I really don't see the point of it. Everything changes in history, or else it wouldn't be and existence would be like a giant still photograph. I don't really know what to make of this since morality is not the main point of the article.
Like I said, if history and science have shown morality to be ambiguous and dependant on enviromental circumstance, how can such things as a 'created morality' exist if in fact they are just reactions to laws and upbringing? To me this is just metaphysical idealism, like the 'soul' superstition.

Quote
2) I never suggested that. That goes to show who is the real conditioned one: I never said God was a male, even less, a white one. I just said the word God, you don't know what this means to me and assumed I meant it as a divine white male. That's whacked.

Quote
Maybe we were the designers of ourselves.

Quote
If we did, and could talk to him like another human, then he would'nt be so high after all.

You may not be aware you're even doing it, because civilization's influence is so engraved into your unconscious.

3) A superior morality considers that morality doesn't exist, and all that does is either truth or untruth, as related to the knowledge one has uncovered.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 08:03:05 PM
I'm still laughing at all the peolple claiming to study this at degree level and who criticise Dawkins, yet have clearly clearly never read a single one of his academic books. If you base your opinions of him on his podcasts and reality TV appearances, then you will miss 99% of his rationale.

And yet, it's the 1% that gets on TV which is what the term "Richard Dawkins" means to the majority of people.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 08:15:07 PM
it's the 1% that gets on TV which is what the term "Richard Dawkins" means to the majority of people.
Haha, so true. Television watchers and The Crowd(tm) are fucking imbeciles.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 10:05:54 PM
Richard Dawkins is philosophically untrained.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 10:59:04 PM
I'm still laughing at all the peolple claiming to study this at degree level and who criticise Dawkins, yet have clearly clearly never read a single one of his academic books. If you base your opinions of him on his podcasts and reality TV appearances, then you will miss 99% of his rationale.

Which ones are his academic books on Religion? I have read God Delusion (not academic) the Blind Watchmaker (not academic), some articles on Religion (not academic), and of course the Selfish Gene, which is a great book but for biology and sociobiology. If there is any academic grade book on Religion (this is, not dedicated to play games with fundies, but actually to discuss the works of classic but specially contemporary leading academic figures in the field) I'm interested, tell me please. As far I know, his really academic work is in the field of biology, but that has not made him the rockstar he is. Or he has an unknown bibliography to me, or you are clearly clearly flashed by a prose on Religion directed to amateurs.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 11:40:22 PM
What I meant was that it is irrelevant to discuss the person richard dawkins here, since what I proposed was a discussion about the article. And obviously wanting to saw his head off is totally uncalled for and ridiculous, even if (as it is) meant as a joke.
I see where you are coming from, but don't you think naming the thread what you did is kind of asking for it?

The vast majority of the people who like to make EXTREME jokes like "Man, John Doe is such a fuckmuffin, I want to cut his dick off and shove it down his throat!" would vomit and faint if they saw a corpse up close.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
I'm still laughing at all the peolple claiming to study this at degree level and who criticise Dawkins, yet have clearly clearly never read a single one of his academic books. If you base your opinions of him on his podcasts and reality TV appearances, then you will miss 99% of his rationale.

Which ones are his academic books on Religion? I have read God Delusion (not academic) the Blind Watchmaker (not academic), some articles on Religion (not academic), and of course the Selfish Gene, which is a great book but for biology and sociobiology. If there is any academic grade book on Religion (this is, not dedicated to play games with fundies, but actually to discuss the works of classic but specially contemporary leading academic figures in the field) I'm interested, tell me please. As far I know, his really academic work is in the field of biology, but that has not made him the rockstar he is. Or he has an unknown bibliography to me, or you are clearly clearly flashed by a prose on Religion directed to amateurs.

You have not read the Blind Watchmaker.

This is not me scoring web battle points by bluffing. This is me seeing that you do not know what you are talking about. I assume you have not read any other of his work either.

Dawkins demonstrates fairly well that religion has clung to their God of the Gaps for centuries now. He does not write on religion, which was pretty much the only point I was making from the start.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 11:44:30 PM
The vast majority of the people who like to make EXTREME jokes like "Man, John Doe is such a fuckmuffin, I want to cut his dick off and shove it down his throat!" would vomit and faint if they saw a corpse up close.
Not me. I am TWICE as brutal in real life as I am on the web.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 29, 2011, 11:56:20 PM

You have not read the Blind Watchmaker.

This is not me scoring web battle points by bluffing. This is me seeing that you do not know what you are talking about. I assume you have not read any other of his work either.

Dawkins demonstrates fairly well that religion has clung to their God of the Gaps for centuries now. He does not write on religion, which was pretty much the only point I was making from the start.

You so sure? That's why people praise the work of Dawkins as a biologist but not as a philosopher. TBWM: Good model proposed for biology, third class induction against fundies. Not academic for Religion. I'm glad that model, as well as his other arguments, gives you certainty, but don't expect it to meet the standards of academics of Religion.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 30, 2011, 01:43:03 PM
I tried reading "The God Delusion" today.  Got to chapter three and thought "sod it, this guy has absolutely no understanding of anything remotely akin to proper reasoning practice".  His crass rejection of Anselm's Ontological Argument (a rejection which made no refutation of Anselm's arguments) displays his absolute inability to consider reality beyond the imminent and physical.  As many militant scientists, he is blind to the metaphysical aspects of reality.