Catholic girl tries to take on Richard Dawkins: [vid]

[Hayabusa Rider]

Church of Dawkins? Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Not one bit. His entire claim to fame is as an atheist, not a scientist. He is a cult of personality, a figure that is adored and defended completely out of proportion with his accomplishments. He is cheered on when demonstrating some of the worst of human nature, an embarrassment and a stumbling block to intellectual discourse. Yes, Church of Dawkins. Believe in him and his ways or he'll excommunicate.

 

[ZaneNBK]

You need to see beyond this thread. Here's Dawkins again. Perhaps you see well reasoned arguments here. I see nothing of value for discussion

Ah, well I don't agree with his speech there. Not only is it obnoxious to mock people for their beliefs, it's also counter-productive. When you mock someone for something they believe strongly you just put them on the defensive and they become even more strongly entrenched. If you want to change their view, for whatever reason, it's best to avoid putting them on the defensive and to approach them rationally and with facts.

However, I don't find it necessary to bother with trying to change other people's beliefs.

 

[Juddog]

Not one bit. His entire claim to fame is as an atheist, not a scientist. He is a cult of personality, a figure that is adored and defended completely out of proportion with his accomplishments. He is cheered on when demonstrating some of the worst of human nature, an embarrassment and a stumbling block to intellectual discourse. Yes, Church of Dawkins. Believe in him and his ways or he'll excommunicate.

I'm getting the feeling you've never actually sat through a Richard Dawkins debate, because your description and reality simply do not match up. The only possible explanation that I can think of is that some of what he says is actually reaching into your brain and making sense, but the ego is rejecting it because it would mean a change in your worldview, so the reaction is this violent mountain from a molehill response.

 

[jhbball]

Notice I don't rush to the defense of those who debate Dawkins.

You need to see beyond this thread. Here's Dawkins again. Perhaps you see well reasoned arguments here. I see nothing of value for discussion

He has attacked better scientists because he could and his followers line up behind him. Francis Collins was attacked by him and his disciples, who was responsible for the Human Genome Project, as being incapable because he's a Christian. That's it. Not his qualifications, not his intellectual capability, but his religion. Well Collins has proven completely able in his position at the NIH, and Dawkins rantings have been proven just that. His apology? Never going to happen. Then he goes after the former head of the British Science Association because he wouldn't back Dawkins obnoxious ways. So he's excommunicated from the Church of Dawkins, as is anyone who disagrees with how he comports himself, because this isn't about anything than Dawkins, the Alpha and Omega.

Oddly enough, you're committing the same crime you're accusing Dawkins of. Dawkins discrediting Well Collins due to his religion. You're discrediting Dawkins due his dickishness.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm getting the feeling you've never actually sat through a Richard Dawkins debate, because your description and reality simply do not match up. The only possible explanation that I can think of is that some of what he says is actually reaching into your brain and making sense, but the ego is rejecting it because it would mean a change in your worldview, so the reaction is this violent mountain from a molehill response.

Precisely why should I accept his abuse of others who are at least his equal because he doesn't like that their views match his? There is no scientific fact that he can produce that can convince me about evolution and the like because I know as much science as he does and have no problem whatsoever. Attacking others to belittle them in front of others? That doesn't reach me and make sense.

 

[JackBurton]

You need to see beyond this thread. Here's Dawkins again. Perhaps you see well reasoned arguments here. I see nothing of value for discussion

Um, you do realize he is addressing a crowd where one person is holding up a "God hates fags" sign, right? And this is the clip you are using to demonstrate Dawkins' lack of tolerance for religion?

 

[Juddog]

Precisely why should I accept his abuse of others who are at least his equal because he doesn't like that their views match his? There is no scientific fact that he can produce that can convince me about evolution and the like because I know as much science as he does and have no problem whatsoever. Attacking others to belittle them in front of others? That doesn't reach me and make sense.

OK so now you know as much science as a reknowned biologist, and your wife is as smart as the top physicist in the world. Let's see if you're telling the truth or making up bullcrap. List any of the following, for you or your wife:

* Papers published in a peer-reviewed journal
* Books written

If you cannot produce these items, then it 100% verifies that you are are lying.

 

[JD50]

Precisely why should I accept his abuse of others who are at least his equal because he doesn't like that their views match his? There is no scientific fact that he can produce that can convince me about evolution and the like because I know as much science as he does and have no problem whatsoever. Attacking others to belittle them in front of others? That doesn't reach me and make sense.

TIL Hayabusa Rider is Wendy Wright.

 

[TwiceOver]

marked

 

[soulcougher73]

Um, you do realize he is addressing a crowd where one person is holding up a "God hates fags" sign, right? And this is the clip you are using to demonstrate Dawkins' lack of tolerance for religion?

LOL

 

[mikeymikec]

Precisely why should I accept his abuse of others

How has he abused other people?

There is no scientific fact that he can produce that can convince me about evolution

Have you learnt much in your life? Were you convinced with facts then?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OK so now you know as much science as a reknowned biologist, and your wife is as smart as the top physicist in the world. Let's see if you're telling the truth or making up bullcrap. List any of the following, for you or your wife:

* Papers published in a peer-reviewed journal
* Books written

If you cannot produce these items, then it 100% verifies that you are are lying.

I insulted your god? Oh yeah, I don't post personally identifiable information and so I'm lying. That's a good one. So tell me how he's more "renowned" to spell it without fuming than other biologists? His claim to fame rests on his stance on (or against) religion. How about a known? Show his academic superiority to Francis Collins? What could Dawkins possibly teach me that I would believe in evolution more than I do? I attacked his personality, not his stance on evolution, and that's what you are defending.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How has he abused other people?



Have you learnt much in your life? Were you convinced with facts then?

I've stated how he's attacked others. Learn't much? Not really. There's a lot more to know. If you mean what do I know about evolution and if I have any doubt about it the answer is no, and that was never an issue, and long before anyone gave Dawkins a second thought.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

TIL Hayabusa Rider is Wendy Wright.

If you mean what do I know about evolution and if I have any doubt about it the answer is no

Nice.

 

[JD50]

Did Dawkins personally insult you or something?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Um, you do realize he is addressing a crowd where one person is holding up a "God hates fags" sign, right? And this is the clip you are using to demonstrate Dawkins' lack of tolerance for religion?

And Dawkins is saying that one person holding up a sign is entirely representative of everyone who doesn't agree with him? While we are at it, who was the one who held the sign? A person who has religious beliefs or a strawman?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did Dawkins personally insult you or something?

No, and that's not the point. Do people have to personally insult you for you to find their behaviors counterproductive or offensive? I dislike bullies, especially ones who try to hide behind science. YMMV

 

[sandorski]

And Dawkins is saying that one person holding up a sign is entirely representative of everyone who doesn't agree with him? While we are at it, who was the one who held the sign? A person who has religious beliefs or a strawman?

Perhaps he was talking directly to that person or about that person?

 

[preslove]

Not one bit. His entire claim to fame is as an atheist, not a scientist. He is a cult of personality, a figure that is adored and defended completely out of proportion with his accomplishments. He is cheered on when demonstrating some of the worst of human nature, an embarrassment and a stumbling block to intellectual discourse. Yes, Church of Dawkins. Believe in him and his ways or he'll excommunicate.

Uh... He became famous because of the Selfish Gene, which helped solidify gene based selection in the 70's. The last chapter of that book, which coins the term 'meme' should be required reading in middle school, because memes help explain the evolution of culture. Anyone well read since the 1980's should have known who he is.

And your idiotic false equivalence falls apart when you consider that Dawkins does not believe that he has the authority to excommunicate anyone. He certainly argues his positions against group selection and fundamentalists, but he does not think that anyone should have that kind of power.

Shit, I don't even like his atheist writings, but your argument is simply dumb.

 

[mikeymikec]

I've stated how he's attacked others. Learn't much? Not really. There's a lot more to know.

I haven't seen that particular YouTube clip you posted before. If that clip has the whole context of what he is recorded to have said at the beginning, then I would say that he was being a bit out of order, because I agree with the principle which has been put simply and crudely enough:

"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat. "

And if the context is correct there, it seems to say that he's doing pretty much the same thing.

However, I'm not sure that the whole context has been captured there, because I've watched a fair few debates with him in before and he isn't rude or condescending or displaying any other negative traits, and that is something that has impressed me because of the idiocy of some of the people who attempt to debate with him.

Citation needed about what you said about him attacking scientists. You also went on to say "his disciples", which, hyperbole aside, his supporters are other people, some of which may or may not be jerks. He isn't responsible for them.

If you mean what do I know about evolution and if I have any doubt about it the answer is no, and that was never an issue, and long before anyone gave Dawkins a second thought.

Based on this sentence alone I presume you mean that you consider evolution to be a 'the facts as we know them', yet you said "there is no scientific fact that he can produce that can convince me about evolution", so I am not sure what you mean here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uh... He became famous because of the Selfish Gene, which helped solidify gene based selection in the 70's. The last chapter of that book, which coins the term 'meme' should be required reading in middle school, because memes help explain the evolution of culture. Anyone well read since the 1980's should have known who he is.

And your idiotic false equivalence falls apart when you consider that Dawkins does not believe that he has the authority to excommunicate anyone. He certainly argues his positions against group selection and fundamentalists, but he does not think that anyone should have that kind of power.

Shit, I don't even like his atheist writings, but your argument is simply dumb.

I know he wrote a book. I also know that he's famous not because he. I also know those he's attacked have made significant contributions to science but are found wanting because they don't share his philosophies. No, not only that but he has actively gone the attack against them, and they weren't fundamentalists that were trying to force anyone to believe anything, yet he leads crusades against them. That's not rational. Excommunication? From the scientific community, that's what he'd have and in the case of Collins especially.

I don't disagree that people are difficult to deal with especially those who insist that I accept their view of Creationism. I simply won't, neither will tolerate it being taught in place of science. Then again neither do I have the desire to make profit on denigrating most everyone who is religious, nor to attempt to ruin others.

I simply find him a horrid person.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Based on this sentence alone I presume you mean that you consider evolution to be a 'the facts as we know them', yet you said "there is no scientific fact that he can produce that can convince me about evolution", so I am not sure what you mean here.

If I agree with the principles of evolution and find them to be correct how much more "factualness" can he add to that conclusion? "Facts as we know them" means the details of how it works change and right now there are links which I do not have on hand (I believe physorg or Science Daily) which are kind of cool. That's what excites me, the idea of new knowledge in any field, not preaching.

 

[Juddog]

I insulted your god? Oh yeah, I don't post personally identifiable information and so I'm lying. That's a good one. So tell me how he's more "renowned" to spell it without fuming than other biologists? His claim to fame rests on his stance on (or against) religion. How about a known? Show his academic superiority to Francis Collins? What could Dawkins possibly teach me that I would believe in evolution more than I do? I attacked his personality, not his stance on evolution, and that's what you are defending.

So in other words you are full of crap. Got it.

If you were even half as smart as you say you were, then you would have a paper out there, or a book, or some recognition from the scientific community, but you don't. You're a nobody in terms of the scientific community, you don't have any peer-review published works, neither does your wife. You are just making up lies as you go along.

Don't think you're the first ATOT'er to pretend to have a sports car, model girlfriend, giant mansion, or any other lie - you're not. You're just a nobody on the internet, making huge claims, who can't actually back up your statements with even one single piece of evidence. Go have fun living your life of fantasy land, in your magical castle with unicorns, easter bunnies, Santa Claus, and your wife who's "da smartest-est being in da whole wide wurld! You gotta believe me guys, she's really 'dat smart!"

 

[preslove]

I know he wrote a book. I also know that he's famous not because he. I also know those he's attacked have made significant contributions to science but are found wanting because they don't share his philosophies. No, not only that but he has actively gone the attack against them, and they weren't fundamentalists that were trying to force anyone to believe anything, yet he leads crusades against them. That's not rational.

And the bolded isn't English.

Excommunication? From the scientific community, that's what he'd have and in the case of Collins especially.

When has Dawkins called for Francis Collins to be 'excommunicated' from academia? His debate with Gould was FAR more important and Dawkins did not even then call for an 'excommunication.' Do you actually have evidence of Dawkins calling for some form of professional censure of Collins? If so, present it. If not, stop making shit up.

Regardless of what Dawkins has said about Collins, the fact is that Dawkins does not have the power in academia to harm Collins, especially because Dawkins is a theoretical biologist, while Collins is a experimental physician/geneticist. They both participate in the larger discipline of biology, but they're not really in the same field.

And, I'm pretty sure that Dawkins would say that science is superior to religion exactly because no one has the power to 'excommunicate' (if you actually use the real meaning of the word) anyone in science, and that any scientific dogmas that do develop will not stand the test of time.

 

[jhbball]

1) become a conservative
2) back fill the rest