I wasn't able to do it... I am weak.
I wonder what would happen if Dawkins argued with a Muslim? College professor's heads across the country would probably begin exploding, not knowing whether to make fun of the ignorant Muslim or berate Dawkins for his mistreatment of the poor, misunderstood person whose beliefs are to be respected.
Does this guy go out of his way to interview and video the dumbest people ever?
Ask and you shall receive. It's a pretty good watch if you have the time for all 4 parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEgnsQw74pM&feature=player_detailpage#t=427s
Dawkins again? I'm hoping he and Sarah Palin will take the same boat to oblivion.
Why? Because he's smarter than your wife?
My wife has three advanced degrees including a doctorate in molecular genetics. How about yours?
My wife has three advanced degrees including a doctorate in molecular genetics. How about yours?
My wife stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Think she has yours beat. :awe:
Yeah, I know. You've brought it up in past Dawkins threads.
Dawkins > your wife. Discuss.
My wife has three advanced degrees including a doctorate in molecular genetics. How about yours?
Heh, maybe. It's fascinating that people who view Dawkins as an incredibly boorish personality are automatically lesser beings. There's a cult of almost religious relevance surrounding him. The fact is that if it weren't for his Rush Limbaugh personality no one would have heard of him. Better minds than him (who happen to be atheists or agnostics) are embarrassed by his behaviors which go as far as to attack them for not being as obnoxious and rude. I don't care for him in the least. I think he's a populist troll.
Heh, maybe. It's fascinating that people who view Dawkins as an incredibly boorish personality are automatically lesser beings. There's a cult of almost religious relevance surrounding him. The fact is that if it weren't for his Rush Limbaugh personality no one would have heard of him. Better minds than him (who happen to be atheists or agnostics) are embarrassed by his behaviors which go as far as to attack them for not being as obnoxious and rude. I don't care for him in the least. I think he's a populist troll.
Heh, maybe. It's fascinating that people who view Dawkins as an incredibly boorish personality are automatically lesser beings. There's a cult of almost religious relevance surrounding him. The fact is that if it weren't for his Rush Limbaugh personality no one would have heard of him. Better minds than him (who happen to be atheists or agnostics) are embarrassed by his behaviors which go as far as to attack them for not being as obnoxious and rude. I don't care for him in the least. I think he's a populist troll.
What, then, is the coded meaning of 'You are so nineteenth-century' in the context of an argument about religion? It is code for: 'You are so crude and unsubtle, how could you be so insensitive and ill-mannered as to ask me a direct, point-blank question like "Do you believe in miracles?" or "Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin?" Don't you know that in polite society we don't ask such questions? That sort of question went out in the nineteenth century.' But think about why it is impolite to ask such direct, factual questions of religious people today. It is because it is embarrassing! But it is the answer that is embarrassing, if it is yes.
The nineteenth century connection is now clear. The nineteenth century is the last time when it was possible for an educated person to admit to believing in miracles like the virgin birth without embarrassment. When pressed, many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked. Hence, if somebody like me insists on asking the question, it is I who am accused of being 'nineteenth century.' It is really quite funny when you think about it. (The God Delusion, p. 157-157)
Which means you know my wife is smarter than Dawkins. I suppose that she's a woman might be an issue for you, but sorry, they can be smarter than him.
Which means you know my wife is smarter than Dawkins. I suppose that she's a woman might be an issue for you, but sorry, they can be smarter than him.
I don't think you really know the people you are talking about. That guy right beside Dawkins is one of the lead physicist in the world. The guy is a freakin' genius among geniuses. He also shares Dawkins views on God. Next thing you know you'll claim your wife is smarter than Hawking..which shares the same view on God as Dawkins.
As for my views on Dawkins, I just think he is a much calmer person than I could ever be when arguing with an idiot. I just don't have that kind of patience. I'd be like the physicist to his left and say, "let's move on. You're too stupid to continue this debate."
I don't think you really know the people you are talking about. That guy right beside Dawkins is one of the lead physicist in the world. The guy is a freakin' genius among geniuses. He also shares Dawkins views on God. Next thing you know you'll claim your wife is smarter than Hawking..which shares the same view on God as Dawkins. But here's the real kicker, you don't have to be a genius to realize religion is complete bullshit.
As for my views on Dawkins, I just think he is a much calmer person than I could ever be when arguing with an idiot. I just don't have that kind of patience. I'd be like the physicist to his left and say, "let's move on. You're too stupid to continue this debate."
Heh, maybe. It's fascinating that people who view Dawkins as an incredibly boorish personality are automatically lesser beings. There's a cult of almost religious relevance surrounding him. The fact is that if it weren't for his Rush Limbaugh personality no one would have heard of him. Better minds than him (who happen to be atheists or agnostics) are embarrassed by his behaviors which go as far as to attack them for not being as obnoxious and rude. I don't care for him in the least. I think he's a populist troll.
Heh, maybe. It's fascinating that people who view Dawkins as an incredibly boorish personality are automatically lesser beings.-snip- The fact is that if it weren't for his Rush Limbaugh personality no one would have heard of him. Better minds than him (who happen to be atheists or agnostics) are embarrassed by his behaviors which go as far as to attack them for not being as obnoxious and rude. I don't care for him in the least. I think he's a populist troll.
Boorish - crude, insensitive behavior - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boorish
I've only watched the Dawkins videos posted in this thread and he hasn't been crude or insensitive in any of them, quite the opposite. He goes out of his way to argue his specific point or points without being an ass or insulting others. His personality is nothing like Rush Limbaugh, who is boorish and prone to large exaggeration or misinformation to make his points.
Perhaps you have other sources depicting his "boorish" behavior? Is debating fact and asking others to look at evidence boorish in your mind? Meanwhile, the people he debates seem to like making rude insinuations that athiests/evolutionists are amoral people responsible for many of humanities greatest crimes as a direct result of those beliefs.
Besides the part about 'religious relevance', are you sure you aren't mistaking Dawkins for someone like Maher?
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.