Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
The reason Dawkins seems to be attacking religion rather than disproving it is that gods do not exist. If they did, there would be something to prove or disprove. You can't disprove that unicorns do not exist because there are no unicorns. Another reason is fear. He is afraid, and for good reason if you look at the news lately, that fundamentalist christianity is getting more powerful. It is, and these people are making life harder by the day.
@conkerzzz I do fart. I typically feel better when I finish. Seeing as how I may not be totally sane it is possible that I am unable to process your responce. That said I would say Dawkins is a good scientist and a douchy theologian.
@conkerzzz I do fart. I typically feel better when I finish. Seeing as how I may not be totally sane it is possible that I am unable to process your responce. That said I would say Dawkins is a good scientist and a douchy theologian.
@conkerzzz I do fart. I typically feel better when I finish. Seeing as how I may not be totally sane it is possible that I am unable to process your responce. That said I would say Dawkins is a good scientist and a douchy theologian.
Dawkins is a social Darwinist - he refers to Christians as a virus and unintelligent, suggesting they are less evolved(?). Just goes to show what delusions of grandeur can do to you. I am a Christian and I aren't a virus, though I do currently have a cold.
Dawkins never claimed Christians are less evolved. That's freaking stupid. We're all similarly "evolved." I disagree with Dawkins saying Christians are all stupid since my family is religious and they're all incredibly smart, but don't make shit up Dave.
Not making it up. Dawkins own words suggests he believes he is better than ur family & the implication - this is because of evolution. This is why he has called for atheists (his own unique brand of atheism) to be know as "the brights", ie your family and I are dim, which as you say in the case of your family is not true. This is social Darwinism and made a significant contribution to Hitlers thinking regarding the holocaust. We agree then, some of the clap Dawkins comes out with is just stupid
Evolution is not the survival of the fittest. it is the surivial of the fit. Animals that are able to survive using any mehtods in their disposale will be succesfull.
I'm not sure what you mean... Einstein by all accounts was a "Theological Determinist" and said , "I believe in Spinoza's God". I think that there are many different interpretations of what god: is; says ; means and what we are meant do about it. Knowledge has moved on since Genesis was written. Genesis is perhaps just a good story. So what is gods relationship to humanity, or vice versa? The ten commandments are good rules' so is, harm no-one, do what tho will. (Wikka).
Spinoza had a pretty good God definition. So did the guy who wrote Genisis. "Devine inspiration" has certainly happened to more people than Moses and Some guy named Paul. New inspiration will come, but it does not invalidate older accounts, rather It clarify's the truth we already know. The wiccans have some truth. As for Mr. Crowley I personally think there are better things for me to worry about than self gratification. I find little benifit in his truth, but It is ok that he has an opinion.
Stubby: Dawkins is a "Logical Positivist" or "Pragmatist" This type of philosophy is heavily observation and experiment based. "Christian Pacifsm" or "Christian Existensialism"(see wikipedia) place a deity in the belief system. Faith in a deity is a guess; whereas for example faith that day will follow night is reasonably based on the fact that we live on a spinning ball in a static light source. It is resonable to suggest mankind evolved, claims that we were created in one day is not education.
How is making a claim that If Einstien was born today he would most likely be an "athiest" and experiment based claim. It isn't infact it is pure opinion. I understand Dawkins views and I can understand how he got there. The simple truth though is that evolution has nothing to with the question is there a God. It shows us that there is something the writters of Gensis didn't understand, but that is all.
I think that Dawkins views modern religious fundamentalism with contempt. While he is provocative and simplifies some rather complex issues; I see no obvious blunders or attempts to mislead the reader. "How to Lie with Statistics" addresses the issue you mentioned. Education and raising our consciousness appears to be our best hope of understanding the universe and to leave this planet; religous dogmatism does not. Religion being interpreted as justification to kill, is devoid of logic.
I agree with you about the importance of education, but I don't see the need to assume that the choice is between education or religion. We could have both. I've alway liked the term "reasoned faith" much more than "blind faith".
Hey I accidentally just removed a users comment when I ment to hit reply and I'm not sure what there name is. They basically said that Dawkins feels like the label atheist is better than deist because dogma does not line up with science and reason. sorry.
I think Dawkins is saying that; to be a theist or deist, you need to make a leap of faith; a scientific approach is based on different principles and requires verifiable proof, before something is accepted as true. The existence of god cannot be proven, but the origin and evolution of life can. Dawkins would agree with the ethics of, for example, christianity; but not the supernatural componant(s). Claiming to kill in the name of god; is not only nonsense, it is dangerous nonsense.
I think Dawkin's is exagerating his stance due to a fear of modern fundimentalism. Honestly I don't blame him. Many of his "statistics" about theists in science are exaggerated in the God Delusion. Lots of people do there best to load the statistics in there favor. It disappoints me that someone as intellegent as Dawikins would think this is a good idea. But I understand why he does what he does.
Darwin is the Father of Evolution and Dawkins is the favorite Son!
Yes the shades of Grey - logic can only say Black or White.But there is a third option of neither Black nor neither White - but Grey. Find the Grey Area.
But if you want logical proof; Let P = God Exists P -P (negation) P XOR -P (either one or the other but not both) But cannot prove God exists/Not exists (Why?) -(P) ^ -(-P) Negation of the negation You cannot prove P or -P therefore -(P) ^ -(-P) If accept conclusion we can then admit that the question of Gods existance is indeterminable or something exists (because everyone is arguing about it) - but God (as we understand it)can't be the answer.
"Yes the shades of Grey - logic can only say Black or White.But there is a third option of neither Black nor neither White - but Grey. Find the Grey Area."
1. I am a deist not a christian. I made no claims that christainity could avoid anything. My argument was for tollerance. Regarless of philosophy.
2. If artificial intellengence is inevitable, Intellegent computers will almost definitely out smart us in the future. Who says a human will be the one to create such a means. The point is simple we may not always be the top of the food chain.
(ZITZON)please give me a link/ some information on a few of these, I belive in the evolution theory quite strongly but well ever since I discovered all the laughably unscientific ways creationists use to try and disprove it, well I've become far to comfortable in my own ideas, so any evidence to the contray (of evolution) could help bring me back down to a mental stage where I don't accidentally dismiss some real evidence along with all the creationist tripe.
4 stars... I appreciate the fact that you've actually read the book unlike many others who have a lot to say about it. I'm in the process of reading it a second time.
I don't agree with much of what you've said but at least it's an honest critique.
Thanks. Honestly the book was pretty good. Dawkins does a great job of keeping guys like myself honest. In my follow up video, I speak much kinder of Dawkins.
The reason why Richard Dawkins attacks religion is because people cant believe in evolution simply based on reading a science text book. It has too many holes in it. So you have these Atheist Fundamentalist cooks come out and try to directly smear and attack creationists. Their fueled by their hatred of God and the idea that they are smaller in the grand scheme of things than their own egos. They hate the possibility of begin wrong.
different day,same spam.you lump all who believe in evolution with atheist,accuse atheist of being fundamentalist(does that bit of the pot calling the kettle black ever get old?)and then throw in broadly applied motives of hating god"how do you hate something you do not believe in?)and ego?you are the ones that think you are part of gods master plan,science shows how small we really are.
I found it amusing how Dawkins spent almost nine pages of his book trying redifine Einstein's Deism so he can reach to the conclusion that Einstein's beliefs were in fact 'sexed-up atheism'. I also found it interesting how he avoided using some very revealing quotes from Einstein which contradicted his conclusion.
Here is a famous quote from Einstein whe he was asked if he believed in God: "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages.
The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
I am pretty sure that quote appeared in Max Jammer's book which is the source that Dawkins used to get his Einstein quotes from. So much for Dawkins being concerned for the truth.
Thanks for the awesome Einstein quote. Sounds like a book I should check out. Also thanks for subscribing. I look forward to future comments. So far the ones you have made are fantastic.
I was not aware this was a competition. If you like I can declare you champion of the comments page. If you recall in the book he makes frequent assumtions that pantheist or deist of the past would be atheist if they were alive today. Also He compiled a largelist of scientists and said that only 3 of them were theist and he felt like this was likely because they did not want to offend. If you watch the second video I'm sure you will like it.
'If you recall in the book he makes frequent assumtions that pantheist or deist of the past would be atheist if they were alive today.'
So what? That's got nothing to do with anything. Dawkins has praised a lot of religious scientists. He is WELL aware that you don't have to be an atheist to be intelligent.
Here are just a few examples of Dawkins relating intelligence to atheists:
"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down... Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument...
But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take', OR WHOSE NATIVE INTELLIGENCE IS STRONG ENOUGHT TO OVERCOME IT." - Richard Dawkins
Dawkins opens up the 'The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists' section of his book from a bold assertion that had been made by Bertrand Russell: "The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes".
Dawkins later states: "It is completely as I would expect that American scientists are less religious than the American public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all."
Followed by: "What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite."
Dawkins asks the question: "is there any evidence that, in the population at large, atheists are likely to be drawn from among the better educated and more intelligent?"
He then brings up the meta-analysis published by Mensa Magazine where he quotes Paul Bell's conclusion '...the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."
Dawkins also states that religion "subverts science and saps the intellect" he goes on to state that the Harvard scholar, Kurt Wise, had his mind weakened because of his faith.
Don't you think these examples demonstrate how Dawkins is obviously trying to correlate intelligence with atheism and a lack of intelligence with religious people?
Dawkins definately correlates intelligence with atheism! He is devoid of any objectivity regarding religion and just sprouts his scientific rationalistic prejudices as if they were scientific facts.
Wait until the atheist American scientists start shafting Darwinian Theory - the buzz is that Darwinian Theory is becoming increasingly untenable in the actual laboratories.
the buzz among creationist perhaps,the same buzz that has been around since the advent of the darwinian theory of evolution.the same buzz that has failed to bear fruit as scientific discoveries found more evidence and won over skeptics.
No the "buzz" I'm talking about is coming from actual research labarotaries! I have no interest in Creationist or Intelligent design ideas. I'm talking about scientists who are observing that biological systems act in ways that is contrary to Darwinian Theory.
If you can't see through the falsehood of religion then you aint intelligent. That seems a reasonable assumption to me based on the mounting evidence to refute theistic beliefs.
I might not be intelligent, but I am happy. In the future I would honored to have you take the time to point out any errors I make. I'm here to gain understanding. I may be slow, but I am learnin.
Christianity is the inescapable truth inasmuch as it alone provides the preconditions for the universal and unchanging laws of logic. Human beings are not omniscient or omnipotent; thus humanity cannot account for the universals in the laws of logic, ethics, and mathematics. Without God, universal & certain claims are unavoidable, & Christianity alone provides the preconditions for universal & certain claims; thus,God must be.
I do admit to the limitations of man, but I guess this brings up a different question. If we are not omnipotent, how do we know that christianity is the ultimate truth?
you appeared to use "social darwinism" in place of natural selection. I can't say that I agree in the least that Dawkins was working from EITHER of those directions. You appear to edit what he said for what you thought he was trying to say. The point of The God Delusion that I took from it was "Religion will make otherwise smart people believe and do very irrational things." And THAT, I would agree with.
Its a bad idea to take a few of Dawkin's thoughts and use them to distort the entirety of his message? Maybe I miss judged the guy ;) As to the issue of otherwise smart people acting irrationally I would say religion may make otherwise smart people irrational. Ibuprofin may cause a heart attack does that mean I should avoid taking it, or just taking it exessively? Intollerance shows up in funniest places.
I like your analogy of Ibuprofin causing a heart attack, let's broaden it though. Medicine is good, but for some people SPECIFIC medicine can be bad. Being a good person is good. Telling SOME people to do something bad CAN be horrifying. Backing it up by saying GOD COMMANDS YOU to do this horrible thing...that does something you don't find in medicine. You can decline the Ibuprofin and no one calls you a sinner.
I believe your arguement here is one context. I will grant that often people who have a religion take it out of context. But that does not mean all do. I can admit to my contextual exageration of Dawkins. Can you do the same for religion?
no because the difference is that no one states that Dawkins is divinely speaking and must be followed or you spend eternity in Hell. Don't get me wrong. I understand what you are saying. You miss that I DO NOT say that all religious PEOPLE do horrible things. But the notion of imperical truth leads to bad things when that "truth" involves the intolerance that is bred by religion.
If hell is the problem you are adressing than you problem is with "A" christian or Muslim doctorine, not religion.
Belief in Hell, especially as a tool for motivation, causes problems. I agree with you. Still however your comments over simplify the essence of religion. Attack the ignorance not the religion.
the ignorance COMES FROM the religion. You and I agree on this subject (as much as it seems that we don't) for about 95% of it...the difference is a chicken and the egg issue. I say the religion came first the intolerance comes out of it and you say the reverse...well, sort of.
The problem of your arguement is this. If it rains alot mushrooms will grow in your back yard. Therefore mushrooms are made of rain. Intollerance and religion are two entirely different things. Sure moisture influences mushroom growth, but it is not what constitutes a mushroom. Religion can provide a fertile condition for the growth of intollerance. This however does not make the puropose of religion to be intollerance. Your problem is with the mushrooms not the rain.
"Religion can provide a fertile condition for the growth of intollerance." - hence, THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION. As I said, we are in agreement for the most part.
see, you STILL keep going back to this idea of I'm trying to "get rid of religion"...NOOOOOOO. It's about raising awareness so that maybe religious people will think a bit deeper before they read a passage in their Bible that say homosexuals should be put to death and they go out and kill someone.
You Tube was my first real heavy duty experience with atheists. I was quite frankly shocked by what I found. All my life I've heard that it was Christian who push their beliefs on people and Christians who talked down to people didn't believe as they did, so I tried very hard not to be that kind of Christian.
I came to You Tube with the idea that I would share my life experiences, encourage other Christians and be an information resource for people who had questions about Christianity. I never addressed atheists. I never attacked them, I never talked about them and I never even mentioned them. Yet for some reason they sought me out, attacked me, they questioned my intelligence and my motives.
They cursed me, made fun of me and made all kinds of efforts to discredit me. It wasn't just me either, but other Christians who had any degree of popularity. The only Christians they seem to like are the ones who are pretty liberal with the Bible and don't uphold all that it teaches.
On the other hand, I did encounter a few who were not like this, but who were actually very decent people with whom I could have quality discussions. But most represented themselves with all the intolerance, all the judgementalism and all the narrow mindedness that I've always heard associated with Christians.
watching your channel was one of the reasons I started making videos. Your a good preacherman. The mob mentality has to stop regardless of the labels associated. Thanks for the comments.
I thoroughly enjoy listening to your perspectives on your videos, but I have one issue with this one. It relates to the dichotomy you create, where you say that social Darwinism leads to technology overtaking us as a race. Before I get into the reasons why I believe this is a false dichotomy, would you care to elaborate as to why you have reached this conclusion?
Social Darwinism leads to conflict and death regarless to what you attach it to. The implication about technology is that technology is already stronger than the human. Eventually technology will be smarter than the human. If or more likely when artificial intellegence becomes a reality, concieousness will be granted to said machines. Eventually we will no longer be need for there survival? If survival of the fittest is the phylosophy they chose we are in trouble.
dawkins has spoken very often about how he thinks survival of the fittest would be a very poor modal for a society.he has only ever spoken of the teachings of darwin as an explanation for how biology has advanced.i think his books have only ever advocated that society should hold to reason and rationality as its foundation,not superstition.i think he makes the case well,though in a very confrontational manner.
It is one thing to say survival of the fitest is a poor model. It is a entirely different to act as though this is not the case. I would argue that his confrontational manner especially his attacking the rational of theist is a attempt at social darwinism. Keep in mind I do like Dawkins I just think he could better.
how are you claiming that he acts as though it is not the case.he does not advocate that the weak should be left to die.he just wants ideas to be judged on there merits.if we did not judge ideas on there merits we would never have made scientific or moral progress as a species.if you are saying we should treat everything folks think with the same respect i must disagree,i have no intention of respecting the ideas of flat earthers and those that deny the atrocities of the nazi's for example.
I agree with you here however. The problem is not that he challenges ideas it is how he challenges ideas. One intention of this book was clearly to polarize people of faith and people of science. I personally know hundreds of people involved in scientific-enigeering fields who have no problem balancing the religion and science. Why take such a polarizing stance? He did it to squash religion. You can disagree with religion, but you can not deny his intention with this particular book.
well i am inclined to think that he is trying to energize a group that has had some some issues in the past with a certain degree of complacancy that progress will inevitably win out in the end.i also think he is correct in stating that fundamentalist thinking is downright silly and that to a certain extent they get overlooked due to there more moderate counterparts.
I agree with you. I didn't question his ultimate intention rather his aplication. No one is perfect. Keep in mind I just said I thought he could do better. I'm sure someone like Richard Dawkins would consider that a worthy challenge no?
well dawkins has in the past stated that he thinks it is a legit concern that he may be to confrontational.he has expressed admiration for those that have a softer approach and hopes that they meet with success,but that he feels it would be dishonest for him to express himself in a manner other then he really feels.i can find no fault in that.
every once in a while I go to the movie theater and set next to guy who eats popcorn louder than the movie. As I set there and think about the 9 dollars I just spent and I notice the lack of fulfillment I am getting from the movie. I feel like throwing the guys popcorn in the isle and telling him to shut the f*#@ up, but I don't. That would cause to much confrontation.
not really the same thing in my book.one writes a book to convey ones ideas.one buys a book because one is interested in those ideas.i perfer that those ideas be conveyed honestly.this is not a case of keeping silent so others can enjoy the show,dawkins book is the show.
i could make plenty of other analogies here. But if we are going to head in this direction I will play along. Not long ago Nietzsche was the show. He said "superior men are not bound by social moral codes" eventually inspiring many including Hitler. Was that part of the show worth watching? I admit my analogy is exagerated, but no more than yours.
mind you nietzsche was advocting independant thought over mindless group think,the nazi's distorted his ideas rather extesivly.nietzsche would have abhored the mindless obediance to the state that was the foundation of the nazis.regardless i do not think folks should be dishonest or self censor because they are afraid of others taking there ideas and distort,or for that matter even be true to them. people are responsable for there own actions.where they got the idea does not change this.
I would say that precisely what we learn from Hitler and Nietzche is this. People should be honest when making statements. Over exagerated ideas will like be destorted and eventually used to the advatage of someone like Hitler. if Dawkins is putting himself in the spot light especially on issues were he sees conflict He should take utmost care to avoid being excessively confrontational.
"excessively confrontational"by who's standards?and people will use whatever ideas exagerated or not that they like.i still think people should be forthcoming with there opinions if you are buying a book containing them.
of course,and you are free to disagree with him,i just have not realy seen anything that convinces me that he crossed any line.that you do not fully agree with his tone seems well established.that he has gone farther then he should i do not think has been.
The God Delusion was about some people's delusion of a god, and you didn't like that because it seems to exclusive. One book does not define an author. His other books are much more inclusive.
I agree with you. That is why I often took the oportunity to praise Dawkins in the video. I think he could have done better with the God Delusion thats all.
I think you have terribly misunderstood Dawkins opinion. I have read his book twice and seen many articles and interviews with him and I don't get the same feeling you seem to. Dawkins certainly isn't proposing social Darwinism, that is just ludicrous.
Keep in mind I didn't say Dawkins was a bad guy. But he says himself his goal with the book "the God Delusion" was to destroy the notion of a personal God especially the christian God. I can understand why he feels the need to do what he does, but you can't deny that on this topic survival of the fitest is the aproach he is taking.
This depends on the part you read. I did say he makes quite a few good arguements in the book. The problem I have is that he didn't always stick to those arguemetns statements like if he were alive today he would surely be an atheist are pure speculation ment to be used a propoganda. He makes good arguements so why does he have to take it one step further, this is my point.
Hi Stubby. I got the sense that Dawkins was interested in teaching altruism in a secular way. He definitely didn't argue in favor of a "dog eat dog" for human society. I'll have to give my review of the selfish gene (for what it's worth).
In my opinion, you can't honor, or usefully apply, intelligence if you "love" either God or Nature... "survival the fittest" is as irrelevant as "original sin"... The fact is we are animals constructed by crude forces that through arbitrary circumstance, has the benefit, and responsibility, of being able to see beyond our own existence. Archaic reverence for God or natural purpose, can only serve to limit and distort that vision.
I love God and nature and humanity if that limits my intelligence so be it. What good is intellengence if I don't have anything worth while to think about?
Excellent topic Stubby. Finding a way to meet everyones needs without the use of violence is going to require us to abandon the concept of deserving. Not a easy task.
he was a deist,he believed the universe was crafted.but he rejected pretty much every other supernatural claim in the bible.he considered things like the virgin birth to be no better then greek mythology.
you are correct Nemo. Most of the founding fathers of the US were deists. They maintained a belief in God and a ability to reason. Why assume there belief would not exist today as Dawkins did in the book?
but jefferson did reject all the old testement and a good chunk of the new,the question of whether he he would have been an atheist if he could have known what we know about the big bang and evolution is an interesting one.though i willingly admit it is a moot one.
We agree here. There are better things to talk about than who believed or would have believed what. Jefferson had thoughts that have influence the minds of believers as well as non believers. That is one of the many things that made him a great man. Timeless lableless wisdom.
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
The reason Dawkins seems to be attacking religion rather than disproving it is that gods do not exist. If they did, there would be something to prove or disprove. You can't disprove that unicorns do not exist because there are no unicorns. Another reason is fear. He is afraid, and for good reason if you look at the news lately, that fundamentalist christianity is getting more powerful. It is, and these people are making life harder by the day.
skywize 1 year ago
Dawkins is a hero of sane and rational people, u fart.
conkerzzz 1 year ago
@conkerzzz I do fart. I typically feel better when I finish. Seeing as how I may not be totally sane it is possible that I am unable to process your responce. That said I would say Dawkins is a good scientist and a douchy theologian.
squitmaa 1 year ago
@conkerzzz I do fart. I typically feel better when I finish. Seeing as how I may not be totally sane it is possible that I am unable to process your responce. That said I would say Dawkins is a good scientist and a douchy theologian.
squitmaa 1 year ago
@conkerzzz I do fart. I typically feel better when I finish. Seeing as how I may not be totally sane it is possible that I am unable to process your responce. That said I would say Dawkins is a good scientist and a douchy theologian.
squitmaa 1 year ago
Dawkins is a social Darwinist - he refers to Christians as a virus and unintelligent, suggesting they are less evolved(?). Just goes to show what delusions of grandeur can do to you. I am a Christian and I aren't a virus, though I do currently have a cold.
davemakesawave 3 years ago
drink lots of fluids get plenty rest and thanks for the comment.
squitmaa 3 years ago
Dawkins never claimed Christians are less evolved. That's freaking stupid. We're all similarly "evolved." I disagree with Dawkins saying Christians are all stupid since my family is religious and they're all incredibly smart, but don't make shit up Dave.
mustaine89 3 years ago
Not making it up. Dawkins own words suggests he believes he is better than ur family & the implication - this is because of evolution. This is why he has called for atheists (his own unique brand of atheism) to be know as "the brights", ie your family and I are dim, which as you say in the case of your family is not true. This is social Darwinism and made a significant contribution to Hitlers thinking regarding the holocaust. We agree then, some of the clap Dawkins comes out with is just stupid
davemakesawave 3 years ago
Evolution is not the survival of the fittest. it is the surivial of the fit. Animals that are able to survive using any mehtods in their disposale will be succesfull.
AceGikmo45 3 years ago
did you even read the book, he talks about the claims of his fundamentalism in it
besides, he doesnt just decree all smart folks are atheists, thats based on statistics
btw, falwell is dead, and we can be thankful for that, falwell is/was a disgusting little charlatan
atomicdogg34 3 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean... Einstein by all accounts was a "Theological Determinist" and said , "I believe in Spinoza's God". I think that there are many different interpretations of what god: is; says ; means and what we are meant do about it. Knowledge has moved on since Genesis was written. Genesis is perhaps just a good story. So what is gods relationship to humanity, or vice versa? The ten commandments are good rules' so is, harm no-one, do what tho will. (Wikka).
irresistablejewel 4 years ago
Spinoza had a pretty good God definition. So did the guy who wrote Genisis. "Devine inspiration" has certainly happened to more people than Moses and Some guy named Paul. New inspiration will come, but it does not invalidate older accounts, rather It clarify's the truth we already know. The wiccans have some truth. As for Mr. Crowley I personally think there are better things for me to worry about than self gratification. I find little benifit in his truth, but It is ok that he has an opinion.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Stubby: Dawkins is a "Logical Positivist" or "Pragmatist" This type of philosophy is heavily observation and experiment based. "Christian Pacifsm" or "Christian Existensialism"(see wikipedia) place a deity in the belief system. Faith in a deity is a guess; whereas for example faith that day will follow night is reasonably based on the fact that we live on a spinning ball in a static light source. It is resonable to suggest mankind evolved, claims that we were created in one day is not education.
irresistablejewel 4 years ago
How is making a claim that If Einstien was born today he would most likely be an "athiest" and experiment based claim. It isn't infact it is pure opinion. I understand Dawkins views and I can understand how he got there. The simple truth though is that evolution has nothing to with the question is there a God. It shows us that there is something the writters of Gensis didn't understand, but that is all.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I think that Dawkins views modern religious fundamentalism with contempt. While he is provocative and simplifies some rather complex issues; I see no obvious blunders or attempts to mislead the reader. "How to Lie with Statistics" addresses the issue you mentioned. Education and raising our consciousness appears to be our best hope of understanding the universe and to leave this planet; religous dogmatism does not. Religion being interpreted as justification to kill, is devoid of logic.
irresistablejewel 4 years ago
I agree with you about the importance of education, but I don't see the need to assume that the choice is between education or religion. We could have both. I've alway liked the term "reasoned faith" much more than "blind faith".
squitmaa 4 years ago
Hey I accidentally just removed a users comment when I ment to hit reply and I'm not sure what there name is. They basically said that Dawkins feels like the label atheist is better than deist because dogma does not line up with science and reason. sorry.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I would agree that some dogma is unreasonable, howver I think it is unreasonable to assume that any one dogma was a requirement of a "faith in god".
squitmaa 4 years ago
I think Dawkins is saying that; to be a theist or deist, you need to make a leap of faith; a scientific approach is based on different principles and requires verifiable proof, before something is accepted as true. The existence of god cannot be proven, but the origin and evolution of life can. Dawkins would agree with the ethics of, for example, christianity; but not the supernatural componant(s). Claiming to kill in the name of god; is not only nonsense, it is dangerous nonsense.
irresistablejewel 4 years ago
I think Dawkin's is exagerating his stance due to a fear of modern fundimentalism. Honestly I don't blame him. Many of his "statistics" about theists in science are exaggerated in the God Delusion. Lots of people do there best to load the statistics in there favor. It disappoints me that someone as intellegent as Dawikins would think this is a good idea. But I understand why he does what he does.
squitmaa 4 years ago
"Under or Present State of Ignorance" - Charles Darwin Origin of Species.
elijahsfire 4 years ago
Much rambling and complaining about the two sides of a complex arguement but you never proposed a solution.
dorianlondon 4 years ago
I think I cover the solution in a few other video's. checkout these video's if your looking for solutions.
1. Atheists
2. I found the Messiah
3. Ode to a fundimentalist
4. Re:the problem with religion follow up
squitmaa 4 years ago
huh?
seabrain 4 years ago
omfg you don't hate atheists? you're going to hell bitch
zeltarg 4 years ago
I must attribute the logical method to Protheory: ie three potential truths as bieng True, Not True, or Neutral.(neither true and neither false)
ZITZON 4 years ago
I read Dawkins' book too, and I got the same feeling. To some groupthink "free thinkers" Dawkins is some kinda messiah nowadays.
Another example is the Rational Response Squad trying to get theism classified as a mental illness.
It's DOGMATISM that's killing us all. No nuance, no fucking shades of grey...
Just black and white. It's sad man, really.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
well stated
squitmaa 4 years ago
Darwin is the Father of Evolution and Dawkins is the favorite Son!
Yes the shades of Grey - logic can only say Black or White.But there is a third option of neither Black nor neither White - but Grey. Find the Grey Area.
ZITZON 4 years ago
ZITZON 4 years ago
But if you want logical proof;
Let P = God Exists
P
-P (negation)
P XOR -P
(either one or the other bu
You're making no sense
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
What is the problem you see in this logic?
ZITZON 4 years ago
whatever
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
Whatever what?
ZITZON 4 years ago
"Yes the shades of Grey - logic can only say Black or White.But there is a third option of neither Black nor neither White - but Grey. Find the Grey Area."
sure.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
the argument that if evolutionists were to run the world we would all be ensalved by robots is kind of dumb for the following reasons
1-why would'nt this happen if christians were in charge?
2-Why would anyone create a computer that had the intellegence AND the means to enslave us, I mean those 2 things can be easily seperated
the video over all was fantastic 4 stars, woulda been 5, but that one statement was crazy
TheFarcicalCourt 4 years ago
Thanks for the rating. as for your 2 statements.
1. I am a deist not a christian. I made no claims that christainity could avoid anything. My argument was for tollerance. Regarless of philosophy.
2. If artificial intellengence is inevitable, Intellegent computers will almost definitely out smart us in the future. Who says a human will be the one to create such a means. The point is simple we may not always be the top of the food chain.
squitmaa 4 years ago
(ZITZON)please give me a link/ some information on a few of these, I belive in the evolution theory quite strongly but well ever since I discovered all the laughably unscientific ways creationists use to try and disprove it, well I've become far to comfortable in my own ideas, so any evidence to the contray (of evolution) could help bring me back down to a mental stage where I don't accidentally dismiss some real evidence along with all the creationist tripe.
TheFarcicalCourt 4 years ago
Asking for Links is akin to asking for a bible passage to prove God. Open your mind to the scientific information and you will find it.
ZITZON 4 years ago
4 stars... I appreciate the fact that you've actually read the book unlike many others who have a lot to say about it. I'm in the process of reading it a second time.
I don't agree with much of what you've said but at least it's an honest critique.
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
Thanks. Honestly the book was pretty good. Dawkins does a great job of keeping guys like myself honest. In my follow up video, I speak much kinder of Dawkins.
squitmaa 4 years ago
The reason why Richard Dawkins attacks religion is because people cant believe in evolution simply based on reading a science text book. It has too many holes in it. So you have these Atheist Fundamentalist cooks come out and try to directly smear and attack creationists. Their fueled by their hatred of God and the idea that they are smaller in the grand scheme of things than their own egos. They hate the possibility of begin wrong.
TheBigBentley911 4 years ago
different day,same spam.you lump all who believe in evolution with atheist,accuse atheist of being fundamentalist(does that bit of the pot calling the kettle black ever get old?)and then throw in broadly applied motives of hating god"how do you hate something you do not believe in?)and ego?you are the ones that think you are part of gods master plan,science shows how small we really are.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
I have meet quite a few evolution folks who seem to be perfectly sain. maybe you are miss judging some of there motives.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I found it amusing how Dawkins spent almost nine pages of his book trying redifine Einstein's Deism so he can reach to the conclusion that Einstein's beliefs were in fact 'sexed-up atheism'. I also found it interesting how he avoided using some very revealing quotes from Einstein which contradicted his conclusion.
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Here is a famous quote from Einstein whe he was asked if he believed in God: "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages.
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
I am pretty sure that quote appeared in Max Jammer's book which is the source that Dawkins used to get his Einstein quotes from. So much for Dawkins being concerned for the truth.
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Thanks for the awesome Einstein quote. Sounds like a book I should check out. Also thanks for subscribing. I look forward to future comments. So far the ones you have made are fantastic.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Well said.
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Hi Awoken Spirit imagine meeting you here!
ZITZON 4 years ago
Hey ZITZON, nice to see you!
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Atheists don`t exist. I don`t believe in them.
TT202020 4 years ago
Where did he say that everyone who is intelligent is an atheist?
Stop lying.
tingtangs 4 years ago
He definitely infered this at times in the text. You might enjoy the second video I made about Dawkins. It clears this up a bit.
squitmaa 4 years ago
When did he infer this?
Sorry, but you lose.
tingtangs 4 years ago
I was not aware this was a competition. If you like I can declare you champion of the comments page. If you recall in the book he makes frequent assumtions that pantheist or deist of the past would be atheist if they were alive today. Also He compiled a largelist of scientists and said that only 3 of them were theist and he felt like this was likely because they did not want to offend. If you watch the second video I'm sure you will like it.
squitmaa 4 years ago
you would think that dawkis would know that we all become mormons after we die.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
Seriously. he should invest in holy undergarments.:)
squitmaa 4 years ago
'If you recall in the book he makes frequent assumtions that pantheist or deist of the past would be atheist if they were alive today.'
So what? That's got nothing to do with anything. Dawkins has praised a lot of religious scientists. He is WELL aware that you don't have to be an atheist to be intelligent.
tingtangs 4 years ago
Ting tangs did you even watch my follow up video?
squitmaa 4 years ago
Here are just a few examples of Dawkins relating intelligence to atheists:
"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down... Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument...
But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take', OR WHOSE NATIVE INTELLIGENCE IS STRONG ENOUGHT TO OVERCOME IT." - Richard Dawkins
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Dawkins opens up the 'The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists' section of his book from a bold assertion that had been made by Bertrand Russell: "The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes".
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Dawkins later states: "It is completely as I would expect that American scientists are less religious than the American public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all."
Followed by: "What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite."
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Dawkins asks the question: "is there any evidence that, in the population at large, atheists are likely to be drawn from among the better educated and more intelligent?"
He then brings up the meta-analysis published by Mensa Magazine where he quotes Paul Bell's conclusion '...the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Dawkins also states that religion "subverts science and saps the intellect" he goes on to state that the Harvard scholar, Kurt Wise, had his mind weakened because of his faith.
Don't you think these examples demonstrate how Dawkins is obviously trying to correlate intelligence with atheism and a lack of intelligence with religious people?
AwokenSpirit 4 years ago
Dawkins definately correlates intelligence with atheism! He is devoid of any objectivity regarding religion and just sprouts his scientific rationalistic prejudices as if they were scientific facts.
ZITZON 4 years ago
Wait until the atheist American scientists start shafting Darwinian Theory - the buzz is that Darwinian Theory is becoming increasingly untenable in the actual laboratories.
ZITZON 4 years ago
the buzz among creationist perhaps,the same buzz that has been around since the advent of the darwinian theory of evolution.the same buzz that has failed to bear fruit as scientific discoveries found more evidence and won over skeptics.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
No the "buzz" I'm talking about is coming from actual research labarotaries! I have no interest in Creationist or Intelligent design ideas. I'm talking about scientists who are observing that biological systems act in ways that is contrary to Darwinian Theory.
ZITZON 4 years ago
"I'm talking about scientists who are observing that biological systems act in ways that is contrary to Darwinian Theory."
Could you direct me to those scientists, ZITZON?
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
If you can't see through the falsehood of religion then you aint intelligent. That seems a reasonable assumption to me based on the mounting evidence to refute theistic beliefs.
ericcolumba 4 years ago
I might not be intelligent, but I am happy. In the future I would honored to have you take the time to point out any errors I make. I'm here to gain understanding. I may be slow, but I am learnin.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Christianity is the inescapable truth inasmuch as it alone provides the preconditions for the universal and unchanging laws of logic. Human beings are not omniscient or omnipotent; thus humanity cannot account for the universals in the laws of logic, ethics, and mathematics. Without God, universal & certain claims are unavoidable, & Christianity alone provides the preconditions for universal & certain claims; thus,God must be.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
I do admit to the limitations of man, but I guess this brings up a different question. If we are not omnipotent, how do we know that christianity is the ultimate truth?
squitmaa 4 years ago
OntoLogos, you are using illogical, circular arguments. You are making the unfounded assumption that God is needed for logic (or ethics) to exist.
You are also saying that christianity is the shit. What about other religions that make the same claims?
No, you need to stop being a fucking moron with moronic arguments and start thinking logically.
tingtangs 4 years ago
Fallwell was a jackass... He's lucky I'm an atheist or I'd wish his fat ass would be burning in his hell!
Grosz 4 years ago
you appeared to use "social darwinism" in place of natural selection. I can't say that I agree in the least that Dawkins was working from EITHER of those directions. You appear to edit what he said for what you thought he was trying to say. The point of The God Delusion that I took from it was "Religion will make otherwise smart people believe and do very irrational things." And THAT, I would agree with.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Its a bad idea to take a few of Dawkin's thoughts and use them to distort the entirety of his message? Maybe I miss judged the guy ;) As to the issue of otherwise smart people acting irrationally I would say religion may make otherwise smart people irrational. Ibuprofin may cause a heart attack does that mean I should avoid taking it, or just taking it exessively? Intollerance shows up in funniest places.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I like your analogy of Ibuprofin causing a heart attack, let's broaden it though. Medicine is good, but for some people SPECIFIC medicine can be bad. Being a good person is good. Telling SOME people to do something bad CAN be horrifying. Backing it up by saying GOD COMMANDS YOU to do this horrible thing...that does something you don't find in medicine. You can decline the Ibuprofin and no one calls you a sinner.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I believe your arguement here is one context. I will grant that often people who have a religion take it out of context. But that does not mean all do. I can admit to my contextual exageration of Dawkins. Can you do the same for religion?
squitmaa 4 years ago
no because the difference is that no one states that Dawkins is divinely speaking and must be followed or you spend eternity in Hell. Don't get me wrong. I understand what you are saying. You miss that I DO NOT say that all religious PEOPLE do horrible things. But the notion of imperical truth leads to bad things when that "truth" involves the intolerance that is bred by religion.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
We both agree the problem is with intollerance.
If hell is the problem you are adressing than you problem is with "A" christian or Muslim doctorine, not religion.
Belief in Hell, especially as a tool for motivation, causes problems. I agree with you. Still however your comments over simplify the essence of religion. Attack the ignorance not the religion.
squitmaa 4 years ago
the ignorance COMES FROM the religion. You and I agree on this subject (as much as it seems that we don't) for about 95% of it...the difference is a chicken and the egg issue. I say the religion came first the intolerance comes out of it and you say the reverse...well, sort of.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
The problem of your arguement is this. If it rains alot mushrooms will grow in your back yard. Therefore mushrooms are made of rain. Intollerance and religion are two entirely different things. Sure moisture influences mushroom growth, but it is not what constitutes a mushroom. Religion can provide a fertile condition for the growth of intollerance. This however does not make the puropose of religion to be intollerance. Your problem is with the mushrooms not the rain.
squitmaa 4 years ago
"Religion can provide a fertile condition for the growth of intollerance." - hence, THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION. As I said, we are in agreement for the most part.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I guess then because we have the mushrooms we must get rid of the rain. sounds reasonable?
squitmaa 4 years ago
see, you STILL keep going back to this idea of I'm trying to "get rid of religion"...NOOOOOOO. It's about raising awareness so that maybe religious people will think a bit deeper before they read a passage in their Bible that say homosexuals should be put to death and they go out and kill someone.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Then we are on the same page. Minus a chicken and a egg. I'm ok with that. Your still the king.
squitmaa 4 years ago
of course, I'm the king...what the hell did you expect?
KingHeathen 4 years ago
You Tube was my first real heavy duty experience with atheists. I was quite frankly shocked by what I found. All my life I've heard that it was Christian who push their beliefs on people and Christians who talked down to people didn't believe as they did, so I tried very hard not to be that kind of Christian.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I came to You Tube with the idea that I would share my life experiences, encourage other Christians and be an information resource for people who had questions about Christianity. I never addressed atheists. I never attacked them, I never talked about them and I never even mentioned them. Yet for some reason they sought me out, attacked me, they questioned my intelligence and my motives.
preacherman777 4 years ago
They cursed me, made fun of me and made all kinds of efforts to discredit me. It wasn't just me either, but other Christians who had any degree of popularity. The only Christians they seem to like are the ones who are pretty liberal with the Bible and don't uphold all that it teaches.
preacherman777 4 years ago
On the other hand, I did encounter a few who were not like this, but who were actually very decent people with whom I could have quality discussions. But most represented themselves with all the intolerance, all the judgementalism and all the narrow mindedness that I've always heard associated with Christians.
preacherman777 4 years ago
watching your channel was one of the reasons I started making videos. Your a good preacherman. The mob mentality has to stop regardless of the labels associated. Thanks for the comments.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I thoroughly enjoy listening to your perspectives on your videos, but I have one issue with this one. It relates to the dichotomy you create, where you say that social Darwinism leads to technology overtaking us as a race. Before I get into the reasons why I believe this is a false dichotomy, would you care to elaborate as to why you have reached this conclusion?
ElmoTheAtheistPuppet 4 years ago
Social Darwinism leads to conflict and death regarless to what you attach it to. The implication about technology is that technology is already stronger than the human. Eventually technology will be smarter than the human. If or more likely when artificial intellegence becomes a reality, concieousness will be granted to said machines. Eventually we will no longer be need for there survival? If survival of the fittest is the phylosophy they chose we are in trouble.
squitmaa 4 years ago
dawkins has spoken very often about how he thinks survival of the fittest would be a very poor modal for a society.he has only ever spoken of the teachings of darwin as an explanation for how biology has advanced.i think his books have only ever advocated that society should hold to reason and rationality as its foundation,not superstition.i think he makes the case well,though in a very confrontational manner.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
It is one thing to say survival of the fitest is a poor model. It is a entirely different to act as though this is not the case. I would argue that his confrontational manner especially his attacking the rational of theist is a attempt at social darwinism. Keep in mind I do like Dawkins I just think he could better.
squitmaa 4 years ago
how are you claiming that he acts as though it is not the case.he does not advocate that the weak should be left to die.he just wants ideas to be judged on there merits.if we did not judge ideas on there merits we would never have made scientific or moral progress as a species.if you are saying we should treat everything folks think with the same respect i must disagree,i have no intention of respecting the ideas of flat earthers and those that deny the atrocities of the nazi's for example.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
I agree with you here however. The problem is not that he challenges ideas it is how he challenges ideas. One intention of this book was clearly to polarize people of faith and people of science. I personally know hundreds of people involved in scientific-enigeering fields who have no problem balancing the religion and science. Why take such a polarizing stance? He did it to squash religion. You can disagree with religion, but you can not deny his intention with this particular book.
squitmaa 4 years ago
well i am inclined to think that he is trying to energize a group that has had some some issues in the past with a certain degree of complacancy that progress will inevitably win out in the end.i also think he is correct in stating that fundamentalist thinking is downright silly and that to a certain extent they get overlooked due to there more moderate counterparts.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
I agree with you. I didn't question his ultimate intention rather his aplication. No one is perfect. Keep in mind I just said I thought he could do better. I'm sure someone like Richard Dawkins would consider that a worthy challenge no?
squitmaa 4 years ago
well dawkins has in the past stated that he thinks it is a legit concern that he may be to confrontational.he has expressed admiration for those that have a softer approach and hopes that they meet with success,but that he feels it would be dishonest for him to express himself in a manner other then he really feels.i can find no fault in that.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
every once in a while I go to the movie theater and set next to guy who eats popcorn louder than the movie. As I set there and think about the 9 dollars I just spent and I notice the lack of fulfillment I am getting from the movie. I feel like throwing the guys popcorn in the isle and telling him to shut the f*#@ up, but I don't. That would cause to much confrontation.
squitmaa 4 years ago
not really the same thing in my book.one writes a book to convey ones ideas.one buys a book because one is interested in those ideas.i perfer that those ideas be conveyed honestly.this is not a case of keeping silent so others can enjoy the show,dawkins book is the show.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
i could make plenty of other analogies here. But if we are going to head in this direction I will play along. Not long ago Nietzsche was the show. He said "superior men are not bound by social moral codes" eventually inspiring many including Hitler. Was that part of the show worth watching? I admit my analogy is exagerated, but no more than yours.
squitmaa 4 years ago
mind you nietzsche was advocting independant thought over mindless group think,the nazi's distorted his ideas rather extesivly.nietzsche would have abhored the mindless obediance to the state that was the foundation of the nazis.regardless i do not think folks should be dishonest or self censor because they are afraid of others taking there ideas and distort,or for that matter even be true to them. people are responsable for there own actions.where they got the idea does not change this.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
I would say that precisely what we learn from Hitler and Nietzche is this. People should be honest when making statements. Over exagerated ideas will like be destorted and eventually used to the advatage of someone like Hitler. if Dawkins is putting himself in the spot light especially on issues were he sees conflict He should take utmost care to avoid being excessively confrontational.
squitmaa 4 years ago
"excessively confrontational"by who's standards?and people will use whatever ideas exagerated or not that they like.i still think people should be forthcoming with there opinions if you are buying a book containing them.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
He was more confrontational that Nietzsche ;) If you write a book expect critics no?
squitmaa 4 years ago
of course,and you are free to disagree with him,i just have not realy seen anything that convinces me that he crossed any line.that you do not fully agree with his tone seems well established.that he has gone farther then he should i do not think has been.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
The God Delusion was about some people's delusion of a god, and you didn't like that because it seems to exclusive. One book does not define an author. His other books are much more inclusive.
shadowsmirk 4 years ago
I agree with you. That is why I often took the oportunity to praise Dawkins in the video. I think he could have done better with the God Delusion thats all.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I think you have terribly misunderstood Dawkins opinion. I have read his book twice and seen many articles and interviews with him and I don't get the same feeling you seem to. Dawkins certainly isn't proposing social Darwinism, that is just ludicrous.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
Keep in mind I didn't say Dawkins was a bad guy. But he says himself his goal with the book "the God Delusion" was to destroy the notion of a personal God especially the christian God. I can understand why he feels the need to do what he does, but you can't deny that on this topic survival of the fitest is the aproach he is taking.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I don't think that was his approach at all. His approach was one of evidence or (in some cases) displaying the lack of evidence.
shadowsmirk 4 years ago
This depends on the part you read. I did say he makes quite a few good arguements in the book. The problem I have is that he didn't always stick to those arguemetns statements like if he were alive today he would surely be an atheist are pure speculation ment to be used a propoganda. He makes good arguements so why does he have to take it one step further, this is my point.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Excellent overview! I have the same opinion. Fundamentalism has many forms. Becoming what you have is not a step forward. Nice Job.
wayman29 4 years ago
Hi Stubby. I got the sense that Dawkins was interested in teaching altruism in a secular way. He definitely didn't argue in favor of a "dog eat dog" for human society. I'll have to give my review of the selfish gene (for what it's worth).
Barklord 4 years ago
I haven't read the selfish gene yet, but it is on my to do list.
squitmaa 4 years ago
In my opinion, you can't honor, or usefully apply, intelligence if you "love" either God or Nature... "survival the fittest" is as irrelevant as "original sin"... The fact is we are animals constructed by crude forces that through arbitrary circumstance, has the benefit, and responsibility, of being able to see beyond our own existence. Archaic reverence for God or natural purpose, can only serve to limit and distort that vision.
inmendham 4 years ago
BTW: Falwell was an angry control freak...Dawkins is a sensibly concerned intellectual...
inmendham 4 years ago
I bet Dawkins would be a better guy to sit down and drink a beer with. I'll give you that.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I love God and nature and humanity if that limits my intelligence so be it. What good is intellengence if I don't have anything worth while to think about?
squitmaa 4 years ago
Excellent topic Stubby. Finding a way to meet everyones needs without the use of violence is going to require us to abandon the concept of deserving. Not a easy task.
2of6Solutions 4 years ago
I agree with you on this one. I am lucky to be here. I don't deserve anything.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Dawkins is social darwinist? No. Far from it.
NermalsChannel 4 years ago
Thomas Jefferson was certainly not an Atheist.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
I agree he has his own version of the bible.
squitmaa 4 years ago
he was a deist,he believed the universe was crafted.but he rejected pretty much every other supernatural claim in the bible.he considered things like the virgin birth to be no better then greek mythology.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
you are correct Nemo. Most of the founding fathers of the US were deists. They maintained a belief in God and a ability to reason. Why assume there belief would not exist today as Dawkins did in the book?
squitmaa 4 years ago
but jefferson did reject all the old testement and a good chunk of the new,the question of whether he he would have been an atheist if he could have known what we know about the big bang and evolution is an interesting one.though i willingly admit it is a moot one.
NemoUtopian 4 years ago
We agree here. There are better things to talk about than who believed or would have believed what. Jefferson had thoughts that have influence the minds of believers as well as non believers. That is one of the many things that made him a great man. Timeless lableless wisdom.
squitmaa 4 years ago