Removed Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This guy is on point. Read, watch and learn. Here is his website. http://richarddawkins.net/ A lecture given in Lynchburg VA Part 1 Part 2 Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 frankie: no offense, but dawkins is a goon. he's an intelligent guy, but he's a goon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 why's he a goon? just watched the clips, intresting, nothing i havent' heard before tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Dawkins first came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the term meme into the lexicon, helping found memetics. In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to the science of evolution with the theory, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype, that phenotypic effects are not limited to an organism's body but can stretch far into the environment, including into the bodies of other organisms. He has since written several best-selling popular books, and appeared in a number of television and radio programmes, concerning evolutionary biology, creationism, and religion. Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, humanist, and sceptic, and is a prominent member of the Brights movement. In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned defence of evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler". --------------------------- http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ has some dawkins also. he can be a little harsh, but i dig that. ive yet to read a book of his i didnt really enjoy, and also recommend his work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 i think the best thing he did was interview that gay preacher who was busted not long afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 ted haggard kicked him off his premises after the interview. richard must have brought some bunk shards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 ted haggard kicked him off his premises after the interview. richard must have brought some bunk shards. that's right, haggard. jeez. i still think dawkins is a bit pushy with his views. but i do like when evangelists are fucked with. lying bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUmuMhTsM haggard vs dawkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 he is very pushy, but i think a lot of it is warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pye57KSH4pQ&mode=related&search= dawkins on paula zahn after the show trash talked atheists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUmuMhTsM haggard vs dawkins my god haggard is a complete faggot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Mask Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 anybody intrested in Dawkins should also check out the article that the nytimes magazine posted last weekend about Scott Atran, and the debate over the evolution of religion and religious belief. They focus on what is called the "Spandrel" theory for explaining why belief in religion exists and persists in history. NYtimes has the article online, but as part of its premium content. However, I found a .pdf file of the whole article online from Scott Atran's umichigan site: http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/darwin_s_god_nyt_mag.pdf And thanks for the links to beyondbelief. I'm still taking it all in. Its fascinating material for discussion, but sometimes it feels like some of the speakers are a little too entertained by the sound of their own voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shitting Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 frankie: no offense, but dawkins is a goon.. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 i'm backin up casek on this one. dawkins is a dick. he is intelligent by all means like we have been sayin, but not a good person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 I don't completely agree with his aggressive sensationalist tactics. Although I do think someone has to say it and he plays an important part in a spectrum of overall philosophical opinion. I'm not saying go buy his fuckin t shirt or something, just recognize his input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 i'm causin more family feuds than richard dawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 i'm backin up casek on this one. dawkins is a dick. he is intelligent by all means like we have been sayin, but not a good person. He might seem like less of a dick if he was speaking against racial prejudice. In Dawkins opinion, religion is just as harmful and dangerous as racism. I agree that his methods are harsh, but his thinking is sound. I would not call him a "bad" person. A "bad" person does more than just offend people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 very interesting article linked from Dawkings site http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,671840.story?coll=la-home-commentary This article explains the thinking behind Dawkins no-compromise approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 This video of Douglas Adam's views on atheism, as opposed to agnosticism. Excellent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUfDWwWKXqQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoneTWS Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Damn, I just posted one of his videos in another thread, didnt know we have this here already. Anyway, he's a good speaker and all, but his conclusions are usually the same conclusions any logical thinker would come to. And on the subject of being a dick, you need to be a dick to these religious nuts to get them thinking. Even then you have little hope they actually consider your point of view. Theists are even bigger dicks when it comes to pushing their religion on everyone else usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 good looks on the adams video, he was a brilliant dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 good looks on the adams video, he was a brilliant dude. I loved the "42" in the background of Adam's picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He might seem like less of a dick if he was speaking against racial prejudice. In Dawkins opinion, religion is just as harmful and dangerous as racism. I agree that his methods are harsh, but his thinking is sound. I would not call him a "bad" person. A "bad" person does more than just offend people. The reason I said he was a bad person is the intention he gives to science. Science should be an impartial act. Yes there are necessarily ethics and personal beliefs involved in one's personal pursuit of such, but it should not be used as a divisive measure along the social issues he describes. As much as I may agree with religion being harmful to things in many respects, I see his use of science as equally harmful. There is no difference, to me, between the man who denies other's righteousness through science, and the man who does such with religion. Science is effectively his religion, and thus he misses his own point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I've thought the same thing about Dawkins myself crook, so I'm pretty much on the fence. His evangelic zeal for science does smack of hypocrisy to me as well sometimes. Although I think his approach could be compared to Camus' or Sartre to a certain extent. Religion can be used to obscure our own practical existence among others and serve as justification for all manner of evils due to the transcendent nature of most religions. There's a reason why Camus and Sartre were socialists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunyip Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I just read The God Delusion his latest book. He does back himself up pretty well in my opinion. extreme...probably. but he does admit that if someone could downright prove that god exists etc he would be persuaded. a good point he makes is that the difference between science and religious trains of thought is that the scientific method is always open to new ideas, amendments etc. he opens the book with a douglas adams quote which pretty much sums up my views :"isnt it enought to see that a forest is beautiful without having to beleive there are fairies at the bottom of it also". or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 good book on this subject. a mock discussion between c.s. lewis and sigmund freud on the question of God (using their writings). but i must note that the author (theist) tends to have a slant and favors lewis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Russel- Yeah, to be sure, religion does have a certain nihilistic effect on morality, as we saw with Nietzsche. I am not approving of religion in any fashion. I just think the idea of totalizing truth as purely scientific is just as retarded as people who do the opposite. I think he is a fool for believing himself, but the clarity of his own righteousness is pretty great. I haven't read Camus or Sartre, but I just started the fall. I am avoiding Sartre as of late because while I was skimming through one of his books in the store I didn't like the form of the rhetoric. I will get there. but not yet. Theo- that looks interesting, I just might look that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Russel- Yeah, to be sure, religion does have a certain nihilistic effect on morality, as we saw with Nietzsche. I am not approving of religion in any fashion. I just think the idea of totalizing truth as purely scientific is just as retarded as people who do the opposite. I think he is a fool for believing himself, but the clarity of his own righteousness is pretty great. I haven't read Camus or Sartre, but I just started the fall. I am avoiding Sartre as of late because while I was skimming through one of his books in the store I didn't like the form of the rhetoric. I will get there. but not yet. Theo- that looks interesting, I just might look that up. Read The Stranger by Camus if you haven't already. It's a good place to start because it's fiction. It may help you to understand a certain song by the Cure as well... Remember, Sartre is French, so something may be lost in the translation. And let make a wild generalization by saying that the French like to think that they are the beginning and the end in academic thought and critique, so Sartre is just fitting in with his rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Touche. I got through about fifty pages of The Fall last night, and its fucking awesome. I like Camus quite a bit so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 Touche. I got through about fifty pages of The Fall last night, and its fucking awesome. I like Camus quite a bit so far. Camus is real. Myth of sissyphus is probably the single most important book I have ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.