Originally posted by Alfheim
Look all im saying is that really Bardock should go and read the book and come back because this discussion is going nowhere.After you've read the book you can then say with a clear mind Alliance and GMG are full of ****. That includes me as well.
That sounds fair. Its difficult to find someone who likes Dawkins work other than him.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1563
Interview of Dawkins
Look, I love the man and his work, I consume as much media of his as I can, but his anti-theist bias is very evident. The Brights alone are evidence of this.
The danger of this is of course not as bad as suicidal bombings, but that is such a childish argument. The danger is that, in many parts of the world, science is facing serious opposition from components of society that are threatened by recent findings, and if science wants to maintain as a discipline free of political and social bias and manipulation, people that represent it need to maybe walk on some egg shells.
BTW, I think everything Dawkins says is true (with the exception of his "Brights" crap) just not the way to make science accessible to the general public. He is no Carl Sagan.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1563Interview of Dawkins
Look, I love the man and his work, I consume as much media of his as I can, but his anti-theist bias is very evident. The Brights alone are evidence of this.
The danger of this is of course not as bad as suicidal bombings, but that is such a childish argument. The danger is that, in many parts of the world, science is facing serious opposition from components of society that are threatened by recent findings, and if science wants to maintain as a discipline free of political and social bias and manipulation, people that represent it need to maybe walk on some egg shells.
BTW, I think everything Dawkins says is true (with the exception of his "Brights" crap) just not the way to make science accessible to the general public. He is no Carl Sagan.
I really don't see the danger. And I did not deny that he is against Religion....he clearly is. He is just not a radical hater of everyone that has faith, that is certainly evident. He makes good points about Religion, that's evident too. And the way he gets shit from Alliance is not deserved in my opinion.
Originally posted by Alliance
why? Thats what you do.You don't even address my points. You simply slander me. You ask for more proof, I provide more. Your futher ignorance is no fault of mine.
I adressed each of your points in a very long post and you did not address that one. You have really no right to ask me to address your stupid repeated nonsense.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I love how your quotes are not taken out of context but all others ones are...hmmm
Originally posted by Bardock42
I really don't see the danger. And I did not deny that he is against Religion....he clearly is. He is just not a radical hater of everyone that has faith, that is certainly evident. He makes good points about Religion, that's evident too. And the way he gets shit from Alliance is not deserved in my opinion.
The danger is very subtle, yet all too real.
Its one of those hearts and minds type of deals. There are studies that come out frequently saying that "the population of people within a country that are scientifically literate is just marginally higher than the percentage of people who are scientists".
What this means is that the majority of what people believe, be it scientific knowledge or otherwise, is just believed on the basis of authority. This also means that to anyone in the general public, a debate of science vs anything is a battle of authority figures and marketing rather than of real objective fact. (Actually, I personally believe that fact is harder to sell than fiction, giving science a disadvantage right out of the gates).
For someone like Dawkins to come out and start, for lack of a better term, insulting people's deeply held faith, it is not helping the previously mentioned situation. It becomes even worse in a world where various authorities would like their ideologies to be made the equivalent of science. Since people can be both turned off of science and then turned onto one of these competing belief systems, and since these systems are trying to undermine the authority and autonomy of science, people exacerbating the problem by picking unnecessary fights is dangerous to science.
Originally posted by inimalist
The danger is very subtle, yet all too real.Its one of those hearts and minds type of deals. There are studies that come out frequently saying that "the population of people within a country that are scientifically literate is just marginally higher than the percentage of people who are scientists".
What this means is that the majority of what people believe, be it scientific knowledge or otherwise, is just believed on the basis of authority. This also means that to anyone in the general public, a debate of science vs anything is a battle of authority figures and marketing rather than of real objective fact. (Actually, I personally believe that fact is harder to sell than fiction, giving science a disadvantage right out of the gates).
For someone like Dawkins to come out and start, for lack of a better term, insulting people's deeply held faith, it is not helping the previously mentioned situation. It becomes even worse in a world where various authorities would like their ideologies to be made the equivalent of science. Since people can be both turned off of science and then turned onto one of these competing belief systems, and since these systems are trying to undermine the authority and autonomy of science, people exacerbating the problem by picking unnecessary fights is dangerous to science.
Well, but you see that that is just an assumption, Dawkins approach might very well have the opposite effect...
Why should it not be able to mobilize more atheists to speak out, by that also strengthen the authority of those that see science as superior? It's just a difference in tactics. I don't really see why the soft approach should be better, really.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavHave seen that. He got a point. Why are you sure that always being soft is better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
He is putting the truth out very fiercely, Tyson's approach might be different, but it doesn't mean it is better.
I personally feel that the weak approach doesn't really seem to work that well, you know?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, but you see that that is just an assumption, Dawkins approach might very well have the opposite effect...Why should it not be able to mobilize more atheists to speak out, by that also strengthen the authority of those that see science as superior? It's just a difference in tactics. I don't really see why the soft approach should be better, really.
Have seen that. He got a point. Why are you sure that always being soft is better?
He is putting the truth out very fiercely, Tyson's approach might be different, but it doesn't mean it is better.
I personally feel that the weak approach doesn't really seem to work that well, you know?
Well its like this whenever it comes to get things done it depends. In some circumstance a soft approach may help in some circumstances it may not.
From personal expreince when somebody is correct but goes about expressing his opinion in a incorrect manner usually means that person is just a ****ing tyrant. This is just adding my 2 cents not commenting on wether Dawkins is correct or not
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well its like this whenever it comes to get things done it depends. In some circumstance a soft approach may help in some circumstances it may not.From personal expreince when somebody is correct but goes about expressing his opinion in a incorrect manner usually means that person is just a ****ing tyrant. This is just adding my 2 cents not commenting on wether Dawkins is correct or not
I agree.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, but you see that that is just an assumption, Dawkins approach might very well have the opposite effect...Why should it not be able to mobilize more atheists to speak out, by that also strengthen the authority of those that see science as superior? It's just a difference in tactics. I don't really see why the soft approach should be better, really.
It is good at mobilizing the base. The recent surge of atheist books I am sure has had that effect. It also mobilized counterattacks from every sector from the hard right to the nutty left.
Its not that a soft or a hard approach is better or worse. My response would be that the conflict is just not worth it. I can't possibly see science winning in the general public, and those who aren't already predisposed to it will be instantly turned off by being called delusional, or by their pastor or psychic medium telling them that scientists now think they are all delusional.
Honestly, Ancestor's Tale, beautiful work that should be used to show people the magic of science and the irrelevancy of belief. The God Delusion, while entertaining and humorous, was totally unnecessary.
Sure, maybe in time it will have proven to be the proper course of action. I think as people who are involved in the field of science (Whether specifically accredited at this point or not) individuals like Alliance and myself are just more sensitive to the fact that what he is doing could (and I believe is) making people look down on what we do as a "community".
Originally posted by inimalist
It is good at mobilizing the base. The recent surge of atheist books I am sure has had that effect. It also mobilized counterattacks from every sector from the hard right to the nutty left.Its not that a soft or a hard approach is better or worse. My response would be that the conflict is just not worth it. I can't possibly see science winning in the general public, and those who aren't already predisposed to it will be instantly turned off by being called delusional, or by their pastor or psychic medium telling them that scientists now think they are all delusional.
Honestly, Ancestor's Tale, beautiful work that should be used to show people the magic of science and the irrelevancy of belief. The God Delusion, while entertaining and humorous, was totally unnecessary.
Sure, maybe in time it will have proven to be the proper course of action. I think as people who are involved in the field of science (Whether specifically accredited at this point or not) individuals like Alliance and myself are just more sensitive to the fact that what he is doing could (and I believe is) making people look down on what we do as a "community".
Well, people in that "community"...
I'd like to count myself as one of those too, now I don't participate in natural sciences, I study mathematics at the moment and do want to be a mathematician in the future. Not sure if you guys accept that in your little club (can I send an application?). But you are right, in the way that I can't really see, living in a rather enlightened country, how scientists are viewed in the US (not sure if you can though)...and it might be harmful, I just think that for others he is a person that finally speaks what they believe, atheists usually have to shut up about their believes, at most they can say they are agnostic (which is reasonable, we all should be agnostics) but with people like Dawkins speaking out I think more atheists found and will hopefully find the strength to do the same. And imo, that is a good thing.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I like how Dawkins continually refers to the tooth fairy. Lets remember that no one actually states that the tooth fairy is real. So comparing it to God is a little like clutching at straws.
Well, Odin then. Heck, I know people that believe Dwarfs and Elves and Unicorns exist...
And lets not forget that many people believing in something doesn't make it exist, just as much as no one believing in it doesn't make it not exits.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Odin then. Heck, I know people that believe Dwarfs and Elves and Unicorns exist...
Yes but its alot more complicated than that... :rollseyes:
Again if you take stuff literially then theres the problem. God can take infinte forms and therefore can be gods. I just belive that God can reveal himself in the form of multiple gods.
Furthermore there is nothing irrational about the belief in beings more powerful than us.
Furthermore as far as im concerned if people bleive in something that affects their reality. Several people saw a Jinn go into my room once.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes but its alot more complicated than that... :rollseyes:Again if you take stuff literially then theres the problem. God can take infinte forms and therefore can be gods. I just belive that God can reveal himself in the form of multiple gods.
Furthermore there is nothing irrational about the belief in beings more powerful than us.
Furthermore as far as im concerned if people bleive in something that affects their reality. Several people saw a Jinn go into my room once.
No, I am sorry if I gave that impression. I meant Odin, because you do believe in it. And then wanted to add that I know people that have a more childish believe in the following three.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I am sorry if I gave that impression. I meant Odin, because you do believe in it. And then wanted to add that I know people that have a more childish believe in the following three.
Ok I might be crucifying myself here but I do believe that gods can take physical form if somebody has a strong enough belief in them, but of course to see Odin as just an old man with one eye is stupid. Gods are essentially infinite beings and the form they takes is there as a platform to help us have deeper meaning.
Sorry just dont want to be a coward about my beliefs even if that does sound stupid.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok I might be crucifying myself here but I do believe that gods can take physical form if somebody has a strong enough belief in them, but of course to see Odin as just an old man with one eye is stupid. Gods are essentially infinite beings and the form they takes is there as a platform to help us have deeper meaning.Sorry just dont want to be a coward about my beliefs even if that does sound stupid.
Hey, I really don't think your more or less ridiculous believes compared to Christianity are meant to be discussed. I just brought up Odin, because Dawkins does oftentimes use it when he asks Christian why it should be their God and not that deity.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey, I really don't think your more or less ridiculous believes compared to Christianity are meant to be discussed. I just brought up Odin, because Dawkins does oftentimes use it when he asks Christian why it should be there God and not that deity.
Hey man you know what your cool sometimes when your not calling people idiots. I guess im agnostic really. I think the existance of powerful beings is likely but I dont think the existance of "God", can be explained by human logic, like Dawkins said if we do discover the existance of god he will be completely incomprehensible to what we think it is. Basically we need the ability to think beyond time and space.
Anyway its all good.