Richard Dawkins Nov 2015

Its been a while since I've seen anything from Richard Dawkins posted on the forum

Im not exactly sure who the man hes interviewing here is, but apparently he knows his stuff, and is a biblical scholar

IF you find the time... take a look

I always enjoy Dr. Dawkins and his lectures... He's always very calm and collected in his discussions

Perhaps this might add some rationality to the Religious forums, considering the amount of the opposite posted around these days...

a reply to: Akragon

I never liked Dawkins.

Anyone that devotes their life trying to belittle others beliefs...even in a calm and logical way...is a failure in my book. People are entitled to their beliefs, but it is when they inflict them on others that I draw the line (this goes for religious and non-religious folks).

Watching the full video now. Thanks for the link. This should be quite interesting

EDIT:

I found the video extremely intriguing. It's incredibly relieving hearing the actual facts surrounding the bible from a biblical scholar.

Most of the video contains information from the biblical scholar that "this and that book have absolutely no evidence to support that what they say actually took place"

My favorite line within the video is around 8:38.

"Any serious historian who practices history or historiography would not read the text at face value and assume everything happened, you have to have other ways of determining the validity of the text. With the biblical texts, there are outside cases where we can corroborate biblical narrative, or the existence of a king that did certain things, and other times the evidence points in the opposite direction. So sometimes you'll hear people say "it's all true" or "it's all false", and that's a horrible false dichotomy."

The video is very good, I highly suggest watching it if you are a Christian or of you are interested in Religion at all.

a reply to: Metallicus

what about him?

Dawkins is guilty of being a born again atheist to the point he needs to prove his atheism is better than other's religious belief and really making him no better than the proselytizing people he really seems to be better than.

Guy is a fail. He's an atheist but he's an atheist to the point where he has developed a following...budding religious atheism?

originally posted by: the owlbear
Dawkins is guilty of being a born again atheist to the point he needs to prove his atheism is better than other's religious belief and really making him no better than the proselytizing people he really seems to be better than.

So I take it you didn't bother to watch the video then, which was totally lacking of aggressive behavior or egos, and an honest approach to humble inquiry.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Guy is a fail. He's an atheist but he's an atheist to the point where he has developed a following...budding religious atheism?

No. Religion requires far more than just admirers.

originally posted by: missedinformation
a reply to: Metallicus

what about him?

He was at least brave enough to debate Craig.

Dawkins is a jerk IMO arrogant and rude. A good scientist though. Hitchins was a far better debater though many including Atheists thought he lost the debate to Craig. Then again craig was trained to debate Atheists. Atheists as far as I know don't have schools where they are taught how debate the non existencen of God.

From my point off view:
Richard Dawkins have faith in Materialism not matter how much proof he gets that about Quantum reality thru scientific observation. Instead of trying to explain the mysteries like telepathy that can be explained as a information exchange thru entanglement he refuses to look at any theories that can explain how quantum phenomena are manifested.

I rather listen to Stuart Hamerhoff who have researched consciousness as an Anesthesiologist:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

And my beef with him is not about religion.U just do not think he is a good scientist who go where the data points.

Why listen to him when you can listen to people like Jim Al-Khalili

a reply to: Ghost147

I don't need to watch it. The guy is only famous because he is an atheist. That's it. He has tried for over a decade to draw attention to himself because he doesn't believe in anything. And suckers money out of people that cheer him on. How is he any different?

Buy my book, because atheists are smarter. Buy my video because atheists are smarter...

Same # as what he has been railing against. Dont need to watch a video of him calmly doing the same douchy thing.

Religion requires faith in something so strongly people ascribe and preach it...even if that something is Nothing. It's the proselytizing of it that makes Dawkins blend atheism a religion.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
From my point off view:
Richard Dawkins have faith in Materialism not matter how much proof he gets that about Quantum reality thru scientific observation. Instead of trying to explain the mysteries like telepathy that can be explained as a information exchange thru entanglement he refuses to look at any theories that can explain how quantum phenomena are manifested.

I rather listen to Stuart Hamerhoff who have researched consciousness as an Anesthesiologist:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

And my beef with him is not about religion.U just do not think he is a good scientist who go where the data points.

Why listen to him when you can listen to people like Jim Al-Khalili

Dawkins is a good evolutionary biologist. He is just not a great debater. It's not surprising that he isn't on full jerk mode since this biblical scholar fits his point of view about the bible.

I am not religious in anyway either. I just can't stand him. I studied a bit philosophy and debate and there are plenty of humanists who are good debaters and less arrogant. Probably why he was afraid to debate WLC.

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't need to watch it.

I thought as much.

originally posted by: the owlbear
The guy is only famous because he is an atheist.

Right, because it couldn't have possibly have been because he was an Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. Or because of his incredible achievements within ethology, evolutionary biology, and as a writer.

Dawkins came to be famous, not for his atheism, but because of his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularized the gene-centred view of evolution. Just a handful of years later in his book The Extended Phenotype, he introduced the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms, into evolutionary biology.

His Atheist-based books only came after his scientific influence had already made a massive impact.

originally posted by: the owlbear
That's it. He has tried for over a decade to draw attention to himself because he doesn't believe in anything.

Hardly. What he has tried to do was spread knowledge to others, not attention to himself.

originally posted by: the owlbear
And suckers money out of people that cheer him on. How is he any different?

Suckers money for whom? Himself?

I suppose that's why he started a non-profit foundation for Reason and Science to promote scientific literacy.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Buy my book, because atheists are smarter. Buy my video because atheists are smarter...

Same # as what he has been railing against.

So far everything you have written has been demonstrously incorrect. Perhaps instead of blindly closing your mind to a person you clearly have no understanding of whom he is or what he does, you should instead deny ignorance?

originally posted by: the owlbear
Dont need to watch a video of him calmly doing the same douchy thing.

So it is the embracement of ignorance then?

originally posted by: the owlbear
Religion requires faith in something so strongly people ascribe and preach it...even if that something is Nothing. It's the proselytizing of it that makes Dawkins blend atheism a religion.

Because atheists have faith? or that Dawkins preaches faith? In what exactly? Atheism is a non-belief. You can't have faith in non-belief.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't need to watch it.

I thought as much.

originally posted by: the owlbear
The guy is only famous because he is an atheist.

Right, because it couldn't have possibly have been because he was an Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. Or because of his incredible achievements within ethology, evolutionary biology, and as a writer.

Dawkins came to be famous, not for his atheism, but because of his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularized the gene-centred view of evolution. Just a handful of years later in his book The Extended Phenotype, he introduced the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms, into evolutionary biology.

His Atheist-based books only came after his scientific influence had already made a massive impact.

originally posted by: the owlbear
That's it. He has tried for over a decade to draw attention to himself because he doesn't believe in anything.

Hardly. What he has tried to do was spread knowledge to others, not attention to himself.

originally posted by: the owlbear
And suckers money out of people that cheer him on. How is he any different?

Suckers money for whom? Himself?

I suppose that's why he started a non-profit foundation for Reason and Science to promote scientific literacy.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Buy my book, because atheists are smarter. Buy my video because atheists are smarter...

Same # as what he has been railing against.

So far everything you have written has been demonstrously incorrect. Perhaps instead of blindly closing your mind to a person you clearly have no understanding of whom he is or what he does, you should instead deny ignorance?

originally posted by: the owlbear
Dont need to watch a video of him calmly doing the same douchy thing.

So it is the embracement of ignorance then?

originally posted by: the owlbear
Religion requires faith in something so strongly people ascribe and preach it...even if that something is Nothing. It's the proselytizing of it that makes Dawkins blend atheism a religion.

Because atheists have faith? or that Dawkins preaches faith? In what exactly? Atheism is a non-belief. You can't have faith in non-belief.

It's true that atheist believe a lack of faith is not a belief but I have heard fairly I mean decent arguements that believing a God does not exist is a belief. I don't necessarily think that but I have listened to some debates that have been able to turn that around pretty well.
Usually when argueing about a finely tuned universe. Which Hitchins himself has said is a strong arguement. Not a pety one.

The Hitchins Craig debate is a good one.

On this discussion though who is the biblical scholar I couldn't find a footnote. Is he an atheist?

A thread on the high priests of the religion of atheism

I am surprised by some of the comments here

The more I read others comments the more I see how utterly ignorant of what they are talking about

Bring back Hovind, a supposedly stupid fool making Dawkins look like a drunk circus clown
Go watch that debate

Oh wait it didn't happen cos Dawkins was to scarred

originally posted by: luthier
It's true that atheist believe a lack of faith is not a belief but I have heard fairly I mean decent arguements that believing a God does not exist is a belief.

If a person claims there is no god, that would be a belief, because there simply isn't a way to prove difinitively that there is no god.

However, most atheists (here at least) simply 'lack a belief in a god' without making an absolute claim that one does not exist. Which would not be a belief because there are no claims being made.

originally posted by: luthier
On this discussion though who is the biblical scholar I couldn't find a footnote. Is he an atheist?

I'm not quite sure, I don't really think that was asked. (or I didn't hear it)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The more I read others comments the more I see how utterly ignorant of what they are talking about

Yes, it does seem that many do not understand that Atheism has no belief system, priests, a particular universal faith, or anything of the likes.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Bring back Hovind, a supposedly stupid fool making Dawkins look like a drunk circus clown
Go watch that debate

Oh wait it didn't happen cos Dawkins was to scarred

It's because Hovind has nothing to present as an argument. All he states are things that have been so thoroughly debunked over and over again that there is no need to kick that dead horse into dust.

Although, if you feel Hovind has valid arguments, you're free to make a discussion on the matter? I for one love to kick dead horses.

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't need to watch it. The guy is only famous because he is an atheist. That's it. He has tried for over a decade to draw attention to himself because he doesn't believe in anything. And suckers money out of people that cheer him on. How is he any different?

Buy my book, because atheists are smarter. Buy my video because atheists are smarter...

Same # as what he has been railing against. Dont need to watch a video of him calmly doing the same douchy thing.

Religion requires faith in something so strongly people ascribe and preach it...even if that something is Nothing. It's the proselytizing of it that makes Dawkins blend atheism a religion.

Wah wah wah! You and Metallicus always claim to be fair and equitable on this topic, but all I ever see is the two of you whining about atheists/anti-theists. Christianity has coerced/forced/conquered/imposed itself on nation after nation, destroying anything in its path it doesn't agree with for millennia, and is still doing it. Now that atheists are finally free to come out fighting against centuries of oppression, and are speaking out against their oppressors, as well as telling others they can do the same, everyone cries because the big bad atheists are "bigots", and "christianophobic", "Islamophobic", etc.

Get over it folks. All the peoples and cultures you have oppressed and destroyed over time have come back to haunt you, and yes, they are in your face, just as you have been in theirs for centuries.

Dawkins can be quite straightforward at times, but he usually sticks to facts and solid reasoning, unlike those who oppose him. I will take a peek at the video now.

ETA: My apologies if this comes across as a personal attack, or offensive. It isn't meant to be. I am just weary of seeing the glaring double standard played out in thread after thread, berating atheists/anti-theists, and anyone else who would dare speak out against these self-righteous, self aggrandizing religions that get a free pass because some don't like anyone taking their turn on the soapbox.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: luthier
It's true that atheist believe a lack of faith is not a belief but I have heard fairly I mean decent arguements that believing a God does not exist is a belief.

If a person claims there is no god, that would be a belief, because there simply isn't a way to prove difinitively that there is no god.

However, most atheists (here at least) simply 'lack a belief in a god' without making an absolute claim that one does not exist. Which would not be a belief because there are no claims being made.

originally posted by: luthier
On this discussion though who is the biblical scholar I couldn't find a footnote. Is he an atheist?

I'm not quite sure, I don't really think that was asked. (or I didn't hear it)

I only ask because Dawkins does seem reserved compared to other videos I have watched. He is quite a biologist so I do appreciate his contributions. I have a close friend who has his masters in theology but is an atheist. Thats the only reason I ask.

I always considered a lack of beliefs agnostic but I have been partially convinced of that isn't always the case.

Personally I am an agnostic who leans Deist but I can appreciate any good debater. Like WLC being an apologist never bothered me he was such a brilliant debater. Or Hitchins who is pretty good himself. Dawkins always seemed to have a chip on his shoulder. Like he was angry at theists. In my opinion it made him make mistakes. Same with Stenger.

The video though is interesting. However, expecting documents to exist passed 1800 bc is not proof events did not happen. Especially in an area rife with warfare. Not that the bible is proof of anything either. Ancient history can be a bit tricky.

I feel the same about physical anthropology. We have such limited samples its hard to say even with the study of mitochondrial DNA where modern man really came from.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: missedinformation
a reply to: Metallicus

what about him?

He was at least brave enough to debate Craig.

Dawkins is a jerk IMO arrogant and rude. A good scientist though. Hitchins was a far better debater though many including Atheists thought he lost the debate to Craig. Then again craig was trained to debate Atheists. Atheists as far as I know don't have schools where they are taught how debate the non existencen of God.

You wouldn't be talking about william lane craig would you be?

Christian seem to love to make him out to be some undefeatable soldier of the faith...

Its kinda funny though... watch his debate against Bart Ehrman

Dr. Ehrman Made said hero look like a child...

originally posted by: luthier
I only ask because Dawkins does seem reserved compared to other videos I have watched. He is quite a biologist so I do appreciate his contributions. I have a close friend who has his masters in theology but is an atheist. Thats the only reason I ask.

His calm demeanor is because the biblical scholar isn't making any erroneous, unfounded claims. There's no need for him to be more forward because the biblical scholar hasn't made any logical fallacies.

originally posted by: luthier
I always considered a lack of beliefs agnostic but I have been partially convinced of that isn't always the case.

Agnosticism, at it's core, is Atheistic. Agnostics don't state "I do not believe there is or isn't a god"; The actual definition of Agnosticism, however, is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

originally posted by: luthier
Personally I am an agnostic who leans Deist but I can appreciate any good debater.

May I ask what your personal belief on the matter of gods are?

originally posted by: luthier
The video though is interesting. However, expecting documents to exist passed 1800 bc is not proof events did not happen. Especially in an area rife with warfare. Not that the bible is proof of anything either. Ancient history can be a bit tricky.

I don't believe anyone was stating that there were no events, but rather "no evidence exists to suggest these particular events occurred".

originally posted by: luthier
We have such limited samples its hard to say even with the study of mitochondrial DNA where modern man really came from.

Science doesn't work with absolutes or certainties. It is all a matter of percentages of observations that suggest a particular functionality or history.

I believe you may be viewing this from a slightly misinformed position

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: missedinformation
a reply to: Metallicus

what about him?

He was at least brave enough to debate Craig.

Dawkins is a jerk IMO arrogant and rude. A good scientist though. Hitchins was a far better debater though many including Atheists thought he lost the debate to Craig. Then again craig was trained to debate Atheists. Atheists as far as I know don't have schools where they are taught how debate the non existencen of God.

You wouldn't be talking about william lane craig would you be?

Christian seem to love to make him out to be some undefeatable soldier of the faith...

Its kinda funny though... watch his debate against Bart Ehrman

Dr. Ehrman Made said hero look like a child...

It's not just Christians by any means who think WLC is one of the best debaters. It's philosophy and academia I am talking about. It doesn't matter to me what Christians or Atheists say if they have no training in decifering fallacy in debate. If you look at academics Atheist, Agnostic, or Theists they will mostly say he was one of the best. You want to judge a person by experts in their own field usually.

And no I don't agree. Harris did beat Craig up but not Made. Read the transcript if you need to or other trained scholars opinions.

And I am as far from a Christian as you are probably. I just like philosophy and have had really good teachers. All but one were Atheists.