Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Richard Dawkins: Embarrassingly Bad Thinker,


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#16    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:45 PM

I haven't seen an argument this profound since reading Alice in Wonderland


#17    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,697 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:24 PM

View PostArbenol68, on 10 October 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:



When it comes to wriring about biology, Dawkins is just about peerless (at least since the death of Stephen Gould). His books have illuminated the subject for millions of people.
I don't doubt his biology knowledge, writing about stuff dosnt make one a scientist. My point being is that his soul purpose seems to be a professional skeptic. Of course this predisposes one to one style one side of the coin. A scientist is an investigator and follows the evidence logic, Dawkins is no longer investigating anything, his bread and butter is being a skeptic. Hard evidence could slap him the face, yet he would not budge. this is obvious by his over use of common logical fallacy. It is so clear that he avoids the real arguments presented and pushes ridicule, and ad hominimns, with occasional straw men. It's easy to set op dogmatic religions and knock them down In the place of all spiritual beliefs. It's easy to compare beliefs to rediculouse analogys and extremes, it's easy, to name call. I don't find the man brilliant at anything other than being charismatic. In fact there's are skeptics here that make better arguments than he does. Premise to conclusion without fallacious remarks. Now take Somone like Carl Sagan, or kaku. Real arguments real integrity in them. These are/were REAL scientists. Dawkins is a sad champion for atheists. And only seems like he is makeing decent points on the surface. Under the belly, he is as effective ad a Christian fundamentalists with quite near the same logical capabilities.

Edited by Seeker79, 10 October 2012 - 07:26 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#18    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:39 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 10 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

I don't doubt his biology knowledge, writing about stuff dosnt make one a scientist. My point being is that his soul purpose seems to be a professional skeptic. Of course this predisposes one to one style one side of the coin. A scientist is an investigator and follows the evidence logic, Dawkins is no longer investigating anything, his bread and butter is being a skeptic. Hard evidence could slap him the face, yet he would not budge. this is obvious by his over use of common logical fallacy. It is so clear that he avoids the real arguments presented and pushes ridicule, and ad hominimns, with occasional straw men. It's easy to set op dogmatic religions and knock them down In the place of all spiritual beliefs. It's easy to compare beliefs to rediculouse analogys and extremes, it's easy, to name call. I don't find the man brilliant at anything other than being charismatic. In fact there's are skeptics here that make better arguments than he does. Premise to conclusion without fallacious remarks. Now take Somone like Carl Sagan, or kaku. Real arguments real integrity in them. These are/were REAL scientists. Dawkins is a sad champion for atheists. And only seems like he is makeing decent points on the surface. Under the belly, he is as effective ad a Christian fundamentalists with quite near the same logical capabilities.

You asked about his contribution to science. People tend to regard Dawkins as a professional atheist, but I still think of him as a biologist. I actually think that how much work he's done in the field is largely irrelevant. Most scientists are notoriously crap at communicating with lay people. Dawkins is a rare example of someone with extensive knowledge of the subject and and ability to communicate these ideas clearly for anyone to understand.

His contributions to theology are less illustrious. Whilst I don't disagree with him on most things, neither do I disagree with you. His arguments are often pretty cack-handed and his contempt for the subject is evident. I've always found this approach to be self-defeating. I'm not sure how you can engage someone whilst being offensive. I'm no apologist for religions, but it seems to me if you want to dissuade people from that path then the soft sell would be more effective.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users