Richard Dawkins

[pegs]

my grandpa once said a true genuis is someone who can simplify the most complex of topics. has anyone read 'the god delusion'? im just about to start. heres something to give you an idea about what hes about.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NZU111Q5ASs& ... ed&search=

[Damage]

Yeah he's an extremist alright.

A sort of anti-pope for atheists i guess.

[Chamberess]

Coops is into Dawkins' work.He has posted about him a couple times and read 'God Delusion'.I am sure he will have something to note about this topic.

I have read Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene' and highly reccommend it.He has a way of explaining complex science in a way that even an idiot such as myself can understand

[ric_vidal]

I saw him in a doco recently and he struck me as being the most arrogant pompous prick I have ever come across, even if he was right.

I know what you are thinking brainDamage and pale ale Coops and just don’t go there, I do have feelings you know.

[willie]

saw the word god and an old man with a beard

so i closed the window..

Youtube is about people hurting themselves and a good source of wave videos
not this.

[Sleepy]

the dude is certainly a pompous prick, ric... after all he's considered the third smartest person alive.

but be careful not to take his word as gospel

[Hawkeye]

my grandpa once said a true genuis is someone who can simplify the most complex of topics.

Wasn't it Einstein that said things should should be simplified as much as possible - but not more? There's simple - and simplistic.

Dawkins' tactic is old and well-tried: set up a straw man, and then knock him down. He never stops to ask, what is real religion? His assumptions prevent him from ever considering the question might have an answer and the integrity of his entire project fails right there.

Nevertheless, much of the flummery that Dawkins shoots to pieces deserves his treatment of it. The snippets I saw - showing people who evidently think that by following certain behavioural formulas or saying certian words or assenting to certain dogmas or wearing certain clothes (etc etc ad nauseum) that they can twist God's arm or curry God's favour and get what they want - are typical of false religion everywhere.

Dawkins' mistake is to extrapolate these examples of human weakness in action to mean all religion must be therefore be false. This is a failure of logic at the fundamental level. To his credit, though, he doesn't let that stop him: taking his cues from Huxley it's apparent he knows that if you repeat your fallacy often enough it gains a momentum of its own. Add moving pictures and snappy editing and before you know it you have a steamroller.

One good thing that he demonstrates, though, is that arrogant pomposity and dogmatism is not confined to religion.

[ric_vidal]

the dude is certainly a pompous prick, ric...

Nice rhyme sleepy

after all he's considered the third smartest person alive.

What, according to him? Still no excuse.

but be careful not to take his word as gospel

One book was enough cruelty for my small brain. I’ll leave him to Coops & co.

[ric_vidal]

Dawkins' mistake is to extrapolate these examples of human weakness in action to mean all religion must be therefore be false.

How can religion be false, it’s man-made, it exists whether you choose to follow a faith or not, or is he talking about ‘events’, for want of a better description.

One good thing that he demonstrates, though, is that arrogant pomposity and dogmatism is not confined to religion.

[Chamberess]

Ok let me just say that "the selfish gene" has absolutely no anti-religious messages in it.Infact i don't think i even came across the very mention of it in the whole book.

It is a great book.It talks about the role our genes play in the evolution of species....how each gene is selfishly competing against other genes to be passed on to successive generations,etc

There is more to Dawkins than his religious debates so if you don't like his "God Delusion" message, maybe try the book i reccommended instead.You won't regret the read.

[Bear]

Ok let me just say that "the selfish gene" has absolutely no anti-religious messages in it.Infact i don't think i even came across the very mention of it in the whole book.

It is a great book.It talks about the role our genes play in the evolution of species....how each gene is selfishly competing against other genes to be passed on to successive generations,etc

There is more to Dawkins than his religious debates so if you don't like his "God Delusion" message, maybe try the book i reccommended instead.You won't regret the read.

Willing to put your money where your mouth is....

[puurri]

[quote="Chamberess"]Ok let me just say that "the selfish gene" has absolutely no anti-religious messages in it.Infact i don't think i even came across the very mention of it in the whole book.

It is a great book.It talks about the role our genes play in the evolution of species....how each gene is selfishly competing against other genes to be passed on to successive generations,etc

No attribution? I'm disappointed Ms C!! (and more importantly it mentions ALTRUISM). Hope you got that too

[yanks r us]

science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ae.

[fong]

:?

these threads do my head innn

if i could write fifty chapters arguing green is in fact blue

would it change the actual colour :?

p.s i'm a bad roman catholic ....but i remain a roman catholic just the same

[ric_vidal]

p.s i'm a bad roman catholic ....but i remain a roman catholic just the same

bad or naughty there may be a distinction

[harveybirdman]

science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ae.

That's the stupidest thing i've ever read.

[boogaloo]

I saw him in a doco recently and he struck me as being the most arrogant pompous prick I have ever come across ...

More pompous than Gough?