Richard Dawkins is the man

[gmail]

I love watching religous morons getting put in their place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXh-n...elated&search=

If you dont know about Dawkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Yea, Dawkins owns ass.

quote:Originally posted by gmail:



If you dont know about Dawkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

And if you don't know about Haggard: http:../../www.chron.com/n/4307615.html

[gmail]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

And if you don't know about Haggard: http:../%20/www.chron%20.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4307615.html

haha yes I forgot a link to him. He was the almighty leader of 11,000 at his former church. He forgot to mention he has gay buttsekks while smoking meth

Dawkins is cool, I just finished reading The Selfish Gene, and I'm starting The Blind Watchmaker.

[This message has been edited by tatari gami (edited 11-07-2006).]

Meh, don't like him much, read his books, he knows his shit...

But he's closed minded, and arogant, and quite possibly wrong and in denial.

He puts too much emphasis on the understandings of modern science, when things like evolution, and current understanding of religious psychology, are only a method of UNDERSTANDING something beyond...not "facts" in themselves.

Interpreations will change, people will always believe in higher purpose (and they are quite possibly right...i guess I just "feel" it at some level).

Dawkins will not be the hero of science in 400 years time, that's for sure.

Read The God Delusion if you haven't yet. 'Tis a great book.

[gmail]

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Meh, don't like him much, read his books, he knows his shit...

But he's closed minded, and arogant, and quite possibly wrong and in denial.

He puts too much emphasis on the understandings of modern science, when things like evolution, and current understanding of religious psychology, are only a method of UNDERSTANDING something beyond...not "facts" in themselves.

Interpreations will change, people will always believe in higher purpose (and they are quite possibly right...i guess I just "feel" it at some level).

Dawkins will not be the hero of science in 400 years time, that's for sure.

I doubt his aim is to be remembered as some sort of savior of science. Who gives a fuck if someone remembers who you are 400 years later? Youre dead, so why would it matter? While he is quick to jump on relgious types, he makes good points. He uses somthing that religous sheep dont: Fact and reason. Its always funny to watch the heavy believers when theyre called out on somthing outragous within their religon. Their response always beats around the bush and they never have any straight answers

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

But he's closed minded, and arogant, and quite possibly wrong and in denial.

Arrogant - yes. However, he's not closed minded, he readily admits that science is ever changing, but it's highly unlikely that the facts of evolution that have stood the test of time, countless observations and evidence from various branches of science, will ever be believed to be inaccurate by mainstream science. What do you think he may be in denial over?

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

He puts too much emphasis on the understandings of modern science,

Too much emphasis on the understandings of modern science? Is there something else he should be putting emphasis on to understand how things work in the world around us?

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

when things like evolution, and current understanding of religious psychology, are only a method of UNDERSTANDING something beyond...not "facts" in themselves.

Beyond what? You didn't finish the sentence?

The facts of evolution are "facts" in themselves, not "a method of UNDERSTANDING something beyond...".

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Dawkins will not be the hero of science in 400 years time, that's for sure.

Why are you so sure of that?