Richard Dawkins becomes the enemy of reason

[alice34]

He's an embarrassment to true science.

What an utter tool. He swans about lauding himself over others who he revels in pointing out as being irrational, ignorant of evidence and rigorous examination, only to show himself to be as mind-screwed as the very people he seeks to debunk.


See his show on google video here: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=Enemies+of+Reason+duration%3Along&start=0


.. and watch how he boxes in conspiracies regarding 911 with superstition, racism, and mere personal rumour. He's obviously done about as much research into 911 as the pope does into condoms.

What a twat.

There. I've said my peace.

[john white]

Nice peace!

[alice34]

Nice peace!

Amen John ;)

[chris]

Do people actually take this dawkins guy seriously? I just use him as the devils advocate

[danielg]

He's only a tool unto himself. Imagine how bored his poor wife must be, married to someone with no passion. All logic no libido. Can't have passion, its not science.
This here aint rational, but its fucking sweet: capoeira brasil (samba) - YouTube

[john white]

Do people actually take this dawkins guy seriously? I just use him as the devils advocate

The answer to that is: YES!

Go check out any average university blog or forum, you'll see that a lot of people do indeed cling to Dawkins and consider him a font of wisdom

Which just goes to show, theres a lot of left brain robots out there!

And of course it doesnt help that the systems current propganda firmly lays the evil of the world at the feet of anyone who believes in a God: the subtext is that God is to blame for the War on Terror!

[tejas]

I agree with a lot of Dawkings sayings. It is simply about logically looking around at the universe around you and not having a blind faith in superstitions.

There are a lot of false claims out there, a lot of false shamans and psychics who use mere mental techniques that can be easily explained with psychology to purport some kind of spiritual link, or miraculous whatever.

In the end it is about seperating the wheat from the chaff, finding the true spiritualists from the false ones. (And hint, the true ones don't tend to be very popular and don't mascarade around trying to make money or whatever)

Of course he is a skeptic, and so if a true psychic or whatever did bonk him on the nose, his belief system would disregard it. However I think it is important to understand the value of such people, as there are ALOT of frauds out there.

Quick edit, obviously his 9/11 stuff is bollox

[lydia78]

Hi,

I heard that after his 'God Delusion' Book he lost alot of support, including his own cronies at oxford uni, mainstream scientists perceieve him as the egotistical eeejit he really is.

All is fair in opposing perceptions of creation, but he is the epitiph of slander itself to those who don't agree with 'God Dawkins'. Sod him, at my uni is treated with contempt!

[alice34]

I agree with a lot of Dawkings sayings. It is simply about logically looking around at the universe around you and not having a blind faith in superstitions.

There are a lot of false claims out there, a lot of false shamans and psychics who use mere mental techniques that can be easily explained with psychology to purport some kind of spiritual link, or miraculous whatever.

In the end it is about seperating the wheat from the chaff, finding the true spiritualists from the false ones. (And hint, the true ones don't tend to be very popular and don't mascarade around trying to make money or whatever)

Of course he is a skeptic, and so if a true psychic or whatever did bonk him on the nose, his belief system would disregard it. However I think it is important to understand the value of such people, as there are ALOT of frauds out there.


Re-read my post tejas, I'm criticising him on his double standards when it comes to his position on 911truth...he's obviously done NO research and makes the kind of brain fart that is akin to the kind of fluffy, irrational, illogical judgement born only of the kind of thinking that he so vehemently renounces in psychics et al.

Hes a hypocrite and a fool.

[john white]

I say we get David Ray Griffen to go Chuck Norris on him :)

[tejas]

Re-read my post tejas, I'm criticising him on his double standards when it comes to his position on 911truth...he's obviously done NO research and makes the kind of brain fart that is akin to the kind of fluffy, irrational, illogical judgement born only of the kind of thinking that he so vehemently renounces in psychics et al.

Hes a hypocrite and a fool.

Yes sorry i apologize, I re-edited as I realised what you meant.

[Anders Lindman]

He's an embarrassment to true science.


I looked a bit at the beginning of the video and it looks interesting. Logical reason and rational thinking should not be abandoned. I agree with Dawkins on that. I will watch some more of the video now.

[alice34]

I looked a bit at the beginning of the video and it looks interesting. Logical reason and rational thinking should not be abandoned. I agree with Dawkins on that. I will watch some more of the video now.


I agree. Lets see him apply the same rigourous procedures to examining 911truth without resorting to the kind of idiocy he points out in others

[alice34]

I say we get David Ray Griffen to go Chuck Norris on him :)

Now that would be something I'd pay grandstand tickets for.

[Anders Lindman]

I looked a bit at the beginning of the video and it looks interesting. Logical reason and rational thinking should not be abandoned. I agree with Dawkins on that. I will watch some more of the video now.

Ha! I have already found one mistake made by him. He said that astrology make humans the focal point of the universe. What he fails to understand, is that the truth is that the center of the entire universe is within the individual:

On Having No Head - YouTube

Now, here's the kicker, the Youniverse:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[hagbard_celine]

Dawkins has lost it!:mad:

Does he really think that the horoscope column in a newspaper is all there is to astrology!?

He hasn't got a clue about Spiritualism either! Anyone can pop along to one service and reckon that they've got the medium sussed as a conman. how about when you attend regularly? It's very different picture then!

It gets to me that he sees science as more than just a way to see the world. for him it's the only way! That sounds to me like the doorstep to tyranny.

[hagbard_celine]

I knew Chris French would be in it. Do you want to bet that Susan Blackmore will be in next week's? I'm offering 4-1 on James Randi!

How do you explain the certainty of spiritual awareness to people like them?

[hagbard_celine]

I always post something about Alister Mcgrath whenever I discuss Dawky:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=alister+mcgrath&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

McGrath has challenged Dawky to face him in the Oxford Union, but so far dawky has declined.:cool:

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Well I watched the whole thing and thought Dawkins was spot on the money.

It doesn't matter whether or not horoscopes and astrology make humans the focal point of the universe or not, it's still horseshit as far as i am concerned.

The only thing I would put forward to him is that we live inside a box that conforms to rules dicated to us and who knows what we could find if we break out of the box. As far as I am concerned, he and the others like him are only concerned with the box (the univerise) and what's in it and how it works. And that's all very well. But i'd like to know as much about what's outside it as much as I find interesting about what's in it.

I will check out that video link and see what that's all about as well. looks interesting.

[mitch_lane]

tejas wrote:

I agree with a lot of Dawkings sayings. It is simply about logically looking around at the universe around you and not having a blind faith in superstitions.

There are a lot of false claims out there, a lot of false shamans and psychics who use mere mental techniques that can be easily explained with psychology to purport some kind of spiritual link, or miraculous whatever.

In the end it is about seperating the wheat from the chaff, finding the true spiritualists from the false ones. (And hint, the true ones don't tend to be very popular and don't mascarade around trying to make money or whatever)

Of course he is a skeptic, and so if a true psychic or whatever did bonk him on the nose, his belief system would disregard it. However I think it is important to understand the value of such people, as there are ALOT of frauds out there.

Quick edit, obviously his 9/11 stuff is bollox

The problem is he didn't apply any scientific rigour to the programme; the "scientific" test used on the newspaper astrology columns was a farce- and he even admitted that the majority of people know that they are too general to mean anything on an individual basis- and then he used that test to help rubbish the whole of astrology!.
The unspoken slur against Andrew Wakefield was another piece of well researched science as the debate on the link of the MMR tripple shot to autism isn't over ( and people forget that it was "scientists" who were putting mercury in these shots in the first place: it's still in some children's flu vaccines) and that is not what Wakefield is being punished for.
From the very first moments in Dawkins revealed his bias and dismissed much of this stuff as nonsense before he had even looked at it- that's keeping an open mind, willing to test the hypothesis.
As for the dowsing, well I've had my own minor experience with this so am aware that it works- my personal opinion is that it is ideomotor control but via the subconscious which is aware of a great deal more that the conscious state of mind but I may be quite wrong on that-and any test that features Chris French already has a huge tick against it. Note how also the water wasn't running- energised- and the water and the sand were in identical vessels.
The bit I liked the most was when Dawkins was talking to the Indian chap and he claimed that the he was asserting something; the Indian guy responded by saying that he was understanding not asserting and he left Dawkins nowhere to go because I feel that it is a point of view that Dawkins simply cannot perceive.

[fullfathomfive]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html

An article by Neil Spencer in reply to Dawkin's programme. Spencer featured in the programme.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

that article makes some good points that i agree with but I can't help but feel that most people are picking on the presentation of his facts rather than actually come up with good evidence of their own to prove that what they promote actually works!

[fullfathomfive]

I agree.

[tejas]

The enemies of reason are clearly only in it for the money, while science is presented with a moral halo as snowy as the lab coat Dawkins wears as he strides through shining pharmaceutical laboratories.

ROFL that is a classic quote.

[gizmocrystal]

I knew Chris French would be in it. Do you want to bet that Susan Blackmore will be in next week's? I'm offering 4-1 on James Randi!

How do you explain the certainty of spiritual awareness to people like them?


Hello there!

You have just mentioned the four people i cannot stand (Including dawkins)

They come across as so smug and know it all, when they dont know s*it! :mad::rolleyes:

I think as a scientist you should keep an open mind, obviously question things but to just disregard something because it doesnt fit in with your way of thinking is arrogant, obnoxious and they dont deserve to even be scientists IMO

When i see them on the telly i want to kick my television in!! :eek::eek::mad::D:D

[cheeb]

Facts,evidence and Truth,
Mr Dawkins is a truth seeker,
He does it in a scientific way,
Testable,methodological,and repeatable,
Evolution is a fact! Full Stop.
Personally, I don't think any of them people,
Who he interviewed are doing much harm,
Mostly deluding themselves.

One criticsm,
Why didn't they have a control group,
on the dowsing section,

Bad scientific methodology there Richard!

:eek:

[chris]

With all the attacks on conspiracy theorists everyday I don't find this Dawkins chump annoying at all.

This guy I knew went on a little rant about God who is quite a Richard Dawkin type and I asked him 'Do you think like Einstein there's a universal mathematical formulae that started at the big bang?'

He just looked at me for a few seconds and then a big smile went across his face and we both started laughing.

[alice34]

With all the attacks on conspiracy theorists everyday I don't find this Dawkins chump annoying at all.

This guy I knew went on a little rant about God who is quite a Richard Dawkin type and I asked him 'Do you think like Einstein there's a universal mathematical formulae that started at the big bang?'

He just looked at me for a few seconds and then a big smile went across his face and we both started laughing.

Thanks Chris,

Despite my outspoken criticism and somewhat angered attack on Dawkins on this issue, my issues with him are more in jest than attachment to his every word. He's obviously as infallible as anyone else.

Ironically, much of my passion regarding the hipocracy of his statement really has more to do with my relationship with my father than anything else...as bizarre as that may sound.

Dawkins can believe what he likes, I just found myself moved to point out his own hipocrisy as he does so eloquently with others.

HAGGERS: Thanks for that link. Great watching!

[mitch_lane]

cheeb wrote:

Facts,evidence and Truth,
Mr Dawkins is a truth seeker,
He does it in a scientific way,

that maybe so but he showed little evidence of checking out anything in a scientific way in this particular programme- in fact he made astounding leaps of faith in his own beliefs rather than actually look at anything other than the surface evidence for what he was lambasting: and does he not think that those who follow astrology or homeopathy or that dowse haven't also sat and looked at the stars in wonder?.

cheeb also wrote:

Evolution is a fact! Full Stop.

Who's version of evolution is a fact, Darwin or Lamarck?. Is evolution the change over millions of years or is it the Cambrian Explosion?. See, even evolutionists don't agree on the "facts". Maybe not so Full a Stop then?.

[john white]

Ah but Dawkins in in the Cult of Personality now, and it most assuredly will mess with his head... therefore he has to present something "new", which means pushing his luck into territory incognita... which means of course, the increased perception of him as homo nincompopa

[cheeb]

OK,
This is my subjective opinion,
I think that if you have to look in encyclopedias for facts,
it can destroy the soul of an arguement,
Thinking on your feet feels healthier!!

John is right on this one,
Dawkins is playing to the gallery,
But then so does Icke , DeLooze, and Tsarion,

The cambrian explosion wasn't an one off incident,
It happened over a period of 70-80 million years,
Maybe the earth had a very temporate climate,
Over this period That might be the reason ,
For so many fossils in the burgess shale,
Mud as you know has got an optimum temperature,
Too cold it freezes,
Too wet it flows away,
Maybe this period in earths history,
Was just right for a variety of life to flourish,

Bit like in a rain forest, lots of variation,
In a polar climate, specailisation,

There are cosmic events ,
That happen on a regular scale,
That wipe the slate clean, as it were!

The last one in the Yucatan peninsula,
Gulf of Mexico,
Some 65 million years ago,
Which wiped out the dinosaurs,

Exept crocodiles,birds and frogs bizzarley
(frogs are becoming more extinct now ironically,
as a result of global warming{another subject}

This catastrophic event,
allowed the mammals,
to become centre stage,

And here we are now,
fully functioning sentient beings,
with computers and big ideas,
to make our world a better place
for everyone and everything.

Lamark:
No merit in it:
Rudyard Kiplin--Just so stories......

Thankx!!!

[john white]

John is right on this one,
Dawkins is playing to the gallery,
But then so does Icke , DeLooze, and Tsarion,

Wouldnt deny it for a moment, and they get percieved as homonincompopa too... heck read the comments on my rabbit hole vid, clearly so do I!

But that's not the point:

I'd judge those three gentlemen far better adapted (hah!) to handle the territory than a left brain specialist like Dawkins

[montag]

I thought it was a very clever programming trick to throw the 'conspiracy theories' in the last few minutes of the show after the mediums and dowsers..
In one foul swoop he linked 911 truth with antisemitism and the most unbelievable conspiracy theory of all that we didn't go to the moon as well as the mediums and dowsers, what a master stroke.. I thought the rest of the program was ok until he hit us with that little beauty at the end which was the whole intention of the program IMHO..

[chris]

Thanks Chris,

Despite my outspoken criticism and somewhat angered attack on Dawkins on this issue, my issues with him are more in jest than attachment to his every word. He's obviously as infallible as anyone else.

Ironically, much of my passion regarding the hipocracy of his statement really has more to do with my relationship with my father than anything else...as bizarre as that may sound.

Dawkins can believe what he likes, I just found myself moved to point out his own hipocrisy as he does so eloquently with others.

HAGGERS: Thanks for that link. Great watching!

My whole family must be the most Dawkinesk family you can ever imagine so I know how it must be...Probably why I am so far out.

[cheeb]

Wouldnt deny it for a moment, and they get percieved as homonincompopa too... heck read the comments on my rabbit hole vid, clearly so do I!

But that's not the point:

I'd judge those three gentlemen far better adapted (hah!) to handle the territory than a left brain specialist like Dawkins

Flippin heck,
That was fast john,
Those gentlemen are left brain thinkers,
Philosophers,
Dawkins,Einstein,Hawkins etc.......
Are scientists,
Right brain thinkers,

They are all after Truth,

The Bigger Picture!!!

Give them credit:):):)

[mitch_lane]

cheeb wrote:

...The cambrian explosion wasn't an one off incident,
It happened over a period of 70-80 million years,...

well actually the Cambrian explosion is a distinct period in time and is a one off as far as fossil records show- and although you use the 70-80 million years period as a very long time I'm sure that you are aware that that is considered quite a short period in evolutionary terms.

cheeb also wrote this:

...Maybe the earth had a very temporate climate,
Over this period That might be the reason ,
For so many fossils in the burgess shale,...

Doesn't that dispute the Full Stop Fact of evolution, to some degree anyway?.It sounds more like what it still is, an ongoing theory.

cheeb also wrote this:

...Lamark:
No merit in it:
Rudyard Kiplin--Just so stories......


well you say that, others say different, so there in lies a dispute that Fact should have put an end to.

[john white]

Flippin heck,
That was fast john,
Those gentlemen are left brain thinkers,
Philosophers,
Dawkins,Einstein,Hawkins etc.......
Are scientists,
Right brain thinkers,

They are all after Truth,

The Bigger Picture!!!

Give them credit:):):)

Oh i do... unless and until they fall into the delusion of believing themselves "the way the truth the light" and start out to impose themselves on the rest of humanity...

Then the value of their stock falls dramatically

[cheeb]

So take Richard Dawkins out of the equation,
You still have evolution,
by natural selection,
survival of the fittest,adaptable,throw in a bit of luck/chance,
It is a theoriem,
That doesn't need Dawkins or Darwin,
Mitch lane,
Probably read a bit of Gould,
And got carried away by spontanious ,
species jumping,

Bit like the Bible bashers,
And creationists,
Who took genesis as literal truth,

What is your alternative to natural selection,
Which route do you climb up Mount Improbable,
Then Mitch???
:eek:

[lydia78]

Admittedly I did not watch all of the link (had a gig to attend), but the first 30mins though 'interesting' did get me heckles up.

If he wanted to convey the spiritual world as being full of charlitans and rip-off merchants he acheived that in the psychic fair and dowsing sequence.

If he really wanted to observe spiritualists, why didn't he organise a good sample size and control group ( as cheeb said I think?) of actual geniunereaders, there are plenty of them....and they are easily contactable.

I felt (as usual) Dawkins picked the weakest representation for his focus, I have never met a dowser who claimed it was' God directing them', majority I know would have spoken eliquently about the magnetic properties of the earth and lay lines, most geologists could have answered that for him.

What he did expose was how a chariltan works, which is a whole different story. But an important one.

I'm setting up a psychology experiment for social psychology using geniune psychics, it is essential that I use the real macoy, who are psychic but have spritual wisdom instead of the 'I read one book and I was psychic' type......

Dawkins has only shot himself in the ass with this film, the amount of holes in it can only discredit him in the eyes of his peers.

[lydia78]

Oh and as far as Dogma goes, you couldn't GET more dogmatic than hard empirical science!!

[cleft_asunder]

He's an embarrassment to true science.

What an utter tool. He swans about lauding himself over others who he revels in pointing out as being irrational, ignorant of evidence and rigorous examination, only to show himself to be as mind-screwed as the very people he seeks to debunk.


See his show on google video here: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=Enemies+of+Reason+duration%3Along&start=0


.. and watch how he boxes in conspiracies regarding 911 with superstition, racism, and mere personal rumour. He's obviously done about as much research into 911 as the pope does into condoms.

What a twat.

There. I've said my peace.

So how many followers does he actually have?

[lydia78]

Not sure but he's obviously looking to build a fanbase........thought 'hardcore' scientists were to busy being 'hardcore' to want adoration and a pat on the back for 'scientific'......

[tejas]

So take Richard Dawkins out of the equation,
You still have evolution,
by natural selection,
survival of the fittest,adaptable,throw in a bit of luck/chance,
It is a theoriem,
That doesn't need Dawkins or Darwin,
Mitch lane,
Probably read a bit of Gould,
And got carried away by spontanious ,
species jumping,

Bit like the Bible bashers,
And creationists,
Who took genesis as literal truth,

What is your alternative to natural selection,
Which route do you climb up Mount Improbable,
Then Mitch???
:eek:

I think the main problem with 'evolution' is that it is really many theorys splashed together, some theories which are clearly self-evident-
- survival of the fittest
- natural selection
etc, but some theories which are statistically impossible and require a lot of faith on the part of the evolutionist, i.e that the genome of any organism can randomly increase the amount of information contained within it.
(For example a fish to a walking being is quite a leap and there are no fossils which show ANY intermediate steps, which is strange seeing as if evolution was fact they should be all over the place)
And the self-evident parts of the theory often psychologically cancel or overwrite the parts of the theory that don't really seem probable.


Clearly I am an ID proponent, I think its obvious that we are designed by some form of intelligence. Not all IDers have to be fundamentalist christians.

The extrapolation of this is that the Designer is obviously some kind of mischieve maker, programming diseases, ilnesses, agression etc as well

Maybe your comment about god is right, hes playing some kind of shootemup or maybe a command and conquer type game :/

[hagbard_celine]

You're welcome, PF:)

the thing thast bothers me about Dawkins is not what his views are, but his attitude to those with different ones. He keeps using the words "truth" and "nonsense". It sounds like he's got acute Certanity Disease.

Therefore I'd like to ask him something: If he was ever in a position of great political power, where he had the ability to outlaw all paranormal, religious and New Age beliefs; would he do it?

If the answer is yes, then he's no better than any religious fundamentalist. See "the Trouble With Atheism":http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5043 I was on the James Randi forum and I was worried at how many members were willing to criminalize irrationality, and they seemed incapable of understanding the hypocrisy of their position.

[mitch_lane]

cheeb wrote:

So take Richard Dawkins out of the equation,
You still have evolution,
by natural selection,
survival of the fittest,adaptable,throw in a bit of luck/chance,
It is a theoriem,
That doesn't need Dawkins or Darwin,
Mitch lane,
Probably read a bit of Gould,
And got carried away by spontanious ,
species jumping,

Bit like the Bible bashers,
And creationists,
Who took genesis as literal truth,

What is your alternative to natural selection,
Which route do you climb up Mount Improbable,
Then Mitch???

Sorry, no Stephen J ( my brother does have a huge tome of his but I haven't read it: looks pretty daunting for a start) but I have read Taylor and Cremo.
Not sure that I believe in the survival of the fittest and in fact I see the whole survival "instinct" as more of a control system than a true part of our nature.
What's meant by survival of the fittest anyway: are the fastest, the most aggressive or brutal the fittest, or the smartest and most cunning or simply the kindest?. Guess it depends on what kind of world that you want to live in.
The Nazi's knew what kind of world that they wanted and that was Darwinism taken to a logical- if extreme- conclusion.

[cheeb]

cheeb wrote:



Sorry, no Stephen J ( my brother does have a huge tome of his but I haven't read it: looks pretty daunting for a start) but I have read Taylor and Cremo.
Not sure that I believe in the survival of the fittest and in fact I see the whole survival "instinct" as more of a control system than a true part of our nature.
What's meant by survival of the fittest anyway: are the fastest, the most aggressive or brutal the fittest, or the smartest and most cunning or simply the kindest?. Guess it depends on what kind of world that you want to live in.
The Nazi's knew what kind of world that they wanted and that was Darwinism taken to a logical- if extreme- conclusion.

no> it is not meant in that Eugenitc way,
That is a nazi fallacy,
Nature produces an over abundance,
Just to survive,
or at least the potential to survive,
Think ,pollen,sperm,spores,
Agression is a human concept,
Best left out of this equation,
What do you eat,?
Must be some form of organic life,?
If you were an elephant on the savvanah,
Is the grass exploiting you,
Or you exploiting it???
Elephants farm too,
They push down acacia trees,
to give more light to the grasses,

[seanx]

Mr Dawkins is a truth seeker

I can't agree with you there, Cheeb.

Yes, he has his role and his recent book exposing most of the
nonsense of organized religion was excellent.

However, he's not a real 'truth seeker' because he is hindered,
in my opinion by the great lie of 'modern' science that if
something is not 'observable' or 'measurable' - then it's not real
- and is a fantasy.

Now..here's the problem - if we all shared this mentality, surely
progress would come to a standtill.

Imagine Dawkins was around when the Wright Brothers were
'dreaming' about man's ability to fly..in a flying machine

Daawkins would laugh at their ignorance.

Surely he would say:'Fools, Charlatans - you're leading
peopel astray. Giving them false hopes of an easier life'.

If they protested - he would mock: 'Show me your proof.
Show me in the history of man -this ever happening'.

The Wright Bothers had NO PROOF.

ONLY a gut feeling.

A vision.

A DREAM.

They just had TRUST that it was possibe.

The same, surely could be said for any new invention.

Before it is invented - there is NO MEASURABLE POOF - yet if the
inventor can maintain his vision, his dream - he CAN bring that
proof into PHYSICAL and MEASURABLE existence.

Likewise, I have a conviction , deep feeling ( it may be wrong)
that we live - right now in a mutli-universe.

That one day, it will be possible to visit - these infinite dimensions
that are RIGHT NOW existing all around us in the SAME SPACE.

And that these dimensions are as real as this dimension we are
now talking in.

Just vibrating at different frequences.

Now say this to a man like Dawkins ..and he would think you
were mad, bad, dangerous, deluded and pure stupid.

But just like the flying machine or any invention- if we hold true
to our convictions - God knows what we will be inspired to invent ..
a machine that discovers and measures the vibrations of these
different dimensions?

The world needs it's Dawkins, sure to keep us all grounded - but
it also needs its visionaries, it's dreamers - people it
seems Mr. Dawkins has no time for.

[john white]

no> it is not meant in that Eugenitc way,
That is a nazi fallacy,


No its not, the Nazi's merely ran with it: as did Stalin: and Mao: and of course great chunks of American and Australian society pre WWII

You have to go to Galton, Darwins cousin, who sought to apply Darwins theories to the perfection of man:

and of course, before either of them, Malthus

[john white]

The problem is, Dawkins world view works perfectly well for dawkins, allows him to function and have a meaningful life, and thats not a problem for anyone (including God)

But what happens when the ideas of reason get into the hands of the unreasonable?

Nightmare, thats what, dark and bloody

Dawkins does not understand the problem: he thinks that if people can be MADE to be reasonable, people can be MADE to be better. In this he is a fool, becuase he does not understand evil or darkness, and what a liscense such appeal to exterior authority gives to horror: there is always a monster waiting in the wings who will promise to make it all better if power is given to him, and reaches for the tools of repression and violence as soon as given the chance

Reason, Religion, it doesn't matter, two sides of the same coin:

It is the wounded shcizoid ego that drags all these dreams down:

It is the inner healing of duality back to oneness that lifts us up:

Inner health is the one and only route to outer health

[cheeb]

Yes,
He does see the reason in everything,
He seems to think all sides can be approached by debate, analysis,
and critical thought,
He seems to forget there are unreasonable,
psychopaths in this world,
and that is his strength,
and his weakness,

[cheeb]

OK,then'
In a utopian society,
How do you deal with that 2% problem???

[john white]

OK,then'
In a utopian society,
How do you deal with that 2% problem???

I don't accept that it is a 2% problem: its a 98% problem

And its through a rennaissance of human self-image in that 98%

That we get to that "utopian" society

And then we have a transformed world

where 2% can no longer dominate 98%

Lacking then the ability to harm others

that 2% has its chance for peace, and healing

In the end, none are left behind, everyone goes home

[cheeb]

Eugenics ,would breed them out,(the 2%)
If they were ethical,
but then you got,
Kinseys 10%,
Yes it is a bit Adolf isn't it,
Sociopaths,
How do you deal with them,
without becoming the monster,
You wish to destroy???

[gizmocrystal]

I can't agree with you there, Cheeb.

Yes, he has his role and his recent book exposing most of the
nonsense of organized religion was excellent.

However, he's not a real 'truth seeker' because he is hindered,
in my opinion by the great lie of 'modern' science that if
something is not 'observable' or 'measurable' - then it's not real
- and is a fantasy.

Now..here's the problem - if we all shared this mentality, surely
progress would come to a standtill.

Imagine Dawkins was around when the Wright Brothers were
'dreaming' about man's ability to fly..in a flying machine

Daawkins would laugh at their ignorance.

Surely he would say:'Fools, Charlatans - you're leading
peopel astray. Giving them false hopes of an easier life'.

If they protested - he would mock: 'Show me your proof.
Show me in the history of man -this ever happening'.

The Wright Bothers had NO PROOF.

ONLY a gut feeling.

A vision.

A DREAM.

They just had TRUST that it was possibe.

The same, surely could be said for any new invention.

Before it is invented - there is NO MEASURABLE POOF - yet if the
inventor can maintain his vision, his dream - he CAN bring that
proof into PHYSICAL and MEASURABLE existence.

Likewise, I have a conviction , deep feeling ( it may be wrong)
that we live - right now in a mutli-universe.

That one day, it will be possible to visit - these infinite dimensions
that are RIGHT NOW existing all around us in the SAME SPACE.

And that these dimensions are as real as this dimension we are
now talking in.

Just vibrating at different frequences.

Now say this to a man like Dawkins ..and he would think you
were mad, bad, dangerous, deluded and pure stupid.

But just like the flying machine or any invention- if we hold true
to our convictions - God knows what we will be inspired to invent ..
a machine that discovers and measures the vibrations of these
different dimensions?

The world needs it's Dawkins, sure to keep us all grounded - but
it also needs its visionaries, it's dreamers - people it
seems Mr. Dawkins has no time for.


A great post

I totally agree!!:D

[cheeb]

I can't agree with you there, Cheeb.

Yes, he has his role and his recent book exposing most of the
nonsense of organized religion was excellent.

However, he's not a real 'truth seeker' because he is hindered,
in my opinion by the great lie of 'modern' science that if
something is not 'observable' or 'measurable' - then it's not real
- and is a fantasy.

Now..here's the problem - if we all shared this mentality, surely
progress would come to a standtill.

Imagine Dawkins was around when the Wright Brothers were
'dreaming' about man's ability to fly..in a flying machine

Daawkins would laugh at their ignorance.

Surely he would say:'Fools, Charlatans - you're leading
peopel astray. Giving them false hopes of an easier life'.

If they protested - he would mock: 'Show me your proof.
Show me in the history of man -this ever happening'.

The Wright Bothers had NO PROOF.

ONLY a gut feeling.

A vision.

A DREAM.

They just had TRUST that it was possibe.

The same, surely could be said for any new invention.

Before it is invented - there is NO MEASURABLE POOF - yet if the
inventor can maintain his vision, his dream - he CAN bring that
proof into PHYSICAL and MEASURABLE existence.

Likewise, I have a conviction , deep feeling ( it may be wrong)
that we live - right now in a mutli-universe.

That one day, it will be possible to visit - these infinite dimensions
that are RIGHT NOW existing all around us in the SAME SPACE.

And that these dimensions are as real as this dimension we are
now talking in.

Just vibrating at different frequences.

Now say this to a man like Dawkins ..and he would think you
were mad, bad, dangerous, deluded and pure stupid.

But just like the flying machine or any invention- if we hold true
to our convictions - God knows what we will be inspired to invent ..
a machine that discovers and measures the vibrations of these
different dimensions?

The world needs it's Dawkins, sure to keep us all grounded - but
it also needs its visionaries, it's dreamers - people it
seems Mr. Dawkins has no time for.

But it wasn't inconceivable to think of flight,
or to imagine flight before the Wright Brothers,
Icarus did it,
Leonardo thought about it,
and had designs for helicopters.
Birds and bats are evidence that it was possible!
Dawkins himsef talks about,
the possibility of a multiverse.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/98

all of those TED TALKS are pretty good

[seanx]

Dawkins himsef talks about,
the possibility of a multiverse.

Yet, why does he mock even the possibility of afterlife
communication?

It seems to me his attitude towards mediums, for example ( and
I accept most of them are probably harmless fakes -there may be
only 4-5 genuine mediums in the whole of UK/Ireland) but
his attitude towards this topic seems to be one of arrogant
superiority, as if he were some 'higher being' looking 'down' on
these simple people who can't face the meaningless of life -
and thus 'invent' things like life after death to avoid the
terror of nothingness?

Yes, there is no proof that man's consciousness after death
simply moves from one dimension to another.

But Wright brothers had no proof either.

But a feeling - an intuition - a more advanced 'level of knowing' ???
that it was possible?

Surely this is the REAL difference between such men amd
Dawkins.

Everything to dawkins comes down to reason.

For him, it is the only trustworthy faculty - and intuition is
only 'fancy imagination'.

Thus Dawkin's view of the world will always be cold,
rational ..and in the end totally meaningless..because he sees
it only through the lens of cold, deductive reason.

That's his great strenght......but also, surely his great weakness.

[synergy777]

if he use flawed texts to construct his hypothesis, then is not the enemy of reason, but a arrogant athiest. i like his previous work, but this is the trap scientists fall into. all the great scientists, have been mystics/alchemists, eg newton, tesla, etc. you only have to look at the marvel of the cosmos to realise this is not random, geometric construction clearly shows intelligence/deisgn, a universal blueprint, sacred geometry.

fibonacci/fractuals, wave/particle, its the hallmark of the creator. heck newton even looked at bible codes, book of daniel,etc

[hagbard_celine]

Yet, why does he mock even the possibility of afterlife
communication?

It seems to me his attitude towards mediums, for example ( and
I accept most of them are probably harmless fakes -there may be
only 4-5 genuine mediums in the whole of UK/Ireland) but
his attitude towards this topic seems to be one of arrogant
superiority, as if he were some 'higher being' looking 'down' on
these simple people who can't face the meaningless of life -
and thus 'invent' things like life after death to avoid the
terror of nothingness?


It gives him a lot of academic street-cred! In that Tv show about the little Scottish boy with past life memories, Christ French said: "Which is more attractive? The idea that we just die or that there is something beyond it so we don't have to face oblivion?" The subtext of that was: "And I have the balls to face up to this bleak, grim reality; you don't!"

The debate over life-after-death has become empty and pointless become blighted by machismo. This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne. They're very polite and friendly, they just act very superior. It seems that ever since the beginning of Existentialism, or even as far back as the ancient Greeks, there's been a competition among philosophers to come up with a view on life that is bleaker and more depressing than their predecessors. To accept one of these viewpoints has a certain prestige that marks you out as particularly rugged and virile. "What, you call that a bleak and pointless philosophy on life!? Bah! Pussy! Look at MY philosophy!":rolleyes:

If you reject the concept of survival-of-death then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion and mysticism. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do! :D

I wonder if Dawkins and French actually do believe in life-after-death, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps! It's all a bit childish to me, rather like kids showing of their muscle in the playground.

[john white]

I've been working on some arguments re: Dawkins

I havnt got them down yet, still a work in progress, but heres the jist:

Firstly, this is a response post I did picking up points off a 9 page thread:

I have something I'd like to say about Dawkins and his ideas, but first I thought I'd do a greatest hits of what has stuck out in the thread so far for me

However I too would divide the practitioners into two distinct groups: the con artists who deliberately and cynically exploit the vulnerable and gullible for financial gain; and those who do sincerely (however mistakenly) believe in what they are practising. The latter can occasionally genuinely help people, thanks to their natural empathy and the placebo effect

And has science found a way to explain how the placebo effect can cure what drug therapy and conventional understanding cannot? You may say more than you know there

I despise Dawkings because he's turning concrete matters (like science) into matters of faith, and just an example of the "us or them" attitude people are susceptible to. I have yet to see how all this "mysticism" and "faith" has any connection with the supposed decline of science and reason Dawkings keeps blabbering about.

A key and well made point. Its a tenant of faith

The effect of the use of mass psychology and subliminal techniques to manufacture consent throughout society might explain a great deal more

Right now Doctor Who is doing a better job of presenting science as relevant and empowering than the current resident of the Simonyi Chair.


Ouch!

I just find it funny how people say Dawkins is a cult-leader...when in fact it seems to be so much pot calling the kettle black.

I suspect it looks exactly the same "from the other side", and I do Love a good blast of irony!

That, I think, would really open peoples eyes about the world, far more than trying to convince a few dowsers via a few experiments that their methods are little better than random chance.


A brief mention here (because i am a dowser) that when I watched the programme I went "ouch!" straight away because I could see that the dowers were going to get "false" readings from the get go. Regrettably most dowsers are trusting types (they trust their own ability to dowse: letting go of the surface mind and accessing intuition is a key part of dowsing and is innately linked to trust) and don't always think things through: the fact that the water was constantly being placed in different boxes between tests over short periods of time meant that inevitably the resonances would be all over the place: every Box would read as having water in it.... But the programme never attempted to ask :"just how are those rods moving in the first place"? Suggests more going on than meets the eye (though the research scientist clearly had a firm opinion in his mind and was simply looking to confirm his expectation... says a fair bit about the myth of scientific impartiality: it takes integrity to do a Hawkins and say "I have now proved myself wrong!" and there’s few scientists who reach such guru like levels)

The whole cult issue is a silly diversion. There is no organized cult of Dawkins, where he gives orders, tells people how to live their lives, tells they should and shouldn't associate with, has members surrender their possessions, and whatever else real cults do

I agree: but at least Dawkins has a taste of what Icke has to deal with... LOL!

The Government should protect its citizens, full stop.


Even from themselves? Or even (dare we say?) from ITSELF? We could certainly do with government keeping an eye on itself, unfortunately it’s rather out of control...

That's total BS. He just wants people to THINK. Dawkins doesn't threaten and bully and manipulate people. He doesn't recruit legions of people to interfere with government. He just presents a well reasoned argument. This idea that he is the equal and opposite voice to the religious extremists is crap. I think everyone's been watching to much fox news. Often diametrically opposite views are NOT equal.


Well the intriguing thing is, they are often the SAME, beneath the superficial "conflict": a classic there is how fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist religionists both read scripture in the same way: literally! (That is: with left brain dominance)

Dawkins thinks that by changing someone's beliefs you can make them a better person, which is ironic if you think about it

I shall be getting to this in a little while...


The science of astronomy is so mind-shatteringly elegant and beautiful and inspiring, that this is demeaning and shallow and a betrayal of what it is to be human, when the human species has achieved so much in understanding the universe.

And yet astronomy is the child OF astrology: and the astrologers down through the ages were certainly no slouchers when in came to hard maths and science. Even today the precision alignment of ancient structures boggles our ability to comprehend... it's an old argument (of course...) but if the moon can make all that water in the oceans go up and down, it can certainly effect us (as any woman can attest to)... why then shouldn’t the rest of the universe affect consciousness? Its one vast sea of interacting energies after all...



Definitely - I was just trying to make the point that the effect can be explained in the same evolutionary terms as the pigeon experiment. The water divining experiment seemed to demonstrate that these people were sincere in their beliefs; indeed, one seemed on the verge of tears when she failed it.

Well that’s what happens when one comes back onto a thought based level of awareness and finds ones trust has gone awry without understanding why. Its called learning from experience: but its not a de-bunk of anything, as the research scientist would know IF he was truly interested in examining the entire phenomena rather than superficially confirming expectations...

One of the ways in which I survived my education was by paying attention to differences between texts. Religious texts aren't like other texts. For much of history, priests and bishops wouldn't accept that the Bible 'contain[s] errors and [that] all teachers possess limited knowledge'. Rather, they claim that the Bible is the word of God, to be taken in its entirety

Well, more accurately, because religion was usurped and used as a tool of maintaining physical control, that’s what the high priest's told the masses. They never believed that for a moment, at least not the thinking ones who studied the material they hoarded and kept out of circulation: that’s why books had chains on them. Back in the ancient world (pre-Roman) , a majority view would be that a man would be considered barking and off his tree for taking scripture literally, as they knew the stories were symbolic stories describing the nature of consciousness...

Whenever people can be conditioned to believe ANYTHING without thinking, they are Childs play to control and to manipulate. That applies 100% to the primacy of science and reason over all else

As far as I can tell, when people 'pick and choose' from a religious text they are entering into a process of negotion based on personal preference and experience.


That’s a fair point...and absolutely true: that flexibility of negotiation is essential for growth: but a deeper comprehension is that the same words can have multiple layers of meaning and resonate again and again and again in deeper and deeper ways as ones personal journey of understanding expands through ones life

Or more accurately, God has revealed his truths and doctrines to be the same ones that Christ taught and organized with his Apostles 2,000 years ago, to his prophets who lead his church today. In other words, the LDS Church has the full truth as revealed by God, and other organizations and churches have partial truths, some of which are missing or corrupt.



Can't really ignore this: there’s a lot of truth in the LDS: the problem comes in needing one voice to have ALL the truth: never going to happen, and always a failure in mans urgency and need. Whoever truly seeks God truly hears God, however they understand what they hear, is my view. Different debate though

I asked a Christian friend of mine why, if it was the word of God, wasn't the Bible given to all the world's people in one go or why it took hundreds of years for Christianity to spread around the world (often accompanied by a lot of bloodshed) if it was divine truth. She asked her church elders and, to their credit, they replied that they didn't really know. So do any Christians on here have the answers to these questions?


I'm not a Christian, but I might be able to help. Your reading this on the screen of a computer: your computer contains no end of transistors and what not that takes the voltage of the electricity flowing around it and modifies that voltage so that it is able to do its purpose without burning components out and destroying the ability of the machine to function

The spread of spiritual awareness is rather like that. The problems arise when individual components get all giddy and think they are more important than the rest. But then, if that problem didn’t exist mankind wouldn’t need spiritual education in the first place

I'm reminded of the dowsers in the Dawkins programme whose need to feel special is so great that they try to explain away failures

"A doswer needing to feel special" is actually an oxymoron: any dowser who "felt special" would swiftly find their ability to dowse diminishing rapidly: their mind and self importance would get in the way!. And isn’t "explain away failures" an irrational way of perceiving "reason to understand and learn from failure". It seems to me this comment is a reflection of your need to consider dowsers "un-special": as in "un-equal" because they do not see things as "clearly" as you do?

I'm of the opinion that, assuming Satan exists, he's got to be one of the good guys. Why? Because it's his job to punish the evil people. If Satan was really a baddy then he'd welcome the evildoers with open arms and they'd all get together over a few drinks and discuss how to take over the universe. As he throws the bad people into a big pit of burning damnation he has to at least be in God's employ, but God doesn't like to admit it. Like the Americans shipping people to other countries to be tortured.

The Shepard opens the gate for the flock to walk though: but he needs his sheepdog barking at their heels to. Unless seriously twisted though, no spiritual person will expand on this, although it is truth (well a layer of truth)

Oh certainly, a tendancy to religious belief does seem to be programmed into the human brain

Yep, its the process of Ego identification with thought: to believe ones thoughts define the essence of who one is. Something for you to chew on from my POV

[john white]

And heres the main post:

now, onto what I wanted to say...

Dawkins approach: Well it works wonderfully for him, and that’s absolutely fine. We have no need to be this or be the other, but simply to be: that is enough

Dawkins, like the rest of us, has constructed his own world view and sense of self from all the stimulus he has experienced all through his life. For Dawkins, that has manifested as an atheistic viewpoint that places reason as the highest quality. It allows him to lead a life in balance with his surroundings and to function as a human being

The problem is that Dawkins own experience is uniquely his experience: as Dawkins himself is unique. There’s never been a Richard Dawkins before and never will be again. Others may have experiences that lead them to similar conclusions and hold a similar world view, and that’s fine, but the basic error Dawkins is making is falling into the belief that if everyone held the same world view, everything would be better. To be fair, he certainly understands the unlikelihood of that ever being the case, but if Dawkins ideas, or should we say belief, in the primacy of reason, ever came into dominance of collective reality, the result would be disastrous: nightmare dark and bloody

We can know this with some certainty because it’s already happened

Yes I am going to talk about Lenin and Stalin, and I know that Dawkins has addressed this point, but I do feel he has missed the lesson in front of him… but first I’m going to talk about Darwin

Now there’s no evidence to suggest Darwin was a bad man. He led an Ok life and achieved what he achieved: and he reasoned out a theory about how life may have come to be here, and the mechanism through which that happened, and that is what he is remembered for

It was eminently reasonable of his cousin Galton to take Darwin’s observations about adaptation and to ask “could mankind be made better through understanding this process?”. And clearly, using reason applied to Darwin’s theories, mankind could be. Using reason, that’s still the case today: reason tells us that mankind can be made better through natural selection (in fact this has been going on for a long time amongst the families that have held power on this planet over the last few thousand years, jokes about missing chins not withstanding): the problem comes that to apply this eminently reasoned and reasonable suggestion quickly involves the application of manipulation, deception, and force: very unreasonable qualities with far reaching ramifications

But was Darwin responsible for the nightmare of eugenics that would result from Galton’s reasoning based upon the foundation of his reason?

Similarly to Darwin, Marx was an intelligent and ethical man, who reasoned that if only the majority of the people could be reasoned with and understand their true position, social change would inevitably follow and a far fairer and more ethical society would inevitably result. Again, Marx’s reasoning is just as reasonable today

But when a group of men came together and started to reason how they could apply these reasoned ideas of Darwin, Galton and Marx to create that new society, that history remembers as the Bolsheviks, they realised that it was no easy thing to persuade mankind to see reason. They reasoned that mankind must be made to see reason, and that involved the use of force: if not, they were certainly never going to see the dream they dreamed come into fruition in their lifetime

So Lenin lead the Russian Revolution (bit of an odd story, but one for another time) and seized control of Russian Society, and started to put his reasoned ideas based on Darwin, Galton and Marx’s reason into practise. He reasoned that the peasants must be made to give up their foolish notions of a god that reason said could not be shown to exist, so he had his army pull down the churches. And then he shot the pastors. And also any of the peasants who complained or held onto their religious beliefs. And he reasoned that the peasants must be made to understand they should not continue to desire rule by aristocracy, and reasoned that if he could reduce them to an utterly pitiable state, and then provide answers to their pitiable condition, they would naturally be grateful. So he had his army go into the villages and confiscate their stores of food. And their tools. And their seeds for the next year. The result was a famine of unimaginable proportions, except for those who had already seen reason and joined the Bolshevik cause, who were well fed and kept order through the reasoned application of force, until all notion of the old order had been driven out of the populations mind by their immense suffering, and opposition to the Bolshevik revolution became a thought far beyond any the citizenry could entertain

You see Lenin, and those who followed him like Stalin and Mao, reasoned that if their was no God, and man was like an animal, and superior genetics would inevitably succeed in the survival of the fittest and rise to the top of society, then those who were ruled over were those with inferior genetics: this could only mean they were inferior animals: and what does one do with a surplus of inferior animals? Why one puts them down of course for the good of the overall stock

Today Dawkins maintains that Lenin and Stalin were not “proper” atheists: that they were using atheism for their own purposes. It’s not much of an argument, but it is an argument, and as far as it goes, not an unreasonable one

But what it doesn’t recognise is that Lenin and co WERE “Men of Reason”: they reasoned what they were going to do, reasoned how to set about doing it, and reasoned justifications for it. A Religious person might well advance the argument that it was their lack of belief in God that made them capable of orchestrating monstrosities, but in this they too would be wrong, because whilst their lack of belief in God may have been a factor, it itself it can’t explain it:

The problem is: what happens when reason falls into the hands of the unreasonable?

Jesus provides a reasoned argument for being good to each other in the New Testament: Marx provides a reasoned argument for social fairness in “Das Capital”: but neither are enough in and of themselves: people have committed the most terrible atrocities and awful deeds and felt justified by both: both Religion AND Science hold the same flaw when those following those paths believe the world would be better if everyone walked the same way
Because reason is NOT the foundation of human consciousness: it is the product of it: and it is a specialised product that is the end result of a process of gaining self awareness and self knowledge

The ills of mankind do not come exclusively from the area of non-rational beliefs: they come from how individual people view themselves in relation to all the other individual people around them: it is the Ego-Self, and its harmony or disharmony, that enables us to live “moral” ethical lives: or to be monsters

Dawkins commits the same mistake as Marx or Darwin today, in his belief that if we all held onto the same end product, all would be well: but it is the source of awareness that generates that end product which is actually the link that unites us all. It is the understanding that what we do to others is a reflection of what others can do to us

In particular, humanity is not governed by reason: but by story: it is story that enables us to grasp, understand, and hold to be “real”, notions like nationhood: society: the common good: ethical behaviour. We need reason, to be sure, but reason on its own produces monsters, because we also need empathy: the ability to feel what others feel as a result of our actions: in the hands of the unreasonable, the psychopath, that ability is actually reasoned away

And this is a hard road: we have been struggling to understand ourselves since before the birth of civilisation, and will always be struggling to do so

Now if Dawkins want to call for self knowledge and self improvement, then, in my honest opinion, we will be getting somewhere: but to do so Dawkins has to come to understand that what he terms “unreason”: that is metaphor and story, is an essential part of a healthy whole: because without its balance, everything becomes permissible and we are left with the tyranny of the strong over the weak

[hagbard_celine]

if he use flawed texts to construct his hypothesis, then is not the enemy of reason, but a arrogant athiest. i like his previous work, but this is the trap scientists fall into. all the great scientists, have been mystics/alchemists, eg newton, tesla, etc. you only have to look at the marvel of the cosmos to realise this is not random, geometric construction clearly shows intelligence/deisgn, a universal blueprint, sacred geometry.

fibonacci/fractuals, wave/particle, its the hallmark of the creator. heck newton even looked at bible codes, book of daniel,etc


Exactly! :)The rationalist/mystic schism is a purely cultural one. Even in recent history, from the start of the Renaissance up to the 19th Century, it it was perfectly acceptable for hard-headed scientists to have a mystical side to themselves and to persue interests in Alchemy, the occult and spirituality. Newton is a good example. Einstein would not have been out of place on parts of this forum.

In ancient languages like Chinese and Egyptian there is a single word that means boith "astronomer" and "astologer". The distinction between the two is very obvious for modern Westerners, Dawkins would probably even say that you can be one or the other, but not both! But it would be very difficult to explain this distinction to an ancient Egyptian or a Chinese scientist of the Sung Dynasty. For them there is no real difference between astronomey and astrology. Exact scientific investigation and mystical beliefs were not only perfectly compatible, they were interwoven and insperable.

Try explaining that to Dawkins! Alister McGrath tried!

[neutron flux]

Sociopaths,
How do you deal with them,
without becoming the monster,
You wish to destroy???

That's a good question, how do you deal with this? Do you form a fool-proof test? (there are tests, but will they be totally accurate?) There is evidence that Sociopaths (or psychopaths) have totally different brain waves to certain stimuli than the rest of us - could this be a key? I'm not sure.

But let's just say we had a totally accurate way of identifying a psychopath - what do we do? Well, first we would make sure that none ever achieved power in our society, but what with the rest? Do we have a psychopath island, or what? It's quite perplexing. :confused:

[seanx]

hagbard_celine wrote:

It gives him a lot of academic street-cred! In that Tv show about the little Scottish boy with past life memories, Christ French said: "Which is more attractive? The idea that we just die or that there is something beyond it so we don't have to face oblivion?" The subtext of that was: "And I have the balls to face up to this bleak, grim reality; you don't!"

The debate over life-after-death has become empty and pointless become blighted by machismo. This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne. They're very polite and friendly, they just act very superior. It seems that ever since the beginning of Existentialism, or even as far back as the ancient Greeks, there's been a competition among philosophers to come up with a view on life that is bleaker and more depressing than their predecessors. To accept one of these viewpoints has a certain prestige that marks you out as particularly rugged and virile. "What, you call that a bleak and pointless philosophy on life!? Bah! Pussy! Look at MY philosophy!"

If you reject the concept of survival-of-death then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion and mysticism. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!

I wonder if Dawkins and French actually do believe in life-after-death, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps! It's all a bit childish to me, rather like kids showing of their muscle in the playground.

Great post. Excellent.

It's like two brothers who have been blind all their lives.

All their lives nothing but...

Darkness.

And shadows.

Then they hear other blind people talking about
wonderful mountans, boundless blue skies, sparkling rivers,
majestic cities.....

And they laugh to themselves and think:

'What sad, misguided blind people. We must stop all this. They
are only deluding themselves - but soon other blind people will
start believing this escapist fantasy.'

'Listen people: face facts. We are blind. There is nothing
but darkness and these shadows. You've experienced this
all your life - so, let's be rational just please let's accept it
and stop this dreaming. There are NO mountans,
NO blue skies, NO sparkling rivers and definitely NO majestic
cities.....All the above is a fantasy. Llet's forget it!

The next day, a famous physican arrives who has found
a cure for their blindness.

And no-one is the slightest bit interested.

[john white]

I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!


I very much doubt it ;)

[hagbard_celine]

hagbard_celine wrote:



Great post. Excellent.

It's like two brothers who have been blind all their lives.

All their lives nothing but...

Darkness.

And shadows.

Then they hear other blind people talking about
wonderful mountans, boundless blue skies, sparkling rivers,
majestic cities.....

And they laugh to themselves and think:

'What sad, misguided blind people. We must stop all this. They
are only deluding themselves - but soon other blind people will
start believing this escapist fantasy.'

'Listen people: face facts. We are blind. There is nothing
but darkness and these shadows. You've experienced this
all your life - so, let's be rational just please let's accept it
and stop this dreaming. There are NO mountans,
NO blue skies, NO sparkling rivers and definitely NO majestic
cities.....All the above is a fantasy. Llet's forget it!

The next day, a famous physican arrives who has found
a cure for their blindness.

And no-one is the slightest bit interested.


That's lovely!:) Is that your own poem?

[hagbard_celine]

I very much doubt it ;)

Come off it! All the girls love a macho man!

Imagine Arnie as Richard Dawkins in a movie:

"Ve know zat zere is no life-after-death! It is ze wimps zat can't face ze truth! After you die it's...Hasta la vista, baby!":D:D

[seanx]

Yep, it's just trying to get across the idea that right now, we
are probably surrounded by infinite dimensions containing other
extraordianry realites - yet how much of our scientific time
and money is going into trying to access or find out the energy
frequencies that might make up these dimensions.

None probably - because we are totally blind to their existence.

All we have is some faint knowing - or remembrance that they
exist.

Or people like Dawkins even mocking such a possibility as an
afterlife.

[cheeb]

I like your posts seanx,hagbard celine ,and john white,
But rather than mocking a possibility of an afterlife,
I would say it was questioning that possibility,
Consiousness serves a function,
Empathy, alturism and good will to all men,
But the idea of a human soul,
It's catholic,
And therefore flawed,
Live life ,
As if its your first or your last day,
The soul remains the property of preists,
You as a sentient human being,
are the property of yourself,
Never Forget!!!

:)

[hagbard_celine]

I like your posts seanx,hagbard celine ,and john white,
But rather than mocking a possibility of an afterlife,
I would say it was questioning that possibility,
Consiousness serves a function,
Empathy, alturism and good will to all men,
But the idea of a human soul,
It's catholic,
And therefore flawed,
Live life ,
As if its your first or your last day,
The soul remains the property of preists,
You as a sentient human being,
are the property of yourself,
Never Forget!!!

:)

Yes, the priests and gurus and established superstitious religion is the only alternative to science the Conformist Regime will permit.

[cheeb]

I respect your opinion Hagbard,
There is a bigger enemy ,
And i am on your side.

[hagbard_celine]

I respect your opinion Hagbard,
There is a bigger enemy ,
And i am on your side.

Respect!:)

I guess we've lost hope of ever winning our Materialist Bravery Award.:D You know, the one Dawkins and French wear on there sleeve!

A line from the forthcoming film: "I am man enough to know zat zere is no life after death, asshole!"

Who will they get to play the LAD believer? Probably Ben Stiller of John Cussack, really gutless like he was in "Being John Malkovich".

[moonoodoo]

It might be fun to see Richard Dawkins do Quantum Mechanics has his next endeavour.

[cheeb]

It might be fun to see Richard Dawkins do Quantum Mechanics has his next endeavour.

Or conspiracy theories,
Imagine if he came to it as a skeptic,
And left a beleiver,
He would be a great asset to have on side.
As long as he didn't,
"Do A Shayler"

LOL

:eek:

[kashmirz]

He's an embarrassment to true science.

What an utter tool. He swans about lauding himself over others who he revels in pointing out as being irrational, ignorant of evidence and rigorous examination, only to show himself to be as mind-screwed as the very people he seeks to debunk.


See his show on google video here: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=Enemies+of+Reason+duration%3Along&start=0


.. and watch how he boxes in conspiracies regarding 911 with superstition, racism, and mere personal rumour. He's obviously done about as much research into 911 as the pope does into condoms.

What a twat.

There. I've said my peace.


agreed but i just have to say it ... that hat... is fucking AWESOME! <3

[john white]

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php

:D;):cool:

[cheeb]

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php

:D;):cool:

I like the idea that he posts on his forum!
From what I saw about quite mundane things,
I think he was asking advice about flogging his computer.

Why doesn't David Icke post on here?
Surely the odd post here and there wouldn't do no harm?

;)

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7401

[moonoodoo]

From the last episode.....

Go Deepak... Go Deepak

He fended off Richards attack nicely (who almost started to explain quantum mechanics - ah boo)

[mada88]

You gotta have an enemy though, life wouldn't be much without your enemy. I believe that enemies do more for you than your so called friends will ever do.

[gizmocrystal]

The closed minded idiot is on again:mad:

One thing i do agree with though is some of these people charge ridiculous amounts of money, this i dont agree with.

Of course people need to make a living but some people take the p**s.

If they were truly spiritual they wouldnt charge the earth for their services???:rolleyes::)

[matrixcutter]

I liked it when he concluded that everything in "alternative medicine" is attributable to placebo, even when he had a treatment which he found beneficial, as someone who doesn't believe in "mumbo jumbo".

So it was a placebo effect that worked on a person who expected no effect.

[cheeb]

He didin't say that alternative therapies don't work,
Infact quite the opposite.
The Placebo effect,

Traetment by the power of suggestion,
Self healing through interaction with a healer,
The treatment works,
The human body can heal itself,
can become immune to disease,
Illnesses go into remission
The average time with a doctor is 4-8 minutes,
With a healer,! hour or more,
Time out of everyday stresses,
unwinding,and contemplation,
And the sence of cosseting,
Being the centre of attention,
Don,t underestimate the placebo effect,
especially over psychosomatic "illnesses"

But psycosomatic illnesses are not,
viral or bacterial diseases,
trauma or congenital .

The infant mortality rate has fallen,
And the life span has risen
(at least in the Western World)

due to the irradication of smallpox,polio etc
due to vaccinations,
And better surgical techniques,
Transfusion and antibiotics.

Real medicine needs to come first.

Happiness is within.

[revolutionary_jam]

I like Richard Dawkins very much even though I don't agree with him.

[gizmocrystal]

I like Richard Dawkins very much even though I don't agree with him.


I wish I could be like that:D

He makes me too cross though:mad::D

[eternal_spirit]

I like Richard Dawkins very much even though I don't agree with him.
........

LOL that sounds a bit contradictory. You mean you don't agree with all his works. My friend reckons Axis of Evil is a good video. Any good?

[revolutionary_jam]

........

LOL that sounds a bit contradictory. You mean you don't agree with all his works. My friend reckons Axis of Evil is a good video. Any good?

it's not contradictory - I like the man himself but I just don't agree with most of his opinions

[hagbard_celine]

I've not seen part 2 of "Enemies of Reason" yet, but I will. I'll just have to mentally detox in advance like when I watched "The Conspriacy Files- 9/11"

[cheeb]

But it is not really about Richard Dawkins,
It is about,
Spending £10 million on an holistic centre,
Instead of £10 million on 500 nurses,
The national health service,
was the jewell in Britains crown thanks to Aneuryn Bevan,
It is now in dissaray,
Over managed and understaffed.
:eek:

It's another case of shooting the messenger!!!

"The collective principle asserts that-
no society can call itself civilised, if a sick person'
is denied medical aid, because of lack of means"

Aneurin Bevan(In place of Fear)

[seanx]

But no doctor has ever cured a single disease.

Say you cut your hand tonight.

Go to the hospital and the doctor will stitch it up.

That's all he can do.

Yet in about 7 days, the would will have healed itself, new
skin will have grown ...and your hand will be fine.

Who did all that?

'Who' organized all the millions of chemical reactions and
activities that lead to the body healing the wound?

This is not to attack modern medicine - it's vital
at our present level of development ( and good)- but even
when it provides vital drugs like pencilin- it is still the body's
mysterious ' natural intelligence' that does most of the 'work'!!

That's why I still find dawkins attitude so close-minded: He may
be right - but the truth is, at this stage we all know NOTHING.

What is this 'intelligence' in the body that can heal the wound?

We don't know.

What is this 'intelligence' that will automatically raise
our temperature to help us fight off a virus..etc??

We haven't got a clue.

Every day, your skin is being replaced, your hair is growing,
your heart is beating at just the right beat.

Who's 'organizing all of this???

We just don't know.


Dawkin's science doesn't know - so instead it's just brushed
aside and we told; 'Ah, that's just the Placebo effect'.
Don't worry about it. Forget it.'

[john white]

But it is not really about Richard Dawkins,
It is about,
Spending £10 million on an holistic centre,
Instead of £10 million on 500 nurses,
The national health service,
was the jewell in Britains crown thanks to Aneuryn Bevan,
It is now in dissaray,
Over managed and understaffed.
:eek:

It's another case of shooting the messenger!!!

"The collective principle asserts that-
no society can call itself civilised, if a sick person'
is denied medical aid, because of lack of means"

Aneurin Bevan(In place of Fear)

1) The moneys all made up

2) What about the 100's of millions spent on brand name drugs when there's far cheaper non brand version of the same active compounds?

[seanx]

Spending £10 million on an holistic centre,
Instead of £10 million on 500 nurses,

I can't agree with you here, Cheeb.

Tremendous work is being done in the whole field of mind-body
healing, by thousands of scientists all over the world.

All of which was, unfortunately ignored by dawkins, I suppose
becuase it didn't fit in with his world view.

We shouldn't ignore this new branch of medicine
( mind-body healing).

However, we have to apply rigorous standards
to it - and it should not be confused with people who do,
say a weekend course in Reiki or whatever- and then are let
out to do ( and advertise) healing on people.

We're talking about two different things here.

[cheeb]

But no doctor has ever cured a single disease.

Say you cut your hand tonight.

Go to the hospital and the doctor will stitch it up.

That's all he can do.

Yet in about 7 days, the would will have healed itself, new
skin will have grown ...and your hand will be fine.

Who did all that?

'Who' organized all the millions of chemical reactions and
activities that lead to the body healing the wound?

This is not to attack modern medicine - it's vital
at our present level of development ( and good)- but even
when it provides vital drugs like pencilin- it is still the body's
mysterious ' natural intelligence' that does most of the 'work'!!

That's why I still find dawkins attitude so close-minded: He may
be right - but the truth is, at this stage we all know NOTHING.

What is this 'intelligence' in the body that can heal the wound?

We don't know.

What is this 'intelligence' that will automatically raise
our temperature to help us fight off a virus..etc??

We haven't got a clue.

Every day, your skin is being replaced, your hair is growing,
your heart is beating at just the right beat.

Who's 'organizing all of this???

We just don't know.


Dawkin's science doesn't know - so instead it's just brushed
aside and we told; 'Ah, that's just the Placebo effect'.
Don't worry about it. Forget it.'

Can you Imagine how horrific surgery must have been before Anaesthesia,
Healing is a natural process in humans,
In trauma incidents,its to do with platelets in the blood,
Initially,and then cellular regeneration,
That is why there is scar tissue,
It tends to over compensate.

In plant biology same principle,
But more to do with osmotic imbalance,
As the driving force.

Fever(high temperatures) is the bodys natural defence,
to fight infections,
got something to do with the hypothalmus(in the brain)
The thermostat of the body,
And a hormone connected to the over production of white blood cells,
pyrogens(pyro-fire/heat)

so we do know what happens to the body,
When it is confronted by trauma,
be it bacterial, viral or visceral.

The placebo effect is more psychological,
A smile, a hug, a nod of approval,
can raise ones day...

:)

[cheeb]

1) The moneys all made up

2) What about the 100's of millions spent on brand name drugs when there's far cheaper non brand version of the same active compounds?

That is a fair point John,
But why abandon empathy,
and decent health care for everyone,
because a few are corrupt,

The hospitals around here rely on charity,
from good people,
with good intentions,
If the system is corrupt,
we don't have to be.

(Hope I havent twisted your words)

[john white]

That is a fair point John,
But why abandon empathy,
and decent health care for everyone,
because a few are corrupt,


Why indeed?

I'll tell you what I know:

When the collective mind of humanity is healed

It will simply be unthinkable that anyone should ever be uncared for

On every level of their being

[neutron flux]

What makes me laugh is when most put their faith in modern medicine when a senior V.P. of GlaxoSmithKline says:

The vast majority of drugs more than 90 per cent only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people, I wouldn’t say that most drugs don’t work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don’t work in everybody.
Dr. Allen Roses
GlaxoSmithKline Senior V.P.
Genetics Research

[cheeb]

Why indeed?

I'll tell you what I know:

When the collective mind of humanity is healed

It will simply be unthinkable that anyone should ever be uncared for

On every level of their being

And a place like this,
Is where the seeds ,
can be planted to start the ,
healing of humanity,

It works the placebo effect,
Whatever name it goes under,
Empathy is a nice name!

[john white]

Seeds?

We are nurturing strong and virile saplings!

:)

[cheeb]

What makes me laugh is when most put their faith in modern medicine when a senior V.P. of GlaxoSmithKline says:
30%-50% is quite a high percentage,
for the drugs to work at,
0% being the base line without drugs,
Yes, All companies are corrupt,
Be they drug,millatary,consumer,
And GlaxoSmithKline are probably the worst in the,
Industrial/Millatary complex
Are they Involved in SMA powdered milk,
In 3rd world countries???

[spiraltrance]

Just watched this. Dawkins does make some good points regarding psychics though I know real ones do exist though usualy they're quite camera shy. At the end though when he starts with conspiracists I couldn't help but get a feeling of subliminal programming, reverse psychology and disinformation. Basicaly people like him and the institutions he represent have had a monopoly of power over the people. The net is taking it away.

[john white]

Just watched this. Dawkins does make some good points regarding psychics though I know real ones do exist though usualy they're quite camera shy. At the end though when he starts with conspiracists I couldn't help but get a feeling of subliminal programming, reverse psychology and disinformation. Basicaly people like him and the institutions he represent have had a monopoly of power over the people. The net is taking it away.

VERY true

As Cheeb says, Power to the Peaceful!

[cheeb]

Whatever the mechanism,
That got us to this point in history,
Be it evolution,
Intellegent Design,
Or an ancestor simulation,
It is what we do now what is important,

We truly are living in interesting times!!!

[revolutionary_jam]

Dawkins Versus The Lost Mode Of Prayer (feat. Gregg Braden, Llala Ward and ...) - YouTube

[drael]

I agree with a lot of Dawkings sayings. It is simply about logically looking around at the universe around you and not having a blind faith in superstitions.


Superstitions like empiricism. lol.


There are a lot of false claims out there, a lot of false shamans and psychics who use mere mental techniques that can be easily explained with psychology to purport some kind of spiritual link, or miraculous whatever.


Theres alot of false reason out there, and false scientific theory, and nobody questions that - and this includes the all forms of scientific skepticism, which are logically without basis. So id put the scientists into the same group as the above.

I am a mystic, and a phenomenologist. I agknowlege that all senses, and all perception, and all thinking, even reason is ultimately subjective and this cannot ever be avoided. (especially not with peer reveiw, lol!). I also agknowlegde, as a mystic that there is no such thing as a known fact. There are a few known truths, which are self-evident to all, but no known facts.

Ive spent the last three years studying science at university. Science ventures so far from basic scientific theory and into philosophy of scientific skepticism and empiricism, it is no longer science anymore.

Science is dead. Materialism, empiricism and scientific skepticism, as _philosophies_ are alive with what is more like religiousity.

Scientific theory is NOT the simpilist answer is the right one (of which theres not logical gaurantee). It is not that there is only material matter than behaves in a euclidean/newtonian fashion. It is not that something is PROVEN (things are only disproven in scientific theory).

All these things are examples of BIAS, culture scientific legacy and philosophy bordering on religion.

[bulltwister]

My preferred taste is Christoper Hitchens

[hagbard_celine]

Superstitions like empiricism. lol.



Theres alot of false reason out there, and false scientific theory, and nobody questions that - and this includes the all forms of scientific skepticism, which are logically without basis. So id put the scientists into the same group as the above.

I am a mystic, and a phenomenologist. I agknowlege that all senses, and all perception, and all thinking, even reason is ultimately subjective and this cannot ever be avoided. (especially not with peer reveiw, lol!). I also agknowlegde, as a mystic that there is no such thing as a known fact. There are a few known truths, which are self-evident to all, but no known facts.

Ive spent the last three years studying science at university. Science ventures so far from basic scientific theory and into philosophy of scientific skepticism and empiricism, it is no longer science anymore.

Science is dead. Materialism, empiricism and scientific skepticism, as _philosophies_ are alive with what is more like religiousity.

Scientific theory is NOT the simpilist answer is the right one (of which theres not logical gaurantee). It is not that there is only material matter than behaves in a euclidean/newtonian fashion. It is not that something is PROVEN (things are only disproven in scientific theory).

All these things are examples of BIAS, culture scientific legacy and philosophy bordering on religion.

It's good that there are plenty of more open minded scientists out there like Rupert Sheldrake and Peter Fenwick.:) The Materialist dinosaurs don't have a monopoly over the word "science" even though they claim it.:D Dawkins is at the vanguard of a failing advance.

For me, science is a good thing and it has a lot of value. It only is a problem when people become religiously attached to it, like Dawkins.;)

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byooW_ZBl3U

Thanks.:)

[revolutionary_jam]

Thanks.:)
You are most welcome!

[ecca]

The worldview that he operates from is just as much a belief system as that of the theists that he criticizes. It's just the most recent/updated version of faith given out to the public and pushed by TPTB, the system of control via religion worked great for many thousands of years but now it's time to update the system to a more sophisticated and efficient scientific version of control.

just as the mass-man of the past unquestioningly bought into the faith-based version of reality given out to him at church on sunday by the man wearing a dress and speaking a fancy language that he couldn't understand, the mass-man of the present will follow suit and unquestioningly buy into the faith-based version of reality given out to him by the new priest-class, the ones that wear white lab coats, have a bunch of letters after their names, and use very fancy terminology that he can't really understand - but it's all very official and scientific sounding, so surely it is above question.

[size_of_light]

Anyone on this forum could tear his ideas a new asshole in five minutes.

NEXT!

[decim]

Ahh Ricky I beens expecting you...you like a ma hat?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00505/Cartoon_505242a.jpg

He's an embarrassment to true science.

What an utter tool. He swans about lauding himself over others who he revels in pointing out as being irrational, ignorant of evidence and rigorous examination, only to show himself to be as mind-screwed as the very people he seeks to debunk.


See his show on google video here: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=Enemies+of+Reason+duration%3Along&start=0


.. and watch how he boxes in conspiracies regarding 911 with superstition, racism, and mere personal rumour. He's obviously done about as much research into 911 as the pope does into condoms.

What a twat.

There. I've said my peace.

[dneif]

He's an embarrassment to true science.

What an utter tool. He swans about lauding himself over others who he revels in pointing out as being irrational, ignorant of evidence and rigorous examination, only to show himself to be as mind-screwed as the very people he seeks to debunk.


See his show on google video here: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=Enemies+of+Reason+duration%3Along&start=0


.. and watch how he boxes in conspiracies regarding 911 with superstition, racism, and mere personal rumour. He's obviously done about as much research into 911 as the pope does into condoms.

What a twat.

There. I've said my peace.So he's correct about superstition but misinformed about religion? I'd say he's human and flawed, but at least he's focused on something that's more harmful to humanity for millenia. I say don't look to him for ideas regarding 9/11, but pay attention to what he says about relgion and to whom he is referring.

Discounting what he says about the spiritual fraud that constitutes organized religion on the grounds that he's misinformed on 9/11 is silly. ... and not "funny" silly, more like "sad" silly.

[kiwimaj]

He's an embarrassment to true science.

What an utter tool. He swans about lauding himself over others who he revels in pointing out as being irrational, ignorant of evidence and rigorous examination, only to show himself to be as mind-screwed as the very people he seeks to debunk.


See his show on google video here: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=Enemies+of+Reason+duration%3Along&start=0


.. and watch how he boxes in conspiracies regarding 911 with superstition, racism, and mere personal rumour. He's obviously done about as much research into 911 as the pope does into condoms.

What a twat.

There. I've said my peace.

On the tv show "god delusion" he still seems to insist that 9/1 was a religious(muslim) attack. He also did a great job in debunking that jewish guy who converted to Islam, when the guy talked about the state of isreal being responsible for 9/11...(some very clever editing there, if anyone remembers..:rolleyes:..)

In that show it was mainly about christianity, with a touch on jew and even smaller touch on muslim. Very easy target, christianity...why wasn't he just as fevently anti other religions on the show??

And how he could refer to the abortionist (murderer) that was murdered as a "doctor" is beyond me...isn't a doctor meant to save lives?

Saying all of that, quite an interesting show, but Dawkins did come across as a bit of a spoilt brat, if you don't believe his views he would throw his toys out of the pram, and a very angry person...but just my observations..

[dan duchaine]

According to Alan Watt (and i have no reason to doubt him), Charles Darwin was 'selected' by the elites to be their poster boy for their pro eugencis theory that took the works of his grandfather and a chap called wallace on evolution and rehashed it into something that would fit their eugenics agenda.

Richard dawkins is just the latest creation to perpetuate this pro eugenics evolutionary theory so that the fittest (the elites) can turn round to those with less fit genes (us) and exterminate us with no moral dilema.

Thats why dawkins is on every time you turn on the TV, he has a book out every few months and is defended to the death by his 'supporters' and associated 'shills'.

You dont get publicity and support like that unless someone behind the scenes is pulling the strings.

[hagbard_celine]

On the tv show "god delusion" he still seems to insist that 9/1 was a religious(muslim) attack. He also did a great job in debunking that jewish guy who converted to Islam, when the guy talked about the state of isreal being responsible for 9/11...(some very clever editing there, if anyone remembers..:rolleyes:..)

In that show it was mainly about christianity, with a touch on jew and even smaller touch on muslim. Very easy target, christianity...why wasn't he just as fevently anti other religions on the show??

And how he could refer to the abortionist (murderer) that was murdered as a "doctor" is beyond me...isn't a doctor meant to save lives?

Saying all of that, quite an interesting show, but Dawkins did come across as a bit of a spoilt brat, if you don't believe his views he would throw his toys out of the pram, and a very angry person...but just my observations..

He does act a bit like that. What's more his view lacks a lot of philosophical depth.:rolleyes: He spends all his time going from one religious nutcase to another and taking them apart... and at the end of this he claims that he's proved therefore that God doesn't exist! Christopher Hitchens does the same. They both see the existence of God defined by people's belief in established religion. It's ignorant in the extreme!:eek:. What's more Dawkins is just put up on some TV shows now almost as a figure of fun! He's always made to debate with the most hair-brained moron the producers can dig up from the local church or temple. There is one vid where he ends up debating a more intelligent man, a philosophy professor from Dublin University, and Dawkins can't even understand him!:D

I'm glad to see it's still online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk&feature=related

[haukipesukone]

Richard Dawkins becomes the enemy of reason

Wasn't he always? He didn't become it.

[bodge]

I just loved it when he spoke to that self authoritarian church minister in the bible belt, yes OK so he is a tool and loves to spout unattested rubbish at people but its only because thats what he believes in.:)

[drakul]

Anyone on this forum could tear his ideas a new asshole in five minutes.

NEXT!

Yes, that's why they always put stuffed shirt windbags up against Dawkins in these `debates' (snore). It's called `Controlled Opposition'.

[geezer661]

He's always going to be hated by religious people because he rips apart the fucking bullshit they believe and it makes them very insecure

they get that way with anyone who questions them about their faith

[drakul]

He's always going to be hated by religious people because he rips apart the fucking bullshit they believe and it makes them very insecure

they get that way with anyone who questions them about their faith

It's great atheists get to be so secure. They've got the universe all figured out. :D That's why the atheists like Dawkins have to engage in general ad hominem attacks against spiritual people like: `You're all a bunch of ignorant, superstitious COWARDLY sheeple. WE atheists on the other hand are brave, courageous, independent thinkers who are good and kind. You and your religion have brought nothing but evil to this world'.

Sounds reminiscent of COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY - `Religion is the opiate of the masses'. We all know where Communism got us.

[geezer661]

It's great atheists get to be so secure. They've got the universe all figured out. :D That's why the atheists like Dawkins have to engage in general ad hominem attacks against spiritual people like: `You're all a bunch of ignorant, superstitious COWARDLY sheeple. WE atheists on the other hand are brave, courageous, independent thinkers who are good and kind. You and your religion have brought nothing but evil to this world'.

Sounds reminiscent of COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY - `Religion is the opiate of the masses'. We all know where Communism got us.

Athiests are open minded to how the universe exists and how it became. They dont claim to have the Universe figured out , they know there are gaps in our knowledge. They just dont fill those gaps with BS.

[twistedconcept]

He's always going to be hated by religious people because he rips apart the fucking bullshit they believe and it makes them very insecure

they get that way with anyone who questions them about their faith

He's also despised by many atheists, due to being an insolent prick that attempts to demonize anybody that doesn't agree with him.

He also doesn't 'rip apart' anything. He won't debate philosophers like William Lane Craig, as he knows that he'll be made to look like a fool. Biology is his field - he should stick to it.

His job is to replace one dogma with another. He's also a eugenicist, which isn't surprising. He's probably been put out there to push the idea that we're nothing but pond scum, so we might as well treat each other like it.

[whatistruth]

He's also despised by many atheists, due to being an insolent prick that attempts to demonize anybody that doesn't agree with him.

He also doesn't 'rip apart' anything. He won't debate philosophers like William Lane Craig, as he knows that he'll be made to look like a fool. Biology is his field - he should stick to it.

His job is to replace one dogma with another. He's also a eugenicist, which isn't surprising. He's probably been put out there to push the idea that we're nothing but pond scum, so we might as well treat each other like it.



ROFL William Lane Craig is a christian idiot, arguing for the existence of some creator based on scientific evidence like the unlikellyhood of the universe and all the universal constants is fine, but when it's a particuler faith, you just know that person is an idiot.


As for everything else you said, just even if dawkins were for eugentics (no evidence he is), does that suddenly make religion true or what he says false?


I am sick to death of hearing the same tired old arguments being trotted out by theists and monotheists alike "your faith is science" "you won't look at our evidence (which is normally things like seeing a ghost or an NDE)".

It's tired, it's silly and its downright intellectually dishonest.

[dan duchaine]

As for everything else you said, just even if dawkins were for eugentics (no evidence he is), does that suddenly make religion true or what he says false?



Yes there is proof Dawkins is a eugenicist. The proof lies int he fact that Darwin's theory (which is not really his theory) is a pro eugenicist theory.

Dont believe me?

SURVIVAL of the fitest

Who do you think the elites class as the 'fitest' - us or them?

Them obviously, so they get to survive

If the fit survive, what do you think happens to the pond scum (that's us)?

Think about it.

[stopthemadness]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106252&highlight=richard+dawkins&page=16

I've already personally debunked Dawkins. I know he's a fraud. And so does his higher, astral self.

[whatistruth]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106252&highlight=richard+dawkins&page=16

I've already personally debunked Dawkins. I know he's a fraud. And so does his higher, astral self.

This coming from someone who believes in "Astral twins, guardian angels, demons, angels".

Debunked?
Reverse speech (even if there were a reverse recording of dawkins that said something sinister, there isnt) proves nothing.

Please, do go on and post your proof.
Except, like all the people on this forum who believe in such nonsense you will not post any such proof, you will simply deflect.

[whatistruth]

Yes there is proof Dawkins is a eugenicist. The proof lies int he fact that Darwin's theory (which is not really his theory) is a pro eugenicist theory.

Dont believe me?

SURVIVAL of the fitest

Who do you think the elites class as the 'fitest' - us or them?

Them obviously, so they get to survive

If the fit survive, what do you think happens to the pond scum (that's us)?

Think about it.

Darwinsim has nothing to do with eugenics.
Evolution is a fact, bleet and moan about it however you like, it's totally futile and delusional to do so.

[drakul]

He's also despised by many atheists, due to being an insolent prick that attempts to demonize anybody that doesn't agree with him.

He also doesn't 'rip apart' anything. He won't debate philosophers like William Lane Craig, as he knows that he'll be made to look like a fool. Biology is his field - he should stick to it.

His job is to replace one dogma with another. He's also a eugenicist, which isn't surprising. He's probably been put out there to push the idea that we're nothing but pond scum, so we might as well treat each other like it.

Yes. Another thing that bothers me is Dawkins' qualifications. He claims to be an `evolutionary biologist' when in fact he got his Phd in animal behavior, studying chickens ad crickets. Seriously.

Dawkins is funded by the Charles Simonyi Foundation for Public Understanding of Religion which is in fact - Microsoft.

[dogsmilk]

He does act a bit like that. What's more his view lacks a lot of philosophical depth.:rolleyes: He spends all his time going from one religious nutcase to another and taking them apart... and at the end of this he claims that he's proved therefore that God doesn't exist! Christopher Hitchens does the same. They both see the existence of God defined by people's belief in established religion. It's ignorant in the extreme!:eek:. What's more Dawkins is just put up on some TV shows now almost as a figure of fun! He's always made to debate with the most hair-brained moron the producers can dig up from the local church or temple. There is one vid where he ends up debating a more intelligent man, a philosophy professor from Dublin University, and Dawkins can't even understand him!:D

I'm glad to see it's still online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk&feature=related

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says, but from where I'm sitting that guy arguing with him was totally feeble and I fail to see any 'philosophoical depth' in anything he said - could you possibly explain what it was he said that was remotely convincing?

[whatistruth]

Dawkins is funded by the Charles Simonyi Foundation for Public Understanding of Religion which is in fact - Microsoft.


Even if that were true, what would it matter?

If richard dawkins was a crazy tramp raving on a street corner funded by the queen herself with vodka and bacon butties about evolution it wouldn't make it any less true.

[whatistruth]

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says, but from where I'm sitting that guy arguing with him was totally feeble and I fail to see any 'philosophoical depth' in anything he said - could you possibly explain what it was he said that was remotely convincing?

He said nothing convincing, and the audience's questions were almost cringeworthy in their stupidity.

One women declared her life turn around a 'miricle', then we heard all the usual platitudes from people about intelligent design and other shit that's been debunked.

[dogsmilk]

Darwinsim has nothing to do with eugenics.
.

+1

People tend to have a very crude notion of 'survival of the fittest'. Yet all you have to do is look at wikipedia for fuck's sake.

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description,[5] and is both incomplete and misleading.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" — bigger, faster or stronger — or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next. [6].

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology. What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent criterion of fitness.

[brucel]

all dawkins has proven in his lifelong research is that men is fallible
something i could have told him in my sleep, yet im not a sceintist.

[drakul]

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says, but from where I'm sitting that guy arguing with him was totally feeble and I fail to see any 'philosophoical depth' in anything he said - could you possibly explain what it was he said that was remotely convincing?

Dawkins only debates with the `Controlled Opposition'. (snore)

[drakul]

Even if that were true, what would it matter?

If richard dawkins was a crazy tramp raving on a street corner funded by the queen herself with vodka and bacon butties about evolution it wouldn't make it any less true.

Yes it does. Dawkins is funded by elites who have an interest in destroying belief in God/Christianity, one of the chief obstacles in their NWO agenda. Then all the Diablists can come out of the closet and we can turn the churches back into temples with daily blood sacrifices again.

Look at the name of Dawkins' Chair - For Public Understanding of Religion. Can you see how completely duplicitous that is? It's not about Understanding. Understanding implies respect and objectivity. It is in fact the Chair for the CONTEMPT OF SPIRITUALITY, THE CHAIR FOR THE ARROGANT CHOSEN, THE CHAIR FOR THE HATRED OF GOD.

That is the message Dawkins conveys - Contempt, Arrogance and Hatred for all that is Spiritual and for Spiritual People.

[dogsmilk]

Dawkins only debates with the `Controlled Opposition'. (snore)

Oh yeah right. Every debate he has is all controlled and shit. You know this because you made it up.

Look at the name of Dawkins' Chair - For Public Understanding of Religion. Can you see how completely duplicitous that is? It's not about Understanding. Understanding implies respect and objectivity. It is in fact the Chair for the CONTEMPT OF SPIRITUALITY, THE CHAIR FOR THE ARROGANT CHOSEN, THE CHAIR FOR THE HATRED OF GOD.


On the previous page you said he was "funded by" the Charles Simonyi Foundation for Public Understanding of Religion. It's actually the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science
Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which he was chair of except he's now retired from that.

CHAIR FOR THE HATRED OF GOD

How can you hate something you don't believe exists?

That is the message Dawkins conveys - Contempt, Arrogance and Hatred for all that is Spiritual and for Spiritual People.

I'd agree Dawkins can be contemptuous of religion - It's something I disagree with him on - but I've seen no evidence whatsoever he 'hates spiritual people'.

[stopthemadness]

This coming from someone who believes in "Astral twins, guardian angels, demons, angels".

Debunked?
Reverse speech (even if there were a reverse recording of dawkins that said something sinister, there isnt) proves nothing.

Please, do go on and post your proof.
Except, like all the people on this forum who believe in such nonsense you will not post any such proof, you will simply deflect.

I said that I personally debunked him, as in I have proven to myself he's a fraud.

If you don't believe in astral entities or reverse speech that's your problem, not mine.

If you are too closed-minded to even run the experiment, for free using GNU freeware, then that is also your problem.

But do not act condescending with me without at least first having run the experiment.

[brucel]

How can you hate something you don't believe exists?

then, whynot stfu ?..
as a smart man he should know talking/raising awareness give credence to God's existence..no.

[woah]

Yes it does. Dawkins is funded by elites who have an interest in destroying belief in God/Christianity, one of the chief obstacles in their NWO agenda. Then all the Diablists can come out of the closet and we can turn the churches back into temples with daily blood sacrifices again.

Look at the name of Dawkins' Chair - For Public Understanding of Religion. Can you see how completely duplicitous that is? It's not about Understanding. Understanding implies respect and objectivity. It is in fact the Chair for the CONTEMPT OF SPIRITUALITY, THE CHAIR FOR THE ARROGANT CHOSEN, THE CHAIR FOR THE HATRED OF GOD.

That is the message Dawkins conveys - Contempt, Arrogance and Hatred for all that is Spiritual and for Spiritual People.

Does that mean evolution was a lie to get rid of god?

[drakul]

Oh yeah right. Every debate he has is all controlled and shit. You know this because you made it up.



The people he debates the existence of God with put you to sleep. Their positions as society's appointed religious overseers are clearly just career paths. They are as cold and uninspirational as Dawkins himself. They are not spiritual and have probably have never even had an experience of Higher Consciousness.

On the previous page you said he was "funded by" the Charles Simonyi Foundation for Public Understanding of Religion. It's actually the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonyi_Professorship_of_the_Public_Understanding_ of_Science
which he was chair of except he's now retired from that.


You are correct. I should have double checked. However it may as well be the Chair for Contempt of Religion, because dissing spirituality seems to be Dawkins' agenda and obsession. When he was the Chair, what did he do? Writes The God Delusion. What does that have to do with understanding science? It's a bit of a stretch. So the Chair title - `Understanding Science' is duplicitous doublespeak. Dawkins' real instructions - are to make war on spirituality.

Might as well call it the Chair for the War on Spirituality.

How can you hate something you don't believe exists? I'd agree Dawkins can be contemptuous of religion - It's something I disagree with him on - but I've seen no evidence whatsoever he 'hates spiritual people'.

You admit Dawkins' clear, obvious contempt for spiritual people. Why does he let that show? Being so `rational' and `objective' and scientific and all? It's a fine line betw contempt and hatred.

[whatistruth]

I said that I personally debunked him, as in I have proven to myself he's a fraud.

If you don't believe in astral entities or reverse speech that's your problem, not mine.

If you are too closed-minded to even run the experiment, for free using GNU freeware, then that is also your problem.

But do not act condescending with me without at least first having run the experiment.

The experiment you're asking me to perform would take literally hours, with little to no chance of yeilding any result either positive or negative.
Surely if you believe this to be true, you've already done it?
In which case, post a youtube video with Mr. dawkins reverse speech and put some sub titles to tell us what you believe he's saying.

I'm sorry but the burden of proof is on you, when I make a claim the burden of proof is on me, that's how a proper debate works.

[whatistruth]

[QUOTE]

The people he debates the existence of God with put you to sleep. Their positions as society's appointed religious overseers are clearly just career paths. They are as cold and uninspirational as Dawkins himself. They are not spiritual and have probably have never even had an experience of Higher Consciousness.



You are correct. I should have double checked. However it may as well be the Chair for Contempt of Religion, because dissing spirituality seems to be Dawkins' agenda and obsession. When he was the Chair, what did he do? Writes The God Delusion. What does that have to do with understanding science? It's a bit of a stretch. So the Chair title - `Understanding Science' is duplicitous doublespeak. Dawkins' real instructions - are to make war on spirituality.

Might as well call it the Chair for the War on Spirituality.



You admit Dawkins' clear, obvious contempt for spiritual people. Why does he let that show? Being so `rational' and `objective' and scientific and all? It's a fine line betw contempt and hatred.


Why do you people always think anyone who doesn't believe what you believe hates you for believing it?

What is more apt is to say you're simply wrong for believing in something that has no supporting evidence.
You should either admit you're belief is completely irrational or provide evidence to the contrary insted of just making rhetorical posts claiming we(the people who want evidence) are out to get you.

[drakul]

Does that mean evolution was a lie to get rid of god?

Good question. Some people think that evolution threatens belief in God. Dawkins certainly uses evolution as a launch pad for his attacks on spirituality. I don't feel threatened by evolution. The Mystery of Life is so great -evolutionary theory is just one baby step along the Way...

The concept of evolution from animals has been around for thousands of years. You would be amazed at the number of ancient civilizations who believed they were at least in part descended from serpents, for example. The founder and first king of Athens was Cecrops - half man, half serpent. He ruled Athens for 50 years. It was Cecrops who taught the Greeks agriculture. Erechthonius is another half serpent man who succeeded Cecrops. Erechthonius was also said to be an influential founder of Greek civilization.

Descent from serpents is woven all through ancient history. But NOT ironically, descent from monkeys. All the royals have lions and dragons and wolves etc on their crests but I've never seen one yet with an ape on it! :D

Cecrops I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[stopthemadness]

The experiment you're asking me to perform would take literally hours, with little to no chance of yeilding any result either positive or negative.

Yeah, that ol' scientific method at work I see. :rolleyes:

No Mr. Edison, don't waste your time with that silly experiment. Everybody knows electricity is useless.

No Mr. Wright, don't waste your precious time trying to fly. Everyone knows that's nonsense.

No Mr. Tesla, don't bother investigating those stupid radio waves. You have better things to do.

[whatistruth]

Yeah, that ol' scientific method at work I see. :rolleyes:

No Mr. Edison, don't waste your time with that silly experiment. Everybody knows electricity is useless.

No Mr. Wright, don't waste your precious time trying to fly. Everyone knows that's nonsense.

No Mr. Tesla, don't bother investigating those stupid radio waves. You have better things to do.


Either quote my posts in their entirety or don't quote them at all, please.

Did you miss the part where I said :- "Surely if you believe this to be true, you've already done it?
In which case, post a youtube video with Mr. dawkins reverse speech and put some sub titles to tell us what you believe he's saying.

I'm sorry but the burden of proof is on you, when I make a claim the burden of proof is on me, that's how a proper debate works. "


Can you read?

Your claim, the burden of proof is on you.

This is the sort of game faith believers often play though, I'm quite used to people making extraordinary claims then refusing to back them up and telling me I'm in the wrong for not believing them.

[drakul]

Why do you people always think anyone who doesn't believe what you believe hates you for believing it?

What is more apt is to say you're simply wrong for believing in something that has no supporting evidence.
You should either admit you're belief is completely irrational or provide evidence to the contrary insted of just making rhetorical posts claiming we(the people who want evidence) are out to get you.

You see here is your big mistake. You want `evidence' of God/Higher Consciousness. But YOU don't want to do the work necessary to know God. Edison invented the light bulb, right? How long did that take him? And now all you have to do is just flip a switch. You fall into Dawkin's trap of pretending all you have to do is snap your fingers and God should be there for you - like a magic genie out of a lamp - What can I do for you Master? Because of course you are the Master if YOU can summon GOD. heh.

How LONG did it take Dawkins to get his Phd in Ethology/Animal Behavior? Total educational time - 20 years? Easily. What if he or YOU spent half that time as a dedicated practicing apostle to Higher Consciousness? The Yoga, the fasting, the constant daily meditation, the focus, the spiritual inspirational readings and discussions. What do you think might happen? Have you tried that? Have you done it? Isn't that the objective scientific method to experience/evidence of Higher Consciousness/God?

No you want someone to do it for you and then you deny their experiences as `Delusion'. `Well that never happened to me so it must not be true'. duh Well of course it never happened to you or Dawkins. Do you understand why?

[whatistruth]

So unless I spend 20 years doing...something? I don't know what exactly, I have no right to say there's no God?
And of course if I did and didn't 'find god', you'd say it's because I didnt believe strongly enough or didn't meditate correctly.
Basically you want me to meet impossible criteria doing something undefined to find something undefined.

[drakul]

So unless I spend 20 years doing...something? I don't know what exactly, I have no right to say there's no God?
And of course if I did and didn't 'find god', you'd say it's because I didnt believe strongly enough or didn't meditate correctly.
Basically you want me to meet impossible criteria doing something undefined to find something undefined.

Not at all - you are just building barriers, walls for yourself. Belief is really not what it's about for true spirituality. It's about NON Belief. It's about experience. For example with meditation you focus on your breath, on stillness, on nothingness. That is not `belief'.

What's `impossible' about spiritual criteria? People have been using these techniques to experience God conciousness for untold thousands of years. But like physical evolution, spiritual evolution doesn't happen over night. :)

[whatistruth]

Which God of the hundreds people believe to exist would i actually be seeking to experience?
Or is it some vague new agey type notion of a 'oneness' god to which we return after death and live for eternity as the universal mind?

[drakul]

Which God of the hundreds people believe to exist would i actually be seeking to experience?
Or is it some vague new agey type notion of a 'oneness' god to which we return after death and live for eternity as the universal mind?

Actually the concept of GOD as a universal awareness has been in the human consciousness for thousands of years. The Hindus talk about this in the Bhagavad Gita written 4,000+ years ago. Everyone's experience of Higher Consciousness/God is unique and manifests in different ways.

[whatistruth]

So people writing about something long ago somehow means it may well be true?

There is no evidence anyone will survive in any concious form after death.
You will become part of nature in a sense though.

[camreeno]

He's just a brick created by the school system. Sheesh I'm tired of hearing about him. I look at him no differently than those Christian evangelical speakers that screak at people to get the demons out of their heads.

[whatistruth]

He's just a brick created by the school system. Sheesh I'm tired of hearing about him. I look at him no differently than those Christian evangelical speakers that screak at people to get the demons out of their heads.

Of course you do, the old 'science is a religion' argument, right? :rolleyes:

[stopthemadness]

How long does it take to download & install Audacity and then import a short mp3, reverse it, slow the tempo & listen?

I'm guessing 10-15 minutes max.

For an experiment that could potentially open up a brand new way of interacting with the universe, you sure are impatient.

I can write the steps necessary in under a minute I bet.

1-download Audacity
2-install Audacity
3-search internet for wav or mp3
4-download short mp3, open with Audacity
5-CTRL A to select all of the signal
6-Click Effect then Reverse
7-Click Effect then Tempo Change, set it to -12 (that's minus)
8-Click Edit Preferences Keyboard to hotkey the Play Loop feature.

Done.

It took me about a minute and a half to type that.

[spiraltrance]

So people writing about something long ago somehow means it may well be true?

There is no evidence anyone will survive in any concious form after death.
You will become part of nature in a sense though.

There's tonnes of evidence of life after death if you do some research. Not to mention all the records of people having near death experiences all reporting similar experiences.

[stopthemadness]

I should add:

Select a small section of the reversed signal, about 3-5 seconds, then Loop Play it while wearing a set of headphones. You select it by dragging a shaded region with the mouse. Hit the zoom button, +, several times to expand the signal on the screen to a usable scale. I usually hit it 7 to 10 times before selecting a block to Loop.

Don't get too freaked out. But you can also record your own voice onto your computer & reverse it. I use highest quality .wav files for optimum acoustical clarity.

Ask yourself questions & listen to your astral twin answer you.

Be warned, the first time you do this it will spook you. After a while you will get used to it.

If you were successful then congratulations, your consciousness has just expanded a little.

[camreeno]

Of course you do, the old 'science is a religion' argument, right? :rolleyes:Of course I do what?

[whatistruth]

Of course I do what?

Of course you look at a scientist the way you look at a christian idiot.

[whatistruth]

I should add:

Select a small section of the reversed signal, about 3-5 seconds, then Loop Play it while wearing a set of headphones. You select it by dragging a shaded region with the mouse. Hit the zoom button, +, several times to expand the signal on the screen to a usable scale. I usually hit it 7 to 10 times before selecting a block to Loop.

Don't get too freaked out. But you can also record your own voice onto your computer & reverse it. I use highest quality .wav files for optimum acoustical clarity.

Ask yourself questions & listen to your astral twin answer you.

Be warned, the first time you do this it will spook you. After a while you will get used to it.

If you were successful then congratulations, your consciousness has just expanded a little.


Are you yanking my fucking chain?

I say again, burden of proof is on you, if you believe mr dawkins is saying sinister things in reverse prove it.
I actually accept the validity of reverse speech in some respects, I'd just like to hear your interpretation.
You either haven't done this before or you're jerking me around.
You get to choose the clip, dub the subtitles etc.

Go on, prove your outrageous claims.

[morjo]

I seriously dislike Dawkins. I agree on a lot of his views, but his problem is that he's very arrogant and looks down on others who have a different point of view.

[whatistruth]

I seriously dislike Dawkins. I agree on a lot of his views, but his problem is that he's very arrogant and looks down on others who have a different point of view.

No, he looks down on people who believe things without evidence.

[morjo]

No, he looks down on people who believe things without evidence.

Still he shouldn't do that, he'll never get his point across.

I think religious people are nuts, but I'd never force my views on them and treat them like idiots, even though in my mind I think their nuts.

[whatistruth]

Doesn't matter, in 100 years all that nonsense will be gone.

[hadabusa]

Does that mean evolution was a lie to get rid of god?

could be.

dawkins is bit daft to say there definitelly is no god.
even nasa scientist dont dismiss the possibility.

[noewhan]

No, he looks down on people who believe things without evidence.

That's still not worth the effort. What has he really accomplished, which other atheists do not?
I respect Dawkins for his efforts, I see how some religious sects are an embarrassment.

[deadhawk]

So has this guy taken over from Religion?

[godgoo]

So has this guy taken over from Religion?

Not taken over, offering an alternative.

[twistedconcept]

ROFL William Lane Craig is a christian idiot, arguing for the existence of some creator based on scientific evidence like the unlikellyhood of the universe and all the universal constants is fine, but when it's a particuler faith, you just know that person is an idiot.


As for everything else you said, just even if dawkins were for eugentics (no evidence he is), does that suddenly make religion true or what he says false?


I am sick to death of hearing the same tired old arguments being trotted out by theists and monotheists alike "your faith is science" "you won't look at our evidence (which is normally things like seeing a ghost or an NDE)".

It's tired, it's silly and its downright intellectually dishonest.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/353

There's more. Observation is the key.

Also, I don't follow any religion.

Dawkins' views remind me very much of Julian Huxley's: "Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

In Huxley's book "The Uniqueness of Man", he talks extensively about eugenics and tries mixing it in with Darwinism.

[twistedconcept]

That's still not worth the effort. What has he really accomplished, which other atheists do not?
I respect Dawkins for his efforts, I see how some religious sects are an embarrassment.

What effort? He ridicules faith. Christianity saved my brother from suicide. I have great respect for the teachings of Jesus, despite not following them myself.

I know that faith has given people great hope in life. I don't care if it's just a story.

[twistedconcept]

No, he looks down on people who believe things without evidence.

Why? What's it to him? I don't give a fuck if somebody believes in fairies, spaghetti monsters, dragons, talking animals, etc. If it makes them happy and they aren't harming others, why should I care? It's none of my business.

[morjo]

What effort? He ridicules faith. Christianity saved my brother from suicide. I have great respect for the teachings of Jesus, despite not following them myself.

I know that faith has given people great hope in life. I don't care if it's just a story.

Yes indeed, faith in Christianity for example has saved many a life. Sometimes people have to believe in something to better themselves and move on from their rut.

Sadly though religion has probably killed more lives than it's saved through war.

[them]

dawkins is bit daft to say there definitelly is no god.

But that isn't what he says, is it? He consistently states he is waiting for somebody, anybody, to present tangible evidence of omnipresentness.

[dan duchaine]

Richard Dawkins

Fantical - check
Eugenicist - check
Arrogant - check
Rich - check
Well connected to others in the power structure - check
Pro athiest, anti religious - check
Wisked around the world on book signings and after dinner speaking circuit - check
Given plenty of time in the mainstream media - check

SHILL

[danster82]

Logic.

Is this your dog?

Yes

Is this dog a mother?

Yes

This is your mother.

[drakul]

Richard Dawkins

Fantical - check
Eugenicist - check
Arrogant - check
Rich - check
Well connected to others in the power structure - check
Pro athiest, anti religious - check
Wisked around the world on book signings and after dinner speaking circuit - check
Given plenty of time in the mainstream media - check

SHILL

Don't forget -

Awarded Charles Simonyi Chair for Public Understanding of `Science' created JUST FOR DAWKINS at Oxford Univ in 1996 by Microsoft co-founder Simonyi - Check

Claims to be `Evolutionary Biologist' but in fact has Phd in Ethology - Animal Behavior, which he got by studying chickens and crickets - Check

[dogsmilk]

The people he debates the existence of God with put you to sleep. Their positions as society's appointed religious overseers are clearly just career paths. They are as cold and uninspirational as Dawkins himself. They are not spiritual and have probably have never even had an experience of Higher Consciousness.

So you just arbitrarily decide whoever debates Dawkins are just society's appointed religious overseers - has it occurred to you these peope's faith may be very important to them? No. You just arrogantly decide they're just not spiritual enough for you liking and/or just decide they're 'controlled' because you imagine they are. How do you know what their experiences have been?


You are correct. I should have double checked. However it may as well be the Chair for Contempt of Religion, because dissing spirituality seems to be Dawkins' agenda and obsession. When he was the Chair, what did he do? Writes The God Delusion. What does that have to do with understanding science? It's a bit of a stretch. So the Chair title - `Understanding Science' is duplicitous doublespeak. Dawkins' real instructions - are to make war on spirituality.

Might as well call it the Chair for the War on Spirituality.

Dawkins obviously has a personal belief religion is stupid. And to him it's totally unscientific. I happen to share his dismissal of God, but I myself have more respect for the faith of others and don't think religion is as negative as he does. If he wants to diss religion that's his business as much as it's the business of a minister if they want to preach the gospels.
Why shouldn't he write whatever book he fucking wants? Would you have had a problem if he'd decided he fancied writing a children's book about a lost puppy or a history of handgliding? Just because he held that chair, that did not define his existence or what he's allowed to write about.


You admit Dawkins' clear, obvious contempt for spiritual people. Why does he let that show? Being so `rational' and `objective' and scientific and all? It's a fine line betw contempt and hatred.

He doesn't like religion - that's up to him.
Like I said, I'm much more positive about religion than him, but I share his view it's arbitrary. I can think of no rational reason why Jesus has any more objective validity than Zeus. But I can still appreciate the potential beauty and power of faith and that's where me and Dawkins differ.

[them]

Claims to be `Evolutionary Biologist' but in fact has Phd in Ethology - Animal Behavior, which he got by studying chickens and crickets - Check

Ehtology is the study of the actions and habits (behaviour) of animals and their reaction to their environment with particular emphasis on instinctive behaviour. It is a branch of biology strongly linked to evolutionary study, amongst other things.

Therefore, I think it's fair for Dawkins to describe himself as a evolutionary biologist, especially when considering his area of academic interest.

Because ethology is considered a topic of biology, ethologists have been concerned particularly with the evolution of behaviour and the understanding of behaviour in terms of the theory of natural selection. In one sense, the first modern ethologist was Charles Darwin, whose book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, influenced many ethologists. He pursued his interest in behaviour by encouraging his protégé George Romanes, who investigated animal learning and intelligence using an anthropomorphic method, anecdotal cognitivism, that did not gain scientific support.

Other early ethologists, such as Oskar Heinroth and Julian Huxley, instead concentrated on behaviours that can be called instinctive, or natural, in that they occur in all members of a species under specified circumstances. Their beginning for studying the behaviour of a new species was to construct an ethogram (a description of the main types of natural behaviour with their frequencies of occurrence). This provided an objective, cumulative base of data about behaviour, which subsequent researchers could check and supplement.

Don't get to caught up with semantics.

[drakul]

Ehtology is the study of the actions and habits (behaviour) of animals and their reaction to their environment with particular emphasis on instinctive behaviour. It is a branch of biology strongly linked to evolutionary study, amongst other things.

Therefore, I think it's fair for Dawkins to describe himself as a evolutionary biologist, especially when considering his area of academic interest.

Don't get to caught up with semantics.

We can all `call ourselves' anything we want. heh. The fact is that Dawkins does not have a Phd in Evolutionary Biology. Face it, it just sounds more impressive from a scientific point of view than - Animal Behavior.

Oh what did you do for your field studies on Mr. Dawkins, did you go to Africa and spend 5 years living with the chimpanzees or gorillas?

No I got my Phd the easy way in a lab studying crickets and chicks. That was when I decided there is no God.

[drakul]

[QUOTE=dogsmilk;1059228947]So you just arbitrarily decide whoever debates Dawkins are just society's appointed religious overseers - has it occurred to you these peope's faith may be very important to them? No. You just arrogantly decide they're just not spiritual enough for you liking and/or just decide they're 'controlled' because you imagine they are. How do you know what their experiences have been?

When you know something about a subject, you know what `controlled opposition' is.

[them]

We can all `call ourselves' anything we want. heh. The fact is that Dawkins does not have a Phd in Evolutionary Biology. Face it, it just sounds more impressive from a scientific point of view than - Animal Behavior.

Oh what did you do for your field studies on Mr. Dawkins, did you go to Africa and spend 5 years living with the chimpanzees or gorillas?

No I got my Phd the easy way in a lab studying crickets and chicks. That was when I decided there is no God.

If you read the quote I put in the post upstairs you'll see that I've quoted the most concise description of ethology that I could find. Those words describe ethology as the study of natural selection.

In other words.. evolutionary biology!

I don't want you to feel bad now but I feel a bit sorry for you as you seem to have difficulty understanding how the biological sciences work together. Just to reinforce the point once more; ethology is one branch of biology involved in the study of evolution.

[drakul]

If you read the quote I put in the post upstairs you'll see that I've quoted the most concise description of ethology that I could find. Those words describe ethology as the study of natural selection.

In other words.. evolutionary biology!

I don't want you to feel bad now but I feel a bit sorry for you as you seem to have difficulty understanding how the biological sciences work together. Just to reinforce the point once more; ethology is one branch of biology involved in the study of evolution.

`In other words' is not good enough. Pls show me where Dawkins has an MA or Phd in Evolutionary Biology. His Phd is in Ethology - Animal Behavior. NOT Evolutionary Biology.

[dan duchaine]

It is ok that Dawkins doesnt have a qualification in the subject he lectures on. Because Darwin didnt think up the theory of evolution by natural selection. It had been around for ages before he wrote a book on it. In fact Darwin was so dumb he didnt even see the significance in Mendels pea inheritance experiments.

The elites dont care, they just create a reality and then brainwash people to accept it like sheep.

[twistedconcept]

Yes indeed, faith in Christianity for example has saved many a life. Sometimes people have to believe in something to better themselves and move on from their rut.

Sadly though religion has probably killed more lives than it's saved through war.

Religion has. True faith in God hasn't. Human beings have caused numerous atrocities in the name of many ideologies, both atheistic and spiritual. Psychopaths will always use something.

Religion is man made and has absolutely nothing to do with believing in Jesus Christ or God. A lot of Christians don't even go to church, as they know it's bullshit. A lot of them were the first to warn us about the New World Order.

[dynamicwiseman]

Religion has. True faith in God hasn't. Human beings have caused numerous atrocities in the name of many ideologies, both atheistic and spiritual. Psychopaths will always use something.

Religion is man made and has absolutely nothing to do with believing in Jesus Christ or God. A lot of Christians don't even go to church, as they know it's bullshit. A lot of them were the first to warn us about the New World Order.

Self for filling prophecies is something i truly hate. Isn't Armageddon both the religious and elite way of moving humans to a better existents; But note first a blood sacrifice must ensue otherwise no ascension for the faithful.

Just because it states in religious scripture that NWO will form does not mean it is divine. What if the elite (who made Christianity/Islam) use it to hedge their bets against the forces of reason? a last ditch attempt to keep mankind in darkness?

[mikey mikey]

He's only a tool unto himself. Imagine how bored his poor wife must be, married to someone with no passion. All logic no libido. Can't have passion, its not science.
This here aint rational, but its fucking sweet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mf_PTB8juc&mode=related&search=

His wife.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_adAbN6I3BAE/SMVy_NxLLbI/AAAAAAAABEA/su3C2nIkDkM/s400/LallaWard.jpg

But you might remeber her as Romana from Dr Who

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_adAbN6I3BAE/SMV8jmX3zwI/AAAAAAAABEI/2bSIPv0Xuxo/s400/Paris.jpg

Lalla Ward (born Sarah Ward, 28th June 1951), also known as The Honourable Sarah Ward, an English actress, author, and illustrator. As an actress, she is best known for playing the part of Romana (Number 2) in the BBC's series Doctor Who. She is married to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who has just done a cameo appearance in the 30th Series (aka Series 4) in the episode The Stolen Earth.


She is the daughter of Edward Ward, 7th Viscount Bangor, and his fourth wife Marjorie Alice Banks. Her father was the BBC's war correspondent in Finland at the beginning of World War II, while her mother was a writer and BBC producer specialising in dramatised documentaries.

She has a brother Edward, two years her junior; and a half-brother, William, who is the 8th Vicount Bangor, three years her senior.

Through her father she is descended from George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV, via John Mordaunt, 1st Earl of Peterborough, John, 1st Viscount Mordaunt, and Bernard Ward, 1st Viscount Bangor.


http://thegallifreychronicles.blogspot.com/2008/09/where-are-they-now-no7-lalla-ward.html

[dan duchaine]

If you want to know the truth about darwins theory look to the mathematicians. The probability of proteins self forming from amino acids is classed by them as impossible it is so statistically improbable.

Of course the evolutionists will say this is a separate question and not to do with his theory, but Darwin himself talks about cells self forming in pools.

And of course, these cells would have to have self formed, because there is no creator according to shill boy dawkins

[mikey mikey]

I respect atheists, but Dawkins is not an atheist. He is an anti-theist.

As Greg Epstein said "while atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god."

He is basically your atheist equivilent of a Bible Basher.

[theperceivingeye]

In the end it is about seperating the wheat from the chaff, finding the true spiritualists from the false ones. (And hint, the true ones don't tend to be very popular and don't mascarade around trying to make money or whatever)


no... he's not a skeptic

He's a fucking moron. No better than the religious sheeple he pretends to be above... And believe me his fans (the ones I have met) are even worse than he is in terms of close-mindedness.

edit: I just saw I quoted the wrong part of tejas post where he seemed to imply that richard dawkins was an actual skeptic rather than a sheep in skeptics clothing. :D

[them]

`In other words' is not good enough. Pls show me where Dawkins has an MA or Phd in Evolutionary Biology. His Phd is in Ethology - Animal Behavior. NOT Evolutionary Biology.

Ethology is the study of evolutionary biological processes! lol

I'll write a kind of family tree for you. Zoology is the common ancestor for all the 'species' below :) Anybody qualifying in any of the below areas can then become an evolutionary biologist :)


Zoology
Zoography
Comparative anatomy
Animal physiology
Behavioral ecology
Ethology
Mammalogy
Herpetology
Ornithology
Entomology
Evolution
Population genetics
Heredity
Mendelism
Reproduction
Molecular Biology
Palaeontology
Systematics
Cladistics
Phylogenetics
Phylogeography
Biogeography
Taxonomy


As you can see it's a broad church. One might qualify in any of the above disciplines before focusing, for example, in the evolutionary biology area of that discipline :) It's not a falsehood to qualify in ornithology.. then study avian evolution & call yourself an evolutionary biologist!

The list below is number of areas within evolutionary biology (http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/institutes/evolution/themes.php) that one could study;


Viral evolution
Bacterial evolution
Methods of phylogenetic analysis
Molecular and genome evolution
Comparative genomics
The evolution of plant mating systems
The genetics of speciation
The analysis of quantitative trait variation
Population genetics

Anybody working in these areas is an evolutionary biologist!

[convulsions for tea]

I think when we are wiring hawking up to the christmas tree we shut push dawkins down the stairs :D

[theperceivingeye]

http://dawkinsdouche.wordpress.com/

[twistedconcept]

Self for filling prophecies is something i truly hate. Isn't Armageddon both the religious and elite way of moving humans to a better existents; But note first a blood sacrifice must ensue otherwise no ascension for the faithful.

Just because it states in religious scripture that NWO will form does not mean it is divine. What if the elite (who made Christianity/Islam) use it to hedge their bets against the forces of reason? a last ditch attempt to keep mankind in darkness?

It doesn't change the fact that Christians were some of the first people to warn us about the NWO, regardless of the Bible's validity.

[stopthemadness]

So I'll take it, from your lack of reply, that you didn't bother to run the very simple experiment that I outlined on page 16 of this thread.

Gotta love how "open-minded" scientists always find a way to disprove the supernatural without ever having investigated it.

[whatistruth]

So I'll take it, from your lack of reply, that you didn't bother to run the very simple experiment that I outlined on page 16 of this thread.

Gotta love how "open-minded" scientists always find a way to disprove the supernatural without ever having investigated it.

You failed to answer my question.
Did you do it?
If so, what were the results, and why won't you simply upload your result to youtube to prove what you're saying?

It is completely unreasonable for you to ask me to prove something that you're claiming, it's bordering on absurd to then go on to state you've proven anything by doing so.

It'd be like me saying I have video of ghosts in a haunted house, then refusing to show you the video and telling you that you needed to go and stay the night there and take a video camera to prove it for yourself.
Just mind blowingly ridiculous.

[crispyunderpants]

Here is an interesting thing. All the psychopaths I know love Dawkins.

[hadabusa]

Here is an interesting thing. All the psychopaths I know love Dawkins.

how many psychopaths you know?

also, where do you draw the psychopaths label line?at crossdressing?
:D

[dreamweaver]

how many psychopaths you know?

also, where do you draw the psychopaths label line?at crossdressing?
:D

Oh come on, hadabusa, I still have the negatives of you in your French maid's outfit... ;-)

[crispyunderpants]

how many psychopaths you know?

also, where do you draw the psychopaths label line?at crossdressing?
:D

I think this guy makes good videos about everyday psychos and I have met these people in my life over and over again:

Labyrinth of the Psychopath 3 - Grandiosity - YouTube

Labyrinth of the Psychopath 5 - Key Traits - YouTube

[stopthemadness]

You failed to answer my question.
Did you do it?
If so, what were the results, and why won't you simply upload your result to youtube to prove what you're saying?


To answer your question, yes. I have been researching reverse speech for several years.

My results: Every single utterance of every single human on Earth is reversible. It's a real mind fuck when you think about it. It blows the concept of linear time from physics out of the water.

Note: I have NEVER found a reversal that didn't also have EVP's included. EVP's occur when NOBODY IS TALKING!

EVP's can be heard both forward and in reverse. Somehow astral entities are able to imprint their voices onto the recording device without any physical audio (sound in human ear). Many astral entities are very eager to communicate. And when they find a human that can hear them they get very excited.

I'm lucky I can download from YouTube, much less upload.

To answer that more fully, I could care less what other people think.

Either you run a skeptically-open-minded experiment as I outlined or you dismiss it out of ignorance and arrogance.

Please, by all means, upload your results to YouTube. That is, after you clean the skid marks out of your undies when you realize it's for real.

[stopthemadness]

Santana - Winning - YouTube

[drakul]

So I'll take it, from your lack of reply, that you didn't bother to run the very simple experiment that I outlined on page 16 of this thread.

Gotta love how "open-minded" scientists always find a way to disprove the supernatural without ever having investigated it.

If you think about it -atheists like Dawkins are handicapped. They are spiritually handicapped. Like the people who burned St Joan of Arc at the stake for `hearing voices'. The Voices that inspired her to save France.

Dawkins lives in an antiseptic, test tube world and then he has the hutzpah to tell spiritual people they are `deluded'. Why? Because HE has never experienced Higher God/Consciousness.

[the moral man]

Dear Friends
kind regards
I think that Richard Dawkins certainly knows his stuff on Science, but the problem is that he is turning Evolution into a new militant religion.
Dawkins could not ever disprove the concept of the Creator because it is outside of time and space.
Richard Dawkins has refused to debate the Christian preacher William Lane Craig who addresses him in the following clips.

1.

Why Is Richard Dawkins So Popular? Dr. William Lane Craig - YouTube

2.

The New Atheists are Not Intellectually "Bright" - YouTube

Dawkins simply tells us what we already know about the negatives of religion as a whole.
Dawkin's dismissal of the 911 conspiracy theories without even thoroughly checking them out is just another example of one of his flaws.
yours thankfully
John

[woah]

I got my Phd the easy way in a lab studying crickets and chicks. That was when I decided there is no God.[/I]

What evidence did you discover that proved god doesn't exist?

[drakul]

What evidence did you discover that proved god doesn't exist?

Ask Dawkins that. I am paraphrasing him (sarcastically).

Dawkins did his `field studies' for his Phd in Ethology/Animal Behavior on chicks and crickets in a lab. This apparently proved to Dawkins that there is no God.

[whatistruth]

Ask Dawkins that. I am paraphrasing him (sarcastically).

Dawkins did his `field studies' for his Phd in Ethology/Animal Behavior on chicks and crickets in a lab. This apparently proved to Dawkins that there is no God.

I'm sure what proved it was the lack of any evidence of God whatsoever.

[theperceivingeye]

I'm sure what proved it was the lack of any evidence of God whatsoever.

ew.... a dawkins fan.

[woah]

Ask Dawkins that. I am paraphrasing him (sarcastically).

Dawkins did his `field studies' for his Phd in Ethology/Animal Behavior on chicks and crickets in a lab. This apparently proved to Dawkins that there is no God.

lol, that sounds like him right enough. Thanks for setting me straight.

[scootleroyale]

There's evidence for design everywhere. The fact that the system of information storage and transcription in DNA and proteins works the way it does is evidence of design -- in the same way a computer program is obviously the product of intelligence. This is something that absolute materialists like Dawkins have blinded themselves to.

Who or what the designer is is a matter of phliosophy. I find it hard to believe it all originates from a humanoid god, because then you have the question of where the information for god came from. I believe the universe is at base level intelligence (or consciousness), and that the information in this apparently physical reality is a construct of that intelligence.

God or no god, you can't get information from nothing, and therefore the information in this universe could not have come from nothing - which is the fundamental problem with the strictly darwinian model of reality. The belief that the information in DNA and proteins arose by chance from random arrangements of bases requires the most faith of all. It would be like believing this post was the result of a randomly generated binary sequence.

[elysiumfire]

The idea regarding 'design' to be apparent in nature is erroneous. What you have got to look at is not what we have now, but from what it all began. DNA did not come together to specifically create human beings for instance, our introduction didn't occur until millions of years down the evolutionary path. This gave plenty of time for primordial re-assenmbling of the bases that make up DNA.

Different transcriptions in DNA would have come and gone like any other form. The primary basis of evolution is stability, both in environment and in materials. It is the speed of change in the former, and the largesse in the latter that describe the path of evolution. Human beings are as incidental in the track of life form existence as ice is in the track of cold climates. Our sense of design in the natural world is nothing more than an imposed imprintation of order out of chaos that our senses present to us, before we have the means or chance to interpret the truth of what we experience...that is why we can look and see apparent design in many things. Dawkins actually and adequately nullified the 'design' argument in his book.

[drakul]

The idea regarding 'design' to be apparent in nature is erroneous. What you have got to look at is not what we have now, but from what it all began. DNA did not come together to specifically create human beings for instance, our introduction didn't occur until millions of years down the evolutionary path. This gave plenty of time for primordial re-assenmbling of the bases that make up DNA.

Different transcriptions in DNA would have come and gone like any other form. The primary basis of evolution is stability, both in environment and in materials. It is the speed of change in the former, and the largesse in the latter that describe the path of evolution. Human beings are as incidental in the track of life form existence as ice is in the track of cold climates. Our sense of design in the natural world is nothing more than an imposed imprintation of order out of chaos that our senses present to us, before we have the means or chance to interpret the truth of what we experience...that is why we can look and see apparent design in many things. Dawkins actually and adequately nullified the 'design' argument in his book.

Buddha never taught that there is a God. Never. He believed everyone must question their teacher and accept only what seems right based on their own experience. If someone has experiences of Higher God/Consciousness, why should they reject their own experience based on what Dawkins tells them?

When Buddha's students would ask him if he believed in the Immortal Soul, Buddha would ask them - `What about the WONDER? Where does the Wonder come from?'

The Wonder... neither Dawkins nor anyone else can nullify the sense of Wonder imbued in us by GOD.

[nirvanix]

Since Dawkins and every other atheist cannot prove their supposition - that there are no more advanced beings than us that are capable of creating life, it means that atheism is a belief system, in other words, a religion. That makes Dawkins a religious fanatic by definition, and that is my own feeling about him too.

[scootleroyale]

The idea regarding 'design' to be apparent in nature is erroneous. What you have got to look at is not what we have now, but from what it all began. DNA did not come together to specifically create human beings for instance, our introduction didn't occur until millions of years down the evolutionary path. This gave plenty of time for primordial re-assenmbling of the bases that make up DNA.

Different transcriptions in DNA would have come and gone like any other form. The primary basis of evolution is stability, both in environment and in materials. It is the speed of change in the former, and the largesse in the latter that describe the path of evolution. Human beings are as incidental in the track of life form existence as ice is in the track of cold climates. Our sense of design in the natural world is nothing more than an imposed imprintation of order out of chaos that our senses present to us, before we have the means or chance to interpret the truth of what we experience...that is why we can look and see apparent design in many things. Dawkins actually and adequately nullified the 'design' argument in his book.


First of all, if Intelligent Design isn't science, which Dawkins claims it isn't, then it would be impossible to nullify it. The fact that he claims to have nullified it, and that there's hundreds of sites dedicated to 'debunking' it, proves that - right or wrong - it is a legitimate science.

Secondly, when you're talking about origins of life, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for or against anything any atheist / darwinist says. It is pure speculation - a creation story if you will. Right or wrong, it is no more scientific and no less religious than any other explanation.

Thirdly, there is a difference between apparent design, and clear design. People can look at a cloud or an ink blot and see things that look sort of like familiar things - that is apparent design. However things like a car or a computer or ancient markings like the Nazca lines are unquestionable designs. We know just by looking at them that these things were the product of intelligence. And there is an analytical process we use that identifies designs: Improbability plus specificity. The probability of specific things like a car or Nazca drawings forming naturally is ludicrously low. The same argument can be used for life.

People like Dawkins dismiss improbability. They say "So what if it's improbable, with enough time, anything can happen". Such dismissals are completely ignorant of the scale of improbability we're talking about here.

A 100 amino acid sequence has 20 to the power of 100 combinations - which is 1 with 130 zeros after it. Of those enormous number of combinations only a tiny handful will actually relate to a working protein. And 100 amino acids is relatively simple, most proteins have several hundred, if not thousands. According to a paper published in the journal of molecular biology, the probability of getting even a simple protein by chance is 1 in 10^74. Which is about how many atoms there are in the entire universe! Even if you generated one new random amino acid sequence every nanosecond, in every cubic meter of the entire unvierse, for 10 billion years, you still probably would not get one single functional protein. And the simplest form of life requires hundreds of proteins - which themselves have to be arranged specifically to form functional cells. This is the level of information complexity we're talking here, it absolutely could not have arose by chance.

[them]

People like Dawkins dismiss improbability. They say "So what if it's improbable, with enough time, anything can happen". Such dismissals are completely ignorant of the scale of improbability we're talking about here.

A 100 amino acid sequence has 20 to the power of 100 combinations - which is 1 with 130 zeros after it. Of those enormous number of combinations only a tiny handful will actually relate to a working protein. And 100 amino acids is relatively simple, most proteins have several hundred, if not thousands. According to a paper published in the journal of molecular biology, the probability of getting even a simple protein by chance is 1 in 10^74. Which is about how many atoms there are in the entire universe! Even if you generated one new random amino acid sequence every nanosecond, in every cubic meter of the entire unvierse, for 10 billion years, you still probably would not get one single functional protein. And the simplest form of life requires hundreds of proteins - which themselves have to be arranged specifically to form functional cells. This is the level of information complexity we're talking here, it absolutely could not have arose by chance.

Which paper was that please as I would like to read it?

[woah]

The idea regarding 'design' to be apparent in nature is erroneous. What you have got to look at is not what we have now, but from what it all began. DNA did not come together to specifically create human beings for instance, our introduction didn't occur until millions of years down the evolutionary path. This gave plenty of time for primordial re-assenmbling of the bases that make up DNA.

Different transcriptions in DNA would have come and gone like any other form. The primary basis of evolution is stability, both in environment and in materials. It is the speed of change in the former, and the largesse in the latter that describe the path of evolution. Human beings are as incidental in the track of life form existence as ice is in the track of cold climates. Our sense of design in the natural world is nothing more than an imposed imprintation of order out of chaos that our senses present to us, before we have the means or chance to interpret the truth of what we experience...that is why we can look and see apparent design in many things. Dawkins actually and adequately nullified the 'design' argument in his book.

So it might look like design....... but it's not. And if you wealy wealy smart you just know it's not and teacher Dawkins give you gold star and you be wery wery pweased.

[scootleroyale]

Which paper was that please as I would like to read it?

Axe (2004): Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022283604007624)

Proteins employ a wide variety of folds to perform their biological functions. How are these folds first acquired? An important step toward answering this is to obtain an estimate of the overall prevalence of sequences adopting functional folds. Since tertiary structure is needed for a typical enzyme active site to form, one way to obtain this estimate is to measure the prevalence of sequences supporting a working active site. Although the immense number of sequence combinations makes wholly random sampling unfeasible, two key simplifications may provide a solution. First, given the importance of hydrophobic interactions to protein folding, it seems likely that the sample space can be restricted to sequences carrying the hydropathic signature of a known fold. Second, because folds are stabilized by the cooperative action of many local interactions distributed throughout the structure, the overall problem of fold stabilization may be viewed reasonably as a collection of coupled local problems. This enables the difficulty of the whole problem to be assessed by assessing the difficulty of several smaller problems. Using these simplifications, the difficulty of specifying a working β-lactamase domain is assessed here. An alignment of homologous domain sequences is used to deduce the pattern of hydropathic constraints along chains that form the domain fold. Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

It isn't free, I can't find a free version of the full PDF.

The author also did a follow up paper this year which responded to counter-arguments...

Axe (2010): The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1)

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

This one can be viewed in full for free.

You can also listen to this interview with the author:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00

[them]

Axe (2004): Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022283604007624)

Proteins employ a wide variety of folds to perform their biological functions. How are these folds first acquired? An important step toward answering this is to obtain an estimate of the overall prevalence of sequences adopting functional folds. Since tertiary structure is needed for a typical enzyme active site to form, one way to obtain this estimate is to measure the prevalence of sequences supporting a working active site. Although the immense number of sequence combinations makes wholly random sampling unfeasible, two key simplifications may provide a solution. First, given the importance of hydrophobic interactions to protein folding, it seems likely that the sample space can be restricted to sequences carrying the hydropathic signature of a known fold. Second, because folds are stabilized by the cooperative action of many local interactions distributed throughout the structure, the overall problem of fold stabilization may be viewed reasonably as a collection of coupled local problems. This enables the difficulty of the whole problem to be assessed by assessing the difficulty of several smaller problems. Using these simplifications, the difficulty of specifying a working β-lactamase domain is assessed here. An alignment of homologous domain sequences is used to deduce the pattern of hydropathic constraints along chains that form the domain fold. Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

It isn't free, I can't find a free version of the full PDF.

The author also did a follow up paper this year which responded to counter-arguments...

Axe (2010): The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1)

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

This one can be viewed in full for free.

You can also listen to this interview with the author:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00

Thanks for the links, I'll be going through them. I have a subscription to JMB so can upload the file if you wish?

[drakul]

First of all, if Intelligent Design isn't science, which Dawkins claims it isn't, then it would be impossible to nullify it. The fact that he claims to have nullified it, and that there's hundreds of sites dedicated to 'debunking' it, proves that - right or wrong - it is a legitimate science.

Secondly, when you're talking about origins of life, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for or against anything any atheist / darwinist says. It is pure speculation - a creation story if you will. Right or wrong, it is no more scientific and no less religious than any other explanation.

Thirdly, there is a difference between apparent design, and clear design. People can look at a cloud or an ink blot and see things that look sort of like familiar things - that is apparent design. However things like a car or a computer or ancient markings like the Nazca lines are unquestionable designs. We know just by looking at them that these things were the product of intelligence. And there is an analytical process we use that identifies designs: Improbability plus specificity. The probability of specific things like a car or Nazca drawings forming naturally is ludicrously low. The same argument can be used for life.

People like Dawkins dismiss improbability. They say "So what if it's improbable, with enough time, anything can happen". Such dismissals are completely ignorant of the scale of improbability we're talking about here.

A 100 amino acid sequence has 20 to the power of 100 combinations - which is 1 with 130 zeros after it. Of those enormous number of combinations only a tiny handful will actually relate to a working protein. And 100 amino acids is relatively simple, most proteins have several hundred, if not thousands. According to a paper published in the journal of molecular biology, the probability of getting even a simple protein by chance is 1 in 10^74. Which is about how many atoms there are in the entire universe!

Even if you generated one new random amino acid sequence every nanosecond, in every cubic meter of the entire unvierse, for 10 billion years, you still probably would not get one single functional protein. And the simplest form of life requires hundreds of proteins - which themselves have to be arranged specifically to form functional cells. This is the level of information complexity we're talking here, it absolutely could not have arose by chance.

Interesting. Thanks :)

[dynamicwiseman]

scootleroyale are you religious?

[scootleroyale]

No I'm not... But from looking strictly at the science I believe Intelligent Design is worth at least discussing... but as is clear to anyone who's seen the movie Expelled and followed the controversy... the scientific establishment hates ID more than AGW skeptics, 9/11 truth and vaccine critics combined!

And them if you can upload a PDF of the JMB paper please do, I'd like to read it.

[energi]

There's evidence for design everywhere. The fact that the system of information storage and transcription in DNA and proteins works the way it does is evidence of design -- in the same way a computer program is obviously the product of intelligence. This is something that absolute materialists like Dawkins have blinded themselves to.

Who or what the designer is is a matter of phliosophy. I find it hard to believe it all originates from a humanoid god, because then you have the question of where the information for god came from. I believe the universe is at base level intelligence (or consciousness), and that the information in this apparently physical reality is a construct of that intelligence.

God or no god, you can't get information from nothing, and therefore the information in this universe could not have come from nothing - which is the fundamental problem with the strictly darwinian model of reality. The belief that the information in DNA and proteins arose by chance from random arrangements of bases requires the most faith of all. It would be like believing this post was the result of a randomly generated binary sequence.

word

[them]

No I'm not... But from looking strictly at the science I believe Intelligent Design is worth at least discussing... but as is clear to anyone who's seen the movie Expelled and followed the controversy... the scientific establishment hates ID more than AGW skeptics, 9/11 truth and vaccine critics combined!

And them if you can upload a PDF of the JMB paper please do, I'd like to read it.

Here you go and thanks once again :)

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/24235225/darwin_dawkins_proteins.pdf (http://www.speedyshare.com/files/24235225/darwin_dawkins_proteins.pdf)

Interesting read so far.

[dan duchaine]

First of all, if Intelligent Design isn't science, which Dawkins claims it isn't, then it would be impossible to nullify it. The fact that he claims to have nullified it, and that there's hundreds of sites dedicated to 'debunking' it, proves that - right or wrong - it is a legitimate science.

Secondly, when you're talking about origins of life, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for or against anything any atheist / darwinist says. It is pure speculation - a creation story if you will. Right or wrong, it is no more scientific and no less religious than any other explanation.

Thirdly, there is a difference between apparent design, and clear design. People can look at a cloud or an ink blot and see things that look sort of like familiar things - that is apparent design. However things like a car or a computer or ancient markings like the Nazca lines are unquestionable designs. We know just by looking at them that these things were the product of intelligence. And there is an analytical process we use that identifies designs: Improbability plus specificity. The probability of specific things like a car or Nazca drawings forming naturally is ludicrously low. The same argument can be used for life.

People like Dawkins dismiss improbability. They say "So what if it's improbable, with enough time, anything can happen". Such dismissals are completely ignorant of the scale of improbability we're talking about here.

A 100 amino acid sequence has 20 to the power of 100 combinations - which is 1 with 130 zeros after it. Of those enormous number of combinations only a tiny handful will actually relate to a working protein. And 100 amino acids is relatively simple, most proteins have several hundred, if not thousands. According to a paper published in the journal of molecular biology, the probability of getting even a simple protein by chance is 1 in 10^74. Which is about how many atoms there are in the entire universe! Even if you generated one new random amino acid sequence every nanosecond, in every cubic meter of the entire unvierse, for 10 billion years, you still probably would not get one single functional protein. And the simplest form of life requires hundreds of proteins - which themselves have to be arranged specifically to form functional cells. This is the level of information complexity we're talking here, it absolutely could not have arose by chance.

And also each amino acid must be the levo form, not the dextro form (both forms exist in nature; life uses almost exclusively levo forms), and it must be joined by a peptide bond, not any other kind of bond (of which there are many possibilities when joining amino acids).

Add this to the sequence improbablity and the chance of a random assortment of amino acids forming a useful protein is to the point of impossibility.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Here you go and thanks once again :)

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/24235225/darwin_dawkins_proteins.pdf (http://www.speedyshare.com/files/24235225/darwin_dawkins_proteins.pdf)

Interesting read so far.


Ahoy Them!!!!

I don't make assumptions, but you are a true scholar, what do you make of Howard Bloom? I enjoy him and have learned alot, I've read the Lucifer Principle and the Global Brain, but I still feel YHWH is the 'Missing Link'.

Aloha!!! :)

[nectars]

ew.... a dawkins fan.

lol :D

[camreeno]

Of course you look at a scientist the way you look at a christian idiot.How did you suspect that based on what I wrote? You're way off. All I said was Dawkins treats his persuit of science as a religion, similar to the way God-based religions do their thing. Oh yeah I'm an idiot, you're right.

[whatistruth]

How did you suspect that based on what I wrote? You're way off. All I said was Dawkins treats his persuit of science as a religion, similar to the way God-based religions do their thing. Oh yeah I'm an idiot, you're right.

I didn't call you an idiot, i said christian idiot.

Read it again.
Of course you look at a scientist the way you look at a christian idiot.

If i was calling you an idiot it'd be written like this.
Of course you look at a scientist the way you look at a christian, idiot.

[them]

Ahoy Them!!!!

I don't make assumptions, but you are a true scholar, what do you make of Howard Bloom? I enjoy him and have learned alot, I've read the Lucifer Principle and the Global Brain, but I still feel YHWH is the 'Missing Link'.

Aloha!!! :)

Phuro Snoops; you are to kind.

I haven't read his work although I just looked at the Amazon synopsis for the Lucifer Principle and liked the look of it so will definitely be giving it a go, thanks for the heads up :)

I still have no idea about a creator of all things and will continue to keep an open mind. One thing I do know is that I love the complexity of life on this planet in all it's shapes and forms and that, at the moment, is a big enough buzz for me.

I still pop into threads you're contributing too and really enjoy the way you knock people into shape with your wise words :D

[noewhan]

What 'bout atheist Christopher Hitchens? I think he brings up some great points.

Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 3 of 12 - YouTube

[hagbard_celine]

What 'bout atheist Christopher Hitchens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVBEuyiRPsA)? I think he brings up some great points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVBEuyiRPsA

Hitchens is cool, whether I agree with him or not:cool:. He's such a character! I've read his book. Unfortuantely he falls into the same fallacy as Dawkins. His book demolishes all the official religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, and proves that they're all false, which is true in my view. But then he makes the same extrapolation as Dawkins and says: "Ergo there is no God." But this is philosophically just as simplistic as Dawkins.:rolleyes::(

[relentless]

come on Rich (Dick)... don't be such a dork...

[heuer]

Dawkins is one of them popular figures for these new-age kids who believe that because they attend university and are atheists they're intellectually superior compared to most of the world.

[relentless]

Dawkins is one of them popular figures for these new-age kids who believe that because they attend university and are atheists they're intellectually superior compared to most of the world.

Where have I heard that before? :D

[hagbard_celine]

Dawkins is one of them popular figures for these new-age kids who believe that because they attend university and are atheists they're intellectually superior compared to most of the world.

Except those who miss the point and actually go on to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the rest of their lives!:D:p

[relentless]

The Fibonacci in Lateralus - YouTube

[montag]

What 'bout atheist Christopher Hitchens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVBEuyiRPsA)? I think he brings up some great points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVBEuyiRPsA
Brilliant, worth watching the whole 12 parts..

[revolutionary_jam]

Hitchens is yet more pompous and a staunch supporter of the war on terror.

[hagbard_celine]

Hitchens is yet more pompous and a staunch supporter of the war on terror.

He's made a terrible mistake supporting the war.:( Like many people he is traumatized by 9/11 and can't see the bigger picture, but despite this Hitchens is a genuine and admirable character, I think:cool:. He's one of the most left-wing political commentators in the United States and has opposed most other US interventions abroad when the mainstream had fallen for it.

I'm reading his new book right now: Hitch 22.
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/8205/hitch22amemoir.jpg (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/hitch22amemoir.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

It's quite moving actually, especially when he's discussing his own mortality. Soon after he pubvlished this he was diagnosed with cancer. Apprently there's a group of Christians starting a "Pray for Christopher Hitchens" campaign! See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGckRdtYdmc As CS Lewis said: "A noble friend is the best gift in the world; a noble enemy, the next best.":cool:

[them]

Dawkins is one of them popular figures for these new-age kids who believe that because they attend university and are atheists they're intellectually superior compared to most of the world.

Dawkins is popular with those that understand or are interested in the facts of evolution. Intellectual superiority has got nothing to do with it.

[redman]

I buzz off Hitchens, but I'm a astonished that someone as intelligent as Hitchens is falls for the fake two party rhetoric and the war on terror. He's a big fan of George Orwell, so that even surprises me more when I see him support the war etc.. very strange.

Shame really, cos he has ripping religion a new ass hole down to a fine art which is always a good thing IMO.


I was even surprised to see he had chemotherapy treatment. Wish the guy all the best in his struggle against cancer anyway.

[revolutionary_jam]

ok some good press on Hitchens here, I didn't really dig his vibe when he went up against Galloway but if you guys say theres something to like I believe ya :)

[hagbard_celine]

I buzz off Hitchens, but I'm a astonished that someone as intelligent as Hitchens is falls for the fake two party rhetoric and the war on terror. He's a big fan of George Orwell, so that even surprises me more when I see him support the war etc.. very strange.

Shame really, cos he has ripping religion a new ass hole down to a fine art which is always a good thing IMO.



I find Hitchens fascinating and enthralling to listen to.:):cool: But he really has made a big boo-boo over the War. He just doesn't see the bigger picture yet.

[scootleroyale]

Now this is interesting ... Remember that trial in 2005 on whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in American schools? ...Well one of the plaintiff lawyers was Eric ROTHSCHILD ... And it seems that in the ruling, the judge essentially copied Rothschild's opinion word-for-word... Conspiracy?

From Rothschild to Judge Jones: Descent with Modification! - YouTube

Now that's what you call 'Descent with Modification', Haha ;)!

[dan duchaine]

These discussions on evolution are always pointless, because everyone always just dogmatically argues what they wish to be true to justify their life view they have adpoted.

People hardly ever separate religion, from other forms of high belief. Its always Christian God versus Darwin, which does a great diservice to the argument.

Darwinism will die, in my opinion, when biology embraces quantum physics.

Personally i think that some sort of evolution does occur, but that Darwinism is wrong and it is not by random mutation and natural selection. However, i also think that there are higher spirits of some kind and that consiousness is somthing unexplainable by any form of biological evolution.

I also think it is impossible to invisage life starting in a random non-controlled manner. The mathematics for this are quite clear.

Hitchens supports the war on terror and think 911 was perpetrated by 12 arabs with box cutters. That makes me question his overall intelligence or allegances.

[heuer]

When one of these radical atheists decide to release a sequel to their initial novels discussing the Satanic aspects of the world and rebutting them, I might change my mind about them being shills.

The whole 9/11 being a good example of how religion is an issue doesn't do it for me.

[heuer]

He's just a brick created by the school system. Sheesh I'm tired of hearing about him. I look at him no differently than those Christian evangelical speakers that screak at people to get the demons out of their heads.

People will listen to those who have pieces of paper. Pieces of paper in this society equate to intelligence, someone who doesn't have them isn't regarded as being intelligent.

Note the recent debate with Hitchens and Blair, when the audience asks questions, the new generation of intellectuals initially mention 'I just finished my degree and I'd just like to ask...' as if this qualifies what they're about to say.

All you gotta do is this:

Get someone like Dawkins with the rich English accent. Make sure he has heaps of pieces of paper and credentials. Make sure he can speak well. Give him heaps of MSM publicty and funding = whatever he says, people will listen & believe.

[ozpixie]

These discussions on evolution are always pointless, because everyone always just dogmatically argues what they wish to be true to justify their life view they have adpoted.

People hardly ever separate religion, from other forms of high belief. Its always Christian God versus Darwin, which does a great diservice to the argument.

Darwinism will die, in my opinion, when biology embraces quantum physics.

Personally i think that some sort of evolution does occur, but that Darwinism is wrong and it is not by random mutation and natural selection. However, i also think that there are higher spirits of some kind and that consiousness is somthing unexplainable by any form of biological evolution.

I also think it is impossible to invisage life starting in a random non-controlled manner. The mathematics for this are quite clear.

Hitchens supports the war on terror and think 911 was perpetrated by 12 arabs with box cutters. That makes me question his overall intelligence or allegances.

I vote this as my 'post of the day' :)

[relentless]

I vote this as my 'post of the day' :)

There's a 'post of the day' comp..?:eek:

[ozpixie]

There's a 'post of the day' comp..?:eek:

Only in my mind :) Sometimes people say things that I find really profound so I tell them. That's all.

[camreeno]

People will listen to those who have pieces of paper. Pieces of paper in this society equate to intelligence, someone who doesn't have them isn't regarded as being intelligent.

Note the recent debate with Hitchens and Blair, when the audience asks questions, the new generation of intellectuals initially mention 'I just finished my degree and I'd just like to ask...' as if this qualifies what they're about to say.

All you gotta do is this:

Get someone like Dawkins with the rich English accent. Make sure he has heaps of pieces of paper and credentials. Make sure he can speak well. Give him heaps of MSM publicty and funding = whatever he says, people will listen & believe.You can put all those bolded parts into an addition equation and it would look pretty nice, lol. I think our modern idea of credibility largely revolves around whether someone has letters after their name or not, they have a nice voice and go around a lot giving speeches, and has written a book or two. Another thing might be lineage (i.e. "I'm Caroline Kennedy and I'm JFK's daughter, so I should be senator). You can put so many people into this category it defies belief. We have Tony Blair, Obama, David Rockefeller, Michael Shermer, Walter Cronkite, and the list goes on and on.

[scootleroyale]

David Icke on Richard Dawkins
From Human Race Get Off Your Knees

[The Illuminati] know how reality works and they want to make sure that their target population never does. Religion was their major vehicle for this through the ages and then 'science' came forward to play its crucial role in suppressing the truth. The party line in the 'science' establishment is that the world is solid and physical and there is no 'afterlife'. Anything to do with the so-called 'paranormal' is condemned or ridiculed by the programmed, often malevolent, 'experts' wheeled out to debunk views, experiences and research that demolish the manufactured myopia that is mainstream 'science'. Ironically, most of what is accepted as scientific 'fact' turns out to be simply assumption and not fact at all. This includes, indeed especially so, Charles Darwin's 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest'. As João Magueijo, the Portuguese cosmologist and Professor in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London, said: ' ... most science is just a theory and is not motivated by existing observations crying out for an explanation.' He also rightly observed: 'It seems to me that contradicting textbook wisdom is only heresy for those who have learnt it from the text book.'

It is quite a sight to see 'experts', like Professor Richard Dawkins at Oxford University, trying to discredit anything that doesn't fit with their concrete belief-system. He condemns religion while being an evangelist for his own - the religion of this-world-is-all-there-is. Dawkins ridicules the 'God religions', but doesn't realise that he is a leading voice of the 'no-God religion'. He is the High Priest and Chief Zealot of the religion called 'Scientism' and he is desperate to debunk anything that could question his intellectual pre-eminence. Dawkins targets with religious zeal those who challenge the omnipotence of mainstream science. I have seen him close up during a debate at the Oxford Union, and also on his television programmes, attempting to debunk alternative healing and the 'paranormal'. I see fear in his eyes for some reason and almost a sense of panic and desperation. The thought that he could be wrong seems to terrify him, but surely he must know by now that he has been talking bollocks for decades. If he doesn't, given the evidence available, it's a real head-shaker. Where has he been? It is the legions of mind-made, song-sheet scientists like Dawkins that man the barricades whenever the party line is under threat. They are gatekeepers who seek to impose their own ignorance upon the masses. A few of them, and certainly those who run the institutions, know what they’re doing, but most have just been programmed by the system to program others.

[..]

The university system, elite or otherwise, is ever more irrelevant, ever more in retreat from the cutting edge. There is a revolution of perception going on and the isolated intellect simply can't see it, nor can it see how ignorant the religion of intellectualism really is. How is mainstream science ever going to understand reality when it is populated by 'scientists' filtering everything through a left-brain that can only perceive sequence, time and apartness? It never is and it was never meant to. The idea is to keep people from the truth about reality and the human condition by keeping that knowledge from science. It is the head/heart scientists who are at the cutting edge, not the regular bunch personified by people like Professor Richard Dawkins. He's the Darwinism groupie at Oxford University who targets his nose-in-the-air bile and ridicule at anyone who has another view of reality beyond the edges of his postage stamp. He condemns religion and yet he is the high-priest of his own - Scientism, the belief that only mainstream science has the truth and anything else is blasphemy. I once appeared with him at the Oxford Union years ago. It was like debating with concrete on legs. He didn't like me; I can't think why. The whole Darwinist nonsense, which takes the creator out of Creation, was carefully calculated to indoctrinate a mass perception of life with no purpose, one in which we are mere accidents of 'evolution' and life's a bitch and then you die. It still dominates the collective mind of what is bravely called 'science'.

As with medicine, law and education, so the closed-world of mainstream science is structured to repel all boarders who threaten to breach the dam that passes for its perception. One method is to attack alternative approaches to healing and condemn them as ' crackpot' or 'dangerous', but what could be more crackpot and dangerous to human health than chemotherapy? The science establishment presses for new laws to 'protect' people from alternatives while pursuing policies and technologies that are potentially lethal to both people and planet. Scientists who buck the establishment and seek knowledge through an open mind find their funding and job opportunities disappear. Talk to some of those scientists who have challenged the orthodoxy of global warming, for a start. It is the carrot and stick again and it is used across the entire system to keep dissenters in line and truth in the closet.

Icke debated Dawkins?! Why is there not video of this?!

[hadaka_jimmy]

I find Priests, Imams and other religious 'leaders' a hell of a lot more irritating than Dawkins.

[scootleroyale]

I find Dawkins more irritating because at least the other side don't claim to be 'rational' or whatever. Dawkins is a hypocrite - virtually every criticism he makes of religious people could also apply to him. If there's one thing that I dislike more than anything else it's hypocricy.