Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

Status
Not open for further replies.
dIEHARD said:
Can Richard Dawkins shut the fuck up already?

No, of course he can't.
Click to expand...
I am with you. I'm not religious but I've always found him obnoxious as fuck.

He hasn't changed a thing. Any person with half a brain knows that religion is faith, and that's the point. Richard Dawkins wants to force factual evidence down everybody's throat when they may already be aware of it even whilst being religious. People aren't stupid. It amazes me how actual educated people will praise him when he is only telling them what they already fucking know. And he isn't going to change the minds of those who are already religious. The guy is a prick. It seems all religious people look like very potential extremists and warriors to him. And now he's got one henchman, Bill Mahr.
 
V_Arnold said:
Kurdel: evidence, I cannot give. Evidence is a very interesting concept and has very strong hold on a lot of people's thinking, but it is not the Alpha and Omega of our existence. I know that it must be hard to understand that, but it is.
Click to expand...

It sort of is? That is the point of evidence. That is how it works. It goes on to back up the theories and why things work through physics, biology and chemistry.

V_Arnold said:
To put it into mathematical terms, let us assume a 4 dimensional plane. NxNxNxN.
Let us have the projection of NxNxN of those 4-dimensional vectors.

(1,2,3,4) -> (1,2,3)
(1,2,3,6) -> (1,2,3)

Now, prove it that the two vectors (in their 3 dimensional "form) are different. Yeah, they are the same. Now, of course you, as an observer, KNOW that they are not the same, but only are considered equivalent on the projection level if the n1,n2,n3 properties are the same. (Sorry for the weird terming, but I never did math on english language, only in hungarian, do not know what the exact terms in english are).

All what I am believing(!) in and what I am trying to show that it is easy to design a space - or a plane of existence, for that matter - where it is nearly impossible to "prove" within that space that there is someone out there who designed the space - for the obvious reasons. One can even ask "why then, should the designers being or not being even a question?". Good question, but that might be for another thread, of course.
Click to expand...

Just last week a man at my bus-stop had a backpack filled with scribbled numbers and diagrams, all nonsense. He kept trying to thrust them upon people saying "this will explain everything". It was uncomfortable. Don't make this that bus stop, man. I don't know where to look.
 
Bangladesh, you don't actually know anything about Richard Dawkins do you?

He isn't some one-trick pony dedicated to the destruction of religion and to be honest, your criticisms are so far off-base I have to wonder if they're your own or if you just read them on a blog somewhere.
 
narca said:
Yes, you still believe in evolution as factual as some evidence might make it.
Click to expand...

Once you lop the head off of one 'evolution is a belief system' guy it seems like three more grow back in its place.
 
V_Arnold said:
there are movements and laws out there, with awesome amount of information, that descibe that there is a greater power, an infinite intelligence and unity behind ALL these rules.
Click to expand...
1. What entity is behind the entity behind the rules?
2. Since we know nothing about this hypothetical entity, to profess it has certain qualities is wrong.
 
narca said:
No its not. Both sides are doing the same fucking thing by forcing what they believe is true on other people. Exactly the same thing.

Yes, you still believe in evolution as factual as some evidence might make it.
Click to expand...
I believe a fact is a fact.

A racist believes that an opinion is a fact.

Not the same thing, not even remotely. But hey, let's see if we can get some Godwin's Law action up in this bitch.
 
narca said:
No its not. Both sides are doing the same fucking thing by forcing what they believe is true on other people. Exactly the same thing.

Yes, you still believe in evolution as factual as some evidence might make it.
Click to expand...

Believing in evolution is like believing you will suffer pain after running head first into a brick wall.
 
bangladesh said:
I am with you. I'm not religious but I've always found him obnoxious as fuck.

He hasn't changed a thing. Any person with half a brain knows that religion is faith, and that's the point. Richard Dawkins wants to force factual evidence down everybody's throat when they may already be aware of it even whilst being religious. People aren't stupid. It amazes me how actual educated people will praise him when he is only telling them what they already fucking know. And he isn't going to change the minds of those who are already religious. The guy is a prick. It seems all religious people look like very potential extremists and warriors to him. And now he's got one henchman, Bill Mahr.
Click to expand...


This times a lot. Dawkins has a knack for missing the point entirely when it comes to faith.
 
V_Arnold said:
Kurdel: evidence, I cannot give. Evidence is a very interesting concept and has very strong hold on a lot of people's thinking, but it is not the Alpha and Omega of our existence. I know that it must be hard to understand that, but it is.

All what I am believing(!) in and what I am trying to show that it is easy to design a space - or a plane of existence, for that matter - where it is nearly impossible to "prove" within that space that there is someone out there who designed the space - for the obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just a wording issue, but I have not clue what you are talking about. We cannot prove a negative, if that is what you are trying to say. And if that is the case, you would be 100% right. Just as we cannot disprove Russels Teapot, orbiting Mars.

We live in a physical world, so evidence must be physical. Evenwhen things are seemingly unperceptible (atoms, germ theory), we can push science to the point to detect these things. The more we know, the less place there is for any "designer" or "God". Our goal is to understand the universe and nature, so can have full control over it.
 
bangladesh said:
I am with you. I'm not religious but I've always found him obnoxious as fuck.

He hasn't changed a thing. Any person with half a brain knows that religion is faith, and that's the point. Richard Dawkins wants to force factual evidence down everybody's throat when they may already be aware of it even whilst being religious. People aren't stupid. It amazes me how actual educated people will praise him when he is only telling them what they already fucking know. And he isn't going to change the minds of those who are already religious. The guy is a prick. It seems all religious people look like very potential extremists and warriors to him. And now he's got one henchman, Bill Mahr.
Click to expand...

now thats just crazy talk
implying that they know the truth but reject it
if that were true then the "extremists and warriors" assumption wouldnt be far off
 
I never saw the point in discussing evolution in politics. It really has very little to do with one's ability to govern.

That being said, I never understood why evolution was so opposed. Biology makes no fucking sense without it.
 
narca said:
No its not. Both sides are doing the same fucking thing by forcing what they believe is true on other people. Exactly the same thing.

Yes, you still believe in evolution as factual as some evidence might make it.
Click to expand...
You don't BELIEVE in evolution. Evolution just is. Just like gravity. Just like the sun. Do you BELIEVE in the Sun? Do you BELIEVE in weather?
 
Uchip said:
why we still got Superman?
Click to expand...
QEH1x.jpg


...Apart from that, Batman clearly designed Superman to be a staunch ally, so there was no need to make his weakness obvious or easy to exploit.
 
Timedog said:
Kurdel: evidence, I cannot give. Evidence is a very interesting concept and has very strong hold on a lot of people's thinking, but it is not the Alpha and Omega of our existence. I know that it must be hard to understand that, but it is.

To put it into mathematical terms, let us assume a 4 dimensional plane. NxNxNxN.
Let us have the projection of NxNxN of those 4-dimensional vectors.

(1,2,3,4) -> (1,2,3)
(1,2,3,6) -> (1,2,3)

Now, prove it that the two vectors (in their 3 dimensional "form) are different. Yeah, they are the same. Now, of course you, as an observer, KNOW that they are not the same, but only are considered equivalent on the projection level if the n1,n2,n3 properties are the same. (Sorry for the weird terming, but I never did math on english language, only in hungarian, do not know what the exact terms in english are).

All what I am believing(!) in and what I am trying to show that it is easy to design a space - or a plane of existence, for that matter - where it is nearly impossible to "prove" within that space that there is someone out there who designed the space - for the obvious reasons. One can even ask "why then, should the designers being or not being even a question?". Good question, but that might be for another thread, of course.
Click to expand...
Shit, now THIS makes sense.
 
Wow, watching the Dawkins and Wendy Wright videos and how he didn't punch that cunt in the mouth when she started laughing at him is worthy of much respect.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
I never saw the point in discussing evolution in politics. It really has very little to do with one's ability to govern.

That being said, I never understood why evolution was so opposed. Biology makes no fucking sense without it.
Click to expand...

Politicians throw out meat to their constituency all the time, here in the US typically about god, abortions, evolution, and homosexuality. Fucking people can't stand the think critically for longer than it takes to hear a short sentence or two about the politicians' stance on those issues, and then they've got their candidate picked out!
Fucking A . . .

learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim
 
Orayn said:
http://i.imgur.com/QEH1x.jpg

...Apart from that, Batman clearly designed Superman to be a staunch ally, so there was no need to make his weakness obvious or easy to exploit.
Click to expand...

I dont know whats going on in that picture
Is superman susceptible to grapevines?
 
SmokyDave said:
Or for an even more apt comparison, the heliocentric theory.
Click to expand...

Every day, I see the sun travel from the east to the west. I've never understood how someone can imagine that it is not traveling around the earth. Can someone explain this "heliocentric" theory? Clearly its got some gaps in it.

Uchip said:
I dont know whats going on in that picture
Is superman susceptible to grapevines?
Click to expand...

Batman is knocking him out for being a goddamn hippy.
 
narca said:
This times a lot. Dawkins has a knack for missing the point entirely when it comes to faith.
Click to expand...


Except his writing have changed minds all over the world. You know unless people who say that are lying.

So no. Not this times anything but maybe zero.


Uchip said:
I dont know whats going on in that picture
Is superman susceptible to grapevines?
Click to expand...


Terrible writing wherein one has to ignore that Superman has heat vision or super speed or any intelligence, much like anytime Batman is shown beating Superman.
 
Uchip said:
I dont know whats going on in that picture
Is superman susceptible to grapevines?
Click to expand...
Supes is clearly being punched out by Batman, proving that the Bat can defeat any living thing with adequate preparation. It makes sense, because the Lord God Batman made them all.
 
Dawkins is a biologist that heppens to have a disdain for the anti-scientific bias of religion. He usually doesn't mouth off on things he doesn't know much about.

Q?: What was there before the Big Bang?

SUnk9.png
 
krypt0nian said:
Except his writing have changed minds all over the world. You know unless people who say that are lying.

So no. Not this times anything but maybe zero.
Click to expand...

So you're saying he's a religious leader?
 
magicstop said:
Politicians throw out meat to their constituency all the time, here in the US typically about god, abortions, evolution, and homosexuality. Fucking people can't stand the think critically for longer than it takes to hear a short sentence or two about the politicians' stance on those issues, and then they've got their candidate picked out!
Fucking A . . .

learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim learn to swim
Click to expand...

lol, are you quoting Tool here?
 
Orayn said:
Supes is clearly being punched out by Batman, proving that the Bat can defeat any living thing with adequate preparation. It makes sense, because the Lord God Batman made them all.
Click to expand...

this thread is the best thread
 
Log4Girlz said:
Every day, I see the sun travel from the east to the west. I've never understood how someone can imagine that it is not traveling around the earth. Can someone explain this "heliocentric" theory? Clearly its got some gaps in it.
Click to expand...
what would it look like if it looked like the earth was orbiting the sun?
 
LegendofJoe said:
lol, are you quoting Tool here?
Click to expand...

The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.

Pandaman said:
what would it look like if it looked like the earth was orbiting the sun?
Click to expand...

If I were standing on the sun I would instantly vaporize, wtf type of question is this.
 
krameriffic said:
I will admit that Dawkins tends to have a flair for the arrogant and grandiose in his speech that comes across more as intolerable smugness than genuine intelligence, but at least he's on the right side of the damn debate.
Click to expand...


People tend to speak what they know about. And he speaks with a long line of history and research behind him. The line between condescension and confident is normally thin but I am glad he speaks as sharp and as to the point as he can because alot of people seem to be willfully ignorant in these times and if anyone takes the time to listen to what he says versus who he is responding to, it becomes a bit more understanding that he is seen as condescending because the people he respond to tend to have horrible beliefs they like to present as truth.

Kurdel said:
Dawkins is a biologist that heppens to have a disdain for the anti-scientific bias of religion. He usually doesn't mouth off on things he doesn't know much about.

Q?: What was there before the Big Bang?

SUnk9.png
Click to expand...

perfect example.
 
krypt0nian said:
Buh DUM bum!


Yes, but this time he's spreading something useful.
Click to expand...

ezrarh said:
Anybody who has writings that changes peoples' minds is a religious leader. Right.
Click to expand...

Hey, science is just like any religion, you have FAITH that scientists are telling the truth with little to no effort on your part to verify what they say.

Dawkins is a religious figure. He's like the pope of the atheist faithful.

Did I mention everything was created by Batman?
 
Pandaman said:
what would it look like if it looked like the earth was orbiting the sun?
Click to expand...
Would depend on the axis and speed of the spin of the earth, relative to Rah, the god of fire, who brings us light.
 
Log4Girlz said:
Hey, science is just like any religion, you have FAITH that scientists are telling the truth with little to no effort on your part to verify what they say.

Dawkins is a religious figure. He's like the pope of the atheist faithful.

Did I mention everything was created by Batman?
Click to expand...

Science is not like a religion because scientists do NOT ask to be believed. The way science advances is when current theories are challenged and tested and alternate frames of thinking arises. When I was in school science teachers preferred we question everything and test everything.

Because of that type of mentality alone, science is far removed from religion.
 
staticneuron said:
Science is not like a religion because scientists do NOT ask to be believed. The way science advances is when current theories are challenged and tested and alternate frames of thinking arises. When I was in school science teachers preferred we question everything and test everything.

Because of that type of mentality alone, science is far removed from religion.
Click to expand...

I know man, I'm recycling garbage arguments about science and evolution.

Uchip said:
this is assuming there are sun-people though
Click to expand...

Like Superman?
 
Uchip said:
you wouldn't be able to see mercury
Click to expand...
what if you're superman and batman had just punched you into the sun and on the way back to earth noticed like lava and shit contrasted against the the dark side of mercury.
 
I hate the argument that atheists that are "anti-religious" are just as equally fundamentalist as those they criticize. It's utter nonsense. It comes up in every one of these threads.

Passion for passion we might be evenly matched, but how does that mean that we are equally fundamentalist? Being passionate about rationalism, science and evidence and promoting free-thinking is different to tying your unfounded beliefs to a flagpole and believing in them no matter what (nevermind preaching them). Religious Christian fundamentalists fly their beliefs in the face of evidence and say "even if evolution is fact I will still believe in Creationism because that is the word of God"- that is truly fundamentalist, Atheism is the direct opponent of such a thought process. To say that Atheism is just like a religion is to say that non-smokers are smokers. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Stop looking at everything through a religious lense, just because two sides are opposed against each other with such equal force does not mean that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, one side can be simply and completely wrong. I hate reading "you atheists and scientists are just as bad as the religious fundamentalists (sometimes worse) that's why I am an agnostic". Good for you, you fucking moron on your stupid little fence but I'm afraid that we're not. We are the direct opposite. If irrefutable evidence was to be found that says that Creationism is right, we're all made from intelligent design, we wouldn't oppose it with our "Atheist-beliefs" despite the facts, we would accept it. While those that always believed would fucking laud it to the skies how wrong we were no doubt, just look at what they do without evidence nevermind with evidence.

Also, people asking Dawkins to shut the fuck up, you're asking the wrong person. You could do with more Dawkins in America, and a lot less Perrys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is music evolution reaching an end?
Opinion  2
67
3K
kevboard replied
do you pay attention to the moon?
44
388
Tajaz2426 replied
Richard Chamberlain dies, there goeth a LEGEND.
21
1K
ClanOfNone replied
Katy Perry Says She’s Been ‘Battered and Bruised’ by Backlash: The Internet Is a ‘Dumping Ground for Unhinged and Unhealed’
2
80
1K
RoboFu replied
Richard Norton Australian actor, martial artist, and choreographer dies at 75
News 
3
712
jason10mm replied
Top Bottom