Support NeoGAF

[magicstop]

No he doesn't, he makes people like you look bad because your lack of understanding of even the most basic science is brought to light. That's why these threads are always filled with idiots saying Dawkins is "arrogant" and equally bad, if not worse, than the people he is ridiculing. In reality it's just an easy way to ignore the science and how it contradicts your dumb, unscientific beliefs, and instead fire some sillly ad-hominem attacks that really add no value to the discussion at all.

I like you for the same reason I like Dawkins, probably Telling it like it is, even if Dawkins is a bit more polite. Cheers!

 

[SmokyDave]

Doesn't work. Might amuse some people who are already on the same page as Dawkins, but is guaranteed to be counter-productive against those who aren't. Fighting fire with fire is a fucking stupid idea - you fight fire with a fire extinguisher, or with health and safety policies that stop you storing the gunpowder in the angle grinder room.

The thing is, there are some that cannot be persuaded, regardless of method. There's that old chestnut about not being able to rationalise people out of positions that they didn't arrive at rationally. I think a good chunk of people are happy to follow whoever is shouting loudest and most persuasively and for those people, the fire & brimstone approach might well work. At the very least it's made Dawkins the poster-child for non-belief, rightly or wrongly.

Atheism certainly can be a belief system - strong atheism is not a lack of belief, for example. I'm not a strong atheist, though, because that's madness.

Agnosticism certainly isn't a lack of belief either - it's a belief about the nature of the question; that for certain conditions the question of a deity's existence is unknown or unknowable. Whether that counts as a belief system, I don't know.

I'm not convinced that just because (weak) atheism is a lack of belief it can't count as a belief system anyway. It's easy to rewrite it as a positive belief - a belief that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. It forms part of a structure that you can hang a moral framework on. Why not count it as a belief system?

I constantly struggle with the definition of atheism and what can be extrapolated from the label. It just feels more like a non-belief system, which I can't really wrap my head around as I have considerably more non-beliefs than I have beliefs. The exception is positive / strong / hard atheism which, I agree, is nonsensical. We simply cannot know there is no god and to insist that there isn't seems as credible (to me) as insisting that there is.

Having said that, it seems that people are increasingly adopting the label 'atheist' and attaching all manner of baggage to it (love of Dawkins*, hatred of religion, left-leaning etc..) and I'd prefer it if it simply meant 'I have no belief in supernatural deities'.

I'm not sure you can hang any moral framework from agnosticism or atheism either. I think the moral framework we adhere to is put in place by the society around us and our non-belief is totally separate from that framework.

I'm not catholic, but if I recall, essentially yeah. There are also a few other biologists, who're believers that also subscribe to evolution. This is only a problem if you have a literalistic interpretation of Genesis (which I don't believe to be necessary).

Really its just one branch of people who are just REALLY loud and obnoxious, and make others look bad.

Happens to us all chap, happens to us all. Change will come, slowly but surely. We'll all meet in the middle one day.

*Edit:

The one thing Dawkins has on the rest of atheists (probably the reason he is your leader) is he doesn't view this as deductive reasoning.

See, this is what I mean. It can't just be that he's a respected scientist with interesting and formerly outspoken views. Oh no, we're all just secretly looking for a replacement for god. Sigh.

 

[Stridone]

O...kay.



Zing! I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

They're not silly ad hominem attacks, it's an explanation for their avoiding of the real scientific discussion and instead resorting to ad hominem attacks whenever Dawkins is brought up. There's nothing else to discuss here since no one is criticising the actual science.

 

[Angry Fork]

This is ridiculous, not only is Dawkins arrogant, but he's also wrong too.



Yes, it's called Democracy. Other people may have a different favourite candidate to you, shock horror.



Wrong, evolution is a theory. It is an inference used to explain a set of observations, which makes it a theory. It's the best theory we currently have for explaining the origin of species, but that doesn't rule out a future discovery which may contradict the foundations of this theory, and we thus must create a new theory that is consistent with all observations ever made. This happens all the time in science.


...unless you work in the majority of occupations where evolution is irrelevant.



I agree with this, if he just shut his mouth after this he wouldn't seem so arrogant.

Honestly, I am so sick of science being treated as a religion, and being used to wage war against Christianity. The people who do this are the ones responsible for the rise of anti-science sentiment in certain communities.

You're wrong on everything here. I'm sure it's been mentioned in the other pages I haven't read them yet about to now though.

Also amazing response from Dawkins, but unfortunately he's preaching to the choir. Stupid people will remain stupid because they're willfully ignorant. It's unbelievably pathetic how ridiculous American politics is.

 

[Air]

change in religious/non religious affinity over time?
I thought that much was obvious, though i should mention it is the UK
America, the "Christian Nation", would be a lot slower.

The thing is "no religion" does not mean the person is not a believer or spiritual. I saw a poll a few years ago (the numbers could change easily) that had a fairly large portion dedicated to non-religious, but the disclaimer was that less the 4 percent were atheists or something like that.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a new wave of "spiritual not religious" people. They have their beliefs but they don't attend a church or belong to a congregation.

 

[JGS]

See, this is what I mean. It can't just be that he's a respected scientist with interesting and formerly outspoken views. Oh no, we're all just secretly looking for a replacement for god. Sigh.

I didn't say that. One thing atheist will never want is God.

Just because we elect a president, we're not trying to worship him.

However, considering the guy is quoted for saying the EXACT same thing that atheists all over Gaf says, it makes no sense to make threads about him unless he's a father figure of the movement. He's not that great of a writer, but he is good at persuasion (which most non-believers lack) on things that don't really connect the dots.

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

Oh boy, an "all beliefs are equally valid!" nutcase.

No, sorry. Teaching evolution is not the same as preaching a religious doctrine.

 

[ruttyboy]

"Evolution is a fact"

Yes and no.

The part of the theory that states that evolution causes species to change over time and biodiversity to increase as evolutionary paths branch is definitely true. We've already been able to observe this phenomena within species with short lifespans (such as bacteria and insects) and through controlled breeding. This is a truly proven fact.

However, the other part of the theory that states that all biodiversity today evolved from single celled organisms from aeons ago is entirely unproven at this point. Honestly, I don't buy it myself. The theory just doesn't hold up when you observe life from an anatomical level.

For example, In the stomach, we have glands that produce enzymes, glands that produce acid and glands that produce mucus. The enzymes don't work without the acid and the acid would eat through our stomachs and kill us if it weren't for the mucus. Remembering that evolution is a very slow process and all three glands couldn't possibly have formed all at the same time, explain to me how exactly the stomach would have had to evolve into existence from nothing. As far as I can tell, it's an all or nothing situation. And that's only one example. There are plenty

As a man of science, I say bring on a third theory into debate.

You might be a man of science, but you sure as hell aren't a biologist...

Here's a crazy thought, perhaps the situation wasn't always like that? Maybe the acid wasn't as strong as it is now, but the thickening of the mucus (a pretty standard development from sebaceous secretions) over time allowed stronger acid, which favoured thicker mucus AND SO ON.

 

[Stet]

Oh boy, an "all beliefs are equally valid!" nutcase.

No, sorry. Teaching evolution is not the same as preaching a religious doctrine.

All beliefs are equally valid. Just not in the classroom.

 

[ruttyboy]

Also, I'm fairly sure you can't have a system of belief that involves one specific point.

 

[Monocle]

Ideas like creationism can't remain secure without particular conditions like majority consensus, credulity on the part of believers, and the privileged status of unchallengeable dogma. Dawkins does a great service to the public every time he openly challenges a notion of this kind, firstly by lifting its opaque screen and drawing it out into the sunlight where it can be properly scrutinized alongside rival ideas, and secondly by citing an alternative that corresponds to the world as we observe it rather than the world as uninformed (or dishonest) groups or individuals claim it to be. Discourse is elevated and reasonable minds are liable to be swayed by this approach.

People who resent science's unparalleled ability to accurately describe reality and discover the workings of nature are free to claim that Dawkins's efforts to educate the public are futile or misguided, and that science itself is unreliable, but in doing so they commit themselves to a confrontation their worldview dooms them to lose. All other things being equal, evidence prevails over groundless assertions, and all the evidence—every crumb and pebble of it—is on the side of Dawkins and science on the question of evolution.

Society suffers when we lower our standards of evidence and accept ideas merely because they have appealing implications. Worse still when we reject well-supported facts because they don't gratify our desires or allow us to preserve comfortable, intuitively appealing beliefs. Dawkins's zero tolerance attitude toward wishful thinking is entirely appropriate considering how much harm false beliefs can do and have done. And in the event he's wrong on one point or another, his insistence on high standards of evidence ensures that even in error his contributions to public discourse are vastly more constructive than those of religious populists.

 

[teamaxe]

Great opening line.

I didn't think so. In fact, it distracted me from the rest of his article. I actually made me go look up whether or not Rick Perry is uneducated before I continued reading. For me, the article would be stronger if that entire first paragraph was gone. Of course, then the article would lose it's bite, so I guess that's why it's there.

...and this is coming from somebody that is strongly on Dawkins "side" and also dislikes Gov. Perry.

 

[jay]

What's with all the false equivalency bullshit in the thread? Being arrogant or mean is equally as bad as being a science denying, reality ignoring moron in a position of power hoping to spread stupidity?

 

[ruttyboy]

I didn't say that. One thing athesist will never want is God.

Just because we elect a president, we're not trying to worship him.

However, considering the guy is quoted for saying the EXACT same thing that atheists all over Gaf says, it makes no sense to make threads about him unless he's a father figure of the movement. He's not that great of a writer, but he is good at persuasion (which most non-believers lack) on things that don't really connect the dots.

Or perhaps his 30 plus years of concerted research on the topic gives his words more weight than your average random forum poster?

Since when did we not listen to, report and comment on what experts in their field have to say?

 

[bonesmccoy]

However, considering the guy is quoted for saying the EXACT same thing that atheists all over Gaf says, it makes no sense to make threads about him unless he's a father figure of the movement.

Of course he is! Denying this is just a weak attempt to save face, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Every movement has its heroes, and Dawkins is undoubtedly the Great White Knight of New Atheism.

 

[SmokyDave]

I didn't say that. One thing athesist will never want is God.

Just because we elect a president, we're not trying to worship him.

However, considering the guy is quoted for saying the EXACT same thing that atheists all over Gaf says, it makes no sense to make threads about him unless he's a father figure of the movement. He's not that great of a writer, but he is good at persuasion (which most non-believers lack) on things that don't really connect the dots.

I apologise for mis-representing your position.

Speaking as an agnostic atheist on GAF, I wish our collective level of discourse was equivalent to that of Dawkins but it simply isn't. It's natural that the man is thread worthy material, practically everything he says is intelligent, well measured and considered. Besides, the dolt that he's writing about (Perry) has had his fair share of threads and he's got much less interesting (although much funnier) stuff to say.

As for him being a bad writer, do you mind if I ask which of his books you've read? I thoroughly enjoyed The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion and although I'm only just starting The Greatest Show on Earth, I'm really enjoying that too. He has a personable but informative style that I really enjoy, kinda like Bill Bryson.

Or perhaps his 30 plus years of concerted research on the topic gives his words more weight than your average random forum poster?

Since when did we not listen to, report and comment on what experts in their field have to say?

I think the line is crossed if we don't like what the expert says but we have absolutely no credible way of challenging or undermining them. Then they're just being big meanies and we shouldn't give them the time of day.

 

[Uchip]

The thing is "no religion" does not mean the person is not a believer or spiritual. I saw a poll a few years ago (the numbers could change easily) that had a fairly large portion dedicated to non-religious, but the disclaimer was that less the 4 percent were atheists or something like that.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a new wave of "spiritual not religious" people. They have their beliefs but they don't attend a church or belong to a congregation.

you know thats kind of unrelated to the topic at hand

 

[CornBurrito]

All beliefs are equally valid. Just not in the classroom.

I disagree. Some beliefs are more likely to be correct than others.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

I just didn't want to offend anyone by actually calling him an idiot based on that video. Still he does at least try to explain why he's Way is so special.

Go ahead, it would fit in with your penchant for spouting illogical nonsense.

 

[Stet]

I disagree. Some beliefs are more likely to be correct than others.

Well, maybe, but keep in mind that I don't consider evolution a belief in the way that I consider faith in religions to be a belief.

 

[Angry Fork]

I didn't say that. One thing athesist will never want is God.

Just because we elect a president, we're not trying to worship him.

However, considering the guy is quoted for saying the EXACT same thing that atheists all over Gaf says, it makes no sense to make threads about him unless he's a father figure of the movement. He's not that great of a writer, but he is good at persuasion (which most non-believers lack) on things that don't really connect the dots.

Dawkins is actually terrible at persuasion. This was highlighted in that video someone posted where Neil deGrasse Tyson calls Dawkins out on his abrasive style. Dawkins speaks for people who already believe what he's saying. I wish Neil deGrasse Tyson would talk more about athiesm and religion but he doesn't unfortunately. He would be much better at 'converting' people from religion to science.

 

[iapetus]

The thing is, there are some that cannot be persuaded, regardless of method. There's that old chestnut about not being able to rationalise people out of positions that they didn't arrive at rationally. I think a good chunk of people are happy to follow whoever is shouting loudest and most persuasively and for those people, the fire & brimstone approach might well work. At the very least it's made Dawkins the poster-child for non-belief, rightly or wrongly.

So don't try to persuade those who can't be persuaded. They're lost causes. The problem is when you take an antagonistic approach that's going to cause those who could be persuaded to get all defensive and feel like they're under attack. That's what doesn't help.

Dawkins is far more appealing to me when he's speaking for Darwinian evolution than he is when he's speaking against religion. And I'd expect that to be massively more true for someone who's religious themselves.

I constantly struggle with the definition of atheism and what can be extrapolated from the label. It just feels more like a non-belief system, which I can't really wrap my head around as I have considerably more non-beliefs than I have beliefs. The exception is positive / strong / hard atheism which, I agree, is nonsensical. We simply cannot know there is no god and to insist that there isn't seems as credible (to me) as insisting that there is.

Having said that, it seems that people are increasingly adopting the label 'atheist' and attaching all manner of baggage to it (love of Dawkins*, hatred of religion, left-leaning etc..) and I'd prefer it if it simply meant 'I have no belief in supernatural deities'.

Tough. People attach all manner of baggage to religious beliefs too. Christians are expected to be ignorant homophobic right-wingers just as much as atheists are expected to love Dawkins, hate religion, and be commie scum.

I'm not sure you can hang any moral framework from agnosticism or atheism either. I think the moral framework we adhere to is put in place by the society around us and our non-belief is totally separate from that framework.

I think a lot of things that go into our moral framework are informed by our non-belief. Whether you believe in life after death, as a trivial example, can make a serious difference to how you value life - yours and that of others.

They're not silly ad hominem attacks, it's an explanation for their avoiding of the real scientific discussion and instead resorting to ad hominem attacks whenever Dawkins is brought up. There's nothing else to discuss here since no one is criticising the actual science.

Sorry, but any time your argument consists of calling people idiots and characterising their views (inaccurately in some cases) as 'dumb', you're on that ad hominem path.

This is the problem; people want to hold their own position to different standards than the other side. If you understand that the people you're arguing against are probably doing exactly the same thing, it suddenly all makes more sense.

 

[iapetus]

I disagree. Some beliefs are more likely to be correct than others.

'likely to be correct' is a dangerous one. I know of no way of assigning probabilities to metaphysical claims (but I do recommend this book anyway...)

Some beliefs are more suited to a rigorous application of a method that allows them to be tested and have stood up to those tests over a period of time and a range of evidence.

 

[Boozeroony]

Ideas like creationism can't remain secure without particular conditions like majority consensus, credulity on the part of believers, and the privileged status of unchallengeable dogma. Dawkins does a great service to the public every time he openly challenges a notion of this kind, firstly by lifting its opaque screen and drawing it out into the sunlight where it can be properly scrutinized alongside rival ideas, and secondly by citing an alternative that corresponds to the world as we observe it rather than the world as uninformed (or dishonest) groups or individuals claim it to be. Discourse is elevated and reasonable minds are liable to be swayed by this approach.

People who resent science's unparalleled ability to accurately describe reality and discover the workings of nature are free to claim that Dawkins's efforts to educate the public are futile or misguided, and that science itself is unreliable, but in doing so they commit themselves to a confrontation their worldview dooms them to lose. All other things being equal, evidence prevails over groundless assertions, and all the evidence—every crumb and pebble of it—is on the side of Dawkins and science on the question of evolution.

Society suffers when we lower our standards of evidence and accept ideas merely because they have appealing implications. Worse still when we reject well-supported facts because they don't gratify our desires or allow us to preserve comfortable, intuitively appealing beliefs. Dawkins's zero tolerance attitude toward wishful thinking is entirely appropriate considering how much harm false beliefs can do and have done. And in the event he's wrong on one point or another, his insistence on high standards of evidence ensures that even in error his contributions to public discourse are vastly more constructive than those of religious populists.

That is quite spot on.

I think (hope?) we will end up in a society where evidence = evidence and false beliefs are considered harmful. We will get there, slowly...

 

[dark_chris]

To me, my mind can only see Evolution as a theory, not a "fact" that Dawkins says.

 

[Air]

you know thats kind of unrelated to the topic at hand

Yes, but I was simply addressing the point you brought up.

Dawkins is actually terrible at persuasion. This was highlighted in that video someone posted where Neil deGrasse Tyson calls Dawkins out on his abrasive style. Dawkins speaks for people who already believe what he's saying. I wish Neil deGrasse Tyson would talk more about athiesm and religion but he doesn't unfortunately. He would be much better at 'converting' people from religion to science.

I like Neil because he doesn't really talk about either atheism or religion. He's a scientist and when he's explaining science, he's explaining science. I love that he doesn't interject his beliefs (or lack there of)into his work. I feel like you shouldn't, at least when you're presenting the science to potentially millions of people. Besides he has articles on his website where he talks about that stuff, and you can read his twitter for that.

All it comes down to is presenting the science so that people are INTERESTED in it. Science acceptance won't grow unless people get interested. Let them make up their mind with the philosophical implications.

 

[140.85]

Honestly I don't know why Dawkins and his ilk even bother.

Why on earth would a Christian (like me or Perry) believe in evolution? They believe what the Bible says. How can people forget this?

 

[demon]

Honestly I don't know why Dawkins and his ilk even bother.

Why on earth would a Christian (like me or Perry) believe in evolution? They believe what the Bible says. How can people forget this?

140.85
Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled

Yes, but I was simply addressing the point you brought up.



I like Neil because he doesn't really talk about either atheism or religion. He's a scientist and when he's explaining science, he's explaining science. I love that he doesn't interject his beliefs (or lack there of)into his work. I feel like you shouldn't, at least when you're presenting the science to potentially millions of people. Besides he has articles on his website where he talks about that stuff, and you can read his twitter for that.

All it comes down to is presenting the science so that people are INTERESTED in it. Science acceptance won't grow unless people get interested. Let them make up their mind with the philosophical implications.

I've seen his talk about and rail against religion. It was a video of a lecture he was giving to other scientists, I think, so it wasn't mean to be one of his more public appearances.

 

[140.85]

140.85
Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled

Compelling. As always.

 

[JGS]

Or perhaps his 30 plus years of concerted research on the topic gives his words more weight than your average random forum poster?

Since when did we not listen to, report and comment on what experts in their field have to say?

He doesn't have 30 years of concerted research in disproving God. No one is disputing he's an expert in his field. The field he is an expert in just isn't religion or ID apparently.

 

[Boozeroony]

Honestly I don't know why Dawkins and his ilk even bother.

Why on earth would a Christian (like me or Perry) believe in evolution? They believe what the Bible says. How can people forget this?

It may not affect people immediately, but propagating scientific theory and critical thinking is like steering a big oil tanker: it requires some time and effort to change direction.

 

[Air]

140.85
Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled



I've seen his talk about and rail against religion. It was a video of a lecture he was giving to other scientists, I think, so it wasn't mean to be one of his more public appearances.

I don't mind it if someone asks him and he states his opinion. I also think I've seen that video too... I just would rather that when a scientist presents a theory or whatever to the public, it should be dry and contain only the evidence (unless asked about their opinion).

 

[Kurdel]

Honestly I don't know why Dawkins and his ilk even bother.

Why on earth would a Christian (like me or Perry) believe in evolution? They believe what the Bible says. How can people forget this?

Because some people want to avoid ignorant or just plain stupid people from taking one of the most important jobs in the world. They don't care if YOUR head is under the sand...

What does this say about Perry's scientific agenda? If he doesn't believe in someting that is a fact, how will he decide on climate change or other scientific topics du jour?

 

[DarthWoo]

Because some people want to avoid ignorant or just plain stupid people from taking one of the most important jobs in the world. They don't care if YOUR head is under the sand...

What does this say about Perry's scientific agenda? If he doesn't believe in someting that is a fact, how will he decide on climate change or other scientific topics du jour?

He already stated that he absolutely does not believe in AGW.

 

[Kurdel]

He doesn't have 30 years of concerted research in disproving God. No one is disputing he's an expert in his field. The field he is an expert in just isn't religion or ID apparently.

His field of biology, and the proof for evolution is retty fucking strong in his field.

And he never denied ID being a possibility. Aliens could have genitically engeneered the first living creaturs on the planet. But that is highly unlikely, considering we don't even know if there are any... But regarding the massive amounts of evidence in his own field, it points to creationist ID pushed by religions to be complete and utter horse shit.

He already stated that he absolutely does not believe in AGW.

Not believing in AGW is one thing. Denying the science of climate change, whatever the cause may be, is ultimately more damaging. But I guess AGW deniers are usually Climate change deniers, but there is a small overlap where AGW skeptics admit to climate change.

Well, unless we count the fact that oil companies would not want to reduce emmissions so they fund his campaigns, yaddi yadda yadda, he is a Reoublican so it's the same old game.

 

[Davidion]

Honestly I don't know why Dawkins and his ilk even bother.

Why on earth would a Christian (like me or Perry) believe in evolution? They believe what the Bible says. How can people forget this?

Perry is a politician on the national stage and if he spews ideological nonsense it could have far-reaching consequences; this was noted as such in the article and should be immediately apparent to anyone who's given any thought to this. I doubt Dawkins is as concerned with your religious beliefs.

 

[mclem]

I'm worried about how Americans must see Brits as holier-than-thou missionaries telling them how to live their lives.

Hey, just think of us as a worried Dad not wanting his kids to go down a path of delinquency.

 

[ruttyboy]

He doesn't have 30 years of concerted research in disproving God. No one is disputing he's an expert in his field. The field he is an expert in just isn't religion or ID apparently.

But that's not the question in point? We're discussing evolution?

Also, by being an expert in evolution he is a de facto expert on what is wrong with ID.

So I ask again in response to your original point that there was no worth in posting what he said as people already say the same thing on GAF, why would we not listen to, report and comment on what experts in their field have to say?

 

[140.85]

So to live a life of faith is to be ignorant and stupid. We're like...sub-human in way compared to such enlightend athiests, correct?

And are we now going to start implying AGW == Evolution now? Basically if you side with any scientists that disagree that human activity is the primary driver of climate change you're unfit for office?

 

[Davidion]

Hey, just think of us as a worried Dad not wanting his kids to go down a path of delinquency.

That and we already see Brits as holier-than-thou missionaries telling us how to live their lives by categorical default. No harm done.

So to live a life of faith is to be ignorant and stupid. We're like...sub-human in way compared to such enlightend athiests, correct?

Nobody even remotely inferred this in this entire thread except for you and the more illogically nutty atheist types.

 

[McBacon]

Honestly I don't know why Dawkins and his ilk even bother.

Why on earth would a Christian (like me or Perry) believe in evolution? They believe what the Bible says. How can people forget this?

The Archbishop of Canterbury believes in evolution. Many popes have believed in evolution. You can understand and accept science without ditching your religion - if you so choose.

 

[iapetus]

But regarding the massive amounts of evidence in his own field, it points to creationist ID pushed by religions to be complete and utter horse shit.

I'm not sure it really does. You don't need to go into his specialist field to show why ID as pushed by some is complete and utter horse shit - just have a vague understanding of what science is. You can come up with an untestable, non-predictive theory for anything, and it won't be possible to disprove it. But it won't be science, either, and as a result you can't ask for it to be treated on the same level as something that is predictive and testable and has survived that testing.

 

[Angry Fork]

So to live a life of faith is to be ignorant and stupid. We're like...sub-human in way compared to such enlightend athiests, correct?

They're not sub-human but they are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously enough to run for any office of government. Unfortunately this isn't the case and any blabbering air head with a sharp persuasive tongue can get ahead since the U.S. is filled with a bunch of lunatics but oh well.

 

[Neuromancer]

So to live a life of faith is to be ignorant and stupid. We're like...sub-human in way compared to such enlightend athiests, correct?

And are we now going to start implying AGW == Evolution now? Basically if you side with any scientists that disagree that human activity is the primary driver of climate change you're unfit for office?

Personally I think science and religion should be held as far apart as possible, and science, not belief, should be taught in public schools. I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe until it infringes on the rights of others (for example, the right to not be subjected to other people's beliefs as a serious alternative to what science has shown us to be true.)

 

[Kinyou]

Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.”

Good thing that creationism hasn't any gaps at all

 

[JGS]

His field of biology, and the proof for evolution is retty fucking strong in his field.

Again:

Evolution does not disprove God nor does it verify how life got here.

If you want to wage a belief war with YEC's, then be my guest. However, you are not catching most believers of any religion in that net. Dawkins is no closer to disproving God than anyone else who's been in the field longer than him, but more interested in their studies rather than book sales.

Further, electing a president on the basis of religion or non-religious belief should be the least of things to worry about anyway. No one cares except for the people who read Dawkins.

And he never denied ID being a possibility. Aliens could have genitically engeneered the first living creaturs on the planet. But that is highly unlikely, considering we don't even know if there are any...

As if aliens swooping in and creating stuff actually makes MORE sense than simply the thought that one E.T. did the creating. Yes, that is a logical view to hold.

In any event, once you start entertaining the possibility that life got here in any way other than chance, you have officially become a whacky religion. You just changed the deity.

But regarding the massive amounts of evidence in his own field, it points to creationist ID pushed by religions to be complete and utter horse shit.

If he's going off the giraffe video, he sucks at it. It's just that you find it easier to accept than you do God existing.

 

[iapetus]

They're not sub-human but they are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously enough to run for any office of government.

Yeah. The 'people who believe different things to me are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously' line is one of those really scary ones.

 

[demon]

Compelling. As always.

I thought it was apt, because in a sense I agree with you- why does he bother? He tries arguing with people who suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance and clearly aren't persuaded to abandon their unsubstantiated, unscientific, faith-based worldviews by evidence, facts and rationality. I do not think his approach is effective for what he claims to attempt to be doing- converting those people.

 

[CornBurrito]

To me, my mind can only see Evolution as a theory, not a "fact" that Dawkins says.

Things adapt. That there is evolution. The theory of evolution only attempts to explain the mechanisms responsible for this adaptation.

 

[Mumei]

As in BUB should? Has it actually been shown that homosexuality is genetic?

It has been shown that there is a genetic influence in the homosexuality of some male homosexuals (in the fact that with twins where one brother is gay, the chances of the second being gay is significantly higher than for a non-twin brother with a gay brother or the chances of a person being gay 'on average' in the general population). And the difference is greatest with monozygotic twins, lesser with dizygotic twins.

It is never 100%, which means that genetics doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a part of the equation.

I don't get it. If you believe in intelligent design, then at least you agree evolution is real. You disagree with the motor (the part that is up for revision, of course, and you do not believe in SCIENCE here), but you believe in change in gene frequency over time.

I really believe this is people just not understanding evidence and argument.

If someone says, "No, god put everything on earth the way it is today as it is today," then you don't believe in evolution. In which case you'd just be uneducated. But if you believed in "evolution by design," you do believe in evolution.

I've often thought that ID could be the actual truth. Like who knows, it could be? So I don't really persecute people who believe in it. As long as they admit it's not science.

I think that there must be some sort of misunderstanding here; intelligent design is simply creationism. Believing in intelligent design does not mean that you agree that evolution is real; it means that you are a creationist who likes how intelligent design sounds vaguely science-y.

You might have missed the post, but you should really either watch this video or reading this book. They cover much of the same information, although the book is naturally more detailed.

Or you could watch one of the documentaries about the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case, although the other two (lecture or book) are better options.