Richard Dawkins Interview, Newsnight Bookclub.
Richard Dawkins: "I care passionately about the truth as a scientist and I do regard religion's claims about the universe as alternative scientific claims ..... "
If we would indeed do this we would certainly end up in a dead end street. Religious claims are not alternative scientific claims. This is nonsense.
Richard Dawkins: "..... so the the claim that the universe contains a god, contains a creative intelligence, is a scientific claim, ..... "
Which religion claims that "the universe contains a god" ? Certainly not the Christian religion. The Christian religion distinguishes between the creation and the Creator. They are separate entities. The creation does not "contain a god".
This is a very fundamental mistake by Dawkins, who claims he cares passionately about the truth. If he starts assuming this rubbish, then it is no wonder his conclusions are rubbish also.
Richard Dawkins: "God almost certainly doesn't exists"
Interviewer: "Do you leave open the possibility that he does ?"
Richard Dawkins: "Of course, any scientist would leave open this possibility."
... then how can he draw the scientific conclusion that belief in god is irrational ?
So far so good, ... oh well ..... but listen to what he has to say about Christian scientists and the nonsense he then starts to spout .... "compartimentalisation" ..... really .....
Interviewer: "You don't understand how they (Christian scientists, Ivan) can reconcile those two ways of being ...... (inaudible) .... "
Richard Dawkins: "No, I don't .... not really, no .... "
About the Bush constituents:
Richard Dawkins: "They long for nuclear war".
Really ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This man is not a scientist, this man is a political guru disguised as a scientist ..... and a bad one I must add ......
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf a theologian takes a political stance, would he /she be a politician in disguise?
Richard Dawkins Interview, Newsnight Bookclub.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY
[b]Richard Dawkins: "I care passionately about the truth as a scientist and I do regrad religion's claims about the universe as alternative scientific claims ..... "
If we would do this we would certainly end up in a dead end street. Religious claims are ...[text shortened]... guru disguised as a scientist ..... and a bad one I must add ......[/b]
Originally posted by ivanhoeTruthfully I am out of town and I am having trouble with my mother's Mac. I hate that thing. Give me a few days to get back to my computer. If I get asked to participate wit James Brown's funeral, I may be a little longer than anticpated.
Why don't you go to youtube and watch the interview first ?
Originally posted by kirksey957Captain Kirk ... always clowning around .... never taking a stance.
Truthfully I am out of town and I am having trouble with my mother's Mac. I hate that thing. Give me a few days to get back to my computer. If I get asked to participate wit James Brown's funeral, I may be a little longer than anticpated.
Originally posted by kirksey957Sure, Kirk ....
Dammit, Ivanhoe, I just told you I was having computer problems and asked for a little time. Stop acting like we is married and feeling all rejected. I'll get around to it.
... by the way, I didn't feel rejected .... maybe that was the feeling you were having ....
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat a load of crap you are spouting, again.
Richard Dawkins Interview, Newsnight Bookclub.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY
[b]Richard Dawkins: "I care passionately about the truth as a scientist and I do regard religion's claims about the universe as alternative scientific claims ..... "
If we would indeed do this we would certainly end up in a dead end street. Religious clai ...[text shortened]... guru disguised as a scientist ..... and a bad one I must add ......[/b]
Religious claims are not alternative scientific claims.
Fine, get your lot to back off on evolution and the age of the earth then.
Which religion claims that "the universe contains a god" ? Certainly not the Christian religion.
Pedantry. By universe, Dawkins uses the common definition of the word, i.e. everything that exists.
then how can he draw the scientific conclusion that belief in god is irrational ?
Do you think it's irrational to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden? The logic is identical.
You are no scientist Ivanhoe. Dawkins isn't perfect, he'll freely admit it, but at least he's not an out and out liar like your side.
Originally posted by scottishinnzScot: "Fine, get your lot to back off on evolution and the age of the earth then."
What a load of crap you are spouting, again.
[b]Religious claims are not alternative scientific claims.
Fine, get your lot to back off on evolution and the age of the earth then.
Which religion claims that "the universe contains a god" ? Certainly not the Christian religion.
Pedantry. By universe, Dawkins uses the common definit perfect, he'll freely admit it, but at least he's not an out and out liar like your side.[/b]
It seems you are confused. I accept evolution as a scientific theory and the question of the age of the earth I leave to scientists.
It seems Richard Dawkins is talking about a certain brand of religion, he is certainly not talking about the Roman-Catholic teachings. However, he seems to claim that his statements are valid for all kinds of religion.
Scot: "Dawkins isn't perfect, .... "
We agree on that one.
By the way, what or who is my "side" or my "lot"?
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Your side" is the brand of fundamentalist christians that would have us all living in a theocracy. You accept evolution as a scientific theory? So you accept that man and apes shared a common ancestor?
[b]Scot: "Fine, get your lot to back off on evolution and the age of the earth then."
It seems you are confused. I accept evolution as a scientific theory and the question of the age of the earth I leave to scientists.
It seems Richard Dawkins is talking about a certain brand of religion, he is certainly not talking about the Roman-Catholic teachin ...[text shortened]... "[/b]
We agree on that one.
By the way, what or who is "my side" or my "lot"?[/b]
Dawkins isn't perfect, he'll freely admit itWill he? I am having a lot of trouble reading his book because, even though I agree with his theories(as far as I have read them), I find that he comes off as so incredibly pompous, arrogant, and derogatory towards his readers that I want to throw the book across the room. He speaks in absolutes, and most certainly does not allow for the possibility that a theory other than his own could be correct.
I have to agree with the Christians that he is an "evangelical atheist", and while I don't disagree with his theories, I almost want to just because of my dislike for him. I don't think that his attitude will help him much in converting people to his way of thinking.
Originally posted by scottishinnzScot: "Your side" is the brand of fundamentalist christians that would have us all living in a theocracy.
"Your side" is the brand of fundamentalist christians that would have us all living in a theocracy. You accept evolution as a scientific theory? So you accept that man and apes shared a common ancestor?
I don't think so.
Originally posted by whiteroseHe comes across that way, but the more you read of his stuff, the more you'll see him as a warm, personable guy, albeit with an axe to grind. Nothing wrong with a bit of passion though.
Will he? I am having a lot of trouble reading his book because, even though I agree with his theories(as far as I have read them), I find that he comes off as so incredibly pompous, arrogant, and derogatory towards his readers that I want to throw the book across the room. He speaks in absolutes, and most certainly does not allow for the possibility that a ...[text shortened]... on't think that his attitude will help him much in converting people to his way of thinking.