Dawkins / The Root of All Evil (merged) (1 Viewer)

[billygannon]

I have a very, very general idea of what his ideas are - so I don't have a real opinion on him.
What do you lot think of him? Anyone want to give a detailed synopsis of what he's about?

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

richard dawkins?

selfish gene: brilliant... an absolute must must read. kind of answers the whole 'why do we exist' question. which is nice.

no detailed synopsis as of yet, first day back at work see... but definitely get yer hand on the selfish gene..

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Dawkins

dawkins rulez.

hang on...

richard dawkins and stephen pinker and daniel dennett - they rule.

the blind watchmaker and the selfish gene are completely life-changing books, for serious.

 

[Super Dexta]

Re: Dawkins

richard dawkins?

selfish gene: brilliant... an absolute must must read. kind of answers the whole 'why do we exist' question. which is nice.

no detailed synopsis as of yet, first day back at work see... but definitely get yer hand on the selfish gene..

there's a program on channel 4 tonight about him (presented by him, i think) and his fierce atheism. FIERCE for the atheism, he is. 8pm i think. must get monsieur dexta to tape it for me.
the blind watchmaker is also a must read - that and the selfish gene together would probably be 'the dawkins essential package'.
however if you're lazy/strapped for time, the devil's chaplain is a collection of essays by him that's easy to dip into and gives you a sense of what he's about.
he's a good lad i think.

 

[Super Dexta]

Re: Dawkins

dawkins rulez.

hang on...

richard dawkins and stephen pinker and daniel dennett - they rule.

the blind watchmaker and the selfish gene are completely life-changing books, for serious.

that's just reminded me that billy once called steven pinker 'the ugg boots of academia' and for that reason i must never speak to him ever again. i'm outta here.

 

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

Can't remember if it was Dawkins or Pinker... anyway, there's a psychoanalyst friend of mine who reckons one of them is dangerously mad. As in if psychoanalysis followed his theories, there would be very serious consequences for many innocent people. Maybe it's Pinker... actually, yes, it was Pinker.

 

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

that's just reminded me that billy once called steven pinker 'the ugg boots of academia' and for that reason i must never speak to him ever again. i'm outta here.

Oh yeah... Bakhtin is the "hoody of academia" while Chomsky is clearly the "denim of academia".

 

[Super Dexta]

Re: Dawkins

it's just as well that psychoanalysis is the puffball skirt of academia.

 

[Deleted member 3435]

Re: Dawkins

dawkins rulez.

hang on...

richard dawkins and stephen pinker and daniel dennett - they rule.

the blind watchmaker and the selfish gene are completely life-changing books, for serious.

what he said

 

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

it's just as well that psychoanalysis is the puffball skirt of academia.

Very true. But what is the pashmena?

 

[nlgbbbblth]

Re: Dawkins

(Jack) Dawkins was in Oliver Twist.

He was the Artful Dodger.

That who yer on about?

 

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

(Jack) Dawkins was in Oliver Twist.

He was the Artful Dodger.

That who yer on about?

Aye. That be him.

 

[quasiquasi]

Re: Dawkins

Don't think Pinker is up to much myself...certainly his ideas circa The Language Instinct appear (most likely) plain wrong. Haven't followed his thought that closely since then though.

 

[IFF]

Re: Dawkins

honestly i don't like him

personally, i do think there is a god but i'm not 100% sure.

the thing that irritates me is that he sees the possibility of there being a god is none and believing in god is the same as believing in unicorns and other mythical creatures. i disagree here.

i'm not 100% sure either way but that he disregards the opinion of billions that there is a god i dislike

it's one thing not to think there is a god but it's another thing to think there is definately no god and any one who thinks otherwise is delusional

i feel he is as bad as the religous fundamenatalist (jewish, "christian", islamic etc) as he doesn't respect the views of believers

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Dawkins

i'm not 100% sure either way but that he disregards the opinion of billions that there is a god i dislike

it's one thing not to think there is a god but it's another thing to think there is definately no god and any one who thinks otherwise is delusional

i feel he is as bad as the religous fundamenatalist (jewish, "christian", islamic etc) as he doesn't respect the views of believers

what's wrong with disregarding the opinions of billions? billions of people have been wrong, billions of times.

surely it's just basic logic for an atheist to conclude that people who believe that there is a man in the sky who requires weekly hellos are delusional?

how can he be 'as bad' as extreme religious people? he's not flying planes into buildings or invading iraq, is he?

 

[IFF]

Re: Dawkins

what's wrong with disregarding the opinions of billions? billions of people have been wrong, billions of times.

yes but thinking your the one person who's right and everyone else is wrong, that's a problem

how can he be 'as bad' as extreme religious people? he's not flying planes into buildings or invading iraq, is he?

i meant as bad as in terms of disregarding other people's views about god as being completely false i.e pat robertson who believes that a old man who gets a stroke is incurring god's wrath

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

although i think dawkins is brilliant and has contributed alot to the whole evolution yoke, i agree with IFF...

he is basically a 'fundamentalist', and refuses to even consider (not accept) ideas which fall outside the limited confines of accepted scientific theory- or the scientific 'dogma'.

and he is very scathing of religions, which serve to give meaning to the lives of the majority of people in the world. it doesnt matter a fuck if they are right or wrong, but just matters that people believe in them. in fact it has been argued that religion itself is a result of evolutionary development..

but i think he's symptomatic of science as a whole, which treats beliefs which fall outside of its rational logic as completely false/dumb/pointless, and only serves to widen the gap between people like dawkins, who is a very great thinker, and people who may also happen to believe in god/yoga/mushrooms or whatever...

 

[Rogue]

Re: Dawkins

what he said

What they said.

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Dawkins

although i think dawkins is brilliant and has contributed alot to the whole evolution yoke, i agree with IFF...

he is basically a 'fundamentalist', and refuses to even consider (not accept) ideas which fall outside the limited confines of accepted scientific theory- or the scientific 'dogma'.

and he is very scathing of religions, which serve to give meaning to the lives of the majority of people in the world. it doesnt matter a fuck if they are right or wrong, but just matters that people believe in them. in fact it has been argued that religion itself is a result of evolutionary development..

but i think he's symptomatic of science as a whole, which treats beliefs which fall outside of its rational logic as completely false/dumb/pointless, and only serves to widen the gap between people like dawkins, who is a very great thinker, and people who may also happen to believe in god/yoga/mushrooms or whatever...

hmm... i don't get what the problem is with any of this. it seems to boil down to the fact that not only does he reject religion, but he's not polite - the vociferousness of his rejection gets under the skin of people who'd prefer not to think about what he's saying.

i generally refuse to consider a lot of ideas - the ability to shoot lasers out of my eyes, for example. it doesn't make me an extremist or 'fundamentalist'.

lots of things serve to give meaning to people's lives. that doesn't mean that the thing giving the meaning isn't a load of rubbish. coldplay give millions of people's lives meaning - are they above criticism too?

 

[nlgbbbblth]

Re: Dawkins

coldplay give millions of people's lives meaning - are they above criticism too?

here Tom - what about that Clocks tune?