• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
CynthiaCypher said:
What I am trying to get to stink in is that scapegoating is unethical for a professional educator.

cultish - definition of cultish by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

5a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
Click to expand...

Sounds like religion...especially when you click the link..it pretty much confirms it. Sounds like the Jesus followers and Muhammad followers fit into this definition.....:confused:
 
jarofthoughts

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
CynthiaCypher said:
What I am trying to get to stink in is that scapegoating is unethical for a professional educator.

cultish - definition of cultish by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

5a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
Click to expand...

But you have yet to show, or even argue, that the things Dawkins says about religion is incorrect.
And until you do so, how can we/I take your claim that this is scapegoating seriously?
I mean, it's not as if it's a given and accepted fact that he does this.

Also, the veneration you seem to posit on my/our part, is both childish and insulting as it implies that we/I would support Dawkins no matter what, and that we/I cannot think for ourselves.
I'm sorry, but just because someone disagrees with you that doesn't mean that they are incapable of making their own arguments and case.
In fact, it may turn out that you are wrong from time to time! :eek:
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Road Warrior

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Riverwolf said:
"cultish" (whatever that means),
Click to expand...

I think it means "New Atheist"; the High Priests such as Dawkins, Dennett and Myers plus all those who support them.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers
It's a question you may prefer not to be asked. But I'm afraid I have no choice. We find ourselves, this very autumn, three and a half centuries after the intellectual martyrdom of Galileo, caught up in a struggle of ultimate importance, when each one of us must make a commitment. It is time to declare our position.
This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.
The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.
Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.
Click to expand...

the New Atheism

the New Atheists

The rise of the 'New Atheists' - CNN
the Oxford University professor, who made his name as a passionate apostle of Darwinian evolutionary theory in the 1970s with "The Selfish Gene," is merely the loudest and most notorious voice among a group of thinkers and writers who make up a movement dubbed the "New Atheism."
Others include Sam Harris, author of another bestseller "Letter to a Christian Nation" which explores the influence of Christian fundamentalism on U.S. President George W. Bush, philosopher Daniel Dennett and columnist Christopher Hitchens, who is set to join the fray next year with his latest work, "God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion."
What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.
Click to expand...
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Riverwolf said:
...I haven't seen that attitude displayed towards Dawkins from the people here. They simply agree with what he has to say.
Click to expand...

You may not but I do see it. There is a cult of personality rises up for Dawkins. And I am not the only one who notices, there are atheist activist and freethinkers who see the same thing.
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
CynthiaCypher said:
You may not but I do see it. There is a cult of personality rises up for Dawkins. And I am not the only one who notices, there are atheist activist and freethinkers who see the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure one exists, but is simple agreement enough to qualify?
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
CynthiaCypher said:
Well it is certain that I am not here to argue with brickwalls
Click to expand...
and yet, is that not what you and road Warrior have been saying?
that those who disagree with your "assessment" of Dawkin's are brick walls?

I am having problems figuring out which is more comical.
Your blatant hypocrisy or your denial of it.
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Dirty Penguin said:
Again, Cultish seems to be able to be applied to almost anything....it seems kind of vague...
Click to expand...

As an English word, "cult" is almost useless because it has so many, often contradictory, meanings and connotations.

But in common speech, it typically conjures up images of people in black robes performing black magic arts around strange symbols chanting made-up languages, generally with the purpose of worshiping (or sometimes summoning) a demon.

As far as I'm concerned, "cult" just means "a religion with only a very small number of followers and mostly existing in one, localized area."
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Riverwolf said:
I'm sure one exists, but is simple agreement enough to qualify?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

But to be unable to even entertain the thought that this man is incapable of acting unethically or that calling religion child abuse is a bunch of tauri-stinky stuff kind of looks to me as cultish thinking.

If they weren't cultish in their beliefs about this man, they would be able to accept and be open-minded about any criticism directed towards him.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Riverwolf said:
As an English word, "cult" is almost useless because it has so many, often contradictory, meanings and connotations.

But in common speech, it typically conjures up images of people in black robes performing black magic arts around strange symbols chanting made-up languages, generally with the purpose of worshiping (or sometimes summoning) a demon.

As far as I'm concerned, "cult" just means "a religion with only a very small number of followers and mostly existing in one, localized area."
Click to expand...

The word "cult" is very useful within this context:

Cult of personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[youtube]7xxgRUyzgs0[/youtube]
Living Colour - Cult Of Personality - YouTube

And God help us if we ever forget that.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
and yet, is that not what you and road Warrior have been saying?
that those who disagree with your "assessment" of Dawkin's are brick walls?

I am having problems figuring out which is more comical.
Your blatant hypocrisy or your denial of it.
Click to expand...

What you and your friends forget is that I'm the critic and the burden of proof doesn't fall on me but on those of posit that somehow Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, good educator or a good human being. And so far that proof is still forthcoming.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
CynthiaCypher said:
What you and your friends forget is that I'm the critic and the burden of proof doesn't fall on me but on those of posit that somehow Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, good educator or a good human being. And so far that proof is still forthcoming.
Click to expand...
So quick to divide the opinions into your favoured categories you fail to actually understand what is written.

Yes, your hypocrisy is most comical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top