Dawkins banned due to atheism

[Copernicus]

... if more than one side was there it would have been more informative. So, if this group wants a secular society, (You know like the old Soviet Union, Cuba, :sad4 Dawkins would have been their man! I suppose it would have been interesting to hear Dawkins comments on What is the Moral argument for the existence of God? Since the ideals of Social Darwinism run counter to many of the Judeo-Christian ideals.

I don't know why you keep trying to associate atheism with socialism and communism...Oh, wait. Yes, I do know. It is a smear tactic designed to "poison the well". Never mind that atheists encompass a large segment of humanity that is not socialist. Ayn Rand, for example, was hardly a socialist, but she was a very outspoken atheist. You get atheists on all sides of the political spectrum and in the middle.

As for Dawkins' comments on the so-called "moral argument", he has made extensive comments on it in many places. You would know that if you bothered to read what he has written on the subject.

 

[jarofthoughts]

... if more than one side was there it would have been more informative.

That is only relevant if one is interested in being informed about the views of the other side.
In many cases, this is not of interest, for instance in the Evolution vs ID/Creationism issue, in which the ID/Creationism stance is completely irrelevant in a scientific context.

So, if this group wants a secular society, (You know like the old Soviet Union, Cuba, :sad4 Dawkins would have been their man!

Is that really what you think of when you hear the words 'secular society'? :sarcastic

Allow me to educate you: Some of the most secular societies in the world, namely the Scandinavian countries, also happen to be among the most successful societies on the planet, and I dare you to prove otherwise.
Norway, for instance, has some 70% atheists and non-religious, and society in general is very secular in nature. And yet, it has been considered the best country in which to live by the UN for eight years running, scoring high on education, healthcare, economic equality, sex equality and overall standard of living, not to mention having some of the lowest crime and poverty rates in the world.

And while Cuba surely might also be considered a secular society in this respect, Cuba, despite the US blockade, enjoys a 97% literacy rate, free education for everyone, free meals and school uniforms for all pupils, with an overall high standard of education, not the least of which is based on the fact that more than half of their teachers hold masters degrees.
They also have a universal healthcare system that provides infant mortality rates and life expectancy comparable to those in, say, the US, and they have the second highest doctor to patient rate in the world.
So, while their society might be lacking certain perks due to a lack of resources, to a large degree caused by the US blockade, it would appear that they are a lot better at making their resources count than most countries.

Perhaps the next time you decide to make a snide remark you will consider doing a bit of research and educate yourself a little first.

I suppose it would have been interesting to hear Dawkins comments on What is the Moral argument for the existence of God? Since the ideals of Social Darwinism run counter to many of the Judeo-Christian ideals.

The argument made in your link is short-sighted, uneducated, bigoted and borderline delusional.
There.
That's your answer.
No need to bother Dawkins. :sarcastic

 

[Falvlun]

... if more than one side was there it would have been more informative.

So, at your next church service, you're going to invite an atheist to speak, right?

 

[Protester]

I don't know why you keep trying to associate atheism with socialism and communism...Oh, wait. Yes, I do know. It is a smear tactic designed to "poison the well". Never mind that atheists encompass a large segment of humanity that is not socialist. Ayn Rand, for example, was hardly a socialist, but she was a very outspoken atheist. You get atheists on all sides of the political spectrum and in the middle.


As for Dawkins' comments on the so-called "moral argument", he has made extensive comments on it in many places. You would know that if you bothered to read what he has written on the subject.

Yes, but the bulk of atheists were the instigators of these movements. It was atheists who poisoned the well, not believers of various sorts. But of course atheists could very well not be Socialists, e.g., Charles Darwin, A Recently Discovered Darwin Letter on Social Darwinism.

I also was really pointing out what would have made inviting Dawkins more palatable if there were some who held another viewpoint might have made Dawkins' caustic one-liners about religion more tolerable than a one-sided presentation would be.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, but the bulk of atheists were the instigators of these movements. It was atheists who poisoned the well, not believers of various sorts...

You know perfectly well that "the bulk of atheists" were not instigators of these movements, nor is there any logical connection between atheism and the excesses associated with such movements. Moreover, there is no logical chain of reasoning to connect Richard Dawkins and these movements. So why don't you get back on topic?

But of course atheists could very well not be Socialists, e.g., Charles Darwin, A Recently Discovered Darwin Letter on Social Darwinism.

Well, we are getting closer to the topic, aren't we? There actually is a connection between Dawkins and Darwin, although there is no hint of a political connection.

I also was really pointing out what would have made inviting Dawkins more palatable if there were some who held another viewpoint might have made Dawkins' caustic one-liners about religion more tolerable than a one-sided presentation would be.

Dawkins' "one-liners"? Ah! You must be referring to the collection of single-line quotes taken out of context from his longer speeches, essays, and books. Yes, I suppose that those would appear to be one-liners to someone unfamiliar with the source material. :sarcastic

Dawkins was given an invitation to deliver a lecture at a venue that pre-approved his appearance. The organization that invited him had "secular" in its title, so one presumes that the owners had some idea what his talk would be about before he arrived. No clear justification can be given for the abrupt cancellation other than perhaps pressure put on the owners by Dawkins-hating members of the club who became enraged at the idea that he would speak there. Dawkins has long been the target of anti-atheist bigotry, and this appears to have been a prime example of just that kind of behavior.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes, but the bulk of atheists were the instigators of these movements. It was atheists who poisoned the well, not believers of various sorts. But of course atheists could very well not be Socialists, e.g., Charles Darwin, A Recently Discovered Darwin Letter on Social Darwinism.

I also was really pointing out what would have made inviting Dawkins more palatable if there were some who held another viewpoint might have made Dawkins' caustic one-liners about religion more tolerable than a one-sided presentation would be.

I make a note of the fact that you never replied to my post above. :sarcastic
Don't like getting your faulty notions about secular societies exposed for what they are?

 

[Protester]

You know perfectly well that "the bulk of atheists" were not instigators of these movements, nor is there any logical connection between atheism and the excesses associated with such movements. Moreover, there is no logical chain of reasoning to connect Richard Dawkins and these movements. So why don't you get back on topic?


Well, we are getting closer to the topic, aren't we? There actually is a connection between Dawkins and Darwin, although there is no hint of a political connection.


Dawkins' "one-liners"? Ah! You must be referring to the collection of single-line quotes taken out of context from his longer speeches, essays, and books. Yes, I suppose that those would appear to be one-liners to someone unfamiliar with the source material. :sarcastic

Dawkins was given an invitation to deliver a lecture at a venue that pre-approved his appearance. The organization that invited him had "secular" in its title, so one presumes that the owners had some idea what his talk would be about before he arrived. No clear justification can be given for the abrupt cancellation other than perhaps pressure put on the owners by Dawkins-hating members of the club who became enraged at the idea that he would speak there. Dawkins has long been the target of anti-atheist bigotry, and this appears to have been a prime example of just that kind of behavior.

Atheism doesn't foster sweetness and light or benign behavior, so I can most comfortably associate Dawkins and his ilk, of the New Atheism type of behavior. He doesn't strike me as a Confucian, who was savvy enough to at least be publicly an agnostic. Apparently someone should send Benjamin Franklin / On Paine's The Age of Reason to Dawkins but to Hitchens too, if he's still alive.:sad4:

Dawkins may be a good Biologist and I have read some of the historical comments by Hitchens, which were quite good, but I don't consider them experts on Intelligent Design. Perhaps the one liners adequately represents many of Dawkin's talks? In any event perhaps Bill Reilly was more believable than Dawkins?:sarcastic Atheist Richard Dawkins snubbed by Detroit area country Club

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't consider them experts on Intelligent Design.

"God did it" needs expertise?

 

[Buttons*]

Richard Dawkins was banned from speaking at a Michigan country club after they found out he was an atheist.

Wow. If true, that's pretty blatant discrimination. How would people have responded if the country club banned a speaker after finding out he was a Muslim or a Catholic?

I've only seen variations on this one article, however. I wonder if the club literally said "You can't speak here because you are an atheist", or if that is simply what was assumed.

LOL! It seems they didn't do their research before inviting him to speak! That's pretty hilarious.

 

[gnomon]

but I don't consider them experts on Intelligent Design.http://www.freep.com/article/201110...-Dawkins-snubbed-by-Detroit-area-country-club

Is that similar to being an expert on Mad Libs.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Atheism doesn't foster sweetness and light or benign behavior, so I can most comfortably associate Dawkins and his ilk, of the New Atheism type of behavior.

Atheism only fosters a lack of belief in a god or gods.
That is, in fact, all.

Dawkins may be a good Biologist and I have read some of the historical comments by Hitchens, which were quite good, but I don't consider them experts on Intelligent Design.

What exactly is an expert on Intelligent Design?
Is that similar to being an expert on the Loch Ness monster? :sarcastic

In any event perhaps Bill Reilly was more believable than Dawkins?:sarcastic

Bill'O is never more believable than anyone ever.
If that man said that the sky was blue I'd disbelieve him just to be on the safe side until I could verify it from a reliable source.

Oh, and you still haven't replied to my post above: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2671538-post282.html

 

[work in progress]

Atheism doesn't foster sweetness and light or benign behavior, so I can most comfortably associate Dawkins and his ilk, of the New Atheism type of behavior. He doesn't strike me as a Confucian, who was savvy enough to at least be publicly an agnostic. Apparently someone should send Benjamin Franklin / On Paine's The Age of Reason to Dawkins but to Hitchens too, if he's still alive.:sad4:

Let me throw you a line here, since the sources you are going to for information are either too simple minded and ignorant to understand what the problems are in naturalistic philosophies, or afraid of revealing too much real information to their audience. To start with, the real debate among atheists today is whether ethics and moral principles are relative, or instead core principles can be derived from a scientific process of examining evidence from anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology etc. -- to find a set of objective values. This is the claim that has most recently been advanced again by Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape, wherein he is the latest naturalistic philosopher to claim to have a definitive solution for a problem advanced by David Hume -- The Is-Ought Problem and G.E. Moore's - Naturalistic Fallacy.

And in the Blue Corner -- we have Alex Rosenberg, who I've heard recently, doing a number of interviews to promote his new book aimed at the atheist audience "The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions , wherein Prof. Rosenberg contends that purpose and meaning are a matter of personal choice and desires, and although psychology and anthropology can tell us a lot about human societies, and general guidelines for ethics -- why most people are cooperative and law-abiding, it is still a mistake to claim that objective moral principles can be further justified by studying our genes and our evolutionary history. Rosenberg contends that we are ultimately left with some degree of nihilism -- which does not go over well with many atheistic humanists and naturalists who seem to demand as much certainty as the religious crowd!

Worth noting that the Naturalistic Fallacy applies to supernatural philosophies as well, which usually draw an arbitrary line in the sand...based on interpretations of historical texts to make claims of moral certainty.

Dawkins may be a good Biologist and I have read some of the historical comments by Hitchens, which were quite good, but I don't consider them experts on Intelligent Design. Perhaps the one liners adequately represents many of Dawkin's talks? In any event perhaps Bill Reilly was more believable than Dawkins?:sarcastic Atheist Richard Dawkins snubbed by Detroit area country Club

As soon as the well-funded proponents of Intelligent Design start producing scientific research to back up their claims, I'll believe they actually have a real theory, instead of objections and obfuscations of the scientific evidence.

 

[Protester]

"God did it" needs expertise?

Apparently only when arguing with atheists! The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Some Interesting Statements By Scientists: (only one is by a biblical creationist), A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design, etc.

 

[outhouse]

Apparently only when arguing with atheists! The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Some Interesting Statements By Scientists: (only one is by a biblical creationist), A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design, etc.

those links rea nothing but utter garbage.

the first link was all needed to see the bias in your post.

the man was born in 1916 hes not a modern scientist, and associated with tashy websites that promote YEC content that has a history of lies for money.

 

[Protester]

those links rea nothing but utter garbage.

the first link was all needed to see the bias in your post.

the man was born in 1916 hes not a modern scientist, and associated with tashy websites that promote YEC content that has a history of lies for money.

My, my, I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your religion of New Atheism which somewhat explains Why is the science community so opposed to creationism? .

How trashy they are the individual viewer can make up his own mind, since they aren't that long to read, and as such those readers can make up their own minds on what value those articles have to them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How trashy they are the individual viewer can make up his own mind, since they aren't that long to read, and as such those readers can make up their own minds on what value those articles have to them.

An overwhelming majority of "scientist", and I'm assuming you mean (Biologist) considering your objection to the facts of evolution, are theist. They're not intentionally talking down at ID. The issues they face are trying to find any testable evidence for the hypothesis of ID.

What would it do to your dogmatic world view should you discover one day (life began) on this planet by Aliens? This is what ID says is possible. While this notion is untestable it is possible because aliens would be viewed as natural and not supernatural but this notion in of itself is at odds with what biblical literalist assert. So if you're arguing in defense of ID from a biblical stand point then your point is moot.

If you want to stick with the biblical literalist position that your god created life on this planet then the burden of presenting testable evidence is on you. Even by asserting that and alien or a god created life on this planet...is hardly a blow to the Theory of Evolution. The TOE is not about how life came to be rather it deals with how existing life changes over time.

 

[Protester]

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design


this should put you on the right tract, hopefully.

An overwhelming majority of "scientist", and I'm assuming you mean (Biologist) considering your objection to the facts of evolution, are theist. They're not intentionally talking down at ID. The issues they face are trying to find any testable evidence for the hypothesis of ID.

What would it do to your dogmatic world view should you discover one day (life began) on this planet by Aliens? This is what ID says is possible. While this notion is untestable it is possible because aliens would be viewed as natural and not supernatural but this notion in of itself is at odds with what biblical literalist assert. So if you're arguing in defense of ID from a biblical stand point then your point is moot.

If you want to stick with the biblical literalist position that your god created life on this planet then the burden of presenting testable evidence is on you. Even by asserting that and alien or a god created life on this planet...is hardly a blow to the Theory of Evolution. The TOE is not about how life came to be rather it deals with how existing life changes over time.

 

[jarofthoughts]

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design


this should put you on the right tract, hopefully.

Let's have a look at this then...

(1) Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

True, but this is also true of an evolutionary model.
The difference is that in the evolutionary model we can see traces of the organisms history (hips and remnants of legs in whales for instance), which are redundant and would not have been present if the organism had been designed.
Complexity alone does not infer design.
A mound of rocks is complicated but no-one is suggesting that it is designed.

(2) Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems. Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

He never defines 'rapidly', but in either case this would be as true for evolutionary models as for ID.
Also, his 'prediction' is the standard 'god of the gaps' argument. and even if it was the case that development happened too fast for the fossil record to show it, this is in any case explained by Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium.

(3) Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes). Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

Nonsense.
First off, all organisms on Earth are related, and the 'reuse' of genes is in fact, in and of itself, evidence of relatedness.
Talk about putting the horse before the carriage...

(4) Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function). Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

This one is slightly interesting though.
Even if it was later shown that 'junk DNA' did have a function, that would not in any way refute the Theory of Evolution.
However, if we find that it has no current function, would you accept that ID is nonsense?

Oh, and the fact that you found this on a creationist website instead of in a scientific journal gives the article a level of credibility of approximately zero.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design


this should put you on the right tract, hopefully.

What scientific method of inquiry was followed by that researcher to eliminate all other possible Gods to determine the identity of this Intelligent Designer?

 

[Somerled32]

Is any atheist with the intellect to effectively defend atheism a militant extremist?

In my opinion, no, however one who does not respect the beliefs of others and is as rigid in his impugning of ANY spiritual belief as Dawkins *IS* a militant atheist.