Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Tristesse]

I admire the science in Richard Dawkins as a scientist; his extra-"curricular" activities as an individual lay man in fields not specifically related to his scientific expertise could only be regarded an off-the-cuff material not becoming of a scientist though.

So, scientists should only speak of sciencey stuff? Well, in a way he is still in the domain of science when theist make claims about their god that are testable. Such as, "my god interracts with the real world." Thats a testably claim and should be scrutinized.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So, now you're invoking malice and claiming Dawkins is promoting others to be malicious? Hilarious. LOL!

No i am saying it is malicious to command your minions (who the vast majority of them probably couldn't get a date for the prom) to go out and maliciously attack others.

If he told them to do it with gods, we wouldn't question his maliciousness. But he is telling to use words instead of bullets. well words can be a weapon too and they can be used maliciously.

 

[A Troubled Man]

No i am saying it is malicious to command your minions (who the vast majority of them probably couldn't get a date for the prom) to go out and maliciously attack others.

That is a fabricated accusation of biblical proportions. His minions? Maliciously attack others? LOL!!! Hysterical.

If he told them to do it with gods, we wouldn't question his maliciousness. But he is telling to use words instead of bullets. well words can be a weapon too and they can be used maliciously.

Then, you are as guilty of using words as bullets as anyone else.

 

[Tristesse]

No i am saying it is malicious to command your minions (who the vast majority of them probably couldn't get a date for the prom) to go out and maliciously attack others.

If he told them to do it with gods, we wouldn't question his maliciousness. But he is telling to use words instead of bullets. well words can be a weapon too and they can be used maliciously.

Well, if gods were actually real maybe that would be an option. But if your beliefs are so fragile that mere words are threatening then perhaps you shoulde re-examine your beliefs.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That is a fabricated accusation of biblical proportions. His minions? Maliciously attack others? LOL!!! Hysterical.

Atheist Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Then, you are as guilty of using words as bullets as anyone else.

Yes. But I shoot to kill.

 

[McBell]

Yes. But I shoot to kill.

oh.
My apologies.
I thought you were playing the devils advocate with a comical twist....


I should probably stop laughing now, huh?

 

[Riverwolf]

Perhaps, but the tremendous effort of researching those books makes him far more qualified than most here combined, especially those who fabricate accusations.

Are you sure they're fabricated accusations or a different way of packaging what he says?

Show me that he's actually done that research, because I've seen no indication of it.

Bullocks. If you had read his books, you'll find only factual evidence in regards to anything of theological reference. Again, the fabrication of accusations appears to be running amok here.

In that case, enlighten us into Dawkins's knowledge; I've got other books to read this summer, and I've been given no reason to read his books on religion other than "trust me, they're good and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or hasn't read them."

So far, you're the one who's been making the unsubstantiated accusations, here.

EDIT: Besides, just because he only has factual evidence doesn't mean it's actually good. It's his interpretation of the facts he's gathered that's in dispute, here. In addition, this is a VERY complex field, with tons and tons of variables and exceptions that don't exist in other fields, to the point where there aren't really any hard and fast rules to which there can be exceptions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheist Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Yes. But I shoot to kill.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins both mock and ridicule founders of religions unnecessarily; if they have a valid reason then they should have restricted to it and nobody would mind it and they will get a reasonable response.

I think both of them and other atheists/agnostics/skeptics who follow him blindly do the same.

They are people of double standards when they talk about religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you sure they're fabricated accusations or a different way of packaging what he says?

Show me that he's actually done that research, because I've seen no indication of it.

You are right in there.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think both of them and other atheists/agnostics/skeptics who follow him blindly do the same.

And the thing is, I don't think either of them are aware that many people WILL follow them blindly, like I blindly believed what science said for most of my life; now, I actually trust what scientists have found, but don't necessarily accept what they say as unquestionable Truth.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Atheist Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Absolutely nothing there that supports your ridiculous accusations. No minions, no malice, ziltch, nada, nothing.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Show me that he's actually done that research, because I've seen no indication of it.

LOL! Read his books dude, everything he says in them is cited.

In that case, enlighten us into Dawkins's knowledge

Is that some kind of joke? Read his books.

So far, you're the one who's been making the unsubstantiated accusations, here.

I read his books and you don't. How can anyone help you understand what's in his books and what is cited there?

 

[Riverwolf]

LOL! Read his books dude, everything he says in them is cited.

Is that some kind of joke? Read his books.

I read his books and you don't. How can anyone help you understand what's in his books and what is cited there?

Give me a reason why it wouldn't be a waste of my time. I have other books to read in far more interesting subjects and far more interesting stories.

You can give some excerpts, for example, that counter every argument made against him in this thread.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Give me a reason why it wouldn't be a waste of my time.

Considering you have not heard of a lot things based on your posts here, you might learn a great deal by reading his books.

What other books have you got on your plate that could possibly be better?

 

[Riverwolf]

Considering you have not heard of a lot things based on your posts here, you might learn a great deal by reading his books.

What other books have you got on your plate that could possibly be better?

The Conan books, The Once and Future King, Prince of Ayodhya, Life in Medieval Times, Game of Thrones, a myriad of Programming books... I'm going to be a game designer, and I want to be familiar with many of the sources of modern High Fantasy, as well as how to program. I also want to check out Terry Jones's companion books to his documentary series, as well as check his sources to see if his information therein is accurate.

BTW, check the update to my post if you haven't seen it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Atheist Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Absolutely nothing there that supports your ridiculous accusations. No minions, no malice, ziltch, nada, nothing.

Let me see if I can translate it to you(and you can use this example as a model to help you defend Dawkins with the excerpts I asked for):

Another example comes from Saturday's rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to "mock" and "ridicule" that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it's best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were "Mock them. Ridicule them." So by "them" did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn't seem so to me.
This can easily be packaged as Dawkins telling his "followers" (here referred to as "minions") to "mock and ridicule" (here being compiled and labelled as a malicious attack) them.

So, even proving every accusation herein against him false, there is one thing I can say: he is really bad at presenting his arguments in such a way that they can't be manipulated and used against him. In fairness, I imagine I would be, too.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Let me see if I can translate it to you(and you can use this example as a model to help you defend Dawkins with the excerpts I asked for):

Another example comes from Saturday's rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to "mock" and "ridicule" that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it's best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were "Mock them. Ridicule them." So by "them" did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn't seem so to me.
This can easily be packaged as Dawkins telling his "followers" (here referred to as "minions") to "mock and ridicule" (here being compiled and labelled as a malicious attack) them.

LOL! Adding your own personal bias is not translation.

Allow me to help you with definitions...

A minion is a follower devoted to serve his/her master relentlessly.

Malice is a legal term for intent to harm.

I could place the definitions of mock and ridicule here as well, but those were done to death in other threads.

So, even proving every accusation herein against him false, there is one thing I can say: he is really bad at presenting his arguments in such a way that they can't be manipulated and used against him. In fairness, I imagine I would be, too.

Yes, you did, and you showed quite adequately that you present your arguments much worse than he.

 

[A Troubled Man]

The Conan books, The Once and Future King, Prince of Ayodhya, Life in Medieval Times, Game of Thrones, a myriad of Programming books... I'm going to be a game designer, and I want to be familiar with many of the sources of modern High Fantasy, as well as how to program. I also want to check out Terry Jones's companion books to his documentary series, as well as check his sources to see if his information therein is accurate.

BTW, check the update to my post if you haven't seen it.

Those are very cool books and I applaud your use of them to become a game designer. The Conan series are awesome, I know a guy that has every single Conan comic book well preserved. He says it's worth a small fortune.

 

[Road Warrior]

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

Since he's a professor, I can presume he is an adequate scientist even if we follow the idea "those who can, do; those who can't, teach".

OTOH, he is an excellent pitch man for his books and knows how to excite a crowd of his followers. In this regard, I put him on par with folks like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

 

[cablescavenger]

Give me a reason why it wouldn't be a waste of my time. I have other books to read in far more interesting subjects and far more interesting stories.

You can give some excerpts, for example, that counter every argument made against him in this thread.

You don't have to read anything. Life is all about choice and you are right to make yours.

Richard made his choices and earned accoaldes for his work, they don't come free.