Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[ImmortalFlame]

What's personal?

This:

Dude, it's his website and it's his article. Are you seriously suggesting Dawkins has no control of either? Now I really am skeptical of both him and you.

Is it or is it not his website and his article? He can title it anything he likes. It's clear he liked the title even though he didn't back it up in the text. This is a standard propaganda technique.

The Times published the article - his website are simply reposting it. And you said so yourself, he doesn't back up the claim made in the title in the text. Publishers get the final say in the titles and editorial content of articles in their publications, so is it not logical to conclude that the title is merely the result of an editor just trying to get an eye-catching headline?

In conclusion, you cannot draw an accurate impression about a person's opinions merely from the title of a single article published in a newspaper.

If I wanted to be provocative and attract attention I could title an article on my own website "Why all atheists suffer from cranial rectal inversion" then blather on about atheists in general without ever really backing up my claim. Would you hold me responsible for the title or the fact the title and the text don't exactly match? Or would you let me skate like Dawkins?

Well, for starters, there's a world of difference between that title and that title used in Dawkins' article. For seconds, it would depend on whether you had the final say in what your article said. For thirds, you're utterly failing to address the relevent point.

 

[Road Warrior]

Well, for starters, there's a world of difference between that title and that title used in Dawkins' article. For seconds, it would depend on whether you had the final say in what your article said. For thirds, you're utterly failing to address the relevent point.

1. What do you see as the difference between title and text of Dawkins' article. Thanks, btw, for admitting it is his article.

2. Do you believe Dawkins does or does not have final say in what he writes and what is posted on his website?

3. What are you claiming I've failed to address? That Dawkins' isn't responsible for what he writes and posts on his own website? Sorry, but I have addressed this point and will continue to disagree with you that he is innocent by some fictitious reason he doesn't have control of title and content on his own website.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

1. What do you see as the difference between title and text of Dawkins' article. Thanks, btw, for admitting it is his article.

No he didn't.....


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2944763-post101.html
"The Times published the article - his website are simply reposting it."

 

[Road Warrior]

No he didn't.....

Why there is no God By RICHARD DAWKINS / THE TIMES (UK)

Yes, he did, but I suspect none of the ardent, hard core New Atheist followers who revere people like Dawkins like gods would ever admit Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers or the lot could ever be wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. What do you see as the difference between title and text of Dawkins' article.

Well, the title of the article is simply "Why God Doesn't Exist", which is substantially less provactive or declaratory as "Atheists Suffer from Cranial Rectal Inversion". Do you honestly think the suggestion that there isn't a God (or that a person could make a case for such) is equal to the claim that all atheists have arses for heads?

Thanks, btw, for admitting it is his article.

"Admitting"? I've repeatedly said it was his article - I just said that the title itself is not an accurate indication of the writers' opinion, and that part of this is because the article was originally published in the Times and was therefore the editor has responsibility for it's title since the article itself contains no indication that the title is accurate as a representation of Dawkin's point of view.

2. Do you believe Dawkins does or does not have final say in what he writes and what is posted on his website?

It was originally published in The Times - Dawkins' website is simply REPOSTING it.

What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

3. What are you claiming I've failed to address?

The fact that you have thus far failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Dawkins has ever "proclaimed" that there is no God.

That Dawkins' isn't responsible for what he writes and posts on his own website? Sorry, but I have addressed this point and will continue to disagree with you that he is innocent by some fictitious reason he doesn't have control of title and content on his own website.

He is not ultimately responsible for the TITLE of an article that is posted ON THE TIMES WEBSITE.

Why do you feel the need to so badly lie and misrepresent my argument? I've been extremely clear with you from the beginning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, he did, but I suspect none of the ardent, hard core New Atheist followers who revere people like Dawkins like gods would ever admit Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers or the lot could ever be wrong.

And now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I'm done with you. I was nothing but reasonable in my requests, but I can see that your dislike of Dawkins comes from nowhere other than your own ignorance of his opinions, defensiveness with regards to your religous insecurity, and your lack of any coherent logic on the subject.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Great scientist but a rotten human being

If I had to choose in a God to believe in...Richard Dawkins would be it.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Yes, he did, but I suspect none of the ardent, hard core New Atheist followers who revere people like Dawkins like gods would ever admit Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers or the lot could ever be wrong.

I have disagreed with Hitchens, Dawkins and PZ on a lot of topics...

 

[beerisit]

Yes, he did, but I suspect none of the ardent, hard core New Atheist followers who revere people like Dawkins like gods would ever admit Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers or the lot could ever be wrong.

I guess that would make them as deluded as believers. Happens.

 

[Road Warrior]

He is not ultimately responsible for the TITLE of an article that is posted ON THE TIMES WEBSITE.

I never said he was. I simply stated he was responsible for the title on his website....but since you bring it up, he does have some control.

First, any claim that the Times changed the title is without evidence. Does anyone have proof that the Times did change it?

Second, even if the Times did change it, Dawkins, as the author, would still have the right to have the article pulled. The Times couldn't print it without his permission.

Third, as de facto proof that Dawkins not only approved of the title and the article, he posted it word-for-word on his own website.

Anyone who wants to protect Dawkins from any accountability in this matter is free to do so, but I will continue to disagree. Dawkins is as responsible for his writings and what he posts on his website as Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and anyone else.

 

[beerisit]

Anyone who wants to protect Dawkins from any accountability in this matter is free to do so, but I will continue to disagree. Dawkins is as responsible for his writings and what he posts on his website as Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and anyone else.

Does that make them all a bit like god?

 

[Looncall]

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.

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.

Sounds like a field that consists of imagined material and lacks any means of verifying propositions.

"The metaphysicist has no laboratory."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This makes no sense at all.....

I never said he was. I simply stated he was responsible for the title on his website....but since you bring it up, he does have some control.

All his site did was re-post an article from the Times.

Second, even if the Times did change it, Dawkins, as the author, would still have the right to have the article pulled. The Times couldn't print it without his permission.

Maybe what's in the article was seen as OK...but the Times decided upon the title to use. It would be their prerogative to use whatever title they see fit.

Third, as de facto proof that Dawkins not only approved of the title and the article, he posted it word-for-word on his own website.

So what....?

Allowing the article to be re-posted vs. being the author of said article are two entirely different things.

Anyone who wants to protect Dawkins from any accountability in this matter is free to do so, but I will continue to disagree. Dawkins is as responsible for his writings and what he posts on his website as Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and anyone else.

So what was wrong with what he re-posted...other than it seems to disagree with your world view?

 

[beerisit]

Sounds like a field that consists of imagined material and lacks any means of verifying propositions.

"The metaphysicist has no laboratory."

Where did it go. :biglaugh:

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Have you met him....?

Nope. Never met Hitler either. Your point?

 

[Tristesse]

Nope. Never met Hitler either. Your point?

Are you saying that richard dawkins has plans to exterminate the religious?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Are you saying that richard dawkins has plans to exterminate the religious?

If he didn't why is this piece of crap on his website?


The End of Religion - Jeff Schweitzer - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nope. Never met Hitler either. Your point?

Why does Hitler have to do with anything?

It was an honest question. If you've never met him than a simple (No) would have sufficed. So now that you've answered (Nope).....I'm satisfied.....

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why does Hitler have to do with anything?

It was an honest question. If you've never met him than a simple (No) would have sufficed. So now that you've answered (Nope).....I'm satisfied.....

I don't have have to meet an butthole to know that he is an butthole. His reputation and stink precede him.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If he didn't why is this piece of crap on his website?


The End of Religion - Jeff Schweitzer - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

Thanks. I just got threw reading it. What's wrong with it?