a moronic Richard Dawkins saying

[7djengo7]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, a Darwin cheerleader, wrote:

“Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything.”

<https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/605895-religion-is-not-the-root-of-all-evil-for-no>

Here, Dawkins, in one, swift ax-blow, has just chopped down the tree venerated by all Darwin cheerleaders, sending it crashing to the ground in one, loud descent:

 

[Bradley D]

Evolution is a theory.

How did a single cell evolve?

THE THREE MAIN COMPONENTS OF ANY PLANT OR ANIMAL CELL ARE:
PLASMA MEMBRANE/ CELL MEMBRANE. Structure- a bilipid membraneous layer composed of proteins and carbohydrates. ...
CYTOPLASM. ...
NUCLEUS. ...
1. " ...
RIBOSOMES. ...
GOLGI BODY / APPARATUS. ...
LYSOSOMES. ...
MITOCHONDRIA.

 

[andyc]

The title of this thread sums up Dawkins life so far..........

 

[Stuu]

The title of this thread sums up Dawkins life so far..........

Have you seen him reading aloud his hate mail on YouTube? The only time you will ever hear him use offensive language is when he is quoting the christians who tell him they hope he dies.

I think I've worked out who the morons are, and it's not Dawkins.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, a Darwin cheerleader, wrote:

“Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything.”

<https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/605895-religion-is-not-the-root-of-all-evil-for-no>

Here, Dawkins, in one, swift ax-blow, has just chopped down the tree venerated by all Darwin cheerleaders, sending it crashing to the ground in one, loud descent:

Tell us which of Dawkins's books you have read.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Tell us which of Dawkins's books you have read.

Stuart

OK. But first, tell us which of Louis L'amour's books you have read, since your answer to this request will be of no less relevance to what I have written in this thread than my answer to your request will be.

Now, what (if anything) do you have to say in a vein of specifically trying to criticize something I have written in this thread?? Why, you're not just begging for attention, are you?

So, then, Dawkins cheerleader, why not start trying to absolve him from the specific stupidity I have documented in this thread, from his book, The God Delusion. Otherwise, why, really, are you hangin' 'round here?

 

[Bradley D]

Darwin had a religion.

"a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

 

[7djengo7]

Have you seen him reading aloud his hate mail on YouTube? The only time you will ever hear him use offensive language is when he is quoting the christians who tell him they hope he dies.

I think I've worked out who the morons are, and it's not Dawkins.

Stuart

I suppose that, part and parcel with being a Dawkins cheerleader, you must try to squelch reason so that you can tell yourself that it is impossible for Dawkins to be a liar when he says he is quoting Christians. I'd sooner think that someone like you, yourself (one of Dawkins' fellow Christ-despisers), is the one sending him the "hate mail", and lying about his/her identity, so as to try to bring infamy against Christ. That's a sort of thing what clowns who call themselves "atheists" like to do. Not only are they not ashamed of doing so, but they are downright proud of themselves for lying by trying to get some people, sometimes, to think they are Christians. After all, you've got not a shred of a basis in your God-despising worldview from which to rationally think that such conduct is evil.

In this thread, I have a link to an article entitled, The Advantages of Pretending to be a Christian.

And, if any of the "hate mail" Dawkins reads (in which (he claims) he is told his death is hoped for by his correspondent) really happens to be from Christians, then such persons have, in so writing, sinned against God, and taken leave of Christian charity and ethics at least long enough to have written such. In other words, they have (at least temporarily--long enough to do such a thing, I suppose) left the Christian walk to partake in sin, thereby, to some extent, taking up the non-Christian, the anti-Christian walk--the Dawkins and co. walk.

Your anti-Christ worldview has no basis, whatsoever, for rationally condemning acts such as expressing an angry desire for so and so to die. You've got nothing but utilitarianism, which is pure irrationalism.

Why do you despise Christ?

 

[Stuu]

OK. But first, tell us which of Louis L'amour's books you have read, since your answer to this request will be of no less relevance to what I have written in this thread than my answer to your request will be.

Now, what (if anything) do you have to say in a vein of specifically trying to criticize something I have written in this thread?? Why, you're not just begging for attention, are you?

So, then, Dawkins cheerleader, why not start trying to absolve him from the specific stupidity I have documented in this thread, from his book, The God Delusion. Otherwise, why, really, are you hangin' 'round here?

Indeed, I can't see any point in hanging around you, as there is nothing I could tell you, right?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Why do you despise Christ?

It's a very good question. I think it is basically the absurdity of believing yet another ancient man walked again after dying and the immorality of compulsory love and scapegoating. I would rather own the responsibility for my actions; I don't want to have that taken away from me by Jesus, or anyone.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Indeed, I can't see any point in hanging around you, as there is nothing I could tell you, right?

Stuart

So far, you've told me nothing other than that you just want some attention--perhaps from someone whom you can try to rag on?--seeing as you have yet to even try to meaningfully interact with anything I've written in this thread. Should I really expect that you'll try to alter that state of affairs?

But, far be it from me to consider it a lamentable thing if you do decide to keep hanging around, so long as you actually try to meaningfully interact with I'm saying. I'll be be quite fine with trying to keep up something of a conversation with you, if you're game. I mean, why not?

 

[7djengo7]

Why do you despise Christ?

It's a very good question. I think it is basically the absurdity of believing yet another ancient man walked again after dying and the immorality of compulsory love and scapegoating. I would rather own the responsibility for my actions; I don't want to have that taken away from me by Jesus, or anyone.

Stuart

So, to your credit, you at least are not one of those clowns who like to say "Jesus never existed". Those folks know that Jesus exists, and they despise Him, and despise that He exists. That's part of what makes it so blatantly foolish for them to go about angrily chanting that Jesus doesn't exist. Are they trying to chant away the fact that He exists? I don't get it. Oh, and when you ask them why they despise Jesus, their retort is something like, "I don't hate Jesus!!! How can I hate somebody who does not even exist?" Kind of bizarre behavior, no?

But you know Jesus exists, and without saying that He does not exist, you admit that you despise Him. Interesting.

I'm not exactly clear as to what it is you're saying you don't want Jesus to take away from you.

 

[Stuu]

So, to your credit, you at least are not one of those clowns who like to say "Jesus never existed". Those folks know that Jesus exists, and they despise Him, and despise that He exists.

That would a strawman argument. If you would like to know what I believe about the existence of Jesus, you only have to ask.

That's part of what makes it so blatantly foolish for them to go about angrily chanting that Jesus doesn't exist. Are they trying to chant away the fact that He exists? I don't get it. Oh, and when you ask them why they despise Jesus, their retort is something like, "I don't hate Jesus!!! How can I hate somebody who does not even exist?" Kind of bizarre behavior, no?

Not nearly as bizarre as believing that a man was born without a biological father, or could walk on the surface of water, or who walked again after being executed by the Romans.

But you know Jesus exists, and without saying that He does not exist, you admit that you despise Him. Interesting.

No, actually it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus existed or not.

I'm not exactly clear as to what it is you're saying you don't want Jesus to take away from you.

Responsibility for my wrongdoing. No one can take that away from me. But having responsibility taken away from you is the central immoral idea of the hobby called christian. Being an inhabitant of the former British colonies, I find test cricket to be a much more wholesome hobby.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

That would a strawman argument.

If that's true, then you're made of straw, man.

If you would like to know what I believe about the existence of Jesus, you only have to ask.

You already told me that you know Jesus exists, by telling me that you despise Him. I asked you "Why do you despise Christ?", and you acknowledged that you despise Christ by replying, "It's a very good question..." You cannot despise that which you do not believe exists. For a person to be despised is for that person to exist. So, trying to hand me the "you only have to ask" shtick isn't going to be of any use.

Not nearly as bizarre as believing that a man was born without a biological father, or could walk on the surface of water, or who walked again after being executed by the Romans.

Since those things are true, why do you say that believing them is bizarre? Why would you say that it is bizarre to believe truth?

No, actually it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus existed or not.

But, you just got done telling me that you "don't want" Jesus to "take away" this or that from you:

"I don't want to have that taken away from me by Jesus"

So, this is what you're trying to hand me:

"I don't want to have that taken away from me by [someone in Whose existence I pretend to not believe]"

It "doesn't matter" to you that Jesus existed, but, despite your pretended nonchalance regarding that "little detail", it somehow does matter to you whether Jesus will "take away" whatever it is you imagine He will "take away", or not?

Responsibility for my wrongdoing. No one can take that away from me.

Well, don't worry! You will not hear me denying that you're a sinner, you sinner. But that's what you're all about: denying that you're a sinner, a wrongdoer against Christ.

But having responsibility taken away from you is the central immoral idea of the hobby called christian.

But, since you despise God, you don't have even the slightest shred of a moral basis for rationally saying that one thing is moral, and that another thing is immoral.

Try rationally laying out exactly why you, a despiser of God, would call one thing moral, and another thing immoral. I'm all ears.

Being an inhabitant of the former British colonies, I find test cricket to be a much more wholesome hobby.

In other words, you're a nihilist. All you mean by "wholesome", here, is "to my liking...for now, at least".

[Thank you, by the way, for responding.]

 

[The Horn]

Whether you agree with him or not, Richard Dawkins is no moron !

 

[JudgeRightly]

Whether you agree with him or not, Richard Dawkins is no moron !

Oh he's not?

https://youtu.be/-AQvWrX-mKg

Pretty moronic, if you ask me...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whether you agree with him or not, Richard Dawkins is no moron !

Where it comes to science then sure, he's not, but where it comes to his forays into theology and the like he's pretty cringe worthy to be honest.

 

[Idolater]

Where it comes to science then sure, he's not, but where it comes to his forays into theology and the like he's pretty cringe worthy to be honest.

Which is not unusual, and why would we expect a single science PhD to also be able to do philosophy? When PhD physicists or biologists weigh in on philosophical or political or even moral matters, they are a bridge too far, and their views in such matters have no more weight than yours or mine do.

 

[Stripe]

Which is not unusual, and why would we expect a single science PhD to also be able to do philosophy? When PhD physicists or biologists weigh in on philosophical or political or even moral matters, they are a bridge too far, and their views in such matters have no more weight than yours or mine do.

I can't get onboard with this. A man's ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence, not against the number or nature of his academic achievements.

Dawkins, for instance, should be laughed out of the room on every topic.

 

[Idolater]

I can't get onboard with this. A man's ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence, not against the number or nature of his academic achievements.

I don't think I disagree with that. I certainly agree that "ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence," but "academic achievements" are relevant to a logically valid appeal to authority, which is valid when an authentic authority in a field, teaches what the entire field of authentic authorities in his field uniformly teaches, when the matter concerns that same field.

There is no valid appeal to authority possible if the person you appeal to, isn't an authority in the field that the claim you're making appears. Dawkins, for instance, is not an authority in philosophy, so whatever he thinks or says concerning the field of philosophy, must stand on its own, because he himself is not an authority in philosophy, outside of his doctorate in the philosophy of biology.

Dawkins, for instance, should be laughed out of the room on every topic.

:chuckle: I would imagine that he's not an extremist when it comes to teaching what is found in typical introductory biology textbooks though, which probably contain what amounts to a canon of biology propositions that are uniformly taught by all PhD biologists.

But outside of his doctorate, for sure, his views have no more gravity than anybody else's, insofar as appealing to himself as an authority to argue his claims outside of biology, whether explicit or implicit.

For example the OP has him saying, declaring really, that no one thing is the root of anything, which is not a proposition of biology, but a proposition of philosophy, if it's a sensible proposition at all.

Other PhD scientists have weighed in on political matters, philosophical matters, theological and moral matters, like "Bill Nye" and "Carl Sagan" and "Neil deGrasse Tyson," and the combined weight of their views in these fields that are not their 'bread and butter,' is the same as any child's view on those matters, so far as them not possessing any teaching authority in these matters, but only in the fields in which they earned their doctorate.