Richard Dawkins - Writers Forum

Dabnorfish · 08-13-2007, 03:31 PM

Is anyone else watching the Enemies of Reason at the moment? If not, you should. Basically Richard Dawkins is debunking spiritualists, astrologers and psychics.

Hodge · 08-13-2007, 04:32 PM

Is he? From what I've heard he's a pompous windbag, but then, I've only heard that from religious folk, and all I know about him is what I saw on South Park...

lin · 08-13-2007, 04:40 PM

He's not "debunking" any such thing. There is no objective proof available in such matters, so they can't be "disproven".

Dawkins is basically a fundamentalist ranter from the other side of the coin, totally convinced of his own subjective reality and trying to lay it on others.

Dabnorfish · 08-13-2007, 04:48 PM

During the programme he showed the danger with people who purport to contact with the dead, and the influence they can have on people desperate to contact lost loved ones. There's no denying that he can be somewhat evangelical, however.

Hodge · 08-13-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

He's not "debunking" any such thing. There is no objective proof available in such matters, so they can't be "disproven".

Dawkins is basically a fundamentalist ranter from the other side of the coin, totally convinced of his own subjective reality and trying to lay it on others.

And there's no objective proof that suggests such matters should be taken seriously at all.

Fanatical skepticism is a safer bet than fanatical belief. At least the skeptic won't be manipulated into believing in things that aren't there or in rituals that have no purpose or in acts that have no grounding in reality.

Dabnorfish · 08-13-2007, 05:00 PM

I have to say, I'm firmly in the agnostic camp. I went through a period where I was suddenly absolutely aware of my own mortality (it was a shift from knowing I was going to die to knowing I was going to die). This lead me to thinking long and hard about my beliefs. The whole idea of belief without evidence, however, sways me slightly towards the atheistic side of things.

Non Serviam · 08-13-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

Dawkins is basically a fundamentalist ranter from the other side of the coin, totally convinced of his own subjective reality and trying to lay it on others.

Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist, evangelical materialist, atheist and humanist. He's openly scornful about the concepts of spirituality and, particularly, faith.

That's perfectly understandable imo, since he's a scientist. It's his job to refuse to believe things without evidence. Where he sees a hypothesis without evidence, he debunks it.

Considering we live in a world where, I'm reliably told, 3.7 million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens at some point, I'm of the view that the world needs more Richard Dawkins-types to demand evidence and proof before they believe what they hear...

Mind you, I'm pretty sympathetic to Dawkins. I'll confess to a personal bias against spiritualists, astrologers, psychics, priests, and all our other latter-day shamans -- they simply get on my nerves.

Hodge · 08-13-2007, 05:36 PM

Kind of funny, actually. Some dares to say god is false and they get slammed and called names.

Dare to say people aren't abducted by aliens or that witches don't exist? Why, you're just a reasonable individual!

Non Serviam · 08-13-2007, 05:39 PM

Witches and alien abductees aren't a block vote. Which is why they're scorned and don't get tax breaks like the other faiths.

Hodge · 08-13-2007, 05:44 PM

Hey now, the alien abduction phenomenon certainly has more evidence than religious stuff, even if many abduction cases can be explained by sleep paralysis and false memory implantation.

Dabnorfish · 08-13-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Serviam

Witches and alien abductees aren't a block vote. Which is why they're scorned and don't get tax breaks like the other faiths.

Imagine how messed up it would be if a religion baseed on extra-terrestrial life forms had tax breaks. Oh, and celebrity endorsement...

Hodge · 08-13-2007, 06:00 PM

Jason Lee is a scientologist.

He broke my heart.

Drzava · 08-13-2007, 06:06 PM

It could be argued a skeptic could be just as easily manipulated if the majority suddenly changed their opinions...

Hodge · 08-13-2007, 06:54 PM

Can one be manipulated into accepting what has been evidenced and proven?

Dabnorfish · 08-13-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drzava

It could be argued a skeptic could be just as easily manipulated if the majority suddenly changed their opinions...

Only an easily led skeptic. Otherwise it would take empyrical evidence.