A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins

[Noking]

Ignored. You're obviously too stupid to understand that any mischaracterization of someone else's position is dishonest. I did explain fully why you did so.


Did I write "For example ..."? Wait, you don't know what that means, do you? You need me to teach you. Fine. How much do you think I'll need to dumb it down for you?


Why did you insert the word "basically"? You can't write "... and eliminates the need for a designer."

Dawkins himself doesn't believe there is a designer, but he does not claim that science proves this. You mischaracterize his position.

You sound like a compulsive bitcher.

 

[Cypress]

Ignored. You're obviously too stupid to understand that any mischaracterization of someone else's position is dishonest. I did explain fully why you did so.


Did I write "For example ..."? Wait, you don't know what that means, do you? You need me to teach you. Fine. How much do you think I'll need to dumb it down for you?


Why did you insert the word "basically"? You can't write "... and eliminates the need for a designer."

Dawkins himself doesn't believe there is a designer, but he does not claim that science proves this. You mischaracterize his position.

You made it a point first to insinuate my post was chock full of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations. But then all you could come up with was a complaint that one single bullet point from my OP was lacking a little "nuance", lol

​

 

[Cypress]

Richard Dawkins almost certainly had to take chemistry as part of his B.A. in Zoology at Balliol College, given its foundational role in biological sciences and Oxford’s Prelims structure. He likely also took physics,

I intentionally and specifically said he did not have expert training and expert education in biochemistry, physics, cosmology.

I took some chemistry and calculus classes in college, but that does not make me a subject matter expert in mathematics and chemistry.

Zoology is the study of animal behavior. It is not not a top tier fundamental science. Jane Austin may have been highly qualified to talk about chimpanzee societies and behaviors. But she didn't have the chops in the core physical and biological science to authoritatively pontificate about life, the universe, and everything.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I intentionally and specifically said he did not have expert training and expert education in biochemistry, physics, cosmology.

I took some chemistry and calculus classes in college, but that does not make me a subject matter expert in mathematics and chemistry.

Zoology is the study of animal behavior. It is not not a top tier fundamental science. Jane Austin may have been highly qualified to talk about chimpanzee societies and behaviors. But she didn't have the chops in the core physical and biological science to authoritatively pontificate about life, the universe, and everything.

Meanwhile, most MAGAts took Drinking 105 and Rape 101 then dropped out of college to work in the "Maintenance Engineering" profession for their daddy.

 

[Cypress]

Meanwhile, most MAGAts took Drinking 105 and Rape 101 then dropped out of college to work in the "Maintenance Engineering" profession for their daddy.

Good point.
I always thought sanitation engineer sounded better than garbage man!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point.
I always thought sanitation engineer sounded better than garbage man!

Agreed! Another fine profession filled with MAGAts, pedos, ex-cons, drunks and the like who are afraid of losing their jobs to illegals who can do it better.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Concise summary of "Outgrowing God", Richard Dawkins2019​

Humans have invented thousands of gods.

The Old Testament is just myths, violence, retribution.

The New Testament is utterly unreliable because the books were written decades or centuries after Jesus' ministry.

Some scholars are skeptical Jesus ever actually existed.

The only sources confirming the historical Jesus outside the canon were Josephus and Tacitus, and Josephus was probably forged by Christians.

The game of telephone proves you can't have reliable transmission of information through multiple generations of people.

Paul barely ever mentions Jesus.

Evolution explains the intricate complexity of life.

Science basically proves there can't be a designer.

Basically all knowledge and truth comes from science.

you still don't understand the importance of morality.

you basically worship Satan and are stupid.

 

[anonymoose]

I took some chemistry and calculus classes in college, but that does not make me a subject matter expert in mathematics and chemistry.

Zoology is the study of animal behavior.

That’s just one of several branches of zoology.
I got a B.S. in zoology and not one of my classes had anything to do with animal behavior.

It is not a top tier fundamental science.

In addition to the chemistry, math and physics I had physiology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, microbiology, histology, biochemistry, genetics, and embryology.
If you don’t consider those “top tier fundamental” what do you?

Jane Austin may have been highly qualified to talk about chimpanzee societies and behaviors. But she didn't have the chops in the core physical and biological science to authoritatively pontificate about life, the universe, and everything.

We were talking about Dawkins

I think Dawkins is under-equiped to be a leading atheist spokesperson for science.

He’s an evolutionist. He’s got a PhD FFS! He’s also published books on genetics and DNA.
9 of his books are science focused!

He's just a zoologist.

Who has published 17 major books. What would “qualify” a person to be a leading atheist spokesperson for science? And who would that be, e.g.? Oh wait, YOU? Of course. You’re The Most Interesting Man On The Internet.

He doesn't have any expert training or education in the fundamental physical and biological sciences. He doesn't understand physics and cosmology, and he doesn't seem to have any formal education in cellular biology and biochemistry.

Now you are absolutely talking out of your ass. I hate to use an ad hom but good god you really show your ignorance!
If you bothered to read synopses of his books it does indeed SEEM he has a very good formal education in cellular biology and biochemistry. That in addition to his degrees.

Those are the core scientific disciplines that allow one to speak authoritatively about life,

Cosmology and physics are needed to speak authoritatively about LIFE??!?

the universe, and everything.

And… everything??!?!?
Are you OK ?!!?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Much of the above is a mischaracterization of Dawkins' position.

cypress fancies himself a gatekeeper of knowledge, but he's just a criminal hack trying to rid humanity of morality so he can feel good about his own evil.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

I intentionally and specifically said he did not have expert training and expert education in biochemistry, physics, cosmology.

I took some chemistry and calculus classes in college, but that does not make me a subject matter expert in mathematics and chemistry.

Zoology is the study of animal behavior. It is not not a top tier fundamental science. Jane Austin may have been highly qualified to talk about chimpanzee societies and behaviors. But she didn't have the chops in the core physical and biological science to authoritatively pontificate about life, the universe, and everything.

science doesn't actually inform religion in any meaningful way.

 

[EdwinA]

Dawkins is a loon, and more like a cult leader wannabee than any crooked evangelist on TV. I used to be a member at his forum, before he went nutjob on everybody and started banning anybody who disagreed with his loony inability to logically debate anything,

 

[Cypress]

That’s just one of several branches of zoology.
I got a B.S. in zoology and not one of my classes had anything to do with animal behavior.

Dawkins PhD in zoology specifically addressed animal behavior.

Thesis of Richard Dawkins:
Selective pecking in the domestic chick (1967)

Doctoral advisor - Nikolaas Tinbergen

Cosmology and physics are needed to speak authoritatively about LIFE??!?

And… everything??!?!?

Why did selectively only pick part of what I wrote? I mentioned that the core physical and biological sciences, like physics, cellular biology, cosmology, biochemistry are the hard sciences that give one authority to address life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

Yes, physics is very applicable to the life sciences. There is an entire discipline called biophysics. Eyesight depends to an extent on quantum physics.

 

[Cypress]

science doesn't actually inform religion in any meaningful way.

The order, design, and lawful organization of the cosmos is often taken to imply a law giver, whether you agree with it or not, it is a logical inference.

 

[anonymoose]

Why did selectively only pick part of what I wrote?

Because it wasn’t all wrong. Even a broken clock…
Why didn’t you attempt to answer this…
What would “qualify” a person to be a leading atheist spokesperson for science? And who would that be, e.g.?

I mentioned that the core physical and biological sciences, like physics, cellular biology, cosmology, biochemistry are the hard sciences that give one authority to address life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

Because you say so? Because Dawkins doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards seeing that you are THE sole authority ?

Yes, physics is very applicable to the biological sciences.

So is mathematics.

There is an entire discipline called biophysics.

I know. What are you saying. One has to be a biophysicist to be a leading atheist
spokesperson for science?
So if you don’t consider physiology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, microbiology, histology, biochemistry, genetics, and embryology. “top tier fundamental” science , what do you?

 

[Cypress]

What would “qualify” a person to be a leading atheist spokesperson for science? And who would that be, e.g.?

I like Sean Sean Carroll as an atheist spokesperson for the scientific perspective. He is an acknowledged expert on theoretical physics, cosmology, and natural philosophy. That's an excellent background to discuss the really deep questions.

Because you say so? Because Dawkins doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards seeing that you are THE sole authority ?

Studying the way baby chickens peck their food does not elevate him for me to the standard of a scientific expert with the authority to address questions about life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

I know.

I don't think so. It doesn't seem you do.
You practically laughed at me for saying a background in the core physical and biological sciences would be an excellent qualification to discuss life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

You practically chuckled at the thought that physics has anything to do with the life sciences.

 

[IBDaMann]

You sound like a compulsive bitcher.

I was thinking the same about you; all you've done is bitch and whine.

 

[Noking]

I was thinking the same about you; all you've done is bitch and whine.

I'm truly sorry about that.

 

[IBDaMann]

What would “qualify” a person to be a leading atheist spokesperson for science? And who would that be, e.g.?


Because you say so? Because Dawkins doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards seeing that you are THE sole authority ?

Cypress has an agenda, i.e. show "atheism" is wrong.

Step 1. Select a "leading atheist spokesperson"
Step 2. Mischaracterize his position
Step 3. Show that he is mistaken

 

[anonymoose]

I like Sean Sean Carroll as an atheist spokesperson for the scientific perspective. He is an acknowledged expert on theoretical physics, cosmology, and natural philosophy. That's an excellent background to discuss the really deep questions.

I don’t know him but I’m sure he’s interesting.
I’d say Dawkins discusses atheism more from a biological perspective

Studying the way baby chickens peck their food does not elevate him for me to the standard of a scientific expert with the authority to address questions about life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

And you actually believe that’s the depth of his arguments?
That just confirms to me how shallow YOU are.

I don't think so. It doesn't seem you do.

Sure. And you don’t consider physiology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, microbiology, histology, biochemistry, genetics, and embryology “top tier fundamental” science based on your refusal to acknowledge that.

You practically laughed at me for saying a background in the core physical and biological sciences would be an excellent qualification to discuss life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

I ACTUALLY laugh at how shallow you are when you don’t even consider physiology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, microbiology, histology, biochemistry, genetics, and embryology “top tier fundamental” science .

You practically chuckled at the thought that physics has anything to do with the life sciences.

How so? I chuckle at your pretentiousness.