Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-04-2010, 01:40 AM #1
Synaptic
antirevelation
 
Synaptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
To those of you who despise Richard Dawkins

you may enjoy this read (I've always thought he was an arrogant proselytizing *******, but goddamn it he's so hard to argue with. )

I think Dawkins almost met his match here .. read Richard Dawkins vs. David Quinn

http://www.zenit.org/article-17993?l=english
http://www.zenit.org/article-18004?l=english(part 2)



Quote:
Dawkins: Who says there is no free will if there is no God? That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Quinn: William Provine for one, whom you quote in your book. I have a quote here from him. Other scientists as well believe the same thing, that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes, entity, environment and chemical reactions, that there is no room for free will.

And Richard, if you haven't got to grips with that, you seriously need to, because many of your colleagues have, and they deny outright the existence of free will, and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Tubridy: OK, Richard Dawkins, your rebuke to that note if you wish.

Dawkins: I am not interested in free will...
lulz suddenly he isn't interested, how convenient.. read the entire debate though. wish it could've gone longer..
__________________
Reason obeys itself;
and ignorance submits to
whatever is dictated to it.

Last edited by Synaptic : 02-05-2010 at 04:46 PM.
Synaptic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-04-2010, 07:36 PM #2
Gold Leader (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beneath The Waves
I think that both of those gentlemen should start doing something productive with their lives.
Gold Leader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 08:29 PM #3
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
good find OP.

Dbag dawkins is entertaining on occasion.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 09:47 PM #4
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
He's a great scientist, not a philosopher. He needs someone to tell him that sometimes.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 10:20 PM #5
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
He's a great scientist, not a philosopher. He needs someone to tell him that sometimes.
you think people haven't? You can only argue with a religious zealot for so long...
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010, 02:40 PM #6
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
zealot yes.... great scientist... I have my doubts.

a great scientist publishes articles in peer reviewed journals.

I am sure that dawkins has done this.... but clearly his focus has been outside his realm of expertise.

dawkins is a Dbaggier version of chomsky.

both decided to get degrees, then focus their carreers on subjects that they have a laymans knowlege of in search for fame or simply to persue their political/religious campaigns.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 01:46 AM #7
Crede777
Resident Agnostic
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Crede777 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Wrong, Dawkins focused his career on genetics and evolution. He taught/teaches at Oxford in this field. His fascination with religion came after his career had become firmly established. It's a side project for him that NOW takes up most of his time. However, it's not his career. His career is still in genetics, evolution, and teaching at Universities. He has written numerous scientific articles and works which have nothing to do with religion.

I think he doesn't do the science field much justice when he comments on religion, though, as many people see him and think that all scientists or evolutionary theorists are like him.

It seems to me that, if one assumes that everything has a cause, then we may assume our actions have causes. If our actions are caused by external factors (as opposed to consciously internal directives), then our free-will may come into question.
__________________
"We Fight! "We March!"
ST: P Conspiracy - It's what's for dinner
ST:R/P I ain't come from no fish!
Derr: Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.
XBL = On3ManRi0t

Breakout Photos

Last edited by Crede777 : 02-07-2010 at 01:53 AM.
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 03:26 AM #8
Gold Leader (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beneath The Waves
I broke the dam.
Gold Leader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 01:09 AM #9
VanishPaintball
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
 has been a member for 10 years
VanishPaintball owns a Planet Eclipse Etek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
Wrong, Dawkins focused his career on genetics and evolution. He taught/teaches at Oxford in this field. His fascination with religion came after his career had become firmly established. It's a side project for him that NOW takes up most of his time. However, it's not his career. His career is still in genetics, evolution, and teaching at Universities. He has written numerous scientific articles and works which have nothing to do with religion.

I think he doesn't do the science field much justice when he comments on religion, though, as many people see him and think that all scientists or evolutionary theorists are like him.

It seems to me that, if one assumes that everything has a cause, then we may assume our actions have causes. If our actions are caused by external factors (as opposed to consciously internal directives), then our free-will may come into question.
This.

He's a biologist who has strong feelings about religion. People happen to respond to his expression of those feelings about religion. In our media-drunk culture, that makes him famous. If people, on the whole, were half as interested in his scientific work (and the scientific work of countless other scientists), we might not have so many debates about magical men in he sky.

Controversy sells.
VanishPaintball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:25 PM #10
Spock
Live Long and Bluster
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE PA
Spock is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
I read the whole debate, and I think Dawkins handed the guy his ***. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

The other guy's entire argument is a non-sequitur. "Matter exists, therefore God exists. There has to be an uncaused first cause."

What if Matter is the uncaused first cause?
__________________
"Once I make someone die, and they see me....they can't change their mind." -- God

Originally posted by matt00iconoclast:
"there are variables outside of physics that will affect the flight of the ball"

Last edited by Spock : 02-23-2010 at 07:27 PM.
Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 09:37 PM #11
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
well I didn't read any of it, but if the quote in the OP is part of it, that would definitely be at least one thing you're wrong about Spock.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010, 11:34 AM #12
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Dawkins just gets aggrivated with people who believe in silly crap with no proof. Like or dislike him, he's hard to argue with I agree. He's logical.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 04:22 PM #13
Spock
Live Long and Bluster
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE PA
Spock is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
well I didn't read any of it, but if the quote in the OP is part of it, that would definitely be at least one thing you're wrong about Spock.
There is a substantial portion of the conversation left out. And even the elipsis in that quote leaves out what I would consider to be a very important qualification to the Dawkins' statement, one I agree with wholeheartedly.

Here's the full exchange:


Quinn: OK, what part of us allows us to have free will?

Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question, and it is not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says.

Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion, because if there is no God, there is no free will, because we are completely phenomena.

Quinn: William Provine for one, whom you quote in your book. I have a quote here from him. Other scientists as well believe the same thing, that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes, entity, environment and chemical reactions, that there is no room for free will.

And Richard, if you haven't got to grips with that, you seriously need to, because many of your colleagues have, and they deny outright the existence of free will, and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Tubridy: OK, Richard Dawkins, your rebuke to that note if you wish.

Dawkins: I am not interested in free will. What I am interested in is the ridiculous suggestion that if science can't say where the origin of matter comes from, theology can.

The origin of matter is a very -- the origin of the whole universe -- is a very, very difficult question. It's one that scientists are working on, it's one that they hope, eventually, to solve.

Just as before Darwin, biology was a mystery, Darwin solved that; now cosmology is a mystery. The origin of the universe is a mystery, it's a mystery to everyone. Physicists are working on it, they have theories, but if science can't answer that question, then it's sure as hell theology can't either.

Quinn: Forgive me if I can come in here. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself, Where does matter come from? And it is perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer: God created matter.

Dawkins: It is not reasonable.
__________________
"Once I make someone die, and they see me....they can't change their mind." -- God

Originally posted by matt00iconoclast:
"there are variables outside of physics that will affect the flight of the ball"

Last edited by Spock : 02-25-2010 at 04:24 PM.
Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2010, 01:55 AM #14
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
dawkis is a genius.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2010, 05:02 AM #15
VanishPaintball
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
 has been a member for 10 years
VanishPaintball owns a Planet Eclipse Etek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
There is a substantial portion of the conversation left out. And even the elipsis in that quote leaves out what I would consider to be a very important qualification to the Dawkins' statement, one I agree with wholeheartedly.
Ahh, the power of the ellipsis. Here's a quote straight from Genesis:

"In the beginning... there was... no... God...."

I can use ellipses, too!
VanishPaintball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2010, 11:32 AM #16
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
There is a substantial portion of the conversation left out. And even the elipsis in that quote leaves out what I would consider to be a very important qualification to the Dawkins' statement, one I agree with wholeheartedly.

Here's the full exchange:
well then my statement stands because what is quoted in the OP isn't really part of it. His qualification is incredibly important.

I really hate how people on both sides of this debate(which i don't understand what the debate is, exactly, but that's another issue) do stuff like what is quoted in the OP. If an argument can't stand on its own merits, misquoting to make it seem like it did is the worst possible thing. This isn't the 1830s, you aren't going to get away with it and it makes you look worse than just losing a debate would have in the first place. If you don't like Dawkins, find valid reasons for why not, don't misquote him.

edit: I would say tho that saying something like "Biology was a mystery, Darwin solved that" is...well, I think that's dumb and where I would have said something, but that's a side point.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2010, 06:42 PM #17
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
If you don't like Dawkins, find valid reasons for why not, don't misquote him.
no I will not attempt to convince others on the internet that my opinion is correct.
holding unsubstantiated opinions is human nature.

and dawkins is a registered sex offender.

are you saying you APPROVE of sexual predation on children?




......nailed it.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 10:05 AM #18
Sacred6
 
 
Sacred6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Spring, Texas htown baby
Sacred6 owns a Planet Eclipse Etek
Sacred6 supports Team VICIOUS
I think Richard is a great man despite what I believe. He has done much to advance science in the world and I have watched his videos and they fascinate me. I like him much more than Christopher Hitchens or any other Atheist.
Sacred6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 11:22 AM #19
Crede777
Resident Agnostic
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Crede777 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacred6 View Post
I think Richard is a great man despite what I believe. He has done much to advance science in the world and I have watched his videos and they fascinate me. I like him much more than Christopher Hitchens or any other Atheist.
Do you think he takes a rational approach to the matter of religion's role in society?

I ask this, despite enjoying Dawkins's works, because it seems to be the major undoing of his. He advocates rationality but starts most of his arguments from a given (often irrational) platform. This is especially true if you jump into his later works without reading his previous writings.
__________________
"We Fight! "We March!"
ST: P Conspiracy - It's what's for dinner
ST:R/P I ain't come from no fish!
Derr: Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.
XBL = On3ManRi0t

Breakout Photos
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump