/sci/ - Science & Math

Religion. Go.

/sci/'s opinion of Richard Dawkins?

/sci/ you jelly that this was made by god and not.... evolution... hahah i can't even say it with a straight face... evolution.... hahahahahhahahahahahaha

hey gaiz!

GOD DOESNT REAL. HURR DERR!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioZf4TjoUI
Pretty much the best science video/song I've ever seen. A real consciousness raiser.
I guess science/religion general.
What are your thoughts?

ok /sci/, if you had to pick one person to represent the spirit of this board who would it be? I think it would be richard dawkins. He's rude, doesnt take shit, loves telling people they are wrong, and is as strong an athiest as there ever was.

Plus It was ridiculously cool when he quoted an editor from new science magazine, saying "science is interesting. If you don't agree, you can fuck off."

How to quantify morals scientifically? The co-relation here between atheists and morals:
http://www.helium.com/items/2041349-atheists-and-morals

Oh and hopefully everyone here is an atheist with a clear absense of redneck God-fearing mongrels.

You are now aware that Richard Dawkins was molested by an Anglican priest while he was serving as an altar boy, which explains why he's so butthurt at religion.

"...so I followed her into the woman's bathroom, where I then proceeded to sit on the sink and let her perform fellatio on me"

-Richard Dawkins 1994

Goodnight sweet prince ;_;

>Study evolution

>Have all work eclipsed by militant atheism

Dawkins is an ego-driven, tactless, intolerant, vainglorious old bastard.

He has all the mannerisms of a sore winner, he's is almost continuously gloating and he has absolutely no sense of finesse or dignity, for himself or his beliefs.

He is a scorned weasel has dedicated his life solely to rubbing other peoples face in their own shit, he's ironic in the way he goes about his 'work' in that he's basically an ignorant preacher who denounces a faith of ignorant preaching.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with all of his core beliefs, but the way he goes about belittling and condemning peoples faith makes him a narrow-minded disgrace to the scientific world.

Sagan relied only upon the beauty and wonder of the cosmos to get people thinking, Dawkins relies on blowing his own trumpet to get people to buy his books.

/rant

What do you think of Richard Dawkins?

Is he your queen, sci?

dawkinsbump

Let me lay down some facts:

1. With his gene centric view of evolution he contributed a lot to science

2. Like Sagan, but especially in the UK, he has done a lot to popularize science and especially evolution.

3. His aggressive stance on atheism is justified, ignorance is not something that should go unchallenged.

4. He is right to say that people who believe in god and the bible stories are stupid, there is no evidence to support the theory that it happened that way.

5. He is right to assume there is no god, logically speaking religion is a negative, that is to say that it is saying something has happened as opposed to the other theories that have evidence.

6. He is also right to say that evolution is a fact, we have fossil records, we have the human genome project that means we don't even need a fossil record to prove evolution, we don't have all records of all animals in their various stages of evolution but we have enough. To say that we don’t have a fossil of each stage in an animal’s evolution and therefor e evolution is wrong, is akin to saying that because we don’t know the names of everyone who fought at Waterloo the battle didn’t happen.

It is true that anyone who adheres to the principles of science must, in fact, be technically agnostic about the existence of god since we philosophically understand that we cannot prove a negative. However, science is not a method of understanding the world through absolutes, as we only create PREDICTIONS based on current data, data which is always subject to change and revisions. In other words, we never know anything with 100% certainty since we cannot know what will happen in the future.

With this in mind, based on the data that currently exists, there is no reason to believe in god because there is no evidence that would point to a god's existence. Theology isn't much more than a complicated system of talking about the scriptures and interpreting them to bend "god's" rules. 0 evidence = very, very low probability.

Also, not every scientist should be completely agnostic. Richard Dawkin's 1-7 scale should most likely be employed when it comes to deciding what your atheistic/agnostic leanings are. 1(there is definitely a god), 2 (there is most likely a god), 3(slightly higher than 50% chance that there is a god), 4(complete agnostic), 5 (slightly lower than 50% chance that there is no god), 6 (there is most likely no god), 7(definitely no god).

Any real scientist who believes in statistical reliability and making decisions based on practical data should be a 6, which reaffirms the unlikelihood of a god existing, but still adheres to the rules of science and making predictions (avoiding the fallacy of being a 7).

Pic related, is this years judge.

Dawkins would kill every Christian on our planet if he could, and you know it.