/sci/ - Science & Math

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Work

NOW YOU KNOW

Yes.

He entertains our weary minds by agitating the religious.

>>1893216
>inb4 he converts on his death bed

The moment it occured it to him he'll never be a famous biologist, he decided to be a famous athiest instead.

>>1893258
Honestly was he molested by a priest or something? I thought intelligent people were above caring about that shit.

>>1893267
Religion is without a doubt bad for humanity. Trying to end the bullshit is akin to other humanitarian efforts like preventing global warming. It's saving retards from themselves. A very noble pursuit for an intellectual.

>>1893278
>implying the idea that people should be good is bad for humanity.
you are bad for humanity.

>>1893278
You're right.

DAWKINS COINED the term "MEME"???

>mfw i have no reaction image that portrays what i feel

Why are people so butthurt by this guy? If you don't like him, he's a lot easier to ignore than the money-grubbing preachers all over American airwaves, and the nutjob Jehovah's Witnesses that come right up to your door. Dawkins is really pretty innocuous by comparison to organized religion's brainwashed minions.

No, even most of his scientific articles are about him complaining of religion. And he has not published anything since 2004.

He is worth jack shit as a scientist, and most people will tell you that his understanding of evolution is pretty sloppy for someone with a degree in biology.

>>1893292
So he may have helped in shitting up the internet?

>>1893292
Yes, he did.

He also popularized the genetic perspective of evolution, and the idea of the "extended phenotype" of a gene.

He's a good scientists. Get over yourself, christfaggot.

>>1893284
>imply that religion is about being good

wtf am i reading?

>>1893323
>implying a pop-sci author is a good scientist

He has achieved more than you critics ever will. How does that feel?

Atheism is not a faith. It is a lack of faith. Not having faith is not faith. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not the Big Bang theory and it is not the theory of Evolution. Science is not a religion, it is a method for discovering new knowledge. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not believing in Santa Claus is also a religion. There is no purpose for our existence, only causes. Morality is independant of religion. Actions done under the belief that punishment awaits are impure. "Good and "bad" are only human perceptions. Religion is the epitome of ignorance, it is a deadly ignorance. It is an abomination and an insult to reason. It is a political tool to control large populations. It is a security blanket for those that fear death. It is a cheap answer to questions that science cannot at this time explain. It is the result of a lack of information. Religion is holding back mankind from it's potential.

>>1893343
The Olsen Twins have achieved even more than he ever will, and just by slutting it up.

How does that feel?

>>1893343
It feels like this. Hence all the senseless moaning and bitching from brainwashed monkeys.

>>1893350
That sounds very much like a mantra or prayer. Congrats on proving your point.

>>1893353
Ok let me rephrase it. Richard Dawkins has achieved more in the field of science than you critics ever will. And since this is SCI, I would presume that people value scientific achievement over wealth.

>>1893357
this
Some Athiest spend so much time ranting about how they dont believe in god they just start to look like "scientific priests" themselves

God you faggots are butthurt. Yes I am aware that popularising science is not research or "real science" but if it inspires kids to go to college and become scientists then it's fucking useful.

Elitist assholes.

>>1893359
His only contributions to science have been shitty pop-science books and helping bring down the hatred of religious people upon scientists.

I'd hardy call that an achievement. He is only good at attention whoring.

>>1893370
>and helping bring down the hatred of religious people upon scientists.
Uhhh...

>>1893366
oh yeah, i'm going to make kids do something they don't want to do!!! yay! i'm so cool, give me an award

>>1893370
It's more than you will ever amount to.

>>1893376
see
>but if it inspires kids to go to college and become scientists

>>1893376
3/10
Learn what "inspire" means.

>>1893366
>God you faggots are butthurt
>God
the irony is palpable

>>1893379
oh yeah, so inspiring seeing a guy bash on religious people. i want to be exactly like him.

>>1893384
He started off just writing pop sci books explaining evolution, and got pissed off at the religious hate towards him, and began to play their game.

>>1893366
>Elitist assholes.
>get called an elitist asshole for calling out an elitist asshole

Makes perfect sense!

>>1893383

Can't fault people for using the vernacular. It's just how the language has evolved.

HE INVENTED THE WORD MEME YOU FUCKS READ THE SELFISH GENE

Richard Dawkins has :

- Published 33 academic papers.
- 16 popular articles
- written (or participated in writing) 11 books. ( of which about 3 are 'sciency' )

Saying he has contributed nothing to science is ridiculous.
Also ; he may be preachy, but I've yet to see one person actually logically refute any of the points he makes in "The God Delusion".

>>1893441
>- Published 33 academic papers.

Let's give some titles as well, shall we?

>Religion and Science
>The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue
>Should doctors be Darwinian?
>Is a scientific boycott ever justified?

All very scientific, right? He hasn't published anything of any scientific importance since the early 90s.

>>1893396
Yes I can, why shoouldn't I?

Well, I suppose the mid-nineties would be around the time when he started getting more verbal about atheism, and it preoccupied his mind.

I completely agree that his publications since dedicating his life to atheism aren't really to be considered "science". But that still leaves a good 25 + publications examining evolution and its different mechanisms while he was just an evolutionary biologist trotting along like the rest of us.
So saying he hasn't contributed to science is just dumb. He may not be an Einstein or Darwin, but he has contributed as could be expected by a professor in his position.
Experiments, studies, analyzing, writing, publishing.

>>1893484
>around the time when he started getting more verbal about atheism, and it preoccupied his mind

Had he done that because of religion, what would you call him?

>>1893492

I think he did do it because of religion.
I think Richard Dawkins very verbal atheism probably came as a result of the increasingly drawn lines and confrontations between the religious communities and secular institutions of law.
He probably felt he needed to stand up for what he believed in.

And if he had stood up to speak out for what he believed in on behalf of a religion, I would have called him religious.