Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

It seems like an ad hominem and a red herring and a baby. But I congratulate you on your apparent list of popular scientists based on your criteria.

Called it what you will, it's the truth. Those aren't popular scientists, those are scientists that made significant changes to our quality of life through discoveries and inventions.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Dawkins is what I would call a popular scientist, that is his greatest achievements have been in writing science publications. He hasn't invented or discovered anything more than opening a cupboard to see what's inside.

He can't possibly be compared to the likes of Newton, Tesla, Galileo, Pasteur... etc...

It seems like an ad hominem and a red herring and a baby. But I congratulate you on your apparent list of popular scientists based on your criteria.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

This argument did start with Dawkins and O'Reilly, right? Dawkins position is characterized by what constitutes knowledge and the pursuit thereof through logic, reason and the scientific method. And as I said it is no more ideological than you opening a cupboard to see what's inside.

Dawkins is what I would call a popular scientist, that is his greatest achievements have been in writing science publications. He hasn't invented or discovered anything more than opening a cupboard to see what's inside.

He can't possibly be compared to the likes of Newton, Tesla, Galileo, Pasteur... etc...

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

What does science or the pursuit of knowledge have to do with theism or atheism?

This argument did start with Dawkins and O'Reilly, right? Dawkins position is characterized by what constitutes knowledge and the pursuit thereof through logic, reason and the scientific method. And as I said it is no more ideological than you opening a cupboard to see what's inside.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Sorry but atheism doesn't depend on institutions. As for leading to other branches of thought, well, that is just vague and meaningless. I'm not really convinced that you have a point anymore. There is no dogma in the position held by Dawkins or those who agree with him. Period. Knowledge or the pursuit thereof are no more ideological than you opening a cupboard to see what's inside. This is similar to the "science is a belief" argument which is also tiresome and ridiculous.

What does science or the pursuit of knowledge have to do with theism or atheism?

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Hubris is what people call pride before the fall. It is what has occurred before the fall of every empire in history.

I know what hubris is and it is quite obvious from my response. But thanks for your concern.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

You're right, I wouldn't waste hard earned money going to a liberal arts school. Ideology is a system of thought that is imposed on other people through an organization. Atheism leads to other branches of thought just the same as theism. They are equal but opposite.

Sorry but atheism doesn't depend on institutions. As for leading to other branches of thought, well, that is just vague and meaningless. I'm not really convinced that you have a point anymore. There is no dogma in the position held by Dawkins or those who agree with him. Period. Knowledge or the pursuit thereof are no more ideological than you opening a cupboard to see what's inside. This is similar to the "science is a belief" argument which is also tiresome and ridiculous.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Mr. Dinesh D'Souza is ignorant and a slave to rhetoric. In addition to there being no ideology to speak of, there is also no hubris.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../cortesi1.html

Hubris is what people call pride before the fall. It is what has occurred before the fall of every empire in history.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

I'm sorry that would establish such a precedent that any disagreement would be an ideology. For example, if someone were to start a cult based around Johnny Depp actually being a female tarantula and I were to disagree and point out that no such evidence exists, I would be as bound to an ideology as the person starting the cult. As a matter of fact, if one extends that train of thought, it would in fact assert that the acceptance or rejection of anything is an ideology, making the term practically meaningless. That's quite absurd. I don't think you understand epistemology.

You're right, I wouldn't waste hard earned money going to a liberal arts school. Ideology is a system of thought that is imposed on other people through an organization. Atheism leads to other branches of thought just the same as theism. They are equal but opposite.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Dinesh D'Souza, eloquently expresses similar
concerns in the following quote:

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a
hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of
values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man
seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of
course if some people - the J-ews, the landowners, the unfit, or the
handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this
utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists
have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the
truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is
permitted.

Mr. Dinesh D'Souza is ignorant and a slave to rhetoric. In addition to there being no ideology to speak of, there is also no hubris. Humans didn't consciously collaborate and concoct rules to elevate themselves to the level of a god. Morality was instilled in humans as a result of evolution in the same manner that wolf packs operate by rules. It is necessary for society which has developed as a way to insure the survival of species. One cannot seek to displace something he doesn't believe ever had an influence. This man obviously does not understand the issues.

It is obvious with his treatment of Dostoevsky that he also doesn't understand what research is:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi1.html