Old Dickie Dawkins at it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html

Old Dickie Dawkins at it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html

A Daily Mail story about a twitter argument.

I think Dally is a loony attention seeker.

What did he say what was untrue?

Quote ="Dally"Old Dickie Dawkins at it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html'" At what again? Seems to me he is suggesting Islam as practised in modern times doesn't lend itself to encouraging those that practice it to undertake great works such as the Muslim scholars of the middle ages and earlier are revered for. I can't say I'd disagree with that in the sense I don't expect the Taliban to be embarking on any major scientific research soon but I can see why Muslim's living in the west like Faisal Islam would be offended by that generalisation. Perhaps he can redeem himself by making a similar disparaging tweet about the Bible bashing Christian Fundamentalist lunatics in the USA? I am sure their views are as big a block on scientific research as the way the Taliban interpret Islam are on theirs. Be interesting to see if the wider and less bonkers Christian population are as offended as the likes of Faisal Islam if he did.

Quote ="Dally"Old Dickie Dawkins at it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html'" At what again? Seems to me he is suggesting Islam as practised in modern times doesn't lend itself to encouraging those that practice it to undertake great works such as the Muslim scholars of the middle ages and earlier are revered for. I can't say I'd disagree with that in the sense I don't expect the Taliban to be embarking on any major scientific research soon but I can see why Muslim's living in the west like Faisal Islam would be offended by that generalisation. Perhaps he can redeem himself by making a similar disparaging tweet about the Bible bashing Christian Fundamentalist lunatics in the USA? I am sure their views are as big a block on scientific research as the way the Taliban interpret Islam are on theirs. Be interesting to see if the wider and less bonkers Christian population are as offended as the likes of Faisal Islam if he did.

Quote ="Dally"Old Dickie Dawkins at it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html'" Dawkins. Not loony. Attention-seeker maybe ... but not loony. Caitlin Moran? Definitely attention-seeker ... but not loony either, just feckin tedious.

Quote ="Dally"Old Dickie Dawkins at it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html'" Dawkins. Not loony. Attention-seeker maybe ... but not loony. Caitlin Moran? Definitely attention-seeker ... but not loony either, just feckin tedious.

But when the Muslims do scientific work eg iran's nuclear programme Christians and Jews want to destroy their efforts with bunker busting bombs.

www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... n-a-teacup Enjoy Dally.

www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... n-a-teacup Enjoy Dally.

He of course makes the classic mistake of putting his own values and prejudices on others. Why does he assume that Muslims give a flying f*** about scientific achievement? Maybe spirituality and the like are more important to them, which of course would be entirely logical for followers of a religion. Looked at in those terms his obsession with science could perhaps be seen as contemptible, just as he perhaps seems to think Muslims lack of "achievement" in his area of obsession is contemptible. In short, all obsessives are dangerous idiots.

Fucking hell! Talk about missing the point.

Science, what is it good for?

This debate all started when Islamic fundamentalist's burned down a library, he 's also moved it further by questioning why some Muslims are trying to change facts to fit in with their beliefs (he's done this with Christianity many times before). If they don't care about science why lie about it? Why destroy it?

Those "values and prejudices" can be, and are, arrived at via logical thought.
Religious belief can be, and is, arrived at by avoidance of logical thought.

"Classic mistake" ?
I think not.

So what? He's ascribing a personal value to something (books, science, etc) that the other people may simply not value. Why is that somehow logically superior? Indeed, if we were to be serious about this science and human "endeavour" is destroying and will destroy the world to the extent that humanity will die out more quickly that in would in normal evolutionary terms. If you wish to take the true high moral ground it cannot be to side with the scientific community.

Knowledge, arrived at scientifically, is not perfect but is as close to truth as we can get.
In the absence of any scientific knowledge about deities despite efforts to find any, you might prefer to rely on guesswork or gut feeling or just wanting it to be so, but how is [uthat[/u logically superior or even logically on-a-par?
To make your point you are inventing a value for people that, I would contend, they mostly don't have.
Many, or even most, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Shintoists, Taoists etc etc quite like having mobile phones, clean water and penicillin.



Do you want to give up knowledge acquired since the stone age and go back to living in a round house with an earth floor and a turf roof, or further back to the days when having cataract meant that you and your family would likely die of starvation?
If you do, that option is open.
If not then you need to accept that knowledge can be used for good or ill ... and join a group such Friends of the Earth/Greenpeace to exert pressure on the areas that need it.

Or you could pray, given the great track record that method has.

Dawkins has said nothing about Islam that is untrue.
Christianity was in a similar position back in the old days, knowledge was often seen as heresy, and would be again if the papacy had its way.

Dawkins has been making fundie Christians rage for years. Mind, it hardly takes a Dawkins to make even non-fundamentalists Christians trill about persecution etc.

IIRC, Dawkins wasn't involved in, say, [iThe Life of Brian[/i or [iJerry Springer: The opera[/i.

As an atheist I reserve the right to criticise any religion as they are all BS. If I so choose I do this through the medium of comedy to emphasise the stupidity of believing in a fairy story. Surely if I criticise someones great and glorious god if he/she/it does exist I will be instantly struck down or condemned to go to a non existant hell. If their god is so mighty surely a bit of gentle ribbing from me isn't going to damage his reputation.

Dawkins criticses fundamentalist religion all the time but it only seems to really kick-off when he has a go at Islam. If their god is so powerful surely he can fight his own battles without the need of his followers issuing death threats and
fatwahs and falsely claiming a racist agenda as soon as their beliefs/culture are challenged.

The Dawkins debate apparently arose from him reacting to fundamentalists burning down a library. So, far from "inventing a value..... " it seems I am dealing with the crux of the matter in the situation being considered. You on the other hand are trivialising the debate with your own prejudices.

A library.
One.
By fundamentalists.

That doesn't mean that all, or even most, Muslims don't value mobile phones, clean water and penicillin, does it?

And I am supposedly the one who is trivialising the debate?

Also, can you logically point out my prejudices regarding this subject please?
Note the word "logically".

Dawkins' initial rationale for trying to get into this whole debate was due to 'fundamentalist' christian cobblers encroaching on areas such as science and education in the US. The same was true for Hitchens.

Personally I can fully understand why Dawkins and co start coming out with more and more terse comments about religion because the religious amongst us are simply unable to debate any of these topics properly, assuming that saying things more loudly and 'passionately' constitutes some kind of logical arguement.

Probably the single most telling area of 'debate' for me is when the religious of any kind are confronted with the conflicting beliefs of other mass religions. The monothesitic simply cannot address this most basic inconsistency in their beliefs.

What has that got to do with it? Building a nuclear reactor isn't scholarly scientific research any more than building a bridge is or a surgeon taking out someone's appendix. Surely Dawkins was contrasting Islam in the past which did do scholarly scientific research with the current extremists who don't.

This is spot on. IMO.

This thread is just another of Dally's moans about people criticising religion.
Same-old, same-old.