hezekiah jones

Maybe they can, but they won't. It doesn't behoove them to tell the difference, since they have no arguments against the scientist Dawkins.

Everyone is jumping on the creationist/ID bandwagon here, from D. James Kennedy to Chuck Colson to Phyllis Schlafly, none of whom have the remotest inkling of what the "debate" involves. It's not suprising to see Tubby Black et al lending their hopelessly ill-informed voices to the chorus.

stonetools

Well, I have heard of a few athiests (Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot,and Stalin) doing a few nasty things to believers and anyone else who got in their way.( I wonder , have you or anyone on this forum ever heard of them?). See many answer to kommatsi on the YEC have a point thread.
Both militant Christians and miltant atheists have done some pretty terrible things. Polarization of issues lead to that kind of militancy. I think the kind of talk that Dawkins and many Yecs engage in lead to militancy.

Because in his popular writings, he mixes the two? Can't you idiots see that? Its plain enough to me.Thats the problem. Add his gratuitious religion bashing and any believer would distrust anything he says on general principles.Thats why folks like him poision the evolution debate and stir up political opposition to having evolution taught in schools.
Result of all this gratuitious atheism bashing and religion bashing may be to a move to two sschool systems, one religious and one non religious, and two socities, eventually. I think that would be bad-don't you?

Dr Rick

The men you cite did not kill because they were atheists but did so for other ideological reasons and their desire for power. Religion was a threat because it competes for the same blind faith and obedience that they demanded.

Many people kill for the sake of religion, but you would be hard-pressed to cite an example of someone killing for atheism's sake.

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

Imagine two cultures totally separated along the religious/ scientific divide- while the religious one stultifies the scientific culture would shoot ahead in research and technology.

It's an experiment I would like to conduct. I know exactly which culture I'd like to live in.

On the one hand- a culture which squelches all dissent and forces people to live by their moral code, regardless of their individual happiness
On the other- a culture which encourages independent thought and rewards those who have insight into problems that arise

I think Dawkins is perfectly right to speak in the manner in which he does. He is not arrogant- to me arrogance is having pride where it is not due. He has every right to be proud of his achievements.

hezekiah jones

Whose problem is that? Why are the "believers" unable to discern shit from shinola, so to speak?

Oolon Colluphid

Uh, maybe it's because if they could do it for popular science books, they coould do it for anything...

Oolon

stonetools

Ha! At least, we Christians own up to our bad guys.You athiests dismiss your mass murderers with hypocritical hand waving.If you are going to pin Torquemada on us, at least have to guts to own up to your Stalins


Kind of like the atheistic, Marxist Soviet Union?

Kind of like the pluralistic, highly religious United States, hmmmm..
Try again, mister . The best hope is for a broad, pluralistic society where everyone's belief gets a respectful hearing.


Maybe because with Dawkins, its all shit?
Please look at Lizards post on the YECS have a point thread. He expressed my point more gracefully than I <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
What he says there seems to me self-evident truth.If you guys can't see that, I give up.Anyone who doesn't see must be either stupid, wicked, or insane... wait a second, I think I'm imitating someone
I understand Dawkins is the local hero around these parts. I imagine that members of this forum must virtually have a group orgasm when he unleashes one of his broadsides at religion. And I understand that you feel put on by insentive religious people who view atheists as sort of an alien race.You feel that Dawkins is just giving back what you get every Christmas.
THat doesn't change the political equations. As sure as E=MC squared, anti religious bashing by Dawkins et al. is going to polarize the issue of teaching evolution in schools and create a political backlash that will be harmful for science education.You can't insult people into agreeing with you. THAT's the gospel truth.

Quetzal

Actually, stonetools, I think if you check your history, you'll find that religious bashing of evolution, at least in the US, dates back to Asa Grey. And that creationist bashing of science dates back at least 40 years. All you poor, put-upon fundamentalist Protestant evilution-haters are all of a sudden sensitive that a scientist dares to give you some of your own back? Awwww, cry me a river.

And no, I'm not a Dawkin's fanatic. I like his popular science writings, but I don't worship him as you claim. Now Mayr could be eligible for sainthood...

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Yup, I agree with you. But that is not what Dawkins has done. Sure, he’s vitriolic about religion – when he’s discussing religion. Sure, he has no truck with supernaturalism in science – but in that, he’s simply saying out loud how scientists go about their jobs. His River out of Eden comment about the world appearing just as we’d expect if there were no design and no designer, is simple evolution, and a statement of fact. Gods are not required; nor should they be allowed, in scientific explanations. Have them, if it makes you feel better. They’re just superfluous.

And on the matter at hand, as far as I can tell his only contribution was the brief interview on Today, in which, given that he followed a gen-you-wine young-earth creationist, he was remarkably restrained. He stated the truth: that YEC is a ludicrous falsehood. Not religion. YECism. He never mentioned religion in general. He also stated – at this point, right at his first involvement with the press – that it would have been better if the BBC had got a bishop or other middle-ground person on. (They then had one, on the Thought for the Day.) I think the interviewer said something along the lines of “you’re not just saying that because...” to which he replied “No no, any bishop will tell you the same”.

There then followed a flurry of complete cack in the newspapers, such as the article I posted on page 1 here. As far as I know, he made no further comment, anywhere, till his reply to Utley. And all the anti-Dawkins press I saw was of the YEC variety.

This all looks to me like the papers whipping up a fuss about, well, not nothing, but not about what Dawkins has actually said or done, but about what he is perceived to be. That’s normal in Britain.

Dawkins’s mistake, if one was made, was to agree to go on Today. Imagine if Steve Jones, who is apparently just as outraged, had done it instead... if, as he may have done, he’d said exactly the same, I doubt it would have produced such an orgy of indignant YECism.

Oolon

Alexis Comnenus

Your last paragraph is very true. Steve Jones hasn't blotted his copy book by engaging in polemic disguised as science. Therefore he is trusted in a way Dawkins is not. If Dawkins speaks it is an attack on religion because Dawkins has a reputation through his own fault.

So yes, let's get Steve Jones on and let's ask Dawkins to shut up because every time he opens his mouth he makes matters worse.

Regards

Alex