Richard Dawkins and his uncanny similarity to religious fundamentalists.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

Got any ide how muh money people is foolin outta othes seeking truth in spirituality

Look at Osho Rajneeshwrote 650 books on the subject and before his deah he said there is no god or reincarnation still his retarded followers say "OUR MASTER HAS LEFT HIS BODY"

On that, I totally agree. Except I don't like calling people 'retarded'.

[DaveTyler]

Thats the casewith ALL spiritual people.

Look at Erin at this site, she clai to do things that defy ALL known science today.
Is she out to ake a buck o seriously believeshe can do these things.
At first I thougth "real spiritual people wont take the James Randi challenge prize because real people dont want mone" but its not about that if there was any supernatural they wouldnt only be billionaires but also win Nobel prizes, change the world forever etc. ofcourse its allllllllllllllllllllll ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

They ALL claim to want the best or mankind, by raising the LoC of people. If this was true, al they had to do would take the Randi test, taes 20minutes and theyll be more important in mankind than Bill Gates Einstein Darwin combined.
If it was proven the whole world woudl go spiritual in a second.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

Thats the casewith ALL spiritual people.

Look at Erin at this site, she clai to do things that defy ALL known science today.
Is she out to ake a buck o seriously believeshe can do these things.
At first I thougth "real spiritual people wont take the James Randi challenge prize because real people dont want mone" but its not about that if there was any supernatural they wouldnt only be billionaires but also win Nobel prizes, change the world forever etc. ofcourse its allllllllllllllllllllll ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

They ALL claim to want the best or mankind, by raising the LoC of people. If this was true, al they had to do would take the Randi test, taes 20minutes and theyll be more important in mankind than Bill Gates Einstein Darwin combined.
If it was proven the whole world woudl go spiritual in a second.

Well, I've never paid a cent for my Spiritual leanings. Buddha was free. Those Medjagorie kids are just honest kids, not looking for a thing.

[DaveTyler]

Buddha is free because he denied Gods/supernatural/spirituality

Its like ALLLLLLLLL psychics and supernatural phenoma thats been investigated has been debunked

[elai]

It seems any conversation about Dawkins must end up in an fight about god, spirituality, and a false dichotomy between science and religion.

The original topic was about Dawkin's attitude, the attitude that generally comes from his school of thought, and the attitude that he so seems to emulate but in many ways hate. What I am saying is why has Dawkins become what he hates? Why can't he emulate someone more like Betrand Russell or other prominent atheistic thinkers that were very famous, yet not that radicalized.

Maybe in the end it's just the fame, money and the emotional fun of being radicalized. The fact that he is fundamentalist from a tradition that really downplays the trend probably is half the reason for his fame

[DaveTyler]

I doubt Dawkins is in it or the fame. imagine all the friends hes lost due to this
He cares for the truth, like James Randi and Penn & Teller.
Without the fame they wouldnt be heard.

While his methods might be offensive to delusional people. from a rational perspective its completely understandable.
Metaphorically: he is sayin the world is round against the people who still claim its flat

[elai]

Again people it's really not the subject matter, it's the STYLE!!! I don't care if he is vehemently arguing against shopping bags, wrote a book called the shopping bag delusion and polarized the retail industry. It's the style!

[DaveTyler]

Yea He Is Confident Cause He Got Facts And Evidence

[Erki]

Has he really got anything?
Have all the "delusional" people really got anything?

Has any of us some real evidence?
Has any of us seen the documentation of the life/universe/everything so that they can claim that they know how things really are?

[DaveTyler]

Yeah
Everything points towards natural explaination
Watch my "spirituality exposed" thread

[Angela]

Elai, here's how Dawkins himself replied to this accusation: You're as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.

"No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe", in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

[agnostic]

That's a very good reply. Let's hope his emotions don't hinder him in seeing the evidence.

[beautyscientist]

I haven't read the God Delusion. I don't have the delusion so I don't feel it is addressed to me.

I recommend the Selfish Gene though. A very good read and one that really did change the way I saw the world.

The truth about the Universe is so much more awe inspiring than any religion that I wonder why so many people are prepared to settle for second best.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by elai

It seems any conversation about Dawkins must end up in an fight about god, spirituality, and a false dichotomy between science and religion.

Interesting comment. Generally I don't believe in dichotomies but science/religion seems to genuinely be one. Falsifiability is a required component of science while faith is a required component of religion. ie. OTOH, once something religious or mystical is decisively proven to be true or false then it ceases to be religious/mystical and becomes common fact.

The two would seem to be irreconcilable.

Originally Posted by elai

The original topic was about Dawkin's attitude, the attitude that generally comes from his school of thought, and the attitude that he so seems to emulate but in many ways hate. What I am saying is why has Dawkins become what he hates? Why can't he emulate someone more like Betrand Russell or other prominent atheistic thinkers that were very famous, yet not that radicalized.
Maybe in the end it's just the fame, money and the emotional fun of being radicalized. The fact that he is fundamentalist from a tradition that really downplays the trend probably is half the reason for his fame

I doubt it's a tactical decision. I really do expect that it's 'just' a vehement reaction to religious fundamentalists constantly challenging his chosen life purpose. When you have schools slapping "Remember, it's just a theory!" sticker on Evolution textbooks I can see kind of see his point.

Remember that, first and foremost, he's not an 'atheist thinker', he's a scientist. His goal is to oppose anti-science forces.