b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7671367 (Thread)

# Apologies

This has been on my mind for a while, so I had to get rid of it.
(Fles is a man amongst gods., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:28, archived)
# Dawkins is a fucking cock.
100%FACT.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:29, archived)
# Whereas he really likes you.
Quite a lot. He wants to involve you with his fucking and cock, if it pleases you.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:31, archived)
# agdogstic
(I helped save b3ta! cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:38, archived)
# that's profound
100% fact
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:31, archived)
# i've never read it but im inclined to agree just because of the fuckin
title of the book
(I helped save b3ta! op op op op op I stink therfore I spam, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:32, archived)
# read the book
he isn't a cock at all.
(I helped save b3ta! brianftang www.brianftang.co.uk, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:34, archived)
# I read it too
and I still think he's a cock.

Selfish Gene was pretty good. Blind Watchmaker wasn't bad either but recently he seems to have turned into the polar opposite of the Intelligent Design nutters - all rant and not much else.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:51, archived)
# He speaks very highly of you
(I helped save b3ta! Laird Dave Draws Now charges to take off his clothes., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:32, archived)
# You always say that but where's your evidence for the existence of Dawkins' fucking cockness??
Faith's not enough for me - I want SCIENCE!
(I helped save b3ta! kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:34, archived)
# He is somewhat blinkered
(Pachey, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:35, archived)
# by the search for truth?
(I helped save b3ta! Dr. Strange Now Fully ISO 3103 Compliant!, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:37, archived)
# Yes
(Pachey, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:38, archived)
# Science, fables, religion
they are all just ways in which we shape the world which is beyond our understanding.

An element of what is scientific fact today WILL be proved wrong in the future. Science is justified opinion, but it is opinion.

His intolerance of others is bordering on religious bigotry. The man is a fundamentalist and causes hurt to others.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:40, archived)
# he is a bit of a twat when he talks to people with different views
(I helped save b3ta! Laird Dave Draws Now charges to take off his clothes., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:41, archived)
# Yes.
He is guilty of every trait he demands be wiped out by religious nutjobs.

He is overzealous and of no use to humanity.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:43, archived)
# ^This
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:54, archived)
# here he explains why
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A5DA8D-E7F2-99DF-32F53BCD97024B43&sc=I100322
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:44, archived)
# I give him the finger when he's on the telly
safe in the knowledge that I can see him and he can't see me

this gives me a feeling of IMMENSE POWER

then I have a custard cream
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:44, archived)
# hahahahah
(I helped save b3ta! Dixipoos Bye Bye Blackbird, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:45, archived)
# I sometimes feed the sparrows too
(I helped save b3ta! M3Essential and The Essentials. LIVE!, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:47, archived)
# oi!
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:49, archived)
# a fine reward
for giving that prick the finger.
(I helped save b3ta! Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:47, archived)
# The possibility that the scientific view of things may change in the future
is exactly what makes Dawkins the opposite of a fundamentalist.

Science is constantly re-evaluating itself as new evidence is discovered. It is open to criticism and discussion. Fundamentalism is not.

If anyone found even the slightest bit of credible evidence that a God exists, I am sure Dawkins would be fascinated to see it and would alter his stance accordingly. As things stand, no such evidence is available.

Science may not be able to explain everything, but that does not mean we have to fill the gaps with God.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:04, archived)
# THIS EXACTLY!!


but wouldn't it be ironic if Dawkins was actually the son of God.
(I helped save b3ta! frogdoctor learning the hard way since 1972., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:06, archived)
# True
but that doesn't disprove the original point that Dawkins is a fucking cock.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:10, archived)
# We indeed do not have to fill the gaps with God
but if people want to have theories about what fills the gaps then only a cock will not let them.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:11, archived)
# why is fighting ignorance
being a cock?
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:14, archived)
# Assuming that belief in a creator = ignorance
is being a cock.

Unless of course you actually have proof that God doesn't exist?
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:15, archived)
# No. You don't need a proof of good existence (or non-existence)
you are an ignorant because you ignore that the gaps are integral part of the scientific method and that there is no need for a creator to fill them.
Besides, is impossible to "fill the gaps" withouth "destroying" the rest of the house
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:23, archived)
# Utter drivel.
There's no need to fill the gaps with God but it's just as ignorant to assume that's the only possible place he can be or to assume that just because science can quantify something, it can explain it.

I have just as much problem with the Intelligent Design fuckwits as I do with Dawkins.

Nobody can prove that God does or doesn't exist. Assuming that one or other belief = ignorance makes you an arrogant cock.

And that destroying the house sentence doesn't actually make sense.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:31, archived)
# This.
I have a massive problem with religious fundamentalists, but Dawkins has gone from being a fairly rounded scientist to being a man who says 'you like God! you are an idiot!'.

His crimes are identical to those of the religious bigotry brigade.

Tolerance is required and he doesn't have it.

Nor do I always, but I don't set myself on a pedestal.

Scientific assumptions ARE belief.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:34, archived)
# the house analogy is the whole point
is not about the existence of god or not. Is invoking god (without any evidence for its existence) to to explain natural phenomena.

The house analogy is to clarify that gaps have already existed (and will already exist). Until 400 years ago, the creator was used to explain planetary motion. Now we have a scientific theory for it. So either invoking god at that point was incorrect, or our current scientific theory for planetary motion is incorrect. But we can track back the planetary theory to other scientific theories, which must be now wrong as well (otherwise our planetary motion theory would be correct) and so on and so forth, until we are left with no scientific theory at all.
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:45, archived)
# Yes BUT
we have stories to fill the gaps in knowledge.

zealots who cannot accept that they might be wrong and someone else might be right are idiots.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:11, archived)
# yes
but see Mistery Bob's below.
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:17, archived)
# Not wanting to fill the gaps is ignorant.
Accepting that it is a task which can never be completed does not make the search for knowledge any less valid.

Deciding which elements you are assuming and which you are casting aside is equally valid. Occam's Razor is an excellent machination.

Deciding that those who choose different assumptions are ignorant is bigotry.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:32, archived)
# As I have said elsewhere
I think Dawkins is happy for people to believe anything they like. It's human nature for people to believe in any number of a million different things and I doubt he believes he can stop that (in fact, he writes about possible ways such belief systems may have arisen).

However, why should he not be vocal about his views and try to convince others to take them on board? Isn't that what religion does constantly?
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:27, archived)
# There would be no problem if he didn't mind religion doing it too
but he says that they should be stopped whilst his message be preached, for example, in schools.

I am not in favour of either camp, but the support for Dawkins by people who are pleased to see fundamentalists shouted down appalls me, since he IS a fundamentalist.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:37, archived)
# It always eems to come back to the word "fundamantalist"
but a fundamentalist is somebody who cannot change his view. He has a belief system that will not alter, regardless of whatever anyone else says.

Dawkins position is not one of fundamentalism. He says, "I have looked at the evidence and this is what I conclude." His conclusion is that the likelihood of there being a God is very small.

He may argue this passionately and articulately, but that does not make him a fundamentalist. Hey may offend and annoy people along the way, but that is not fundamentalism.

Should new evidence be uncovered that throws his argument into doubt, he would amend his conclusions and possibly change his mind. That is not fundamentalism.

He lays out his reasoning and explains why he thinks what he thinks and invited others to debate with him - that is not fundamentalism.

I'd love to continue debating more, but unfortunately I have to get to the shops before they close.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:00, archived)
# A religious belief is generally "I have looked at the options and this is what I conclude" also.
Dawkins is NOT open to a God - have you not read the book? Sometimes he says he is, but he is not.

The problem I have is not that he states his conclusion, but that he says that anyone with a different conclusion is wrong.

Any religion, and one who questions the idea that we are a God free society is, in his words, ignorant.

This is fundamentalism.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:22, archived)
# Not all religions are evangelical
(Pachey, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:38, archived)
# No
but often it is the evangelical religions that have most mass influence.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:01, archived)
# this^
(I helped save b3ta! finnbar has officially retired, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:17, archived)
# This.
His opinion is not a bad one, but his single minded ingnorance of anyone else's opinion smacks of the zealot.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:38, archived)
# Your
single minded ingnorance of anyone else's opinion of him smacks of the zealot, zealot.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
(I helped save b3ta! kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:43, archived)
# He believes that if you believe in anything except science then you are wrong and should be forced to listen to reason and abolished from society.
I believe that everyone can believe what they want.

The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance.

And the Dutch.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:47, archived)
# I agree that everyone should be allowed to believe what they want
as long as they do what I say.

This system is not quite in place but it will be, oh yes.
(I helped save b3ta! kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:51, archived)
# I don't think he wants you to be abolished from society
he doesn't want you to believe in science either. Science is not something you can believe in or not (the only things you really have to believe in are the assumptions), but forms a logical and consistent construct to investigate the world.

The thing he's intolerant of is ignorance.
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:53, archived)
# so you havent read
the "The God Delusion" then?
(I helped save b3ta! frogdoctor learning the hard way since 1972., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:01, archived)
# All religions
are intolerant. To believe in one god requires denying the existence of all the others.

I would love the pope to stand up in St Peters square tomorrow and say to the crowd:
"Lets get this straight once and for all. Muslims, you are going to hell. Scientologists? Gonna burn. Hindus? Eternal damnation."

The Christian church tried to fudge around with this in Vatican II, but essentially the unbelievers still go to the hot place.
(I helped save b3ta! FOONLY, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 19:31, archived)
# No, not ahh!
Consider the lily
(I helped save b3ta! littlefish I like cheese, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:54, archived)
# hahahaha
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:59, archived)
# I have done
I've considered it a lot.
(I helped save b3ta! kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:01, archived)
# Richard Dawkins
wants to be Daniel C. Dennett!

FACTOID!
(I helped save b3ta! Prof UnderCover evitable, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:36, archived)
# Unfortunately, a counter-argument book
entitled 'The Dawkins Delusion' is an even bigger pile of cock.

True b3tans should be tucked up in bed with a copy of 'The Raw Shark Texts'. Now that's a cracking headfuck. A memetic shark that can come at you out of a book, or your TV, or the pattern on a floor - that's just fucking brilliant.
(I helped save b3ta! joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:53, archived)
# He comes across as arrogant sometimes, yes
But it's nice to see someone getting angry for a change about all the wrongness
(I helped save b3ta! corington, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:54, archived)
# Tghe anger IS tghe wrongness.
Believing in God (or Father Christmas) hurts nobody.

Getting upset about what others believe is what causes the problems.

Ever assumption amounts to a belief. Whatever he says, Dawkins believes there is no God, he doesn't know, yet he vehemently accuses those who are willing to suggest that there might be one of ignorance.

I have no idea what there is. I'd be interested in discussing it, but just saying 'I don't like your way, so it's wrong is cock behaviour.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:10, archived)
# Those who believe in a God,
at least those who believe in a mainstream interpretation of a God, have large organisations to back them up. They have many articulate and convincing people constantly speaking on their behalf and reassuring them that they are right.

This has led to the belief in a deity as the default position in most societies.

If nothing else, at least Dawkins provides an equally articulate and convincing voice for those that do not believe there is a God. Especially for those in places like the American Midwest, where there are precious few like-minded folks. He may give the impression of being intolerant towards religious beliefs, but no more so than religion is intolerant of atheism.

Also, Dawkins accepts that nobody knows if there is a God or not His arguments come from the fact it is highly unlikely that there is a God (for reasons he can articulate far better then me) and not from a stubborn refusal to believe in one.
(I helped save b3ta! Mystery_Bob, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:21, archived)
# If this were true it wouild still make him a cock.
His position, as a self appointed high priest of atheism, is just as valid as that of fundamentalist religious leaders.

That is 'not valid at all'.

People don't need to be told, ever, for any reason, that they are not allowed to believe what they want to, be that in no God, in God or in the flying spaghetti monster.

Sadly he does argue that there is no God in this book. He argues that there is no God because it doesn't fit in with his idea of what science is.

This is bigotry and cultural hatred and, to be honest, is identical to the behaviour of the zealous religious leaders.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:30, archived)
# So your point is
that there is no objective reality?
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:32, archived)
# I would have thought that there is clearly no defined objective reality.
To claim that there is is the height of conceit.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:36, archived)
# you're not very self-consistent
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:48, archived)
# No, I just do not accept that any theory is fact.
I always doubt.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:13, archived)
# but that's a different question
I also don't believe that any theory is fact.

But I believe in the existence of an objective reality and that this reality has structure. Some parts of it are self evident and cannot be proved and disporved (e.g. 1+1=2) whereas for some other we need more elaborate techniques. Science (or the scientific method) provides a framework to develop and evaluate tools to construct a representation of this reality.
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:29, archived)
# new compo?
or am I missing something?
(I helped save b3ta! Your watch is BACK, Wed 3 Oct 2007, 16:32, archived)
# ^this
Was just thinking that, but I canne see anything..
(I helped save b3ta! MrPineapple .co.uk - TSHIRTS FOR SALE. I GIVE YOU GOOD PRICE., Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:08, archived)