hehehe but...bindun and FPd www.b3ta.com/board/7419964 *runs away*
I admire Dawkins but I do think he needs to chill out sometimes: www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/dawkins+warning+over+fairy+stories/2640487
(I admire Dawkins but I do think he needs to chill out sometimes: www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/dawkins+warning+over+fairy+stories/2640487
Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:37,
archived)
That couldn't have happened, as I wasn't here then.
(
Whato_Jeeves Did your surgery require a vaginal mesh patch?,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:40,
archived)
1 year and 19 daysI'll make a note of that.
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:41,
archived)
This is a major reason why I don't like the dawkins approach to atheism.Humans are fundamentally irrational - they fall in love, put themselves in harms way for friends, laugh at bizzarre situations etc.
It's one thing to say that we should look at facts rather than stories, it's another to say that we're all paragons of rational thought. Or that being one is some sort of goal.
(It's one thing to say that we should look at facts rather than stories, it's another to say that we're all paragons of rational thought. Or that being one is some sort of goal.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:47,
archived)
I think one of his main concerns (and mine too)is that organised religion takes advantage of these facts and governments use it to control the masses, whether Christian or Islamic
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:50,
archived)
yes, but some academic isn't going to change that...governments don't really have a great track record of taking academia all that seriously...
Professor Nutt, for example.
(Professor Nutt, for example.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:54,
archived)
no but governments (eventually) have to take the population seriouslyand if the population decides that a country should be secular, then it is likely it will ultimately be so.
It might take a few generations though
(It might take a few generations though
Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:57,
archived)
the population needs to care enough first.without being patronising about the uneducated masses, I would hope that Dawkins will be able to make more documentaries and suchlike. His books are boring as fuck and for that reason, I think he would probably turn off a lot of people who don't already have an interest in him.
He writes in a bit of an academicy way, which is irritating, as I prefer to try to write in a more accessible way, even if its for an academic paper. For example, I think Bill Bryson's Short History of Almost Everything is well written and accessible for people not necessarily well-versed in physics and cosmos (like me)... I think the way forward for influencing collective consciousness, is for Dawkins to make some engaging, interesting documentaries which appeal to a wider cross-section and to stop writing like a smug cunt.
(He writes in a bit of an academicy way, which is irritating, as I prefer to try to write in a more accessible way, even if its for an academic paper. For example, I think Bill Bryson's Short History of Almost Everything is well written and accessible for people not necessarily well-versed in physics and cosmos (like me)... I think the way forward for influencing collective consciousness, is for Dawkins to make some engaging, interesting documentaries which appeal to a wider cross-section and to stop writing like a smug cunt.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:08,
archived)
I agree with all of thisbut if Dawkins can influence others then they can perhaps try to educate the masses in a more accessible way
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:15,
archived)
yes, I agree with that too.perhaps it's a change that ought to happen in scientific/academic writing, that people need to stop using hoity-toity exclusive language just for the sake of it, so that more people (or even people other than themselves) can understand what they're on about.
I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
(I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25,
archived)
I agree with all of this.*picks pint back up*
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:45,
archived)
*grunts*and if Dawkins should then turn arahnd to me, trying to tell me that what I fink has such a high probability to be wrong as would render the likelihood of it being correct as negligible I should say: "OI! DAWKINS! NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU ARE NOT THE MESSIAH OF ATHEISM AND RATIONAL THOUGHT! YOU CANNOT MAKE AN ORGANISED GROUP OF ATHEISTS, BUT I WOULD PERHAPS BE PERSUADED TO LET YOU TAKE MY MOTHER OUT FOR A DRINK IF SHE HAPPENED TO BE SINGLE!"
( drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:51,
archived)