Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Atheist Authors/broadcasters Talk Rubbish….
112 Answers
….. a cry often seen on these pages – and this from a week or so back.
//I find that the propaganda spouted by such as Fry and Dawkins is just as gibberish rubbish as you think the bible expounds//
If someone asks me why I think the bible contains nonsense I am happy to tell them and to go into detail if necessary, but I asked the author of that gem to explain to me what precisely these people say that makes their opinions “gibberish rubbish”, and was met with silence.
In the hope of obtaining an answer from him or from anyone else who thinks the same I’ll throw the question open to all.
//I find that the propaganda spouted by such as Fry and Dawkins is just as gibberish rubbish as you think the bible expounds//
If someone asks me why I think the bible contains nonsense I am happy to tell them and to go into detail if necessary, but I asked the author of that gem to explain to me what precisely these people say that makes their opinions “gibberish rubbish”, and was met with silence.
In the hope of obtaining an answer from him or from anyone else who thinks the same I’ll throw the question open to all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, //Ah, that would be when Dawkins held his Mickey Mouse professorship, paid for specifically for him, by a computer software Billionaire.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but whatever it is has nothing to do with this question - to which you don't appear to have an answer. Can we please stick to the subject?
I have no idea what you're talking about, but whatever it is has nothing to do with this question - to which you don't appear to have an answer. Can we please stick to the subject?
Naomi, believers have a world model which works for them. Anything that doesn't fit that model is therefor 'rubbish'. If belief in god doesn't require any justification then belief in rubbish requires a lot less justification and conveniently doesn't require any mental effort. If we all did that life would be so simple...wouldn't it ?
nailit; Richard Dawkins was the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a post set up for him exclusively in 1995 by this wealthy atheist, and he would have in no other way (imo) become a professor at Oxford by his scientific achievements, thus, ironically gaining the position through his atheistic beliefs rather than any scientific authority as a biologist. 'He is quite good at explaining a conventional mainstream view of evolutionary biology, although it is remarkably non-numerate and taken to extreme - he seems to think that Evolution explains everything. He does mix this in with aggressively atheistic metaphysics in a very unfortunate way and he fans the flames of a daft genetic determinism that permeates the semi-educated.'
To summarise for naomi; He talks a load of “gibberish rubbish”.
To summarise for naomi; He talks a load of “gibberish rubbish”.
Grasscarp, You can't answer - but no surprise there. Par for the course.
Khandro, //he would have in no other way (imo) become a professor at Oxford by his scientific achievements, thus, ironically gaining the position through his atheistic beliefs rather than any scientific authority as a biologist.//
In your opinion? And your qualification for propounding that opinion is ….. what? Like Grasscarp you can't defend the indefensible however much you would like to. The best you can offer is an attempt at character assassination. That speaks for itself. Pathetic.
I really would like some serious answers to this. Any offers?
Khandro, //he would have in no other way (imo) become a professor at Oxford by his scientific achievements, thus, ironically gaining the position through his atheistic beliefs rather than any scientific authority as a biologist.//
In your opinion? And your qualification for propounding that opinion is ….. what? Like Grasscarp you can't defend the indefensible however much you would like to. The best you can offer is an attempt at character assassination. That speaks for itself. Pathetic.
I really would like some serious answers to this. Any offers?
-- answer removed --
Khandro - "... and [Dawkins] would have in no other way (imo) become a professor at Oxford by his scientific achievements..."
In your opinion? Based on what?
This sounds very much like an unjustified and unqualified ad hominem attack. Also, where does the quote your cited come from? You didn't give it any attribution. I find that strange since you're attempting to diminish Dawkin's qualifications and achievements and yet fail to state the source of the quote that further denigrates him. If it's an oversight on your part, fair enough. But right now it looks a bit fishy.
In your opinion? Based on what?
This sounds very much like an unjustified and unqualified ad hominem attack. Also, where does the quote your cited come from? You didn't give it any attribution. I find that strange since you're attempting to diminish Dawkin's qualifications and achievements and yet fail to state the source of the quote that further denigrates him. If it's an oversight on your part, fair enough. But right now it looks a bit fishy.
Grasscarp, attempting character assassination for want of an answer is pathetic - and both you and Khandro are guilty of that. If you can defend the indefensible stop attacking me and do it.
Stephen Fry, in the video posted by you, talks about a parasite that bores into children’s eyes and eats its way out. You asked me a day or so back why I study religion and one of the reasons I gave was that I am interested in the psychology of it. I don’t believe that any right thinking human being would find that creation acceptable. Nevertheless, no one of religion will condemn it. There’s something very wrong with that – in my opinion.
Stephen Fry, in the video posted by you, talks about a parasite that bores into children’s eyes and eats its way out. You asked me a day or so back why I study religion and one of the reasons I gave was that I am interested in the psychology of it. I don’t believe that any right thinking human being would find that creation acceptable. Nevertheless, no one of religion will condemn it. There’s something very wrong with that – in my opinion.
Birdie;//In your opinion? Based on what?//
Errr.. It's rather like the basis of your opinions, that is what an opinion is;
Dictionary - "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".
The source of my quote was not easy to establish, and it was modified by me anyway, but it originates from the website of one of my favourite people; John Polkinghorne; https:/
And you can find it on here; http://
in the left-hand list (2nd box down) 7th from the bottom; "Dawkins and Dennet" which takes you to the Q&A, answered by Nicholas Spencer (Rev. Dom) but may have been contributed to by another.
Hope that satisfies.
Errr.. It's rather like the basis of your opinions, that is what an opinion is;
Dictionary - "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".
The source of my quote was not easy to establish, and it was modified by me anyway, but it originates from the website of one of my favourite people; John Polkinghorne; https:/
And you can find it on here; http://
in the left-hand list (2nd box down) 7th from the bottom; "Dawkins and Dennet" which takes you to the Q&A, answered by Nicholas Spencer (Rev. Dom) but may have been contributed to by another.
Hope that satisfies.
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.