4 ms·

Finally, Dawkins at his prime, not preaching anti-god bullshit. The man is a complete genius when it comes to explaining natural selection, yet he wastes so muc

Finally, Dawkins at his prime, not preaching anti-god bullshit. The man is a complete genius when it comes to explaining natural selection, yet he wastes so much of his time preaching atheism. IMO any intelligent person should come to the logical conclusion: God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! It's as useless as discussing whether a glass is half-full or half-empty, it's a glass with liquid in it! Dawkins' massive waste of time preaching atheism like it's the Papacy 2.0 is retarded. It loses him all his credibility to everyone except the atheist wackos who are holding him in infallible regard like it's the second coming of Jesus. Dawkins is a scientist, and as such should be working to teach people to conquer ignorance. Yet he'd rather spend his time alienating the people he could be enlightening. It's, quite frankly, a pitiful waste of such genius. Edit: I repeatedly hear Dawkins being praised as highly as Feynman, and he is far from Feynman. Feynman was a pure genius, possibly the greatest scientist to grace the earth, but he was so great because he had the ability to relate to the common person, to every person and he had the ability to explain even the most complex ideas to the simplest of people.

cema 17y ago
I certainly agree about Feynman. I sometimes miss his clarity and honesty. (Among other things, I think he would have been so helpful in untangling the global warming controversy. But also explaining what evolution is and is not, to a layman.)
Herring 17y ago
>God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova... (tldr: skip to the last paragraph)
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Yes, yes: 'On critical examination it can be disproved', so where is the critical examination there? Nowhere. This is simply someone saying, I'm anti-religion and I want my argument to be relevant, which it isn't, which is why it's on lesswrong a 'community blog' rather than somewhere legitimate or relevant. The argument over the existence of god is simply put, pointless. Religions are irrelevant to the existence of god, they're a construct placed around an idea. You've got to disprove the idea, which places you squarely into philosophical debate, which as I already said is akin to debating whether a glass is half-full or half-empty: fucking pointless.
  - Herring 17y ago
    > Religions are irrelevant to the existence of god As the blog noted, that's certainly not what most religious people believe. You're just not in Dawkins' target audience. So if it's ok with you, i'd rather not continue derailing this thread..
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      If you dislike derailing threads then when you post something, please ensure it is relevant to the discussion. Your link didn't even make the point you wanted it to, it basically stated "Saying god cannot be proved or disproved is wrong . . . for no reason whatsoever and I provide no justification for my reasoning!" And no, I'm not in Dawkins' target audience and I'm glad I'm not, because they're anti-religious zealots frothing at the mouth clearly illustrated by your link. There was no evidence and no argument aside from "just 'cause", which IIRC is exactly the reasoning used by the bible.
Rod 17y ago
"Feynman was a pure genius, possibly the greatest scientist to grace the earth." Feynman was certainly a pure genius, on that we agree, but saying that he was the greatest scientist is somewhat distasteful, imho. For starters, there's no metric that allows one to measure scientists. And Feynman himself thought that Gell-Mann was smarter than him. There were various geniuses in the last 200 years. Most did not write their own biographies including lock-picking and doing physics at strip clubs, so the general public forgot about them. Truman once said that the U.S. Marine Corps' propaganda machine was second only to Stalin's. I would claim that Feynman's propaganda machine comes 3rd. It's not that Feynman was not a genius, it's just that he was not the only one. What about Pauling, for instance? Why is that everytime I go to the Caltech bookstore I see an entire section dedicated to Feynman, a cult of personality that is almost nauseating, while there are virtually no books on Pauling, or Gell-Mann? Feynman was a pure genius not only in Physics, but also in marketing...
- Luc 17y ago
  > And Feynman himself thought that Gell-Mann was smarter than him. Having read biographies of both scientists, I think it's fair to say that Gell-Mann agreed with him!
cabalamat 17y ago
> Dawkins' massive waste of time preaching atheism Given the amount of harm religious extremists do, fighting them seems reasonable. If you reduce the amount of religion in a society, you reduce the number and effectiveness of religious extremists. > Dawkins is a scientist, and as such should be working to teach people to conquer ignorance. Yet he'd rather spend his time alienating the people he could be enlightening. One of the worst aspects of religion, IMO, is when the religious claim that their beliefs and values deserve to be givne special status over and above everyone else's beliefs and values. This is bullshit of the first order, and needs to be fought.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Fighting religious extremists just justifies their existence, which further enhances the problem. Creationist moronism is a mainly US problem, linked directly to the abhorrent education system. Creationist belief is inversely linked to the quality of education, but instead of actually spending time increasing the quality of education and managing to spread understanding of the sciences people are wasting time fighting the extremists. It's, quite frankly, ignorant. Instead of advocating education, you're advocating wasting time. You can destroy the creationist and extremist belief through positive efforts and action towards increasing education. The 40 year olds who believe in creationism will never be educated, you have to educate the 10 year olds who haven't had their minds set in poor ways by time and lack of education. Dawkins has a remarkable talent for explaining science, and he should be targeting this towards the young. If he managed to strike the right chords, he could destroy creationist thought in the majority of that 40% of US citizens who believe during his lifetime. If he hit the next 20-years of highschool students strong and hard, the US could easily drop its creationist belief well into the ranks of the rest of the western world. Sadly, Dawkins does little more than provide fanservice to the atheist masses.
jeromec 17y ago
> God cannot be proved or disproved Incorrect. Why would you think not? After all, you can see God, pet God, and even show him to others. However, it may be that you are not referring to the Great Dane named God I read about online. It may be that, rather than assuming I'd know to which "God" you were referring (is there a reason you would assume such?), you meant ideas of supernatural gods cannot be proved or disproved, and on that I would agree. Of course, the problem is that such an axiom isn't limited to gods; there are all sorts of things that can't be proved or disproved including unicorns, invisible fairies, and even a magical whale named Brutus that wears a smoking jacket and is said by some (like me) to be a candidate for creator of the universe. My belief that Brutus may exist is safely beyond challenge, and that's fine. However, I would not impose any actions conveyed to me by Brutus, as I understood them, on others. If I did so I would hope someone like Professor Dawkins would show me why it was wrong to assert (and act on) any positive position that Brutus exists, rather than remain neutral until actual proof was forthcoming.
lolcraft 17y ago
> God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! The world is not so simple. Most people on Earth use some sort of God as their ethical basis. Some even argue that atheists cannot possibly have ethics, for they have no God. Thus whether to believe that the root of ethics is God, and whose God, is a crucial question. What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts; an idea worth to teach, even if we must kill God in the way.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  > What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts; Surely this is axiomatic - you don't derive this by reason. So you are establishing that you should always derive logically your system of ethics except when choosing a system of ethics. Isn't there some crazy dissonance there for you. (I don't think you can square this circle I think it will boil down to a parallel of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - you have to assume logic into your worldview by faith!). I don't believe that "atheists cannot possibly have ethics" (that's not a Christian position as it's clear in the Bible that God has created in each of us a conscience) but I do think that atheist can't have objective ethical standards that are logically derived. It seems incompatible in my mind that neo-darwinist atheists can claim any action to be objectively right or wrong; things just are under such a world view. How could you possibly have objective anything in a randomly occurring macroscopic quantum anomaly?
Jach 17y ago
> God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! Just curious, what are your specifications for proof, and why should all things not meeting such rigorous criteria be a waste of time? I'd also challenge you to "prove" the sun will rise in the morning; I don't think it a waste of time to understand the physics in the movements of planets and stars.

cema 17y ago

I certainly agree about Feynman. I sometimes miss his clarity and honesty. (Among other things, I think he would have been so helpful in untangling the global warming controversy. But also explaining what evolution is and is not, to a layman.)

Herring 17y ago

>God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova... (tldr: skip to the last paragraph)

electromagnetic 17y ago
Yes, yes: 'On critical examination it can be disproved', so where is the critical examination there? Nowhere. This is simply someone saying, I'm anti-religion and I want my argument to be relevant, which it isn't, which is why it's on lesswrong a 'community blog' rather than somewhere legitimate or relevant. The argument over the existence of god is simply put, pointless. Religions are irrelevant to the existence of god, they're a construct placed around an idea. You've got to disprove the idea, which places you squarely into philosophical debate, which as I already said is akin to debating whether a glass is half-full or half-empty: fucking pointless.
- Herring 17y ago
  > Religions are irrelevant to the existence of god As the blog noted, that's certainly not what most religious people believe. You're just not in Dawkins' target audience. So if it's ok with you, i'd rather not continue derailing this thread..
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    If you dislike derailing threads then when you post something, please ensure it is relevant to the discussion. Your link didn't even make the point you wanted it to, it basically stated "Saying god cannot be proved or disproved is wrong . . . for no reason whatsoever and I provide no justification for my reasoning!" And no, I'm not in Dawkins' target audience and I'm glad I'm not, because they're anti-religious zealots frothing at the mouth clearly illustrated by your link. There was no evidence and no argument aside from "just 'cause", which IIRC is exactly the reasoning used by the bible.

Rod 17y ago

"Feynman was a pure genius, possibly the greatest scientist to grace the earth." Feynman was certainly a pure genius, on that we agree, but saying that he was the greatest scientist is somewhat distasteful, imho. For starters, there's no metric that allows one to measure scientists. And Feynman himself thought that Gell-Mann was smarter than him. There were various geniuses in the last 200 years. Most did not write their own biographies including lock-picking and doing physics at strip clubs, so the general public forgot about them. Truman once said that the U.S. Marine Corps' propaganda machine was second only to Stalin's. I would claim that Feynman's propaganda machine comes 3rd. It's not that Feynman was not a genius, it's just that he was not the only one. What about Pauling, for instance? Why is that everytime I go to the Caltech bookstore I see an entire section dedicated to Feynman, a cult of personality that is almost nauseating, while there are virtually no books on Pauling, or Gell-Mann? Feynman was a pure genius not only in Physics, but also in marketing...

Luc 17y ago
> And Feynman himself thought that Gell-Mann was smarter than him. Having read biographies of both scientists, I think it's fair to say that Gell-Mann agreed with him!

cabalamat 17y ago

> Dawkins' massive waste of time preaching atheism Given the amount of harm religious extremists do, fighting them seems reasonable. If you reduce the amount of religion in a society, you reduce the number and effectiveness of religious extremists. > Dawkins is a scientist, and as such should be working to teach people to conquer ignorance. Yet he'd rather spend his time alienating the people he could be enlightening. One of the worst aspects of religion, IMO, is when the religious claim that their beliefs and values deserve to be givne special status over and above everyone else's beliefs and values. This is bullshit of the first order, and needs to be fought.

electromagnetic 17y ago
Fighting religious extremists just justifies their existence, which further enhances the problem. Creationist moronism is a mainly US problem, linked directly to the abhorrent education system. Creationist belief is inversely linked to the quality of education, but instead of actually spending time increasing the quality of education and managing to spread understanding of the sciences people are wasting time fighting the extremists. It's, quite frankly, ignorant. Instead of advocating education, you're advocating wasting time. You can destroy the creationist and extremist belief through positive efforts and action towards increasing education. The 40 year olds who believe in creationism will never be educated, you have to educate the 10 year olds who haven't had their minds set in poor ways by time and lack of education. Dawkins has a remarkable talent for explaining science, and he should be targeting this towards the young. If he managed to strike the right chords, he could destroy creationist thought in the majority of that 40% of US citizens who believe during his lifetime. If he hit the next 20-years of highschool students strong and hard, the US could easily drop its creationist belief well into the ranks of the rest of the western world. Sadly, Dawkins does little more than provide fanservice to the atheist masses.

jeromec 17y ago

> God cannot be proved or disproved Incorrect. Why would you think not? After all, you can see God, pet God, and even show him to others. However, it may be that you are not referring to the Great Dane named God I read about online. It may be that, rather than assuming I'd know to which "God" you were referring (is there a reason you would assume such?), you meant ideas of supernatural gods cannot be proved or disproved, and on that I would agree. Of course, the problem is that such an axiom isn't limited to gods; there are all sorts of things that can't be proved or disproved including unicorns, invisible fairies, and even a magical whale named Brutus that wears a smoking jacket and is said by some (like me) to be a candidate for creator of the universe. My belief that Brutus may exist is safely beyond challenge, and that's fine. However, I would not impose any actions conveyed to me by Brutus, as I understood them, on others. If I did so I would hope someone like Professor Dawkins would show me why it was wrong to assert (and act on) any positive position that Brutus exists, rather than remain neutral until actual proof was forthcoming.

lolcraft 17y ago

> God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! The world is not so simple. Most people on Earth use some sort of God as their ethical basis. Some even argue that atheists cannot possibly have ethics, for they have no God. Thus whether to believe that the root of ethics is God, and whose God, is a crucial question. What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts; an idea worth to teach, even if we must kill God in the way.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
> What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts; Surely this is axiomatic - you don't derive this by reason. So you are establishing that you should always derive logically your system of ethics except when choosing a system of ethics. Isn't there some crazy dissonance there for you. (I don't think you can square this circle I think it will boil down to a parallel of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - you have to assume logic into your worldview by faith!). I don't believe that "atheists cannot possibly have ethics" (that's not a Christian position as it's clear in the Bible that God has created in each of us a conscience) but I do think that atheist can't have objective ethical standards that are logically derived. It seems incompatible in my mind that neo-darwinist atheists can claim any action to be objectively right or wrong; things just are under such a world view. How could you possibly have objective anything in a randomly occurring macroscopic quantum anomaly?

Jach 17y ago

> God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! Just curious, what are your specifications for proof, and why should all things not meeting such rigorous criteria be a waste of time? I'd also challenge you to "prove" the sun will rise in the morning; I don't think it a waste of time to understand the physics in the movements of planets and stars.