Can life-affirming athiests prove their beliefs?

[Holmes]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

My own personal opinion is that you appear to be Dawkins bashing. I'm simply putting it factually the way it is...that is, he is a scientist:end of story.

If by the phrase "Dawkins bashing" you mean expressing informed disapproval at some of his books and claims and rhetoric then yes, I am.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

If by the phrase "Dawkins bashing" you mean expressing informed disapproval at some of his books and claims and rhetoric then yes, I am.

And yet, that's pretty clearly NOT what Beecee means. 

Perhaps you misspelled misinformed?

[Holmes]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Who put you in charge of what can and cannot be done?

My daughter-in-law had a miscarriage. You will never convince her, or me, that we didn't lose a person. What magical transformation happens while passing through the birth canal?

Dawkins was not referring to zygotes or fetuses.

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

You need to expand your thinking a bit. It is not unreasonable to include all eggs as the upper limit of people who could be born. In which case, it is true that most people will never be born. Don't get bogged down by the words and miss the meaning.

Once again Dawkins and by extension I, was not referring to zygotes or fetuses, I do not think a person can be said to exist prior to conception therefore we cannot refer to these as "people".

The statement "Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born" is illogical, why some here feel the need to defend such abysmal language I can't say but it is a sign of our times, facts no longer matter, only emotions.

[iNow]

deleted

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

why some here feel the need to defend such abysmal language I can't say but it is a sign of our times, facts no longer matter, only emotions.

Why you feel the need to attack such a rhetorical turn of phrase which is intended to convey a bigger point in a stylish way is a sign of our times, suggesting facts no longer matter, only emotions.

Edited June 29, 2021 by iNow

[Holmes]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

deleted

Why you feel the need to attack such a rhetorical turn of phrase which is intended to convey a bigger point in a stylish way is a sign of our times, suggesting facts no longer matter, only emotions.

I offer no apologies for my disapproval of Dawkins using poor language, the blame must lie (initially at least) with his editor. Science relies on logic and reason and honesty, Dawkins language is often emotive, misleading and far from insightful.

This is the last I will say about this here, I have my views as do you so lets move on.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

I offer no apologies for my disapproval of Dawkins using poor language, the blame must lie (initially at least) with his editor. Science relies on logic and reason and honesty, Dawkins language is often emotive, misleading and far from insightful.

When Dawkins writes a scientific paper it is reasonable to expect scientific language. When he writes a book for the masses the expectations are different.

I'm glad you are not critiquing Keats or Shakespeare.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

If by the phrase "Dawkins bashing" you mean expressing informed disapproval at some of his books and claims and rhetoric then yes, I am.

I smell an agenda of sorts! 😉

But as per the end of the story, he is a scientist.

[dimreepr]

On 6/28/2021 at 10:51 PM, Holmes said:

I'm quite sure there's a definition out there somewhere that one can use to claim Dawkins is a "real" scientist but I do not regard him as a scientist myself. For example he seems to have contributed nothing to our understanding of genetics, yes he writes about this and in the public mind because of his popularity but I don't think he has discovered anything or published much in the form of research papers.

Who are you to judge?

You're clearly very biased against Dawkins, but why are you questioning his credentials, rather than arguing his many mistakes? 

You should open a post about him and critique his conclusion's... 😉 

On 6/23/2021 at 6:29 PM, Implications said:

I am argueing that value judgements absolutely can be true or false, becuase what is a true or false value is what is good or bad for conscious beings, and I am arguing that existence is generally bad for conscious beings though those effected by privilege and survivor bias may disagree, but we have no choice to keep living if we accept that our personal suffering doesn't matter that much and we have aduty to prevent the suffering of others.

What makes you think the privileged don't suffer?

[Intoscience]

On 6/29/2021 at 2:52 PM, zapatos said:

When Dawkins writes a scientific paper it is reasonable to expect scientific language. When he writes a book for the masses the expectations are different.

I'm glad you are not critiquing Keats or Shakespeare.

Absolutely, writing a book (especially if its scientific based) to appeal to the masses requires some artistic licence, else it will never be that popular. Any editor will encourage this style of writing to ensure book sales. If you want a purely scientific journal then there are plenty out there and I'm sure over his career Richard Dawkins would have written many such papers that have never been popularised. There are many "popular" scientists that are known to the masses that present in similar ways, with tv shows, books blogs etc... 

I don't agree with everything Richard Dawkins says but I respect him as a scientist and an expert in his particular field. And in fact if you ever listen to him in interviews he is quite humble and often implies that his scientific knowledge is generally limited to his own field, though it is quite clear from his talks that he is more than converse in other areas of science though maybe not an expert.   

Edited July 1, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[Holmes]

On 6/30/2021 at 5:04 AM, dimreepr said:

Who are you to judge?

I'm a member of society to whom Dawkins markets his products, just like you.

Quote

You're clearly very biased against Dawkins, but why are you questioning his credentials, rather than arguing his many mistakes? 

Because I do not think he sets a good example to young minds of an open minded seeker after truth.

Quote

You should open a post about him and critique his conclusion's... 😉 

I used to discuss his ideas on the Richard Dawkins forum but oddly that closed a few years ago.

 

12 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Absolutely, writing a book (especially if its scientific based) to appeal to the masses requires some artistic licence, else it will never be that popular. Any editor will encourage this style of writing to ensure book sales. If you want a purely scientific journal then there are plenty out there and I'm sure over his career Richard Dawkins would have written many such papers that have never been popularised. There are many "popular" scientists that are known to the masses that present in similar ways, with tv shows, books blogs etc... 

I don't agree with everything Richard Dawkins says but I respect him as a scientist and an expert in his particular field. And in fact if you ever listen to him in interviews he is quite humble and often implies that his scientific knowledge is generally limited to his own field, though it is quite clear from his talks that he is more than converse in other areas of science though maybe not an expert.   

Dawkins is not a psychiatrist yet clearly thinks he is able to diagnose that every person who believes something he does not, is suffering from a delusion. 

This therefore serves to immediately discredit such individuals and propagating this in his books, talks and so on sets an example to younger, more vulnerable minds of how to react to ideas that you personally do not share, it effectively encourages, teaches intolerance.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

I'm a member of society to whom Dawkins markets his products, just like you.

Dawkins does far more then marketing his products...he is a scientist and as such also educates.

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

Because I do not think he sets a good example to young minds of an open minded seeker after truth.

I suggest he sets an admirable example to young minds, not the least being following the logic and Dawinism.

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

I used to discuss his ideas on the Richard Dawkins forum but oddly that closed a few years ago.

Why oddly? forums come and go. My first  science forum is now defunct. Shit happens.

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

Dawkins is not a psychiatrist yet clearly thinks he is able to diagnose that every person who believes something he does not, is suffering from a delusion. 

This therefore serves to immediately discredit such individuals and propagating this in his books, talks and so on sets an example to younger, more vulnerable minds of how to react to ideas that you personally do not share, it effectively encourages, teaches intolerance.

Just as those persons who do not accept his science based facts, claim he [Dawkins] is delusional. At least Professor Dawkins has science as his fundamental support.

The individuals he discredits, perhaps deserve such criticism, particularly some I have seen attempting to lambast him in certain debates.

On 6/29/2021 at 11:47 PM, Holmes said:

This is the last I will say about this here, I have my views as do you so lets move on.

Perhaps it is the certainty that you seem to base your "opinions" on, that reflect more on your posts then anything else...opinions mostly without any evidence, references or proof, just plain old rhetoric.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Holmes said:

I'm a member of society to whom Dawkins markets his products, just like you.

That doesn't make you, or me, his peer; and therefore unsuitable to judge... 😉

15 hours ago, Holmes said:

I used to discuss his ideas on the Richard Dawkins forum but oddly that closed a few years ago.

On 6/30/2021 at 1:04 PM, dimreepr said:

You should open a post about him and critique his conclusion's... 😉 

FYI, that's sarcasm, here's the thread I started, and some follow up arguments here.

 

[beecee]

A measure of a reputable scientist would I suggest be based on the amount of scientific papers and publications he has published in peer reviewed journals and such.......

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

Also obviously the number of times other scientists have had the need for citations of his work.https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=0smOZFIAAAAJ&hl=en

21 330 times since 2013:

 

This may also be a measure....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by beecee