Into the Night
Verified User
Dawkins denies science. He is not an atheist.
Science is not a credential. Courtier's fallacy.
Science is not religion.
A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
You can always tell when Li'l Cypress gets a load in his diapers. He suddenly changes your posts and demands you be angry. Pitiful.
Oh, also, sweetie, you DO NOT know more about atheism than most atheists. You just demand people tell you you do. You are not unlike Trump in that respect.
fyfy....I know more than you.Oh, also, sweetie, you DO NOT know more about atheism than most atheists!
You insinuated anything and everything you needed to know about atheism was found in an eight word dictionary definition.
That shows a profound ignorance of the extensive literary and rhetorical production of the seminal atheist authors and influencers of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. I'm reading one of them right now.
Clearly not.
And again, Cypress "fixes" a post because he's SO PISSED OFF he can't think.
Go ahead, Cy, change this one too. Make it look like I'm real mad.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Cue, 3, 2, 1.....
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Much of the above is a mischaracterization of Dawkins' position.Concise summary of "Outgrowing God", Richard Dawkins
2019
Humans have invented thousands of gods.
The Old Testament is just myths, violence, retribution.
The New Testament is utterly unreliable because the books were written decades or centuries after Jesus' ministry.
Some scholars are skeptical Jesus ever actually existed.
The only sources confirming the historical Jesus outside the canon were Josephus and Tacitus, and Josephus was probably forged by Christians.
The game of telephone proves you can't have reliable transmission of information through multiple generations of people.
Paul barely ever mentions Jesus.
Evolution explains the intricate complexity of life.
Science basically proves there can't be a designer.
Basically all knowledge and truth comes from science.
Noking
Verified User
Can you back-up what you just posted????????????
No, I'm reading his book and that is the basic gist of it.
There may be interviews of Dawkins backtracking from these claims, but this is the basic gist of this particular book.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Based on the number of extraneous question marks, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I get it, but your wording adds nuances that aren't there but that you want to be there. You do this so you can "prove him to be mistaken" when you will only be showing that your added errors are what are false.
For example, Dawkins does not claim that science proves that there is no designer. He knows that science cannot do that. You are pretending to set Dawkins up for failure.
Assigning false positions to Dawkins in the name of them being "the gist" is dishonest.
No one cares about Dawkins.Concise summary of "Outgrowing God", Richard Dawkins
Humans have invented thousands of gods.
The Old Testament is just myths, violence, retribution.
The New Testament is utterly unreliable because the books were written decades or centuries after Jesus' ministry.
Some scholars are skeptical Jesus ever actually existed.
The only sources confirming the historical Jesus outside the canon were Josephus and Tacitus, and Josephus was probably forged by Christians.
The game of telephone proves you can't have reliable transmission of information through multiple generations of people.
Paul barely ever mentions Jesus.
Evolution explains the intricate complexity of life.
Science basically proves there can't be a designer.
Basically all knowledge and truth comes from science.
What is there to know about atheism?
Noking
Verified User
What do you mean by the mischaracterization of Richard Dawkins' position??????
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Richard Dawkins clearly spells out his position, but Cypress only gives "the gist," which actually adds some nuances and removes others to render a mischaracterization of Dawkins' position.
Thank you for using the correct six question marks as opposed to the ambiguous twelve that throw the entire question into doubt.
Jesus, you made a big deal of complaining about my post, but then "nuance" on just one particular bullet point is the best you can do?
Dawkins believes to his core that natural selection explains complexity and basically eliminates the need for a designer.
That's why I specifically used the term basically proved, to indicate that in Dawkins mind the probability is so high that naturalistic explanations suffice, there's no need to assign a measurable probability to a designer.
It's adherents almost universally believe in physical materialism, moral subjectivity, and/or scientism. There is nothing beyond matter and energy.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Richard Dawkins almost certainly had to take chemistry as part of his B.A. in Zoology at Balliol College, given its foundational role in biological sciences and Oxford’s Prelims structure. He likely also took physics, though it may have been less extensive or optional, depending on his specialization in ethology under Tinbergen. Without access to Balliol’s exact 1962 curriculum, I can’t confirm the precise credits, but chemistry was a non-negotiable component, and physics was highly probable for a well-rounded science degree.
Grok
Here’s how it worked in Richard Dawkins’s time (early 1960s):
For a Zoology degree, this meant taking courses (and exams) in biology, chemistry, and physics, and sometimes mathematics during the first year or two.
ChatGPT
I got my undergraduate degree in zoology from LSU.
I suspect Oxford is at least as rigorous as LSU, lol.
2 semesters Inorganic chemistry w/ lab, 2 semesters organic, 2 semesters physics and 10 hours of calculus were all required.