A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins

[Into the Night]

It's adherents almost universally believe in physical materialism, moral subjectivity, and/or scientism. There is nothing beyond matter and energy.

Buzzword fallacies. Pivot fallacy. Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science is not a degree or credential.
It is not a school, college, or university.

 

[Into the Night]

Since atheists generally pull things out of their asses, I suspect Dick Dawkins is fully equipped to speak for atheists.

Dawkins is not an atheist. Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

The average philosopher in America is an atheist. No one cares about Dawkins.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You sound like a compulsive bitcher.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You made it a point first to insinuate my post was chock full of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.

It is.

But then all you could come up with was a complaint that one single bullet point from my OP was lacking a little "nuance", lol

​

Lie. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I intentionally and specifically said he did not have expert training and expert education in biochemistry, physics, cosmology.

I took some chemistry and calculus classes in college, but that does not make me a subject matter expert in mathematics and chemistry.

Zoology is the study of animal behavior. It is not not a top tier fundamental science. Jane Austin may have been highly qualified to talk about chimpanzee societies and behaviors. But she didn't have the chops in the core physical and biological science to authoritatively pontificate about life, the universe, and everything.

Science is not religion, Cyborg.
It is not a class, college, university, degree, certification, license, or government institution.

 

[Into the Night]

I intentionally and specifically said he did not have expert training and expert education in biochemistry, physics, cosmology.

I took some chemistry and calculus classes in college, but that does not make me a subject matter expert in mathematics and chemistry.

Zoology is the study of animal behavior. It is not not a top tier fundamental science. Jane Austin may have been highly qualified to talk about chimpanzee societies and behaviors. But she didn't have the chops in the core physical and biological science to authoritatively pontificate about life, the universe, and everything.

Don't try to claim education you obviously don't have.
You routinely deny science.
You routinely deny mathematics.
You routinely deny logic.
You routinely deny the English language.

 

[Into the Night]

I like Sean Sean Carroll as an atheist spokesperson for the scientific perspective. He is an acknowledged expert on theoretical physics, cosmology, and natural philosophy. That's an excellent background to discuss the really deep questions.

Studying the way baby chickens peck their food does not elevate him for me to the standard of a scientific expert with the authority to address questions about life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

I don't think so. It doesn't seem you do.
You practically laughed at me for saying a background in the core physical and biological sciences would be an excellent qualification to discuss life, the universe, and everything from a scientific perspective.

You practically chuckled at the thought that physics has anything to do with the life sciences.

Science is not an 'expert'. Science is not a form of life. Science is not religion.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm truly sorry about that.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

I don’t know him but I’m sure he’s interesting.
I’d say Daw

Dawkins is not an atheist.

kins discusses atheism more from a biological perspective

Dawkins is not an atheist. He has never discussed atheism.

And you actually believe that’s the depth of his arguments?
That just confirms to me how shallow YOU are.

Sure. And you don’t consider physiology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, microbiology, histology, biochemistry, genetics, and embryology “top tier fundamental” science based on your refusal to acknowledge that.


I ACTUALLY laugh at how shallow you are when you don’t even consider physiology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, microbiology, histology, biochemistry, genetics, and embryology “top tier fundamental” science .

How so? I chuckle at your pretentiousness.

He routinely denies science, mathematics, logic, and even English.

 

[Into the Night]

I literally mentioned core sciences like cellular biology and biochemistry multiple times, which include subdisciplines like genetics and molecular biology. I am not obligated to write an extensive laundry list of all the sub disciplines.

The real question here is why are you pretending I did not discuss them multiple times?

You aren't discussing them. You are simply using them as buzzwords...meaningless.

Anatomy is just classification.

Nope. It is a compilation of how organs are place and named.

That's not hard science.

Science is not 'hard' or 'soft'. Science is not a sleep number, a pillow, a seat cushion, etc. It has no texture.

Classifying things is not ontological, and gives no insight into the ultimate realities of matter and energy.

Science is not religion.

Studying how chickens or chimpanzees behave is not going to give any insight into the deeper questions of life, the universe, and everything.

Science is not a study or research. it is not government funding. It is not a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

If matter and energy explain everything about life, the universe, and everything, then science is the only intellectual domain that provides any truth or knowledge.

Science is not a religion.

I'm always surprised how keen some message board atheists are to slowly backup and tiptoe away from a matter-and-energy only materialist worldview.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

So other than one "nuance" in just one bullet point in a list of ten bullet points, you have failed for at least the sixth time to justify your insinuation that my OP was chock full of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations.

He already did. RAAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I knew Dawkins PhD was in animal behavior. Studying the pecking habits of baby chickens, specifically. That is why I linked him to animal behaviourism.

The fact that he makes use of genetic research doesn't make him really any different from archeologists, anthropologists, and crime scene detectives who also make use of genetic data.

If you want to elevate zoology to a top-tier core hard science, that's up to you.

The takeaway here is that,
You don't get a degree in zoology and then get to say you have a degree in genetics.

You don't get to acquire an RN degree and then call yourself an MD.

You don't get to use your undergraduate minor in history to call yourself a historian

Irrelevant. Science is not 'hard' or 'soft'. Science is not a texture.

 

[Into the Night]

As much as you rely on google for your information I'd have thought you would have dug further than his 1969 doctoral thesis. Or did you actually think he just stopped there and then wrote books?

Core areas of research

• Gene-centered view of evolution:
  Dawkins is best known for popularizing the idea that genes are the fundamental units of selection

Dawkins is not Darwin.

In fact according to AI Overview, "Richard Dawkins' research focuses on evolutionary biology and genetics, particularly the gene-centered view of evolution".



He does research, FFS. And of course he uses citations. Fuck, anybody who publishes research cites other authors.

It's extremely broad. Some is , some isn't.


Nobody said any of that.
What irks me is that you clearly don't understand what the broad subject of zoology entails.
I could study my cat's behavior and say I'm a zoologist because I'm studying an animal. That's the definition of zoology - the study of animals

Zoology | Definition, History, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Zoology, branch of biology that studies the members of the animal kingdom and animal life in general. It includes both the inquiry into individual animals and their constituent parts, even to the molecular level, and the inquiry into animal populations, entire faunas, and the relationships of

www.britannica.com

As far as Dawkins, I don't particularly care for his writing. I read one to completion. It was torturous, like reading a Russian novel.
I started and gave up on two or three others.

It's really irrelevant. Cyborg is trying for a Couritier's fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

matter and energy are bullshit.

More like bullshit is matter and energy. Farmers actually collect it to fertilize the fields.

 

[Into the Night]

you're so dumb.

the bigger question about creating nuclear bombs is, should we do that?

you miss everything important.

'spergs like you are what's wrong with the world.

Kinda late to decide that! Nuclear bombs are already created.

Despite all the nuclear weapons in the world, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has worked. No nuclear bomb has been used against people since Nagasaki.

 

[Into the Night]

So agitated now he is frantically googling

Dawkins bibliography of scientific papers is heavily weighted towards animal behavior and adaptation:

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

Dawkins undoubtedly collaborates with trained experts in genetics, just like forensic detectives do. I doubt Dawkins has ever worked directly in a genetic lab extracting samples, and running the equipment, etc. He never got a degree in genetics.

Most of the famous zoologist you've heard of - Richard Dawkins, Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, Morley Fowat - mostly worked on animal behavior because that is exactly the primary focus of zoology:

While not all zoologists study animal behavior, it is a significant and common focus, with fields like ethology specifically dedicated to it. Many zoologists study animal behavior as it is crucial for understanding their ecosystems, health, and conservation. ​

​

The focus on behavior: Studying behavior helps zoologists understand how animals communicate, interact, find food, and reproduce. ​

​

Why it's important: Research into animal behavior is essential for conservation efforts, as it helps inform strategies to protect endangered species and manage ecosystems, especially in the face of human impact. ​

​

-Google AI​

​

​

Science isn't a paper. Science is not an 'expert'. Science is not a study or research. Science is not government funding.
Government 'save the endangered species' programs are just tyranny.

 

[Into the Night]

"While Dawkins is not a geneticist and his ideas have been criticized for being outdated, his work remains highly influential in popular science and evolutionary thought, especially regarding the "selfish gene" concept. However, it is important to remember that modern genetics has advanced significantly beyond his core contributions."

Google AI

Science is not religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Either atheism or theism is a belief only, not provable.

The only emotionally and rationally correct system is agnosticism.

An obvious lie.

People can find emotionally satisfying and rationality in any religion. Atheism can also be quite rational, though it tends to lack the emotional satisfaction of a religion.