Register to Comment
Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 420
Like Tree239Likes
  1. #341
    myksav myksav is offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    29,377

    I think a very close second to the OED for the worlds most dangerous book is any poorly written Law/Statute book.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #342
    mary_queen_of_the_gael mary_queen_of_the_gael is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,416

    Quote Originally Posted by Trampas View Post
    You have obviously bumped into him. How is he keeping ?
    His bank balance is going well. His list of refereed papers is as flat as ever.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #343
    Dadaist Dadaist is offline
    Dadaist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,476

    Quote Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael View Post
    Oxford, i nthe past, has accepted funding from convicted Nazi war criminals so don't expect high standards.
    Daimler-Benz funded the Nazi party, would that make you think that Mercedes cars aren't up to high standards.

    Mary, I would suggest a different tact in a discussion about scientific standards, than to attack Oxford University's scientific standards.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #344
    Dadaist Dadaist is offline
    Dadaist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,476

    Quote Originally Posted by gracethepirate View Post
    I wonder if the non-academic "professorship" Dawkins received for propagating science (or whatever) was funded by any of his former colleagues. I imagine Dawkins with his ego would have been very hard to work with, probably an absolute pain. I have few doubts the appointment would have been greeted with some delight as he was now out of the faculty where real scientific research is pursued.
    Gracie, didn't you even look at LamportsEdge's post?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #345
    Tim Johnston Tim Johnston is offline
    Tim Johnston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,260

    Quote Originally Posted by LamportsEdge View Post
    Agreed. You might want to check the seriously deranged mutterings of 'Saul Peter' for a look at the madness behind some of the worst elements of that collection of scrolls codified and known as the 'bible'.

    You think Leviticus is mental- wait till you cop Saul Peter's foamings on the subject of women
    You must think Hammurabi's Code, the Iliad and the Bhagavad Gita are hilarious then. Are you not just confusing wisdom with hindsight? Those crazy ancient folk, eh?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #346
    mary_queen_of_the_gael mary_queen_of_the_gael is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,416

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadaist View Post
    Daimler-Benz funded the Nazi party, would that make you think that Mercedes cars aren't up to high standards.

    Mary, I would suggest a different tact in a discussion about scientific standards, than to attack Oxford University's scientific standards.
    Daimler: technical or moral standards. Ford also made cars for the Nazis and were not bombed by the USA.

    Oxford breached their own supposed standards by making Dawkins a professor. Oxford do not have a patent on such standards as the appointment of Dawkins shows.

    There are strong scientists who bash religion and their science gives them credibility. Steven Weinberg is one such person. Dawkins is not.
    Universities get much too easy a ride in discussions like this. They are seldom held to account and are allowed retain loads of chancers on top dollar who should be on the dole instead or, like Dawkins and others, presenting TV chat shows, quiz programmes etc.

    I sat down about 2 weeks ago to watch a programme on psychopaths and why they do what they do. It was some wretch in a wretchful university waffling on about the topic and asking his students what they think.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #347
    Al Gebra Al Gebra is offline
    Al Gebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,238

    Dawkins is a great scientist and educator despite the lame attempts to discredit him here.

    Here he is in action:

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #348
    mary_queen_of_the_gael mary_queen_of_the_gael is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,416

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Gebra View Post
    Dawkins is a great scientist and educator despite the lame attempts to discredit him here.
    Al Gebra. No one is trying to discredit him. He cannot be regarded as a great scientist for reasons already explained. Steven Weinberg, who is as vehemently opposed to religion as Dawkins is, can be. In case you are interested, I have no trick up my sleeve against Weinberg. If he talks I have to listen because he has scientific credibility, something Dawkins has not.

    If you wish to argue he is a good educator/V presenter like the equally anti religious (and racist) Sir Patrick Moore, please do. That would be a different debate.
    A good tv presenter might present an interesting TV programme and one I would like to watch. But a TV presenter such as Dawkins is not the man to demolish religion. He does not have the intellectual firepower.

    Weinberg, incidentally, is revealing on this.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #349
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,854

    Quote Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael View Post
    Thank you for that. Some observations:

    Most of these were published before 2000; the few after 2000 do not look very scientific.

    These make him look like yesterday's man. No wonder he moved into spoofer land.
    Dawkins' (2004) is not a refereed paper btw. Viruses of the Mind. How many minds did he cut up to get his data?

    Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399. He should have sent this to the Times or the DM. Not academic

    and so on.

    Thanks for the list though. I won't save it as I have all this joker's publications already.

    ps: I have his full CV too.
    If you ant a legitimate, heavyweight, God hating atheist, try Steven Weinberg to slow me up. Please spare me chancers like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Bertram Russell.


    Here is Weinberg's publication list. No comparison: find au weinberg, s - Search Results - INSPIRE-HEP
    Mary you are on terribly weak ground there- standing on the shifting sands of attempting to defend a book which is known to have been written by many different hands, many of whom give different accounts of the same events and none of whom were contemporary to the events described.

    And not only that ignoring the fact (and the question I asked) about Dawkin's published and peer reviewed papers- which have been refuted by experts in the field of evolutionary biology?

    I can't help feeling that you are resorting to attempts to dismiss Dawkins in the main by ad hominem attack. Which is all Dawkin's critics have because they know they can't refute or scorn his work which is solid.

    To go back to the world's most dangerous books- the bible was also dangerous at one time to even have in one's possession if you weren't a priest. It was a death sentence for the non-priest to have one in his possession just a few hundred years ago. I think it is very telling that those who seek to defend that most misanthropic book certainly of western civilisation (if it can be referred to in the same sentence as the word 'civilisation' which is debatable) will make some fairly weak-pawed attempt at criticising someone who has survived the test of time and peer-review in his work yet will obstinately refuse to acknowledge the notorious story of the bible- which is a hotchpotch of assembled apocrypha.

    It was THE book of the dark ages. A violent, misogynistic, deeply misanthropic editing of selected scrolls which contradict each other in telling the same story and with some very dark psychology involved in the making of it.

    It is amusing to think that those who seek to ban books or films or works of art will often attempt to do so while waving about one of the most revolting examples of human self-hatred in text to ever appear in all of the history of mankind.

    Rape. The murder of men, women in children in whole towns and cities for the pleasure of a deeply insecure godlet- the rest being a grab-bag of resurrection, virgin birth, half-man half-human, the vague promise of afterlife for obeying the priest-scribes in the one life you have- a manipulative retelling of much older stories for the profit of aforesaid scribes.

    At best it is a known fraud. At worst one of the most divisive and dangerous books of all time.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #350
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,854

    Quote Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael View Post
    Al Gebra. No one is trying to discredit him. He cannot be regarded as a great scientist for reasons already explained. Steven Weinberg, who is as vehemently opposed to religion as Dawkins is, can be. In case you are interested, I have no trick up my sleeve against Weinberg. If he talks I have to listen because he has scientific credibility, something Dawkins has not.

    If you wish to argue he is a good educator/V presenter like the equally anti religious (and racist) Sir Patrick Moore, please do. That would be a different debate.
    A good tv presenter might present an interesting TV programme and one I would like to watch. But a TV presenter such as Dawkins is not the man to demolish religion. He does not have the intellectual firepower.

    Weinberg, incidentally, is revealing on this.

    You keep trying to imply that Dawkins has been discredited in some way. By whom? And how? I've seen a few xtian attempts to allege that but not one of them attempts ever describes the how, why or names any of those who have supposedly 'discredited' Dawkins.

    Because it simply isn't true. This habit of wishful thinking to put it politely and downright lying at worst is no recommendation for the childishness of those who don't like the faithbox embedded in their psychology disturbed.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment