|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Aug 13, 2007 16:18
If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
|
| |
|
| | 55 Comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Aug 13, 2007 16:43
The only attack I saw (months ago) was when a fundamentalist Christian
preacher turned feral when he realized what Dawkins stood for.
Dawkins simply states his case. He sees very clearly how the history of
religious beliefs is repeating itself with the potential conflict.
He doesnt know why, but I would hardly call his passion for his position ,
attack mode.
He has a reputation as one of the four best thinkers of his age.
BOfL
"chazwin" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187047091.987903.132320@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
> if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
> I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
> which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
> and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
> puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
> Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
>
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Aug 13, 2007 18:34
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:18:11 -0700, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
>if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
>I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
>which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
>and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
>puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
>Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
None of these "thinkers", consider the central place of neuroscience
and neurology in any and all practices of religions. Thus they all
lose complete credibility, unless you like false folk lore stories.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Chris H. FlemingChris H. Fleming Date: Aug 13, 2007 19:34
On Aug 13, 7:18 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:> If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
> if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
> I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
> which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
> and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
> puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
> Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
Dawkins has no faith in science liar.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: -Phil Clemence-Phil Clemence Date: Aug 13, 2007 19:42
"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:mr02c3hsb29ikgg03bcr0qvseoe1fab18g@4ax.com...> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:18:11 -0700, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
>>if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
>>I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
>>which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
>>and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
>>puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
>>Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
>
> None of these "thinkers", consider the central place of neuroscience
> and neurology in any and all practices of religions.
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Aug 13, 2007 20:38
On Aug 13, 4:18 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:> If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
> if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
> I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
> which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
> and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
> puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
> Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Aug 13, 2007 21:41
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:42:27 -0400, "-Phil Clemence" wrote:
>
>"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
>news:mr02c3hsb29ikgg03bcr0qvseoe1fab18g@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:18:11 -0700, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>If anyone...
|
| Show full article (2.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Aug 14, 2007 02:37
On Aug 14, 2:34 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:18:11 -0700, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:>>If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
>>if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
>>I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
>>which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
>>and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
>>puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
>>Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
>
> None of these "thinkers", consider the central place of neuroscience
> and neurology in any and all practices of religions. Thus they all
> lose complete credibility, unless...
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Aug 14, 2007 02:44
On Aug 14, 3:34 am, "Chris H. Fleming" yahoo.com>
wrote:> On Aug 13, 7:18 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If anyone has seen R Dawkins television spectactular tonight I wonder
>> if any of you found it as pedestrian and disappointing as I did.
>> I heartily recommend "Jonathan Miller's Rough History of Disbelief"
>> which aired a couple of years ago. It is a great deal more thoughtful
>> and seems to reject the massive need Dawkins has to attack. Miller
>> puts his case by the use of plain reason and philosophical insight;
>> Dawkins is too obesessed with his own faith in science.
>
> Dawkins has no faith in science liar.
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Aug 14, 2007 03:36
On Aug 14, 6:44 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is a perfectly reasonable assertion that Dawkins has faith in
> science. Faith is to accept or beleive in a thing without direct
> evidence.
And science offers no sensory evidence and doesn't experiment in order
to search and identify and eliminate contradictions in any of its
findings?
Christolmighty you're a King Kantian fuckwit chazzzzz.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
