The Dawkins delusion

[plindboe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

I'm a minor Dawkins fan, but this video made me giggle. :D

[T'ai Chi]

I like this video better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik&mode=related&search=

[joobz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

I'm a minor Dawkins fan, but this video made me giggle. :DI give them credit to their impression of Dawkins. It was pretty good.

[ShowerComic]

Very funny spoof.

[CFLarsen]

I like this video better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik&mode=related&search=

Absolutely. But not for the reasons you "like".

It isn't about a "sensitivity" toward those who don't understand science - or, like you, don't want to understand science. But a clear demarcation between ignorance and knowledge.

Why should we let "sensitivity" decide how science is presented? Science doesn't take sides, it doesn't aim to step on anybody's toes. It just tells us the answers as they are.

Either you like the answers that science gives you - or you don't.

If you do, good for you. That means you put aside your own beliefs and choose reality.

If you don't, well...you can stomp your little feet all you like. You can be - or act - as offended by reality as you please. The harsh truth is that crying foul won't change reality one little bit.

What is dangerous is when people like you try to impose your self-chosen ignorance on the rest of us, e.g., by blankly dismissing people like Dawkins, simply because you don't like the facts he is presenting.

Reality beats your dislike of reality any day.

[newlyfound]

Dawkins has A Life, A pretty darn interesting and full one, those who have nothing better to do than waste a tremendous time attacking him as well as producing mediocre quality vids, material and what not in the process of doing so don't and need to get one for their own sake. In attacking him and rather so stupidly, they only end up looking dump and gross in the process.

[joobz]

Dawkins has A Life, A pretty darn interesting and full one, those who have nothing better to do than waste a tremendous time attacking him as well as producing mediocre quality vids, material and what not in the process of doing so don't and need to get one for their own sake. In attacking him and rather so stupidly, they only end up looking dump and gross in the process.
I disagree, it was actually a much better attempt at parody and humor than other anti-dawkins stuff i've seen. I'd even say that the parody was superior to south park's version of Dawkins. although, it is hard to beat 'pound my monkey hole'.

[Susan Gerbic]

I really enjoyed the parody, thanks for sharing it. I bet he laughed out loud when he saw it.

Susan

[Safe-Keeper]

I love it. That guy does such a good job sounding like Dawkins it's funny.

[hgc]

Absolutely. But not for the reasons you "like".

It isn't about a "sensitivity" toward those who don't understand science - or, like you, don't want to understand science. But a clear demarcation between ignorance and knowledge.

Why should we let "sensitivity" decide how science is presented? Science doesn't take sides, it doesn't aim to step on anybody's toes. It just tells us the answers as they are.

Either you like the answers that science gives you - or you don't.

If you do, good for you. That means you put aside your own beliefs and choose reality.

If you don't, well...you can stomp your little feet all you like. You can be - or act - as offended by reality as you please. The harsh truth is that crying foul won't change reality one little bit.

What is dangerous is when people like you try to impose your self-chosen ignorance on the rest of us, e.g., by blankly dismissing people like Dawkins, simply because you don't like the facts he is presenting.

Reality beats your dislike of reality any day.


All Tyson is saying is that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. But he also doesn't understand that Dawkins is doing his thing his way, and that it's just not for everybody. There are a lot of valuable science populizers out there, and they have different methods and manners, and they appeal to different audiences.

The thing about Dawkins is that he's gravitated toward the intersection of popular science writing and making the case for atheism. It's inevitable that believers will get their hackles up. Tyson is a science populizer without the burden of the other thing. It's easy for him to be 'nice.' I think he's braced for the blowback from believers onto science that comes with someone like Dawkins making a forceful case that science is not compatable with god beliefs. But the believers are actively, not reactively, attacking science already, because they well understand that Darwin and the rest undermines their world-view. Witness the Discovery Institute.

[Roboramma]

I'm surprised. That was actually quite good. If I was Dawkins, it would have made me laugh (and it did).

Of course, if I were a monkey I'd be up a tree.

[newlyfound]

I disagree, it was actually a much better attempt at parody and humor than other anti-dawkins stuff i've seen.

Yeah, I give you that much, I just saw all if it now, b4 I switched after 15 seconds. What about the content of the fake Christmas package though? does it count for anything? because if Dawkins is about A-NY-THING, he is about the content of claims not their mold. When did Dawkins ever say that people should "follow him"? You and I know this is a parody, the woos out there don't. And why do they have to advertise the book at the end if their main goal is not to take a bite off one of Dawkins' little toes? they wanna make money, they need to make it coming up with their own trend, and not sucking on Dawkins' resources like leeches. What would they have come up with if he didn't write TGD?


I'd even say that the parody was superior to south park's version of Dawkins. although, it is hard to beat 'pound my monkey hole'. South Park done something on Dawkins:jaw-dropp ?! Ooh, I wanna see that, I have the feeling it's going to be good, LOL. Thanks :D .

[newlyfound]

All Tyson is saying is that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.


Processed or natural sugar :D ?



But the believers are actively, not reactively, attacking science already, because they well understand that Darwin and the rest undermines their world-view.

Not reactively? are you sure about that? ...speaking about "undermining" what gives them the right to undermine people freedoms to believe what they want?

[hgc]

Not reactively? are you sure about that?


I mean that they're not attacking science out of reaction to Dawkins and the other strident atheists in science. They are certainly reacting to the inconvenient reality as illuminated by science.

...speaking about "undermining" what gives them the right to undermine people freedoms to believe what they want?


Who's the "them" in this question?

[ShowerComic]

I'm surprised. That was actually quite good. If I was Dawkins, it would have made me laugh (and it did).


Exactly. What people have to remember is Dawkins does have a sense of humor. When he was parodied on 'South Park' for example his only complaint was they didn't do the British Accent well enough.

Now if I were Lalla Ward on the other hand ... :mad:

[newlyfound]

I mean that they're not attacking science out of reaction to Dawkins and the other strident atheists in science. They are certainly reacting to the inconvenient reality as illuminated by science.

Check this out, they are being as reactive a they come. Or at least some of them.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255


Who's the "them" in this question? the believers.

[vincent1555]

That was fantastic.