Richard Dawkins Event Cancelled

#51
#51
Orangedogsrule said:
Back in the day, all this was common knowledge.

Dawkins has continuously behaved ill mannered, and often ill logically. It's become sort of a hallmark of his and so doesn't bring distinction to Oxford, but more of a "What the hell were they thinking placing that crass person in an Oxford Chair?

Sure, militant atheists were/are impressed, but he has done some really foolish things. One being the letter he wrote to his daughter when she was 10.

https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/09/04/dawkins-incredibly-illogical-letter-to-his-daughter/

His daughter recently forbade him to see his grandchildren.

https://www.twitter.com/TerryMcCracken/status/369899897647935488

Dawk just wasn't worthy to hold the chair, except that he was a militant atheist as was wanted by the endower.

http://strangenotions.com/is-richard-dawkins-close-to-christianity/

http://www.catholicstand.com/atheist-richard-dawkins-responsible-statements/

I'm not presenting religion here, I'm saying Dawkins did nothing to enhance Oxford's reputation among most folk. Just as the catholicstand.com article brings into question the "hard science" Dawkins often uses, so did some of the Oxford professors. And they weren't happy about the chair being in the science department.

Of course, militant atheists love him.《=that is, as you say, subjective
Click to expand...

On that first link, here's what it is claimed he said:

"He says that in contrast to “evidence, which is a good reason for believing something,” there are “three bad reasons for believing anything.” These, he believes, are the concepts of “tradition,” “authority,” and “revelation.”"

So, for years he has chosen the tradition and authority of the chair of OXford, to help him reveal his messages ?? He's unbelievable.
 
#52
#52
Orangedogsrule said:
It's his behavior, often illogical, that did nothing for Oxford's reputation, I find abhorent.
Click to expand...

Again, you admit that this ultimately boils down to your faux outrage that he was given a title by Oxford - and that your butt-hurt over that is a product of his agnosticism. Good, we agree.

You should have just said that in the first place, instead of prancing about calling your opinion "truth".

Seriously, the only abhorrent behavior here is you're asserting other people are 'illogical' without realizing the irony in your position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#53
#53
UT-Rex said:
On that first link, here's what it is claimed he said:

"He says that in contrast to “evidence, which is a good reason for believing something,” there are “three bad reasons for believing anything.” These, he believes, are the concepts of “tradition,” “authority,” and “revelation.”"

So, for years he has chosen the tradition and authority of the chair of OXford, to help him reveal his messages ?? He's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

200.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#55
#55
Septic said:
Again, you admit that this ultimately boils down to your faux outrage that he was given a title by Oxford - and that your butt-hurt over that is a product of his agnosticism. Good, we agree.

You should have just said that in the first place, instead of prancing about calling your opinion "truth".

Seriously, the only abhorrent behavior here is your asserting other people are 'illogical' without realizing the irony in your position.
Click to expand...

Blather blather blah blah...

So you didn't read the links?

"Faux outrage" is what you are displaying about my posts. You're a Sqawkin Dawkin nut hugger and don't like your idol being taken down a notch or three.
He's a goon in many ways. And often illogical.

You should find another atheist proselytizer to bow down to. This is unbecoming.

http://donboys.cstnews.com/dawkins-is-a-clown-no-insult-to-clowns

..."Atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins’ book The God Delusion: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” Ruse says of the book, “Don’t judge the rest of us by this pseudointellectual drivel.” ...

Sorry Oxford. This is what you set yourself up for.

One of your "distinguished" professors works being called "intelluctual drivel".

"Good" science that, eh?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
Orangedogsrule said:
Blather blather blah blah...

So you didn't read the links?

"Faux outrage" is what you are displaying about my posts. You're a Sqawkin Dawkin nut hugger and don't like your idol being taken down a notch or three.
He's a goon in many ways. And often illogical.

You should find another atheist proselytizer to bow down to. This is unbecoming.

http://donboys.cstnews.com/dawkins-is-a-clown-no-insult-to-clowns

..."Atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins’ book The God Delusion: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” Ruse says of the book, “Don’t judge the rest of us by this pseudointellectual drivel.” ...

Sorry Oxford. This is what you set yourself up for.

One of your "distinguished" professors works being called "intelluctual drivel".

"Good" science that, eh?
Click to expand...

I don't need to read the links to see you're upset about the brilliant mind of Dr. Dawkins being awarded a very prestigious title by Oxford University.

All of the rest of your folksy old man banter is just meaningless fodder. Your opinion isn't fact no matter how many links you post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#57
#57
Septic said:
I don't need to read the links to see you're upset about the brilliant mind of Dr. Dawkins being awarded a very prestigious title by Oxford University.

All of the rest of your folksy old man banter is just meaningless fodder. Your opinion isn't fact no matter how many links you post.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. Yes it is fact that he's considered a coarse boorish man too often prone to spout and write drivel by many other brilliant minds of equal or greater intellect who are also atheists.

And your open refusal to consider it and your "brilliant mind" of Sqawkin Dawkins comment only proves what a Dawk nut hugger you are.

The Dawk's a goof. A smart goof. Still yet a goof. A mean spirited one at that.

Again, there were other atheists more worthy of the chair. His demeanor has tarnished, and still does, the ideals of higher education at Oxford. Your support of him only tarnishes my opinion of your honest intelluctual capacity.
But you don't care about that.

Again, I am NOT getting on his atheism. I, and a world others, just can't stand his ways.

Think about it. His own daughter refuses to let him around her children.

But, oh well, JMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
Orangedogsrule said:
Oh yes. Yes it is fact that he's considered a coarse boorish man too often prone to spout and write drivel by many other brilliant minds of equal or greater intellect who are also atheists.

And your open refusal to consider it and your "brilliant mind" of Sqawkin Dawkins comment only proves what a Dawk nut hugger you are.

The Dawk's a goof. A smart goof. Still yet a goof. A mean spirited one at that.

Again, there were other atheists more worthy of the chair. His demeanor has tarnished, and still does, the ideals of higher education at Oxford. Your support of him only tarnishes my opinion of your honest intelluctual capacity.
But you don't care about that.

Again, I am NOT getting on his atheism. I, and a world others, just can't stand his ways.

Think about it. His own daughter refuses to let him around her children.

But, oh well, JMHO.
Click to expand...

What's your point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
Septic said:
What's your point?
Click to expand...

Sqawkin Dawkins is widely considered a buffoon on the order of Trump. Whether or not his atheism holds water.

Because of his cherry picking of debate opponents, inanities, bufoonery, and often pseudo intellectual rants, many are sick of him.

Seriously, who is really happy with the Trumpster as the poster child for conservatism? I would much rather it been just about anyone else but a Democrat/socialist/nom de jour. Same goes for Dawk. Any one else of reasonable intellectual capacity would, not could but would, do better as a representative of Oxford.

Likewise, who at Oxford can be happy to have such a jackass as the modern face of the school?
I do not like him. In the Dawks own words he would not care and say to me, "Well f*** you, f*** you, f*** you, f*** you, f*** you, f**kity f**ckity, f*** you.

A booring donkeys butt is what he is.

Can't wait till atheistic apologetics reaches the Post-Dawk era. Then some real debate can occur. Until then, the misotheistic militant religion haters like yourself (see your first post) have the reigns and folk like me look up and think, oh crap ... here we go again.

That's my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
rjd970 said:
I agree, but do you think the reverse is true as well? Is it bigotry when a religious person thinks they are better than someone (or saved, or enlightened, or whatever) because they believe something said person doesn't? The arrogance absolutely cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, how would it be bigotry/arrogance to believe that you and I are both sinners, but I have a relationship with God (whom I believe in), and you don't have a relationship with God (whom you don't believe in)?

Or stated another way: How is it bigotry/arrogance to believe that we are both sinners, but I have accepted free salvation while you have not?
 
#61
#61
Orangedogsrule said:
Sqawkin Dawkins is widely considered a buffoon on the order of Trump. Whether or not his atheism holds water.

Because of his cherry picking of debate opponents, inanities, bufoonery, and often pseudo intellectual rants, many are sick of him.

Seriously, who is really happy with the Trumpster as the poster child for conservatism? I would much rather it been just about anyone else but a Democrat/socialist/nom de jour. Same goes for Dawk. Any one else of reasonable intellectual capacity would, not could but would, do better as a representative of Oxford.

Likewise, who at Oxford can be happy to have such a jackass as the modern face of the school?
I do not like him. In the Dawks own words he would not care and say to me, "Well f*** you, f*** you, f*** you, f*** you, f*** you, f**kity f**ckity, f*** you.

A booring donkeys butt is what he is.

Can't wait till atheistic apologetics reaches the Post-Dawk era. Then some real debate can occur. Until then, the misotheistic militant religion haters like yourself (see your first post) have the reigns and folk like me look up and think, oh crap ... here we go again.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

Dr. Dawkins is a kind, caring and loving man in addition to his unsurpassed genius. How you could say that about him is astonishing - Oxford is lucky he graces them with his presence. Speaking of militant, your posts are just short of hate speech - it's hard to even read.

Maybe if you softened your tone a little, the ideas you're trying to convey would be easier to understand. Your point is remains muddied, try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#62
#62
Septic said:
Dr. Dawkins is a kind, caring and loving man in addition to his unsurpassed genius. How you could say that about him is astonishing - Oxford is lucky he graces them with his presence. Speaking of militant, your posts are just short of hate speech - it's hard to even read.

Maybe if you softened your tone a little, the ideas you're trying to convey would be easier to understand. Your point is remains muddied, try again.
Click to expand...

Kind and loving??!
Is that you Dawk?
 
#63
#63
Quote:
Originally Posted by UT-Rex View Post
On that first link, here's what it is claimed he said:

"He says that in contrast to “evidence, which is a good reason for believing something,” there are “three bad reasons for believing anything.” These, he believes, are the concepts of “tradition,” “authority,” and “revelation.”"

So, for years he has chosen the tradition and authority of the chair of OXford, to help him reveal his messages ?? He's unbelievable.

Septic said:
200.gif
Click to expand...

Isn't that a cute little gif. Is she your fav actress?

"At some point in history, about 4b years ago, a replicating entity arose -- not a gene as we would now see it, but something funcionally-equivalent to a gene -- which, because it had the power to replicate, and the power to influence it's own probability of replicating, and replicated with slight errors, gave rise to the wwwhole of life."

Wow. He's essentially a preacher, just preaching someone's message (maybe that of Darwin's, or someone's from ages ago).

In fact, his message and delivery is structured very similar to Genesis 1 -- he speaks, and it's /recorded/written for others. I happen to believe what was spoken in and written of Genesis 1 (thru Rev 22).
 
#68
#68
Orangedogsrule said:
lol... Not at all what you think. And yours is a very simplistic observation.

The Dawk's just an asshat. As so many militant atheists are. Oxford should have done a more thorough vetting.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

You're raving like a lunatic. You've written paragraph after paragraph attacking Dawkins and the only substantial criticisms of Dawkins' work you may have made would be found in the links you posted, but I don't know. You may just be burying the lead. It worked because I don't want to pour through that ****.

The only thing I know about Dawkins is that he is an atheist. I have never read his work. I say as an impartial observer that he clearly has your goat. Your level of butthurt is "simple" to observe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#69
#69
Orange_Crush said:
Just out of curiosity, how would it be bigotry/arrogance to believe that you and I are both sinners, but I have a relationship with God (whom I believe in), and you don't have a relationship with God (whom you don't believe in)?

Or stated another way: How is it bigotry/arrogance to believe that we are both sinners, but I have accepted free salvation while you have not?
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
I agree, but do you think the reverse is true as well? Is it bigotry when a religious person thinks they are better than someone (or saved, or enlightened, or whatever) because they believe something said person doesn't? The arrogance absolutely cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#70
#70
Orangedogsrule said:
lol... Not at all what you think. And yours is a very simplistic observation.

The Dawk's just an asshat. As so many militant atheists are. Oxford should have done a more thorough vetting.
Click to expand...

Militant atheists pose less of a threat then militant religious people of any denomination
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
n_huffhines said:
What does this even mean?

You're raving like a lunatic. You've written paragraph after paragraph attacking Dawkins and the only substantial criticisms of Dawkins' work you may have made would be found in the links you posted, but I don't know.
Click to expand...

L-O f-in L! You haven't read hardly anything I wrote. I specifically said I'm not dealing with his atheism, but him. So helllo! Yes I am attacking the man, not his work. He's an asshat. So much so his daughter won't let him around her children. You know, "Pop-pop does (insert her reason) kids. He can't come over any more".

You may just be burying the lead. It worked because I don't want to pour through that ****
Click to expand...

Nope, he's a goof. An embarassment to atheists of good will. Publishing what one called "drivel".

The only thing I know about Dawkins is that he is an atheist. I have never read his work.
Click to expand...

I've owned or read four of his famous books as I posted above, read articles on atheism by him and others, and watched oh say ... 15 or 20 of his videos through the years.

I say as an impartial observer that he clearly has your goat.
Click to expand...

chortle ... Like Trump has your goat?
I equate the two, very much.

Your level of butthurt is "simple" to observe.
Click to expand...

Phhhuttt...

Follow the links or you have no credibility.

Actually .... you don't anyway, but read them.
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
"I read 4 of his books and it's drivel" is not a substantive criticism, no matter how many times you type it, ODR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top