Difference between revisions of "Talk:Richard Dawkins"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Photograph of Adolf Hitler)
(Incoherent mess)
 
(177 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
+
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]  
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
+
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]  
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
+
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]
+
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]
 
+
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]
 +
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
 +
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
 +
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
 +
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]
 +
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]
 +
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 10|Archive #10]]
 
<!--  
 
<!--  
 
=======================================================================
 
=======================================================================
Line 9: Line 15:
 
======================================================================= -->
 
======================================================================= -->
  
== For the record... ==
+
== Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome ==
 
+
I am an atheist, and I hate this guy.  He completely misrepresents the vast majority of atheists through his militant attacks on religion.  Atheists in general are in a state of spiritual neutrality, neither believing or, as some religious people put it, "disbelieving" or "rejecting".  I know that is the case for me. [[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 01:25, 18 November 2010 (PST)
+
::::[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/][http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational][http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm]  Jesus said, ""He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters."  In short, there is no neutrality. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:38, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Jonathon sarfati book ==
+
 
+
Jonathon sarfati book: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=161085 incorporate in article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Journal Nature and Richard Dawkins ==
+
  
In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion.[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html] 
+
Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/18/richard-dawkins-stands-remarks-sexism-pedophilia-syndrome/
  
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCZYpGzu7rA&feature=related Ole!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAYSQXSMnss&feature=related Ole!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQwWvw3uTJM&feature=related Ole!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:26, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
+
Use feminist quotes about Dawkins and women in the [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:50, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
  
== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ==
+
== Incorporate former prominent atheist turned deist Antony Flew's criticism of the God Delusion at Conservapedia ==
  
In all likelihood, a [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] section is going to be added to the Richard Dawkins article.  The traffic statistics for richarddawkins.net indicates his female audience is below average and of course there are a variety of likely reasons for this.[http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics][http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net]  For example, many women are not fond of [[Abrasiveness of Richard_Dawkins|men with abrasive demeanors]] and  [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|men who lack courage]].  But of course, that is only a few of the explanations and more will of course be offered. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
+
"Professor [[Antony Flew|Anthony Flew]] (who at one time was quite possibly the most famous atheist academic in the world and who later actually abandoned his atheism to adopt theism due to recent advances in science) commented that “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360]
  
== Just added in article: Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is! ==
+
== Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid of talking about Islam or Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement ==
  
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:40, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
+
Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid of talking about Islam or Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement.  
  
== Reference #3 ==
+
See: [http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2018/06/on-what-not-to-ask-new-atheist-richard.html ON RICHARD DAWKINS TELLING ME WHAT NOT TO ASK]
  
"Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of atheism and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."
+
I may transcribe some of the video.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:53, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
  
The above stated is in no way related to the article the citation gives for it. I ask that you please remove it or find an accurate source. We must in all cases try to report correct information if we are going to try to win people over.
+
==Living People==
:::Please elaborate. I am not sure what you are referring to.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:00, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
+
Should there be a category "Living People" as there is in [[Wikipedia]] and this article be put in it?[[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 10:56, 8 March 2019 (EST)
On the Richard Dawkins page the third citation is an article in the ny times. It does not mention anything in regards to the studies that atheists are more likely to commit suicide or studies associating theism with better mental and physical health.
+
:I dunno; given how WP treats Donald Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. Jerome Corsi, Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson, what difference does it make? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:32, 8 March 2019 (EST)
::::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:45, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
+
::There's no use of a "living people" category for CP. It would be worthless, and we'd have to remove it every time someone dies. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 March 2019 (EST)
 +
:::WP (and by extension RW) has a catgory of living persons as an excuse to hide the [[sin]]s of [[liberal]]s. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:41, 8 March 2019 (EST)
 +
* Please forgive my ignorance, but what does RW stand for? [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Ratwiki, an alleged anti-pseudoscience site. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:24, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
 +
I did a quick Google search for "Rat Wiki" just now (on Saint Patrick's Day, 2019) and the lead article I got was the Wikipedia article on the rat. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 14:05, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
 +
:CP doesn't allow anyone to use its full name, though your search results were superior to that other wiki. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Of late, I've been following the strange case of the alleged pseudo-scientist Deepak Chopra whom PBS has recruited for fundraising. Odd, since PBS has led the pack in mocking alleged Creationist pseudoscience and fighting alleged global warming denier pseudoscience. [http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018/04/rationalwiki-is-gas-lighting-lying-covering-up-platform-wide-harassment/ WP & Ratwiki have been silent on this turn of events], where PBS now is, according to them, one of the biggest purveyors of pseudoscience on the planet. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:25, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::RobS, see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]. Atheism/agnosticism cause more societal pseudoscience and superstition and not less.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
  
== Conservapedia recently became aware of a highly critical article of Richard Dawkins.... ==
+
==Article on Dawkins in Wikipedia==
 +
The article on Richard Dawkins in [[Wikipedia]] has a talk page saying that Richard Dawkins is very illiterate when it comes to knowledge of ancient history and Biblical texts. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (EST)
 +
:The 7th paragraph of the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins article indicates: "In terms of the theism vs. agnosticism and atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of philosophy and theology. For example, philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."[9] The philosopher Antony Flew, who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting deism, said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[10]."
  
Conservapedia recently became aware of a highly critical article of Richard Dawkins that just came out which lodges legitimate criticisms of Mr. Dawkins.  Of course, Conservapedia intends to incorporate the material in the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins article.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:30, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
+
:Another paragraph in the article indicates: "As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]]."
  
== Review of the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins article being done by Christian apologist ==
+
:So the article already covers Dawkins' ignorance and/or deceptiveness when it comes to theological/historical matters.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
  
A review of the Conservapedia (CP) Richard Dawkins article is expected to be done soon by a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] who has written various criticisms of Richard Dawkins' material. After the review is completed, the CP Richard Dawkins article may receive some further updates.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:10, 20 September 2010 (EDT)
+
==The Selfish Gene==
 +
This article seems rather biassed to discussion of one book by Dawkins - "The God Delusion". It could point out that his most famous book is probably [[The Selfish Gene]]. This book argues that the gene should be seen as the unit of natural selection. The article could point out that this book has been criticised by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin in their book "Not in Our Genes" for promoting genetic determinism. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:22, 20 June 2020 (EDT)
 +
:The book The God Delusion sold about 3 times as many copies as The Selfish Gene (one sold over 3 million books and the other sold over 1 million copies). My guess is that as far as the free copies he is giving away in Arabic, etc. has The God Delusion being dowloaded more. [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:40, 20 June 2020 (EDT)
 +
::Of course, sales of the Bible and Koran absolutely dwarf the sales of Dawkins' booksThe only atheistic book which was published more than Dawkins' book was [[Mao Zedong]] 's Little Red Book (estimates ranging from 800 million to over 6.5 billion printed volumes) and that book was far, far more political than philosophical.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (EDT)
  
== Photograph of Adolf Hitler ==
+
==Incoherent mess==
 +
What an incoherent mess this article is. It's hard to believe the page views are organic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky didn't kill himself'']]</sup> 12:13, April 3, 2024 (EDT)
  
Why does a photograph of Adolf Hitler accompany this article?
+
What is the point in mocking a person because they had a stroke? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky didn't kill himself'']]</sup> 13:11, April 3, 2024 (EDT)
[[User:Splainer1984]]
+
:::Splainer1984, since you are able to write, I am assuming you are able to read the caption below the picture. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:39, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
+
I think Splainer is asking why the first image is of Hitler rather than of Dawkins. Also, it could be better to cite a transcript rather than one small quote which could be (potentially) taken out of context to suggest that Dawkins supports Nazism. [[User:MFlem]] 19:08, 11 May 2001 (BST)
+
:::The quote is a very telling quote - especially given the barbarism of Hitler's policies. Putting picture and quote at the top of the article highlights the matter. The quote has a footnote for those who desire more context. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:29, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+

Latest revision as of 17:11, April 3, 2024

Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome

Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/18/richard-dawkins-stands-remarks-sexism-pedophilia-syndrome/

Use feminist quotes about Dawkins and women in the Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins article. Conservative (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

Incorporate former prominent atheist turned deist Antony Flew's criticism of the God Delusion at Conservapedia

"Professor Anthony Flew (who at one time was quite possibly the most famous atheist academic in the world and who later actually abandoned his atheism to adopt theism due to recent advances in science) commented that “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[1]

Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid of talking about Islam or Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement

Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid of talking about Islam or Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement.

See: ON RICHARD DAWKINS TELLING ME WHAT NOT TO ASK

I may transcribe some of the video.Conservative (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Living People

Should there be a category "Living People" as there is in Wikipedia and this article be put in it?Carltonio (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2019 (EST)

I dunno; given how WP treats Donald Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. Jerome Corsi, Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson, what difference does it make? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:32, 8 March 2019 (EST)
There's no use of a "living people" category for CP. It would be worthless, and we'd have to remove it every time someone dies. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2019 (EST)
WP (and by extension RW) has a catgory of living persons as an excuse to hide the sins of liberals. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:41, 8 March 2019 (EST)
  • Please forgive my ignorance, but what does RW stand for? Carltonio (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
Ratwiki, an alleged anti-pseudoscience site. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:24, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

I did a quick Google search for "Rat Wiki" just now (on Saint Patrick's Day, 2019) and the lead article I got was the Wikipedia article on the rat. Carltonio (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

CP doesn't allow anyone to use its full name, though your search results were superior to that other wiki. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
Of late, I've been following the strange case of the alleged pseudo-scientist Deepak Chopra whom PBS has recruited for fundraising. Odd, since PBS has led the pack in mocking alleged Creationist pseudoscience and fighting alleged global warming denier pseudoscience. WP & Ratwiki have been silent on this turn of events, where PBS now is, according to them, one of the biggest purveyors of pseudoscience on the planet. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:25, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
RobS, see: Irreligion and superstition. Atheism/agnosticism cause more societal pseudoscience and superstition and not less.Conservative (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

Article on Dawkins in Wikipedia

The article on Richard Dawkins in Wikipedia has a talk page saying that Richard Dawkins is very illiterate when it comes to knowledge of ancient history and Biblical texts. Carltonio (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (EST)

The 7th paragraph of the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins article indicates: "In terms of the theism vs. agnosticism and atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of philosophy and theology. For example, philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."[9] The philosopher Antony Flew, who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting deism, said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[10]."
Another paragraph in the article indicates: "As far as the the social science of history, Richard Dawkins has engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists."
So the article already covers Dawkins' ignorance and/or deceptiveness when it comes to theological/historical matters.Conservative (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

The Selfish Gene

This article seems rather biassed to discussion of one book by Dawkins - "The God Delusion". It could point out that his most famous book is probably The Selfish Gene. This book argues that the gene should be seen as the unit of natural selection. The article could point out that this book has been criticised by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin in their book "Not in Our Genes" for promoting genetic determinism. Carltonio (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

The book The God Delusion sold about 3 times as many copies as The Selfish Gene (one sold over 3 million books and the other sold over 1 million copies). My guess is that as far as the free copies he is giving away in Arabic, etc. has The God Delusion being dowloaded more. Wikignome72 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2020 (EDT)
Of course, sales of the Bible and Koran absolutely dwarf the sales of Dawkins' books. The only atheistic book which was published more than Dawkins' book was Mao Zedong 's Little Red Book (estimates ranging from 800 million to over 6.5 billion printed volumes) and that book was far, far more political than philosophical.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

Incoherent mess

What an incoherent mess this article is. It's hard to believe the page views are organic. RobSZelensky didn't kill himself 12:13, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

What is the point in mocking a person because they had a stroke? RobSZelensky didn't kill himself 13:11, April 3, 2024 (EDT)