Home » News, Philosophy » Richard Dawkins, who should stick to pop atheism, tries dealing with pro philosophers

Richard Dawkins, who should stick to pop atheism, tries dealing with pro philosophers

Here:

We didn’t have time to sweep up all the pieces, sorry.

All that said, do see this: (= How we helped rescued Dawkins from PC hell.)

And, by the way, from the true north, this.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Richard Dawkins, who should stick to pop atheism, tries dealing with pro philosophers

  1. Meh, I disagree with Dawkins about a great many things, but ths seems a bit juvenile–especially the silliness of finding fault in calling “nothing” something. Meaningless semantics.

    Although I thought it picked up from 5:45 onward, where it actually stopped long enough to go in depth on a topic.

  2. Poor old Richie! The evidence against him and his hapless, materialist groupies just keeps ineluctably stacking up; science – the theists’ gift that just keeps giving…

    Far from leading-edge science’s trailblazing the way to an El Dorado of knowledge of the material universe, it has been leading to ever more intrinsically imponderable mysteries: paradoxes. And this was clear a hundred years ago.

    Paradoxes, whether of quantum physics, cosmology or Christianity, are NOT comprehensible to the intuition by very definition. They are contradictions in terms (according to modern usage, ‘oxymorons’), which just happen to be TRUE!

    What they mean is that physics has made monkeys of them, and their “intuition” tells them, they’d better get used to incorporating the imponderable mysteries of quantum physics and cosmology or become “roadkill” in ragtime.

    However, they are as committed to trotting out what amounts for them to a euphemism, namely, the term, “counter-intuitive”, in lieu of “counter-rational” as to their materialist world-view, so, here, as ever, logic is decidedly negotiable, as far as they are concerned.

    Reason has led them to lose their reason. But they started alas from a base already alien to reason. Reminds me of the itinerary of the grand old Duke of York. Back to school, chumps!

  3. Joe it’s not important to disagree with Richie about many things. Just the one. And everything else follows.

  4. Meaningless semantics? Evil/good. Good/evil. Meaningless semantics? Square/circle. Circle/square. Meaningless semantics? Meaningful/meaningless semantics… same thing??? This is at the CORE of the problem. The abandonment of Reason (the law of identity). It’s what “allows” them to say such ridiculous things and often get away with it.

  5. JoeCoder, if you think failing to distinguish nothing from something is “meaningless semantics” then, as the above poster already pointed out, that leaves me perfectly entitled to interpret your use of the word “meaningless semantics” to mean “meaningful semantics”. If you don’t think the laws of identity and non-contradiction are worth anything then you’ve simply abdicated all rational thought and conversation. Is that what you want?

    Thanks very much UC for the feature!

Leave a Reply