08:42:00 AM Aug 20th 2012
edited by MrsTreligan
edited by MrsTreligan
Another newbie here, unsure of the etiquette for editing, but having spotted a mention of the Singh vs. Chiropody controversy - I'm pretty sure that ought to be Singh v. Chiropractic - which isn't the same thing as Chiropody at all.
10:22:36 AM Apr 26th 2012
Is there really any need to mention that some random badfic author is a fan of his? It seems sort of "Poisoning the Well"-y to me.
10:48:11 AM Mar 27th 2012
Moving this item here, at least for now:
- Hoist by His Own Petard: Was labelled "an embarrassment to atheism" during the fallout of a recent discussion with one Giles Fraser. The topic was the validity of a poll published by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK); he claimed that, since an "astonishing number [of so-called Christians] couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament," he could claim they weren't really Christians at all. ...And then Giles Fraser asked him to list the full title of On the Origin of Species*.
Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
- Double Standard: The full title: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of The Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life is easily twice the length and twice as hard to remember as any bible book. The question holds him to a higher standard than anyone in his own survey.
07:27:09 PM Jul 21st 2012
This is not symmetrical. The Origin of Species is not a religious text and is not considered canonical in any sense. It is simply a book among many on the topic of evolution. Darwin's understanding of evolution has later been surpassed by other scientists, and it is in the nature of science to be evolving as new evidence is presented. There are no holy texts in science, everything should be questioned. In contrast, the Bible is considered a be-all-end-all, a complete and exhaustive text on which to base your life. If you really consider the Bible to be the most important text in the universe and the basis for your existence, there is no excuse for not knowing it. At the end of the day, however, it's not about knowing the label, but about being able to comprehend and evaluate the content. I can guarantee you Dawkins knows the content of Darwin's book (as well as subsequent corrections). Most Christians I have met only know the Bible through what they've absorbed through their culture. There is no hoisting by any petard involved here.
06:58:20 AM Jul 11th 2011
Forgive a newbie if this page isn't the place for this, but I'm just wondering if we should make reference in Richard Dawkins' entry to the fact that he does, in fact, slag off believers and not just their beliefs. Perhaps a sentence about how many believers find him quite obnoxious, potholed to Your Milage May Vary? As for whether or not he's militant atheist, if we're to take Merriam-Webster's second definition of "Militant"...: "aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>" Then we'll see that Richard Dawkins is in fact a militant atheist. So I'll go ahead and remove the pothole to "Complaining about shows you don't watch" - I for one have seen a few of Richard's documentaries, and saying that he's militant seems like a fair, if subjective comment.
08:47:56 AM Apr 26th 2012
Why is the YMMV page locked? Can't we just list in there that not everyone finds him to be their anti-Jesus, and some atheists find him to be abrasively aggravating (for the same reason many Christians find Jack Chick to be annoying, no less).