Friday, November 22, 2024
Latest:
Videos

Steven Pinker receives the Richard Dawkins Award at the Atheist Alliance of America convention

Artis Modus



Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

Source

Similar Posts

38 thoughts on “Steven Pinker receives the Richard Dawkins Award at the Atheist Alliance of America convention”

  3. just by your attitude and previous comments we can see how superior your intellect is…
    please, do let us know about the Nobels you've won and the wonderful contributions the fellow christian gave mankind!

  4. For your sake, I will assume you are being sarcastic, but as a matter of fact I have read most of the Bible, as well as translations of parts of the Torah and Quran. Just because I am an Atheist, doesn't mean to say I don't find value in ancient texts. They are very good historical indicators of how people thought and lived thousands of years ago, even if they don't contain that much factual information.

  5. hey, no disagreement on that one.
    Isaac Newton was one of the greatest if not the greatest scientist ever to live, but unfortunately for him, at the time there was no alternative (nor evolution nor the age of the Earth were known, to disprove the bible). Had science been more advanced at his time, I'm sure as the great scientist he was, he'd follow the evidence instead and would discard the bible.

  6. Sorry, but you are incorrect. The Atheist Bus Campaign (which is what you are referring to) was actually proposed by Ariane Sherine (a comedy writer) and only backed by Dawkins. Also, the wording was always meant to say "probably". I think where you are getting confused is the interview that Dawkins gave after the campaign, where he said he would have preferred the wording "There is almost certainly no God". This is backed up by the first chapter of Dawkins' "The God Delusion", where he… (1)

  7. … directly states that the very nature of God makes it impossible to disprove. Dawkins even says that on a scale of 1-10 (1 being a devout believer, 10 being a complete atheist) he can only rate himself as 9, for this very reason. As such, he failed at nothing, he simply backed a campaign which did successfully appear on London buses. If you want my sources, they are easily found on The Guardian Newspaper's website and in Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". As for you criticims of… (2)

  8. and by the way, if that's your argument for christianity, keep in mind Newton was considered a heretic, he was more of a creationist than proper christian.
    anyways, my original point was to disprove the assertion that all atheists are fools. In fact it's more the opposite. It's no coincidence most leading scientists are atheists…

  9. … Scientific method, I do agree that sponsered reseach can provide incomplete results or force scientists down specific paths of results. However, I wouldn't be so quick to criticise, as sponsored reseach provided the computer technology you are using to converse with me right now and has also recently provided the building blocks for finding cures to various Cancers and AIDS. To summarise, the benifits outweigh the costs. Besides, this is completely irrelevant, as much of Dawkins' work… (3)

  10. … is self funded, (especially in recent years) due to the huge success of the books he has published. Unless you are telling me his publisher has it's own agenda, and is holding Dawkins to ransom (which is rediculous, as he could easily find another publisher) then I am afraid your point is moot. Also, just as a last point, you would do well to at least say where you get your information from, as much of what you are saying just looks like opinion to me. (4)

  12. Do you know what Agnosticism is? If you did, then you wouldn't suggest what you just said. Agnostics have a spiritual belief, whereas Atheists do not. Just because it is impossible to disprove God, does not mean one cannot be an Atheist. If that were the case, then one could not be religious or have spiritualist beliefs, as it is also impossible to prove God exists. I think the main point here, is that you are entitled to believe what you want, I just don't think a video posted by Dawkins… (1)

  13. … is the best place to do it. It would be like me, an atheist, watching a video about hardline Christianity. What would I get out of it? It seems odd you even watched the video considering your unfounded criticism. Also, I think you need to reassess what a media cover-up is, as I have provided the sources for my argument yet you seem to have produced none. I would be happy to reassess my viewpoint if you can find anything that suggests the contary… (2)

  14. It's unfounded if you can't back it up with sources. At that point it becomes your opinion, which makes it unfounded, as anybody can have an opinion. I'll say again, you need to look up the definition of Agnosticism. Dawkins is not an Agnostic, as he holds no spiritual beliefs. The reason he makes such a fuss about religion is due to the detrimental effect it has on peoples education. It flies in the face of scientific fact, and that is damaging not just to individuals, but our race as a whole.

  15. If that is how you see it, you are entitled to think that. However, I fail to see how Dawkins spreading knowledge and promoting free thought is telling people what to think. In fact, it is the complete opposite. He has always stated his point of view very clearly and understandably, but he lets people make their own conclusions with that information. Dawkins' foundation for thought and reasoning is NOTHING like organised Religion, for many reasons I simply do not have the space to put here.

  16. Upon looking into it a bit more, it is actually more accurate to say we were both wrong. Yes, what you are saying is ONE definition of Agnosticism, but it can also be used to describe someone who has a spiritual belief but doesn't follow a religion, or someone who doesn't believe in any religion due to lack of evidence but can't confess to full on Atheism. As such, it seems we were both using a correct definition to back up our own argument. However, just because it is difficult to… (1)

  17. … disprove God, does not mean there is no evidence to disprove God's existence, as there is plenty of evidence. That is an important distinction which I think needs to be made, as the same cannot be said of religion. (2)

  18. The fact that the most popular religions today (The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism) have only only been around for a few thousand years when we have in fact been around as a species for just over 1.8 million years is a pretty strong indicator. We look back at the Greek Gods and nobody believes in them, why are our Gods today different? The fact is, they aren't. If I told you there was a dragon who reigned over the afterlife and could hear all your thoughts and… (1)

  19. … prayers, would you blindly believe me? Or would you demand evidence? Any sane person would want evidence, yet we don't demand this evidence from religion, which is wrong when you consider all these religions have going for them are books which have been rewritten and reinterpreted hundereds of times over the last few thousand years. Therefore, it is easy to say it is highly unlikely God exists, even though it is impossible to prove it, as religion makes it impossible to prove! (2)

  20. "Human dullards fabricating silly religions" is the only evidence that we've ever had for the existence of God. Do without them, and crucially, don't make up one of your own, and I think you're already doing without God.

    And you sneer at all the worshippers' presumption, but you fancy that you can put yourself in some deity's perspective? The black holes and supernovae do not need any intervention to explain them, either.

  21. "The whole argument about God is silly." Not while they're trying to teach Creationism alongside evolution in biology classrooms, it's not. Not while global warming is being denied on the basis that God is in control of the climate and does not give us *permission* to make the world uninhabitable, it's not. Criticizing official power is banned in China…so why don't *you* move there if what you value above all is harmony? They enforce it, and people like me are shut up.

  22. We do only make up a small percentage of the total CO2 emissions, however nature both emits and absorbs CO2. We only emit CO2, Nature can absorb all of its CO2, but not all of both of ours so our CO2 accumulates.

  23. Let's try easier questions than "why are you here right now" if we're limited to 500 chars per response. Where do we get speed limits? We decide. What should be done about global warming? It's up to us. Now then, why am I here? Because my mommy and daddy did a special thing once, and…Okay, so then what is the meaning of life? That one's up to us, too. Isn't that more consistent with our intuitions than to make stuff up about some OTHER entity that has a grand design for us?

  24. JAAJjAaj his documentaries are a lie . One of the biggest lies in human history . This idiot doesn't have prove at all about how life started on Earth . I tell you this : he is afraid to debate Dr. Kent Hovind because he is going to be humiliated in public with his fairy tale about evolution . Don't tell me you didn't know that , don't be blind he deceive you and you believe him as the fool that you are right now .

  25. I will agree with you that science has the ability to produce catastrophic and dire consequences for humanity (the nuclear bomb that hit Hiroshima in WWII for example). However, science also has the ability to be used for great good (cures for cancer, cleanliness related illness & genetic dysfunctions). Ultimately, it's not the science that is distructive, but the person using the science. Also, humanity was perfectly capable of destroying themselves and the planet before "mainstream" science.

  26. @Joe Giuffre
    Deleting your comments doesn't make them any less ignorant and now it looks like your account has been banned, so good for you!

    Anyway, go to any mainstream news website from the last few weeks and you will find the story about the 1.8 million year old humanoid skulls found in Africa and Eurasia. There's your fact.

    And for the record, I have read Psalm 14, but that doesn't make it historical fact any more than the Harry Potter novels, as interestring as both fictional works are.

  27. But what you are saying works on the very premise that a God thinks like you or, to turn it around, that you are able to think like a God, which obviously isn't likely. Even if that were the case, it doesn't change the fact that my point still stands, and that is that religious people are nearly as Atheistic as I am, they just believe in one more God than I do. It doesn't take away the thousands of Gods that have come and gone over the last few thousand years.

  28. I see your point, and I concede that, whilst my evidence goes a long way to disprove religions, perhaps it doesn't really critique spiritual belief or agnosticism. However, to that I will always come back to my original point, and that is the fact that the concept of a God is impossible to disprove, because it defys all logic! If nobody beleived in "a" God, and I asked everyone to now, people would demand proof. However, because religion developed before / quicker than logic, it's not the case.

  29. What you mention has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins fraud , the sad par is that believe it and you know it , Blind like  a stone my friend . GOD bless you .

  30. religion institutionalises morality, without which the institution of immorality prevails.
    the silly thing to say is to presume that any institution can be the entirely moral.
    morality does not shift
    and no, you do not have to search the bible for morality. the whole book is based on moral, lest you read it and point out the inconsistencies, and when you do, read it again, and be reassured that the overall message is morality.

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com