Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Religion worse than a Virus?

Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:33:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A quote from the eminent Richard Dawkins.........

"It has become fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus; terrorism; mad cow disease, and many others, but I honestly think a good case can be made that Religion is on of the world's greatest Evils. Comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate."
----Richard Dawkins


I personally agree with this genius 110%.

How about you?

I welcome all comments and ideas on this quote. From christians and mooslims--as well as Atheists and Agnostics and Satanists. LOL.

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 10:33:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dawkins is an idiot. He clearly hasn't lived in an atheist community, or is stuck in the ivory tower and behaving like a pompous elitist.

Religion was the first form of reform in civilization that opposed state of nature anarchy. It opposed people engaging in reckless abuse, negligence, blaming of victims, and telling victims on a ruggedly individualist basis to deal with it.

Maybe Dawkins would enjoy getting physically assaulted by a caveman where religion wasn't around to temper people's emotions. Then, he'd learn from experience about the problems of his idea.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 10:34:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 9:11:22 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
No. Also, Richard Dawkins is a numbskull who is an insult to actually philosophically intelligent atheists.

Unfortunately, everyone in society isn't philosophically intelligent. Some atheists are respectful, but all are not. Atheism as a social construct is an unreliable ideology that exposes people to abuse because of other people's nasty attitudes.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Again, maybe Dawkins needs to be assaulted by someone who hides behind plausible deniability in order to learn from experience about the problems of his ideas.
PatriotPerson
Posts: 1,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 2:22:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 9:11:22 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
No. Also, Richard Dawkins is a numbskull who is an insult to actually philosophically intelligent atheists.
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Dawkins is not an idiot.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Dawkins is not an idiot.

LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.

Education[edit]

The Great Hall, Oundle School
Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[16] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[21] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[11] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[22] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[23]

Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[24] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[25] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[26]

Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[27] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), the first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), the Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), the T. H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), the Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), the Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), the Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[11] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children on Growing Up in the Universe. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is listed as a senior editor and a columnist of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, and has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[28]

He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[29] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[30] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[31]
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.


Education[edit]

The Great Hall, Oundle School
Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[16] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[21] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[11] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[22] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[23]

Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[24] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[25] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[26]

Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[27] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), the first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), the Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), the T. H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), the Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), the Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), the Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[11] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children on Growing Up in the Universe. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is listed as a senior editor and a columnist of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, and has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[28]

He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[29] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[30] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[31]

The "eminent Richard Dawkins" has no credentials whatsoever on the subject matter in which he bloviates.

"I have never read a single religious text or theological work because I know they are all rubbish." " Richard Dawkins

"What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all? " Richard Dawkins

This is the new Atheism"s "eminent" religious expert LOL But he isn't an idiot, he is smart, smart enough to cash in on a dumbed down audience that HE arrogantly considers to be idiots.

Dawkins is a scientist with no credentials whatsoever as far as religion is concerned; he is for all practical purposes a religious fundamentalist himself. Richard Dawkins has left science behind and proselytizes faith based metaphysical postulates, his religion is Scientism, his followers are atheist fundies. He assumes an adversarial posture that is best described as an evangelical atheist, his religious faith is in scientism, and scientism is not the same as science, nor is it scientific. He draws faith based metaphysical conclusions and claims they are based on science, and they aren't. but his mindless followers don't know any better.

He isn"t even original, it was Harris that founded of this New Atheism, since 911 the game that is being played by these New Atheists is guilt by uncritical association, the "eminent" Dawkins just saw the success of the tactic, and jumped on the literary money train to get his too.

My main rub with Dawkins is his astoundingly bad science, his fundamentalist positions are entirely based on demonstrably faulty arguments, and I don"t think for a second he doesn"t know exactly what he"s doing, I see nothing but contempt for the dumbed down masses in every sentence he writes and I think he"s arrogantly laughing at his dim-witted audience all the way to the bank.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 1:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:06:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.


Education[edit]

The Great Hall, Oundle School
Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[16] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[21] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[11] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[22] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[23]

Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[24] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[25] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[26]

Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[27] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), the first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), the Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), the T. H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), the Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), the Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), the Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[11] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children on Growing Up in the Universe. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is listed as a senior editor and a columnist of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, and has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[28]

He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[29] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[30] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[31]

The "eminent Richard Dawkins" has no credentials whatsoever on the subject matter in which he bloviates.

"I have never read a single religious text or theological work because I know they are all rubbish." " Richard Dawkins

"What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all? " Richard Dawkins

This is the new Atheism"s "eminent" religious expert LOL But he isn't an idiot, he is smart, smart enough to cash in on a dumbed down audience that HE arrogantly considers to be idiots.

Dawkins is a scientist with no credentials whatsoever as far as religion is concerned; he is for all practical purposes a religious fundamentalist himself. Richard Dawkins has left science behind and proselytizes faith based metaphysical postulates, his religion is Scientism, his followers are atheist fundies. He assumes an adversarial posture that is best described as an evangelical atheist, his religious faith is in scientism, and scientism is not the same as science, nor is it scientific. He draws faith based metaphysical conclusions and claims they are based on science, and they aren't. but his mindless followers don't know any better.

He isn"t even original, it was Harris that founded of this New Atheism, since 911 the game that is being played by these New Atheists is guilt by uncritical association, the "eminent" Dawkins just saw the success of the tactic, and jumped on the literary money train to get his too.

My main rub with Dawkins is his astoundingly bad science, his fundamentalist positions are entirely based on demonstrably faulty arguments, and I don"t think for a second he doesn"t know exactly what he"s doing, I see nothing but contempt for the dumbed down masses in every sentence he writes and I think he"s arrogantly laughing at his dim-witted audience all the way to the bank.

You do not need a degree in Greek Mythology to know that Zeus doesn't exist. Right?

Do you need education in Thermodynamics and Aerospace Technology to understand that it would be impossible for Santa Claus to fly around the world in one night and give all the children gifts?

LOL.

Same deal with Dawkins. What he Is highly trained in os Evolutionary Biology. So he sees the mechanisms with which we got here and originated. And he knows there is no need for your imaginary friend you call god in the process.

LOL.

Like he said: the holy books are all rubbish. Why clog up his fine scientific mind with that drivel? Now...if Dawkins were a Biologist claiming knowledge on biblical scholarship, say, when was the Gospel of Matthew written (about 70 years AD, BTW) then yes, his credentials could be called into question.

But he does not exbound on scripture. Only on Life. Biology. Earth Science.

ANd he sees no room for your god there.

Neither do I.

And lastly, I equate the possibility of the existence of a yahweh-type god with that of the aforementioned Santa Claus and Zeus.

Hebrew Mythology, bro.

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:13:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.

Yes, lets vote.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:19:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:13:31 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.

Yes, lets vote.

Bring it on!

List your creds..I will re-post Dawkins'.

READERS PLEASE VOTE!!!!

Want to start a special thread for this!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:19:56 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:13:31 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.

Yes, lets vote.

Bring it on!

List your creds..I will re-post Dawkins'.

READERS PLEASE VOTE!!!!

Want to start a special thread for this!


Sure, start a thread.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:36:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:33:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
A quote from the eminent Richard Dawkins.........

"It has become fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus; terrorism; mad cow disease, and many others, but I honestly think a good case can be made that Religion is on of the world's greatest Evils. Comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate."
----Richard Dawkins


I personally agree with this genius 110%.

How about you?

I welcome all comments and ideas on this quote. From christians and mooslims--as well as Atheists and Agnostics and Satanists. LOL.

Thanks!

I agree 100%. Not only religion, but ideas (bad ones) in general, are much worse than virus and the biggest threat to humanity.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:43:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To - OP

I'm going to assume that you discovered, finally, that I stated that "Dawkins is not an idiot." I did not state that "Dawkins is an idiot", as you apparently believed that I did.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:43:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:23:45 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:19:56 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:13:31 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.

Yes, lets vote.

Bring it on!

List your creds..I will re-post Dawkins'.

READERS PLEASE VOTE!!!!

Want to start a special thread for this!


Sure, start a thread.

Thread is there, pinhead.

Go post your creds!

LOL. I am guessing you don't show up. And as the usual fundie, have nothing to offer.

But maybe you can prove me wron?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 10:33:43 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Dawkins is an idiot. He clearly hasn't lived in an atheist community, or is stuck in the ivory tower and behaving like a pompous elitist.

Religion was the first form of reform in civilization that opposed state of nature anarchy. It opposed people engaging in reckless abuse, negligence, blaming of victims, and telling victims on a ruggedly individualist basis to deal with it.

Maybe Dawkins would enjoy getting physically assaulted by a caveman where religion wasn't around to temper people's emotions. Then, he'd learn from experience about the problems of his idea.

An idiot?

Check out his creds.

Then let us see yours.

Thanks!

LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.

Education[edit]

The Great Hall, Oundle School
Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[16] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[21] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[11] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[22] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[23]

Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[24] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[25] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[26]

Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[27] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), the first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), the Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), the T. H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), the Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), the Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), the Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[11] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children on Growing Up in the Universe. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is listed as a senior editor and a columnist of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, and has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[28]

He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[29] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[30] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[31]
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:43:35 PM, Death23 wrote:
To - OP

I'm going to assume that you discovered, finally, that I stated that "Dawkins is not an idiot." I did not state that "Dawkins is an idiot", as you apparently believed that I did.

Damn!

My bad.

It was Daktoria who said it.

I apologize for misreading your OP.

I will see if I can delete the thread!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 10:21:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....

Sorry, did you say something?

Nothing you said has any value at all. A personal attack followed by a mischaracterization followed by a tangent means nothing.

Calling someone an idiot isn't a personal attack. It merely means someone doesn't know what one's talking about.

No, I'm not a fundie. Do you know what a fundie is?

What do credentials have to do with competence? All they prove is someone's a yes-man suck-up that tells an institution what it wants to hear.
CookieMonster9
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 11:55:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 1:54:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:06:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.


Education[edit]

The Great Hall, Oundle School
Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[16] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[21] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[11] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[22] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[23]

Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[24] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[25] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[26]

Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[27] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), the first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), the Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), the T. H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), the Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), the Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), the Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[11] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children on Growing Up in the Universe. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is listed as a senior editor and a columnist of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, and has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[28]

He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[29] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[30] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[31]

The "eminent Richard Dawkins" has no credentials whatsoever on the subject matter in which he bloviates.

"I have never read a single religious text or theological work because I know they are all rubbish." " Richard Dawkins

"What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all? " Richard Dawkins

This is the new Atheism"s "eminent" religious expert LOL But he isn't an idiot, he is smart, smart enough to cash in on a dumbed down audience that HE arrogantly considers to be idiots.

Dawkins is a scientist with no credentials whatsoever as far as religion is concerned; he is for all practical purposes a religious fundamentalist himself. Richard Dawkins has left science behind and proselytizes faith based metaphysical postulates, his religion is Scientism, his followers are atheist fundies. He assumes an adversarial posture that is best described as an evangelical atheist, his religious faith is in scientism, and scientism is not the same as science, nor is it scientific. He draws faith based metaphysical conclusions and claims they are based on science, and they aren't. but his mindless followers don't know any better.

He isn"t even original, it was Harris that founded of this New Atheism, since 911 the game that is being played by these New Atheists is guilt by uncritical association, the "eminent" Dawkins just saw the success of the tactic, and jumped on the literary money train to get his too.

My main rub with Dawkins is his astoundingly bad science, his fundamentalist positions are entirely based on demonstrably faulty arguments, and I don"t think for a second he doesn"t know exactly what he"s doing, I see nothing but contempt for the dumbed down masses in every sentence he writes and I think he"s arrogantly laughing at his dim-witted audience all the way to the bank.

You do not need a degree in Greek Mythology to know that Zeus doesn't exist. Right?

Do you need education in Thermodynamics and Aerospace Technology to understand that it would be impossible for Santa Claus to fly around the world in one night and give all the children gifts?

LOL.

Same deal with Dawkins. What he Is highly trained in os Evolutionary Biology. So he sees the mechanisms with which we got here and originated. And he knows there is no need for your imaginary friend you call god in the process.

LOL.

Like he said: the holy books are all rubbish. Why clog up his fine scientific mind with that drivel? Now...if Dawkins were a Biologist claiming knowledge on biblical scholarship, say, when was the Gospel of Matthew written (about 70 years AD, BTW) then yes, his credentials could be called into question.

But he does not exbound on scripture. Only on Life. Biology. Earth Science.

ANd he sees no room for your god there.

Neither do I.

And lastly, I equate the possibility of the existence of a yahweh-type god with that of the aforementioned Santa Claus and Zeus.

Hebrew Mythology, bro.

Thanks!

I shall take part in this. I am for proving that god exists.

First off you need to ask yourself this one basic question. If the Bible and the Koran and all the other religious texts were faked, then how has this not come out yet. You have to have at least a dozen people to do something as big as tricking the whole world to believing that there is a God in heaven. The funny thing is;

a) let's say this is true and Jesus was made up. In the Bible it says that Jesus was in Nazareth and did all of these things with thousands of people. continued
Hello everybody having a good day? I just wanted to let you know that there is a new type of game called "What would you do?" where I post scenarios and you put down what you would do. To get in on this go to http://www.debate.org... , read the rules, and put in your answer!

I'm not here to start an argument, I'm just here so I can gain more knowledge about the world and feed my mind knowledge that you can't really get as much as you wish you could in life. -CM
CookieMonster9
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:02:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the Bible it says that Jesus was in Nazareth and did all of these things with thousands of people. Something as big as this would have come out that it wasn't true. For someone to write as something as big as this and not have one person come out and say that it was an inside job is just impossible. If the Bible was made by one person then they would need a lot of time to be able to complete it. Someone would have at least once if not multiple times walked in on him while he was spending all of his time doing this. It is not even possible for a single person to complete this. With one or more people working they would have messed something up and we would have noticed by now (example time periods, relationships etc.). Neither of these things have come out, because if it did it would hit media, and I haven't heard of anything like that yet. Hope this can be interesting.

-CookieMonster9
Hello everybody having a good day? I just wanted to let you know that there is a new type of game called "What would you do?" where I post scenarios and you put down what you would do. To get in on this go to http://www.debate.org... , read the rules, and put in your answer!

I'm not here to start an argument, I'm just here so I can gain more knowledge about the world and feed my mind knowledge that you can't really get as much as you wish you could in life. -CM
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 9:05:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religion would be a virus, *if* it was a bad thing that humans are better off without. I would dispute this, so no - religion is not a virus.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:01:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 1:54:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:06:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:

My main rub with Dawkins is his astoundingly bad science, his fundamentalist positions are entirely based on demonstrably faulty arguments, and I don"t think for a second he doesn"t know exactly what he"s doing, I see nothing but contempt for the dumbed down masses in every sentence he writes and I think he"s arrogantly laughing at his dim-witted audience all the way to the bank.

You do not need a degree in Greek Mythology to know that Zeus doesn't exist. Right?

No, I think you need a degree in Zoology to know that.

Do you need education in Thermodynamics and Aerospace Technology to understand that it would be impossible for Santa Claus to fly around the world in one night and give all the children gifts?

No, I'm pretty sure that would be Zoology too.

LOL.

Nice touch, you're good at this Philosophical debate thing.

Same deal with Dawkins. What he Is highly trained in os Evolutionary Biology. So he sees the mechanisms with which we got here and originated. And he knows there is no need for your imaginary friend you call god in the process.

I see, so you put your faith in Dawkins because he is your edumacated High Priest, you are a Dawkins Fundamentalist, and that makes you a "Bright", correct?

LOL.

Oh, good one, you sure are good at that logic thing.

Like he said: the holy books are all rubbish. Why clog up his fine scientific mind with that drivel? Now...if Dawkins were a Biologist claiming knowledge on biblical scholarship, say, when was the Gospel of Matthew written (about 70 years AD, BTW) then yes, his credentials could be called into question.

But he does not exbound on scripture. Only on Life. Biology. Earth Science.

ANd he sees no room for your god there.

Neither do I.

He sees no room for God in Theology? Apparently, neither you nor your High Priest, the eminent Dr. Dawkins, even knows what Theology is. Don't tell me, let me guess, you don"t need dictionaries either, because they are all rubbish too?

And lastly, I equate the possibility of the existence of a yahweh-type god with that of the aforementioned Santa Claus and Zeus.

I see, so you are philosophically deep"you even use the big words like "aforementioned", I"m quite impressed.

Hebrew Mythology, bro.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought. Then it follows logically that your contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it exhaustively in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim bro.

Thanks!

You're welcome.

I think it's common for young children to see the Bible as a story book and to have a childish understanding of God as an invisible man in the sky that grants wishes to those who pray, and therefore to be inclined to put God and Santa Clause on an equal footing. Of course, as children age and mature their conception of God and their understanding of faith develops and matures beyond such childish ways of understanding things.

But apparently, that isn't always the case. There are some whose conception of God and faith did not mature as they got older and who spend a lot of time desperately proclaiming that they are more intelligent, rational, and mature than people of faith because they now reject this childish idea of God. What you guys don't understand is that no adult Theist believes in the God you don't believe in and yet, you really seem thrilled with yourself for your deep intellectual achievement It just seems that you are using the faith discussion to brag about how you are all grown up now so you don't believe in God anymore. When I read these kinds of posts I can't help but recall the image of a little child I saw on vacation a few years back who was clinging to the wall of the hotel pool next to the three foot sign yelling "Mommy, mommy, look at me, I'm swimming in the deep end just like a grown up".

I"m sorry, but this type of Atheism just doesn't appear to be all that grown up to me, and clinging to such childish ideas about God and faith just isn't what I"d call "deep".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:15:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 9:05:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
Religion would be a virus, *if* it was a bad thing that humans are better off without. I would dispute this, so no - religion is not a virus.

Hmmm...

I think maybe these people and victims of that Deadly Virus Known as Religion would disagree with your opinion.

http://listverse.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
TO SIDEWALKER...

Yes...my beliefs and knowledge of Evo Bio, as well as my complete certainty that there is no nor has ever been a biblical-type Yahwist-the-murderer sky god DOES make me a Bright.

While your constant and erroneous referrals to Zoology show you are...well, whatever the High Priest Dawkins says is the opposite.

You said that as christians get older they put away their childish notion of god and develop a rational and logical one.

This is a misnomer. I cannot call anybody an intellectual or a rational person--no matter their educational level--if they believe in a literal bible. Or a Yahweh type god who actually sits up there and judges and keeps track of our lives.

Belief in this is a deal-breaker for me.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 12:21:56 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
TO SIDEWALKER...


Yes...my beliefs and knowledge of Evo Bio, as well as my complete certainty that there is no nor has ever been a biblical-type Yahwist-the-murderer sky god DOES make me a Bright.

That"s what I figured, being labeled "Bright" is important to you, seems desperately so. I just don"t understand why disbelief is something to be so passionate about, it seems to me that disbelief should be something of a "so what" thing but it"s clearly got you bunged up, what is it about disbelief that makes it so personal to you. I really don"t understand why a person would get so emotional and irrational about simply not believing in something, there must be more to it than that.

Also, I know more about Evolution/Biology than most people, I"ve been quite a dedicated student of it for decades, what I don"t understand is, what on earth that has to do with faith? "I don"t believe in God because I have knowledge of Evolution" just makes no sense to me, can you explain?

While your constant and erroneous referrals to Zoology show you are...well, whatever the High Priest Dawkins says is the opposite.

You are the one that bows down to Dawkins" "credentials" on matters of faith, you are aware that his Masters and Doctorates are in Zoology, right?

You said that as christians get older they put away their childish notion of god and develop a rational and logical one.

This is a misnomer.

Nope, it"s not a "misnomer", you can learn the definition of "misnomer" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I cannot call anybody an intellectual or a rational person--no matter their educational level--if they believe in a literal bible. Or a Yahweh type god who actually sits up there and judges and keeps track of our lives.

Yeah, that"s the childish God thing again, very few grown-ups actually read the Bible literally, the Bible itself explicitly warns against that kind of thing. Hey, it"s OK if you can"t comprehend anything beneath the surface, if literalism is all you can grasp then it"s all you can grasp, you should just realize that most of the rest of us can get beyond that intellectually.

Also, I really doubt any believer really cares whether or not you can call them "an intellectual or rational person", you don"t believe in a God that "sits up there and judges", do you really think anyone gives a crap that you sit there and judge us? Believe it or not, our faith is not about you.

Belief in this is a deal-breaker for me.

What "deal" are you talking about, who are you supposed to have a deal with, and what is the deal that will break?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:38:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:33:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/18/2015 12:21:56 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
TO SIDEWALKER...


Yes...my beliefs and knowledge of Evo Bio, as well as my complete certainty that there is no nor has ever been a biblical-type Yahwist-the-murderer sky god DOES make me a Bright.

That"s what I figured, being labeled "Bright" is important to you, seems desperately so. I just don"t understand why disbelief is something to be so passionate about, it seems to me that disbelief should be something of a "so what" thing but it"s clearly got you bunged up, what is it about disbelief that makes it so personal to you. I really don"t understand why a person would get so emotional and irrational about simply not believing in something, there must be more to it than that.

Also, I know more about Evolution/Biology than most people, I"ve been quite a dedicated student of it for decades, what I don"t understand is, what on earth that has to do with faith? "I don"t believe in God because I have knowledge of Evolution" just makes no sense to me, can you explain?

While your constant and erroneous referrals to Zoology show you are...well, whatever the High Priest Dawkins says is the opposite.

You are the one that bows down to Dawkins" "credentials" on matters of faith, you are aware that his Masters and Doctorates are in Zoology, right?

You said that as christians get older they put away their childish notion of god and develop a rational and logical one.

This is a misnomer.

Nope, it"s not a "misnomer", you can learn the definition of "misnomer" here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I cannot call anybody an intellectual or a rational person--no matter their educational level--if they believe in a literal bible. Or a Yahweh type god who actually sits up there and judges and keeps track of our lives.

Yeah, that"s the childish God thing again, very few grown-ups actually read the Bible literally, the Bible itself explicitly warns against that kind of thing. Hey, it"s OK if you can"t comprehend anything beneath the surface, if literalism is all you can grasp then it"s all you can grasp, you should just realize that most of the rest of us can get beyond that intellectually.

Also, I really doubt any believer really cares whether or not you can call them "an intellectual or rational person", you don"t believe in a God that "sits up there and judges", do you really think anyone gives a crap that you sit there and judge us? Believe it or not, our faith is not about you.

Belief in this is a deal-breaker for me.

What "deal" are you talking about, who are you supposed to have a deal with, and what is the deal that will break?

Dealbreaker as in they cannot in my mind be considered men of science, or even scientifically knowledgeable if they believe in a personal, Abrahamic-type god.

Anybody who claims, "The creator of the universe knows me and loves me and answers my prayers!"

That sort of thing.

Also a deal-breaker for a fundie to be a POTUS. For example, I used to sort of like Mike Huckabee. Considered voting for him. Till I found out he was a Creationist--and a young-Earther to boot!

I do not want a guy with deluded beliefs like that to have access to the Button.

Just my opinion.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:49:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 12:15:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:05:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
Religion would be a virus, *if* it was a bad thing that humans are better off without. I would dispute this, so no - religion is not a virus.

Hmmm...

I think maybe these people and victims of that Deadly Virus Known as Religion would disagree with your opinion.

http://listverse.com...

I could make a similar list of atrocities caused by science, does that mean that science is a virus?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:50:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:49:06 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/18/2015 12:15:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:05:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
Religion would be a virus, *if* it was a bad thing that humans are better off without. I would dispute this, so no - religion is not a virus.

Hmmm...

I think maybe these people and victims of that Deadly Virus Known as Religion would disagree with your opinion.

http://listverse.com...

I could make a similar list of atrocities caused by science, does that mean that science is a virus?

Let's hear your list.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 5:10:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 5:45:41 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 5:06:47 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/16/2015 10:44:13 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is Dawkins is obsessed with the value of evidence.

Again, Dawkins is an idiot because he ignores the fact of how to generate evidence, you have to have evidence generating devices available and setup.

Well if you're not born with video cameras out of your eyes, microphones out of your ears, and hooked up to a network of surveillance equipment that records everything across reality, then you're not necessarily going to be able to generate evidence of crimes happening.

Dawkins is not an idiot.



LOL.

Nice, articulate, and well-thought out and objective post, pinhead.

About what I would expect from a fundie.

An idiot?

Check out his credentials....(And then let's see yours!) We will all vote on who the idiot here is.


Education[edit]

The Great Hall, Oundle School
Dawkins attended Oundle School in Northamptonshire, an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour,[16] from 1954 to 1959, where he was in Laundimer house.[21] He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[11] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice;[22] Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[23]

Teaching[edit]
From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[24] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970, taking a position as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[25] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[26]

Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[27] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), the first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), the Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), the T. H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), the Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), the Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), the Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[11] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children on Growing Up in the Universe. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is listed as a senior editor and a columnist of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, and has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[28]

He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[29] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[30] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[31]

So he has never really done anything that creates taxable wealth for a living, basically Just academic lip service.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%