Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by chaz wyman »

Bernard wrote:Whether its anthropomorphic or not depends on whether or not you regard the origins of consciousness as being of man, if so we are now anthropocentricism.

Um? You go away and think about that!
mickthinks
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by mickthinks »

Bernard wrote:... I personally feel happier in regarding that this is the rule rather than the exception throughout the cosmos.
chaz wyman wrote:... But how dare you claim to know what pertains throughout the cosmos- how arrogant can you get?
I think you are seeing arrogance where there is none, chaz (projection?).

Bernard is entitled to express his ideas about the cosmos, and you are free to examine and counter them with a philosophical argument if you can. What you can't do is what you have just tried to do there; you can't just rule them out of order as 'arrogant'.

Bernard—please don't take any notice of chaz's spasms—we mostly ignore him.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by chaz wyman »

mickthinks wrote:
Bernard wrote:... I personally feel happier in regarding that this is the rule rather than the exception throughout the cosmos.
chaz wyman wrote:... But how dare you claim to know what pertains throughout the cosmos- how arrogant can you get?
I think you are seeing arrogance where there is none, chaz (projection?).

Bernard is entitled to express his ideas about the cosmos, and you are free to examine and counter them with a philosophical argument if you can. What you can't do is what you have just tried to do there; you can't just rule them out of order as 'arrogant'.

Bernard—please don't take any notice of chaz's spasms—we mostly ignore him.
It that the Royal "we", Mc twinkie?

I don't think Bernard needs you to defend him - he's perfectly capable of that.
I was not calling him arrogant. If you were half the thinker you think you are then you would know exactly what I was talking about. Clearly you lack the imagination to either contribute to this debate or understand the views of others.
You (or is it "we") have accused me or arrogance. There is none so arrogant as you who have crawled out from under your rock to bark lie a dog at a world you do not understand.
Either contribute to the debate or don't, but don't climb on your high horse to tell others how.
mickthinks
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by mickthinks »

chaz wyman wrote:
mickthinks wrote:Bernard—please don't take any notice of chaz's spasms—we mostly ignore him.
It that the Royal "we", Mc twinkie?

I don't think Bernard needs you to defend him - he's perfectly capable of that.
I was not calling him arrogant. If you were half the thinker you think you are then you would know exactly what I was talking about. Clearly you lack the imagination to either contribute to this debate or understand the views of others.
You (or is it "we") have accused me or arrogance. There is none so arrogant as you who have crawled out from under your rock to bark lie a dog at a world you do not understand.
Either contribute to the debate or don't, but don't climb on your high horse to tell others how.
lol See what I mean , Bernard? That's a chaz spasm!
User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by Bernard »

chaz wyman wrote:
Bernard wrote:Whether its anthropomorphic or not depends on whether or not you regard the origins of consciousness as being of man, if so we are now anthropocentricism.

Um? You go away and think about that!
I meant we are now talking anthropocentricism rather than anthropomorphism if we are saying that man is the pinnacle of consciousness.
User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by Bernard »

chaz wyman wrote:
Bernard wrote:That's interesting in the sense that I have no doubts what my friend looks like but as to how he/she feels is a different matter altogether. Its with the latter that all my greatest concerns and interests in regard my friend lie, and this extends to other friends, family and humanity in general. This raises the point that what matters in our lives is primarily non-physical; things to do with feelings or relationships. I personally feel happier in regarding that this is the rule rather than the exception throughout the cosmos.

... But how dare you claim to know what pertains throughout the cosmos- how arrogant can you get?
You are just stuck in your own petty anthropomorphic delusion.

It was poorly put I guess. When I suggest the cosmos is primarily non-physical and more to do with feeling I don't mean warm, human feeling. Have you ever felt that your whole being is like a sensor that picks up impulses which can't be adequately described in words - neither what those impulses are, or with what sense you detected them? If anything its a cold feeling, like shivers of knowledge. Maybe you haven't, but the experience to me, which is quite frequent, is definitely one of external impulses acting on me internally. And just to pre-empt... NO, it is nothing like epilepsy at all, its mild, gentle, had in the midst of a gentile moment with friends perhaps, or turning the corner of a street - very quick but very noticeable.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by chaz wyman »

Bernard wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
Bernard wrote:That's interesting in the sense that I have no doubts what my friend looks like but as to how he/she feels is a different matter altogether. Its with the latter that all my greatest concerns and interests in regard my friend lie, and this extends to other friends, family and humanity in general. This raises the point that what matters in our lives is primarily non-physical; things to do with feelings or relationships. I personally feel happier in regarding that this is the rule rather than the exception throughout the cosmos.

... But how dare you claim to know what pertains throughout the cosmos- how arrogant can you get?
You are just stuck in your own petty anthropomorphic delusion.

It was poorly put I guess. When I suggest the cosmos is primarily non-physical and more to do with feeling I don't mean warm, human feeling. Have you ever felt that your whole being is like a sensor that picks up impulses which can't be adequately described in words - neither what those impulses are, or with what sense you detected them? If anything its a cold feeling, like shivers of knowledge. Maybe you haven't, but the experience to me, which is quite frequent, is definitely one of external impulses acting on me internally. And just to pre-empt... NO, it is nothing like epilepsy at all, its mild, gentle, had in the midst of a gentile moment with friends perhaps, or turning the corner of a street - very quick but very noticeable.
Yeah - I know that feeling. Laying on my back and watching the clouds go by on a sunny day is a good way to do that.
Better sill in the middle of a clear night far from any city staring into the milky way.
Or eyes closed laying on comfy bed and a good Beethoven Symphony in my ipod.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by chaz wyman »

mickthinks wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
mickthinks wrote:Bernard—please don't take any notice of chaz's spasms—we mostly ignore him.
It that the Royal "we", Mc twinkie?

I don't think Bernard needs you to defend him - he's perfectly capable of that.
I was not calling him arrogant. If you were half the thinker you think you are then you would know exactly what I was talking about. Clearly you lack the imagination to either contribute to this debate or understand the views of others.
You (or is it "we") have accused me or arrogance. There is none so arrogant as you who have crawled out from under your rock to bark lie a dog at a world you do not understand.
Either contribute to the debate or don't, but don't climb on your high horse to tell others how.
lol See what I mean , Bernard? That's a chaz spasm!
Woof!
User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by Bernard »

No worries there Mike: if his bite is worse than his bark there would still be little need for alarm
Image
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by Arising_uk »

tbieter wrote:Richard Dawkins is a fanatical atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins He proselytizes his atheism. I have often wondered why the sincere atheist spends any time on any aspect of religion. After all, he has made up his mind. He is firm in his unbelief. In my reading of The True Believer, I noted this possible explanation for his obsession. ...
Mainly because he wrote a couple of books a long-time ago and has been attacked by the religious loons ever since. That and that he thinks the religious loons should not be allowed to teach that his subject, Biology, is wrong when it comes to its subject and that their religious beliefs about creation should not be taught as science.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by Satyr »

I suggest you loons read their biographies so as to find a hint of "immoral behavior" to simply dismiss anyone who challenges your intellects or your modern bullshit....the bullshit mommy an daddy taught you to call "truth".

Let's begin with our current cultural favorites: racism, sexist and anti-Semitic.

Remember, the slightest hint of a racist, sexist, antisemitic insinuation and he's relegated to the "burn pile", helping us all focus on the more moral Modern writers that reinforce our faith rather than challenge it.
What is old, is bad....primitive, overcome...what is modern, or futuristic, is good, progressive, hopeful.

Science has proven this a long time ago.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

Post by chaz wyman »

Satyr wrote:I suggest you loons read their biographies so as to find a hint of "immoral behavior" to simply dismiss anyone who challenges your intellects or your modern bullshit....the bullshit mommy an daddy taught you to call "truth".

Let's begin with our current cultural favorites: racism, sexist and anti-Semitic.

Remember, the slightest hint of a racist, sexist, antisemitic insinuation and he's relegated to the "burn pile", helping us all focus on the more moral Modern writers that reinforce our faith rather than challenge it.
What is old, is bad....primitive, overcome...what is modern, or futuristic, is good, progressive, hopeful.

Science has proven this a long time ago.
Your insults are empty. We 'loons', in my experience, have graduated long ago from the suggestions of their parents. But we have also, long ago, graduated from a childish teenage rebellion of everything our parents tell us.

This is the state you are still trapped in. I don't much care to know your age, but the evidence is that you are about 15, and don't know what to do with your morning hard-on.
Your words are nasty, pathetic teen angst with no understanding, full of basic contradictions and misunderstanding. But moreover you do not know how to write simple ideas clearly. You rant so heavily that no meaning of any importance is conveyed; making you look like a grumpy idiot - the sort of person that walks the sidewalk shouting at the traffic, unkept and unshaven.
Post Reply