An alternative Richard Dawkins Resource

This entry, which shall no doubt be subject to numerous edits over time, is an attempt at an alternative resource to all those pro "Richard Dawkins Resource" pages out there. After all, not all of us are fans of that particular Fanatical Religious Zealot and his Atheistic Evolutionists Uniformatism (AEU) cause, right ?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Credit where credit is due, as per the links.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

From an interview between Steve Paulson and Richard Dawkins, 13/10/2006

SP: Why do you call yourself an atheist? Why not an agnostic?

RD: Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

David Quinn debates (read as "trounces") Richard Dawkins regarding "The God Delusion"

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Richard Dawkins And The 11 Second Pause

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

Includes direct corrospondence from Richard.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Arthur S. Lodge on "Richard Dawkins: Designer!"

From: http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id96.htm

Dawkins' famous computer example is an argument for design, not for the NDT!

Richard Dawkins (1987) describes a computer example of changing letters, one at a time at random, in a string and shows that, after only 41 generations of "breeding", the desired Shakespearean phrase is obtained. At each stage, however, the criterion for retaining a new letter is that it shall agree with the letter in the corresponding place in the final design!

Dawkins chose the Shakespearean sentence at the outset. He then used it as a template for accepting or rejecting all subsequent letter changes. This is a clear example showing the influence of a designer. The fact that each letter change was made using random choices (continued until the template-approved letter was found) addresses only the question of efficiency.

Reference: Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (W. W. Norton, New York)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Richard Dawkins, Hyper-skeptic

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DawkinsR.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Dawkins the Dogmatist" A review by Andrew Brown.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Phil Dwyer opinions on Richard Dawkin's "Gerin Oil" ("Religion") article.

For anyone who doesn't know him, Richard Dawkins is the biggest intellectual fraud and academic charlatan currently active. His work consists of a thinly-veiled apologia for market capitalism couched in the populist jargon of pseudo-science. It is of sociological rather than intellectual interest: future generations will marvel at how such a transparent ideologue could have been taken seriously.

They will conclude that only the present climate of Darwinist fundamentalism and scientistic imperialism could have allowed such an exotic, arcane and frankly weird person to become a public figure. In other words, he's rubbish, and anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot. Sorry to be so frank, but that is the simple truth. This is opinion.

I think Dawkins is dropping his guard, and openly revealing himself as the atheist fanatic he was all along. The man simply hates God. Atheism is an article of faith for him, quite as much as belief is for a religious fundamentalist. But articles like this do have the virtue of discrediting by association Dawkins's absurd meanderings about memes and genes, and if he is allowed to continue in this vain he will quite possibly ruin the carefully-constructed credibility that Darwinism currently enjoys among the half-educated. I say we should give him all the rope he needs.

A few more articles like this, and people will begin to wonder why they took his crap about genes so seriously. In 20 or 30 years, Dawkins's contemporary popularity will be held up as the prime example of our era's irrationality and superstition.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

regarDS

The "internut" by any other name ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internut
internut - an individual who spends at least 15 hours/day online in a leaky sub-basement. "when we severed the wifi conection, strange sounds emitted from the sub-basement which we thought was uninhabited; upon investigation, we learned that it was the domain of the internut."

**** Selah ****

Recently I happened upon a serious and snarly little collective of apparently long-regular web forum inhabitants and was quite shocked that not only were many of them somewhat ignorant of the titled ancient noun/adjective/verb (how far do you think it could reasonably be stretched without totally murdering common understanding of what constitutes the English Language ?) that soon became the more applicable word to use instead of "internet", but also seemed to be somewhat offended by both its existance and use ... well, at least in their sheltered little web world.

It was very surprising to discover a collective of vocal McWeb consumers who took things "internet" so seriously that they could barely abide the thought, let alone the presence, of anyone who didn't take it as seriously as they. Especially anyone who might happen to observe and remark that their level of interest/support/defence of it was bordering on ridiculous and somewhat unhealthy ... and even (dare I say ?) "idolatrous".

Now, anyone who has bothered to wade through my more opinionated blog pages of cynical and arrogant self-righteous waffle (interspaced with tales of motor-cycle Rattery and stuff less likely to offend too many too much in one go), would quickly recognise that I just luurv to find and expose and sometimes even ridicule examples of Fanatical Religious Zealotry that don't involve the Usual Suspects related to more traditional religions and religious behaviour.

Thus far, I've drawn attention to the likes of "Environtologists and the Church of Environtology" in relation to the FRZeds (Fanatical Religious Zealots) getting all hot and bothered about Yet Another period of ice-melts in our solar-system, and then there is the "Cult of Darwin and Dawkins" and their nonsense "evolution of species" flim-flam show that continues to fail every test of evidence possible let alone make it out of base-camp on the way to falling off the cliff-face when trying to climb "Mount Improbable."

Oh, and don't get me going on so called "Sports" and "Sports Teams" and their "Fans", nor the "Cult of Celebrity" ... yup, I'm seeing religions and religious behaviour all over the place; everyone seems to have a favorite "Sacred Cow" or two, and usually at least one they just luurv to get all Fanatically Religiously Zealous about at that.

I feel that it is now time to add the very "internet" to that list of Sacred Cows folk can get FRZ about. Warning, don't mention in a favorable manner things like "filtering" or "clean stream" or ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) or "Senator Conroy" in the midst of the kinds of FRZeds who hold the internut to be sacred ... not unless you've got some of the following to hand over !

They won't turn you into an "internewt"; they'll help you get better. :)

**** Selah ****

[Overly Offensive Mode]

"There is nothing more offensive than the brutal truth delivered brutally to those who don't want to hear it ... except for willfully ignorant brutes who prefer and promote a lie.". - derspatz

Yeah, I don't even mind quoting myself. :)

Continuing on the topic of "content filtering" and "clean stream" etc, you've now arrived at the reason I don't bother to have "comments" turned on for his blog. I'm not interested in providing Yet Another online space for the cowardly anonymous to try and advertise their crass banalities in and nor do I have either the energy or time to filter through all the usually resulting dross and abuse in the hope of spotting a gem worth keeping. I'm already disillusioned enough with much of the more recent generations of so called "humanity" as it is thank you and thus far from keen to have it try and crap in my little Web-Nest.

I've already got THAT angle covered, cheers.

I'm so disinterested in what folk might have to say about my twitterings here that I don't even run any kind "who has visited" type auto-magic metering/logging software ... and if I don't care about who may be visiting then how much less do you think I might care about giving a voice to any who should visit ?

Got something to say ? Go join a forum or publish your own blog and maybe I'll accidentally happen upon it one day. Or better still, DON'T ! :)

So, that's a big "No" to "comment enabling" from me. Deem yourselves pro-actively filtered and think of all the time and energy we've saved each other ... and children we have protected from yet more repetitions of the more foul and offensive forms of internuttery that can be demonstrated by internuts on this here our internut. :)

[/Overly Offensive Mode]

regarDS