Talk:Richard Dawkins

• Archive #1
• Archive #2
• Archive #3
• Archive #4
• Archive #9
• Archive #5
• Archive #6
• Archive #7
• Archive #8
• Archive #9
• Archive #10

Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome

Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/18/richard-dawkins-stands-remarks-sexism-pedophilia-syndrome/

Use feminist quotes about Dawkins and women in the Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins article. Conservative (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

Incorporate former prominent atheist turned deist Antony Flew's criticism of the God Delusion at Conservapedia

"Professor Anthony Flew (who at one time was quite possibly the most famous atheist academic in the world and who later actually abandoned his atheism to adopt theism due to recent advances in science) commented that “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[1]

Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid of talking about Islam or Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement

Richard Dawkins appears to be afraid of talking about Islam or Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement.

See: ON RICHARD DAWKINS TELLING ME WHAT NOT TO ASK

I may transcribe some of the video.Conservative (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Living People

Should there be a category "Living People" as there is in Wikipedia and this article be put in it?Carltonio (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2019 (EST)

I dunno; given how WP treats Donald Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. Jerome Corsi, Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson, what difference does it make? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:32, 8 March 2019 (EST)

There's no use of a "living people" category for CP. It would be worthless, and we'd have to remove it every time someone dies. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2019 (EST)

WP (and by extension RW) has a catgory of living persons as an excuse to hide the sins of liberals. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:41, 8 March 2019 (EST)

• Please forgive my ignorance, but what does RW stand for? Carltonio (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

Ratwiki, an alleged anti-pseudoscience site. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 17:24, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

I did a quick Google search for "Rat Wiki" just now (on Saint Patrick's Day, 2019) and the lead article I got was the Wikipedia article on the rat. Carltonio (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

CP doesn't allow anyone to use its full name, though your search results were superior to that other wiki. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

Of late, I've been following the strange case of the alleged pseudo-scientist Deepak Chopra whom PBS has recruited for fundraising. Odd, since PBS has led the pack in mocking alleged Creationist pseudoscience and fighting alleged global warming denier pseudoscience. WP & Ratwiki have been silent on this turn of events, where PBS now is, according to them, one of the biggest purveyors of pseudoscience on the planet. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:25, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

RobS, see: Irreligion and superstition. Atheism/agnosticism cause more societal pseudoscience and superstition and not less.Conservative (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

Article on Dawkins in Wikipedia

The article on Richard Dawkins in Wikipedia has a talk page saying that Richard Dawkins is very illiterate when it comes to knowledge of ancient history and Biblical texts. Carltonio (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (EST)

The 7th paragraph of the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins article indicates: "In terms of the theism vs. agnosticism and atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of philosophy and theology. For example, philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."[9] The philosopher Antony Flew, who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting deism, said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[10]."

Another paragraph in the article indicates: "As far as the the social science of history, Richard Dawkins has engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists."

So the article already covers Dawkins' ignorance and/or deceptiveness when it comes to theological/historical matters.Conservative (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

The Selfish Gene

This article seems rather biassed to discussion of one book by Dawkins - "The God Delusion". It could point out that his most famous book is probably The Selfish Gene. This book argues that the gene should be seen as the unit of natural selection. The article could point out that this book has been criticised by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin in their book "Not in Our Genes" for promoting genetic determinism. Carltonio (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

The book The God Delusion sold about 3 times as many copies as The Selfish Gene (one sold over 3 million books and the other sold over 1 million copies). My guess is that as far as the free copies he is giving away in Arabic, etc. has The God Delusion being dowloaded more. Wikignome72 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

Of course, sales of the Bible and Koran absolutely dwarf the sales of Dawkins' books. The only atheistic book which was published more than Dawkins' book was Mao Zedong 's Little Red Book (estimates ranging from 800 million to over 6.5 billion printed volumes) and that book was far, far more political than philosophical.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

Incoherent mess

What an incoherent mess this article is. It's hard to believe the page views are organic. RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 12:13, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

What is the point in mocking a person because they had a stroke? RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 13:11, April 3, 2024 (EDT)