In response to the Belgian Government tightening Covid restrictions last Friday, anti-lockdown protesters marched through the streets of Brussels, the nation’s capital. Belgium has become the latest European country to receive this kind of backlash after imposing new Covid measures, with similar anti-lockdown protests occurring in Austria and the Netherlands only yesterday. MailOnline has the story.
Hordes of protesters marched through the streets towards the headquarters of the European Union, shouting ‘Freedom! Freedom!’ and carrying placards which read ‘everyday fascism’ emblazoned with yellow stars, drawing comparisons with the identification tags Jews were forced to wear in Nazi-occupied Europe.
The Government on Friday introduced fresh Covid restrictions – the third week in a row that rules have been tightened amid the latest surge in cases.
Prime Minister Alexander De Croo announced that nurseries and primary schools will close for the holiday season a week early, and children must now wear masks from the age of 6 years-old. Indoor events will only be allowed with a maximum of 200 people.
Previously, the Government closed nightclubs, and ordered bars and restaurants to shut at 11pm for three weeks.
The main crowd in Sunday’s mostly peaceful march had already dispersed when about 100 protesters ran into a riot police barricade cordoning off access to the European Commission.
After a brief stand-off with police, protesters threw rubbish and other objects, including a bicycle, at police and set off firecrackers and flares.
It comes a day after many cities in Europe saw demonstrations against new restrictions in the run up to Christmas – upwards of 40,000 people held protests in Vienna, Austria, while thousands more piled into the streets of Utrecht in the Netherlands and Frankfurt in Germany.
Austria last month became the first country in Western Europe to reimpose a lockdown, which is set to last 20 days, and said it would make vaccinations mandatory from February.
It comes as governments across Europe warn of the spread of the highly transmissible Omicron variant which has now been registered in several nations including the U.K., Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Norway…
Meanwhile in Austria, police used pepper spray and made several arrests on Saturday when more than 40,000 people marched through Vienna to protest against a lockdown and plans to make vaccinations compulsory.
Faced with a surge in infections, the government last month made Austria the first country in Western Europe to reimpose a lockdown and said it would make vaccinations mandatory from February.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Mr Dawkins may think creationism is bollocks, but he seems to be a true believer of the Church of Covid. Bit selective about what he applies his sacred scientific method to.
Richard Dawkins: The hidden benefit of Covid is science that could change our world
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2021/march/richard-dawkins-hope-covid-science.html
Even Galileo recanted under threats from the inquisition. And Dawkins is no Galileo.
As I wrote in a different context elsewhere: Dawkins is an atheist because he’s offended by the idea that a being could be superior to him and he believes in the COVID orthodoxy because Sars-CoV2 scares him.
Not quite the role model.
Quite funny to see how Dawkins is getting absolutely roasted here.
Perhaps he’d like to come here himself, put his dukes up, and find out how he fares.
Dawkins is an atheist for the same reason most people are atheists: They see no evidence that god exists. He has said so on multiple occasions. He’s written books about this. You may not agree with him, you may think he’s silly for thinking that way, but at least don’t misrepresent him.
Me being of the opinion that there’s more than a bit of vanity in Dawkins very public atheism doesn’t misrepresent anything he said about that because that’s my opinion and not his. I didn’t write anything about atheism itself and don’t plan to.
You said:
That is false. He has been clear about his reasons, and your statement is misrepresenting him.
As I already tried to explain to you: What I think about Dawkins atheism is my opinion about this and not his.
And as I have already tried to explain to you: Your opinion has no basis in reality.
That’s you opinion as Dawkins fan.
It’s his/her reality & she/he is entitled to his/her own opinion & it’s no less or more important than yours or Dawkins.
I think Dawkins is a total tosser, but I still subscribe to evolutionary theory & not creationism.
This isn’t an opinion. It is a fact that Dawkins has stated why he is an atheist. It’s not my opinion based on what my interpretation of some unrelated things he said. It is factually his own description of his beliefs.
You are misrepresenting what you said. In your post you attributed the offence taking to Dawkins when as far as I know he has never articulated, or even intimated, such a sentiment. In the absence of evidence to support your accusation, that is clearly a defamatory statement no different than if you had falsely and publically accused him of stealing. You are now attempting to defend your libel by saying it was only your opinion that he takes offence. This would not stand up in court. The statement you made about his taking offence at the possible existence of superior being to him is either demonstrably true or it is untrue and therefore a libel. So you now need to produce evidence to support your accusation or withdraw it.
At least this thread highlights an issue we all need to address, i.e. making a clear distinction between our own personal opinion, and the opinion of others.
“In my opinion” works wonders at the beginning of a sentence.
At last check, the world’s leading atheist has come out as an agnostic.
Atheism is a stance on belief while agnosticism is a stance on knowledge. As far as I know, Dawkins has always been an agnostic atheist, which is to say that he does not believe god exists, but he has no proof that god does not exist.
Put simply, God is dismissed as make believe … is terrorized by a make believe virus.
if he’d followed the science we wouldn’t have had a lockdown
Quite so: there’s precious little science in the Covid narrative and measures. They are anti-science, anti-evidence, and anti-best practice.
The lockdown in austria appears to have worked:
Gosh. It’s like the English one, that was so effective it made “cases” peak and decline in Sweden as well.
[You do understand that epidemic disease cases always peak and decline naturally and inevitably, don’t you? I’m not sure whether or not I’m dealing with an adult, or with sarcasm here.]
Neither adult or sarcasm. It is just Ewloe in one of his many troll guises
As a lockdown advocate, you have the blood of Arthur Labinjo- Hughes on your hands.
Its summer now. That what always happens in summer – when the data isnt being manipulated.
“Mr Dawkins may think creationism is bollocks, but he seems to be a true believer of the Church of Covid. Bit selective about what he applies his sacred scientific method to.”
And what governs his selectivity? For comparison: are you familiar with how Roger Scruton once disgraced himself?
Scruton in media plot to push the sale of cigarettes
I wasn’t aware of the Scruton thing. What governs his selectivity? Who knows – probably the same thing that governs that of others – inability to think the herd are wrong, wanting to preserve his status, irrational fear of covid, some financial self-interest.
Hardly a disgrace.
Those coercing smokers are a disgrace (I am not a smoker)
I thought we were on a worrying course when Blair’s lot banned members of smoking clubs from smoking indoors in their clubs.Has some similarity to Mark’s point about compulsory seatbelts.
Dawkins’s Darwinists were apparently part of the genocide against native Tasmanians.
I would hazard a guess that it’s not actual Māori who are demanding this howling lunacy, but angry White wamxn with purple hair and some culturally appropriated tattoos who, like Elizabeth Warren, claim to have an indigenous great-to-the-fourth-grandfather.
100% correct!
I bet the Maori are embarrassed and probably annoyed at being ghettoised. Science belongs to them just as much as anybody else
I wouldn’t count on it – as usual with identity lobbyists, many of their “leaders” are solely motivated by what gains them power, influence, slush money and privilege:
“Some Māori leaders have criticized the government’s decision to end lockdowns, with the co-leader of New Zealand’s Māori Party, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, calling that move a “death warrant” for Indigenous communities.
“Many of our [ancestors] lost their lives in previous pandemics,” the tribe’s chief executive Helmut Modlik said in a statement.
“We are absolutely clear that the COVID-19 vaccine is the best protection we have available to us,” Modlik said, adding that the Ngati Toa “are committed to supporting” vaccination of its people “as soon as possible.””
New Zealand Maori tribe demands vaccine protesters stop performing haka dance
[One underlying irony being, of course, that the very reason so many Maoris lost their lives in previous pandemics was because they had been isolated from the world and unable to develop resistance, in much the way the modern NZ regime of imbeciles has tried to recreate in the past couple of years over covid.]
Bullseye!
As soon as I saw the headline, I knew the topic on which Dawkins was disgracing himself was race. “Science is science is science, and it doesn’t matter who does it, or where, or what “tradition” they may have been brought up in.” What a moron! “Mr Objective humiliates himself” is not exactly an edifying show, and people demean themselves by watching it. One understands this geezer once had a propaganda job at Oxford and got some book contracts. As soon as he snuffs it, nobody will write about him as if he had any intellectual weight whatsoever – as was also true with, say, Jean-Paul Sartre. The poor guy doesn’t know which way is up!
On the contrary, there is nothing disgraceful about his pronouncement on this subject.
By contrast, you just throw insults at Dawkins.
Propaganda – that’s about it.
How naive, ignorant & blind intellectuals can be. Dawkins liberal ideology hatches from its pupa, instead of a beautiful butterfly free to fly, it turns out to be a queen ant to rule over the colony.
Communism doesn’t give a toss about science, wake up for FFS!
Winston Churchill – The End
Dawkins has no distance whatsoever on the various institutions – schools, university departments, monarchist clubs – that he believes ought because of their very essence to serve his fly-by-night, self-praising corp$e-“god” called “$cience”, and to police their membership more effectively. He’s just an idiot embarrassing himself – or he would be embarrassing himself if he had any perspective.
I don’t know anybody whose ideas differ even a small amount from his who takes Dawkins seriously. Mostly he’s viewed, and rightly, as a wacko.
As hominem, combined with argument from intimidation
“…the Society is currently investigating one of its members, an eminent biochemist and a professor at the University of Auckland – Dr. Garth Cooper – for writing a letter to a New Zealand magazine challenging a proposal by a government body to teach Mauri “ways of knowing” in schools alongside physics, biology and chemistry, giving each equal weight when it comes to understanding the material world.”
As I have pointed out here previously, this seems to be yet another triumph of touchy-feely, right on hippy-ness over reality, in formerly western culture and society. Alongside, of course, the usual kowtowing to identity lobby reptiles.
As a bit of background, when Europeans contacted the Maoris in NZ in the 18th century, they were technologically and culturally primitive compared to the Europeans, in part precisely because they had not devised the scientific method that had led to such dramatic advances in Europe. The Maori had no advanced technology and were notable mainly for their expertise at violence, which they promptly displayed after the arrival of European technology by initiating the “Musket Wars”.
Famously, a Maori offshoot group isolated on the Chatham Islands had, in the safety of their remote location, become pacifists. Unfortunately for them, when the mainland Maoris found out about them they acted appropriately, by their own cultural lights, and used European sailing and weapons technology to sail to the Chatham Islands and kill or enslave all of the pacifists. Thus providing a lesson many modern westerners would do well to heed.
When he is good, he is very, very good. And when he is bad, he is horrid.
What bits do you think are good?
I think his trouble is that he has selfish genes.
That’s better than socialist genes.
They’re are identical.
The SELF INTERESTED Gene specialises and cooperates with other genes for their mutual benefit.
If he’d learnt a little basic capitalism he may have made useful insights.
There was a story about someone who should have become a psychopath (or some such) according to this genes theory – but because of his very loving upbringing didn’t. I am a bit wary of this “slave to our genes” stuff. The elitist i.q. stuff too.
He is one of the most well known evolutionary biologists. And as much as you like making fun of “selfish genes”, that is pretty much established fact.
Altruism in humans is explained by genes which according to their own lights are selfish.
I don’t remember Pawkins protesting when the pathetic President of the Royal Society endorsed compulsory face nappies.
Maybe he thought they would help him to “enjoy his life”…
(No accounting for some people).
Good point. It looks like that if you’re panicking, then you’re incapable of doing any research, which shows face nappies are a waste of time. Voodo science, on a par with Maori knowing.He is trapped in the false paradigm that the vast majority of the scientific establishment could not get something so simple wrong, so there’s no reason for him to question the mask cult.
The post-modern/woke definiton of science:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
(from Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, via Wikipedia)
Another question might be … did Antonio Gramsci die happy, enthused, scrotally-inflated? If he had any sort of vision of the future, he most certainly did. (And so will Bill Ayers.)
A more important question about Gramsci than anything to do with his scrotum is how come Piero Sraffa at Trinity College, Cambridge, put resources into trying to enfellow him? He can’t have been considered much of a threat to dominant interests.
“to dominant interests”
Dominant where? Cambridge & Oxford? At that point in history, I’d agree.
My reference to Gramsci was metaphorical.
And that also applies to the religious fervor in the streets of Dayton, Tennessee in 1925, during the Scopes trial.
Perhaps I should rename myself Mercutio?
Has Dawkins been having a career-long tantrum aimed at a tutor or something? Any decent tutor could tell him he is hypostatising the notion of “science”, or making it perform “too much heavy lifting” to put it in Oxford-Cambridge language.
Born in Kenya during the time of white supremacy, also known as British colonial rule, son of a colonial civil servant from the landed gentry in Oxfordshire, descendant of a British slaveowner in Jamaica – yeah, Richard, you tell us “science” is owned by “everyone”, because you know, right? What a guy!
“Born in Kenya during the time of British colonial rule, son of a colonial civil servant from the landed gentry in Oxfordshire, descendant of a British slaveowner in Jamaica “
Is this some kind of theological attribution of Original Sin to Dawkins?
An attempt to delegitimise by association and smear?
Or just harmless irrelevance?
Inquiring minds might be interested to know.
“Is this some kind of
theologicalideological attribution of Original Sin to Dawkins?”Fixed that for you.
A distinction without much difference in this case.
I like to second this. I have a strong dislike for just about everything I’ve ever read from Dawkins and that he wholeheartedly threw himself behind The (COVID) Science didn’t surprise me the least. But he is not and cannot be responsible for something his parents were.
In this context, I also like to point out that slavery was not invented by devilish anglo-saxons in order to harm angelic people from Africa but has existed in pretty much all cultures of the world since the dawn of times. And said devilish anglo-saxons were at the forefront of getting it abolished.
And slavery is close to being re-invented for the 21st Century by Billy, Klaus and the rest of the Davos crowd unless we learn how to put a stop to their destructions.
Yes, he is smearing Dawkins
Trying to smear someone because of where they were born and who their parents were must be the weakest and lowest form of character assassination possible. It just shows how utterly desperate you are.
Yes, he doesn’t even say Dawkins is supposedly wrong, let alone why.
Please avoid the personal, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
‘Creationism is still bollocks even it is indigenous bollocks.’
Darwinian evolution is bollocks for atheists, as with covid they just announce that ‘the sceince’ proves their belief when in reality their belief is nothing more than their interpretation applied to some evidence.
Evolution has supporting evidence
What evidence? Certainly no proof of much beyond what animal and plant breeders have known for centuries.
The evidence Darwin found for it, as opposed to creationism, a moronic idea that elevates emotions above evidence, trying to give religion the prestige of science and prove that your imaginary friend is real.
But he didn’t find the transitional fossils to support his hypothesis.
Spot on. History is not observational laboratory science.
I remember watching an interview with Dawkins where he accepted that intelligenct design was a valid way of explaining our existence but that he would only accept that those that designed us and our universe were extra terrestrial beings that themselves had evolved as the result of Darwinian like random chance evolution.
In essence Dawkins knows intelligent design is valid it is just that he won’t accept that a supernatural Creator could be responsible.
No it does not, who designed the designer?
Evolution solves the problem of needing a designer. The human “design” is pretty incompetent in places and would point to a rather half-arsed and lazy deity.
‘No it does not, who designed the designer?’
That’s philosophically naive. Dickie D would be proud. A self-existent creator would by definition be independent of causation, and your question tacitly posits an infinite regress, which again is absurd.
You need to get out more.
‘Evolution solves the problem of needing a designer.’
That’s an assertion crying out for an argument.
‘The human “design” is pretty incompetent in places and would point to a rather half-arsed and lazy deity.’
That’s a subjective statement, which may go down well with ignorant atheists, but is not philosophically compelling at all. Ironically enough, it’s a lazy, half-arsed argument.
“assertion” nope statement of fact.
It removes the need for a designer That’s the whole insight behind evolution.
Nope, it’s still an unsubstantiated assertion. Are you dense? How did the universe and all of life arise through purely naturalistic forces? How did consciousness arise from non-conscious processes? Why should matter think about itself and its surroundings?
You haven’t ‘remove[d] the need for a designer’ at all. You’re deluded. You think asserting ‘evolution’ is enough. Given enough time, right? Okay, I’ll give you billions of years. How could a seemingly endless series of physical events, with tiny particles knocking against one another, currents surging back and forth… develop suddenly into a conscious experience? At this point you’ve stepped outside of the scientific realm and into fantasy land. You believe in blind faith. Your creation myth requires more faith than I can muster.
You’re losing it mate.
Fascinating response, meat sack.
Interesting that we have still seen none of the key processes that would be required for molecules to man by random combination of chemicals beyond what has been known by breeders of animals and plants for centuries. They’ve tried enough with fruit flies – all they got was deformed fruit flies.
With medicine, supplements gyms etc (aka human fixing and maintenance) being probably the largest lifetime cost on par with food, you’d expect a little more competence from a deity.
Again, that’s an assertion begging for an argument. You’re emotional. God is under no obligation to create according to your ‘standards’. Even granting your emotional non-argument, it doesn’t refute God’s existence. Do you have an actual argument?
Tell you what, let’s get down to the real issues. Why are you on these forums railing against Government decrees given atheistic assumptions? Is the governnent ‘wrong’ for imposing its will on others? On atheism, you’re a meat sack, an ugly bag of mostly water. So what if ugly bags of mostly water impose their will on other ugly bags of mostly water? Are they doing something objectively wrong? If so, please present your argument.
Do any of these people have an actual argument?
Almost invariably not. With few exceptions, these people argue like rebellious adolescents. Atheism has not moved on from the childish, irrational arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens et al.
Why?
Well your conjured deity is not very competent (as well as nescessary).
So a ‘self-existent’ creator just willed itself into existence? Cant quite get my head around that one. Before it created itself, where did the willpower come from?
‘So a ‘self-existent’ creator just willed itself into existence?’
Who ever said that?
It never ceases to amaze me how theologically illiterate atheists step into the arena to confidently pronounce on issues of which they are utterly ignorant. This is Christianity 101, and this moronic specimen can’t even get that right.
‘Cant quite get my head around that one.’
That’s because it’s something you dreamed up or read from another cretinous atheist. Try educating yourself on the topics you pretend to critique.
Stop foaming at the mouth and decide if I am “Christianity 101”, a “theologically illiterate atheist” or I just “self-exist”?
Oh, I like a bit of fire and brimstone. Probably a lot of atheists are ignorant of basic theological and philosophical issues anyway. And ignorant that things that they just take for granted can constitute their own belief system.
(P.S. “moronic” – has he got the lurgy?
)
‘Stop foaming at the mouth…’
Careful now, meat sack, such responses betray a desperation.
‘…and decide if I am “Christianity 101”…’
How would you be ‘Christianity 101’? Were you born this stupid or did it come with years of practice?
‘…a “theologically illiterate atheist”…
You are without doubt theologically illiterate. Let’s revisit the breathtakingly stupid post you want everyone to forget:
‘So a ‘self-existent’ creator just willed itself into existence? Cant quite get my head around that one. Before it created itself, where did the willpower come from?’
This is staggerringly bad. Again, where in over 2000 years of orthodox Christianity has anyone said this? Did you just make it up, or did you half-inch it from another meat sack?
‘…or I just “self-exist”?’
You’re ignorant of the term ‘self-existent’ aren’t you? Just admit it.
No different to energy/matter that has just been in existence in an exact unchanging quantity for eternity and is because it is (or whatever Dawkinsists believe).
They don’t they believe energy came into existence 14.1 billion years ago and matter formed around 100,000 years later.
The human design is just fine when used properly – the hunzas in their uncontacted state for example. As I’ve said before, the point for (certainly Christian) theists is that we were created with free will – and thus freedom to spoil what was created “very good”. But perhaps of little interest to those dismissive of philosophy.
Indeed. Christianity gives an account for the corruption of the created order, and predicts the ‘defects’ we see in creation. Atheists are too bone idle to bother reading Christian sources, and instead constantly misrepresent Christianity, for example with the lazy atheist above not understanding the elementary distinction between God’s original created order and creation post-Fall.
Try the Neuroverse Hypothesis: https://lettertotheatheists.com/neuroverse/
It might at least stimulate some thought.
You may be interested by “A New Kind of Science” by Stephen Wolfram.
https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/
Which takes the game of life to it’s maximal conclusion.
Thanks. I’ll take a look.
Intelligent design is repackaged creationism
Dont forget the ‘self-existent creator’!
Yes, they should be censored like antivaxers shouldn’t they. Actually creationists are pretty much censored in the so-called States (among other places). And people did nothing because they weren’t a creationist – and then wonder how we ended up where we are…
Nowhere in my post did I call for censorship, bozo.
You should stop reading words that aren’t there.
As for creationists, they promote antiscience as science They are persecutors, not victims.
‘As for creationists, they promote antiscience as science…?
Cite one example where they ‘promote antiscience as science’. You sound like a Covid cultist.
‘They are persecutors, not victims.’
‘Persecutors’ of whom? What on earth are you talking about?
Let us grant for the sake of argument that there are Christians running around ‘persecuting’ people. Let’s go along with yet another atheistic fairy tale… So what? Is persecution somehow ‘wrong’? On atheism, is it ‘wrong’ for one ugly bag of mostly water to persecute another ugly bag of moatly water? By what standard outside of ugly bags of mostly water is anything ‘wrong’?
You see, meat sack, in order for you to whine about ‘persecution’ you have to steal from my world view. Your world view does not provide the moral resources to be railing against ‘persecution’. Your very presence here represents a fundamental self-contradiction. It’s self-defeating.
That’s what you’re reduced to: utter absurdity. You’re a mess.
And that sort of smear isn’t an attempt to close down debate? One which has been used in many places. Have you ever expressed reservations about the sort of de facto censorship that has been going on a long time, and putting aside whether you agree with them or not? “I disagree with you but will defend to the death your right to say it”.
In any case, “creationists” are largely responsible for the creation of modern science so if anything it’s the other way round. And ironically, the likes of Dawkins appear to fall back on creation beliefs of their own, effectively.
Funny how many of these types believe in “the aliens”.
It’s interesting that much of the commentary here has to do with completely-peripheral characteristics of Dawkins, and is off-topic to the posted letter. Both adults and children have fixations. Children are unwilling, and perhaps unable to get past them.
Pointing out that Dawkins is a ‘wooled in the dye’ supporter of all-things-COVID insofar they come from some public authority is a perfectly valid ad hominem against him: A champion of science and reason he is not. Hence, there’s no reason to celebrate him as one just because he readily picks up his pet crusade against whatever-religious when the opportunity arises.
I’m personally very sceptical wrt existence of supernatural beings of any kind but in the end, that’s based on my ignorance about a lot of things. Hence, I don’t go round and insult people just because they believe in something I tend to question. IMHO, that’s an area were science, ie, the science of observable phenomenons, can offer little guidance, hence, it’s up to the individual to make up his mind about it.
He appears to be a champion of science and reason according to who is listening. Accordingly he can resonate with atheists and covidians – which is no mean feat..
He is a champion of promoting his preferred narrative by whatever means he can, so far as I can see – including some more dubious means.
He is just saying mumbo jumbo shouldnt be placed on a par with scientific evidence.
All very well so far as “mumbo jumbo” goes, but he should understand that Christianity at least has been very strong on reason (just look at Thomas Aquinas) and that indeed Christians invented branches of modern science. He should also be aware of the limits of his own “scientific” belief system, and more careful not to blur things we know for certain with mere speculation. And as a philosopher friend said, Dawkins is pretty ignorant of philosophy (which I suppose Dawkins mistakenly regards as an irrelevance).
One of those people, I think, who uses science for basically advanced fantasising. Clueless about philosophy too – an Oxford philosopher told me so.
I think the thought of any religion or belief system, he doesn’t agree with sets Dawkins off. But science is about a rationale and belief is separate, a faith. They need to stay that way. There may well be a God, but 2+2=4 doesn’t offend that notion.
Yes I have always found arguments between the two “sides” rather pointless.
Presumably, these indigenous folk will be relying on their traditional remedies and potions, rather than accepting injections of mRNA liquids concocted by white devils?
Thought not.
Actually, I understand that they are indeed sceptics (albeit for probably the wrong reasons).
That photo looks very ironic. He is apparently reading his own book called ‘an appetite for wonder’, though frankly I doubt that wonder is something he often feels, and his own look is between lugubrious and miserable. My own feeling is that he (or the publisher more like) has confused ‘curiosity’ with ‘wonder’, because his life is much more typified by the former.
What an embarrassment. Imagine having this idiot on your side. Good grief. Dickie D has his own creation myth. It’s about the most absurd creation myth on the planet, and it is not derived from ‘evidence-based’ science but rather is indeed tradition-based, the very thing he criticises. He needs to take the tree trunk out of his own eye. Dickie D has long been a parody of himself. He’s a ridiculous creature.
In many ways, yes – but he is absolutely right in the main argument with the NZ Royal Society.
In his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins had one really good idea – a clever spin on the old “Who Created God?” question. Where did God’s complexity come from? It could only come from a more complex God. But then, where did this God get its complexity from? Only from a more complex God… and so on, in an infinite regress. Therefore, God probably doesn’t exist.
However, the Neuroverse Hypothesis is one way that answers Dawkins’ challenge, using emergence, in which more complex behaviors arise out of simpler things. At the very least, the hypothesis puts God firmly back on the table. https://lettertotheatheists.com/neuroverse/
The rest of Dawkins’ book is basically full of slurs against religion, some of which is perhaps justified (I’m not a huge fan of established religions myself); and a lot of misinformation about YHWH, often framing situations and events in the Bible so as to completely miss the point of them.
Anyway, based on the way he misrepresents YHWH, it’s not really surprising that he found himself on the wrong side of the argument for covid.
‘In his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins had one really good idea – a clever spin on the old “Who Created God?” question. Where did God’s complexity come from? It could only come from a more complex God.’
I’m surprised you find this compelling. It is a shallow argument which erroneously assumes that a God capable of designing anything must be so complex as to demand an explanation in his own right, and so on. Not only is the argument bad in that it creates an imagined problem without recourse to any scientific procedure, i.e., it’s the unscientific ramblings of an emotional atheist, but it utterly fails to take into account 2000 years of Christian theology. Christian theologians have consistently emphasised God’s simplicity. God is not made up of parts, nor is he materially complex in any way.
Dickie D sets up a whopping Aunt Sally and proceeds to attempt to knock it down. Not only does he miss the target by misrepresenting his opponents’ beliefs, but he doesn’t even achieve his aim with the Aunt Sally. So he can’t even defeat his own caricature. It is an awful argument. Utterly awful.
I tend to agree. I suppose what I mean is, it’s a clever idea if you’re a materialist, because Dawkins is framing his argument entirely in material terms.
However, thought can become increasingly complex, and yet doesn’t necessarily require any more components. Beethoven had the same brain as you and I, except perhaps wired better to compose great music.
In fact, the universe itself is an example that counters Dawkins’ own argument. All of the ordinary matter in the universe apparently came into existence in the first few seconds. Everything since then has really been about the rearrangement of that same matter, and most of it happened without “Darwinian evolution”… so complexity can also arise through rearrangement.
The “infinite regress” thing was Dawkins’ “best” argument, but it can be easily refuted by science and logic, even before we get to Christian theology.
How do you know your ‘self-existent’ god is a low IQ male?
That sort of rhetoric doesn’t invite reasoned discussion. You’re not mature enough for this debate.
Would you still consider peer review science? It is seriously tainted. Indeed – is there such a thing as independent sciene? No – just vested interested science – all the rest is withered and starved.
What about those astronomers Sky at Night were recruiting? Is there an amateur scene in other areas of science?
Where is the Science in lockdowns and mask wearing Dawkins? Nowhere to be seen. At least there is written evidence of God whether you believe it or not. The Covidians, such as Dawkins, couldn’t even be bothered to write anything down supporting their religion.
Looks like a tidied up Sir Les Patterson
How temporarily amusing to read hard of thinking arts graduate and failure Toad Young defending science having himself done his failed best in trying to discredit it for the last two years.
If they were teaching neo-liberal free (not free) Adam Smith market mythology I doubt he would find any objection at all.
p.s. oh! the BTL hogwash is priceless. :-))
So you are not the greatest navigator of t’interwebby?
Sex and travel sunshine.
Adam Smith has done more than anyone on the planet to increase living standards.
It’s a pity Marxists choose to do the opposite and thus murder 100 million people.
Dawkins is a narcissistic bigot. No better than Catholics who incarcerated and abused children, Paisley, Ultra Zionists, Hamas or the Ayatollahs.
Comment from Steve Kirsh’s newsletter
Craig Paardekooper has made 2 highly enlightening and disturbing. I think everyone will want to see these.
In this one, Craig has created a pivot table with US states on the horizontal axis and successive vaccine batches on the vertical axis. It turns out that most batches have fairly rare side effects, but in about 1 in 200 batches, the number of side effects is more than 1000 times higher. These side effects are visible in all states.
https://rumble.com/vq9q2n-vaers-analysis-1-in-200-vaccine-batches-has-more-than-1000x-adverse-events-.html
We seem to be dealing with Russian roulette where the revolver has about 200 chambers. As you take more and more boosters, the chance that the weapon will fire if you or a loved one is jabbed, increases.
In this video he has made a scatter plot with time on x-axis and number of side effects from VAERS on y-axis. The rolling time corresponds well to the batches used. https://rumble.com/vq9pde-highly-disturbing-vaers-analysis-clear-patterns-in-toxic-vaccine-batches-cr.html
The analysis shows that about 80% of the batches have at most 1 or 2 negative side effects per batch. About 19.5% of the batches have side effects well above the background value, and 0.5% of the batches (1 in 200) are extremely toxic, with side effects 1000-5000x times higher than the background value.
When looking at the supplier of the batches, the majority of the serious side effects in the first months of the vaccination campaign can be attributed to Moderna. The exception is a clear peak of Janssen preceding and following Moderna. The last few months have been dominated by side effects of Pfizer.
It is as if every company has bought the exclusive right to cause most of the serious side effects in a certain period of time.
It seems that Pfizer has been running a series of rigorous dosing tests lately (on human guinea pigs), in which they have linearly decreased the dose of some toxic ingredient. It’s like they are very scientifically testing the lethal dose.
They have alternated the toxic batches over time with relatively harmless batches. The clusters are not only sharply delineated in time, but also in toxicity.
What Craig clearly shows is that the vaccine batches have a crucial link to the side effects. So it is considerably more than just an individual who happens to be extra sensitive to vaccination or accidentally injecting it into the bloodstream, as Dr John Campbell has pointed out. It is also unlikely that a production error occurred in a single batch by accident.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/28x-increase-in-stillbirths-in-multiple/comments
https://rumble.com/vq9pde-highly-disturbing-vaers-analysis-clear-patterns-in-toxic-vaccine-batches-cr.html
Following comment;
Of course they are doing dose testing. No doubt about it. They didn’t do animals studies prior to FIH clinical trials bc they didn’t care. This was all about the tech. and saving the industry (among other goals). Further, the manufacturing process control is absent for the same reason. Nothing has been done according to normal drug devt. This experimental, investigative product is still undergoing refinement. It is the most dangerous tech in the world. No, that is not hyperbole. You can literally kill entire, or selected populations, with the right code sequences and knowing the targets. Folks need to wake up this one big data gathering exercise. When its all said and done, they will literally have selected kill shots for every cohort population.
“True science is evidence-based not tradition-based”
Like germ theory?…
I’ve read the bulk of the comments but gave up because I got fed up.
Dawkins has come out in support of a colleague and in support of science.
Is that not enough?
I agree. I liked this site a year ago, but I feel increasingly out of place as a libertarian rationalist. I have both walked the walk and talked the talk as a lockdown sceptic, the first by refusing to wear a mask or comply with other restrictions, and by door to door leafleting, but I can’t see the point in coming to the comments here any more. Long live free speech, liberty, property and free enquiry. Down with tyranny. The struggle continues.
I understand but there are many fine commentters on here – I could push a list but would inevitably forget someone.
This site helps me retain a degree of sanity. I believe I understand as well as anyone what is going down but I hope to be able to share my thoughts on a daily basis on here.
If these comments pages are not for you then fair enough but I need the medicament of other people’s thoughts.
The struggle indeed continues.
I have no problem with Dawkins saying what he does in this regard, but he has been one of the most rabid proponents of Lockdown which is being shown, daily to have been a catastrophe.
Is it any wonder the world is a mess when instead of evaluating the central issue, the attack on science and a scientist in New Zealand and its and his defence by an eminent scientist, we choose to go off subject and attack the defender.
craven fools
If Dawkins is wrong about Covid, and I believe he is , then attack him on science for this, but don’t conflate and therefore undermine the issue on hand for which he should be commended
Instead of actually being able to write a comment here, I get misdirected into an interminable registration process, and finally am asked to choose a colour scheme! What a waste of my time. Adiós
Dawkins dismisses God as a make believe, is terrorized by a make believe pathogen.
The pathogen is real, the hysterical overreaction is unreal.
And good old Dawkins’s preferred creation myth of a smooth gradient from zero to one light sensitive membranes; and the random combination of amino acids to form proteins in contravention of statistical laws of probability. Among other things.
Not necessarily arguments for alternative ideas, but simply to demonstrate that he has a belief system too.
And it is ironic that the assertions of some people who oppose lockdowns appear to amount to that we should not have been created with freedom of choice for our own good.
“True science works: lands spacecraft on comets, develops vaccines against plagues. . . “
Trouble is, as we are finding out the hard way, vaccines don’t always work, particularly when they are actually gene therapies and the virus they are supposed to “defeat” has never even been proven to exist.
If this is what the Emeritus Professor means by true science, then all I can say is. . . God help us!
I suspect that some of these medications are more about profit.
The trouble is, the people pedaling these medications tend not to take a truly holistic approach.
The very meaning of science is knowledge. It’s because of the likes of this pompous prick that we’re in the mess we’re in and that this very website exists. If he’s so sure of his precious science then it should be very easy to use it to debunk the myths he spouts about. In reality, what often happens is that science mimicks knowledge (ways of knowing) passed down through generations. This is most evident in medicine with the irony being that the original, natural forms of medicine don’t come with many of the side effects created by their modern, synthetic counterparts. Science has it’s place alongside all other forms of knowledge.
I think we see this corruption in the pedaling of sugary snacks. Man likes sweet things because the blackberries etc. that we traditionally eat are at their most nutritious when they are sweet. So this is mimicked artificially by processed foods (or “foods”) that have the same sweetness but no nutritional value, and turn a nice profit for those who produce them.
He has already debunked those myths.
Specifically?
Not sure if there is some preamble to this story which I’ve missed but why are we discussing it on Daily Sceptics?
Maybe because he’s sceptical? (Except when he’s not).
All very fine were it not for the fact that this is the same scientist who once appeared on TV to inform the world that the election of Donald Trump was some sort of strange evolutionary mistake.
Yes, maybe he worked that out by weighing and measuring things…
He does come out with some strange stuff. And doesn’t treat others how he would like to be treated himself, seemingly. But then why would he with his beliefs?
Dawkins is actually more of a vicar than the vicars he berates.
Brilliant insight! Such a shame that religion has done more to befuddle mankind and denigrate God and the teachings of Christ than Dawkins will ever begin to do in his delusion.
The election of an orange New York liberal was a mistake, albeit not due to evolution.
The subsequent presidency of the senile Joke Biden doesn’t make Trump any good.
Good to see the pursuit of ideological purity remains paramount here BTL: people who don’t agree with us on everything cannot be agreed with on anything.
I observe that none of them, except for the intergalactically stupid, say that Dawkins is wrong to oppose the teaching of ancient Maori superstition as science, they just attack him on the basis he got another subject wrong.
I barely read the piece to be honest, I was just fascinated by what people were saying btl.
The opposite of the Liberal Democrats then. Apparently if their members don’t disagree with at least 10% of their manifesto, they are not real Lib Dems!
I trust as at least a nominally Christian nation NZ will also be teaching creationism alongside Maori “ways of knowing” and the scientific method from now on?
The Jerry Coyne referenced in Dawkins letter is also a true believer at the church of covid. I agree with both their articles in defence of Professor Cooper, however I recently incurred the wrath of Jerry Coyne recently by calling him a moron (in response to his calling Eric Clapton one because of his stance on refusing to perform at venues which might employ covid passports). Jerry Coyne is also a rabid supporter of mandatory vaccination. As both these gentlemen are Evolutionary Scientists, I am truly puzzled by the cognitive dissonance which allows them to prefer vaccination over natural immunity for a bad flu ‘epidemic’.
Oh give me a break – this guy is the most zealous man on earth – his religion of ‘true’ science is responsible for the fucking mess we’re in now – has he heard of T Kuhn? Has he heard of Feyerabend? Mate – in the real world anything goes in science if u have the PR machine to sell and the funds to prove it… debate? Transparency? Non corporate funded science? Objectivity!!!! Might as well teach voodoism as science in NZ given their current ‘truths’ aka fascism. I cannot bear Mr Dawkins and his secular fanaticism – one of the more repulsive figures of our day
Wrong, Dawkins has evidence for his views on evolution.
Dawkins does not support the ancient superstition of creationism.
His atheism is also ancient, and as I say, he appears to have his own creation myths.
I remember a story about a “scientific” piece published, claiming that the universe originated form a dot, and the dot came from nothing, and apparently that is science.
Some right rum things in these scientific journals, but it seems some people, for want of the real thing, treat them as holy writ.
One day – probably not too far off – Mr Dawkins will meet his maker. Hope I’m there to see the exchange. Should be interesting.
What a shame Prof Dawkins and his esteemed colleagues aren’t as equally outraged by the failure of every scientific institution in this country to hold the government to account for its total disregard for the scientific method and their handling of the covid pandemic. Not one of the UK’s prestigious scientific institutions, the RS, the BMA, the MHRA, etc., etc., has spoken out and condemned the government for its obvious failures from NPIs to the unnecessary and inadequately tested rollout of experimental vaccines.
I am a long-term Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology – OK, not quite up to FRS itself, but still a mark of professional competence. Yesterday I wrote to the RSB to complain of the grotesque behavior of another of my Clan in apparently fabricating evidence that led to the dismissal of another Colleague, by claiming that he had made ‘anti-vax’ remarks, thus bringing his University’s alleged reputation into disrepute.
I informed the Society that I believe that, In the emergent toxic culture of academic censorship of free speech that now dominates every aspect of our personal, social and professional lives, the exploding climate of suppression of informed dissent is fast destroying the very fabric of science itself. The biological sciences, and most particularly the fields of medicine and environment, are now subject to appalling pressures to conform with politically motivated ‘norms’ that are causing hideously disproportionate harm on a gigantic scale.
These violate all of the established principles of ethical behavior, and indeed even of established legal protection, whereby we professional biologists attempt to continue to practice. I believe that all Professional Societies, and most particularly in the politicized current Covid and Climate confrontations, those that operate within this field, must take on the immediate responsibility to reverse the destructive erosion of our entire professional Code of Ethics. Unless our Professional Societies and Institutions take a strong stance, and discipline those Members and Fellows who engage in malpractice, the survival of science itself is at terminal risk.
If any such behavior is condoned, then ALL Professional Societies and Institutes become party to the problem. In the absence of any such suport I shall relinquish my own status as a Fellow. I invite other scientists to consider similar action.
.
Well said
PS – please don’t include MHRA in this – they’re a central part of the problem, not any potential source of salvation!
Richard may be unaware of this, but the most spectacular failure of modern science has just occurred over the past 20 months, where the consensus seeking groupthink practitioners of the scientific method have led us into the worst catastrophe to have befallen mankind. The myth of Covid outranks all of the myths of our ancestors in the devastation caused. Maori myth science would at least have caused no harm.
On the contrary, it would have taught superstitious balderdash as science.
Dawkins’ views on evolution are not in any way part of the errors of the response to Covid.
Indeed, Dawkins is currently opposing mediaeval superstition in this field.
This issue was discussed on the Lotuseaters podcast.
https://youtu.be/7YXJD0Ytb0I
I think it was Linus, in Peanuts who believed in the Great Pumpkin.
BBC fact checkers have confirmed that The Great Pumpkin exists.
Why won’t people get it.
These are attacks. The groups responsible don’t care about history, ‘science’, tradition, health. They all care about power and making us serfs. They use Marxist groups to help bring about their goals. History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes.
Get wise and pay attention to low level politics in your area. Boot out these Marxists and we might have a chance to regain some semblance of normality.there are no safe groups.
”Boot out”? Do you think we’ll ever be given a chance to vote again in a meaningful way to achieve something that might change the status quo?
Trouble is, Marxists get entryism, probably far more so than most other people.
This is the same Dawkins who, dispaying a strange logic when writing in the Spectator said: ‘I hate the very idea of a referendum…’ and, regarding the Brexit outcome which he opposed said ‘The only way out is another referendum.’ The same Dawkins who, incidentally, refuses to go head-to head with that other eminent scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, author of ‘The Science Delusion.’ A book I heartily recommend.
Please sign and share far and wide. This is important if they will take any notice of it.
Click this link to sign the petition “Open a Public Inquiry into Covid-19 Vaccine Safety”
https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/121193159/verify?token=6hg4LmnUqkdSrNLJQoGj
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
Faraday, Newton, John Harrison, Trevithick and many others were all indigenous to the British Isles and so their knowledge output should be considered indigenous knowledge.