Darwinism Evolution

Sign me up for the next Dawkins cruise

Spread the love

Richard Dawkins and Friend

Thanks Bombadill for alerting me to this photo (that’s Richard Dawkins on the left, Steve Aldrich on the right). To view all the festivities of the 2004 Center for Inquiry cruise, go here.

Imagine someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to go on this cruise. Imagine you died and woke up in hell. But I repeat myself.

41 Replies to “Sign me up for the next Dawkins cruise

  1. 1
    jzs says:

    Average age there looks higher than _____.
    (fill in the blank)

    😉

    I’m all for people calling themselves skeptics getting together, but it needs to be done right.

    In grad school, I joined the skeptic group at my university- for like 5 days before I left never to come back. They told us how great Kurtz was, how we needed to support the skeptical movement, ranted against religion, and offered us Free Inquiry magazines. It was very strange, and there wasn’t much (non-hypocritical) thinking going on.

    Infinitely better thinking came from the science classes.

  2. 2
    AmosJesus says:

    It’s funny to see Dawkins’ wearing an “atheists for Jesus” tee-shirt.

  3. 3
    teleologist says:

    AH.. the A-team of Atheistic evangelism. As a counter to Dawkins’s T-shirt I suggest “NAZIS for Atheists”.

    And my old friend Paul Kurtz, The Secular Humanist Prospect: In Historical Perspective

    The third factor that emerged to challenge freethought and the secular movement was the near-total collapse of Marxism. For a good part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Marxist-humanist ideals had influenced intellectuals; with Marxism’s eclipse, anticlericalism and indeed any open criticism of religion have all but disappeared.

    So for the secular humanist Marxism is good because it was anticlerical. Marxism also brought us communism and totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, where the belief of those who disagree with them are evil. Evil must be eradicated to the tune of 61 million in the Soviet and 35 Million in China.

  4. 4
    Fer says:

    izs,

    Well yeah, the individual that you mention and the other one adduced by Dr. Dembski both appear in the next picture as if taken from a famous odd family in an U.S. TV show:

    http://www.centerforinquiry.ne.....es/127.jpg

    That ones and Hollywood’s people should be only for our entertainment, don’t you think?

    Have a lovely weekend!

  5. 5
    DaveScot says:

    They make a lovely couple.

    A lovely couple of GIRLY MEN!

    🙂

  6. 6
    hlwarren says:

    What is it with the Nazi thing? This line of name calling goes all directions and it is tiresome. Evolutionists aren’t Nazis, Creationists aren’t Nazis, IDists aren’t Nazis, Republicans aren’t Nazis, Democrats aren’t Nazis. The only one that comes even close to Nazi-hood is Walmart.

    [Any more Nazi comments on this thread, and you’re out of here (and that applies to you Hank as well vis-a-vis Walmart. –WmAD]

  7. 7
    Dan says:

    I think that Dawkins is a pretty funny guy and he is a very articulate writer. I completely disagree with him, but I give him credit for his sense of humor.

    People do need to understand that secular humanism is funded by Marxism as well as Rationalism (Rand). The link is impossible to defeat. I am curious if anyone has ever heard the debate between Paul Kurtz and Norman Geisler? Geisler really crushes him…

    Dan

  8. 8
    John Piippo says:

    While I remain quite interested in the growing objections to macroevolutionary theory as well as the young efforts of ID, I do not appreciate the cynicism in this post and the ad hominmen abusive, “panda’s thumb” quality of the comments. Please do not descend with modification into a panda’s thumb-type of “dialogue.”

  9. 9
    teleologist says:

    If I get banned then I get banned but just to set the record straight. Please do not try to compare my comment of NAZI to PT’s ad hom. My point of the slogan was not to mean that Atheists are NAZI but a protest to Dawkins’s T-shirt, which I made perfectly clear. His T-shirt is an insult and antithetical to my personal belief. I didn’t find anyone complaining that Dawkins’s T-shirt was an ad hominem attack on Christianity. As ridiculous as the slogan of “NAZIS for Atheists” is, so too is the slogan “Atheists for Jesus”. That was the only point that I was making. If I am banned as least please don’t delete my explanation here.

  10. 10

    Okay, everyone, let’s lighten up. Teleologist: I’ll let you explanation ride. But “Nazi” ranks 10+ on the emotive scale, typically escalating a thread to the max and rendering it inoperative. John Piippo: The cynicism is on Dawkins part and it deserves to be exposed, with heavy irony if necessary.

  11. 11
    John Piippo says:

    Bill – it’s really not clear to me why Dawkins’ cynicism needs to be exposed. Dawkins is cynical. So what. when You write: “Imagine someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to go on this cruise. Imagine you died and woke up in hell. But I repeat myself.” I do not think you are at your best when you write something like that. This sort of tit-for-tat comment does not, at least, impress me. But I am personally very impressed with your work. I’ve read much of it and remain very grateful for what you are doing. Expose Dawkins’ arguments, not his cynicism.

  12. 12
    teleologist says:

    I’ll lighten up after this comment.

    Bill – it’s really not clear to me why Dawkins’ cynicism needs to be exposed. Dawkins is cynical. So what.

    The point is you did not bother to chastise Dawkins’s affront toward my belief while castigating me. Why did you not protest to Bill for allowing Dawkins’s cynicism be displayed? Why single out my comment? If you were more even handed to begin with, it might give more credibility to your grievance. I suggest you take your own advice. Teleologist is cynical. So what. You were willing to let Dawkins’s statement sly why not mine?

    I suspect (not specifically in your case) this might not be about my retort, but it is a flanking attack on Dembski. Some critics might try to use comments by readers of this blog to marginalize Dembski. The comments are my responsibility and mine alone and I will take responsibility for it. Bill Dembski cannot be expected to be responsible for every comment that is posted, even without his direct reprimand. In this case I’ve been reprimanded.

  13. 13
    Hookflash says:

    “The point is you did not bother to chastise Dawkins’s affront toward my belief while castigating me.”

    I don’t understand how it is an “affront toward your belief” for an atheist to wear that t-shirt. Could you explain?

  14. 14
    DaveScot says:

    Calm down, teleologist. Dawkins’ intent wasn’t to insult your religion. Dawkins was wearing that emotive t-shirt to take attention away from the enormous man-boobs he’s sporting beneath it. Given the impish look on Aldrich’s face I don’t think the distraction was effective. I’d tell them “they should get a room” but seeing as how they’re on a romantic cruise together already in the photo it would just be superfluous.

  15. 15
    Hookflash says:

    DaveScot: If you don’t mind me asking, are you a Christian? If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the insults you throw?

  16. 16
    DaveScot says:

    I don’t mind you asking, Hookflash. Do you mind me telling you it’s none of your business?

    The following is REALLY upsetting to my religious beliefs: http://www.centerforinquiry.ne.....ges/68.jpg

    What the heck is that limey fruit doing wearing MY FLAG on his girly man chest?

    “Limey fruit” isn’t redundant in this particular case, by the way.

  17. 17
    Hookflash says:

    “I don’t mind you asking, Hookflash. Do you mind me telling you it’s none of your business?”

    Nope. In fact, that pretty much answers my question.

  18. 18
    DaveScot says:

    I seriously doubt you have the right answer. Let’s test it.

    I’m an agnostic. Is that what you assumed from my response?

  19. 19
    Hookflash says:

    DaveScot: “I’m an agnostic. Is that what you assumed from my response?”

    To be honest, I assumed you were a Christian, for two reasons:

    1) Agnostics & atheists (I am, incidentally, an atheist) generally don’t mind discussing their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and Christianity is one of the more popular alternatives (especially for a guy who’s name is Dave, as opposed to, say, Mohammed or Elie;-)).

    2) It has been my experience that Christians tend to take offense in proportion to their deviation from the teachings of Christ when they are asked about their religious affiliation, and, quite frankly, you are deviating quite a bit from the teachings of Christ.

    Guess I was wrong. It happens from time to time. 😉

  20. 20
    DaveScot says:

    Hookflash,

    If it makes any difference I believe that Christ gave us all a wonderful example of how to live a perfect life. He was all about love, charity, and kindness to every living thing and gave up his life to make the point stick. If he wasn’t the son of God he should have been. You accused me of being unChristian for a bit of gratuitous name calling? I can hardly think of a more petty offense. I’m much more concerned about my immortal soul (if I have one) for not being a vegetarian as by eating meat I’m contributing to an industry where there is pain and death of innocent animals. As far as I can determine from objective reading of the Old and New testaments God’s idea of a perfect world, the way He first created it, is one with no death in it. He gave us plants to eat as meat. Death in the world is our fault for the original sin of defying God. He let us go off on our own to find our own way. He promised that someday He would restore the world to perfection when the wolf would lie with the lamb and the lion would eat straw as an oxen. I can’t find an instance Christ killing any animals or eating any meat except for only an ambiguous reference to eating a bit of broiled fish after the resurrection to prove to the disciples he wasn’t a ghost.

    So buddy, don’t sweat the petty things like calling Dickie Dawkins a girly man. No animals were harmed in the making of that comment.

  21. 21
    Hookflash says:

    DaveScot: “If it makes any difference I believe that Christ gave us all a wonderful example of how to live a perfect life.”

    I strongly disagree (personally, I find his message to be largely abhorrent), but I suppose that’s neither here nor there.

    “You accused me of being unChristian for a bit of gratuitous name calling?”

    It wasn’t intended as name-calling; rather, I was observing that you were doing things (e.g., being judgemental, ridiculing others, etc.) which contradicted the teachings of Christ. But, since you’re not a Christian, I don’t suppose it matters. I’m itching to say more (esp. to clarify why I abhor many of Christ’s supposed teachings), but I imagine Dr. Dembski would rather we didn’t go off on theological tangents. Peace.

  22. 22
    DaveScot says:

    Hookflash,

    Is infidelguy down for maintenance or something equally disturbing to your way of life?

    http://www.infidelguy.com/foru.....-3581.html

    2447 posts? Wow. And I thought I needed to get a life…

  23. 23
    Hookflash says:

    “Is infidelguy down for maintenance or something equally disturbing to your way of life?”

    No, why?

    “2447 posts? Wow. And I thought I needed to get a life…”

    I’ve been a member of InfidelGuy for quite a long time. I don’t think 2,447 is excessive.

    Btw, why did you link to my user profile?

  24. 24
    DaveScot says:

    “Btw, why did you link to my user profile?”

    As a warmup to this:

    http://www.infidelguy.com/fsea.....flash.html

    I just wanted everyone to know who you are lest I be accused of being a meanie for no good reason.

  25. 25
    Hookflash says:

    DaveScot:

    Do you realize how petty you’re being? I find it remarkable and even a little bit disturbing.

    What do my posts on another board have to do with my posts here? i.e., What is the relevance of your linking to them? And how do my posts at InfidelGuy.com provide you with a “good reason” to be a “meanie”?

  26. 26
    DaveScot says:

    “What do my posts on another board have to do with my posts here?”

    What did my religion have to do with my posts here?

    If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

  27. 27
    dougmoran says:

    I appreciate the posting of this photo. It says worlds about why people like Dawkins cling to a scientific theory (Darwinism) that MUST be true in order for their complimentary worldview to also be true (atheism). How could any rational person trust the scientific opinion of a man with such an obvious conflict of interest? And how could any be suprised that he would choose intellectual dishonesty over sincere investigation of ID?

  28. 28
    Hookflash says:

    DaveScot: “What did my religion have to do with my posts here?”

    If I had searched the internet to ascertain your religion without your permission, and then posted that information here, then you may have had a point; however, all I did was ask whether or not you were a Christian. Your subsequent pettiness is very strange (although I have a theory…).

    “If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.”

    I’m not really feeling “the heat”; I’m just confused as to your motives. I mean, what are you implying by “exposing” my membership at InfidelGuy.com (as though this is somehow a bad thing)? I openly admit that I’m an atheist, and that I abhor religion. What does that have to do with intelligent design? Yes, I’m skeptical about the ID movement, but, as long as I follow the rules here, I don’t see why this should be a problem.

  29. 29
    DaveScot says:

    Hookflash,

    My problem is that your way of introducing yourself to me was ad hominem i.e.

    “DaveScot: If you don’t mind me asking, are you a Christian? If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the insults you throw?”

    I merely responded in kind. You’re a troll. Plain and simple. You don’t want to engage in discourse you want to engage in hostility towards religion. Why don’t you go somewhere else and vent your spleen about Christianity?

  30. 30
    Hookflash says:

    DaveScot wrote: “I merely responded in kind.”

    No, you didn’t. Responding in kind would have meant asking me about my religious beliefs.

    DaveScot wrote: “You’re a troll. Plain and simple.”

    No, I’m really not.

    DaveScot wrote: “You don’t want to engage in discourse”

    First of all, yes I do; and, secondly, have you been reading your posts here (not just in this thread, but in others as well)? I’m not seeing any “discourse” from you. All I’m seeing is puerile insults (i.e., talk of Dawkins being a “girly man” and having “man bosoms”, etc.).

    DaveScot wrote: “you want to engage in hostility towards religion.”

    Not here I don’t. There are other fora for that.

    DaveScot wrote: “Why don’t you go somewhere else and vent your spleen about Christianity?”

    I’ve “vented” about religion elsewhere, but not here.

  31. 31
    Ben Z says:

    For so much defense put up about how you are not here to discuss religion, one has to wonder exactly how you explain bringing up Christianity in the first place.

  32. 32
    MGD says:

    (personally, I find his message to be largely abhorrent)
    Says a lot about you doesn’t it?

    Just for fun:
    http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html
    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html

    God must have a sense of humor, after all, he gave us “DICK” :).

  33. 33
    Gumpngreen says:

    Well, Dave, while Hookflash is apparently new to this blog (or at least I haven’t noticed his name before) you’ve got to admit that lately most of your comments have been of the “A lovely couple of GIRLY MEN!” caliber and not anything like your more serious discussions. But, yeah, like it’s easy to say anything constructive in a topic like this… 😉

  34. 34
    DaveScot says:

    Bill says Dawkins is a villain. I say Dawkins is a girly man. Can both be simultaneously true?

  35. 35
    dougmoran says:

    “Bill says Dawkins is a villain. I say Dawkins is a girly man. Can both be simultaneously true?”

    If Disney films are any indication, most villains evolved from girly men. The resulting popular characters are, in fact, Girly-Villian-Men. It is important to note that there is no evidence these GVM evolved at all. Rather, they were designed by an intelligent “designer” for a purpose. Perhaps even if Dawkins is a GVM, it is so only because he was designed that way for a purpose. (No, I’m not suggesting Dawkins was “designed” by the folks at Disney, but judging by the comments on this blog he may fit the stereotype quite well.)

    Thank God we were designed with a sense of humor…

  36. 36
    JaredL says:

    For the record, I seem to recall DaveScot claiming to be a hardcore agnostic, believing that all CSI in the universe arose materialistically. If that is false, then I apologize. If it is true, however, I am interested in seeing how he reconciles his view with Dembski’s work in NFL.

  37. 37
    DaveScot says:

    JaredL

    I don’t claim to know how CSI arose.

    Your apology is accepted.

  38. 38
    nostrowski says:

    That’s not a T-shirt. It’s a sun dress.

  39. 39
    DaveScot says:

    Nostrowski – Good one! LOL

  40. 40
    fran says:

    I just registered to tell you:

    Atheists for Jesus is a legitimate organization. (Or at least it was – the web site seems to be down.) It does not mock Christianity – it honors the moral value of Jesus’ teaching even for those without a belief in the supernatural. The title is ironic, but the motivation is sincere.

    Also Richard Dawkins is married to a beautiful blond actress.

    And Arnold S. is sinking in the polls.

  41. 41
    DaveScot says:

    Dawkins third and current wife, Lala Ward, wasn’t born a blond. You seem to be intimating that girly men can’t have attractive wives. This is not true in the short run. Girly men usually can’t keep attractive wives for the long haul because the novelty for the woman of having a girlfriend/husband combo eventually wears off. Lala being Dawkins’ third wife is illustrative.

    Arnold S. has been remarkably constant in opinion polls and has risen in positive sentiment by a few percentage points since his election. He’d be a presidential contender in 2008 if not for being a naturalized citizen thus not constitutionally qualified to become president. One might also note he’s been married just once, is still married, about to celebrate his 20th wedding anniversary, and has 4 children.

Leave a Reply