I bet he would a lot of fun
to have dinner with eh?

---

Your
score 18%




You are warm and empathic with a heightened awareness of social responsibility and a strong sense of conscience. You like to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of a situation before you act and are generally averse to taking risks. You are very much a ‘people person’ and dislike conflict. ‘Do unto others…’ are your watchwords. But, although you avoid hurting others, those residing at the higher end of the psychopathic spectrum might not be as considerate, so stay vigilant to avoid being hurt unnecessarily.

I see you in that:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

or maybe we realised he just doesn't know who Neil de Grasse Tyson really is? He's a big celebrity in North America, but not so widely known in Europe. Anyone who knows of him knows that he is not "just" an astrophysicist. He is an extremely on-the-ball man who speaks out very clearly and understands a lot of the issues that face us today.

I spend a lot of time on the internet and Ive seen Cosmos, I know exactly who Neil deGrasse Tyson is. I have a huge respect for him as an educator and a scientist.

But knowing what the issues are, understanding said issues and being able to clearly talk about them does not make one a good politician. Sure, perhaps if he was supreme ruler of all, without annoying things like 'Congress' or 'elections' and 'stakeholders' he would make a fine ruler. Thing is, a lot of people would, at least in theory, be brilliant rulers if that were the case. But thats not the case. He would have to deal with elections, which means pandering to some lowest common denominator, it means speaking in half truths, it means giving out speeches on everything. He would have to deal with a congress or parliament, of which about half of the people there are opposed to most of the things he says because they are the opposition and its their job to be against him. And for every brilliant plan he would come up with, he would have to deal with a small army of stakeholders that will be telling him that his plan either does not go far enough or that his plan will cause some kind of Armageddon.

And add to that, if he were to try become president of the US, there is the issue of his skin color, which will probably cause at least a significant part of the Republicans to fundamentally oppose everything he ever does.

Can he deal with those things? Maybe, but I doubt it. And do you really want him to deal with those things? Like I said, I think it would be a waste of the man's talents. He is a brilliant educator and scientists, one of the few people that can make science look awesome and inspire more people to get involved in science. Honestly, I think we need those people a hell lot more than we politicians. And I think he knows that.

On a side note, look what happened last time when a scientist did got involved in politics. Richard Dawkins did more harm to the cause of science when he started yapping about Atheism and going after Christian fundamentalists than good.

Secretary's of State are not Presidents. The fact of the matter remains that there are Republicans who quite literally don't like Obama because of his skin color. Not all Republicans, but enough of them that you can say its a statistically significant number.

Sorry, but racism in the US is still a major issue, and for now I do expect it would play a role for other black candidates.

Richard Dawkins did more harm to the cause of science when he started yapping about Atheism and going after Christian fundamentalists than good.

What harm Dawkins did, please be more specific?

What harm Dawkins did, please be more specific?

His rather blunt approach only further polarized the debate.

What harm Dawkins did, please be more specific?

His rather blunt approach only further polarized the debate.

Why they should not be polarized? I would say quite big achievement, instead.
Hundreds of thousands started to think about instead of just ignoring question at all. If he doesn't fit in your personal world view it doesn't mean he did something wrong.

Religion is evil, period. Not speaking about other manifestations it usurped human's feeling of faith for own use. That's single fact enough to fight against.

Why they should not be polarized? I would say quite big achievement, instead.
Hundreds of thousands started to think about instead of just ignoring question at all. If he doesn't fit in your personal world view it doesn't mean he did something wrong.

Religion is evil, period. Not speaking about other manifestations it usurped human's feeling of faith for own use. That's single fact enough to fight against.

Polarized debates lead to nothing. Both sides only dig in and refuse to listen to the other sides arguments. It becomes a shouting match and no one wins. And he got no one to think about anything. The people who already know that evolution is what happened think Dawkins is great, but he never had to reach those people since they were already on his side. The people that don't believe in evolution on the other hand, just start foaming at the corner of their mouth when they hear Dawkins name. Those are the people that needed to be convinced and Dawkins made sure that won't happen for another generation.

EDIT: just single example about "polarisation".
If one sees let say cannibal tribe, that eats captured mens from other tribes, preferring childrens (for more delicate meat let say) and that's their ritual, way of life, it has very long histrory and so on and so forth. Should one not to be too polarised in discussion regarding if such behavior appropriate? Maybe one should not harm feelings of cannibals too much? And approach to issue slowly, let say set some regulations regarding number of mens to eat per month? That would depolarise relations, perhaps?

Sometimes "polarisation" of views required...

Those "who don't believe in evolution" need just better school education, not Dawkins :DDD
His aim not to make one "believe" in evolution, he explains how it works, how it can account for so complex behavior as human beings or high animals demonstrate for example. He shows that this can be explained, w/o need of "believe".

It's quite different from what preacher/missioner does, manipulating feeling of faith and expectations for better life to own benefits...

Religion is evil, period. Not speaking about other manifestations it usurped human's feeling of faith for own use. That's single fact enough to fight against.

Religion created the concepts of good and evil. For that alone, it is the original evil from which all evil spews forth. It is Pandora's box, open.

---

EDIT: just single example about "polarisation".
If one sees let say cannibal tribe, that eats captured mens from other tribes, preferring childrens (for more delicate meat let say) and that's their ritual, way of life, it has very long histrory and so on and so forth. Should one not to be too polarised in discussion regarding if such behavior appropriate? Maybe one should not harm feelings of cannibals too much? And approach to issue slowly, let say set some regulations regarding number of mens to eat per month? That would depolarise relations, perhaps?

Sometimes "polarisation" of views required...

Yeah, but what you shouldn't do is go up to said Cannibals and tell them in their face that their cultural practices are abhorrent and that they are ignorant for believing that their way of life is in any way morally acceptable. And that they should stop doing it at once. Cuz that probably is going to end with you roasting on a spit.

My issue with Dawkins is not about what he said, its about how he said it because I believe the way he said it is ineffective.

Richard Dawkins did more harm to the cause of science when he started yapping about Atheism and going after Christian fundamentalists than good.

What harm Dawkins did, please be more specific?

His rather blunt approach only further polarized the debate.

Hi Мишель :)

His "rather blunt approach" came after years of being the only scientist prepared to discuss the issue of evolution face to face with panels of often very hostile religious groups. They are the ones that brought up his atheism. Having read all his books (out of order) and then having read them in the order he wrote them and seeing most if not all of his television appearances, I now have a much better understanding of how and why he has become as blunt as he has. He defends the scientific approach (not a bad thing in my opinion) and like many atheists, is left deflecting accusations of being evil personified in the eyes of some religious groups. I have had this discussion with the religious members of my family who are horrified to find Dawkins on my bookshelves :) I have read their religious books - yet they have not read any of Dawkins's material - and yet still they are "experts on his evil"

Religions have had their own share of psychopaths - yet often fail to recognise that. To listen to many of them - Dawkins belongs to a whole group of them.

With regards polarisation leading to shouting matches... that usually occurs when irrefutably painful truths do NOT want to be accepted for what they are. You can't blame Dawkins for that. There will always be those who will bluster at you about "mysterious ways" when you ask them to explain why their god created something like the Lancet liver fluke or the Apocephalus borealis (zombie fly) and who deny that a better explanation is that it evolved to exploit a particular niche in nature. I for one am looking forward to Richard Dawkins's next book :) I hope one day I will be able to persuade my religious relatives to read one too. My sister has expressed an interest in doing so... but her husband has forbidden her. I think he's afraid :)

apologies to ES for going a tad off topic

edit: apologies too for being a little behind in my post - I see the thread has been busy and the topic has advanced somewhat :)

Nice one Anniet. That's the problem with any type of nutjob, they don't like clear & precise explanations that (possibly) refutes their beliefs. Had this been the dark days of old, you would have been burnt at the stake for being a witch.

Nice one Anniet. That's the problem with any type of nutjob, they don't like clear & precise explanations that (possibly) refutes their beliefs. Had this been the dark days of old, you would have been burnt at the stake for being a witch.

I know :) Might still happen of course... and I WON'T recant! :) NO! :) No, you can't make me! :)))

You never know, society seems to making large strides backwards with only minute steps forward.

You never know, society seems to making large strides backwards with only minute steps forward.

I wonder if the religitards were removed from the planet if the global IQ would be noticeably higher? Oh, wait, I think we had that discussion already. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html

---

Nice link. Here's a question then: -

How many atheists married in church?

Very easy to see that she has yet
to view the instrument of torture.

I thank God I didn't live in 1620,
and my strange views on religion were
not discovered then.

---

Richard Dawkins did more harm to the cause of science when he started yapping about Atheism and going after Christian fundamentalists than good.

What harm Dawkins did, please be more specific?

His rather blunt approach only further polarized the debate.

Hi Мишель :)

His "rather blunt approach" came after years of being the only scientist prepared to discuss the issue of evolution face to face with panels of often very hostile religious groups. They are the ones that brought up his atheism. Having read all his books (out of order) and then having read them in the order he wrote them and seeing most if not all of his television appearances, I now have a much better understanding of how and why he has become as blunt as he has. He defends the scientific approach (not a bad thing in my opinion) and like many atheists, is left deflecting accusations of being evil personified in the eyes of some religious groups. I have had this discussion with the religious members of my family who are horrified to find Dawkins on my bookshelves :) I have read their religious books - yet they have not read any of Dawkins's material - and yet still they are "experts on his evil"

Religions have had their own share of psychopaths - yet often fail to recognise that. To listen to many of them - Dawkins belongs to a whole group of them.

With regards polarisation leading to shouting matches... that usually occurs when irrefutably painful truths do NOT want to be accepted for what they are. You can't blame Dawkins for that. There will always be those who will bluster at you about "mysterious ways" when you ask them to explain why their god created something like the Lancet liver fluke or the Apocephalus borealis (zombie fly) and who deny that a better explanation is that it evolved to exploit a particular niche in nature. I for one am looking forward to Richard Dawkins's next book :) I hope one day I will be able to persuade my religious relatives to read one too. My sister has expressed an interest in doing so... but her husband has forbidden her. I think he's afraid :)

apologies to ES for going a tad off topic

edit: apologies too for being a little behind in my post - I see the thread has been busy and the topic has advanced somewhat :)

no worries anniet. I tend to let things wander in my threads if the discussion is interesting, and I am quite sure there are links to psychopathy and religion anyway.

We went to see Exodus: Gods and Kings yesterday. It mostly followed the bible version and I have to say that God came over as a complete jerk. I noticed the same with the Noah movie.

Of course reading the old testament went a long way to making realise that I wanted nothing to do with this nasty god.

I also understand both views of Dawkins. I haven't seen him as being radical in his writings, I have however seen him portrayed that way in the media and sometimes things he says are taken out of context. I am glad that atheists are fighting back though. In the end it is a positive thing if we don't assume that being religious is somehow the norm and how everyone should be.

---

Reality Internet Personality