Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

unrevealed

 

well at least Dawkins is staying true to form.
when presented with sound and accurate criticism of his ideas and methodology, his retort is "fuck off"
and people applaud it as if he said something magnificent.
it scares me how much people applaud this joker for remarks such as that.
he is the one side of the coin on which the likeness of Jerry Falwell can also be found.
both assholes of the same ilk.

JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, DICK!

 

Swing and a miss again Noxious...

 

really, please explain how so?
you did watch the video in question, correct?

 

Yes I did.. Watch again. Pay Very, Very, Very close attention to the words to the anecdote.

 

It is indeed a miss Noxious. He isn't telling the crowd to fuck off. He's saying "Just so you know that I'm not the worst at being sharp with my wit, listen to what this editor of a scientific journal once told me". It's not dawkins words . . . he is relaying them for humour and perspective. He actually agrees with you that "fuck off" is inappropriate. I thought he was very charming and honest here, like he usually is. He obviously agrees with the criticism and I would love to see more of this whole programme.

 

true, Dawkins quoted another person to illustrate that he "was not the worst", and it was admittedly humorous, i laughed, BUT essentially he was telling Tyson to "fuck off", rather than actually addressing the criticism of his method of conveying his ideas, which is what Tyson was talking about.
so, let me ask, in that snippet do you think Dawkins directly addressed the point(s) Tyson brought up, or not?

 

how do you surmise he agrees with the criticism based on that video?

 

I surmise he accepts the criticism because he says "I graciously accept your criticism".

That's just it though; this is a snippet. We'd have to watch the whole thing before criticizing dawkins on whether or not he avoided addressing the criticism. I have no doubt in my mind that he addressed it directly, and so I'm curious to find the whole thing and hear his response.

I don't understand your insistence on painting him as one who avoids questions; he has quite the opposite countenance. The whole point of the criticism here, if anything, is how rigidly he assaults questions and demands answers from people. Any interview with Dawkins I've seen he is very sharp in dialogue and addresses every point. Please find examples, full length examples, of him not answering people's questions, in obvious hiding of the question, and I will conceded your point. And I will not accept examples where the question being asked is so stupid that he is literally flumoxed into silence. I have seen him debate Deepak Chopra and become absolutely livid, red in the face, veins popping out, because of the incredibly stupid things being said and inciting applause in the audience who themselves cannot possibly understand the things being said (they are jibberish).

 

let me make something clear that I fear is being assumed here.
I have more issue with exactly what Tyson was saying regarding Dawkins than I do with the actual subject matter that he is involved with.
I may not agree with all of his conclusions regarding religion and all it's trappings, but it is the arrogant condescending attitude that permeates all of his communications that I have seen.

Tyson makes a very valid and accurate point, employing the methodology Dawkins does will only garner him people who are already like-minded, and will do damn little to convince or persuade those who are not simply by virtue of the demeanor he has adopted.
the fool is alienating his intended target audience if he were actually interested in educating,. but he isn't, he is interested in enlarging his bank accounts and ego.

He is not a fool, he is marketing himself to the customer base that he knows will break out the cash because they agree with him already.
that is why I call him an ass.

have any of you ever considered it in that light?
it's all about fame and fortune, not informing and educating

Same reason I call Jerry Falwell an ass.

 

i think he was saying guilty as charged even though I only listened to degrasse in reference to things I had said to friend writer. There is something solid about dawkins, it radiates from him. But his opposition holds him at bay. That was what degrasse was saying alla the listener but it works both ways. It is the restriction of the flow of information in either case. Information is a biological mental feedback loop,growth. Man is biological, tasting and knowing, recognition

 

Yes Noxious I noticed and i have been talking about it with this group. The dogmatic view is asking to get paid. You have to conform to it. The objective view invites the object for mutual inspection.

 

Hmm.. I wouldn't hold it as strongly as that definition. I do see the point, and have considered it before but it's evident when taken too far because the result is generally frustration


Edit: Oooh no, it's subtler than that.. just being, behind the labels.

 

What is it a fleeting sensation? We are always behind the labels, not always behind the door labeled. the world is not imaginary it is created for real. What is not correct is the identification with form. We are constantly informing and being informed.

 

this being behind the labels is a good way to put it, put yourself as the subject of everything you utter

From the abundance of the heart doth the mouth speak.

What if you are low in spirit? probably don't say much.

What if you found something really great, probably got a lot to tell

I haven't met you in person but I love you all.

The head speaks differently leads away from difficulty and finds reward

The heart follows the reward of the head and weeps if we are not right

I keep my good references at my bow

and am met with benediction, "I like your words"

You know this puts smashing atoms to shame, changes minds form slaves to convention to princes of invention.

The cat is out of the bag the thought control experiment is ovahh.

 

let's just at the very least accept the RAW DATA that this forum has generated some energy. THAT is Magick to me. It's choosing to apply your subjective to the objective and taking the objective data and applying it back to your subjective because of the understanding that internal is external and you are the the All.

 

It sounds like nonsense under the light of the Scientific Method but THAT'S BECAUSE SCIENCE CHOOSES TO NOT STUDY IT. It calls it Hocus Pocus, as nonchalantly as Mr. Writer, Guerillabedlam, and Fierce Flower have implied and stated. I'm willing to eternally get as specific as I need to until our paths cross because that is the future of evolution for our collective consciousness. Sorry but it's true.

 

Why.

 

Why

 

no, he actually said "I graciously accept your REBUKE"
not exactly the same connotation.