This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

JimmyGiro's Profile

JimmyGiro's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by JimmyGiro

More Discussions by JimmyGiro

Latest Comments by JimmyGiro

Go to: 'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV

JimmyGiro's Avatar Jump to comment 183 by JimmyGiro

@ ColdFusionLazarus

What this site is for - 'a clear-thinking oasis' - is 'New Atheism'.

'New Atheism' as prescribed by Sam in the link above, is intolerant to thought, other than what is 'agreeable' to 'New Atheism'. Sam goes so far as to suggest that 'right' thinking be forced. He is also of the opinion that any aberrant thought will percolate through to the top of any philosophy of any individual, and hence must be addressed and presumably suppressed.

These are, in my view, if not terms of bigotry, then an attitude that would promote bigotry; and yet terms this site would support I'd wager.

Freedom of thought, as practised by Christopher and not the other horsemen, would be at odds with the prime motivation of 'New Atheism'. The latter is not only intolerant to aberrant thought, but it also espouses 'orthodox' science; and as Styrer- points out, you have to be a 'somebody' to register any significance here. The trouble with orthodox science, as I've mentioned above, is that it has been compromised by political agency, therefore it has lost its integrity. Even 'New Atheists' bemoan scientists credentials if they admit to having some 'aberrant' beliefs such as theism... why not go one aberrant thought further, and bemoan those scientists with extra political associations, such as Fabians, and feminists?

It is important to be logical and consistent with objective reality in our endeavours, but we ourselves are not equations, and should be free to make our own mistakes through our own beliefs. This is what freedom of thought includes, and what 'New Atheism' rejects. 'New Atheism' has the hallmarks of a precious fascist mindset, in that the self filtering intolerances must lead to the singularity of synchronised thought, again a deviation of freedom of thought.

Here is an illustration of what I mean by synchronised thought:

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:00 UTC | #401277

Go to: 'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV

JimmyGiro's Avatar Jump to comment 180 by JimmyGiro

@ irate_atheist

No dear, or at least I try not to be; if you want to see a bigot try this:

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:04:00 UTC | #401255

Go to: 'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV

JimmyGiro's Avatar Jump to comment 169 by JimmyGiro

@ weavehole

Well since you asked so nic*ly:

"The others try to fit their science to their belief," This is simply true based on the fact that they use science as their fiducial.

"I suspect that the other three horsemen are politically manipulatable" This is the crux of the matter. Science institutions are funded by public money, and the choice of funding is now provisional upon political criteria; or put another way, who pays the piper calls the tune.

We now have the problem of the credibility of science itself, since political selection - say based on gender - means that science from said funded institutions is now effected less by objective truth, and more by political expediences.

Consider the difference between the terms: 'scientist' and 'man of science'. The former is certified from an institution, and therefore reflects the political integrity as well as the scientific integrity of that institution; and the latter relates to the individuals adherence to science.

To most of you people that are unhappy with my posts, that will mean little; but to those who are free to think for themselves, I put it to you that when Polly Toynbee introduces a debate, or when Richard explains that the publication date of his books are subject to political times, then 'New Atheism' is no longer the innocence of objective science, it is in the realm of politics.

Polly Toynbee is deputy treasurer of the Fabian society, and a staunch feminist. If 'New Atheists' cared as much about education and the integrity of science, as they purport, then where is their challenge of the biggest threat to education and science, i.e. feminism?

As long as 'New Atheism' is chasing vicars, a large body of critical thinkers are being cynically distracted from the more grave problem of malfeasant government. 'New Atheism' is missing the elephant in the room, because that suits our government nicely; so I suspect that you lot are being used as stooges.

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:18:00 UTC | #401088

Go to: 'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV

JimmyGiro's Avatar Jump to comment 167 by JimmyGiro

@ Quetzalcoatl

But I haven't argued that: trying to fit science to their beliefs = distorting science; you have argued this. I made the statement, then you made the extension; so you answer your extension.

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:27:00 UTC | #401044

Go to: 'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV

JimmyGiro's Avatar Jump to comment 165 by JimmyGiro

@ Quetzalcoatl

You have loaded your question by changing my terms to your terms:

trying to fit science -> distorting science

How would you answer your question?

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:25:00 UTC | #401030

More Comments by JimmyGiro