Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all]edhopper
(34,722 posts)14. There is no valid
scientific evidence for telepathy. Dawkins would have probably done the same thing if he wanted to talk about Alien Abduction. Sheldrake is a crackpot who holds unscientific theories. Just because some one is a maverick doesn't make them right.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all]
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2011
OP
A fellow "Scientist" who believes in telepathy and generational memory...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2011
#9
Ancedotal evidence is useless without repeatability, do you understand...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2011
#42
Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2011
#28
Because he's critical of religion, and possibly also because he's pro-evolution
LeftishBrit
Dec 2011
#6
"...under direct attack by many people who use misinformation, lies, and ignorance as their weapons.
Jim__
Dec 2011
#10
You attack the whole Dawkins's God Delution based on a paragraph made to be a 'filler'?
Lost-in-FL
Dec 2011
#25
No. I'm merely pointing to one paragraph that demonstrates why his book was attacked.
Jim__
Dec 2011
#29
I prefer conversations that are useful and relevant to the discussion at hand...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2011
#41
Big Bang cosmology doesn't require either "metaphysical" presumption...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2011
#26
Poor phrasing on my part. Emphasis on put, as in - all things in motion MUST be put in motion.
edhopper
Dec 2011
#49