Richard Dawkins: A Narcissist Who Requires Christians to Have “Credentials”
Some stalker-atheists today who’s pride couldn’t take to-the-point criticism decided to pull the very type of tactics I told them they always use, and added some arguments in their harassment that I don’t remember having written arguments against before, but here they are.
Today, an atheist asked me what my professional credentials were for calling him mentally ill (a psychopath and narcissist. Though this person didn’t say I needed them, nor can I say that he implied it either, other anti-theists have implied that such credentials are needed. I gave him my arguments, but here I’ve made it easier to read for everyone, and I’ve given more arguments (refutations/rebuttals), and I’ll include arguments against the “peer review” nonsense tactic which anti-Christians love to use against creationists and Christians:
Sometimes, an anti-theist or a so called agnostic will try and escape examining evidence for God from a Christian, or that the Bible is true from a Christian, or that the universe was created from a creationist, by saying something like, “You’re not a scientist”; “What are your professional credentials (as in degrees from prestigious universities, most likely the top 100 or top 100 in what you got your degree in)”; “You don’t have any credentials”; “You work wasn’t peer reviewed (by real scientists)”; “You need the agreement of liberal scientists for the thing you say is true”.
And for those of you who think I’m making that up, you can find such comments on Yahoo Answers I’m sure, where floods of atheists and agnostics use such arguments against theists and creationists in the Religion and Spirituality section (but I advise you not to participate as the moderators of Y.A. deliberately allow atheists and agnostics to drive theists out by trolling). Here is one example I found in skepticforum.com at about 9 AM, April 26 (I bolded the user names and dates of their posts, and the most relevant parts to my article to keep your focus on the main subject here):
Sun May 15, 2005 4:21 am
I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists. Since the editor of Scientific American is an advocate of the human caused global warming theories, I doubt he would allow such a description go to a man in the pay of energy concerns. […]
If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed. […]
If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”
Sun May 15, 2005 6:19 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.”
Linkage please. The SciAm articles I can find that mention him call him “credentialed” and “prominent” and “vocal”. That is not the same as “most respected”.
“If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”
Linkage? I can’t even find the “USAAS”. The Seitz petition (that would be “past president of NAS”, NOT “USAAS” includes everything from bachelors up, not just PhDs.
“Of the 15,000 signers of the petition, … about 2,100 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists and meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.”
That’s from the physicist that helped write the article associated with the petition.. which is the infamous Soon/Baliumas crud.
Sun May 15, 2005 8:59 pm
Sorry. Should have been AAAS (not USAAS) I’m not an American and don’t know any better.
You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.
Sun May 15, 2005 10:06 pm
No, it’s NAS, and I’m not American either. :)
“You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.”
So is creationism. :shrug: Last time I checked, argument from popularity was a logical fallacy.
Mon May 16, 2005 1:04 am
The difference global warming skepticism has to creationism is that creationists are not professional biologists (or any other kind of scientist, with very few exceptions). Global warming skepticism is alive and well in the climate science community and in the wider scientific community. While popularity is not ‘proof’ of anything, lack of scientific consensus should be enough to make anyone pause and think.
And a little background about those two:
skepticforum Profile data for Lance Kennedy:
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand
skepticforum Profile data for Graculus:
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:42 pm
Incredibly, I found this by searching for +”creationists are not professional” on Google, the incredible part being that I found this phrase combined with the “credentialed” reference, taken from Scientific American magazine, which is a liberal atheist magazine.
Other related examples:
“… there is no such thing as a christian scientist” – homestarr2, 2009, about 124 days ago (8 months), Yahoo Answers
Question: “Christians, why do monkeys have the same blood type as us? The only process we could have blood types is through genetics, which is passed through evolution. There’s no such thing as a Christian scientist.” – Taylor (apparently a banned member), April 5, 2010, Yahoo Answers
The winning answer by way, by one vote, was “Because God created both them and us. Evolution as a religion has far more holes than Christianity.” – atomzer0
There is no such thing as a Christian scientist. Thats a contradiction of terms. Science is not based on “observation,” it based on hypothesis, and theories. Which would classify it as a “superstition.”
Science: experimentation, The observation[…] – “These have the power to shut heaven” (a theist who likes quoting the Bible, but won’t call himself a Christian, and who was banned from the site he made that comment on, and for other ridiculous comments like that Galileo wasn’t a Christian and that Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist), Sodahead
And on a “Creationists Exposed” rant at ratbags.com, I discovered on 4/26/2010/12:00 PM, that Richard Dawkins made an absurd (and unprofessional) excuse as to why he would not to reply to a question concerning the evolutionary process, and here it is in this quote:
On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.
The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.
The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time – that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.
Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences – in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did. […]
On this website in which this excuse is quoted, it says below it,
“[…] they [the alleged creationists] are not engaged in scientific research, and thus cannot hope to succeed on the scientific level, they resort to ad hominem attacks on the genuine scientists who have exposed their myths.
[Me: But calling people “creationists” and equating with “people who waste time” and equating them to flat-earthers over a harmless question and deciding to kick them out of your house for it and calling them unprofessional a isn’t anything close to an “ad hominem” attack? What a hypocrite.]
What are the effects?
What effects will the dissemination of this particularly egregious example of that tactic have in the real world? What effect would it have, for example, on Richard Dawkins’ professional reputation among his scientific peers? We would suspect practically none, because no professional biologist, nor any other competent scientist, would be hoodwinked for a moment into thinking that Prof Dawkins had been baffled by such a crudely easy question.”
On a side note, note this ratbag’s pretentious word “egregious” in the context of this “that question was just too crudely simple for Master Dawkins, no professional scientists would believe Master Dawkins was fooled” (a sign of a narcissist). And what is “crudely easy“? That doesn’t even make sense. And how was calling alleged creationsts unprofessional for no logical reason other than asking a question that was too low for the his royal highness King William Dawkins the III, Imperial Lord of the Scientists, who may not be bothered with so called “not complex enough” questions? Just imagine if Dawkins had said, “You dare ask me such a simple question! You must be creationists you unprofessional fools!” And speaking of “unprofessional”, what kind of name for a website is “ratbags”? Ridiculous. Narcissists should be put away in mental institutions.
Basically, anti-theists and liberals are saying,
“You must have professional credentials and have your claims in favor of God, the Bible or Intelligent Design peer reviewed and judged by us to for them to be acceptable to us true scientists and for us to decree to the world that they are either right or worth giving their attention to.”
1) Says who? Who made anti-Christians God? Is this a universal commandment from God? Obviously not. If that point isn’t obvious to an adult who can easily use a search engine to do research, or easily go to a bookstore or library to research, than it says a lot about their mental health.
2) Of course, “professional credentials” to an anti-Christian isn’t something you can truly get from another Christian, not a fundamentalist one, especially not one who believes, oh how stupid: that the first things and elements weren’t mindlessly created, but designed, being that they have a design and that there is no such thing as literal “randomness” or “chaos”. It’s similar to when some anti-Christians, when they say, “scientists” or “biologists” say those words and pretend or claim that only non-Christians or non-theists or liberals can be scientists. So when an anti-Christian says, “You must have professional credentials to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed for it to be right”, what they mean is, “You must have professional credentials from anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed and approved as as right by anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct.”
3) Did the first humans need professional credentials and peer review of their claims or beliefs? Imagine how little progress would have been made if the first human and humans refrained from believing what they did or making any claims because they had no “professionals” to approve award their beliefs and claims or “peer reviewers” to decree, “Thou mayest believest what you do and claim what you doest because I’m a professional and peer reviewer, Ramen.” Imagine, a Christian decides to imitate the scientific experiment Gideon did to verify whether or not he was talking to God (yes: the Bible does teach science), and concludes God exists, but some atheist comes up to him and says, “Do you have professional credentials to believe what you do or tell me God exists? Was your so called science experiment peer reviewed? I’ll show you what real science is you primitive Christian!” Imagine again, how little progress we would have made if we had to obey the anti-Christian commandments to not believe or claim anything unless it’s approved of by them, and only professionals among the anti-Christian crowd. We’d all be standing out in the rain waiting to eat till some atheist came around to give everyone professional credentials and to peer review their idea to use a tree for shelter or eat a berry for food, and since that would never happen, the human race would have gone extinct, while our unprofessional animal peers continued to devolve into little weak animals, till viruses, harsh weather, starvation and old age finished them all off.
4) It’s really pretentious I think for these haters to say, “peer reviewed” rather than speaking plainly and saying instead, “you work must be judged by and approved of by us”. Instead they use a fancy phrase “peer reviewed” to make sound like they are scientists themselves, and wise.
5) Hypocritical: How convenient that Christians must submit all their claims, scientific or not, for “peer review” to anti-Christians, when these so called “peers” often won’t even bother to look at the claim carefully at the hint that it has something to do with showing evidence for Christianity. It’s like a bully pretending to be honest, by saying to the ones he bullies, “Unless I approve of your beliefs you’re wrong, now give me your work and tell you if you’re wrong or not.” As if the bully isn’t going to be biased and waste more time.
6) Hypocritical circular reasoning: How convenient that these anti-Christians don’t believe that they need to have their beliefs “peer reviewed” by Christians or that no Christian is a scientist, juz bcuz “Christians believe in God”, and of course God doesn’t exist, juz bcuz the atheist or liberal said so. If anti-Christians really cared about the truth, they wouldn’t hide behind the credentials and peer review lines.
7) It’s circular reasoning to claim that only claims and beliefs by people with professional credentials given by liberals, in what they claim or believe and who’ve had their claims and beliefs peer reviewed by liberals, may make those claims and believe what they do, because, how could the first humans become professionals, let alone “professional peer reviewers” if there was no professionals to begin with? There would be no “professionals” of any kind if there needed to be a human one already in existence. So according to anti-Christians and anti-theist logic, there’s an infinite amount of Professional, University-Degreed, Peer Reviewer Liberal gods whom each got their professional credentials from a previous professional, university-degreed, liberal god. Obviously, you don’t need another human to become wise and trustworthy, you can learn from God, and learn on your own, with God’s supervision. You don’t need a liberal holding your hand and telling you, “That’s wrong, that’s right” every step of the way.
How convenient and dishonest to dismiss the truth, research and to fob off responsibility to look into the truth yourself, by simply saying to a person, “You need professional credentials”, “You work needs to be peer reviewed”.
There’s nothing evil with learning “on your own”, meaning learning without someone standing somewhere nearby dictating things to you or telling you when you’ve done right or wrong, nothing sinful about it. People learn on their own all the time, out of necessity and to surpass others. There’s even a name for people who gain a large amount of knowledge and understanding of a subject: autodidact.
“an autodidact is someone who is self-taught. It comes from the Greek autodidaktos and entered the English language in 1748.
Many of our most prolific inventors and scientist, men like Thomas Alvin Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, Wilbur and Orville Wright, etc were autodidactists. Today most lifelong learners are autodidactists because they are self-directed learners who master many subjects without the benefits of a formal classroom and instructor. My wife, the schoolteacher, loves to tell people that I’m the exemplary autodidactist. I quit school to enlist in the United States Air Force at seventeen where I mastered the art of jet engine mechanic. My excuse was that the only classes that interest me were math, science and shop classes and I was already doing 12th grade work when I was in the 7thgrade. I later received my GED and took some junior college courses. In later years I enrolled in some online college courses but never sought a degree. Over the years I mastered many things as a self directed learner, believe-it-or-not; I actually taught myself electronics and had a successful radio and TV repair business when I was sixteen years old. My only reason for telling you all this personal stuff is to show you that anyone can become an autodactist if they have the desire to learn as a self-directed learner.
Back in those pre World Wide Web days when I undertook the task of educating myself, I was limited to books that I borrowed from the library or purchased from a local bookstore or from some book catalog. Today the self-directed learner has the knowledge of the whole world available at his or her fingertips.” – Jerry Walch, Staff Writer, http://factoidz.com/are-you-an-autodidact
Here is a large list of famous autodidactics: Autodidactic Hall of Fame: Self-educated People Who’ve Made a Difference.
So, once again, it’s clear:
if atheists, anti-theists and anti-Christians had their way, if they were in charge of the entire world, if we “imagined no religion”, “imagined no God”, or imagined no Christians, so to speak, in other words God rid of belief in God and stop practicing any religion, there would be no more “science” or human system of any kind, let alone any humans left at all, because eventually, we’d all die out from serevely illogical reasoning.
It’s ironic, but not surprising to me, how the circular anti-Christian argument that, “You must have professional credentials and must have your work peer reviewed by professionals for your claims and beliefs to be worthy of attention and legitimate” requires the existence of God to have made the first professional in order to break the circular reasoning of that argument.
The first teacher, was God, and he continues to teach with the universe he made, and especially with his word.
What Is Circular Reasoning? (a PDF)