No, Of Course I didn't Go Bass Fishing With Materialist Philosopher and Atheist Richard Dawkins

..but I would, if he wanted to go. I've got stuff that Richard and I need to discuss.

Richard Dawkins, so many people love that man that it's just unreal to me.  For the record here - I cheered him along and did so both far and wide when he exposed the hypocrite gay preacher Ted Haggard, you know, the mega church guy who was sleeping with men while high on meth, and all the while decrying the sins of homosexuality?  I loved that stuff.  I've seen so much hate from fake Christian America that it's ridiculous.  No, I'm not gay - thanks for asking.

Listen, if you want links, then I've got them, but let me clear some stuff up for you here before I get into how Richard Dawkins ties into my fishing trip today, alright?

First off, there's nothing in the Bible or Jewish Torah, aka, "The Books Of Moses," that is the slightest bit anti homosexual.  If you see that in the Bible or Torah, then what you are looking at is your own absolute lack of understanding of either Hebrew or Greek, and the fact that your concordance that you have to have when reading those texts, has been stolen.  When the Torah and/or Bible does discuss homosexuality in a damning way, what is always being referred to is the male homosexuals that work turning tricks in temples to whatever false deity in Palestine they happen to be referring too, and there are more than one such sex or fertility cult in which the references I am referencing refer too.  Got that?  Don't believe it?  I don't care!

Strong's Concordance is a fine concordance, and if you do not have one and argue things from your Bible, then you're admitting to all that you're just a foaming at the mouth self righteous attention seeking fool or hypocrite, ignorant, or worse - a snake oil selling wolf in a sheep's get up.

While we're busy here clearing the air, I should also tell you about my relationship with Richard Dawkins.  I don't hate Richard Dawkins, I just don't have a lot of respect for his mind.  I don't think he's brilliant, I think he's just smart, and I just dislike him in regards to his stage persona.  You know that's a persona, right?  You know, the smart alek that pretends to be no brighter than a Junior High internet troll with some knowledge of biology?  There's no way the real Richard Dawkins is so immature and spiteful as the stage persona Richard Dawkins is - he's smart enough to know that he's got nothing going for him other than the vitriol of persons angered by the paradigms of the religious world we live in.

Basically, the whole problem with Richard Dawkins and his pseudo science philosophy espoused by the new atheist movement is that its illiterate.  Dawkins doesn't seem to have the ability to see that should an allegorical view of Genesis be used to interpret Genesis - that there is nothing in Genesis at odds with modern science.  Richard Dawkins, of course, is not so dumb as to not see that, but rather than state things as he should, he goes on to attempt what can't be done - make a case that God does not exist.

Richard Dawkins would do well, and even have fans from the religious world were he to actually be a scientist instead of merely a materialist philosopher who dabbles in evolutionary biology.  Carl Sagan is clearly a superior mind to Richard Dawkins.

"The absence of proof is not the proof of absence." - Carl Sagan

It's my experience that some of the most angry and bitter persons in the world are the persons who follow either knowingly or not, the philosophy of materialism.  What is the materialist philosophy? It's basically a philosophy that says,

"If modern science can't prove it, then there's no reason to think that it exists."

Material philosopher types are very unhappy, of course, because they tend to have no objective or healthy view of reality, and blame religion for all the world's failures while failing to take human nature into account.  Nobody kills anyone in the name of Jesus without being a hypocrite, but of course anyone intent on killing will find the best possible reasoning to explain away their actions to the largest number of ears.  No, I am absolutely not the qualified person to speak on behalf of the actions of anyone who embraces Islam - that's not my area of knowledge, and it's beside the point here anyway.

Of course just here recently Richard Dawkins has made statements that can be paraphrased as

"No, I can not prove that there is no God."

Wow, I think that is totally wonderful, and especially because it's a blatant contradiction to titles of bullshit such as The God Delusion, a book that he'd previously published.  Perhaps he should write a new book, and I suggest the title,

The Anti God Delusion that I Personally Sold To Millions Of Fools Suffering From Valid Complaints Concerning Their Own Lack Of Understanding Of The World, And Their Disillusion With Their Culture. 

Obviously, that's me expecting too much from the Dawkins Diva, but objectivity is what science is all about, and without it, philosophy, quite naturally, is bogus too.  Combine a lack of objectivity, the absolute disregard of the beliefs (which weren't based on whimsy, by the way) of untold billions of persons both living and departed, and extreme hatred of organized religion, and a philosophy of materialism, and you've got a card carrying member of the new atheist movement.

Richard Dawkins - A Materialist Philosopher Who Dabbles In Biology

Without Objectivity - There Is No Science, and Without Objectivity, One Is No Scientist.

Richard Dawkins

The Philosophy Of Materialism Is Incompatible With Science

Materialist Philosophy = Garbage Resulting From PRIDE In Humanity.

Let me tell you what is scientifically flawed in the materialist philosophy that I hear espoused all over sites like Facebook, or other pedestrian sites where someone can post some cute little picture of some bullshit with their anti religion slogan on it.  We've an infinite AND expanding universe, and the more that humanity knows, the more questions it can then ask, and the more it then realizes that it DOES NOT know.  So while the rate of increase in the collective's knowledge is something that wouldn't have been comprehensible years ago - so too is the increase in the awareness of what IS NOT known.  

The human ego, however, steadily grows too.  Someone like Richard Dawkins has a huge ego, and it's easy for me to recognize that, as I have one too.

This isn't about me at all though, this isn't about Richard Dawkins so much either - the issue here is the human ego, and it's desire to see itself as something above and beyond everything else.  You see, the materialist philosophy of Richard Dawkins and the new atheist movement presumes that nothing CAN be known without the human construct known as the scientific method.  Here lies the problem.  The scientific method is dependent upon the five human senses.  The scientific method CAN NOT do a single thing without the five human senses.

Essentially, mankind and his scientific method, and in regards to those of the materialist new atheist movement, those people are essentially saying that they, with their five human senses and scientific method are the BE ALL END ALL OF THE VASTNESS OF THE UNIVERSE.

What is it that makes mankind think that his five senses can measure everything that is real in our infinite and expanding universe?

Where is the proof that mankind and his five senses can determine the extent of what is real?

Show me via the scientific method that mankind is, in fact, the most intelligent life form in a universe so vast, already infinite and yet expanding, that despite the fact that we can't see even the smallest percentage of it - that we know just what all is real, what all is true, and what can not be true - and all of this ...with the scientific method which is entirely limited to our five senses, our perspective of time, and our misunderstanding of history!

It's at exactly this point that someone jumps in and tries to say that I'm stating that no objective reality can be known.  I disagree.  While the scientific method can clearly show results that are verifiable and true, thinking that any observable experiement or chemical reacition, etc, is the EXTENT of reality is a lack of objectivity in motion.

Richard Dawkins Suggest That The Beliefs of Billions Are Delusional.


Bass Fishing With Richard Dawkins

Fish Are Materialist Philosophers Too!

So now it's stream fishing time here in Texas and sand bass head from the lakes up the creeks to wherever they were born to spawn, and they do this when the water temperature is right, and totally on instinct.  Just the other day my fishing pal and I caught seventeen sand bass and one nice crappie.

The fish we caught in King's Creek all spoke of how they'd had legends and myths concerning "the disappearing fish," but most of the fish that they'd known didn't believe in any of that.  The scientific fish in King's Creek all said that there was absolutely no evidence that fishermen or fillet knives existed.  The scientific fish in King's Creek all believed that their fish senses could detect and measure what is real in their world, but their perspective was very limited to the confines of King's Creek, other small tributaries, and big old Cedar Creek Lake.

Strangely enough, the same materialist philosopher science affirming fish don't believe in things like mountains either, they just have no proof that such things exist, and the fish living in the creeks and lakes here will never have the proof they need in their fish lives to prove with their scientific fish method that fillet knives and fishermen exist, much less mountains.  Alas, the proof is in my freezer.