Richard dawkins

[illram]

What luiz said (most of it). Smart guy, interesting books on biology (I only read Selfish Gene but it was great), comes off as an arrogant douche when he starts going off about religion.

 

[classical_hero]

And you're an octopus. Don't ask me why, it makes just as much sense as you calling Dawkins a jerk.



They've been handling it for the past 10,000 years and they failed miserably. It's about time someone brought REASON and SCIENCE to the debate. A brilliant scientist looks like an excellent choice for an exorcist

You talking about reason, that's a first. But the way how you and Dawkins argue points, you are like kin brothers.

 

[Winner]

If it was meant seriously, I'd be deeply honored by that

 

[Bill3000]

I like your opinions so far. As an athiest, I respect the hell out of Dawkins, in fact, reading his stuff started my journey TO atheism! And boy can switching to atheism be the best thing for your life! Imagine, you get to do what YOU want to do!

If you're switching to atheism because you "want to do what you want to do" then you're switching for the wrong reasons.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

He's...okay...

Dawkins and people like him assert that religion is intrinsically evil, that it calls for violence against non-believers, which is just not true. While certainly there are some books of some religions (most notably Leviticus, Joshua, some of the Psalms, etc) that preach violence, that doesn't mean that all religion is violent. Jesus did not preach violence. Zoroaster did not preach violence. Mahavira did not preach violence. It's like Camikaze's quote in his sig: "'Socialism' is no more an evil word than 'Christianity.' Socialism no more prescribed Joseph Stalin and his secret police and shuttered churches than Christianity prescribed the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity and socialism alike prescribe a society dedicated to the proposition that all men, women, and children are created equal and shall not starve." Not to mention that the Quakers, who read Leviticus, Joshua, and the Psalms too, are completely pacifistic. However, most idiotic is his chapter "There Is No Eastern Solution," in which he discussed Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Just one problem: Buddhism and Taoism have no gods, and Hinduism has basically every belief regarding gods there is possible: monism, pantheism, polytheism, even monotheism. Eastern religion is much less cohesive than Western religion, much less organized. Not to mention Jainism, which is so pacifistic that its members wear muslin masks over their mouths to protect tiny insects from being killed. I generally agreed with his thesis that SOME religion can cause social stagnation. But it is not intrinsically part of religion. If you change it to organized religion, or perhaps monotheistic organized religion, or perhaps proselytizing religion, I might agree.

EDIT: I'm not really sure whether or not I believe in a god BTW.

EDIT2: I mixed him up with Christopher Hitchens The chapter I referred to is from God Is Not Great.

 

[My Pet Hamster]

Food...

 

[History buff33]

If you're switching to atheism because you "want to do what you want to do" then you're switching for the wrong reasons.

Dude, I made the switch 2 years ago. And the do what i want thing was one of MANY reasons why I switched to atheism. For one, I thought Atheism was more logical. Honestly, it makes more sense to believe that this was all random than some dude created all this. Also, what really got me was the afterlife, and how illogical it is to think that we actually can LIVE after we die. Trust me, those are but a few of the MANY reasons why I'm an atheist.

 

[laffy]

He's doing that all the time, yet he's still called a jerk. Which proves that the real reason why he's called like that isn't that he's being too aggressive or too rude, it's the things he says what causes all the anger. Kind of like when a socialist argues with a liberal and when he's cornered and runs out of arguments, he begins to call the the liberal a jerk. It's a standard smear tactics - when you can't kill the message, kill the messenger. Same old, same old.

If he's polite 70% of the time, but an arrogant jerk for 30% of the time, then he's still an arrogant jerk. That's still more than most average people, who are arrogant jerks less than 5% of the time.

 

[History buff33]

Food...

 

[Elrohir]

Scorching sarcasms like this are only effective if the things said are incorrect

Dawkins insist on introduction of scientific method into the debate on religion and that, believe it or not, is a thing which hasn't been done very often in the past. Philosophy and its bastard child theology are not real sciences. Philosophers and theologians don't seek hard evidence supporting their claims, they're trying to prove them using another claims and suppositions. That is of course utterly unscientific.

I don't think you know the first thing about religion, theology, or philosophy, or their histories. Is it too much to ask that you read about them before spouting off so arrogantly about them? (And I mean, actually read fair books and articles that seek to explain them fairly - not "This is what those stupid idiots in the past believed" sort of thing)

What Dawkins is doing is that he applies scientific method on religion and the results he's getting are quite damning - for the religion. Which is, I think, why so many people (including you) hate him so much. Nothing offends so much as the truth.

First, I don't think Dawkins arguments are terribly damning, because honestly, I don't think they're terribly effective. From what I've seen, they're basically just rehashings of the regular arguments against the existence of God - and not even made very elegantly. You can make good arguments against the existence of God; I just don't think Dawkins does. Furthermore, I don't think Dawkins is really all that revolutionary; people have been trying to reason through and prove and disprove religious and philosophical arguments for centuries. He's not really doing anything any different, except fooling people like you into thinking that he's right because he's a "scientist" and that means he can find the right answer to everything.

Second - I don't hate Dawkins (Or you, for that matter). I think Dawkins is an obnoxious jerk, but I don't harbor any serious ill-will towards him; life is too short to spend it hating someone like Dawkins. It's also much too short to spend it talking with someone like you.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Arrogant fool.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Brilliant biologist, shame he had to go off like Newton and have a philosopause. (Term is from Terry Pratchett.)

 

[Winner]

I don't think you know the first thing about religion, theology, or philosophy, or their histories.

You're like a broken record. We've been through that the last time.

Is it too much to ask that you read about them before spouting off so arrogantly about them? (And I mean, actually read fair books and articles that seek to explain them fairly - not "This is what those stupid idiots in the past believed" sort of thing)

Am I required to read something about every single unproven theory/hypothesis/claim someone in the world has made at some point in human history? Is this how your delaying tactics work - flood the enemy with ballast and hope he gets lost?

It is not arrogant to look at philosophy/theology and conclude that since these don't operate under scientific method, their findings are irrelevant. It's like if we're talking about Iran's nuclear program, the recent discovery of water on the Moon isn't relevant because there is no connection.

What Dawkins (and others) want is an evidence, some kind of proof or experiment based on the scientific method, which would support the religious claims.

I understand it must be frustrating to know that no such proof can be given (simply because it doesn't exist), but there is no reason to start calling people "arrogant jerks" because of that. That only underlines what I am saying - you're simply attacking people because you don't like their ideas. And you can deny that as much as you want, because your other words speak against you.

If there are any arrogant jerks in this debate, they're the people who're calling Mr. Dawkins a jerk

First, I don't think Dawkins arguments are terribly damning, because honestly, I don't think they're terribly effective. From what I've seen, they're basically just rehashings of the regular arguments against the existence of God - and not even made very elegantly. You can make good arguments against the existence of God; I just don't think Dawkins does. Furthermore, I don't think Dawkins is really all that revolutionary; people have been trying to reason through and prove and disprove religious and philosophical arguments for centuries. He's not really doing anything any different, except fooling people like you into thinking that he's right because he's a "scientist" and that means he can find the right answer to everything.

Second - I don't hate Dawkins (Or you, for that matter). I think Dawkins is an obnoxious jerk, but I don't harbor any serious ill-will towards him; life is too short to spend it hating someone like Dawkins. It's also much too short to spend it talking with someone like you.

Seconded. You can try again once you learn how to present a coherent argument.

 

[civ_king]

He's kinda like House: he's a perfectly rational, mostly correct jackass.

/agree
perfect description of Dawkins

 

[Algeroth]

You talking about reason, that's a first. But the way how you and Dawkins argue points, you are like kin brothers.

Nah, Dawkins doesn't use

as an argument.

No, wait a minute, That's exactly what he does in the whole God Delusion.

 

[PeteAtoms]

My impression of Richard Dawkins, is that he sees himself as being on a crusade against religion and views himself as a liberator or a bringer of enlightenment. Even though I agree with a lot of what he says, he comes off as too preachy. And I'm sure his personal mission against religion as been very profitable.

And I can totally imagine him doing all of this just to sell his books I wouldn't be surprised if:

1) He really sees himself as a bringer of light to the religious of the world
2) He's doing it all for the money

 

[Lillefix]

Let's try and be a bit more contructive here. One of the things he has been very vocal about is the fact that children are labeled christians, muslims and so on by media and everyone(in my opinion this is a rather indisputable fact. Recently in my native Norway a twelve year old girl was run over by a car and she was several times referred to as a Smith's Friend, which is a Norwegian christian cult). Monty Python also noticed this fact by the way(Every sperm is sacred).

In his opinion this is baaad. Why? Well he compares it to attributing political beliefs on children. We don't call a ten year old child a republican or democrat for obvious reasons. At least I don't think any of us would take it seriously if someone claimed it. Why should religion be different?

 

[Gooblah]

My personal opinion is that he's a jackass. He's a mostly correct jackass, but still a jackass all the same.

He reminds of William Lloyd Garrison - the radical noone else could afford to be, who deflects criticism away from other activists and makes them look moderate in comparison, making their pursuits stronger.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

As a religious debater, he's famous for regurgitating stuff all smart people figured out in their preteen years. His sheer dogged persistence makes him useful if what he's saying can get through to even one person who had trouble grasping those truths, but that doesn't make him a genius.

From what I've seen, they're basically just rehashings of the regular arguments against the existence of God

A lot of those dead horse arguments are pretty damn ironclad though, and there's not much more to say. They get flak for being repeated over and over by 15 year old goth keyboard warriors and the like, but the way I figure it it's pretty damning to by opposition when THOSE people have an easy time coming up with very solid and convincing arguments against them.

 

[civ_king]

"Why wont God heal amputees?"
"I've heard that about 50 times now"
"then can you tell me once?"
"google it!"
"the first 20 hits show no answer"
"I've been asked 50 times, go bug someone else!!!"