Imperialmajesty
Emperor
He makes some excellent points, but he goes about it like a prick.
Richard dawkins
- Thread starter History buff33
- Start date
It is interesting that so many people consider him a jerk. Yet no reason is given for this characterization. Is it that one should be quiet and not criticize religion? Is it an insult to say you believe in a fantasy? Why? Because of the numbers of people that believe it give it some sort of higher place in reasoned argument? 50% of Americans don’t think Medicare (a government program) is a government program. Is it insulting to say they are wrong or even fools? Is it always jerky to say with great certainty that you are wrong about something? I actually prefer a more lively debate on all sides rather than obsequious pussyfooting.
BTW it is true that his book and arguments are sort of 8th grade atheist level but then again that is the level of reasoning required to disprove god.
BTW it is true that his book and arguments are sort of 8th grade atheist level but then again that is the level of reasoning required to disprove god.
dwaxe
is not a fanatic
According the to three fundamentalist Christians I am friends with, it is.
Through logic, reasoning and your own personal beliefs regarding morality. Obviously the things you mention are wrong for the most part, or possibly taken out of context (depending on where exactly you got them from). All it proves is that the Bible isn't the word of God so much as the word of people of God, rather than proving that Christianity is wrong.
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
He doesn't claim that christianity is wrong just because of that. With this argument Dawkins claim that wherever christians get their morals from, it's not the bible.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Ever heard of poetry? So according to you, this means that the psalmist can never move also.
Psalm 30:6 And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved.
Seriously some people actually need to learn how to read properly. I.E. that you read in the context of how it is written. You treat poetry as poetry, you treat a historical narrative as a historical narrative. How hard is that for some people to understand?
Oh, no, I'm sure Dawkins has more substantive arguments that that. I was referring solely to what civ_king posted.
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
No, one is a jerk when he wants participate in debate but he doesn't know a thing about thing he's discussing. Dawkins is a jerk exactly because his understanding of history, religion and sociology is so 8th-gradish. You deserve label of jerk when you say "I haven't seen god, therefore god doesn't exist", stick your fingers so deep in your ears that you've probably scratched your brain and then continue: "God cannot be seen, god cannot be seen na na na na....".
And there is the thing with Brights, whitch sounds like a failed tongue in cheeks: "We stand for rationality, for free thinking individual unbound by the chains of dogmatic thinking. Quick, we need a label!"
I think it's important to remember that some people seem to worship the Bible more than they worship God. The Bible is their false idol. Refuting the Biblical god is child's play, the arguments don't need to be sophisticated. Other people have constructed a more believable god from a Biblical foundation, and so it's harder to disprove. I think creating a story from a corrupt foundation is a doomed effort. I also think it's funny that so many people believe they have a personal relationship with a being that results in their espousing ignorance.
I don't understand why people think Dawkins isn't a jerk. His tone is sharp & biting, this will come across as being jerk. He's also genteel and polite, very often, but he's also sometimes a jerk.
One can be a jerk and right. One can be a jerk and have good intentions. One can be a jerk against ignorance.
I don't understand why people think Dawkins isn't a jerk. His tone is sharp & biting, this will come across as being jerk. He's also genteel and polite, very often, but he's also sometimes a jerk.
One can be a jerk and right. One can be a jerk and have good intentions. One can be a jerk against ignorance.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Another Strawman to the rescue?
What he's actually saying is more like this: "There is no objective scientific evidence that God exists, ergo it is not rational to believe there is one. If you believe in something which is not supported by any evidence solely because you want it to be true, then you're deluding yourself."
That's a perfectly legitimate and rational argument - which is why it tends to infuriate religious people.
Graceheart the Leopard
Resident Amur leopard
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 3,476
I've kind-of met him. I don't like that he was made Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, because his public image is not that of a broad scientist.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Of course! That is because he is for to educate the public who are not well knowledgable about science in general. Silly to think of the title as something to mean that he is there to teach science exclusively to scientists.
Lord Gay
Emperor
For the people who think Dawkins is a jerk, I'd like to ask a few favors, if I may.
1) Can you please provide three examples of Dawkins, either videos or quotes, which to you are proof of him being a jerk, for us to examine. Please provide links or text boxes so we may have a better foundation for discussion, and explain what about them is jerk-like in your opinion.
2) Can you please explain how you feel Dawkins (or any atheist) SHOULD go about discussing/debating religion without being a jerk?
1) Can you please provide three examples of Dawkins, either videos or quotes, which to you are proof of him being a jerk, for us to examine. Please provide links or text boxes so we may have a better foundation for discussion, and explain what about them is jerk-like in your opinion.
2) Can you please explain how you feel Dawkins (or any atheist) SHOULD go about discussing/debating religion without being a jerk?
It's no surprise that so many people here would like or agree with Dawkins. Thinking is, after all, anathema to atheism.
Moderator Action: If you are going to troll, you should be more subtle and creative with what you say to avoid moderator intervention. Accusing atheists of not thinking is pretty lame. A better approach might be to select particularly thoughtful statements they have made and show how they fail to live up to their own standards or fail outright in answering the question at hand.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: If you are going to troll, you should be more subtle and creative with what you say to avoid moderator intervention. Accusing atheists of not thinking is pretty lame. A better approach might be to select particularly thoughtful statements they have made and show how they fail to live up to their own standards or fail outright in answering the question at hand.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
If you watch the whole interview you will see, about 5 minutes later, that he takes back that comment stating it was just a piece of contrarian reasoning with respect to the interviewer's message that 'evolution does not necessitate atheism'. Dawkins' point was that when anti-evolutionists sometimes try to write off evolution as a kind of uniquely atheist perversion, many evolutionists (gah, what a horribly unnecessary term) counter that there are many respectable, prominent religious people who don't deny evolution. The contrarian reasoning was a suggestion that perhaps we should agree with the anti-evolutionists, and say 'yes, if you believe in evolution you do have to be an atheist', at which point the mountains of evidence for evolution would be poured on. This, he states, would likely be an effective tool for anti-religion propagandists.
EDIT: here's the video. Part 5/12.
EDIT: just discovered that Dawkins spoke at the Lib Dem conference this year! Respect++;
He was also on CNN recently.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Shouldn't that be Timelady? 
Similar threads
- Poll
