Richard dawkins

[History buff33]

How many of you have heard of this guy? If you don't who he is, He is an infamous atheist and evolutionary biologist from Britain who works at Oxford University. He has written several books like The Selfish Gene (1976) and the God Delusion(2006). He is a huge critic of religion and everything in it. I just want to hear what you guys think about him. Personally, I think he's a genius.

 

[luiz]

Everyone in OT has heard about him. His books are not half bad, quite the opposite, and he makes many good point, but his radicalism and preachyness make him kind of a jackass.

 

[Mise]

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

 

[Winner]

He's clever, educated, polite, famous and he dares to publicly question people's irrational beliefs, which leads many people to call him a jerk because they've run out of arguments.

I wish there were hundreds of people like him, perhaps then we could finally send religion where it belongs - to the past.

 

[Gigaz]

Richard Dawkins is like the radical communist party that we all silently admire. He is the threatening video message that we send back to the Taliban and other fundamentalists, calling for the death of all believers. He is the pope of atheism, but which catholic likes everything that the real pope says?

 

[Defiant47]

He is the radical that none of us can afford to be.

 

[luiz]

He's clever, educated, polite, famous and he dares to publicly question people's irrational beliefs, which leads many people to call him a jerk because they've run out of arguments.

I wish there were hundreds of people like him, perhaps then we could finally send religion where it belongs - to the past.

Winner I am not religious and I think he is a jerk. I have no problems with his views, I think they are generally correct, and I have no problem with him expressing them. But I do have a problem with the manner he expresses them, his proselytism makes him an "evangelical atheist". What people like Dawkins ought to understand is that faith is actually not harmful to most people, even if it is irrational (and it is not the only irrational belief peopel have - think of how many people believe in crap like homeopathy or socialism, even though both are proven to not work). For many people faith and religion are beneficial, and to not see that is to be a jerk. Now of course there are fanatics who blow things up and kill people, and they should be exposed and fought. But those fanatics might justify their craziness with religion as they might justify it with a number of different beliefs, from racial supremacy to anarchism.

If religion disappeared tomorrow the world would not be a better place at all. Hateful people would find a new way to channel their hatred.

 

[laffy]

He's clever, educated, polite, famous and he dares to publicly question people's irrational beliefs, which leads many people to call him a jerk because they've run out of arguments.

how in hell is Richard Dawkins polite? and he's clearly an overbearing jerk even if I think most of what he says is correct.

 

[kulade]

i think richard darwins in a pretty cool guy. eh trolling religious people and doesn't afraid of anything..

 

[Elrohir]

How many of you have heard of this guy? If you don't who he is, He is an infamous atheist and evolutionary biologist from Britain who works at Oxford University. He has written several books like The Selfish Gene (1976) and the God Delusion(2006). He is a huge critic of religion and everything in it. I just want to hear what you guys think about him. Personally, I think he's a genius.

From what I've heard, he's a rather brilliant biologist - I don't know enough about it to say whether that's true, although I don't have any reason to doubt it. (Maybe I should dig up the copy of The Selfish Gene I have lying around and read it....) But when it comes to religion, he's really a jerk - and worse, a jerk whose arguments really don't seem very good. (I think I'm honest enough to recognize a good argument when I see it, even if I strongly disagree with it - and I really don't see that with Dawkins) In short: He should stick with biology, and leave religion to the philosophers and the theologians.

 

[Lillefix]

He's such a fun guy to listen to. He's very radical, very direct, very easy to understand and not afraid of using dirty words. A good European.

Let me quote him
[]..if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is..[]

 

[Winner]

Winner I am not religious and I think he is a jerk. I have no problems with his views, I think they are generally correct, and I have no problem with him expressing them. But I do have a problem with the manner he expresses them, his proselytism makes him an "evangelical atheist".

And any such comparisons are laughable, as I've explained before.

Dawkins simply sees faith as irrational and dangerous, and he's trying to actively push it back by enlightening the people. What's bad about providing less educated people with scientific explanations and reasonable arguments?

I don't know where this crazy belief that non-religious people should be hiding in the dark somewhere and never say anything against religion stems from, but it's ridiculous. He's not doing anything wrong, and he's not doing anything rude. Calling him a jerk just because he's not like all the other passive atheists is unfair and plain wrong.

What people like Dawkins ought to understand is that faith is actually not harmful to most people, even if it is irrational (and it is not the only irrational belief peopel have - think of how many people believe in crap like homeopathy or socialism, even though both are proven to not work).

I remember a nice documentary by Dawkins in which he totally crushes homeopathy. I suspected it was hogwash before, but after seeing it I am 100% sure

Seriously, he made it clear why he's trying to roll back religion. In his opinion, religion is now trying to regain the lost ground and interfere with objective science. Just look at the US and all that intelligent design crap posing as a science, and the general renaissance of religion in the world.

Religion might not be harmful to people on the individual level, but it is like a plague to the societies it afflicts. I am so glad that there are people like Dawkins who see this danger and combat it with pure non-violence and reason.

For many people faith and religion are beneficial, and to not see that is to be a jerk.

That's like saying that some mental illnesses don't harm those who're suffering of them, ergo if you tell such people that they're sick, you're a jerk. No, you're just right. In any case, Dawkins is not fighting people's individual beliefs, he's questioning religion as a system which seeks to suppress reason and science and replace it with blind faith and superstition. And that I can only support

 

[Winner]

how in hell is Richard Dawkins polite? and he's clearly an overbearing jerk even if I think most of what he says is correct.

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

From what I've heard, he's a rather brilliant biologist - I don't know enough about it to say whether that's true, although I don't have any reason to doubt it. (Maybe I should dig up the copy of The Selfish Gene I have lying around and read it....) But when it comes to religion, he's really a jerk - and worse, a jerk whose arguments really don't seem very good. (I think I'm honest enough to recognize a good argument when I see it, even if I strongly disagree with it - and I really don't see that with Dawkins) In short: He should stick with biology, and leave religion to the philosophers and the theologians.

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

 

[laffy]

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

If you think I'm wrong and that both our statements make the same amount of sense, then you admit your statement is wrong.

 

[Winner]

If you think I'm wrong and that both our statements make the same amount of sense, then you admit your statement is wrong.

Oh gosh, really? Good, because if I really thought I was responding to an octopus, I'd have to seek serious psychiatric help...

The point was to demonstrate that you calling Dawkins a jerk doesn't make any sense.

 

[Perfection]

His books on evolutionary biology are extremely well-written and highly recommended. He is a very gifted writer and provides a interested layman excellent insights into the fascinating world of evolutionary biology.

Also very cool about him is his invention of memetics, a cultural counterpart to genetics. I'm not sure if this can ever be made into a valuable scientific model, but it's a very intriguing concept.

I really don't pay too much attention to his thoughts on religion, mostly because I don't find them particularly interesting. I don't have any religious views for him to challenge, and going over his challenges to other people's religious views doesn't strike me as that interesting.

 

[Elrohir]

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

The only thing amusing in this exchange is that you think this is an effective argument.

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

Oh, if only someone had thought to try using REASON before! What a clever innovation! If only all those philosophers and theologians hadn't been such fools, and had tried reasoning things out! So much might have been accomplished in the thousands of years before you stepped onto the intellectual stage. Such a waste.

 

[History buff33]

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!

 

[laffy]

Oh gosh, really? Good, because if I really thought I was responding to an octopus, I'd have to seek serious psychiatric help...

If you think you're talking to an octopus, that's your problem and you should definitely seek some mental help. Give me a shout about how that turns out.

The point was to demonstrate that you calling Dawkins a jerk doesn't make any sense.

By that token, you calling him "polite" doesn't make any sense either because you haven't given any real justifications of your own.

My reasons for calling him a jerk are based on his hostile and generally uncompromising attitude that's often impossible to reason with. A non-jerk would be someone willing to at least rationally consider opposing viewpoints, and to tactfully present his argument without necessarily compromising his own position.

 

[Winner]

Oh, if only someone had thought to try using REASON before! What a clever innovation! If only all those philosophers and theologians hadn't been such fools, and had tried reasoning things out! So much might have been accomplished in the thousands of years before you stepped onto the intellectual stage. Such a waste.

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.

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.

By that token, you calling him "polite" doesn't make any sense either because you haven't given any real justifications of your own.

My reasons for calling him a jerk are based on his hostile and generally uncompromising attitude that's often impossible to reason with. A non-jerk would be someone willing to at least rationally consider opposing viewpoints, and to tactfully present his argument without necessarily compromising his own position.

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.