What do you think about Dawkins?

[Flying Pig]

Just to be absolutely clear, I do believe that religious people are in fact mentally ill. Unfortunately, this disorder is so widespread that it is often accepted as a norm.

Misinformed, aye, mentally ill, nay. This is where it gets a bit rediculous

 

[Winner]

I'm familiar with the definition, but although "********" technically may mean "slowed," we both know nobody uses it to mean that.

English is not my native tongue, but my impression was that this term is more often used in the non-psychiatric sense.

Of course, if calling someone an idiot is something you'd consider offensive, even if they are, it's certainly no less offensive to be called mentally ill.

Then the psychiatrists must be pretty arrogant and rude guys, I guess

Sorry, but religious people fit the definition. If I fit the definition of a mental illness and my psychiatrist told me I was mentally ill, I would have to accept it as a fact (or I'd go into denial believing that it's him who's crazy...).

 

[J-man]

I don't think he's a jerk at all. I don't understand why so many people are offended by him. He is willing to debate and doesn't tells his opponents they go to hell (unlike some (emphases on some) religious people.)

 

[Irish Caesar]

English is not my native tongue, but my impression was that this term is more often used in the non-psychiatric sense.

It's used more often in the non-psychiatric sense, yes, but since a delusion is something seen by a person suffering from a schizophrenic episode, the word packs more charge than similar ones like fantasy or imagination.

Then the psychiatrists must be pretty arrogant and rude guys, I guess

Sorry, but religious people fit the definition. If I fit the definition of a mental illness and my psychiatrist told me I was mentally ill, I would have to accept it as a fact (or I'd go into denial believing that it's him who's crazy...).

I'm only responding to your statement that "If I told you, hypothetically, that you were a stupid idiot, that would be universally considered as an insult and you'd be right to feel offended."

Should you still feel offended if someone calls you a stupid idiot but you are, in fact, a stupid idiot?

Moreover, if I had an appointment with a doc who told me I was ill, I'd probably be a bit more welcoming of his professional opinion that being told the same by an anonymous guy giving me his unsolicited opinion. Of course, I'd still ask for a second opinion from another qualified doc!

(The apology is unnecessary, by the way; why apologize for what you believe?)

 

[cardgame]

(The apology is unnecessary, by the way; why apologize for what you believe?)

"Sorry, but you have AIDS"

is a different story from

"You have AIDS"

 

[Azale]

"Sorry, but you have AIDS"

is a different story from

"You have AIDS"

I'm just glad warmhearted atheists like you can keep it classy.



Dawkins is a jerk. If I want to hear condescending rants on religion I'll watch George Carlin, at least he is funny.

 

[Irish Caesar]

"Sorry, but you have AIDS"

is a different story from

"You have AIDS"

Okay, I'll rephrase it:

Why apologize for something you're not even remotely sorry about?

 

[Elrohir]

I 100% agree with you on this.

It is acceptable to question other people's political beliefs, it is even acceptable to ridicule them in public and nobody says "hey, let's be sensitive, he might find it offensive."

When you compare it with the amount of undeserved respect that religion demands (especially certain Middle Eastern one), it seems ridiculous.

Pat Condell adressed it in his typical way:


Link to video.

Winner, I think the reason that you don't think he's a jerk, is because you're a jerk too - you have very little respect for other people's opinions, and when discussing anything related to religion or politics, you're a rather abrasive person. You (like Dawkins) rarely stoop to the "LOL YOUR STUPID" level, but you do tend to talk down to people in a rather arrogant fashion, and it can get rather wearying. I agree with you on several issues, but I usually cringe at how you make the case for them.

What you say is different from how you say it. Dawkins comes off as a condescending jerk, because he acts like he's brilliant and awesome and correct about everything, and people who disagree with him are ridiculous. He may not come right out and say that, but that's the impression I get from reading his writing, or listening to him talk. That you find people thinking he's obnoxious so incredible says a lot more about your personality than Dawkins'.

 

[North King]

And this is the point where you lost the right to criticize it.

At what point did reading every single word of a person (or even an entire book) become necessary for criticizing them? You don't need to sit through an hour long rant to get the idea that the person is ranting. I think it less likely that this is a valid objection and more likely a way of brushing aside criticism that you do not have a rebuttal for.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Never read any of his books or watched any of his debates. I never felt the need to watch some random old dude regurgitate stuff I've known since elementary school.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He is the type of science guy who demands hard evidence which the religion can't provide and this frustrates maaaany believers a lot.

There is no scientific basis for or against a god. It can neither be proven nor disproven. That is what makes all this opinion instead of fact.

Misinformed, aye, mentally ill, nay. This is where it gets a bit rediculous.

No wonder Winner doesn't think there is anything wrong with the attitudes of the more outspoken atheists...

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think he is quite entertaining and from the few videos I watched here, not very controversial at all. What is telling to me is his assumption that the only real truth is scientific truth. He automatically discards any idea that falls outside of that framework, which BTW, is just assumed to be the only framework. He's living in "Flatland".

A reason based world view requires limits to function, so if you are going to set reason at the pinnacle of ideas, then you must draw a fence around what is permitted. You must wall yourself off from all that is irrational. "Flatland" is a very comfortable place to live; it has security, adventure, mystery, but no love. It's goal is to reduce everything to chemistry and physics; to eliminate as much mystery as possible in the name of knowledge. The logical end of "science as truth" is personal happiness through brain stimulation. Nothing else matters.

Now that does not mean that religion is the solution. It has its own set of problems, but this is a Dawkins thread.

IMO any intelligent person would reach the conclusion there is no god. The fact that many obviously intelligent people do not come to that conclusion is an interesting question in neurobiology.

Ah yes. How could we be so....Maybe we have discovered that the world is not "flat".

Just to be absolutely clear, I do believe that religious people are in fact mentally ill. Unfortunately, this disorder is so widespread that it is often accepted as a norm.

In fact it has been the norm among all people for at least the last 5,000 years. Atheistic whining is a recent aberration that has yet to establish itself as anything more than a passing fad.

 

[Agent327]

Regarding his preachy atheism, not his biology.

IMO Richard Dawkins seems to confuse personal views with science and in doing so does little to promote either.

 

[West 36]

I'm upset he went to the Broncos, I loved the guy.

 

[Perfection]

I shook his hand!



Now I'm going to gush about his biology books... Dawkin's books on evolutionary biology are fan-friggin'-tabulous. He is an extremely good. I've read The Selfish Gene, and Ancestor's Tale, both are amazing books, that I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in evolution read them.


Now as for his thoughts on atheism and religion (IE, I actually answer the thread):

I think the idea of religion (and indeed most thought) as having a sort of adaptationist evolutionary quality to it (memetics) is a very interesting perspective. So he does have some interesting things to say about religion.

I also think he does a decent rendition of standard arguments against God. He's not breaking ground, but he's a popularizer of atheism not a philosopher so that's okay.

Sometimes, I do think he has a tendency to lay down a bit too much against religion (IE accusing religion of things that are only questionably its fault), but by and large his percieved jerkdom comes from two things:
1. His English upper crust accent which makes him sound more arrogant than he is.
2. The fact he's willing to speak up about atheism and tell religious people what he thinks; that is he's breaking the "don't talk about religion" taboo. This is commendable despite the fact that it makes people uncomfortable.

I should also note that I'm not as versed in his writing on atheism then on evolutionary biology. I'm not particularly interested in the subject of atheism.

 

[Winner]

Winner, I think the reason that you don't think he's a jerk, is because you're a jerk too - you have very little respect for other people's opinions, and when discussing anything related to religion or politics, you're a rather abrasive person.

But religions don't deserve any respect, just as a stupid political ideology doesn't deserve it. Do you say you'd respect someone who says "Jews need to be exterminated to the last toddler"? No, of course you wouldn't. Would you respect someone who believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn who guards him and protects him? Could you keep a straight face if such a guy started chanting "Oh Unicorn, my lord guardian, deliver me from evil and blah blah blah"? I very much doubt you would.

So who the heck are you to tell me that I need to respect delusions of other people? All believers are atheists - you don't belive in most Gods invented by other cultures, probably for the same reason I don't believe in your God, but somehow I should respect him?

Please

You (like Dawkins) rarely stoop to the "LOL YOUR STUPID" level, but you do tend to talk down to people in a rather arrogant fashion, and it can get rather wearying. I agree with you on several issues, but I usually cringe at how you make the case for them.

I am not a fan of the fashionable modern realtivistic thinking, you know that spineless attitude that all opinions are equal, that everybody's "truth" is as good as any other etc. No, absolutely not - either you can argue for your position in a reasonable way, or you can't and in that case your position is worthless and it deserves exactly 0% respect.

WHICH DOESN'T MEAN (read this carefuly) that I attack my opponent in a personal way. If he wants to take offense just because I inform him of the fact that his cherished opinion is a piece of crap, the it's HIS problem. It's not arrogance, it's reason.

What you say is different from how you say it. Dawkins comes off as a condescending jerk, because he acts like he's brilliant and awesome and correct about everything,

Not at all. Dawkins is about 1000 times as polite as I am. The fact that many people call him arrogant simply proves the point that he is brilliant - less educated people often perceive superior intellect as a sign of arrogance. Hence the saying that truly great people are rarely universally acclaimed.

and people who disagree with him are ridiculous.

No, he calls their conviction based on nothing but hearsay and thousands of years old fairy-tale books ridiculous. He had NEVER insulted believers in person, or at least I've never seen him acting that way. If you want to prove me wrong, you're welcome to post a video of him insulting someone.

He may not come right out and say that, but that's the impression I get from reading his writing, or listening to him talk. That you find people thinking he's obnoxious so incredible says a lot more about your personality than Dawkins'.

It's just as I said, isn't it? You don't like what's he saying, because some part of you know he's right, you just don't want to admit it - so you invent excuses to rationalize why you should ignore him. "He's arrogant, let's ignore him." or "He's a jerk, he insults my beliefs."

Yes, I feel uncomfortable too when I hear eurosceptics arguing against the EU and the basic idea of European integration, but if they have good arguments, I want to refute them. I don't just shut my mind off this "unwanted noise" and rely on faith.

You believers are so easily offended because you know that your faith is unreasonable, that you don't have anything to back it up except some sort of gut feeling. This is why you scorn, loathe, insult and suppress opinions which might erode your faith.

 

[Winner]

At what point did reading every single word of a person (or even an entire book) become necessary for criticizing them? You don't need to sit through an hour long rant to get the idea that the person is ranting. I think it less likely that this is a valid objection and more likely a way of brushing aside criticism that you do not have a rebuttal for.

Are you familiar with the concept of opening statement? You know, when you first say what is your position and then you spend the next 10 hours explaining how you came to this conclusion?

Obviously not. You're criticizing (no, you're insulting) Dawkins without knowing what's he saying, which is simply ignorant. It's like if RedRalph started a thread and I'd tell him "another rant, screw you" without having read the OP at all. Although I may have my reasons to believe that Ralph is wrong again, ignoring what he says isn't legitimate.

BTW no, I am not comparing RedRalph to Dawkins, I was just showing you that selective ignorance rarely brings positive results.

 

[Winner]

In fact it has been the norm among all people for at least the last 5,000 years. Atheistic whining is a recent aberration that has yet to establish itself as anything more than a passing fad.

In our culture, oppression of women has been a norm for thousands of years, ergo the recent wave of feminism is just a passing fad.

In our culture, oppression of homosexuals has been a norm for at least 2 thousand years, therefore the recent wave of tolerance is just a temporary thing.

...

Atheism has been graining ground since science begin to uncover the mysteries of the Universe. Science only became an alternative to religion some 2-3 hundred years ago, when people stopped looking for supernatural explanations and started looking for REASONABLE explanations.

 

[aelf]

Science only became an alternative to religion some 2-3 hundred years ago, when people stopped looking for supernatural explanations and started looking for REASONABLE explanations.

How is that so? Since when does science replace religion or vice versa. Science doesn't tell me why I live.

 

[Winner]

How is that so? Since when does science replace religion or vice versa. Science doesn't tell me why I live.

Yes, it does. It knows how your body function, it tells you how your brain works, it tells you how humans evolved, it answers the question why are we here.

If you don't like the explanation, fine, but it give you zero reason to believe in God just because you want "more".