LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Regarding his preachy atheism, not his biology.
What do you think about Dawkins?
- Thread starter LucyDuke
- Start date
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
He's the kind of obnoxious atheist that that tarnishes the reputation of the rest. He has good points, but he's a prick about it.
Oh right, his work on genes too.
Oh right, his work on genes too.
Revolutionised gene evolution theory.
A big atheist jerk.
All told, I think that he's motivational to the reactionary atheist, and is encouraging them to be less civil. I also think that is not the best way of moving forward, and that quite atheism is superior, as long as society becomes (or remains) sufficiently secular.
His work on evolutionary gene theory cannot be undersold. It's essential reading for anyone who likes biology or history and wants to know how the world works.
A big atheist jerk.
All told, I think that he's motivational to the reactionary atheist, and is encouraging them to be less civil. I also think that is not the best way of moving forward, and that quite atheism is superior, as long as society becomes (or remains) sufficiently secular.
His work on evolutionary gene theory cannot be undersold. It's essential reading for anyone who likes biology or history and wants to know how the world works.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I don't have any problem with atheists, but I have a problem with jerks.
Doesn't do atheists any favours.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Wut?
He's probably the nicest atheist you can meet. He doesn't insult other people, he simply talks reason in a very polite way. I've never seen a video where he would act like a jerk.
aelf
Ashen One
Never really bothered to read his book. From what I've seen of his show, though, he seems to fail at presentation. He extols the virtues of logic and reason but his show presents itself through well-packaged soundbites and deliberate editing that make a reasoned judgment of some of the things shown difficult.
Human, all too human.
Human, all too human.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
His book certainly doesn't. It even decries religion when it's doing no harm.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It's kinda hard to present your views in their complexity on TV. He wants to address common viewers, people who are not interested in lengthy discussions and reasoning (those who are can read the books) and he's doing a great job "compressing" his views in something normal people can understand and appreciate.
But he could include more humour, like Pat Condell:
Link to video.
This guy rocks - he's what you can call an atheist jerk, but he's incredibly good at it.
I definitely should have read the OP before voting. Oh well, pretend it's all some elaborate thing where I hope he discredits atheism and . . .
I read The Ancestor's Tale. I loved it when he wasn't inserting irrelevant asides about religion and politics (as much the latter as the former) and though he is as welcome to his view as anyone, his comments never really followed from the biology he was presenting.
I read The Ancestor's Tale. I loved it when he wasn't inserting irrelevant asides about religion and politics (as much the latter as the former) and though he is as welcome to his view as anyone, his comments never really followed from the biology he was presenting.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aelf
Ashen One
I understand the limitations of the medium, but that does not acquit him, given his cause.
As for his books, this is where his 'laymen' followers don't give him a good name.
Wut?
He's probably the nicest atheist you can meet. He doesn't insult other people, he simply talks reason in a very polite way. I've never seen a video where he would act like a jerk.
I think we need to be careful what we mean when we say "jerk". He's polite, true. And he's quite good at popularisation (a valuable skill!). But after having him answer a question, you'll feel like you've just been condescended, and the manner in which he speaks don't lead to engaging in self-reflection, but in offense.
It's an important skill, to learn that how you say something is going to convince people to not listen to you.
Here's a good example of how not to answer the question. He's being a jerk, even though it's funny. Please note: there's no point in arguing with me whether he's being a jerk in this clip, because what I'm reporting is the perception of others. And 'jerkiness' is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder.
Link to video.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
I fail to make the same conclusion from this video. This is actually both funny and good way how to answer this question. What should he say - that he will burn in hell for all eternity? That would only encourage his opponents.
This way, he makes them question their belief and their upbringing.
I think you're missing a fundamental point - no matter how polite you are, how much you try to avoid witty responses, some believers will ALWAYS get offended and call you a jerk.
Dawkins is actually quite good in that he isn't an easy target of outright dismissal as a rude "know-it-all" type. He's got the image of nice and polite old professor who's spreading his views in a non-offensive way (to most sane people anyway, some will always get offended).
BTW, I presume this question came after a lecture, so it would be a bit unfair to put it entirely out of context of his views.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Rambling? Seriously? Give us an example of this "rambling" - accusation without evidence is kinda pointless.
