What do you think about Dawkins?

[GinandTonic]

Dawkins can be a jerk but...

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.

There is just nothing rude in any way about that clip. Really, I know US public discorse tends to be a lot more restrained than over here, but by the standards of UK political/ academic debate I'ld say that was in the most polite 20%

Evidence? Just listening to him talking about religion shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Not at all. From the academic positions he adresses religion from he is quite clearly the world expert, as is clear from hearing him speak.

 

[Yared]

You think this dude is a jerk? Watch vids of Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty or Terroja . Conversely, there's the super nice Sam Harris too.

IMO, it's kinda natural that religious people would find him offensive. At the same time, it's not like the people on the other side (the kind of people Dawkins regularly debate against) aren't just as offensive.

 

[bhsup]

Blowhard, irrelevant dweeb.

 

[Trajan12]

We have no problem stating that Conservatives, Liberals, Communists, Anarchists, Fascists, et al are clearly in the wrong when it suits us and they make much more reasoned appeals. I see no reason to approach religion with any more delicacy.

 

[Winner]

We have no problem stating that Conservatives, Liberals, Communists, Anarchists, Fascists, et al are clearly in the wrong when it suits us and they make much more reasoned appeals. I see no reason to approach religion with any more delicacy.

This is actually what Dawkins says in one of the videos I posted - in every other debate, being assertive about your views, using rational arguments, demanding evidence for your opponent's claims, all that is perfectly OK.

But once the subject of the debate is religion, suddenly it's all different - you are supposed to be "sensitive" and avoid being "arrogant" (how can logical reasoning be arrogant, pray tell?). In other words, you are supposed to fight blindfolded with both your hands tied behind your back.

Well, I am not sorry if logic offends some people.

 

[Flying Pig]

I find Nick Griffin interesting; since he points out that he would ban the Koran, since it would never be published today due to the massive amount of hate-speak inside it.

 

[RedRalph]

This is actually what Dawkins says in one of the videos I posted - in every other debate, being assertive about your views, using rational arguments, demanding evidence for your opponent's claims, all that is perfectly OK.

But once the subject of the debate is religion, suddenly it's all different - you are supposed to be "sensitive" and avoid being "arrogant" (how can logical reasoning be arrogant, pray tell?). In other words, you are supposed to fight blindfolded with both your hands tied behind your back.

Well, I am not sorry if logic offends some people.

It's ridiculous. If you & me met in real life say, at a party, we could probably spend all night attacking eachothers political positions, no one would bat an eyelid, and yet if we were both religious and insulted eachothers 'faiths' people would probably ask us to leave

 

[Winner]

It's ridiculous. If you & me met in real life say, at a party, we could probably spend all night attacking eachothers political positions, no one would bat an eyelid, and yet if we were both religious and insulted eachothers 'faiths' people would probably ask us to leave

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.

 

[GinandTonic]

It's ridiculous. If you & me met in real life say, at a party, we could probably spend all night attacking eachothers political positions, no one would bat an eyelid, and yet if we were both religious and insulted eachothers 'faiths' people would probably ask us to leave

If you guys met in real life you would spend the night slinging mud at each others positions, and onlookers would keep your glasses full and watch the fireworks with interest.

 

[RedRalph]

If you guys met in real life you would spend the night slinging mud at each others positions, and onlookers would keep your glasses full and watch the fireworks with interest.

This is true. But I'd bring some of my commie buddies to help me fight dirty

 

[Winner]

I am a peaceful and amiable guy in real life. In fact, I once discussed politics with a drunk young skinhead and it didn't end in violence (I still remember the look on my friend's face "what the hell are you doing?! Let's pay for the beer and get the hell out before he calls his buddies!"). It was hard to gradually erode his view that Jews are sub-human and must be eradicated, but I think I had some limited success there

 

[North King]

I tried to read his book The God Delusion, as a friend had recommended it. I found that it was incredibly preachy to the point of hypocrisy and put it down after ten pages. He's one of a type who are so utterly convinced they are right (and that any intelligent person would reach the same conclusion) that they refuse to even consider their opponents' stance. This kind of "debate" is wrong regardless of the field -- it is wrong in politics, and it is wrong in religious argument as well.

 

[Yared]

I tried to read his book The God Delusion, as a friend had recommended it. I found that it was incredibly preachy to the point of hypocrisy and put it down after ten pages. He's one of a type who are so utterly convinced they are right (and that any intelligent person would reach the same conclusion) that they refuse to even consider their opponents' stance. This kind of "debate" is wrong regardless of the field -- it is wrong in politics, and it is wrong in religious argument as well.

A person incapable of actually listening to a man's argument not because the argument's are false themselves but because the person finds the man's personality to be completely unbearable is . Often have scientists, philosophers, politicians, engineers and whatnot been very arrogant but their work completely correct.

Of course, if you think his arguments are completely wrong then no one is stopping you from posting a vid on youtube and post counter-arguments...

 

[Danielos]

Have anyone else seen the pathetic excuse for a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox? It was organised by Christians, and was centered on Dawkins book "God Delusion". Instead of allowing a free debate, the moderator arranged it so that Dawkins first presented a point from the book, which then Lennox rebutted. Then the moderator went on the next part in the book, which he expected Dawkins to present and Lennox to rebutt. So the ever more frustrated Dawkins never got any fair chance to rebutt his opponent!

 

[North King]

A person incapable of actually listening to a man's argument not because the argument's are false themselves but because the person finds the man's personality to be completely unbearable is . Often have scientists, philosophers, politicians, engineers and whatnot been very arrogant but their work completely correct.

...Assumptions, assumptions. I'm an atheist, silly, and I know all the arguments. You don't have to listen to any one person to learn about a position on any debate, unless the position is a fringe one. The only reason Dawkins could be arguing that religion is bunk is because he has some new perspective to bring to the table -- enough people hold that position that he is not advancing anything new. But he does not argue his position from a perspective that would make most of the people who do not agree with him listen. They can go listen to other people who hold the same position but present it much more, how shall I put it... respectfully?

Dawkins is mostly read (as far as I can tell) by people who read him in order to feel better about their own position. With the rare exception, of course.

Of course, if you think his arguments are completely wrong then no one is stopping you from posting a vid on youtube and post counter-arguments...

...Because I so explicitly said that his arguments were wrong.

Try not to assume someone's a theist just because they want theists to be treated nicely next time.

 

[Yared]

ok ok sorry for putting words in your mouth. pl0x forgive me??

What I wrote still stands though

ADD ON:

Dawkins is mostly read (as far as I can tell) by people who read him in order to feel better about their own position. With the rare exception, of course.

I partially agree with you on that. Few are gonna go out and buy that book when they could just go out on youtube and watch some vids.

I partially disagree because the book is also read by "on-the-fence" people who don't really know that much about youtube but at the same time just found itself intriguing. Of course, some less brutal wording (not necessarily false arguments) wouldn't be counter-productive.

 

[North King]

No problem.

I fully respect Dawkins for his work on biology, but his attempts to convince theists that they are wrong are... not terribly effective, that's all.

 

[Mark1031]

I tried to read his book The God Delusion, as a friend had recommended it. I found that it was incredibly preachy to the point of hypocrisy and put it down after ten pages. He's one of a type who are so utterly convinced they are right (and that any intelligent person would reach the same conclusion) that they refuse to even consider their opponents' stance. This kind of "debate" is wrong regardless of the field -- it is wrong in politics, and it is wrong in religious argument as well.

I read that book and the Sam Harris book. They shocked my sensibility as I had never seen the case made against religion so directly. It was so un PC to not hem and haw and "respect" others views eventhough the nature of the claims in any other venue but religion would lead to universial mockery.

I found Hitchens book, god is not great, to be the best of the lot. But then I listened to it on tape and it was read by Hitchens so it is a somewhat different experience.

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.

I have been torn about the Dawkins confrontational approach. In the end I voted he rocks simply because I think there is some point in getting the atheist view more public play. And if no one is confrontational you get steamrolled.

 

[Doge Soprano]

With all the beheadings, inquisitions and all the stuff I think people got it easy. I think Dawkins' on the right track.

 

[Yared]

...atheist view more public play.

Dawkins is a pretty nice poser boy for strong-atheism.