What do you think about Dawkins?

[North King]

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.

Ech, you can be confrontational without being rude, in my opinion.

Moreover, I don't see a reason to proselytize the "atheist faith"; what's wrong with people being religious?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In my view, he should let the science do the talking. Me as an atheist, but more important as a thinking human being, have the tendency to go: Yes I get it, evolution not God. I got you the first 12 times as well. What am I? 6? Show the evidence, make the case, let people come to their own conclusion. Herding them to "the answer" kicking and screaming will breed resistance and defensive behaviour. Emotions take over and your whole point can be made with the best arguments around, you still won't drive it home.

Same standards I have for the other side of the debate. It's only fair.

Shame really, since he does make good points and knows what he's talking about.

 

[Danielos]

Ah, Christopher Hitchens is cool too. He is even more obnoxious than Dawkins, but his arguments and logic is brilliant! I think Atheists in USA might have the right to feel aggressive towards religion. The former Bush Sr said that Atheists were not true patriots and should not be considered citizens. Now is that a nice thing to say...

 

[Miles Teg]

My opinions on Dawkins are kind of mixed. On one hand, I'm kind of indebted to him for his books on evolution and intelligent design. A coherent case against creationism was one of the things that let me feel comfortable with Atheism.

On his religious positions, I'm more mixed. Sometimes I feel like his "rudeness" is blown out of proportion by religious people, and non-religious folks try to compromise by throwing him under a metaphorical bus. Other times, I do see what they mean, and Dawkins does seem like a jerk. And then of course there's the question of the level of discourse. Dawkins has certainly set himself against religion as it is popularly practiced, not the more high brow stuff, so it's hard to criticize him for not dealing with those issues. So overall, I'd say I'm neutral leaning towards favorable on the position of Dawkins

 

[Bei1052]

Troll, yeah. Then I guess every each one of us is a troll in real life, since we all want to have ourselves heard, we all want to talk about our ideas and get other people to understand us.

How evil of him, he should shut up and lock himself in a monastery somewhere in Ireland, I guess that would make the religious people happy. After all, silencing their opponents is their cherished tradition.

First and foremost, @ your post.

With that being done, why are you showing my Youtube videos? I know what Dawkins looks like, and I've most certainly heard him speak before. But, moving on, yes, I consider Dawkins a troll in real life. Running around declaring that thinking is anathema to religion and that the religious have a "brain disease" doesn't exactly constitute as "talking about your ideals and getting people to understand you". It makes you look like a pompous <enter appropriate word here>.

Buuut... I suppose you're conveniently blind to those things. It's amazing how people are so quick to point out the negative things the side they oppose does, but seem to wear rose colored glasses when persons on their side do the same.

 

[Flying Pig]

He's perhaps a little insensitive, but I think people do have to realise that religion doesn't have some sort of immunity from being criticised; it's not offensive to say that you think there's no evidence for God in the same way as I wouldn't be offended if you said there was no evidence for the USA

 

[Winner]

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.

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

 

[Winner]

First and foremost, @ your post.

With that being done, why are you showing my Youtube videos? I know what Dawkins looks like, and I've most certainly heard him speak before. But, moving on, yes, I consider Dawkins a troll in real life. Running around declaring that thinking is anathema to religion and that the religious have a "brain disease" doesn't exactly constitute as "talking about your ideals and getting people to understand you". It makes you look like a pompous <enter appropriate word here>.

Buuut... I suppose you're conveniently blind to those things. It's amazing how people are so quick to point out the negative things the side they oppose does, but seem to wear rose colored glasses when persons on their side do the same.

So, you're offended because Dawkins uses rational logic to support his views? Oh, that's bad but it certainly isn't Dawkins' fault.

We're back to one of the basic points: religion shuns criticism. It is acceptable to criticize everything from political views to your favourite cuisine, but when the usual standards of logical reasoning are demanded from religion, suddenly there are thousands and thousands of offended believers who call you "arrogant" and "rude".

Why is that? If religion is so true as it claims, it should be able to easily rebuke everything those arrogant atheists throw at it in a standardized debate. If religion is so reasonable as believers claim, why can't they find any solid arguments which would support its central tenets?

This is, I believe, why Dawkins is so hated in certain religious circles. He is the type of science guy who demands hard evidence which the religion can't provide and this frustrates maaaany believers a lot.

 

[GoodGame]

Would like to read one of his books sometime, but my opinion on the fundamental subject is made up.

 

[warpus]

He's like what, the only only "prominent" vocal atheist in the world?

Yeah, he gets a lot of crap for speaking his mind. I'm not a follower of his or anything, so I'm only familiar with some of the things he has said. But like, whatever, it's not like he's calling for the heads of the leaders of the major religions. Is he?

Is he calling for violence of any sort? Does he want to incite any sort of violence against the religious? Does he want to take away anyone's rights? Is he calling for anything that would harm anyone in any way? No?

Seems to me like he's pretty harmless, then. I mean, you might disagree with what he's saying, but I don't see him actually harming anyone, nor do I see anyone listening to his message and going out and doing harm.

I mean, I'm not going to convert and become a follower of Dawkins myself or anything (although I think he has made important contributions to several scientific fields, and will likely have some more), but I think it's good that we live in a society where our most respected and deeply held beliefs and convictions can be questioned and ridiculed.

 

[Flying Pig]

I love his bus campaign in London.

 

[Seon]

Richard Dawkins disliked that bus campaign . He wanted it to say "There is no god" instead of "There probably is no god"

 

[Bei1052]

So, you're offended because Dawkins uses rational logic to support his views? Oh, that's bad but it certainly isn't Dawkins' fault.

Well, first off, his use of "rational logic" is debatable, but I digress. I dislike Dawkins, when it comes to him and religion because, whenever someone asks him a question he doesn't like or can't answer, he makes a snide or condescending comment which doesn't even attempt to address the question.

We're back to one of the basic points: religion shuns criticism. It is acceptable to criticize everything from political views to your favourite cuisine, but when the usual standards of logical reasoning are demanded from religion, suddenly there are thousands and thousands of offended believers who call you "arrogant" and "rude".

I call Dawkins arrogant and rude not because he's an atheist nor questions religion-- I could care less about that-- But because he is a pompous, arrogant <enter appropriate word here>. Seriously. Why would I, or anyone, listen to someone who calls you dumb and tells you that you have a disease?

Why is that? If religion is so true as it claims, it should be able to easily rebuke everything those arrogant atheists throw at it in a standardized debate. If religion is so reasonable as believers claim, why can't they find any solid arguments which would support its central tenets?

Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. Ever wonder why he gets a disproportionate amount of criticism/hate?

This is, I believe, why Dawkins is so hated in certain religious circles. He is the type of science guy who demands hard evidence which the religion can't provide and this frustrates maaaany believers a lot.

...Or, it could do with the fact that he insults those who disagree with him. It's not this hard to understand. Seriously. It's not.

 

[Mowque]

After consideration, voted for the last option.

 

[Winner]

Well, first off, his use of "rational logic" is debatable, but I digress. I dislike Dawkins, when it comes to him and religion because, whenever someone asks him a question he doesn't like or can't answer, he makes a snide or condescending comment which doesn't even attempt to address the question.

I am going to have to ask for a concrete example again.

I call Dawkins arrogant and rude not because he's an atheist nor questions religion-- I could care less about that-- But because he is a pompous, arrogant <enter appropriate word here>. Seriously. Why would I, or anyone, listen to someone who calls you dumb and tells you that you have a disease?

Wow - what can I say? I don't see him as arrogant. Actually, he seems pretty humble on TV. He's not like some clerics in the religion of peace who spout damning judgements "this is wrong, you must die, you're gonna burn in hell, inshallah!"

Tell me, what exactly is arrogant about him?

Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. Ever wonder why he gets a disproportionate amount of criticism/hate?

Because he's the famous one? Don't forget he also gets a lot of praise, also disproportionate in comparison to other atheists.

Or because he's the one who actually cares to go to the offensive against religion? I know, religion expect us atheists to shut up and hide in the darkness where our evil ideas can't harm the flock, until we finally die and go to hell to be tortured for eternity for being rational, but that's just it, isn't it? Dawkins won't shut up - how impudent is that! Let's launch a vicious smear campaign!

/sarcasm

...Or, it could do with the fact that he insults those who disagree with him. It's not this hard to understand. Seriously. It's not.

Actually, it is without you supporting this assertion with some sort of proof. I've never seen ANYTHING coming from his mouth that could be possibly considered as insulting in certain reasonable limits.

If I tell you that you're wrong and explain why, it won't be an insult, but I can't prevent you from seeing it as insult.

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.

See the difference? Perception =//= fact. I want a solid example of Dawkins acting in what we all would agree is a rude, insulting way of dismissing an opponent.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

For variety's sake, here's Mencius Moldbug's argument that Dawkins has been pwned by neo-religion:

Part 1
Part 2
Interlude
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Fascinating stuff, pretty different from most of the stuff I read here or elsewhere. Derails a bit, though.

Edit: Somehow I missed the final Part 7

 

[Irish Caesar]

Actually, it is without you supporting this assertion with some sort of proof. I've never seen ANYTHING coming from his mouth that could be possibly considered as insulting in certain reasonable limits.

If I tell you that you're wrong and explain why, it won't be an insult, but I can't prevent you from seeing it as insult.

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.

See the difference? Perception =//= fact. I want a solid example of Dawkins acting in what we all would agree is a rude, insulting way of dismissing an opponent.

The fact that his book title states that those of the religious persuasion are mentally ill?

That said, I voted the middle option, as it seems the most sensible.

 

[Winner]

The fact that his book title states that those of the religious persuasion are mentally ill?

That said, I voted the middle option, as it seems the most sensible.

If you believe in a supernatural entity for which there is absolutely no evidence (like God, pink invisible unicorn or elves), then you ARE deluded.

I contest your assertion that he implied mental illness:

de·lu·sion (d-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution

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.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Moss]

If you believe in a supernatural entity for which there is absolutely no evidence (like God, pink invisible unicorn or elves), then you ARE deluded.

I contest your assertion that he implied mental illness:



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.

So believing there is something more to life than the material world is a mental illness? Is love a mental illness? Not everything can be explained rationally.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I contest your assertion that he implied mental illness:

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

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.

I know exactly what you believe; you're nothing if not clear on that point.



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.