He's a great biologist but he needs to stay the fuck away from Philosophical debates about God. It's not his field and he should stay out of it.
Richard Dawkins.
- Thread starter similar.squirrel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
Like here^fenrizz said:
Oh come now, he doesn't really exist, Although I think he does show just how talented and ranging Emma Watsons acting abilities really are:
I have to say, while I respect Dr. Dawkins immensely for the work he has done to further science and weed out ignorance and pseudo-science, his aggressive anti-religious adherence is a bit off putting.
I'm not one to come out in support of religious dogma or anything, but there is indeed something inherent in the human system which seeks higher meaning in an abstract and metaphysical sense. Certainly, religious thought is not the only way to seek this metaphysical longing (I myself have constructed my own theories on the nature of reality), but it is a primary part of many people's lives. It is tied to their culture and self-identity.
When someone comes along to deliberately and aggressively shake your belief structure, it's not just shaking your belief. It can come as an assault on your culture and indeed, your identity within that culture. It is INSULTING.
I'm sure Dr. Dawkins only means to spread the practice of scientific inquisitive thought to replace superstitious thinking, but critical thinking can and does exist within the confines of spiritual life.
I'm not a religious man myself, nor would I call myself particularly spiritual, but I respect a person's background and, while I may call things into question about their thoughts on observable phenomena, I leave matters of faith alone. I personally cannot find reason enough to believe in the sanctity of any particular dogma, but I cannot tell another person that their long held belief is totally wrong when I have NO REAL SUBSTITUTE. Physics and Metaphysics are pretty different.
The best that you can do is inspire true critical thought in people and lead them to come up with their own questions about their particular faith. If a person cannot bring themselves to question their faith THEMSELVES, then they merely have not yet gained that basic scientific epistemology that we can truly KNOW nothing. Perhaps that is the divide that most separates the devout from the secular.
The tenants of science are indeed important and ever-present in human logic and should be spread far and wide, but only in conjunction with a healthy respect for culture and context.
I'm not one to come out in support of religious dogma or anything, but there is indeed something inherent in the human system which seeks higher meaning in an abstract and metaphysical sense. Certainly, religious thought is not the only way to seek this metaphysical longing (I myself have constructed my own theories on the nature of reality), but it is a primary part of many people's lives. It is tied to their culture and self-identity.
When someone comes along to deliberately and aggressively shake your belief structure, it's not just shaking your belief. It can come as an assault on your culture and indeed, your identity within that culture. It is INSULTING.
I'm sure Dr. Dawkins only means to spread the practice of scientific inquisitive thought to replace superstitious thinking, but critical thinking can and does exist within the confines of spiritual life.
I'm not a religious man myself, nor would I call myself particularly spiritual, but I respect a person's background and, while I may call things into question about their thoughts on observable phenomena, I leave matters of faith alone. I personally cannot find reason enough to believe in the sanctity of any particular dogma, but I cannot tell another person that their long held belief is totally wrong when I have NO REAL SUBSTITUTE. Physics and Metaphysics are pretty different.
The best that you can do is inspire true critical thought in people and lead them to come up with their own questions about their particular faith. If a person cannot bring themselves to question their faith THEMSELVES, then they merely have not yet gained that basic scientific epistemology that we can truly KNOW nothing. Perhaps that is the divide that most separates the devout from the secular.
The tenants of science are indeed important and ever-present in human logic and should be spread far and wide, but only in conjunction with a healthy respect for culture and context.
From everything I've seen and read from Dawkins, he's just about the most soft-spoken and non-confrontational atheist I've ever encountered. He's practically the opposite of a Chris Hitchens, PZ Meyers, or Jerry Coyne.
Now, that said, he's blunt when he writes about certain topics. There's no denying that. The man doesn't bandy words when he starts talking about the things that, because of science and of rational inquiry in general, we can be reasonably confident are true or false.
But somehow, the content of his arguments always gets conflated with irrelevant controversies about "tone". As if it could possibly his mode of speech, rather than what he actually says, that offends theistic believers (and their best allies, the politically-correct relativists who quail at critical thinking and the honest search for truth, mistaking it for fundamentalist intolerance).
Long story short, I don't care what "tone" Dawkins takes, but I do approve of the blunt delivery. The "flies with honey" argument simply does not hold water where religious belief is concerned, especially in the USA, where the stigma of unbelief is still very strong. It is, generally speaking, the religious who have social carte blanche in America to be intolerant of atheists. If a few confrontational words are shocking enough to get some of the more middle-of-the-road believers to reexamine what they think, more power to Dawkins for it.
Now, that said, he's blunt when he writes about certain topics. There's no denying that. The man doesn't bandy words when he starts talking about the things that, because of science and of rational inquiry in general, we can be reasonably confident are true or false.
But somehow, the content of his arguments always gets conflated with irrelevant controversies about "tone". As if it could possibly his mode of speech, rather than what he actually says, that offends theistic believers (and their best allies, the politically-correct relativists who quail at critical thinking and the honest search for truth, mistaking it for fundamentalist intolerance).
Long story short, I don't care what "tone" Dawkins takes, but I do approve of the blunt delivery. The "flies with honey" argument simply does not hold water where religious belief is concerned, especially in the USA, where the stigma of unbelief is still very strong. It is, generally speaking, the religious who have social carte blanche in America to be intolerant of atheists. If a few confrontational words are shocking enough to get some of the more middle-of-the-road believers to reexamine what they think, more power to Dawkins for it.
Why should I listen to him when he writes everything in the most off-putting way possible? When the man learns some tact, I'll listen. You don't pay attention to religious people that scram at you that you're going to hell, do you? I don't listen to people who crow that everything I know is wrong with a big smirk on their face.fenrizz said:
Damn it, man! I just burst out laughing in class! D:Hero in a half shell said:Oh come now, he doesn't really exist, Although I think he does show just how talented and ranging Emma Watsons acting abilities really are:
His books are incredibly well written. Very easy to understand. Although perhaps sometimes while reading his books I wish he'd just be serious instead of glib, contsantly trying to mock who he is trying to "help", for lack of better words, is not a good way to go about it.
Other than that, I love that he promotes scientific inquirey, applying objectivism to reach conclusions, not falling for logical fallacies, having a thirst for knowledge etc etc.
Other than that, I love that he promotes scientific inquirey, applying objectivism to reach conclusions, not falling for logical fallacies, having a thirst for knowledge etc etc.
I actually like his methods as well as what he has to say. While I don't think it is the way I wish to oppose Religious control, and I am glad that most Scientists choose to allow the evidence to speak for itself... it's nice to know we have at least one crazy zealous bastard taking the fight to them in language they understand.
Well said. He is a great writer. But he does seem to wanna make other beliefs a laughing stock. Each to their own i say.BonsaiK said:
Not quite, my friend.AnarchistFish said:
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
How the fuck is he aggressive?
A bit condescending maybe, but not aggressive... Hitchens is aggressive man.
Dawkins is a nerd.
A bit condescending maybe, but not aggressive... Hitchens is aggressive man.
Dawkins is a nerd.
He has nice hair and he dresses humbly,but his teeth could use some work. Not as attractive as Bertrand Russel or Oscar Wilde,but I'd still hit it.
nothing like the rugged-soft ass of a philosopher
:3
nothing like the rugged-soft ass of a philosopher
:3
I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.lacktheknack said:
No amount of scare-tactics or screaming is going to change that, so there is no point in listening to them.
He doesn't say that everything you know is wrong, he just says that there is no god.
Non-religious documents prove the existence of a man at the time who fits the description of Jesus. And by your logic we can't know for sure anything about the history of the world before our lifetime. Calling them "fairy tales" is pretty condescending and arrogant too.fenrizz said:
If you want to attack something, you have to research what it stands for, and what it says, properly. Dawkins doesn't.fenrizz said:
Using another leaf out of the Dawkins book? There'd be no purpose or reason for a teapot to be orbiting the sun.fenrizz said:
People have had religious experiences and as I said, there is proof of Jesus existing. Whether he was the son of god or not is another question but why do you completely deny something may be true just because you don't think that other people's evidence, opinion or experience matters?
And why do you ask me anyway? I already said I'm not Christian.
But you pretty much admit that you haven't actually got an argument to fight the opposing side, and are just relying on propaganda fed to you and the presumption that what you say is sensible.
Hence, "everything I know is wrong". I don't think you understand how central the idea of God can be.fenrizz said:
Anyways, fine. I don't listen to Dawkins because there is a God, simple as that. No amount of antagonistic musings from one incredibly narrow viewpoint will change that, so there is no point in listening to him.
(The WTF you felt when you read that is about identical to mine when I read your version. Deal with it.)
I rather like him. He's one of those people I'd wish I could share a beer with one day, though obviously I never will.
Not to mention that hilarious essay he wrote on post-modern writing.C. Cain said:
On the topic of his antagonistic attitude towards religion:
Who started it? I'm genuinely curious as to what led him down the path of trying to combat such a widespread and ingrained stupidity. Did somebody of the Godly persuasion take a pot-shot at his work, or did he get pissed off of his own accord?