Richard Dawkins.

[latiasracer]

Far To Agressive for my liking. The Worst types of people are A.) Religous Zelots B.) Agressive Athiests.

What ever happend to respect others beliefs eh?

 

[Grospoliner]

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.

In that case would you be fine with permitting only scientists to comment on policy regarding science topics then? Like stem cell research, cloning, nuclear energy, alternative energy, global warming?

If you are then you should condemn first, all those who throw their two cents in on any old topic. If not, then you're hypocritical.

 

[Grospoliner]

Far To Agressive for my liking. The Worst types of people are A.) Religous Zelots B.) Agressive Athiests.

What ever happend to respect others beliefs eh?

Forcing your believes on another is not respecting theirs. The same goes for demanding respect for your belief. That's not the slightest bit arrogant to you is it? Expecting others to respect your beliefs without challenging them? Have you ever considered that, when your belief is challenged, that you maybe need to meet that challenge head on and see where it takes you? Maybe you're not really that confident in your belief after all if you're so intimidated by people challenging it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

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 he is pretty awesome.

I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.

One can dream though.

Like here^

You're aware you basically said the same thing fenrizz said, but the reverse argument. No explanations and no evidence for your claims - enlighten me.

 

[Flamezdudes]

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.

In that case would you be fine with permitting only scientists to comment on policy regarding science topics then? Like stem cell research, cloning, nuclear energy, alternative energy, global warming?

If you are then you should condemn first, all those who throw their two cents in on any old topic. If not, then you're hypocritical.

You can comment on it all you like and have your own opinion etc. But to officially involve yourself in debates with other philosophers/theologians and make programs about Religion and God when you aren't involved in that field is just stupid.

 

[AnarchistFish]

You cannot honestly expect me to disprove the existence of god.

Such a feat is impossible.

You're not listening. The fact is, there is some evidence which would suggest the possibility of a god which Dawkins ignores, and the arguments Dawkins makes in his books are badly made and generally inaccurate.

The Celestial Teapot was used to show that the burden of proof should be on the one making an extraordinary claim. You missed his point.

No I didn't. My point is he's just repeating things that he's been told and isn't trying to argue back at what arguments for a god there are.

The whole "indoctrination" argument is pretty stupid too since you can be raised religious or atheist.

It really infuriates me when people just talk about "common sense" when it comes to religion.

Yeah, in order to argue against "evidence" for god, there'd need to be, you know, evidence for god. The fact that you constantly bring up that there is evidence for this being yet you never give an example of this isn't helping your case, really. It just proves his point.

Well you haven't been reading my posts then.

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 he is pretty awesome.

I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.

One can dream though.

Like here^

You're aware you basically said the same thing fenrizz said, but the reverse argument. No explanations and no evidence for your claims - enlighten me.

I don't have any claims. As I said, I'm agnostic. But that doesn't mean I don't think people, including atheists, should actually back up their arguments and their attacks on religion. Because the "there's no evidence for a god" argument doesn't work, especially on its own like that.

 

[julkip]

Love him, the world needs more Dawkins' and far less religious fanatics

 

[irani_che]

If he is remembered just for what he says about religion he will be miserable.
He loves his science and he cannot stand anything trodding their dirty boots on it be it religion or obnoxious legal ppl or beurecracy etc

 

[Hides His Eyes]

I think he's an extremely intelligent man and a fantastic writer, and I agree with almost everything in The God Delusion. My only problem with him is his TV documentaries, which are just not very good. He always puts in a voice over of him talking over the people he interviews while they're answering his questions. It's a shame because there are probably a lot of people who would really benefit from reading his brilliant books, but they see one of the TV shows and conclude he's an asshole, and don't get near his books.

 

[martin's a madman]

He's wasting his life. Faith is beyond reason, and the sooner he realises that the sooner he can start doing something constructive.

Not beyond reason, but a refusal to be reasonable.

Beyond reason implies that it is more meritous to be faithful than rational.


Additionally, there is no way to say for sure that the objects of these religions are beyond human comprehension.



I've read Dawkins' books and he doesn't explicitly state there is absolutely no god, nor does he say it's a superior position to be atheist. He's merely advocating for the use of reason when making decisions about these things.

Furthermore, in a modern context, choosing to believe in a god is an irrational position.

I don't have any claims. As I said, I'm agnostic. But that doesn't mean I don't think people, including atheists, should actually back up their arguments and their attacks on religion. Because the "there's no evidence for a god" argument doesn't work, especially on its own like that.

Agnostic isn't a statement of belief. It's a statement of knowledge, your position is that we cannot know whether a god exists or not. If you haven't been sufficiently convinced that there is a god (enough so to believe in it) then you are a non-believer or, atheist.

You can be Agnostic-Theist (We can't know, but you believe)

Agnostic-Atheist (We can't know, however you're not convinced a god exists and therefore it doesn't feature among things which you believe)

Gnostic-theist (I know we can prove there is a god, and it exists)

Gnostic-Atheist (The existence of god can be known, and it doesn't exist)

Richard Dawkins, is basicly what all atheists would look like, if atheism was a religion.
He's about as dogmatic about evolution as church leaders are dogmatic about God.

Well, not quite.

Because if something new were discovered and verified experimentally that fundamentally altered our picture of evolution, Dawkins and every other scientist would adapt their view to suit the newest obeservation which is quite the opposite of being dogmatic.

Scientists can be stubborn of course, but that actually assists the scientific method in ensuring people attempting to falsify a theory go to great lengths to do so.

 

[RobotZombieNinja]

Richard Dawkins, is basicly what all atheists would look like, if atheism was a religion.
He's about as dogmatic about evolution as church leaders are dogmatic about God.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I don't have any claims. As I said, I'm agnostic. But that doesn't mean I don't think people, including atheists, should actually back up their arguments and their attacks on religion. Because the "there's no evidence for a god" argument doesn't work, especially on its own like that.

Agnostic isn't a statement of belief. It's a statement of knowledge, your position is that we cannot know whether a god exists or not. If you haven't been sufficiently convinced that there is a god (enough so to believe in it) then you are a non-believer or, atheist.

No. Atheism only applies when you are certain there is no god. I'm agnostic in that I haven't been convinced for sure either way.

 

[martin's a madman]

I don't have any claims. As I said, I'm agnostic. But that doesn't mean I don't think people, including atheists, should actually back up their arguments and their attacks on religion. Because the "there's no evidence for a god" argument doesn't work, especially on its own like that.

Agnostic isn't a statement of belief. It's a statement of knowledge, your position is that we cannot know whether a god exists or not. If you haven't been sufficiently convinced that there is a god (enough so to believe in it) then you are a non-believer or, atheist.

No. Atheism only applies when you are certain there is no god. I'm agnostic in that I haven't been convinced for sure either way.

Well, sorry to say but you're not exactly correct.

Atheism is non-belief in a god. You can have strong atheism where you are sure there is no god, but weak atheism is also atheism.

Weak Atheism being of course, you're not convinced that there is a god.


If someone told me there was an apple sitting on the table in one room, but I was in another room, I could either insist the person is wrong, accept what they are saying, or not be convinced enough to make a decision.

If I haven't been convinced enough to make a decision, by default, I don't believe there is an apple. I lack belief in that apple.

I'd recommend this video for you:

 

[Monkey_Warfare]

You need to be agressive when countering religion as religion is aggressive. This man does so encouraging people to look objectively at something and form their own opinion, the antipathy of what religion encourages, especially the likes of islam and christianity. The mindless acceptance of words spouted 2000 years ago is damaging to society, people say it gives guidance on morality but you merely twist the bibles/Korans/Torah etc meaning to fit your morality, this can clearly be seen in America where somehow a book that spouts austerity is used by people who encourage reckless greed (republicans if you couldn't guess). The only religion I have any respect for is Buddhism, though I have never really looked at Hinduism or Jainism. All the rest are just glorified cults.
Personally I am a hunter of the Invisible pink unicorn, I will find it someday and mount its head above my fireplace.

 

[Verlander]

Dawkins rails against the evils of following religion and believing in a figure attempting to convey the word of God by...

Asking people to follow his beliefs while being a figure attempting to convey the word of Science.

Yep. He's happy to promote various Humanist secular-religions, it's hypocritical at best.

I don't really have any respect for someone who makes his money and fame off of trolling people, and Hitchens falls square in the same category. Dawkins is a great writer though, even if the content is questionable.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Simple question: what do you think of him, and why?

On genetics, which is actually his field, I have it on good faith that he's brilliant.

On religion/atheism, he sucks. 'The God Delusion' is basically him inviting us to laugh at how stupid a bunch of uneducated hicks are and expecting it to be revolutionary. He picks soft targets, expects us to be surprised when they verbally or ideologically poo their pants and the claims there's a conclusion to be had in this. He displays no knowledge of religious or ideological history, even less of theological argumentation or academic religious study, yet claims to be able to tell us something meaningful about religion as a social force.

If it was written in an academic work rather than a middle-brow cash in he'd have been completely crucified for it. Dawkins himself is too smart not to know this, thus either he lacks the common sense to stick to what he's good at and wrote a wildly successful middle-brow book by accident, or he very cynically wrote a book with the intention of garnering lots of attention and money from people who believe themselves to be more intelligent than they probably are, and (consequentially) believe him to be more authoritative than he probably is.

 

[SonicKoala]

As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.

I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.

Those two statements aren't compatible. It is highly likely that there is no God, but to assert outright that there is no God is fallacious in nature. Please note that I'm not suggesting absence of evidence is evidence in and of itself - all I'm saying is that nobody can say with absolute certainty "there is no God". Surely someone who evidently prides themselves on their use of logic and rationale should be aware of such a thing.

 

[Fleaman]

I'm a huge atheist, and in private I consider spirituality unuseful and narrow-minded and faith downright dangerous. I do not think that saying this is a good way to convert people to my point of view. I think building the credibility of science and disbelief is an extremely noble and pragmatic goal, and I think that Dawkins and other offensive atheist proponents push more people away than they bring over. We need more Bill Nyes and Neil deGrasse Tysons and even Adams and Jamies to make science accessible and admirable to everyone.

 

[latiasracer]

Far To Agressive for my liking. The Worst types of people are A.) Religous Zelots B.) Agressive Athiests.

What ever happend to respect others beliefs eh?

Forcing your believes on another is not respecting theirs. The same goes for demanding respect for your belief. That's not the slightest bit arrogant to you is it? Expecting others to respect your beliefs without challenging them? Have you ever considered that, when your belief is challenged, that you maybe need to meet that challenge head on and see where it takes you? Maybe you're not really that confident in your belief after all if you're so intimidated by people challenging it.

I Dont Believe in anything, I just think we could all just be freinds? Regardless of belief. And theres no need to go around saying " I Am right, theres no God you are wrong" Because that's just rude. Ok, You dont have to worship anything if you dont want to - But other people might do and you have to respect that. Telling them that they are wrong, is not right and very very rude. And if you noticed i said Zelots are just as bad as he is, I agree with you - forcing your religon apon to others is wrong. But Telling someone who is, for example : Christian that their religon is wrong and that you are right is just as damn well bad.

 

[Arsen]

I'm a Christian. I also think he's a brilliant scientist, geneticist, and genuinely great guy as a person. However, I have to say that I believe that since he was raised by his parents to follow "natural science" and has been so involved in a world filled with scientific theory, evidence, discovery, etc...that any rational thought pertaining to theology, religion, or otherwise is lost to him. Mainly due to the fact that he applies those very same models and mental definitions of faith, religion, and God to persuade people that nothing "unobservable" to him can count as a fact. He's exceptionally opinionated and I view it as somewhat discrediting towards his status as a high end scientific figure to automatically assume such things. It waters his true credibility down whenever he tries to speak about a field of study and knowledge that isn't exactly reliable upon mere physical observation.

As a matter of fact, some of his points are the exact same things and perceptions I had of religion and Christianity in Junior High. AKA: Before I even had a grasp as to what it was really about. He comes across as downright arrogant considering his inability to see eye to eye with everything. Not to mention he groups ever single legend, myth, folklore, religion, creation story, etc...under the exact same category, without seeing if one of them could possibly be true to one extent or another. (Don't quote the bad ones just to prove your point if you quote me to death folks). Science doesn't discount religion. It flows with it in many directions.

Once again: Good scientist. Bad theologian, historian, or otherwise.