Richard Dawkins.

[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.

 

[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.

You might as well complain if someone asserts that they don't have a stalker. Because that stalker might be invisible and intangible. Or that an election wasn't rigged. Because maybe mind controlling aliens rigged it. Or that there is no Illuminati plot to take over the world because you can't know for sure.

Any example you give, no matter how ridiculous, does not change the fact that what I originally said was accurate.

 

[afroebob]

Honestly I think he has a valid argument about evolution. For the most part you can see the proof of it just by looking at your parents and the traits they passed down to you.

P.S. to everyone who thinks that evolution and God go against eachother


<---- Christian

 

[afroebob]

Oh, sorry I edit myself. I confused him for Charles Darwin for a minute.

 

[BaronVonBob]

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.

I think it's kind of a two way street, you either accept others' beliefs and ask they accept yours, or you act like a total asshole about it and don't complain when others try to rip yours to shreds. It's a step backwards when we can't criticise each other any more, though, flaws need to be pointed out so things can be improved.

 

[latiasracer]

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.

I think it's kind of a two way street, you either accept others' beliefs and ask they accept yours, or you act like a total asshole about it and don't complain when others try to rip yours to shreds. It's a step backwards when we can't criticise each other any more, though, flaws need to be pointed out so things can be improved.

That's all very well, but this will never happen - These are humans we are talking about here. Anyway, my idea is that we all just Forget about this. The universe exsits, theres no reason to know why or how, it just does. I Could totally start a religon!

 

[SonicKoala]

It's worthless to say "Maybe it could happen" when there's no reason to think it would. When you give even the most unreasonable possibilities a "Maybe" then the whole idea of "Maybe" becomes worthless. Maybe we're all brains in a jar.

Once again, how are you disproving my original claim? If one is going to make an assertion - any assertion, particularly one as broad and all encompassing as "there is no God" - evidence needs to be provided to substantiate that claim. The process of presenting evidence to prove a claim is fundamental to the learning process. The claim "there is no God" should not be an exception to this, particularly when the very notion of "God" is itself contested and transitory.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the act of even bothering to provide evidence against God's existence is itself a frivolous task; why would one even bother providing evidence for something which is so ridiculous? Mind you, it is a point well taken, but I would suggest that it is a point founded in the rejection of God via logic or philosophy, since there is no direct, tangible evidence which can be used to prove God's non-existence.

My only point is that the assurance with which people often assert "there is no God" is unfounded. Are these people wrong in believing there is no God? Absolutely not - however, their strict adherence to such a belief is no less a form of "faith" than the faith exhibited by people who do believe in God.

 

[BaronVonBob]

That's all very well, but this will never happen - These are humans we are talking about here. Anyway, my idea is that we all just Forget about this. The universe exsits, theres no reason to know why or how, it just does. I Could totally start a religon!

You're right, I probably talk in theoretical too much. You never know though, one day humans might evolve to become tolerant. But there is reason to know how and why, the greatest scientific advances of the last ever have been made by people wanting to understand how things work. I'm not going to sit around and become a passive observer of the universe, never thinking or wondering or desiring to know anything. I don't want to be an ITV2 viewer.

 

[latiasracer]

That's all very well, but this will never happen - These are humans we are talking about here. Anyway, my idea is that we all just Forget about this. The universe exsits, theres no reason to know why or how, it just does. I Could totally start a religon!

You're right, I probably talk in theoretical too much. You never know though, one day humans might evolve to become tolerant. But there is reason to know how and why, the greatest scientific advances of the last ever have been made by people wanting to understand how things work. I'm not going to sit around and become a passive observer of the universe, never thinking or wondering or desiring to know anything. I don't want to be an ITV2 viewer.

Ewwww, I feel ill - Please don't mention ITV.
Anyway, youve got a point but what i meant is the creation of the universe thing, Causes alot of Conflict and arguments. So thats why it would just be a good idea to say "IT HAPPENED. DEAL WID IT." Because then everyone would just magically become friends, and we would ride Unicorns of into the magical rainbow forest. So by all means, dont be a ITV viewer and just watch the universe go by - But im sure humanity will accept this and we can finally just stop fight...Oh Crap.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I don't know much beyond his hatred of religion so I'll assume all that sciency business is all well and good..

Now his business with hating religion on the other hand is a bit off.. his entire argument is based on the idea that everything that exists around us and everything you can see with your own eyes is real and that faith in anything else is wrong..
True he makes his opinions with facts but he makes the same mistake of everybody who sticks to evolution disproving all of religion.. there is no proof that anything is as linear as science thinks everything should be, for all we know human life could have started whenever God did create the world (4000 years ago or something) and he just put all the stuff there to make us do something different..

To cut a long story short.. he replaces a faith in god with a faith in science.. and yes its a faith until he goes and talks to the creator or studies how everything began (not just the big bang business as in who put matter in the universe, etc.) and then I might believe him, assuming our take on science is actually right of course and not some religion..

Personally I think we're all in the Matrix.. ha disprove that..

 

[kyllmikael]

Douglas Adams liked him so I like him.