Richard Dawkins.

[dillinger88]

I tend to find myself agreeing with everything he says, but I read part of the God Delusion and, while finding his points well made and understandable, his tone was downright antagonistic. Maybe thats acceptable considering some of the extreme antagonism from some religious leaders, but still.

Love his views, probably love the man if I met him, but he comes across badly in some cases. In others he shines though.

Basically this.

There is one problem I have, which isn't necessarily his fault. I'm mainly talking about the idiots on /r/athiesm here, but many atheist almost consider him a God of their anti-religion, you know? Some also endlessly regurgitate his words as if The God Delusion is their sort of bible.

It's quite ironic, really.

But yeah, I agree with what he says, even though he can be a dick about it.

EDIT:

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

While it can look that way, due to is antagonistic nature, I think he has a bit more standing as he generally backs his opinions up with facts.

Additionally, I think all he's asking is for people to think about things logically, not just straight up believe his opinions. As I said, its the brain-dead sect of his "followers" that revere him so much.

 

[Zach of Fables]

Dawkins is aggressive and unnecessarily condescending, but I still think he is a good guy and I'm glad that he's around. Shouldn't this thread belong in the Religion section though?

 

[C. Cain]

And is one more people need to fight.

How very true. It's so much more immediate (if not necessarily more important) than the more academic fight against religious tomfoolery. At least in the Western world.

 

[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.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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^

 

[lacktheknack]

I rather dislike him, as I get the constant impression that he dislikes me. A lot.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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:

Spoiler: You can't argue with the evidence...

 

[Velvo]

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.

 

[Jon Quixote]

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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:

Spoiler: You can't argue with the evidence...

Damn it, man! I just burst out laughing in class! D:

 

[SuperNova221]

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.

 

[Void(null)]

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.

 

[Vegetunks9000]

I think Dawkins is interesting but I don't really know what he ultimately hopes to achieve besides selling more books. It's pretty obvious to me that his style of delivery is more about making the converted feel vindicated rather than actually winning over anybody to his way of thinking. I guess there's a place for that but it doesn't really do much for me, I wish he had the same sense of reason but took a softer approach. As the saying goes, you attract more flies with honey.

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.

 

[Timmons]

he is a little too aggressive with his views, i haven't read too much of his material but what i have read is very good

 

[fenrizz]

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^

Not quite, my friend.

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?

 

[Preacher zer0]

How the fuck is he aggressive?
A bit condescending maybe, but not aggressive... Hitchens is aggressive man.

Dawkins is a nerd.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

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

 

[fenrizz]

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.

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.

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