Richard Dawkins.

[Spitfire-IX]

He's the Atheist version of the crazy street preacher. He gives us Atheists a bad name by coming out with Ignorant and inflammatory bollocks when it comes to Religion, and hiding behind his Degrees and books to do so.

Like the preacher, I just wish he would shut up about God so can do my shopping in peace. unlike the preacher otherwise clever people hang on his every word like he's the flipping Pope.

 

[Hollock]

I haven't read his books, but usually like his videos I see him do. I gotta get one of his books, which is best?

 

[KeyMaster45]

I don't listen to people who crow that everything I know is wrong with a big smirk on their face.

Sorry, I just felt that was somehow appropriate to this thread.

OT: I'd never heard of the guy until that one episode of South Park, still don't know much about him other than he's the guy responsible for the flying spaghetti monster.(all hail his noodly appendage!) I watched him read some of his hate mail on YouTube once, it was rather entertaining.

 

[HK_01]

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.

But really, I want to keep out of this whole argument. I really want to remain someone who has never felt mod-wrath and these religious debates usually get quite intense and I myself know that I can say things which might seem condescending or aggressive...

So anyway, on topic: I really like Richard Dawkins. He's entertaining and intelligent. He argues his points very well, I love his books, though sometimes there are things I don't agree with 100%. And to all those who say he's too antagonistic: He isn't. Usually he's very reserved and polite, especially if you compare him to people like Christopher Hitchens (on the atheists' side) or, well, a whole lot of religious nuts who are telling people who don't share their beliefs that they're worth nothing, are hated by god, etc.

 

[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: