Richard Dawkins.

[oktalist]

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.

True. But then whose field is it? Who on this planet is qualified to evaluate the unknowable?

Dawkins doesnt seem to think that growing out of being an antagonistic prick, actively seeking to insult millions, nay, billions of people, is something that you should do.

he just comes off as attacking all religion. He's an anti-theist, and I really don't respect those who can't respect others themselves.

Attacking the notion of religion is NOT the same as attacking religious people.

I just came across this clip which I feel is fitting after all the talk in this thread about being offensive and not respecting beliefs:

Spoiler

Also this, just for epic value:

Spoiler

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't know. I haven't read his books but I have seen a few clips on youtube involving him and, well, I like his accent.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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:

Well it really doesn't matter either way because I know what my opinion is.

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.

What is this evidence for God? I'd love to see it. And he isn't just repeating what he is told. The Celestial Teapot is a valid point that he brought up. Have you read any of Dawkins' material by chance? I'll wait for that evidence.

Quite a lot of people reporting spiritual experiences. Especially during near death experiences. Unexplained feats that could be seen as miracles. The proof of a man called Jesus. And it's one possible explanation for the creation of existence. I mean, I'm not saying that science is wrong but we still don't know quite a lot and it could explain why everything happened in the first place.
Of course, none of it is concrete, but you can't dismiss it completely.

And yes, I have gone threw The God Delusion briefly. It really didn't help my opinion of him.

Oh another thing about Dawkins. When he shows himself going to confront Christians, he always picks the idiotic, extremist evangelists and represents those as a typical Christian. His techniques are underhand and he doesn't seem to want to confront the core of Christianity, just the easy pickings. He also acts ilke an atheist zealot whilst seemingly accusing Christianity of doing the same, whereas most Christians aren't and just want to be kept in peace.

One, we don't know for certain that Jesus existed. Two, even if he did, he wasn't performing magic. Three, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmEkCJ87s&feature=player_detailpage#t=138s
Near Death Experiences explained. Four,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And The Selfish Gene is his most important work.
And don't try to tell me what an atheist is. I'm tired of some Christians doing that. I think that I know what I am better than you do.

 

[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:

Well it really doesn't matter either way because I know what my opinion is.

Well again, and I am sorry to say, but your opinion doesn't change the meaning of words. So, I think I would be doing you wrong to not politely tell you that you are mistaken.

If you choose to continue being mistaken that's fine, it doesn't bother me, but it means that you will end up with an inconsistent view of the world.

 

[vivster]

he's a science guy so i have to like him by principle

 

[AnarchistFish]

Because thinking it is has nothing to do with whether it actually is or not.

You could apply that to anything.

Oh so if I write a book that involves, say, Attila the Hun as our Lord and Savior that suddenly gives me extra credibility just because Attila is in it?

Well it would prove that the gospels aren't completely made up and there'd then be no proof to say the rest of it was.

There's only as much reason to not believe it as there is to not believe that we're all alien puppets.

Maybe we are. The point I'm trying to get across here is not that god must exist because we haven't proved he doesn't, but that we shouldn't say he doesn't just because there's no, or little, proof to say he does.

The lack of links is a good reason not to trust anything you say. People can say whatever they like on TV. I saw a show on the History channel about how there were special crystal skulls. And when it was pointed out that they had signs of modern technology to make them the response was along the lines of "It proves that there was extremely advanced technology that made them thousands of years ago!" So yeah, you playing telephone for the fricking TV is a terrible kind of evidence.

And people can't do that on the internet? There was one, specifically, which was a news item in France about Lourdes and how they decided if healings from terminal illnesses there were miracles or not. Healings there that were recorded as miracles were extremely rare because the guidelines for one being categorised as a miracle were pretty strict. I.e. the person who was healed couldn't have been taking any kind of medication, even if it wasn't for the disease in question. This doesn't reek of being unreliable evidence.

One, we don't know for certain that Jesus existed.

But evidence suggests he did.

Two, even if he did, he wasn't performing magic.

Ok I'll take your word for it.

Three, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmEkCJ87s&feature=player_detailpage#t=138s
Near Death Experiences explained.

NDEs aren't the only way this happens and there have been some supposed pretty incredible ones that are only massive coincidences otherwise.

Four,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"The point I'm trying to get across here is not that god must exist because we haven't proved he doesn't, but that we shouldn't say he doesn't just because there's no, or little, proof to say he does."

And don't try to tell me what an atheist is. . I'm tired of some Christians doing that. I think that I know what I am better than you do.

hahahahahaha holy shit. Ok, firstly I'm not a Christian. Secondly, I wasn't the one who started telling other people what their beliefs were.

Look, I can post links:
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=612
http://cherylthewriter.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-have-any-scientific-proof-that-Jesus-existed-or-is-it-just-our-faith
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Whether he existed or not is irrelevant if there are arguments that he did.

It really doesn't matter whether there is a god or not, because that isn't what this is about. The original point is that why should someone try to pressurise their opinion onto others just because they don't look at things the same way as those people? Yeah, maybe there isn't enough evidence to prove there's a god, but if we don't know 100% for sure, why try to force onto people that there isn't?

Actually there's a book which argues the existence of god call Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne(?)

 

[Zach of Fables]

I think Anti-theism has just as much right to be aggressive as theism has been for years.

A good number of anti-theists and generally those people who don't like religion being shoved down their throats just don't speak up about such things. It's a lot easier to just accept it. To accept your government spending a good chunk of money, in a time of recession on a visit from the pope.

Where as, he stands up and is more than willing to be counted and heard. Takes guts. Might not be for everyone, but, if somebody doesn't call people out on these things, who will?

It's one thing to say that anti-theists have the right to be jerks, and that they should speak out when religious people try to push them around. It's another thing to go out of your way to talk down to people, which is what Dawkins does and why it bothers me.

I am an atheist, but some atheists (including Dawkins) annoy me almost as much as religious people. Some of them hold their beliefs and stand up for themselves, yes. But other people only enter the conversation so that they can sneer at religious people for being "stupid" and then talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster a lot just to piss people off. This also somewhat applies to atheist societies with pretentious names like "Society for Free Thinkers."

I am against this for tactical reasons, i.e. that you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar, but also because it does reflect badly on atheists as a whole. The reality is that we are the vast minority in America, and if we want acceptance than we our attitude to be presentable. It shouldn't have to be that way but it is. I appreciate Dawkins' work in making "aggressive atheism" more in the spotlight, but I think there is room for improvement as well.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

I completely agree with everything you said - honestly, I've forgotten why I initially got into this argument in the first place.

 

[The Dutchess]

I pretty much agree with everything he says and I did a degree in genetics so I love his books but he does have a tendancy to be unto athiesm as a bible-thumper is unto christianity.
Loved the London Bus adverts though.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I've forgotten what I'm actually arguing about and this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I guess there's not much point in continuing.

But Dawkins is very deceitful, underhand, forceful and aggressive in his tactics.

 

[Zach of Fables]

But Dawkins is very deceitful, underhand, forceful and aggressive in his tactics.

Forceful and aggressive I would agree with. Maybe even underhanded. But how is he deceitful exactly?

 

[God52495]

I think he is a very wise, logical asshole to be blunt. I think he's the atheist version of Westboro Baptist Church, meaning he believes so much in what he says that he will scream it at people who don't give a fuck until he's foaming at the mouth. If he were more moderate and relaxed I'd love him but not until then.

 

[AnarchistFish]

But Dawkins is very deceitful, underhand, forceful and aggressive in his tactics.

Your evidence of this is what?

But Dawkins is very deceitful, underhand, forceful and aggressive in his tactics.

Forceful and aggressive I would agree with. Maybe even underhanded. But how is he deceitful exactly?

I've read parts of The God Delusion. He uses arguments that are irrelevant to the big picture. Such as, he accused a previous pope of being a hypocrite for accepting evolution as truth, and there was another argument he made against a belief which isn't even accepted in Christianity. This was a while ago so I can't remember many details but I remember reading it at the time thinking he was full of bullshit.

 

[Sanguich]

And don't try to tell me what an atheist is. I'm tired of some Christians doing that. I think that I know what I am better than you do.

Oh man. It's like an ocean of black pots and kettles in here.

Seriously though, Richard Dawkins makes no sense to me. He seems like a man desperately trying to prove that his work has no meaning.

From my point of view, it doesn't really matter weather God exists or not. I look at the big picture and see that either:

A) There is some sort of deity that created the universe for a reason.
or
B) All reality is a cosmic accident without meaning or purpose, and one day in the far future there will be no evidence that our lives, culture, country, or planet EVER existed at all.

There are a ton of good points Dawkins makes for B, but why would I want to believe that?

In fact, it was SCIENCE that helped make me think this way! Scientists are pretty agreed that the sun will run out of fuel, and entropy will lead to the heat death of universe.

Maybe I'm just less evolved than you guys, but I need option A to feel any good about life.

 

[Zach of Fables]

In case you haven't seen it, he's come out with a new book:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/richard-dawkins-the-magic-of-reality,63255/