Richard Dawkins-I Am Not A Fan

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Regarding Dawkins, I find it odd that people complain about his delivery style and then post videos of people like Dusty and the Amazing Atheist. 

Quoted for fucking TRUTH!

[Thurisaz]

I'm late to the thread, and it's late here so I can't motivate myself to read through the entire thread. Apologies to all those whose points I should have read but didn't.

 

That said...

 

...from what I know about Dawkins it seems to me that he is mostly a cool dude... but some of the things he states, and the way how he states them, somehow rub me the wrong way. Seems to me he's taking some things too far, though I'm willing to believe that's not his intention.

 

To the tired and *ahem* tipsy person who I am at this moment, ironically one thing seems to stand out currently, and it is not connected at all to morontheism or atheism or whatever other "religion thing" you can imagine... but to what he said regarding one incident involving a proponent of feminism.

 

If you don't know about "the elevator incident", I'm sure googling for "dawkins" and "elevator" will enlighten you... for now I just want to say: I can kind of understand why he thinks that a certain someone overreacted, but I think I can also understand where that other person is coming from... and given Dawkins' pretty obvious intellectual capacity I'd think he should have done better. All assuming, of course, that I got everything right... which may or may not be right. Oh well.

 

I should go to sleep. Time approaching 10pm for an early bird and vodka blood orange are a dangerous combo

[Neverlandrut]

I am a fan of some of his one liners. I have only watched one clip in which he came across to me as too harsh. I, myself, am not necessarily anti-theistic. I think people who take a militant approach in criticizing religion risk looking like the very thing they are attacking. In my little corner of the world, most theists are not militant evangelists. I don't ultimately care what people believe so long as they aren't harming themselves or pushing it on others. I like debate if people are open to it, but never mean to disrespect anyone for simply holding a particular opinion.

[Castiel233]

 

 

 

I am the only one to find Richard Dawkins a bit of a bore. I don’t rate him as an atheist thinker one jot. I found the God delusion to be one of the very worst books on the subject. His statements are sometimes unkind, bizarre and on occasion wicked. Compared to the late Carl Sagan, Dawkins comes a very poor second. On every level I find Sagan superior. Sagan was a better writer, a better explainer and I suspect a better man, given the public statements of the two.

 

Dawkins reminds me of the sad uncle, in his 70’s trying to dance at the disco, while the 30’s generation look on at him with pity.

 

 His refusal to debate WLC smacked of cowardice, no matter how he squared it.  

 

Others might think he is a great defender of the (non) faith. I simply just don’t buy it.

 

I dream of the day, the Christian faith collapses, but Dawkins is not the man, I want to lead the charge.

 

Er ... no. His refusal to debate to William "Lame" Craig did not "smack of cowardice." There is no reason for any sensible person to "debate" his Lameness. 

 

I disagree and so do other atheists

 

 

I disagree with you and so do other atheists. There was no point in such a useless debate that would only preach to the choir.

 

Dawkins views on Downs, and his defence of date rape and sex offenders are appalling. 

 

 

 

Sorry to be frank, but you have to be a downright idiot to interpret what he said as "defending date rape and sex offenders."

 

As for what he said about Downs, are the nearly 90% of women who choose to abort "appalling" too?

 

Having saying "Sorry to be Frank" and then implying I am an idiot  feel free to shove your remarks and your "apology". My views on abortion are private until I chosse to share them, baiting a question to second guess my opinion is poor form indeed.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

"I doubt that Islam is interested in living in peace with non Muslims."

 

In India I saw them living side by side quite peacefully.  I know there have been incidents, but what country with a billion people isn't going to have some of those? 

 

Same goes for Thailand. 

 

Malaysia seemed pretty peaceful too, but I was only there a short time so it's not a valid impression I guess. 

 

Anec-data again...

 

 

You can dispute it if you want.  Surely if I'm wrong there will be a plethora of news regarding Muslims in Thailand and India going Jihad on their neighbors.  And is it anecdotal to point out that Muslims live side by side with non Muslims in Thailand or is the anecdote only applied to the word 'peaceful'? 

 

Or, should I just point out the claim that Muslims can't get along with their neighbors is an extraordinary one?   

 

When you figure it out, let me know. 

 

I have to agree… I know quite a few Muslims.. and I ask them to explain this stuff to me, because I'm curious what the horse has to say.. the people who have actually experienced life in other countries… and not seeing a whole lot of terrorist/fascists among them. It's when religion and POLITICS get together that we have problems… and political correctness run wild. My friend from Syria (Syrian Christian) said she lived very peacefully with her Muslim neighbours her whole life until the fanatics started bombing mosques and churches.

 

My Muslim friend from Bangladesh said he lived peacefully with his Christian, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist neighbours… except for the Pakistani's.. he told me they have always been considered violent and barbaric (? what do I know, I'm not from there.. just sharing what he said)

 

I have friends from Somalia and Sudan.. they said there was no problem between religions until the fanatics started shit…and started forcing people to convert... my point is that most of the Muslims I know are pretty much regular people, with families, who aren't interested in the more extreme of their religion.. of course I know those who have immigrated here, that could be a big difference.

 

I also know an Iraqi… he says his people are nuts. Take it for what it's worth I guess.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I doubt that Islam is interested in living in peace with non Muslims."

 

In India I saw them living side by side quite peacefully. I know there have been incidents, but what country with a billion people isn't going to have some of those?

 

Same goes for Thailand.

 

Malaysia seemed pretty peaceful too, but I was only there a short time so it's not a valid impression I guess.

Anec-data again...

You can dispute it if you want. Surely if I'm wrong there will be a plethora of news regarding Muslims in Thailand and India going Jihad on their neighbors. And is it anecdotal to point out that Muslims live side by side with non Muslims in Thailand or is the anecdote only applied to the word 'peaceful'?

 

Or, should I just point out the claim that Muslims can't get along with their neighbors is an extraordinary one?

 

When you figure it out, let me know.

I have to agree… I know quite a few Muslims.. and I ask them to explain this stuff to me, because I'm curious what the horse has to say.. the people who have actually experienced life in other countries… and not seeing a whole lot of terrorist/fascists among them. It's when religion and POLITICS get together that we have problems… and political correctness run wild. My friend from Syria (Syrian Christian) said she lived very peacefully with her Muslim neighbours her whole life until the fanatics started bombing mosques and churches.

 

My Muslim friend from Bangladesh said he lived peacefully with his Christian, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist neighbours… except for the Pakistani's.. he told me they have always been considered violent and barbaric (? what do I know, I'm not from there.. just sharing what he said)

 

I have friends from Somalia and Sudan.. they said there was no problem between religions until the fanatics started shit…and started forcing people to convert... my point is that most of the Muslims I know are pretty much regular people, with families, who aren't interested in the more extreme of their religion.. of course I know those who have immigrated here, that could be a big difference.

 

I also know an Iraqi… he says his people are nuts. Take it for what it's worth I guess.

Is suspect that most Muslims, like most Chritians, are normal people just trying to live their lives in peace the best way they know how. I imagine that most of them do not hold the extreme views of others. I've known a few Muslim exchange students from when I was in college. They were very friendly and kind, which may or may not mean anything. But they fit it and made friends with everyone around them just fine. They certainly seemed genuine.

[Bedouin]

I see Dawkins much the same way I view Al Sharpton. I may not agree with the way they say things, but I do agree that SOMEONE needs to say it.

[midniterider]

 

I've been listening to a podcast called 'A Matter of Doubt' and one of the hosts has been in on going conversations with a Jehovah Witness, which he periodically updates the listens on. After many meetings and conversations, he finally managed to persuade one of them to read a book on evolution only to have all his efforts undone by a belittling comment from Richard Dawkins on the back of the book.

 

That makes me think of Dan Barker's book "Godless." It's a very good book and Dan has a very gracious attitude, even when pointing out problems with Christianity. His book could be an eye opener for some believers, yet I would be hesitant to loan it to a Christian because the foreword by Dawkins has a comment or two that are very condescending. I can imagine someone being so offended by that foreword that he/she never even attempts to read the actual book.

 

Anyway, I read Dawkins' "God Delusion." He does make some good points in it, but I was really taken back by some of his comments toward the end of the book. He claimed that teaching children religious belief is worse than pedophilia! That is an asinine broadbrushing that blows my mind. How can a brilliant scientist make such idiotic comments?

 

 

Well, I only made it through 155 pages of that book then decided Dawkins' version of atheism was not for me. So I never got to his pedophilia comparison but it would appear that comment was backed by emotions and not reason. There are varying degrees of religious indoctrination and there are other religions besides Christianity that dont preach fear and guilt. Not everyone who is religious is damaged by it. Some people actually enjoy it. :-)

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

I've been listening to a podcast called 'A Matter of Doubt' and one of the hosts has been in on going conversations with a Jehovah Witness, which he periodically updates the listens on. After many meetings and conversations, he finally managed to persuade one of them to read a book on evolution only to have all his efforts undone by a belittling comment from Richard Dawkins on the back of the book.

That makes me think of Dan Barker's book "Godless." It's a very good book and Dan has a very gracious attitude, even when pointing out problems with Christianity. His book could be an eye opener for some believers, yet I would be hesitant to loan it to a Christian because the foreword by Dawkins has a comment or two that are very condescending. I can imagine someone being so offended by that foreword that he/she never even attempts to read the actual book.

 

Anyway, I read Dawkins' "God Delusion." He does make some good points in it, but I was really taken back by some of his comments toward the end of the book. He claimed that teaching children religious belief is worse than pedophilia! That is an asinine broadbrushing that blows my mind. How can a brilliant scientist make such idiotic comments?

Well, I only made it through 155 pages of that book then decided Dawkins' version of atheism was not for me. So I never got to his pedophilia comparison but it would appear that comment was backed by emotions and not reason. There are varying degrees of religious indoctrination and there are other religions besides Christianity that dont preach fear and guilt. Not everyone who is religious is damaged by it. Some people actually enjoy it. :-)

I agree. I've only watched a hand full of interviews and talks with Dawkins. He's

Entertaining to listen to, similar to Hitchens. I have yet to read any of his books. I go

back and forth on how anti-theistic I am and want to be. Most Christians I know are good people. They aren't out to cram anything down anyone's throat. They don't harp on sin and spread unnecessary guilt and shame. They are just good, moral people who interpret their morality in light of their supernatural beliefs. I have no problem with that. But there is, sometimes, a fine line between that and taking those beliefs seriously enough that they lead people to cause psychological harm to others. I do know some Christians who do harp on sin and guilt, and some who push young earth creationism as a legitimate theory, etc. When I was a Christian, what made me very uncomfortable toward the end of my faith was the "us versus them" mentality, this subtle sense of superiority that masks itself as humility. That's the thinking that I think is truely dangerous.

[DoubtingNate]

reading 'Blind Watchmaker' right now.  I still love his science stuff, and I think his so-called 'misogynistic' comments are taken wildly out of context.  He is a tad curmodgeony and didn't' handle it very well, but I have no doubt that he is strongly pro-women, even if he says the wrong thing sometimes.

[Neverlandrut]

reading 'Blind Watchmaker' right now. I still love his science stuff, and I think his so-called 'misogynistic' comments are taken wildly out of context. He is a tad curmodgeony and didn't' handle it very well, but I have no doubt that he is strongly pro-women, even if he says the wrong thing sometimes.

I'll have to read his books to see what people are talking about. I like what I have seen and heard from him. I have seen him quote mined a few times in ways that make him sound horrible, but upon watching the actual interview or reading the whole thing, it's clear he didn't mean it the way people said. For example, he once said about religion, "Of course, we intellectuals know it isn't true..." That sounds terribly arrogant! But in context, he was sarcastically responding to the notion that common people "need" religion even if it isn't true. In the full quote, he was saying "Of course, we intellectuals know it isn't true... But those poor other people, they need it. How condescending!" I'm not sure if that later part is exact. His point was the opposite of what it sounded like. He was giving humanity a big thumbs up saying that no one "needs" it if it isn't true, that everyone is smart enough to recognize this and get on with their lives without it.

 

Again, I haven't read his books so he could be an arrogant prick for all I really know. I'm just reserving judgment until I read his books.

[Fernweh]

 

reading 'Blind Watchmaker' right now. I still love his science stuff, and I think his so-called 'misogynistic' comments are taken wildly out of context. He is a tad curmodgeony and didn't' handle it very well, but I have no doubt that he is strongly pro-women, even if he says the wrong thing sometimes.

I'll have to read his books to see what people are talking about. I like what I have seen and heard from him. I have seen him quote mined a few times in ways that make him sound horrible, but upon watching the actual interview or reading the whole thing, it's clear he didn't mean it the way people said. For example, he once said about religion, "Of course, we intellectuals know it isn't true..." That sounds terribly arrogant! But in context, he was sarcastically responding to the notion that common people "need" religion even if it isn't true. In the full quote, he was saying "Of course, we intellectuals know it isn't true... But those poor other people, they need it. How condescending!" I'm not sure if that later part is exact. His point was the opposite of what it sounded like. He was giving humanity a big thumbs up saying that no one "needs" it if it isn't true, that everyone is smart enough to recognize this and get on with their lives without it.

 

Again, I haven't read his books so he could be an arrogant prick for all I really know. I'm just reserving judgment until I read his books.

 

 

His British sarcasm would be easy to take out of context. I've read two of his books The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. He's very thorough and will spend several pages, if not chapters, to make a point. The Selfish Gene is not about atheism but rather natural selection and evolution. Dawkins is very good at explaining natural selection and I suspect he became such an outspoken atheist only after years of defending his science against theism. 

[midniterider]

I agree. I've only watched a hand full of interviews and talks with Dawkins. He's

Entertaining to listen to, similar to Hitchens. I have yet to read any of his books. I go

back and forth on how anti-theistic I am and want to be. Most Christians I know are good people. They aren't out to cram anything down anyone's throat. They don't harp on sin and spread unnecessary guilt and shame. They are just good, moral people who interpret their morality in light of their supernatural beliefs. I have no problem with that. But there is, sometimes, a fine line between that and taking those beliefs seriously enough that they lead people to cause psychological harm to others. I do know some Christians who do harp on sin and guilt, and some who push young earth creationism as a legitimate theory, etc. When I was a Christian, what made me very uncomfortable toward the end of my faith was the "us versus them" mentality, this subtle sense of superiority that masks itself as humility. That's the thinking that I think is truely dangerous.

 

 

Some of the video clips of Dawkins that people post are entertaining. 

 

Most of the people I went to church with wanted the best for other people. Some were very preachy and used scare tactics. Others didn't. I got enough of the negative programming masquerading as love to see that I didnt like it. Unfortunately fundamentalism teaches that everyone who is not a Christian or outside of fundyism is WRONG. That 'us vs them' mentality.

 

If we dropped our ideologies for a moment and worked together we might accomplish something...hello, Congress, you listening?  haha

[florduh]

I have concluded that religion does more harm than good. Sometimes a LOT more. While I may not agree with every opinion or the sometimes abrasive style of the man, I won't criticize him or the great work he's done in getting the word out and causing some more people to actually think - until I'm also a best-selling author. Sheesh.