Dawkins!

[gnomon]

Boo!

Did I scare you?

 

[fantome profane]

no...

 

[lunamoth]

Dawkins! Dawkins! Dawkins!

 

[Valjean]

Gould!

 

[gnomon]

Ahh... but Gould always seemed like such a lovable and hugable guy.

 

[lunamoth]

Gould!

Hear hear!

 

[fantome profane]

Is anybody else reminded of that badger badger badger thing?

It could be “dawkins dawkins dawkins dawkins gooould goould”

ok, maybe its just me :slap:

 

[lilithu]

:cover: Is it safe to come out now?

 

[lunamoth]

Is anybody else reminded of that badger badger badger thing?

It could be “dawkins dawkins dawkins dawkins gooould goould”

ok, maybe its just me :slap:

That would be quite humorous.

 

[Nanda]

I hear if you look in the mirror and say "Richard Dawkins" five times, he appears behind you and makes you renounce your faith!

 

[kai]

Boo!

Did I scare you?

your picture did werent you in that movie Deliverence?

 

[Mister Emu]

He's a witch! BURN HIM!!!!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I must admit that Dawkins excels as a bigot. My hat is off to him there. He has made such bigotry palatable to the masses as well. I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world

That he equates religion to a mind virus is hypocritical as his theories are espoused with much the same fervor.

1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith.'

It's funny that I believe in evolution and find other proponents (like Gould) to be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Fluffy]

I must admit that Dawkins excels as a bigot. My hat is off to him there. He has made such bigotry palatable to the masses as well. I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time.

What do you understand to be a bigot and why do you think Dawkins is one?

I understand you think Dawkins has made bigoted statements. I personally think that Dawkins has made rude, inflammatory and flawed statements but I don't see where you are getting bigoted from. I don't understand how you think that a person who is bigoted towards theists could have so many theistic friends, for example. I don't understand why you think that his theistic friends are blind to his bigoted nature whilst you are not.

I have met many people who are bigoted towards an array of human attributes and behaviour and Dawkins, to me, seems different from those people, regardless of his many faults.

That he equates religion to a mind virus is hypocritical as his theories are espoused with much the same fervor.

Dawkins would not disagree with you. Proponents of memetics believe that all beliefs are mind viruses and that one's like religion are the most successful because they are so prevalent.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What do you understand to be a bigot and why do you think Dawkins is one?

From Dictionary.com

big·ot·ry –noun, plural -ries.
1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Is there anyone who would characterize his diatribes as being "tolerant"? Of course, if you share his intolerance, then this might seem fine by you. As I said earlier: he has made bigotry palatable for many. I would go so far as to suggest that he has made this kind of intolerance sound almost reasonable.

 

[Fluffy]

Is there anyone who would characterize his diatribes as being "tolerant"?

I'm not sure exactly but clearly something doesn't have to be tolerant in order to be not-intolerant and not-intolerant is all Dawkins needs to be in order to not be a bigot. I don't know what your views on tolerance are but Dawkins specifically states that he is fine with theists teaching their children their theology and he sympathises with theists who believe in God for specific reasons although he disagrees with them.

Again, I get that he is rude and deliberately inflammatory but he doesn't seem any worse than every single Christian who believes the world would be a better place if everyone were Christian which is the vast, vast majority of them. Its not like Dawkins is asking for religion to be eradicated through force or violence and the passive techniques he uses are far less pushy than that used by religion. He won't knock on your door and tell you that you are going to hell. He doesn't try and forcibly convert you. He likes and is friendly with people who believe differently to him and tolerates them and their beliefs without accepting them as true.

To give a comparison, I am very good friends with a couple of Christian girls who completely and honestly believe that I am covered in sin and deserve to go to hell because I am an atheist and bisexual. I think that such a belief, that I deserve to go to hell (if I don't change) is pretty consistent with the beliefs of a large number of Christians and yet that is hardly bigoted and yet again much more extreme than Dawkins.

Of course, if you share his intolerance, then this might seem fine by you.

I don't believe this is it because I can think of many, many atheists who, whilst I agree with their beliefs do, I think, display intolerance. They go around laughing at theists and telling them how stupid they are. Dawkins doesn't engage in such activity and in fact specifically states what he considers to be better reasons for believing in God i.e. a person who believes in God for these reasons is not stupid.

I actually disagree with Dawkins that faith is a bad thing and as well on a number of other points. I dislike the God Delusion because I think Dawkins is good at science but not good at philosophy or theology. I much prefer Dennett's book Breaking The Spell because he actually knows what he is talking about. On the other hand, holding to flawed arguments doesn't make a person a bigot.

As I said earlier: he has made bigotry palatable for many. I would go so far as to suggest that he has made this kind of intolerance sound almost reasonable.

Alternatively, and surely more intuitively, the reason it sounds almost reasonable is because it is not, in fact, intolerant.

 

[Magic Man]

Gould!

I love Goooooouuuld! (To be read as Goldmember)

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not sure exactly

I will completely agree with you up to this point and then suggest that since it is obvious that since neither of us are going to budge on this: that we simply agree to disagree.

Referring to religion as a virus is just about as intolerant as you can get. 'Nuff said by me. Feel free to embrace and justify his bigotry as you see fit.

 

[fantome profane]

I have been a fan of Richard Dawkins since the mid 80’s. And I have to say from my perspective it seem very odd that he has recently become so famous (or infamous). And it also seems to me that so many people who feel so strongly about this man (one way or the other) don’t seem to know that much about him. So many of his recent fans seem to have read only the one book, and so many of his critics not even that.

I disagree with many of the things he has said in the last few years, strongly disagree and have said so. But I still have a great deal of respect and affection for the man. He is not the monster some people make him out to be. Nor is he a prophet of a new age.

I think it is a symptom of what is wrong in our culture that we can’t disagree with something someone has said without hating him and everything about him. It is what I think of as the crossfire mentality (if you remember that show on CNN). It seems that we can’t discuss these things, instead we fight these great rhetorical battles over them. It is not about trying to understand our opponents or communicate with them, it is about shouting them down. Sad.

 

[Storm]

I have been a fan of Richard Dawkins since the mid 80’s. And I have to say from my perspective it seem very odd that he has recently become so famous (or infamous). And it also seems to me that so many people who feel so strongly about this man (one way or the other) don’t seem to know that much about him. So many of his recent fans seem to have read only the one book, and so many of his critics not even that.

I disagree with many of the things he has said in the last few years, strongly disagree and have said so. But I still have a great deal of respect and affection for the man. He is not the monster some people make him out to be. Nor is he a prophet of a new age.

I think it is a symptom of what is wrong in our culture that we can’t disagree with something someone has said without hating him and everything about him. It is what I think of as the crossfire mentality (if you remember that show on CNN). It seems that we can’t discuss these things, instead we fight these great rhetorical battles over them. It is not about trying to understand our opponents or communicate with them, it is about shouting them down. Sad.

I don't hate Dawkins. On a personal level, I'm disappointed in him, but I don't hate or even dislike him. I don't know the man.

What I do despise is the pedestal SOME atheists have put him on. Inflammatory =/= brilliant, much less unbiased. I'm sick of reading "The God Delusion proves x."

Since I've spoken my piece criticizing him personally, let me take a moment to balance that with praise. Despite his antitheism, from what I've seen he seems like a pleasant enough man. He's extremely articulate and his joyous love of science shines like a beacon whenever he speaks of it. I can only imagine what a wonderful professor he is, and wish half of my own teachers had such passion.

I don't even think he should stop attacking religion, especially Literalism. I'm just sick to death of him being held up as some kind of ultimate authority. Of course, that's his fans, not him. In fact, it brings to mind one of my favorite bumper stickers: Oh, God, Protect Me From Your Followers. Ironic, no?