Dawkins!

[Scuba Pete]

Dawkins is not that hard to pin down. Think of him as a Rush Limbaugh for evolutionists. He tries to paint himself as being the most reasonable man on earth, all the while categorizing every theist as somehow believing in delusions and such. The sad part is that MANY of you are DELUDED into thinking that his concepts are somehow acceptable.

Lest I be misunderstood. It is obvious to me that evolution speaks NOTHING of religion. While I can't speak for all religions, I know that while many Christians (some pseudo-Christians) decry evolution, there is nothing in Scriptures that supports their claims. IOW, the Christian Scriptures speak NOTHING of evolution. So why does Dawkins see fit to couch religion in such terms? He is trying to DISPROVE religion using biological evolution and that is just as wrong as using Genesis to debunk evolution. The real problem, is that he lumps ALL people of faith into the same morass. I am particularly offended by that.

Also, he reminds me of Limbaugh in the ways he LOVES attention. Holy crikey, you sometimes have to wonder is they actually BELIEVE the drivel they are handing out. I know Rush laughs under his breath as he stirs the pot, and I have to wonder if Dawkins doesn't have the same mean streak.

 

[Frosty]

[looks around]I see my work here is done. [/looks]

Quit poking people with sticks.

 

[Frosty]

Surely it is better to prove what we can prove not what we cannot.

Y'know, I've often referred to myself as a humanist... this is Jack's shame.

-_-

 

[Smoke]

Dawkins is not that hard to pin down. Think of him as a Rush Limbaugh for evolutionists. He tries to paint himself as being the most reasonable man on earth, all the while categorizing every theist as somehow believing in delusions and such. The sad part is that MANY of you are DELUDED into thinking that his concepts are somehow acceptable.

Lest I be misunderstood. It is obvious to me that evolution speaks NOTHING of religion. While I can't speak for all religions, I know that while many Christians (some pseudo-Christians) decry evolution, there is nothing in Scriptures that supports their claims. IOW, the Christian Scriptures speak NOTHING of evolution. So why does Dawkins see fit to couch religion in such terms? He is trying to DISPROVE religion using biological evolution and that is just as wrong as using Genesis to debunk evolution. The real problem, is that he lumps ALL people of faith into the same morass. I am particularly offended by that.

Also, he reminds me of Limbaugh in the ways he LOVES attention. Holy crikey, you sometimes have to wonder is they actually BELIEVE the drivel they are handing out. I know Rush laughs under his breath as he stirs the pot, and I have to wonder if Dawkins doesn't have the same mean streak.

You didn't watch that interview with the bishop, did you?

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with what Dawkins says about respect. He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of one another." He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of religious people." He does vehemently say, "Let's stop being so respectful of religion." "Let's stop being so respectful of revealed faith." "Let's stop being so respectful of dangerous ideas."

The idea that he says we shouldn't respect religious people is nonsense.

Watch his interview with the Bishop of Oxford, for instance:

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (1/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (2/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (3/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (4/4)
​

To say that Dawkins is saying we should be disrespectful of religious people is both unfair and untrue.

On the other hand, many of his critics seem to have taken the lesson to heart that we should be disrespectful of people, and whereas Dawkins is quite disrespectful of ideas, they hardly even touch on his ideas. Indeed, many of them have never bothered even to read his ideas. They attack not his ideas, but his perceived personality, his perceived "tone," his imagined "bigotry." Anybody who objects to these tactics is dismissed as a mere acolyte of Dawkins.

So how, in light of your statement above, can those detractors expect anyone to hear what they're saying? As far as that goes, do they even really have anything to say?

Over the last ten years or so, we've been treated to the spectacle of religious fundamentalists waxing indignant at the Harry Potter books and saying those books are demonic, calculated to lead children in to witchcraft, and so on. Very often, the critics of Harry Potter admitted that they had never actually read the books, and people would wonder, how can they be so vociferous in their condemnation of books they haven't even read?

If there were a rule on the forum that you couldn't discuss Dawkins unless you'd actually read his last three books, I wonder how much of this indignation there'd be. I suspect there'd be far, far less.

In my opinion, much of the anger and resentment people feel for Dawkins doesn't really have anything to do with him at all; they don't really even know who they're criticizing. It's the idea of a Dawkins that they hate.

I once saw a BBC video of Dawkins' in which he interviewed a man who stated his faith required him to endorse the stoning of homosexuals. Dawkins came away from the interview saying the man struck him as personally likable even though his ideas were reprehensible and horrifying. For that and other reasons, I suspect Dawkins is quite good at separating what he thinks about someone's ideas from how he feels about them as people.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with what Dawkins says about respect. He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of one another." He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of religious people." He does vehemently say, "Let's stop being so respectful of religion." "Let's stop being so respectful of revealed faith." "Let's stop being so respectful of dangerous ideas."

The idea that he says we shouldn't respect religious people is nonsense.

Watch his interview with the Bishop of Oxford, for instance:

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (1/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (2/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (3/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (4/4)
​

To say that Dawkins is saying we should be disrespectful of religious people is both unfair and untrue.

On the other hand, many of his critics seem to have taken the lesson to heart that we should be disrespectful of people, and whereas Dawkins is quite disrespectful of ideas, they hardly even touch on his ideas. Indeed, many of them have never bothered even to read his ideas. They attack not his ideas, but his perceived personality, his perceived "tone," his imagined "bigotry." Anybody who objects to these tactics is dismissed as a mere acolyte of Dawkins.

So how, in light of your statement above, can those detractors expect anyone to hear what they're saying? As far as that goes, do they even really have anything to say?

Over the last ten years or so, we've been treated to the spectacle of religious fundamentalists waxing indignant at the Harry Potter books and saying those books are demonic, calculated to lead children in to witchcraft, and so on. Very often, the critics of Harry Potter admitted that they had never actually read the books, and people would wonder, how can they be so vociferous in their condemnation of books they haven't even read?

If there were a rule on the forum that you couldn't discuss Dawkins unless you'd actually read his last three books, I wonder how much of this indignation there'd be. I suspect there'd be far, far less.

In my opinion, much of the anger and resentment people feel for Dawkins doesn't really have anything to do with him at all; they don't really even know who they're criticizing. It's the idea of a Dawkins that they hate.

Excellent post!

I once saw a BBC video of Dawkins' in which he interviewed a man who stated his faith required him to endorse the stoning of homosexuals. Dawkins came away from the interview saying the man struck him as personally likable even though his ideas were reprehensible and horrifying. For that and other reasons, I suspect Dawkins is quite good at separating what he thinks about someone's ideas from how he feels about them as people.

 

[YmirGF]

Watch his interview with the Bishop of Oxford, for instance:

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (1/4)​

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (2/4)​

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (3/4)​

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (4/4)​

To say that Dawkins is saying we should be disrespectful of religious people is both unfair and untrue.

That is perhaps one of the most disrespectul interviews I have ever seen. The poor Bishop is probably still undergoing therapy. Doesn't Dawkins feel any shame? :drool:

Amen, sister! :sarcastic

And then we get criticized as intolerant, for being intolerant of intolerance.

But Lilithu, is not being intolerent of intolerence going against the very ideal of tolerance? If you hate the sin and not the sinner, are you not still left with hatred in your heart? Isn't being intolerant of intolerance itself, while championing tolerance, being somewhat hypocritical? :flirt:

 

[Sententia]

Dawkins is not that hard to pin down. Think of him as a Rush Limbaugh for evolutionists. He tries to paint himself as being the most reasonable man on earth, all the while categorizing every theist as somehow believing in delusions and such. The sad part is that MANY of you are DELUDED into thinking that his concepts are somehow acceptable.

Lest I be misunderstood. It is obvious to me that evolution speaks NOTHING of religion. While I can't speak for all religions, I know that while many Christians (some pseudo-Christians) decry evolution, there is nothing in Scriptures that supports their claims. IOW, the Christian Scriptures speak NOTHING of evolution. So why does Dawkins see fit to couch religion in such terms? He is trying to DISPROVE religion using biological evolution and that is just as wrong as using Genesis to debunk evolution. The real problem, is that he lumps ALL people of faith into the same morass. I am particularly offended by that.

Also, he reminds me of Limbaugh in the ways he LOVES attention. Holy crikey, you sometimes have to wonder is they actually BELIEVE the drivel they are handing out. I know Rush laughs under his breath as he stirs the pot, and I have to wonder if Dawkins doesn't have the same mean streak.

Scuba... you are entitled to your opinion of course but anyone who reads this can clearly ascertain you have no idea what you are talking about, taking things out of context and have grossly misunderstood dawkins. I don't ironically consider Dawkins a saint or always correct but this approximation is just nonsense and attempted character assassination. Perhaps you have seen one too many fake dawkin videos on youtube. There is like 20... Dawkins himself debunks a bunch of them once.

Suffice to say I don't think Dawkins, or anyone who reads your summation of dawkins, will be considering you for any biographies.

 

[Autodidact]

Can you expand on 1? What are the "some ways?"

In most areas, when you disagree with someone, they need to come up with valid reasons, evidence, logic, in support of their opinion. But with religion, it's the Ace of Spades that stops discussion. The other person says, "It's part of my faith." And that's the end of discussion. You can't tread their, challenge them on their faith and whether it's valid, etc. (except for a place like this, which is organized for that purpose.)

 

[Autodidact]

I've fruballed Midnight Blue so many times the system will probably never let me do it again, but once again he expresses the whole position succinctly and accurately. Maybe I should just send him a check.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree with what Dawkins says about respect. He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of one another." He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of religious people." He does vehemently say, "Let's stop being so respectful of religion." "Let's stop being so respectful of revealed faith." "Let's stop being so respectful of dangerous ideas."

The idea that he says we shouldn't respect religious people is nonsense.




Watch his interview with the Bishop of Oxford, for instance:

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (1/4)​

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (2/4)​

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (3/4)​

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (4/4)​

To say that Dawkins is saying we should be disrespectful of religious people is both unfair and untrue.

On the other hand, many of his critics seem to have taken the lesson to heart that we should be disrespectful of people, and whereas Dawkins is quite disrespectful of ideas, they hardly even touch on his ideas. Indeed, many of them have never bothered even to read his ideas. They attack not his ideas, but his perceived personality, his perceived "tone," his imagined "bigotry." Anybody who objects to these tactics is dismissed as a mere acolyte of Dawkins.

So how, in light of your statement above, can those detractors expect anyone to hear what they're saying? As far as that goes, do they even really have anything to say?

Over the last ten years or so, we've been treated to the spectacle of religious fundamentalists waxing indignant at the Harry Potter books and saying those books are demonic, calculated to lead children in to witchcraft, and so on. Very often, the critics of Harry Potter admitted that they had never actually read the books, and people would wonder, how can they be so vociferous in their condemnation of books they haven't even read?

If there were a rule on the forum that you couldn't discuss Dawkins unless you'd actually read his last three books, I wonder how much of this indignation there'd be. I suspect there'd be far, far less.

In my opinion, much of the anger and resentment people feel for Dawkins doesn't really have anything to do with him at all; they don't really even know who they're criticizing. It's the idea of a Dawkins that they hate.

Excellent post, I was going to say many of the same things myself.

People to should be treated with respect, human beings have an inherent value based on nothing more than that they are human. Ideas on the other hand do not deserve respect. And it doesn’t matter if they are political ideas, religious ideas, scientific ideas, historic ideas or whatever.

And notice that some critics of Dawkins automatically switch this. Dawkins criticizes the idea of God, and people choose to interpret this as disrespect to those who believe in God. Dawkins criticizes religion, and people interpret this as disrespect to religious people. This doesn’t happen when you criticize political or scientific ideas, but when you criticize religious ideas you can predict that somebody will interpret it as personal disrespect.

 

[Autodidact]

Excellent post, I was going to say many of the same things myself.

People to should be treated with respect, human beings have an inherent value based on nothing more than that they are human. Ideas on the other hand do not deserve respect. And it doesn’t matter if they are political ideas, religious ideas, scientific ideas, historic ideas or whatever.

And notice that some critics of Dawkins automatically switch this. Dawkins criticizes the idea of God, and people choose to interpret this as disrespect to those who believe in God. Dawkins criticizes religion, and people interpret this as disrespect to religious people. This doesn’t happen when you criticize political or scientific ideas, but when you criticize religious ideas you can predict that somebody will interpret it as personal disrespect.

Exactly. You and Midnight sewed it up, and this thread can be done now.

 

[YmirGF]

Exactly. You and Midnight sewed it up, and this thread can be done now.

Agreed. Personally, I do not see how asking religion to "Put up or shut up." is being particularly rude, as it is merely calling their bluff. Given the simple fact that a whole host (pun intended) of religious suppositions cannot be supported, in any reasonable way, does tend to make one wonder why we ever gave them either the time of day or our respect to begin with. That being said, I was raised in a atheistic household where I was taught to BE respectful of religion, but curiously, it was always a little vague on why -- other than that religious people were sensitive.

 

[Mister Emu]

And notice that some critics of Dawkins automatically switch this. Dawkins criticizes the idea of God, and people choose to interpret this as disrespect to those who believe in God. Dawkins criticizes religion, and people interpret this as disrespect to religious people. This doesn’t happen when you criticize political or scientific ideas, but when you criticize religious ideas you can predict that somebody will interpret it as personal disrespect.

You can criticize an idea in such a way that it reflects on the people who hold it as well...

 

[Sunstone]

You can criticize an idea in such a way that it reflects on the people who hold it as well...

That's a very silly idea and I don't know any serious person who holds it.


Somewhat more seriously, I agree with you about that, but I don't think Dawkins himself attempts to insult people. If he does, then he doesn't do so very often. I think he's much more concerned with getting at the truth so far as he can see it than with insulting people.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's a very silly idea and I don't know any serious person who holds it.

 

[Autodidact]

Again I ask, why so much vitriol against Dawkins, and no so much for Sam Harris, who really hates religion with a fierce passion, or Christopher Hitchens, who enjoys insulting religious people? All 3 good writers, too.

 

[Sunstone]

Again I ask, why so much vitriol against Dawkins, and no so much for Sam Harris, who really hates religion with a fierce passion, or Christopher Hitchens, who enjoys insulting religious people? All 3 good writers, too.

Good question.

Although Harris hates faith with a passion, I don't think he enjoys insulting religious people any more than Dawkins -- which is to say, not at all. But Hitchens strikes me as another matter altogether. I think he relishes insulting religious people.

 

[Mister Emu]

Somewhat more seriously, I agree with you about that, but I don't think Dawkins himself attempts to insult people. If he does, then he doesn't do so very often. I think he's much more concerned with getting at the truth so far as he can see it than with insulting people.

I haven't read any of his books, outside of some quotes... but what I saw from those really didn't make me want to read them, thoughI realize that I am not his target audience.

Again I ask, why so much vitriol against Dawkins, and no so much for Sam Harris, who really hates religion with a fierce passion, or Christopher Hitchens, who enjoys insulting religious people? All 3 good writers, too.

I have read a little bit of Harris, some was posted here, and I believe the reaction was greater against him, the difference being that very few, theist or atheist, found it acceptable, whereas a larger margin are arguing on behalf of Dawkins's tone.

edit: I have never read anything by Hitchens...

 

[Sententia]

Again I ask, why so much vitriol against Dawkins, and no so much for Sam Harris, who really hates religion with a fierce passion, or Christopher Hitchens, who enjoys insulting religious people? All 3 good writers, too.

perhaps he sounds to reasonable? He is too respected? Who knows. There are tons of books out there and the god delusions contain numerous ideas many christians would agree with. I asked a friend if they had read it and they said they would never... lol. Never? Really? Your not close minded are you? Im an atheist and I read the bible... anyways.

Most of the arguments I have seen against dawkins as of late are just people who dont know what their talking about. They cant get through a post stating a decent argument against an actual argument dawkins made without throwing ad homs in and extraneous generalizations Dawkins never made.