dogsgod
Well-Known Member
He's my least favorite atheist.God.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Favorite prominent atheist?
- Thread starter wabisabi
- Start date
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
I love her videos, always get a kick out of them. I find her much more pleasant to connect to than the 'four [dry] horsemen'
Last edited:
Been reading this thread from the beginning and I have to agree with you. Personally I never use the word 'delusion' or 'self-delusion' in religious debates in place of 'mistaken' because it does, at minumum, have have a mildly insulting connotation, which I believe in many cases is the precise intention of its use. And Dawkings, although a very polite and charming man in speaking engagements does adopt a rather abrasive tone in his written works.
I've only read the 'God Delusion' in full very recently (I generally prefer to read those who take the opposite view to me). I think I was expecting a piecemeal dismantling of theist arguments in a disinterested academic fashion. But although I agreed with much that he says, though certainly not all, I was surprised at times by what seemed to be barely concealed anger or impatience. Opening the book at random (p39) Dawkins says in response to a theist explanation for suffering: 'This grotesque piece of reasoning, so damningly typical of the theist mind...' He then goes on to give examples. Now, although I agree with the point he went on to make, I disagree with this obnoxious way of presenting it. 'Grotesque reasoning' and 'so typical of the theist mind' adds no weight to his argument and if anything detracts from it by displaying crude anti-theist sentiments.
Just for the record and in defence of Dawkins, the BBC TV programme, The Root of all Evil, was given that title by the producers, despite Dawkins' objections.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Thank you!
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
David Gilmore of Pink Floyd is one of my favs...
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
In addition (I would pick the same ones
), I would add Thunderf00t, potholer54, AronRa, and FFreeThinker from YouTube.
JeLy
Member
In addition (I would pick the same ones
Oh, if we're picking YouTubers then I'd have to add ZOMGitsCriss as well.
You have excellent taste.. 
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Yes and no. At the end of the day he isn't promoting intolerance by a long shot, he is merely breaking a taboo by being very critical of religion. George F. Will writes articles criticizing liberals and liberalism every day, Kathryn posted one of his articles citing data that liberals are less generous than conservatives. His criticism of liberals is scathing criticism yet it would not even occur to most of us to call him abrasive or intolerant. We've adopted rules of public discourse that demands religion be handled with kid-gloves, in some ways this is good because religion is such an explosive subject, in other ways bad because it stifles discussion.
OTOH Dawkins seems to have spawned a generation of followers who are quite abrasive and sometimes intolerant. linwood has pointed this out on RF and I agree it is a phenomenon.
Not to mention less entertaining than Dawkins.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Just to add what I said above: it depends on what we're talking about. A polite conversation between two people who meet on a bus is very different from the debate among public intellectuals. An editorial in the newspaper can accuse the Republican party of being "corrupt", or a foreign government of being "brutal", those are not nice words but it's hardly bigotry, we live in a world of grown-ups not fragile children. There must be SOME arena where it is okay to use impolite words, where the legitimacy of an accusation depends on whether or not you can back it up, where the concern is for the truth over people's feelings and sensibilities.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm not familiar enough with Will for a comparison. Is he a Limbaugh clone? Because, yes, I do consider the latter abrasive and intolerant.
I do try not to blame him for them, though.
OK, time to put on the brakes. I didn't call Dawkins intolerant, much less bigoted. He may be the former, but I'm not sure. I just said he was abrasive.
As for your point, the words have to apply. Delusion doesn't. It's a pet peeve.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Fair enough Storm, I was only partly responding to what you said and partly just going off on my own stream of consciousness.
In response to the comment about Limbaugh: George F. Will is nothing like Limbaugh, he's not a provocateur and an entertainer he's an intellectual who's not afraid to tell it like he sees it and back it up in polite but candid debate. I don't necessarily agree with him, but there you have it. Just like Dawkins i.m.o.
In response to the comment about Limbaugh: George F. Will is nothing like Limbaugh, he's not a provocateur and an entertainer he's an intellectual who's not afraid to tell it like he sees it and back it up in polite but candid debate. I don't necessarily agree with him, but there you have it. Just like Dawkins i.m.o.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Oh, ok.Fair enough Storm, I was only partly responding to what you said and partly just going off on my own stream of consciousness.
I'll have to take your word for it. Anyway, I can't speak as to whether Will is abrasive. I've heard of the study you mentioned, but haven't looked into it.
Amill
Apikoros
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I go with Dawkins among the fave list and Alan Watts as well. I cant really decide who I like better yet.