Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[footprints]

I dont know that he is dividing the world. From what I have seen his discussions tend to unite the world because he expands the knowledge base enlightening us thus driving back the darkness of superstition.

Cheers

LOL Atheists are not the world, albeit many may believe and conceive they are. Dawkins is uniting Atheists.

 

[tarasan]

Theology is the study of God, or more generally the study of religious faith. Dawkins’ view is that there is no supernatural God and that the onus is on those who believe there is to come up with some scientific evidence to support their stance.

He also has nothing but contempt for blind, religious faith, so much so that he feels that faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith, he says, is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Dawkins and Dennett seem to be a perfect match to put some sense into the brains of the masses. One uses a sledge hammer and the other white gloves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfTPTFN94o

Tell me how can he critize something and call it Illogical if he has not even the basic idea wat it is stating? How could he call it Illogical? he merely makes assumptions about religion, stating common mistakes. and his "sledgehammer" is laughed at in ALL religious circles his book has been riped appart so many times the word "overkill" could have stated several books back. Im sorry I take alot of Athiests seriously as well as the people on his forum, but what this man says is ludicrious. My opinion, he belittles you all and what you stand for.

 

[sandandfoam]

I reject Dawkins binary take on the world. We are all rational in our own eyes.

 

[Sunstone]

I thought religion already had divided the world between the believer and the nonbeliever.

 

[sandandfoam]

With respect Mr Sunstone I think that would be various eejits rather than religion itself

 

[Sunstone]

With respect Mr Sunstone I think that would be various eejits rather than religion itself

Maybe. It's too early in the morning for me to dispute anything with a bright Irishman.

 

[Forkie]

The world was already divided. Dawkins just gives a long-awaited public voice to "our" side.

 

[tarasan]

indeed forky he did give you a public voice, and that voice says you think we are deluded, ignorant people, while of course being closeminded and bigoted, him see the hyporcracy there? There are far better Athiest minds than him Forkie and they dont need to belittle the position to create good arguements. The worldview for most people of athiests are that they are arogant and hypocritcal, most of my friends who dont believe in God dont call themselvse athiests because it would mean being compared to people like him.

Athiesm deserves a better representative in my opinion. although your free to disagree

 

[Forkie]

indeed forky he did give you a public voice, and that voice says you think we are deluded, ignorant people, while of course being closeminded and bigoted, him see the hyporcracy there? There are far better Athiest minds than him Forkie and they dont need to belittle the position to create good arguements. The worldview for most people of athiests are that they are arogant and hypocritcal, most of my friends who dont believe in God dont call themselvse athiests because it would mean being compared to people like him.

Athiesm deserves a better representative in my opinion. although your free to disagree

Yes, he can be fairly militant about it, but he's by no means unique in his style on either side. I can name a lot of outspoken Christians who operate in the same way, claiming atheists to be immoral, lawless and self obsessed.

And how would a "better" representative argue for our side?

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes, he can be fairly militant about it, but he's by no means unique in his style on either side. I can name a lot of outspoken Christians who operate in the same way, claiming atheists to be immoral, lawless and self obsessed.

They're plonkers too.

 

[Skeptisch]

although your free to disagree

Thanks for giving us freedom of speech.

If someone is, let’s say, on an truly Anglican diet, wouldn’t s/he reject all other “foods”? Or is all well as long as someone is into the supernatural and miraculous?

 

[Charity]

They're plonkers too.

There always has and always be a division. The atheists at least all agree and believe the same, while the religious disagree among themselves....The world is divided among the religions......

Why is it every time I look at your signature, I imagine myself as a statue?

 

[Smoke]

indeed forky he did give you a public voice, and that voice says you think we are deluded, ignorant people, while of course being closeminded and bigoted, him see the hyporcracy there?

I think you've misread Dawkins; or have you read his books at all?

The worldview for most people of athiests are that they are arogant and hypocritcal, most of my friends who dont believe in God dont call themselvse athiests because it would mean being compared to people like him.

You mean most theists are bigoted?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

On one side we have the naturalists who live within in the laws of nature, logic, and reason, and who demand scientific evidence to validate their reality. Most of them live quiet lives, guided by the scientific world view, searching for the scientific truth.

We also have the supernaturalists. They believe they know the unknowable, they appear to manufacture their own reality and sometimes even kill over disagreements who believes in the right fairytale.

Objection your honor...baiting the witness!

 

[Skeptisch]

Objection your honor...baiting the witness!

Does not seem to work very well.

There are not many believers in the Science vs Religion section, maybe it just does not make sense to argue against naturalism with supernaturalism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

Plenty of people are perfectly capable of separating objective fact from subjective fantasy without any exposure to Dawkins whatsover, so I'd have to say "no."

 

[tarasan]

I think you've misread Dawkins; or have you read his books at all?
yes I have I have also listened to how he aruges as well that ok? although I havn tread them all.
You mean most theists are bigoted?

your generalising.

 

[tarasan]

I think you've misread Dawkins; or have you read his books at all?

You mean most theists are bigoted?

Ok youve made me doubt myself.... how have i misread him?

 

[sonofskeptish]

The world was already divided. Dawkins just gives a long-awaited public voice to "our" side.

...along with David Albert, Peter Atkins, Scott Atran, Francisco Ayala, Mahzarin Banaji, Roger Bingham, David Brin, Sean Carroll, Patricia and Paul Churchland, Gregory Clark, Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Ronald de Sousa, Ann Druyan, Greg Epstein, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Jonathan Gottschall, Jonathan Haidt, Stuart Hameroff, Charles Harper, Sam Harris, Jeff Hawkins, Margatet Jacob, Melvin J. Konner, Stuart Kauffman, Adan Kolber, Sir Harold Kroto, Lawrence Krauss, Elizabeth Loftus, Darrin McMahon, Deirdre McCloskey, PZ Myers, Steven Nadler, Susan Neiman, John Allen Paulos, Carolyn Porco, VS Ramachandran, Joan Roughgarden, Loyal Rue, Donald Rutherford, Terrence Sejnowski, Michael Shermer, Lee Silver, Edward Slingerland, Richard Sloan, Daniel Smail, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Weinberg, David Sloan Wilson, Robert Winter, James Woodward, etc., etc.

I may have mis-classified 1 or 2 of the brilliant minds above, but brain power has always been on the natural (vs. supernatural) side of the fence. And recently, more and more of these minds are speaking up at events like "Beyong Belief".

The Science Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smoke]

your generalising.

No, you were generalizing; I was just asking for clarification. You said: The worldview for most people of athiests are that they are arogant and hypocritcal.

If most theists think that atheists are arrogant and hypocritical, doesn't that mean that most theists are bigoted?