Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[Smoke]

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

Dawkins is actually quite respectful of most religious people -- and much more so than most of his detractors are of him.

 

[Willamena]

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."

Yeah, let's not praise those people capable of separating subjective fact from objective fantasy.

 

[tarasan]

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?

I wasnt using an example of thiests though I was talking about my agnostic/athiest friends not wanting to be associated with him, what does that have to do with thiests?

 

[Smoke]

I wasnt using an example of thiests though I was talking about my agnostic/athiest friends not wanting to be associated with him, what does that have to do with thiests?

When you said most people think atheists are arrogant and hypocritical, you didn't mean that's what most theists think? You meant that most people are atheists, and that's what they think of themselves?

 

[tarasan]

surey you saw the example I gave of my friends, if I gave the wrong impression I appologise when I said most I meant from every walk of life I emphasises the Athiests to show it really is from everyone.

 

[Smoke]

surey you saw the example I gave of my friends, if I gave the wrong impression I appologise when I said most I meant from every walk of life I emphasises the Athiests to show it really is from everyone.

Your atheist friends believe atheists -- themselves, in other words -- to be arrogant and hypocritical? But your theist friends harbor no such prejudice? And what's this about everyone thinking that about atheists?

 

[tarasan]

Your atheist friends believe atheists -- themselves, in other words -- to be arrogant and hypocritical? But your theist friends harbor no such prejudice?

This is in relation to Dawkins! the love others, they arnt hypocritical or arrogant for not like how someone goes about representing them. Dont set up strawmen and put words in my mouth.

 

[Smoke]

This is in relation to Dawkins! the love others, they arnt hypocritical or arrogant for not like how someone goes about representing them. Dont set up strawmen and put words in my mouth.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. All I did was notice what you said. Apparently, though, what you said was not what you meant, and that's good.

 

[tarasan]

I didn't put any words in your mouth. All I did was notice what you said. Apparently, though, what you said was not what you meant, and that's good.

all Im saying is that some Athiests dont like how Dawkins go about, that is all I ment to say.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, let's not praise those people capable of separating subjective fact from objective fantasy.

Tripping on mushrooms can be fun, but it's hardly praiseworthy.

 

[footprints]

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

Is this just pure arrogance on behalf of people who support Dawkins, or is it just based out of ignorance? This is a question I always ask myself when I see such things written.

People do not misread Dawkins, they read Dawkins from their own perspective based on whether or not what Dawkins says aligns with their own personal belief patterns. Dawkins preaches to the converted and screeches to the unconverted. Dawkins to the Religious is like the Pope to an atheist. My personal opinion, Dawkins and the Pope are two peas in the same pod.

 

[Forkie]

...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

Ok, fine, there are a few more! I'll rephrase:

Dawkins is just one other that gives a public voice to "our" side.

How's that?

 

[logician]

They're plonkers too.

Dawkins is no plonker.

 

[footprints]

Dawkins is no plonker.

In some things he is not, in other things he holds an opinion like everybody else. At times a very bigoted and prejudiced opinion, but an opinion never the less.

 

[patrickarbuthnot]

hello.

 

[logician]

In some things he is not, in other things he holds an opinion like everybody else. At times a very bigoted and prejudiced opinion, but an opinion never the less.

I would be much more concerned about the 24/7 evangelism of men and women in 50's dos pushing what I consider, like Islam, the dangerous religion of Xianity. Dawkins is a small voice trying to push reason over faith, something desparately needed, and here we have people complaining loudly about his highly educate opinions, while being deaf to the extreme dangers of faith based religions.

 

[footprints]

I would be much more concerned about the 24/7 evangelism of men and women in 50's dos pushing what I consider, like Islam, the dangerous religion of Xianity. Dawkins is a small voice trying to push reason over faith, something desparately needed, and here we have people complaining loudly about his highly educate opinions, while being deaf to the extreme dangers of faith based religions.

If only Dawkins did try to push reason over faith. Dawkins pushes his own agenda which he holds in faith petaining to religious matters.

Dawkins is not highly educated in theology, in fact his opinion is equal to yours or mine.

I can only agree Reason is something desperately needed in the world today and to stop evangelistic crusaders like Dawkins. Promoting animosity towards anything or anybody, is never a reasonable position, yet Dawkins promoted a whole book pertaining to just this.

 

[Sunstone]

If only Dawkins did try to push reason over faith. Dawkins pushes his own agenda which he holds in faith petaining to religious matters.

You are awefully good at making statements that you then refuse to back up by citing facts. But some people here tell me they've noticed that about you.

 

[footprints]

You are awefully good at making statements that you then refuse to back up by citing facts. But some people here tell me they've noticed that about you.

LOL you are a funny person.

Sunstone, you may have your justifications and your excuses to keep whatever bigotry and prejudice you want to keep. Your right to support any bigoted hypocrite you want to support and give them all the excuses for being a prejudiced person as you wish. But as for Dawkins, the evidence is, "The God Delusion," the "Selfish Gene," wasn't much better. This is the length Dawkins would go to, to spread his bigotry and prejudice against religions.

Not my fault you are incapable of looking up evidence, this is something you will have to personally work on, as I did for myself and got myself an education.

 

[Azakel]

LOL you are a funny person.

Sunstone, you may have your justifications and your excuses to keep whatever bigotry and prejudice you want to keep.

It seem to me that you have never talk to Phil out side these little debate if your making statements like this. You know what they say when you Assume right?

Your right to support any bigoted hypocrite you want to support and give them all the excuses for being a prejudiced person as you wish.

lol, you reading into his post. I don't see that anywhere in his post or any of the other ones in here. I've known the man for about 4 years and I really hate to see some spit on a friend with ignorant assumptions.

Okay know, As for the OP and thread discussion:
No, I don't think Dawkin is dividing the world any more then it all ready is. Granted I have not read any of his books and truthfully I personally don't plan on it. I keep a neutral ground here(and hold no real opinion).