Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[Smoke]

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.

Lots of indignation, but no answer. So you haven't read him, then?

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

Although i do think Dawkins does get his points over well, i much prefer the Christopher Hitchens approach. He does not do it all through a Scientific stand point (although i do believe this is important). He does it through Cultural and Literacy mediums, showing how abhorrent Religion is with every point he makes, and is so eloquent about it.
Anyone see the debate on "Is the Catholic Church a force of good in the world?"? It was the biggest swing in favour of opinion i have seen in any debate. He laid to waste the defenders of the Catholic faith.

You can find the debate on Youtube.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why is it that so many theists (and some atheists as well) seem to subscribe to this ridiculous idea that Dawkins is somehow a divisive extremist, and that his presence is somehow hurting relations between theists and atheists? As if having a spokesperson for atheism is somehow a bad thing, just by virtue of the fact that he's an atheist? Why the hell should anyone be ashamed of their atheism?

What makes it worse is that fact that most critics of Dawkins (theists and atheists alike) have never even read any of his books. I was not a fan of Dawkins until I actually read The God Delusion and discovered that he actually made a valid argument, and I went on to the The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. Personally, I think he's a great spokesperson for atheism because, above all else, he is simply not afraid of telling people the truth. When questioned by a theist who said "I need Jesus in life, are you going to tell me that I'm deluded?" his response was a clear and blunt "yes". Frankly, I love the fact that at least one educated atheist is willing to go out there and unapologetically present the case against theism.

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

Why is it that so many theists (and some atheists as well) seem to subscribe to this ridiculous idea that Dawkins is somehow a divisive extremist, and that his presence is somehow hurting relations between theists and atheists? As if having a spokesperson for atheism is somehow a bad thing, just by virtue of the fact that he's an atheist? Why the hell should anyone be ashamed of their atheism?

What makes it worse is that fact that most critics of Dawkins (theists and atheists alike) have never even read any of his books. I was not a fan of Dawkins until I actually read The God Delusion and discovered that he actually made a valid argument, and I went on to the The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. Personally, I think he's a great spokesperson for atheism because, above all else, he is simply not afraid of telling people the truth. When questioned by a theist who said "I need Jesus in life, are you going to tell me that I'm deluded?" his response was a clear and blunt "yes". Frankly, I love the fact that at least one educated atheist is willing to go out there and unapologetically present the case against theism.

I agree, i don't see why we are expected to sugar coat the truth. I have certainly seen and heard a lot of faithful who do not hold anything back, so why should we?

 

[Skeptisch]

...I think he's a great spokesperson for atheism...

Dawkins stands for reason, rationality and common sense, while detesting pretenders who “know” the unknowable and supernatural.

 

[Copernicus]

Why is it that so many theists (and some atheists as well) seem to subscribe to this ridiculous idea that Dawkins is somehow a divisive extremist, and that his presence is somehow hurting relations between theists and atheists? As if having a spokesperson for atheism is somehow a bad thing, just by virtue of the fact that he's an atheist? Why the hell should anyone be ashamed of their atheism?

What makes it worse is that fact that most critics of Dawkins (theists and atheists alike) have never even read any of his books. I was not a fan of Dawkins until I actually read The God Delusion and discovered that he actually made a valid argument, and I went on to the The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. Personally, I think he's a great spokesperson for atheism because, above all else, he is simply not afraid of telling people the truth. When questioned by a theist who said "I need Jesus in life, are you going to tell me that I'm deluded?" his response was a clear and blunt "yes". Frankly, I love the fact that at least one educated atheist is willing to go out there and unapologetically present the case against theism.

I couldn't agree more with your comments. Dawkins has been vilified by people who do not really pay close attention to what he says, and that includes many atheists who read out-of-context statements that his critics love to post. Theists who make blunt criticisms of atheism are not held to the same standard. Dawkins is perceived as rude and arrogant precisely because his frank expressions of his opinions are not what people are used to hearing.

 

[footprints]

Lots of indignation, but no answer. So you haven't read him, then?

LOL I would say you haven't.

 

[Smoke]

LOL I would say you haven't.

You would be wrong. And you still didn't answer the question. Is it a hard question, do you think? "Have you ever actually read Dawkins?" Doesn't seem like a hard question to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would hardly say he is dividing the world. I would say he seems to be somewhat lacking in general religious philosophies though. In summary though, like any author, I'd say he writes for his audience.

 

[footprints]

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?

I have no idea who Phil is, if it is Sunstone, then I am sure like everybody else in this world they have some good qualities which do not come across in their religious beliefs and faith.

As for talking to anybody outside of this debate area, I am not really into that. There are many real life people around me, to adequately fill this position.

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.

People of the same or similar belief rarely ever see the truth of others. The Dalai Lama says, your enemy is your best friend. The Dalai Lama says this for good reason.

I never make ignorant assumptions, all I say is backed up in what people say and write, as they let me inside their minds and their life.

 

[footprints]

You would be wrong. And you still didn't answer the question. Is it a hard question, do you think? "Have you ever actually read Dawkins?" Doesn't seem like a hard question to me.

Am I wrong smoke, do you expect me to take your word for that, please show some supporting evidence.

Answering idiotic questions is always hard. One has to lower their mentality to some minute level where the opinion expresssed is so miniscule as to be insignificant.

 

[Smoke]

Am I wrong smoke, do you expect me to take your word for that, please show some supporting evidence.

I'd be happy to discuss his books with you if you'd read them, and then you could see how well I remember what I've read. So when you've read some of them, let me know, and we'll talk. Until then, I don't think you're really the person to give the exam.

Answering idiotic questions is always hard. One has to lower their mentality to some minute level where the opinion expresssed is so miniscule as to be insignificant.

It's not an idiotic question, and it's not hard to answer. Actually, you're not the one I originally asked, but since you jumped in to respond to the question with a rant about the "pure arrogance" of people who support Dawkins, I think it's reasonable to ask which of his books you've read, too. It's a very simple question and no honest and forthright person would have the slightest trouble answering it. What might be hard for some people would be admitting to arrogant pontifications about things of which they are ignorant. People in such a position might try pretending to have scaled such intellectual heights that they are above answering simple questions, but they wouldn't be fooling anybody.

 

[Azakel]

People of the same or similar belief rarely ever see the truth of others.

lol, Where good friends but I doubt me and Sunstone have they same or even a similar belief at all. I just get to know a person and not make assumptions.

 

[footprints]

I'd be happy to discuss his books with you if you'd read them, and then you could see how well I remember what I've read. So when you've read some of them, let me know, and we'll talk. Until then, I don't think you're really the person to give the exam.


It's not an idiotic question, and it's not hard to answer. Actually, you're not the one I originally asked, but since you jumped in to respond to the question with a rant about the "pure arrogance" of people who support Dawkins, I think it's reasonable to ask which of his books you've read, too. It's a very simple question and no honest and forthright person would have the slightest trouble answering it. What might be hard for some people would be admitting to arrogant pontifications about things of which they are ignorant. People in such a position might try pretending to have scaled such intellectual heights that they are above answering simple questions, but they wouldn't be fooling anybody.

In life smoke, people have a choice who they discuss things with. Sure I could discuss Dawkins books with arrogant and ignorant people like yourself, then again I can discuss them with more rational and reasonable people. Personally I choose more rational and reasonable people. Besides, if it were irrational and unreasonable people, I would go back and discuss them again in Dawkins forum, they are even more extremist irrationalists than some posters in here.

As for what books of Dawkins I have read, the selfish gene, the god delusion and the greatest show on earth.

 

[Azakel]

Sure I could discuss Dawkins books with arrogant and ignorant people like yourself

It's like the Pot calling the Kettle black, and make more assumptions about people here. :sleep:

 

[Smoke]

In life smoke, people have a choice who they discuss things with. Sure I could discuss Dawkins books with arrogant and ignorant people like yourself, then again I can discuss them with more rational and reasonable people. Personally I choose more rational and reasonable people.

As for what books of Dawkins I have read, the selfish gene, the god delusion and the greatest show on earth.

There, was that so hard? Since you're too good to talk to me, though, I won't bother with my follow-up questions. You may sweep yourself up in the robes of your own imagined righteousness and proceed where you will without any objection from me.

 

[footprints]

lol, Where good friends but I doubt me and Sunstone have they same or even a similar belief at all. I just get to know a person and not make assumptions.

Beliefs take many paths. Birds of feather flock together.

 

[footprints]

There, was that so hard? Since you're too good to talk to me, though, I won't bother with my follow-up questions. You may sweep yourself up in the robes of your own imagined righteousness and proceed where you will without any objection from me.

Needless stupidy to justify your original arrogance and ignorance. Personally I would say, just as many theists buy Dawkins books as atheists. Even agnostics like me.

 

[Smoke]

Needless stupidy to justify your original arrogance and ignorance.

My arrogance is the perfectly natural response of any self-respecting person on encountering a person like you. But I thought you didn't want to discuss anything with me.

 

[footprints]

My arrogance is the perfectly natural response of any self-respecting person on encountering a person like you. But I thought you didn't want to discuss anything with me.

Your brain your imagination. Justify your original arrogance and ignorance any way you want to.

I will discuss anything with anybody who wants to be logical, rational and reasonable. Arrogance and ignorance I am really not into, so I treat them as they treat others. Like I said, if it were arrogance and ignorance I was looking for I would be at Dawkins forum. They make posters like you look like angels.