Richard Dawkin

[Linda777]

gnostic;1325428]I have never read any of Dawkin's work, except whatever people in this forum, or other forums, have posted.

Also don't know much about him, but what I can gather is that he is an atheist, into science and evolution, and outspoken critic against religion, particularly Christianity.

Am I supporter of Dawkin?

Don't know. Don't know much about him. But something tells me I don't like him.

Instinct, perhaps.

I get that he is passionate about science and evolution. And I get that he don't believe in god. And I have no doubt that he is intelligent in his line of fields, like science and evolution, and I have no doubt he knows more than I do about them. His interests may even coincide with mine. But he sounded too militant for my liking.

I don't like extremists or fundamentals from Christians and Jews. But I also don't like it from atheists, scientists or evolutionists.

I believed in passion in what to believe, but not at the price of being a fascist in what I believe.

What are you view on Dawkin?

Do you like him?

Are you his supporter?

Dawkins thinks that he is right and has no proof to back up his talk. I saw a video where Christians had him thinking and thinking and thinking and he had no answer to a question they asked him about evolution. Obviously he was trying to remember something he read in a book somewhere. Finally he answered but his answer was not an answer.
Dawkins is book learned but has no thoughts of his own that make sense.
He also thinks that the entire history of the world which is all about God's interaction with mankind is to be shrugged off as nonsense.
He doesn't know history... is Dawkins in a nutshell.

 

[Sunstone]

Dawkins thinks that he is right and has no proof to back up his talk. I saw a video where Christians had him thinking and thinking and thinking and he had no answer to a question they asked him about evolution. Obviously he was trying to remember something he read in a book somewhere. Finally he answered but his answer was not an answer.
Dawkins is book learned but has no thoughts of his own that make sense.
He also thinks that the entire history of the world which is all about God's interaction with mankind is to be shrugged off as nonsense.
He doesn't know history... is Dawkins in a nutshell.

Have you ever read any of Dawkins' books, Linda?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you ever read any of Dawkins' books, Linda?

Inquiring into the obvious again, Sunstone?

 

[crystalonyx]

Dawkins thinks that he is right and has no proof to back up his talk. I saw a video where Christians had him thinking and thinking and thinking and he had no answer to a question they asked him about evolution. Obviously he was trying to remember something he read in a book somewhere. Finally he answered but his answer was not an answer.
Dawkins is book learned but has no thoughts of his own that make sense.
He also thinks that the entire history of the world which is all about God's interaction with mankind is to be shrugged off as nonsense.
He doesn't know history... is Dawkins in a nutshell.

"Dawkins is book learned but has no thoughts of his own that make sense. "

This is like saying Einstein had no thoughts of his own, and his theory of relativity makes no sense.

Fanatical review of Dawkins,

case closed.

 

[fantome profane]

My view is that there is an 's' at the end of Dawkins.

Fascinating. Could it be that Dawkins actually consists of more than one Dawkin?
Dawkin + Dawkin + Dawkin = Dawkins.

Something to consider.

 

[gnostic]

My view is that there is an 's' at the end of Dawkins.

:sorry1: I have the tendency to drop the "s" of names, if I can't remember how it spelt.

 

[Linda777]

Have you ever read any of Dawkins' books, Linda?

I have read the Bible from beginning to end, studied it thoroughly and know completely about the entire history of the world. Dawkins obviously does not know the history of the world. This is clear by listening to him for a while. I didn't study his books I studied him.
This is important to know the history of the world.
It coincides perfectly with the Bible.
Dawkins has no idea how the soul of man came into existence.
He has no idea why we have breath and where it came from.
He has no clue why imagination is not part of us, but is from an outside source.
Our minds could not have evolved and neither our brains which contains our minds.
Man searches for what he needs or for what he thinks he needs and for nothing more.
If he is hungry he searches for food, if cold, for warmth and so on. There has to be a need before the search to fill that need begins. We also need to know what is the need. We do this with our minds; our senses.
Dawkins want me to believe that a tangible visible object; my brain searched for a non tangible invisible item; which is my mind without knowing without a mind how and why it had a need.
It would be like trying to see without eyes.
(The eye could not have evolved,even Darwin saw this obvious fact.)
There has to be an explanation for why we have minds.
Dawkins doesn't know.

 

[Sunstone]

I have read the Bible from beginning to end, studied it thoroughly and know completely about the entire history of the world. Dawkins obviously does not know the history of the world. This is clear by listening to him for a while. I didn't study his books I studied him.
This is important to know the history of the world.
It coincides perfectly with the Bible.
Dawkins has no idea how the soul of man came into existence.
He has no idea why we have breath and where it came from.
He has no idea why imagination is not part of us, but is from an outside source.
Our minds could not have evolved and neither our brains which contains our minds.
Man searches for what he needs or for what he thinks he needs and for nothing more.
If he is hungry he searches for food, if cold, for warmth and so on. There has to be a need before the search to fill that need begins. We also need to know what is the need. We do this with out minds and also our senses.
Dawkins want me to believe that a tangible object; my brain searched for a non tangible item; which is my mind without knowing without a mind how and why it had a need.
It would be like trying to see without eyes.
(The eye could not have evolved,even Darwin saw this obvious fact.)
There has to be an explanation for why we have minds.
Dawkins doesn't know.

I see that you haven't read any of Dawkins' books, but know all about him and his ideas. Is this a sort of standard operating procedure for you? Is it usual for you to be so extraordinarily insightful about people and their ideas? Or is Dawkins a special case?

 

[Linda777]

"Dawkins is book learned but has no thoughts of his own that make sense. "

This is like saying Einstein had no thoughts of his own, and his theory of relativity makes no sense.

Fanatical review of Dawkins,

case closed.

Trying to compare Dawkins with Einstein is absurd.
Einstein's mind was utterly genius and Dawkins mind is without knowledge of reality.
Einstein's E=MC2 actually made Darwin and Dawkins look foolish.

 

[Linda777]

I see that you haven't read any of Dawkins' books, but know all about him and his ideas. Is this a sort of standard operating procedure for you? Is it usual for you to be so extraordinarily insightful about people and their ideas? Or is Dawkins a special case?

Let me put it this way. I know what Dawkins believes.
It isn't insight, it is knowledge of reality.
There is nothing special about Dawkins. He is just another follower of Darwin.
Dawkins speaks but basically says nothing new.
I have heard it all before or read it somewhere.
I am familiar with Darwin and Dawkins is one of his devotees.
Okay tell me how Dawkins accounts for the eye?
The mind? Nerves? Emotions? Imagination?

 

[Sunstone]

Let me put it this way. I know what Dawkins believes.
It isn't insight, it is knowledge of reality.
There is nothing special about Dawkins. He is just another follower of Darwin.
Dawkins speaks but basically says nothing new.
I have heard it all before or read it somewhere.
I am familiar with Darwin and Dawkins is one of his devotees.

As someone familiar with Darwin, do you believe you could pass a seventh grade science test on the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Sunstone]

Let me put it this way. I know what Dawkins believes.
It isn't insight, it is knowledge of reality.
There is nothing special about Dawkins. He is just another follower of Darwin.
Dawkins speaks but basically says nothing new.
I have heard it all before or read it somewhere.
I am familiar with Darwin and Dawkins is one of his devotees.

Okay tell me how Dawkins accounts for the eye?

Is that a trick question, Linda? As someone "familiar" with Dawkins who has "heard it all before" you surely know Dawkins has written and lectured extensively on the evolutionary origins of the eye. Why are you asking me to repeat Dawkins to you?

 

[gnostic]

Trying to compare Dawkins with Einstein is absurd.
Einstein's mind was utterly genius and Dawkins mind is without knowledge of reality.
Einstein's E=MC2 actually made Darwin and Dawkins look foolish.

Darwin has done quite a thorough research before he wrote his book, Origin of Species, and that other scientists that have proven his theory in the 20th century, again and again, prove beyond doubts that Charles Darwin is a genius.

Most of Einstein's theory on relativity were harder to prove and remained largely theoretical, but they were eventually proven, as technology improved.

Beside, Linda. You're comparing apple with orange. You really can't compare the 2 distinctive sciences. Darwin specialized in the field of biology and Einstein in the fields of physics and mathematics.

Doing so, prove how little you understand both fields.

 

[Charity]

Linda 777 I am glad that you read the Bible and that you know the history of the world. Congratulations sweetie, that puts you in the majority along with most of the members of this forum. Do you think that Dawkins hasn't read these things. You need to go check into his credentials before condemning him. Although I don't agree with him I find him absolutely fascinating. Is he going to be 100% accurate in all his statements, probably not at least to the people who has a different philosophy than he does.
Richard Dawkins was brought up in the Anglican Church, but at the age of 9 realized that with so many religions, they couldn't all the true, or at least the one true religion.
You may not agree with Dawkins but please do as I did at least read some of his books. I find him very intelligent and found his writing to be interesting. It didn't change my mind or my belief but I think it gave me some insight into how and why others think the way they do. It's called diversity.

 

[Caladan]

Good grief, the ancient people of Judah knew that the scriptures were not giving them historical accounts on numerous examples of dramatic biblical stories.

 

[Halcyon]

I found The God Delusion to be very interesting indeed! I think a lot of religious people take offense to his views and this is why he is demonized. I don't think he is a bad person at all. I think if the theist were to seriously and honestly read through some of his work they would be hard-pressed to refute many of his arguments.

I'm half way through the God Delusion, and so far I have to say I'm not all that impressed. While his knowledge of natural selection is exemplary (obviously) his understanding of religion and theology seems superficial, which isn't surprising given his assertion that theology is an utter waste of time.

 

[Sunstone]

...his understanding of religion and theology seems superficial, which isn't surprising given his assertion that theology is an utter waste of time.

I think he made a conscious decision to target The God Delusion at Abrahamic fundamentalism, rather than all flavors of religion.

 

[fantome profane]

Okay tell me how Dawkins accounts for the eye?

Perhaps his explanation would be something like this – Evolution of the Eye

 

[Halcyon]

I think he made a conscious decision to target The God Delusion at Abrahamic fundamentalism, rather than all flavors of religion.

He says as much in the introduction to the paperback version, but still, if you were going to write a book specifically concerned with proving to people that there is no God, I would hope for some more research or at least some deeper thought to be put into it.

He limits the God he attempts to disprove so much that I can't think it applies to all that many people, even amongst the most dimwitted of religious fundamentalists. For example he repeats of the old omnipotence/omniscience paradox argument, yet I can't help but feel someone with his intellect should have entertained the thought that a truly omniscient/omnipotent God would not be limited to a single timeline but would see all possible courses of events, yet it does not seem to have occurred to him and so he claims the paradox as a victory for reason.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I have never read any of Dawkin's work, except whatever people in this forum, or other forums, have posted.

Also don't know much about him, but what I can gather is that he is an atheist, into science and evolution, and outspoken critic against religion, particularly Christianity.

Am I supporter of Dawkin?

Don't know. Don't know much about him. But something tells me I don't like him.

Instinct, perhaps.

I get that he is passionate about science and evolution. And I get that he don't believe in god. And I have no doubt that he is intelligent in his line of fields, like science and evolution, and I have no doubt he knows more than I do about them. His interests may even coincide with mine. But he sounded too militant for my liking.

I don't like extremists or fundamentals from Christians and Jews. But I also don't like it from atheists, scientists or evolutionists.

I believed in passion in what to believe, but not at the price of being a fascist in what I believe.

What are you view on Dawkin?

Do you like him?

Are you his supporter?

From what I've seen he's a fanatical athiest. He seems to want, instead of "spreading the Good Word", to spread the exact opposite. Like he thinks he needs to "save" people from religion, in particular Christianity.

That's why I don't like him much.

I respectfully disagree with his views, but I feel he tries to push them. I feel the same way about the opposite end of the scale, the fanatical religious types. I prefer to allow each soul to walk it's own path.

Quote:
In any case, I believed that he is harmless.
Yeah, I don't think his ideas will be used by any tyrants anytime soon.

Just because an idea is used by tyrants doesn't make the idea's creator non-harmless