40 replies to this topic

[Sherapy]

Yes, I think Dawkins approach is extreme/perpetuates intolerance ( whether he intends this as the effect-- I do not know without knowing him personally.) I think one can be an athiest and be tolerant of others path even if it isn't one they would chose. Hoping all is well for you Star ! Waves to 8ty!

[Religulous]

He is an individual who simply wants the truth, and is intolerable of nonsense. What is wrong with that? I am a huge fan of his work -- I have an immense amount of respect for him both as a person, and as a scientist. Take into consideration the amount of atrocities carried out, and still being carried out, in the name of religion. It is banal, and irrelevant to modern society.

Edited by Religulous, 12 February 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

I think Dawkins is just arrogant in what he believes and is intelligent enough to make money off that arrogance.  Several years ago I borrowed the God Delusion from a friend.  I didn't read it all, but I did read parts of it.  One thing that stuck in my mind as I read it was his claims about children and belief.  On one hand, early on in the book he ridiculed the idea of "religious children".  He says that kids and pre-teens are not developed enough to understand things such as God and those kids that believe do so only because their parents tell them and they accept it.  On the other hand, at another point in the book, Dawkins says that ever since he was 9 years old (I think it was 9) he knew knew that there was no God.

In other words, there is such a thing as atheist children, but there is no such thing as religious children.  His basis for this view is nothing but his own opinion.

As I said, arrogant.

~ Regards, PA

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 12 February 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

I think Dawkins is just arrogant in what he believes and is intelligent enough to make money off that arrogance.  

I think you will find a lot of arrogant people seem to be the ones who wind up stinking rich from their arrogance, and you will notice a lot of religious people who are without arrogance remain poor..   It's a crazy mixed up world we live in..

[Sean93]

A lot of these comments seem to be attacking his wealth...seriously?

Grow up. He wrote one book that mainly deals with God 'The God Delusion'. Before that he was well established as a prominent scientist and sold millions of copies of his other books which are mainly about evoultion, natural selection and science in general. It was inevitable that books like 'God Delusion' would be controversial and sell a lot because of that reason, don't all books in that regard be surrounded by scandal? People seem to be confusing Dawkins as a man mainly out to get god when his major area of focus is Evolution.

I rarely hear of anyone complain about the wealth of major religions of the world or the stupid idiotoc fact that they actually SELL the word of god in shops...sell the word of god...shouldn't they be free? Same for those charaltans that write books on their NDE'S and make millions from it.

I like Dawkins' works but hate the fact that he surrounds himself with those nobs at the 'Athiest Convention' and the likes.

Edited by Sean93, 12 February 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[Tiggs]

Paranoid Android, on 12 February 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

He says that kids and pre-teens are not developed enough to understand things such as God and those kids that believe do so only because their parents tell them and they accept it.  On the other hand, at another point in the book, Dawkins says that ever since he was 9 years old (I think it was 9) he knew knew that there was no God.

In other words, there is such a thing as atheist children, but there is no such thing as religious children.  His basis for this view is nothing but his own opinion.

Dawkins claims to have been a Christian until his mid-teens.

So - probably not 9, I'm guessing.

[Liquid Gardens]

Sherapy, on 12 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Yes, I think Dawkins approach is extreme/perpetuates intolerance ( whether he intends this as the effect-- I do not know without knowing him personally.) I think one can be an athiest and be tolerant of others path even if it isn't one they would chose. Hoping all is well for you Star ! Waves to 8ty!

You may be correct, but playing nice has a long history of accomplishing about nothing on minority issues, and at least in the US, atheists are pretty much the most reviled minority.  Suffragettes, black civil rights movements, gay rights movements, all of these definitely involved extreme measures and some amount of intolerance, as earlier efforts to be gentle and considerate were not effective.   I don't think you can divorce these comments from popular atheists from this environment anymore than you can get an accurate understanding of what someone like Malcolm X was agitating for without of that context.

Although I didn't really like his books on atheism just because I thought they were scattered and boring, I guess I don't have as big a problem with his arrogance, extremism and intolerance, as it is dwarfed in intensity and frequency by theists' statements towards atheism and atheists.  I guess I typically see his intolerance not projected at people but at bad ideas, and I don't think intolerance towards bad ideas is necessarily wrong, and is somewhat inherent in science.

[ali smack]

Hasina, on 11 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

When he convinces someone to blow themselves up to kill others cause it's the 'right thing to do', then I'll call him a fanatic.

a fanatic isn't just someone who is a terrorist. It's anyone who has an extreme view/or hatred for something. Evangelists are fanatics.
And so is Richard Dawkins. He has an extreme hatred of religion, and some could say his views are fanatical or certainly bordering on them

[ali smack]

I don't care for religion myself but even I think some of the things he says are a bit extreme.

[Hasina]

ali smack, on 13 February 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

a fanatic isn't just someone who is a terrorist. It's anyone who has an extreme view/or hatred for something. Evangelists are fanatics.
And so is Richard Dawkins. He has an extreme hatred of religion, and some could say his views are fanatical or certainly bordering on them

When he ruins someone's life, when he's done something horrible, I'll call him a fanatic. So what if he has a hatred of religion, the majority of religions are based around forcing their views on others (or guilt tripping you into their views), he's just taking the fight to them, on their own terms. Through bigotry and intolerance.

Edited by Hasina, 13 February 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[The Silver Thong]

ali smack, on 13 February 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

I don't care for religion myself but even I think some of the things he says are a bit extreme.

Such as....

[The Silver Thong]

Hasina, on 13 February 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

When he ruins someone's life, when he's done something horrible, I'll call him a fanatic. So what if he has a hatred of religion, the majority of religions are based around forcing their views on others (or guilt tripping you into their views), he's just taking the fight to them, on their own terms. Through bigotry and intolerance.

It`s the bully calling foul play when the same tactics are used on them. Poor little religion did he hurt your feelings lol

[Hasina]

The Silver Thong, on 13 February 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

It`s the bully calling foul play when the same tactics are used on them. Poor little religion did he hurt your feelings lol

No, but it has abused, raped, and killed people.

[joc]

I've never even heard of Richard Hawkins...now that I have, I haven't listened to anything he has said...so why am I even commenting on this?  Because...if he isn't hurting anyone...and he isn't hurting himself...how is anything he says going to adversely affect my life...or anyone elses...one way or the other?  If he hates it is his problem not mine.  If he is hated it is those who hate him that have the problem.   Some people make a cottage industry out of selling religion...others make a cottage industry out of selling hatred of the religion...what really is the difference?

[psyche101]

Well, yes, I would agree, he is a fanatic, but not a fundie:

Quote

fa·nat·ic  

/fəˈnatik/

                              
Noun
A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.                                                                                                                                                                                
Adjective              
Filled with or expressing excessive zeal.                                                                                              

Nothing wrong with expressing enthusiasm. It's quite normal. People do it all the time, he is a person, so I see nothing wrong with it. Is he sensationalist? Indeed! He said he was going to take the Pope to court!

LINK - Richard Dawkins calls for Pope to be put on trial

He is all of those things, but so are most of us, the big thing is that I would say is that he is right in much of what he says. Anyone who says the man is not very smart is only deluding themselves. Many people get very jaded by religion, and today it still manges to blight parts of the world, but so do all cultures, and he despises superstition as a whole. I think he is a little ahead of his time perhaps, and that is taken badly by many who are not ready or willing for change. But I think eventually, everyone will have to face the facts of a biological process. Once that is realised, religion is no longer required.

Edited by psyche101, 13 February 2013 - 04:58 AM.