Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
ali smack

Is Richard Dawkins a Fantantical Atheist?

41 posts in this topic

I am not religious myself and to be frank it doesn't interest me. But I have never understood Richard Dawkins fanatical hatred and ( Let's be frank here )

Ignorance of religion. And it isn't just Christianity he hates. He hates Islam, Judaism and even Buddhism.

He has very little knowledge of religion and is very arrogant with his views.

He does have all the bench marks of a fanatic.

I wonder why he has such hatred of religion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2253640/Battle-professors-Richard-Dawkins-branded-fundamentalist-expert-God-particle.html

Even some scientists think he goes OTT. To say raising a child catholic is worse than child abuse is ignorant and nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not religious myself and to be frank it doesn't interest me. But I have never understood Richard Dawkins fanatical hatred and ( Let's be frank here )

Ignorance of religion. And it isn't just Christianity he hates. He hates Islam, Judaism and even Buddhism.

He has very little knowledge of religion and is very arrogant with his views.

He does have all the bench marks of a fanatic.

I wonder why he has such hatred of religion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2253640/Battle-professors-Richard-Dawkins-branded-fundamentalist-expert-God-particle.html

Even some scientists think he goes OTT. To say raising a child catholic is worse than child abuse is ignorant and nonsensical.

Dawkins is pretty irrelevant. He learned a Long time ago that controversy makes money. That's is all that he is really about.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he is quite fanatical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I answer that you'll have to give me the definition of 'fantantical' ...... thanks. ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point that he is making is that raising a child to believe in a Supernatural Omnipotent Being, thereby ignoring and / or denigrating the real advances that Science has made in improving the lives of mankind (with no Religious input), is utterly devoid of logic and reason. It is a "Stunting" of real scientific endeavour

Edited by keithisco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when i first started looking in to other view points and stuff i tried reading his book god delusion and it turned me off so fast. i didnt read all the book. He just sounds way to bitter and insulting. If you have the truth no your side then you do not have to be insulting.

Wish the politicans would learn that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a bit of both. Reasoonable at time while other times a bit over board...just like most people.

Edited by Sean93
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A money-making atheist is what he is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, he has a point when hw says that raising a kid to believe that such horrors as hell exist for their bad actions is ****ed up and is one of the reasons why I say that no kid should ever be indoctrinated into a religion and should find it themselves...I gurantee there would be a lot less mindless, uneducated fanatics out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His popular writings on evolution and science in general are fantastic - Blind Watchmaker, River out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc. - he really has a knack for making you understand evolution.

He comes across as a bit of a smug **** when I see him discussing religion though, even though I agree with a lot of what he says.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point that he is making is that raising a child to believe in a Supernatural Omnipotent Being, thereby ignoring and / or denigrating the real advances that Science has made in improving the lives of mankind (with no Religious input), is utterly devoid of logic and reason. It is a "Stunting" of real scientific endeavour

in what way is it stunting, i know both theorys through and through. i believe in the supernatural due to being an atheist and then having relgious experiences. there is an omnipotent being you have just missed out on these experiences and speak arrogantly because of it. i was humbled by finding out about it.

i read alot and i only had a craving for knowledge because i had these experiences.

Edited by Armchair Educated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media tends to ignore atheists. Dawkins doesn't like being ignored so he says outrageous things to get attention. I wish he didn't do that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Star

(Love the Butch & Sundance avatar)

What's the poor man to do? Everybody needs a hobby, and we all know that he isn't a stamp collector.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Star

(Love the Butch & Sundance avatar)

What's the poor man to do? Everybody needs a hobby, and we all know that he isn't a stamp collector.

LOL 8ty!!! I could think of better things to do with my time... like UM :w00t: Anyhow, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is one of my 'all time favourite' films! Robert Redford *sigh* :-*

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu: ! Waves to 8ty! :st

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu: ! Waves to 8ty! :st

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.