Why do many people here hate Richard Dawkins?

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That's the only two options? People who dislike Dawkins' approach are either A+ers or religious themselves? Which of these two categories does Neil DeGrasse Tyson fit in to?
Click to expand...
I don't know what category Tyson fits in, nor do I know how he feels about Dawkins.

Earlier I also noted there are agnostics that don't like the POV of atheists like Dawkins.

I get flack for my position all the time from people who can't make the paradigm shift from 'we can't prove gods don't exist' to 'the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion all gods are mythical human inventions'.

The evidence supports asserting 'all' in that conclusion the same way the evidence supports including 'all' in, 'evolution theory applies to all life on Earth'.

Rather than consider the evidence and the scientific process, some people, including some skeptics, can't break out of their current thinking and call god beliefs incompatible with science. It's a double standard. Saying so when it contradicts another's POV evokes anger instead of just agreement to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't know what category Tyson fits in, nor do I know how he feels about Dawkins.

Earlier I also noted there are agnostics that don't like the POV of atheists like Dawkins.

I get flack for my position all the time from people who can't make the paradigm shift from 'we can't prove gods don't exist' to 'the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion all gods are mythical human inventions'.

The evidence supports asserting 'all' in that conclusion the same way the evidence supports including 'all' in, 'evolution theory applies to all life on Earth'.

Rather than consider the evidence and the scientific process, some people, including some skeptics, can't break out of their current thinking and call god beliefs incompatible with science. It's a double standard. Saying so when it contradicts another's POV evokes anger instead of just agreement to disagree.
Click to expand...

None of that really seems to address what I said.

You listed 2 groups of people who would criticise Dawkins' approach to talking about religion - A+ers, or the religious who cannot stomach their god being criticised. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has criticised Dawkins' approach to talking about religion. Must he therefore necessarily fit into one of those two categories, or was your original post in error?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
None of that really seems to address what I said.

You listed 2 groups of people who would criticise Dawkins' approach to talking about religion - A+ers, or the religious who cannot stomach their god being criticised. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has criticised Dawkins' approach to talking about religion. Must he therefore necessarily fit into one of those two categories, or was your original post in error?
Click to expand...

If I may - SG did note 2 groups as examples. SG did not state that those were the only people, or groups of people, that fit the description. That limitation is of your own making.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
None of that really seems to address what I said.

You listed 2 groups of people who would criticise Dawkins' approach to talking about religion - A+ers, or the religious who cannot stomach their god being criticised. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has criticised Dawkins' approach to talking about religion. Must he therefore necessarily fit into one of those two categories, or was your original post in error?
Click to expand...
And I explained I also noted a third group. It's your false conclusion because I listed two groups there were no more than two. If my wording led you to that false conclusion, my apologies, but I did clarify and you continue to hold your false conclusion. If my clarification wasn't clear I apologize for that.

But instead of this game, you could just say what your position is and save time. If you think Dawkins is impolite for telling theists they believe in woo, do you feel the same way telling other people they believe in other kinds of woo?


As for people who claim "Dawkins' approach is too confrontational", they fit in my mind in the same category as those who give god woo a pass rather than offend. I don't see Dawkins' confrontational attitude as hostile like some people see it. I see a no nonsense, stop beating around the bush, attitude. It's time to call it as it is.

There's a difference between "don't be a dick" and not pulling punches IMO.
 
Last edited:
I love Richard Dawson. He was great on Hogan's Heroes and he got to kiss all the women on Family Feud. He was also in one of my favorite WWII movies, "The Devil's Brigade".
 
Henry Bannister said:
I thought Dawkins had admitted that he was an agnostic.
Click to expand...
"Admitted"? Where'd you read that, the Daily Mail?

When Dawkins said "I'm sure Obama is an atheist" I'm pretty sure he wasn't stating his belief that Obama believes he can absolutely disprove the existence of God.

Pedantic nerds...
 
Joey McGee said:
"Admitted"? Where'd you read that, the Daily Mail?

When Dawkins said "I'm sure Obama is an atheist" I'm pretty sure he wasn't stating his belief that Obama believes he can absolutely disprove the existence of God.

Pedantic nerds...
Click to expand...

RICHARD DAWKINS, usually labelled an "outspoken atheist", has raised eyebrows after describing himself as an agnostic and admitting that he cannot disprove the existence of God.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic

Seems an acceptable position to me - how do you prove there's no god?
 
Joey McGee said:
"Admitted"? Where'd you read that, the Daily Mail?

When Dawkins said "I'm sure Obama is an atheist" I'm pretty sure he wasn't stating his belief that Obama believes he can absolutely disprove the existence of God.

Pedantic nerds...
Click to expand...
I Googled it and looked at the interview which his words were taken from. On a scale of 1(god exists) to 7(god does not exist), he say's he's a 6. But people like to stop the tape right there and ignore his explanation.

There is a scientific principle involved in not being able to prove the negative. That's all he's referring to.

Once you note that you agree with that people peg you as agnostic. I don't see it that way. That scientific principle applies to everything, from the shape of the Earth to evolution theory to the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Yet people rarely concern themselves with the idea maybe the Earth is flat, perhaps Evolution theory is wrong, and since one can't disprove invisible pink unicorns we must constantly consider them.

It is not contrary to scientific principle to conclude all gods are mythical beings and, IMO, one need not constantly concern oneself with the matter one cannot disprove gods exist anymore than one cares to prove invisible unicorns are not there.

The problem is, people who believe a god exists use the fact one cannot prove otherwise as evidence they do. It is just as fallacious to conclude absence of evidence is evidence of absence as it is to conclude absence of evidence is evidence of presence.
 
I wouldn't really disagree with any of that. If you're trying to take a scientific approach then you adopt the null hyphothesis.

I was just remarking that he described himself as an agnostic, so not as extreme an atheist as he is often painted.
 
Spindrift said:
I love Richard Dawson. He was great on Hogan's Heroes and he got to kiss all the women on Family Feud. He was also in one of my favorite WWII movies, "The Devil's Brigade".
Click to expand...

Seconded!

By the way, did you see that moive Autofocus? It had a person playing the part of Richard Dawson who got an 8 watt stero system in his car.

Also, Dawson was really great in that one episode of the Odd Couple and as 'Killian' in that movie The Running Man.
 
Henry Bannister said:
RICHARD DAWKINS, usually labelled an "outspoken atheist", has raised eyebrows after describing himself as an agnostic and admitting that he cannot disprove the existence of God.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic
Click to expand...
I see you did not get my point.

The word "admitted" is quite clearly being abused in order to offer some condolence or delight to agnostics and believers who dislike the "strident atheists". He did not "admit" to anything. He never claimed to be able to disprove the existence of God, he's not "admitting" anything by clarifying this philosophical point, he included it in his book and has been consistent in his debates. And he's quite clearly comfortable with the definition of atheist being someone who lacks a belief in a God as opposed to someone who is 100% certain there is no such thing, evidenced by the fact he continues to use the word atheist quite freely. I think the argument over what is the more correct term is incredibly stupid. And pedantic.
Seems an acceptable position to me - how do you prove there's no god?
Click to expand...
I think virtually all atheists settle into the position you can't absolutely. Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, settle that God is incredibly improbable but not absolutely impossible. Anyone who makes a big deal about that distinction usually has something to sell that no one is buying.
 
Crossbow said:
I sure do not hate Richard Dawkins. In fact, I like Richard Dawkins and I have read some his books.

By the way, I do not hate anyone else either.
Click to expand...


Man, what kind of people have you been hanging out with :eye-poppi
 
Henry Bannister said:
Ok 'described himself as an agnostic'

Pedantic nerds...
Click to expand...
That doesn't help. Not understanding the connotation and what he meant by the term is the problem.

Out of context Dawkins called himself an agnostic, in context he merely said you can't disprove gods exist but in all likelihood they don't.
 
I love Dawkins, the popularizer of all things Evolution.

From "The Blind Watchmaker" to "The Ancestor's Tale" the man has a real gift.

The atheist stuff comes off a bit like preaching to the converted, but he does make some good points.

One niggle: digs at George Bush, even if deserved, seemed very much out of place in "Ancestor's Tale". It was as if Darwin criticized the politicians of his era in "Origin of Species". It would still be a great work, but flawed.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
...One niggle: digs at George Bush, even if deserved, seemed very much out of place in "Ancestor's Tale". It was as if Darwin criticized the politicians of his era in "Origin of Species". It would still be a great work, but flawed.
Click to expand...
I dunno, Bush was advocating teaching Creationism along side evolution theory in public schools. Seemed well worth bringing up, IMO.
 
Henry Bannister said:
Ok 'described himself as an agnostic'

Pedantic nerds...
Click to expand...
:confused:
I was just remarking that he described himself as an agnostic, so not as extreme an atheist as he is often painted.
Click to expand...
This really isn't the case then is it...

I'm sure he accepts 6.9 agnostic and atheist as equally accurate. Commenting on the difference is what is pedantic.

If you think there is a major is difference between "I 100% believe there is absolutely no God" and "God is as likely to exist as fairies" I guess you can go around saying that Dawkins is agnostic and isn't really such an atheist after all. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom