Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

[ImaginalDisc]

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism.

To quote Dawkins.

To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge.' The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die "in return." Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants "in revenge." It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralyzed from the neck down.

Source.


Care to retract your statement?

 

[Q-Source]

Rubbish, he has criticized all faiths. His program on C4 last week criticized Mullahs, TGD contains many quotes critical of Islam. You seem to be seeing just what you want to see, and wrapping it up with a PC conspiracy theory.

I don´t live in the UK anymore. But did he criticise -not the mullahs- but the Muslim faith? I mean, it is easy to criticise terrorists but what about the teaching of the prophet Mahoma.

Catholics are a branch of Christianity- I don't see why you separated them out from Christians in general.

I think it is the opposite, Christianity is a brach of Catholicism.

Him being "bullying" is responding to the question "what if you're wrong" by answering "well, what if you're wrong?". I'm sorry I fail to see how that is bullying. Would you care to explain it?

I am also sorry that you fail to see his bullying. Anyway, I don´t give a rat´s ass about Dawkins personal beliefs on other people´s beliefs. I just think he should stop using Science as an excuse for his aggresive behaviour. He should go back to Oxford University and work on what he is good at, as a biologist. He has absolutely no contribution to make on Philosophy and Religion.

 

[Q-Source]

So will you make the same claims against anyone who has the affront to call themselves gay?
Are they condemning all heterosexual people to a life of misery?
How DARE they!

YOU asked me a proof on where Dawkins separates himself from the rest of people who don´t think like him. I gave it to you. Now you turn the whole post into a gay discussion. Oh my god, what an embarrassment you are for the Skeptic movement.

 

[brodski]

YOU asked me a proof on where Dawkins separates himself from the rest of people who don´t think like him. I gave it to you. Now you turn the whole post into a gay discussion. Oh my god, what an embarrassment you are for the Skeptic movement.

Is the irony of criticising Dawkins for applying a label to to an intellectual position and then talking in general terms about the sceptic movement not lost on you.

If we except that Dawkins is dividing the world into them and it was with this quote how is it any worse than your hero Sagen, whose beliefs you contrasted with those of Dawkins, using the word "skeptic" to describe a group.

if you can't think t why I used the gay analogy in response to your quote you may wish to read your quote a little more closely.
Oh and please don't personalize the issue.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

YOU asked me a proof on where Dawkins separates himself from the rest of people who don´t think like him. I gave it to you. Now you turn the whole post into a gay discussion. Oh my god, what an embarrassment you are for the Skeptic movement.

Please address my previous post.

 

[brodski]

I don´t live in the UK anymore. But did he criticise -not the mullahs- but the Muslim faith? I mean, it is easy to criticise terrorists but what about the teaching of the prophet Mahoma.

He's done that too.

I think it is the opposite, Christianity is a brach of Catholicism.

Then you are wrong. All catholics are Christian, but not all Christian are catholic. Simple really.

I am also sorry that you fail to see his bullying.

[ perhaps that's because it's not there. Would you care to support your position?

I just think he should stop using Science as an excuse for his aggresive behaviour.

You have yet to show any aggressive behavior, and seem totally unwilling to support your criticisms of Dawkins.

He should go back to Oxford University and work on what he is good at, as a biologist. He has absolutely no contribution to make on Philosophy and Religion.

He seems to be pretty good at fermenting a public debate on the role of religion in society.

 

[Q-Source]

Care to retract your statement?

Why should I retract? Your source is from 2001. RD wrote the God Delusion in 2006 and gave a conference in Beyond Belief (2006) where he clearly states that people should not show respect for conventional religion anymore. He says that it should receive open criticism in no polite terms.

 

[brodski]

Why should I retract? Your source is from 2001. RD wrote the God Delusion in 2006 and gave a conference in Beyond Belief (2006) where he clearly states that people should not show respect for conventional religion anymore. He says that it should receive open criticism in no polite terms.

What has that got to do with your Lie that Dawkins does not criticize Muslims and is therefore a coward?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Why should I retract? Your source is from 2001. RD wrote the God Delusion in 2006 and gave a conference in Beyond Belief (2006) where he clearly states that people should not show respect for conventional religion anymore. He says that it should receive open criticism in no polite terms.

You said this:

I would have to see that to believe it. He has never criticised openly the Muslim beliefs, at least not in the UK, he knows he would be in serious trouble as Muslims are intolerant to criticism

Dawkins said this.

To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Your statement is untrue.

 

[Q-Source]

Just a final note.
Richard Dawkins has failed in this campaign to change the way people perceive religion. He has failed because he believes scientism (not the same as Science) has the monopoly of the truth. If anything, he is discouraging people from turning to Science to find answers. This is what pisses me off, because he is polarising the debate instead of contributing to a better understanding of the world.

 

[Q-Source]

Your statement is untrue.

So you think THAT is a criticism of Mahoma´s teachings? Not at all.
Anyway, he thinks and writes something different in 2006.

Bye, I have to work.

 

[brodski]

Just a final note.
Richard Dawkins has failed in this campaign to change the way people perceive religion. He has failed because he believes scientism (not the same as Science) has the monopoly of the truth. If anything, he is discouraging people from turning to Science to find answers. This is what pisses me off, because he is polarising the debate instead of contributing to a better understanding of the world.

Would it be too much to expect of you to support this accusation too?

 

[brodski]

So you think THAT is a criticism of Mahoma´s teachings? Not at all.

can you find where he criticized the teachings of Jesus? He is largely crtical of how religion is applied.

Anyway, he thinks and writes something different in 2006.

Would you care to quote it?

Bye, I have to work.

In your own time...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So you think THAT is a criticism of Mahoma´s teachings? Not at all.
Anyway, he thinks and writes something different in 2006.

If you claim he is contradicting himself, prove it.

 

[Moochie]

He's so vain, he probably thinks this thread is about him.

M.

 

[Darat]

You just have to watch all his campaign against Catholics and Christians on youtube videos.

...snip...

I have watched most of the stuff that has been linked to from this Forum so it's likely I've seen them. However your answer is not addressing the question I had. Which is will you provide evidence for your accusation of bullying?

 

[Q-Source]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I agree Q-Source.

Even Tyson thinks so, and told him that to his face at a conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

 

[Big Les]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

Do you mean this? Perhaps you could point out where he either laughs or ridicules the girl for her question. I detect slight exasperation in his voice for her fairly trite and empty question, but he still goes on to answer it with all due respect. Rather well, too (to the effect that as a Christian she already disbelieves in other deities, why believe in hers? What if she's wrong?). The fact that audience members are tittering and cheerleading for him is hardly his responsibility. I suspect they are pleased and even surprised themselves to hear religion getting criticism. What does he actually say that ridicules the girl? He ridicules her religion by comparing it to other real and fantasy religions and deities. That's kind of his point - Christianity, Islam and the rest have no more evidence nor protected status than any other belief, and should be open to criticism. Any offence taken at that is taken quite deliberate and defensive in nature, in my view.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear because you disagree with what he says and what he stands for.

 

[brodski]

I just said it before, laughting and ridiculing a girl in front of the public just because she asked "what if you´re wrong?" is being a bully. If you fail to see it then you lack neutrality. RD doesn´t engage in conversation but in confrontation most of the time.

He neither laughed at nor ridiculed her, he asked her the same question she asked him. Is turnabout fair play?
If not, why not?