What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

articulett said:
Well I don't think people should ditch their friends... nor would I tell anyone to stop their beliefs... but I don't believe faith is a good way to know anything and I don't think it's harmless to promote it or defer to it. I was a kid of faith... I was afraid of atheists... I wish I knew adults who could speak the way I now speak. There needs to be room for people to discuss doubts... to discuss whether belief is good or not. I guess I am just accustomed to people hearing it as an attack no matter how nice you say that. I'm sure Dawkins gets that too. I always think of this video:




I wish I was as brave as that kid... I don't want to be an adult that encourages this kind of bigotry. Most people don't mention their beliefs around me... I tend to assume that people are rational.... and I hardly say anything when they invoke astrology or god or whatever... unless there is the presumption that I agree or believe too. I don't treat religion any differently than I treat other woo. And I don't think a Christian is more entitled to blabber about their beliefs than a Scientologists nor a psychic believer. I don't think it's right to praise Jesus any more than I think it's right to praise Allah--

I think there is no nice way to tell people that their faith is as wooish as all the other faiths they don't believe, and by golly it would be nice if they kept their faith as private as they wish those who believe differently would keep theirs. I mean people always hear criticism of religion as criticism of believers or even oppression of believers. They always hear criticism of faith as a means of knowledge as criticism of the faithful. But if you support the paradigm or defer to the paradigm that "faith is good", then little girls kids like me sometimes grow into big kids ready to obey whomever and whatever they've come to have faith in. Whether it's hellfire Christianity, Sylvia Browne, Scientology, fundamentalism, or homeopathy. It creates sloppy thinking, and the only way to get people to consider this is to ruffle some feathers sometimes. If people hear stridency in Dan Dennett then there is no way I can avoid offending people. And if it means a little less prejudice like the clip I linked-- then I am glad. I wish I would have had smart people around speaking up when I was her (Nicole Smallkowski's) age. I would have been cowed into pretending. Heck, I was cowed into pretending.

I don't tell people my opinion of their beliefs in real life-- I'd prefer not to know them if they need me to respect them. But on line, I say what I'm getting bolder.

And people do lie all the time about being atheists or not being creationists. You might not. But I've come across quite a few. Really. It's not hard. Ask them why they are atheists or what they were before and what changed their mind. They'll answer obliquely or with a stereotyped view of what an atheist was (mad at god).
Click to expand...

I'm looking foward(:mad:) to seeing how people attack THIS post.
 
The atheist is always the bad guy.

I don't mind. It feels so... forbidden. My friend, Mary, grew up as an atheist-- she is a tiny sweet lass... but she used to send the school girls screaming in fear by saying, "if there is a god may lightening strike me"... they considered very brave. I bet they still would. I admire the Rational Response Squad for giving others such "courage" to mock the fears which once bound them.
 
I'm actually far less outspoken now than I was when I was a kid. I used to get into full-on schoolyard fights trying to convince other little girls that it wasn't Satan's idea for me to tell them there's no God.

I don't respect religion more than woo, but I understand that belief and faith, in many people, are tied to things they are just not going to let go of.

I don't think I understand what context you are referring to when you talk about deferring to faith/woo/etc. I defer to it around people whose minds I know I can't change (or who I'm outright afraid of, heh). I do not have the energy or the will to make every other conversation into a forum debate.

For the record, I hearts Dawkins and I also hearts his beautiful wife. :D

ETA: Yes, I do know there are plenty of fake atheists around, but I think it's in poor taste to discuss that in terms that can easily be misinterpreted as a true-Scotsman attack on 'soft' atheists who are genuinely just trying to participate in the discussion.
 
Last edited:
I think we probably respond the same in real life. Sometimes I get in situations where someone will say something like, "of course we all were born in sin..." with the presumption that I agree... and I wonder if I should say something or let it slide.

I think there is a lot of bigotry against atheists... I might have even contributed to it myself when I was a believer. I understand why the faithful need to see the faithless as "bad guys". But now I feel responsible for a son who is an atheist... and people like the kid in that video. I think faith has done some nasty things while we've been thinking it was harmless. And I really don't want to give my assent to the idea that "faith is good".

Good for what?

Good for making people easy to manipulate as far as I can see-- or judgmental and arrogant while feeling humble and righteous.

If faith is good for something or lack of belief is bad--it's time to put the evidence on the table... or don't repeat these lies around me. I think it's time for humanity to grow up. Not by force. But I won't participate in a delusion I never asked for or wanted any part of in the first place. I value the truth. I feel immoral to even pretend that I think this sort of faith deference and atheist bashing is fine.

I think people worship the liars and the deluded while trashing people like Dawkins (who I also hearts :) -- and his beautiful wife too.) Good people. Smart people. Honest people. Funny people. Give me more of them. I like them so much better than their critics.
 
JoeEllison said:
Believing in imaginary beings like Jesus, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is stupid and delusional, unless you're 5-6 years old. There's hardly any useful way of stating this rather mundane truth that won't be at least mildly insulting to theist. So, really, at some point an atheist is kind of required to either stay utterly quiet, or say "tough ****, theists, you're stuck in a small child's mindset" in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Everyone is stupid and delusional to some degree, that's human nature. Singling religion (or Bigfoot or psychics or magic beans or certain political philosophies or whatever) out and insulting it is unfair. The goal should be cold unfeeling reason (and ultimately, happiness), and atheism is just a pleasant side effect of that. Although I feel that Dawkins is more cold and unfeeling than most people give him credit for. He is not completely sterile and detatched, and that is unfortunate, but he's not the wrathful atheist that people paint him as either.
 
Last edited:
UserGoogol said:
Everyone is stupid and delusional to some degree, that's human nature. Singling religion (or Bigfoot or psychics or magic beans or certain political philosophies or whatever) out and insulting it is unfair. The goal should be cold unfeeling reason (and ultimately, happiness), and atheism is just a pleasant side effect of that. Although I feel that Dawkins is more cold and unfeeling than most people give him credit for. He is not completely sterile and detatched, and that is unfortunate, but he's not the wrathful atheist that people paint him as either.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
But he's not singling religion out... religion has been used to not being scrutinized like other crazy delusional ideas. And it's really delusional to imagine that somehow you were born into or stumbled upon some divine truth-- whether you call it god or the keys to nirvana--

Once again, I don't think he's harsher than any other critic of woo- from Scientology to psychics to truthers-- it's just that people "hear" so much more. It's the double standard. Everything an atheist says is heard with evil coldness no matter how nice it is-- and everything negative said about "faith as a means of knowledge" is taken as an attack upon the faithful.

I suspect Dawkins is more compassionate and less judgmental than his critics too, though they seem to imagine themselves worthy of giving advice on such topics.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
But he's not singling religion out... religion has been used to not being scrutinized like other crazy delusional ideas. And it's really delusional to imagine that somehow you were born into or stumbled upon some divine truth-- whether you call it god or the keys to nirvana--

Once again, I don't think he's harsher than any other critic of woo- from Scientology to psychics to truthers-- it's just that people "hear" so much more. It's the double standard. Everything an atheist says is heard with evil coldness no matter how nice it is-- and everything negative said about "faith as a means of knowledge" is taking as an attack upon the faithful.

I suspect Dawkins is more compassionate and less judgmental than his critics too, though they seem to imagine themselves worthy of giving advice on such topics.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right, from start to finish. It isn't unfairly singling out religion to include it with all the other woo... it is unfair to claim that religion is being singled out at all.
 
Dragoonster said:
Deal with evidence, not supposition. The dude had some woo theories and some nearly unique insight into the physical world. One doesn't necessarily insubstantiate the other.
Click to expand...
So the fact one could be arrested and burned alive for denying god beliefs is not evidence?



Dragoonster said:
Again, come on. Labelling others is a poor argumentative technique for anyone, be they theist, atheist, Jesus, or Dawkins. I haven't seen much indicating he's acutally a theist, nor would it matter to his arguments, which seem to revolve primarily on a social liberatarian approach.

Atheists should no more weasel in pejorative assumptions than theists do. Or if they do they should likewise be called on it.
Click to expand...
Again you are unhappy with my assessment. I made an assessment and spelled out what led to my conclusions including a statement that I recognize it is just an opinion and I am willing to reconsider.

This is not the same as just calling people names and giving no explanation for the basis of the opinion. I see no reason I should hide my opinions just because you or anyone else doesn't approve.
 
Dragoonster said:
btw, I say that because Dawkins and others, myself included, support argument-by-evidence, argument-by-logic. If we slip and diverge into any typical logical fallacies that the theists or woo-artists use, we've given up our advantage. We've been brought down to argue on their illogical terms, which we shouldn't do. And we'll rightfully be criticized as arguing from emotion, or baseless supposition, or agenda, just like they do. At that point we will be another typical ideology, no better or worse or more reasonable or more human-informing than any other argument.

What is the skeptics' advantage? Rationality and objectivity. Why sully that with personal prejudice?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might broaden your view when defining what is relevant evidence.
 
Last edited:
Well I went to the Discovery Institute today. I'll have to start a thread about it later.

Well the name Dawkins came up and a burst of vocalizations from the audience rang out laughing at his position. No other incident during the entire 2 hour presentation had a similar response. Obviously Dawkins is their nemesis.
 
skeptigirl said:
So the fact one could be arrested and burned alive for denying god beliefs is not evidence?
Click to expand...

You're right, it is evidence. Sorry (sincerely).

Again you are unhappy with my assessment. I made an assessment and spelled out what led to my conclusions including a statement that I recognize it is just an opinion and I am willing to reconsider.

This is not the same as just calling people names and giving no explanation for the basis of the opinion. I see no reason I should hide my opinions just because you or anyone else doesn't approve.
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't matter whether a person is a theist or atheist, the person's arguments matter, as do his actions. If Dawkins "came out" tomorrow and said he was actually a Christian or Mormon, it wouldn't/shouldn't impact his arguments or his books, or his impact in raising atheism's profile, etc. Nor would it in the future, if his arguments remain powerful.

You shouldn't hide your opinions, which I generally find interesting, sorry if that's how you took it. I just don't see any value in assessing whether another poster is a true atheist or true christian or whatever. And I've been put on ignore by another poster here for not being a proper atheist, so apparently this line of thinking does have some consequence.

skeptigirl said:
Perhaps you might broaden your view when defining what is relevant evidence.
Click to expand...

Is it relevant to another poster whether you're actually a "communist" just because you disagree with a single aspect of capitalism? It's a tar-and-feathering, used to besmirch another poster instead of honestly dealing with the arguments that they're putting forth.

ETA: The oxygen up here is getting pretty thin so I'll jump off the high-horse now!
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with Dawkins. In fact, if he was arguing any other point than that god doesn't exist, it would be obvious to almost everyone that he never (or almost never, though I can't find one example) steps out of line and remains the genteel Englishman at all times. If Anthony Daniels ever died and George Lucas needed a replacement voice for C3PO, Dawkins would fill in seamlessly. Dawkins is firm and unapologetic about his stance; that does not make him a fanatic. Harris is the same way, though doesn't have the science cred. Though I great admire the way Harris seems to begin all his lectures with the disclaimer that if he offends anyone, they should know that he's not trying to be deliberately provocative. Well, it sounds a lot better when he says it. In any case, Hitchens is far harsher than the other two. Now I'm huge Hitchens fan as well. He has a more combative style but he never seems to loose his cool either. That just seems to be his style. His brother, Peter Hitchens, though an evangelical Christian, debates no less combatively. I am a huge fan all Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I think they all bring their own unique style to the discourse. And I think atheists like myself have every right to be really pissed off with how we've been treated throughout history and with how the religious LITERALLY get away with murder. And to comment on a previous poster's remark, Dawkins isn't letting atheists off the hook for the 20th century totalitarian regimes; he's stating the obvious, which is that atheism was not the reason they occurred in the first place. There can be no question that events like The Inquisition were religious in their very nature. Stalin on the other hand, did not commit his crimes out of atheism but was a power hungry dictator who just happened to be atheist and who happened to be smart enough to recognize that religious authority would always be a threat to the authority of the state. No one claims that atheists are incapable of being evil. But you won't find a person committing evil because of their atheism. That's just silly. And that's Dawkins point. It's as irrelevant to the proceedings as is the fact that all these dictators had mustaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom