I think Thunderf00t and Dawkins are brilliant people; Dawkins, because of his scientific teachings, poetic writings and lessons, and, I think, because he does a good job at debating and crushing the opponent. I think his arguments are strong; he doesn't necessarily need to be learned in philosophy. If it works, it works. Although I do tend to like people, even with what could be seen as undesirable traits; everyone has them.
Michael Shermer is probably my favourite skeptic/atheist at the moment though.

Same, Shermer is fucking awesome.

His book "The Mind of the Market" is fucking epic, it's a brilliant defence and discussion of the free market, it cuts through the typical bullshit conformation bias like a samurai sword through a flaccid cock

LoL @ the Spartacus speak VOID

I don't really understand the Richard Dawkins "lack of respect".

To be fair, I don't find him particularly likeable, and occasionally brash when a softer approach would be more suitable.

However, we know fine well that various arguments for an against a deity can consist of an entire novel themselves. The God Delusion is not in some indisputable refutation of God but serves very well as an introduction to atheism.

It seems people expect it to be the ultimate refutation, a kind of anti-theist bible, and no reasonable person would expect it to.

The book itself, as a concept would have no point, if Dawkins stays limited to his own realm of expertise, the whole book would be dismissed if he does not address even one theistic argument. Dawkins was almost certainly aware of this, and the reason it caused such a fuss is that it did a damn good job of covering almost every angle.
Did it do so with perfect accuracy and detail? No, but it pointed you in the direction of further detail should you wish to read more.

The God Delusion is an antidote to your garden variety theist, and an introduction to the broad range of atheistic views. That is all, each argument has been written about elsewhere and in more detail, and the choice is yours to look into the parts that interest you the most.

Most of all, its a single book. A summary, and the real respect you should have for Dawkins is based upon his previous publications.

In regards to the forum shutdown, it was a mess. Absolutely. But, he realised it was wrong, handled badly, he reacted poorly and he said so explicitly, and apologised publically. It seems people expect him to be an unimpeachable messiah free from criticism.. and we're supposed to be helping people remove themselves of delusions like that.
I actually respect him more for just being human about it, as sometimes the most dangerous route for empiricists is to appear robotic.

Rebecca Watson, thats an interesting one. The whole thing was clearly blown out of proportion but it occurs to me that if she clearly felt uncomfortable in that situation, and did overreact. That does not excuse the fact she was uncomfortable. Its the same common sense that stops you from walking behind a woman alone in a dark street, you stop because its easy to imagine harmful intent. Especially when the same chap had just left a lecture where Rebecca Watson had just talked about that exact situation.
However, she did overreact, and guess what, she shows herself as human too.

Personally, you take what is useful from people who have something useful to say. People really need to stop idolising individuals, that is all imo.

Quote:Dawkins was almost certainly aware of this, and the reason it caused such a fuss is that it did a damn good job of covering almost every angle.

That is where I disagree, it did not. It had some serious flaws in it and like with the bible, if you can't rely on the data given in the book to be accurate, what is preventing us from dismissing the book in its entirety?

Quote:In regards to the forum shutdown, it was a mess. Absolutely. But, he realised it was wrong, handled badly, he reacted poorly and he said so explicitly, and apologised publically.

He apologized for the shutdown yes, not for what he pulled 2 years prior to that by dumping the vets forum. He never apologized to the people warning him about Josh, he never aplogized to people like LP who got cold shouldered because she asked too many embarrising questions about the foundation.

It is not the lack of respect for him I find puzzling, its rather that I still have any respect for him at all.

Phew Tiberius. I'm so glad someone agrees with me on Watson's over-reaction to the whole reddit thing. I think she took it way too seriously without acknowledging that the comments were just jokes that aren't meant to reflect anything realistic. I saw it on Pharyngula, and the comments section made me feel alone and as if I had a broken conscience. Luckily, I didn't comment.

Sounds like Rebecca Watson is a very insecure individual who raises her self-esteem by arguing for the sake of arguing.

One particular flaw I take a massive issue with is his "Scale of Belief" which puts agnostics directly between atheists and theists. For a man who holds Darwin in such high regard, you would have thought he might have actually read up on the philosophy that was created and popularized by "Darwin's Bulldog", Thomas Huxley. Dawkins doesn't even use the more common misconception of agnosticism (I don't know what I believe), but rather invents his own: "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable".

It annoyed me so much that a couple of years ago, Ryft and I created a competing scale: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3817.html

(February 16, 2012 at 9:00 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Sounds like Rebecca Watson is a very insecure individual who raises her self-esteem by arguing for the sake of arguing.

RW and some of the skepchicks have done good work, and I give them that. Unfortunately, they also take themselves WAY too seriously - and I think that's the majority of RW's problem. About the only Skepchick I give any credence to now is Karen Stolznow, who is a cohost for Monster Talk and Point of Inquiry and tends to stay out of the nasty mess of "he said, she said".

I know some of the old teen skepchicks and they are fine as well. RW is just a very bad person.