What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?

[The Valkyrie]

Condescending prick

And I wasn't even here to defend myself!



Oh, Dawkins!

Many of his writings are very good and there's no denying that he kicks the arses of creationists he encounters.

As to the man himself, I'm not really all that much of a fan.

[SuperSentient]

Probably a great Biologist. As an atheist? No, just no.
I am one of those atheists that doesn't care about the common atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss (though he is pretty funny at times), Harris, etc.

I remember previously I used to refer to Dawkins as "the Pope of Darwinism".

[The Valkyrie]

Probably a great Biologist. As an atheist? No, just no.
I am one of those atheists that doesn't care about the common atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss (though he is pretty funny at times), Harris, etc.

I remember previously I used to refer to Dawkins as "the Pope of Darwinism".

That's a common point of view among theists.

Somehow Dawkins, because he's famous, must be the leader of the whole atheist movement and all atheists must look up to him and revere him.

I love slapping them down and telling them we don't worship anyone or anything.

[SuperSentient]

Somehow Dawkins, because he's famous, must be the leader of the whole atheist movement and all atheists must look up to him and revere him.

Rather not have it be that way.

When I said "Pope of Darwinism", I just meant he is a major proponent of Darwinian Biological Evolution, so I thought of him as such a largely known proponent that he deserved the title, nothing to do with atheists looking up to him (in case that is what you thought the term meant). 

There are some pretty good advocating atheists out there, but Dawkins is not one of them.

[Sal]

I liked his book The God Delusion. He's not a good a speaker as Sam Harris or the late Christopher Hithchens, but I think he's a good scientist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sam Harris kicks ass.

[Brian37]

Sam Harris kicks ass.

I like him on his criticism of Islam and Christianity, in that context yes, he does kick ass. But his Buddhism fetish irritates me. 

Humans are not all good or all bad and there is no mandate to agree on everything all the time. 

I also love Christopher Hitchens criticism of Mother Teresa but didn't agree with him  on the Clintons, and while he was dead right his criticisms of Saddam and his rise to power, but Hitchens was a bit of a war hawk. 

But to the posters in this thread who hate  Dawkins, Dawkins is not pure evil one bit. All one can say about him is that you don't like his personality, but his contributions to science and advocacy for science education is a great contribution to humanity.

I said it before in my prior posts, I would not go out of my way to hang out with Dawkins, he is a bit of a stuffed shirt, but that does not negate his contributions, it only means I wouldn't want to hang out with him.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah his Buddhism fetish irritates me too and I find mindfulness very unhelpful and pseudo-scientific but I just ignore all that stuff and listen to his logical arguments.

[Whateverist]

Condescending prick

Somebody get the soap.  We've got a dirty Christian mouth.  I think you are being assimilated here, Cath-y. 

---

Not to pile on what others have already said, if the question is "do you currently BELIEVE that a god exists?", and you answer anything other than "yes", you are an atheist.

All that it takes to be an atheist, is to not be convinced that a god exists.

"Agnosticism" is the position that it is currently unknown if a god exists (and possibly unknowable), it is NOT some sort of fence sitting position between belief that a god exists, and disbelief. That is the colloquial definition, not the formal one.

Not only that, but it is my contention, that fence sitting between belief and disbelief is not even possible. Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts a premise or proposition is true, or they do not have that belief.

Most atheists are "agnostic atheists" ( the 2 positions are not mutually exclusive), even Dawkins.

It really grinds my gears when I hear an "agnostic" say that they "neither believe nor disbelieve in a god", as if such a middle ground exists. To disbelieve something is to not believe something. Saying anything/anyone is neither X or its direct logical negation is in violation of the logical absolutes, which is asinine. It's like saying "I neither like nor don't like Coca Cola".

Also, "do you believe in god" is a yes/no question. When "agnostics" answer with "I don't know", that means (a) their answer is actually no, and (b) they didn't even answer the question properly. I really wish people could get this right.

Me too to what I bolded.  I take it a strong agnostic stance to the belief question is "it is impossible to say".  To which the rest of us want ask "so what is your inclination toward statements which are impossible to resolve"?  Routinely accept them?  Routinely reject them?  Do you take on some degree of provisional belief to balance out the lack of belief you had before you considered the proposition?  How exactly does the supposed impossibility of knowing result in your "maybe believing"?

[Minimalist]

Condescending prick

And I wasn't even here to defend myself!



Oh, Dawkins!

Many of his writings are very good and there's no denying that he kicks the arses of creationists he encounters.

As to the man himself, I'm not really all that much of a fan.

How does a highly intelligent person not talk down to people who believe in silly fairy tales?