ok, so now I want to know what you've all got against Richard Dawkins.

[warrior queen]

Given the exceptionally high level of crap I've got from several posters, some of it in pm's, I am curious as to why that reaction?
Ever since I wrote in the obsession thread that I am reading some of his books and have been somewhat surprised by what's in them, I've copped a bit of shit from people here.
Why?
What is the objection to him?

 

[fair_warning]

He's an atheist. America is a 'god' country.

 

[girlsmiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

This guy Bill O'Reilly...

I want to kick him in the vag.

 

[warrior queen]

He's an atheist. America is a 'god' country.

I had never really heard of the guy, but then I saw him on QANDA debating Cardinal Pell. It was very interesting.
A friend of mine had a few of his books and has lent them to me.
I'm halfway through the God Delusion, and I have to admit, it has already changed one way I referred to people. Instead of calling children 'Muslim kids', I now refer to them as 'children of Muslims'. How can being made to think of things differently be a bad thing?

But these Americans (and I am assuming that all the people that have given me shite are American) are fairly critical of the fact that I find his writing has made me think differently on certain issues.
Extreme vitriol in one pm had me wondering why the depth of hatred/upset?

 

[colddiesel]

What is the objection to him?

The objection to Dawkins so far as I am concerned is his extreme religiosity.

An atheist means that one is 'without god', no more no less. With Dawkins it is much more, he attacks the religious of all persuasions with the fervour of any other religious convert. A true atheist wouldn't give a toss about god and certainly not be concerned to debate her non existence.

Dawkins error, is that his atheism is not being 'without god,' his belief system requires a god concept, precisely so that he can oppose it. He is therefore an intellectual charlaton of exactly the same type as his debating opponent George Pell.

 

[warrior queen]

The objection to Dawkins so far as I am concerned is his extreme religiosity.

An atheist means that one is 'without god', no more no less. With Dawkins it is much more, he attacks the religious of all persuasions with the fervour of any other religious convert. A true atheist wouldn't give a toss about god and certainly not be concerned to debate her non existence.

Dawkins error, is that his atheism is not being 'without god,' his belief system requires a god concept, precisely so that he can oppose it. He is therefore an intellectual charlaton of exactly the same type as his debating opponent George Pell.

I'll admit to having read only half of one book so far.... but I'm certainly not getting the vibe that his belief involves a god concept.
Where are you getting that from?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Personally nothing, I think he’s great, thought provoking writer.

The greatest show on earth and The Ancestor’s Tale are also good reads.

Because they are/were Christian children.

Woof!

 

[warrior queen]

Personally nothing, I think he’s great, thought provoking writer.

The greatest show on earth and The Ancestor’s Tale are also good reads.

Because they are/were Christian children.

Woof!

See, I'm finding that what I've read so far is making me think.
I have had to go back and re-read cetain things to make sure I understand... but on the whole he is a lucid and careful writer.
It's actually a little frustrating, because just about everyone else I know is reading crap like Shades, and that makes it difficult for me to get other people's viewpoint on what I'm reading. (Normally, I talk to my friends about what I am reading to get their take... but in this case I have no-one.)

 

[Bad_Doggie]

The objection to Dawkins so far as I am concerned is his extreme religiosity.

An atheist means that one is 'without god', no more no less. With Dawkins it is much more, he attacks the religious of all persuasions with the fervour of any other religious convert. A true atheist wouldn't give a toss about god and certainly not be concerned to debate her non existence.

Dawkins error, is that his atheism is not being 'without god,' his belief system requires a god concept, precisely so that he can oppose it. He is therefore an intellectual charlaton of exactly the same type as his debating opponent George Pell.

Nonsense, Dawkins is tired of all the attacks, misconceptions, distortions, impositions and lies of theists upon atheism and especially science.

He gives a reasoned and well thought out voice against the barrage of snake oil salesmen.

Woof!

 

[fair_warning]

Personally nothing, I think he’s great, thought provoking writer.



Woof!

Yep, I'm with you on this.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

See, I'm finding that what I've read so far is making me think.
I have had to go back and re-read cetain things to make sure I understand... but on the whole he is a lucid and careful writer.
It's actually a little frustrating, because just about everyone else I know is reading crap like Shades, and that makes it difficult for me to get other people's viewpoint on what I'm reading. (Normally, I talk to my friends about what I am reading to get their take... but in this case I have no-one.)

If you get around to reading The greatest show on earth and The Ancestor’s Tale etc you get a better idea of where he’s coming from. If you take the God Delusion in isolation he may be interpreted as a god hater (as they like to and must portray him as). His main interest is in science and education.

Read them all and you will learn a lot, and the world (and how we got here) becomes a more beautiful, understandable and interesting place.

Woof!

 

[Kiwibeavergrowler]

Nothing, most of his books are pretty good, but I get a bit bored when an author uses a book to attack his critics. I'd much rather hear his reasoned point of view without all the baggage that goes along with it.

 

[Quoll]

He seems pretty hip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=89jt7zJzkNQ

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My problems with Richard Dawkins:

Back in the 70s Richard Dawkins and E.O.Wilson created Socio-biology, that is, the field of Evolutionary Biology-Psychology. Dawkins book THE SELFISH GENE spit on the faces of Lefties everywhere and fomented outrage at Dawkins, Wilson, ands others. SELFISH GENE is a powerful explanation of how all life ticks. The premise of the book is: Life is a gene's way to get into future generations, and all of life is the constant warfare for gene dominance. Dawkins et al were Neo-Darwinists, and very unpopular with the Left. They spawned the field of Molecular Genetics and war within the Anthropology field. I forfeited a PhD in Medical Anthropology cuz of the fierce struggle tween bone champions and genetic champions. Dawkins was my hero.

Then he abandoned the war with academia and made peace with the Left. So did Wilson. They stopped calling themselves sociobiologists, and moved on to kicking baby Jesus around. The Left suddebly loved them.

And Dawkins hasnt done shit since 1990 or so, except try and pick fights with 3rd rate clergy. I cant imagine Dawkins getting in the gladiator arena with John Dominic Crossan, a first-rate Jesus scholar and Catholic priest. Crossan will kick Dawkins ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

 

[Liar]

He's Hitchens with table manners. An evangelical atheist, but not an obnoxious prick. Religious spokespersons promote their worldview all the time, but they get uncomfortable when a non-deist does the same thing using the same tactics.

Personally, I don't see what tye fuss is about.

 

[Liar]

But yeah, he's a bit of a broken record lately. Needs new schticks.

 

[girlsmiley]

My problems with Richard Dawkins:

Back in the 70s Richard Dawkins and E.O.Wilson created Socio-biology, that is, the field of Evolutionary Biology-Psychology. Dawkins book THE SELFISH GENE spit on the faces of Lefties everywhere and fomented outrage at Dawkins, Wilson, ands others. SELFISH GENE is a powerful explanation of how all life ticks. The premise of the book is: Life is a gene's way to get into future generations, and all of life is the constant warfare for gene dominance. Dawkins et al were Neo-Darwinists, and very unpopular with the Left. They spawned the field of Molecular Genetics and war within the Anthropology field. I forfeited a PhD in Medical Anthropology cuz of the fierce struggle tween bone champions and genetic champions. Dawkins was my hero.

Then he abandoned the war with academia and made peace with the Left. So did Wilson. They stopped calling themselves sociobiologists, and moved on to kicking baby Jesus around. The Left suddebly loved them.

And Dawkins hasnt done shit since 1990 or so, except try and pick fights with 3rd rate clergy. I cant imagine Dawkins getting in the gladiator arena with John Dominic Crossan, a first-rate Jesus scholar and Catholic priest. Crossan will kick Dawkins ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

So, you didn't particularly like the book.

You don't agree?

Why not?

 

[kbate]

So, you didn't particularly like the book.

You don't agree?

Why not?

Because Dawkins ridicules faith.

Religion and Gods are a ridiculous human reaction to the ultimate question - Is there a Soul and do we go on after Death.

I call it the Wormshite dilemma - the truth is unpalatable so people invented an afterlife.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When confronted by government and the brutality of man empowered, were there no God, someone would invent one out of necessity if only to render the illusion of hope, even if in the next life.
A_J, the Atheist

 

[AngeloMichael]

I thought he was great on Family Feud and The Running Man is an awesome movie...

 

[Sean]

I love the bloke. Doesn't surprise me you got shit from religious nutjobs though. Funny, I never get vitriolic PMs for my very open atheism on here.

 

[Recidiva]

I just think he's an obnoxious narcissist who makes it hard for me to get into the science in his books because he's so busy talking about his opinion that I do the eye rolley thing.

He's smart, he's acccomplished, I read his books because I like the science.

He just doesn't believe in free will or anybody having a sense of humor.

So all in all I'd be fine if he was my professor, but completely unwilling to invite him to dinner.

 

[run_silent]

I love the bloke. Doesn't surprise me you got shit from religious nutjobs though. Funny, I never get vitriolic PMs for my very open atheism on here.

You are going strait to HELL. Just like your mama said.

 

[phrodeau]

The objection to Dawkins so far as I am concerned is his extreme religiosity.

An atheist means that one is 'without god', no more no less. With Dawkins it is much more, he attacks the religious of all persuasions with the fervour of any other religious convert. A true atheist wouldn't give a toss about god and certainly not be concerned to debate her non existence.

Dawkins error, is that his atheism is not being 'without god,' his belief system requires a god concept, precisely so that he can oppose it. He is therefore an intellectual charlaton of exactly the same type as his debating opponent George Pell.

Not his belief system, but his choice of words. That's the failing of a language developed and perpetuated by theists, which is all that theists understand.

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

He's Hitchens with table manners. An evangelical atheist, but not an obnoxious prick. Religious spokespersons promote their worldview all the time, but they get uncomfortable when a non-deist does the same thing using the same tactics.

Personally, I don't see what tye fuss is about.

Ironically fitting description.