DAWKINS!

[edhopper]

I notice the lack of Dawkins posts of late.

So...

[IMG][/IMG]

[trotsky]

1. All Hail the Pope of the Church of Atheism!

[NeoGreen]

13. Piffle to that...

...everyone knows DAWKINS! is merely the Archbishop of the Church of Atheism, in England.

and everyone knows the REAL Pope of the Church of Atheism is Sam Harris.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I have no faith in Dawkins's opinions.

Perhaps it's the mountain of evidence that he's a self-serving, grandstanding evangelist.

[skepticscott]

3. Feel free to dispute any portion

of the quote in the OP. But you'll need more than your deeply held faith for that.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Ok:

Dawkins is full of shit and an egomaniacal self-promoter who spends far too much time basking in the eye of the camera and listening to the sound of his own voice.

How's that?

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Pretty poor, actually.

You were challenged to find fault with the quote, not the character of the man making it. You failure to do so is abject and irrefutable.

I don't like Dawkins, either, but there's nothing about this quote in particular I find disagreeable. In fact, Dawkins would do better to actually live by this quote in other areas besides science.

[Buzz Clik]

6. I agree with the quote. It's Dawkins that I find repugnant.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[skepticscott]

7. Lousy

How about addressing the quote, instead of making ad homs?

Oh, right..you can't.

[DetlefK]

8. Counter-examples:

Richard Feynman, who got a Nobel price of physics for his theory on quantum-electrodynamics, was a shameless womanizer and panty-hound. Does that diminish his work?

Ada Lovelace was a groundbreaking pioneer on computer science... and a gambling addict. Does that diminish her work?

Isaac Newton founded the field of classical mechanics and made important mathematical discoveries... and he was an arrogant asshole. Does that diminish his work?

[Buzz Clik]

9. Dawkins spends his post-science career challenging faith on a scientific basis.

It's asinine.

Have the last word. Those who worship at the shrine of Dawkins are as insufferable as their Christian evangelical counterparts.

[skepticscott]

10. Yes, damn him for using reason, logic and evidence

to counteract religious nonsense.

If that's asinine, the world could use a lot more of it.

[trotsky]

12. What exactly does it mean to "worship at the shrine of Dawkins"?

Just curious. And if you can identify the people who do, can you show how they are looking to take away LGBT rights, reproductive rights, etc. from everyone, broadcasting their Dawkins worship on TV and the radio around the world, requiring presidential candidates to voice their support for their atheistic agenda, etc.? That would clearly make them "as insufferable as their Christian evangelical counterparts," which I am assuming is what you mean.

[skepticscott]

14. And, as usual for Dawkins haters

when they're forced to actually engage on the facts, they have nothing.

[trotsky]

16. Yup, I'm never surprised. Once again, the classic XKCD comic:

https://xkcd.com/774/

[rock]

11. Had Asimov thought any different of himself than he did

He would have been a hypocrite. I don't man this as a criticism of what you say, but just some food for thought.

[edhopper]

19. You mean Newton

Asimov was a wonderful man.

[rock]

20. No, I meant Asimov

Who was a wonderful man who fully appreciated his own intellect (and wasn't hypocritical about it (I don't know about Newton though I have heard some rumors)).

[edhopper]

21. okay

and well he should. but in person I never found him a braggart.

[rock]

22. I never meant to imply he was anything other than a non-hypocrite

and that he could form a critical assessment of himself.

[edhopper]

23. I got that

[Kalidurga]

26. I have seen this a whole lot in my life.

It is very hard to be excellent in ones field and be humble and down to earth at the same time. It is also difficult to behave the way other people think one should.

[mr blur]

15. Well, it's hysterical bullshit actually.

But you carry on digging.

[Iggo]

17. No faith necessary. His opinions are real.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Faith is as real as his opinions.

[Iggo]

24. I never said faith isn't real.

I just meant you don't need faith to believe in things that are real.

[goldent]

25. Tilting at windmills

[edhopper]

27. Who?

me? Dawkins? i am not even sure what that means in this context?

[trotsky]

28. Nothing like a thread with the mere mention of the man's name...

to bring them out to spit. Yet he controls no church, he dictates no spiritual guides, he represents no one other than himself, he stands in the way of no one's reproductive freedom, of anyone's right to marry, or of anyone to hold whatever opinion they want on the subject of god or religion.

But he is despised.

Thanks for the thread, ed. Always good for a headshake and some laughs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. Again, one can't help but notice...

...that a random quote from a verbally flatulent atheist draws the unbridled outrage of the local theists, while only one saw fit to register their displeasure with one of their own defending child rapists and the men who protect them from prosecution.

And it's not like that thread is hard to find. What gives?

[trotsky]

30. Pfft, that has baffled me forever.

Child rape and institutional coverup? Meh.

DAKWSINS!?!? FUCK HIM THAT HORRIBLE MONSTER!!!

[edhopper]

31. And he is judged by his tweets

rather than his academic work or the books he has written.
Two of which are greatly influential in my atheism.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. As an aside, I'm actually fine with that.

If I had to guess, I'd wager Twitter Richard Dawkins is closer to the Real Richard Dawkins than The Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins. And, as much as I like The Selfish Gene as a work of nonfiction, and as much as I appreciate Dawkins for helping to normalize atheism, he's still kind of a bunghole, and the more I hear from him the less I want to be associated with him.

And since he's not actually the atheist equivalent of the pope or Billy Graham -- contrary to what some here like to assert -- it remains my prerogative to have nothing to do with the man. So I don't.

[skepticscott]

33. Why guess?

Why not talk to people who actually know him and work with him on a regular basis?

And btw, The Selfish Gene is far from his best book.

[edhopper]

34. I have met him a couple of times and been to his talks.

He is far from the "Twitter" scoundrel he is often portrayed as.