Richard Dawkins

[teehee]

right i need to vent my anger
who else thinks this man is the most arrogan,ignorant,just plain stupid guy ever??????
hes as extremist about theism about religous extremists are about religion
GAH!!!!!

 

[artybloke]

He's also a very very good scientist. Whatever blind spots about religion he has (and I at least sympathise with his views that religions cause harm: the hatred shown on these boards to anyone they disagree with is evidence of that) he's not someone you can dismiss lightly.

 

[Simonline]

right i need to vent my anger
who else thinks this man is the most arrogan,ignorant,just plain stupid guy ever??????
hes as extremist about theism about religous extremists are about religion
GAH!!!!!

Am I correct in assuming you've recently seen his tv programmes 'The Root Of All Evil'?

Richard Dawkins simply refuses to honestly consider any evidence that does not a priori agree with his philosophical presuppositions. Invariably, whenever he is invited by the B.B.C. (i.e. the Biased Broadcasting Corporation) to speak on a programme, his is always pitted against some wooley-minded ecclesiastical churchman (usually a bishop) whom he then proceeds to publically humiliate.

As far as I am aware, he has never been pitted against any real Christians who could seriously challenge his philosophical arrogance and expose it for what it is - wilful blind faith in the utterly absurd.

If you study the works of Ravi Zacharias www.RZIM.org he regularly takes Richard Dawkins and his half-baked arrogant presuppositions to task and reveals the absolute futility of his position (such as in his book The Real Face Of Atheism). Of course, the Biased Broadcasting Corporation (who's avowed intention is to assist in the systematic undermining and deconstruction of the Judeo-Christian ethos/millieu/world-view within British society, even whilst it pays lip-service to it through such purile programmes as 'Songs of Praise') would never agree to televise any serious challenge of the apostle of Scientism (the worship of science itself) Richard Dawkins since that would not be politically correct and God forbid that the B.B.C., as a fundamental part of the British establishment, should not be politically correct?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

He's also a very very good scientist. Whatever blind spots about religion he has (and I at least sympathise with his views that religions cause harm: the hatred shown on these boards to anyone they disagree with is evidence of that) he's not someone you can dismiss lightly.

But his view is deceitfully myopic. He deliberately focuses and concentrates on all that is bad about religion whilst simultaneously completely ignoring all that is good and true about religion.

Since he has clearly demonstrated that he is anything but objective when it comes to his assessment of religion and metaphysics then why should we believe that he would be any different when it comes to science?!

On the basis of his blatantly biased views on reality I cannot take him seriously as a scientist either. In my opinion the guy is just a solid gold imbecile (Ps.14:1; 1Cor.1:18-2:16).

Simonline.

 

[Bonhoffer]

I dont like Richard Dawkins very much. Not because hes an atheist, but because he comes across as extremely arrogant and quite ignorant. For s start he cant seem to distinguish between organised religion and living faith. He just lumps all 'religion' together and attacks it.

He'll blame Christianity for the holocaust without realising that Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with his own brand of atheistic evolutionary humanism.
He wont realise that the crusaders and inquisisters actually persecuted real Christians and believed in things totally contrary to scripture.

 

[meebs]

i need to know more of his stuff and read more before i can form an opinion.

 

[Kehaar]

He's also a very very good scientist. Whatever blind spots about religion he has (and I at least sympathise with his views that religions cause harm: the hatred shown on these boards to anyone they disagree with is evidence of that) he's not someone you can dismiss lightly.

I'd agree. I'm also inclined to wonder if Darwin would recieve a similar response if he was about these days .

I disagree with Dawkins on quite a few things but there is no need for this level of animosity.

1 John 3:13-15 (NKJV)

Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Yes Nepnthe we should love our brothers and even our opponents.
But the Bible also says:'the fool in his heart says there is no God' and there are several references to proud people being fools.
So it would be reasonable to call him a proud fool, then then remember that we can all fall into that catergory.

It can also be noted that just because we are commanded to 'love' everyone doesnt mean that we have to 'like' everyone.

 

[Kehaar]

Yes Nepnthe we should love our brothers and even our opponents.
But the Bible also says:'the fool in his heart says there is no God' and there are several references to proud people being fools.
So it would be reasonable to call him a proud fool, then then remember that we can all fall into that catergory.

It can also be noted that just because we are commanded to 'love' everyone doesnt mean that we have to 'like' everyone.

You can disagree with someone and still remain respectful.

 

[artybloke]

You can disagree with someone and still remain respectful.

I actually found myself agreeing with his thinking that religion is harmful over the last week or so, when a bunch of mullahs and imams start dictating to the rest of the world what cartoons they can view.

I'd complain too if it was priests and pastors telling me what to watch or read. (Anyone up for a trip to see Jerry Springer: the Opera and Brokeback Mountain? Followed by an evening watching Popetown...) Or rabbis, or anyone else who think they can control me.

I think creationism is not only harmful but a heresy, as is the Word of Faith movement.

Religion can become ideology; it can be, and has been, used to justify genocide, antisemitism and slavery and the oppression of women. Oh, and hatred of gay people.

All these things should make us feel very uncomfortable. If we can't even behave civilly to members of our own religion if they happen to be in the wrong denomination, we can't expect those without religion to treat us civilly.

 

[David Brider]

Am I correct in assuming you've recently seen his tv programmes 'The Root Of All Evil'?

Richard Dawkins simply refuses to honestly consider any evidence that does not a priori agree with his philosophical presuppositions. Invariably, whenever he is invited by the B.B.C. (i.e. the Biased Broadcasting Corporation) to speak on a programme, his is always pitted against some wooley-minded ecclesiastical churchman (usually a bishop) whom he then proceeds to publically humiliate.

I don't think I'd agree with your assessment of the BBC (and bear in mind, The Root of All Evil was shown on Channel 4), but yes, I think you're spot on about Dawkins himself. ISTR that Tom Wright has written a book critiquing him. There's a debate I'd love to see! Wright vs Dawkins...I know where my money would be...

David.

 

[meebs]

to me it is not religion that is harmful, it is the way a person practises that religion which can be harmful. Its all down to each individual person. Unfortuantly sometimes these people can find like minded people.

Also its up to those who dont follow religious practises whether we be tolerant or intolerant. Intolerance can also be harmful. (on an extreme level though tolerance can be harmful!).

 

[David Brider]

You can disagree with someone and still remain respectful.

Unfortunately, from what I've seen Dawkins can't...which is part of the problem.

David.

 

[Bonhoffer]

to me it is not religion that is harmful, it is the way a person practises that religion which can be harmful. Its all down to each individual person. Unfortuantly sometimes these people can find like minded people.

Also its up to those who dont follow religious practises whether we be tolerant or intolerant. Intolerance can also be harmful. (on an extreme level though tolerance can be harmful!).

Jellybean, you are a philosophy superstar!!
Many atheists are ignorant or just driven by anger. You see things as they are.
I always argue that it is blind dogma that is dangerous. National Socialism was a blind dogma of the atheistic humanist kind. If you didnt agree with them you were a racial traitor. So was communism. You were either a communist or a capitalist pig!

Christianity can become blind. However God has put safety catches on his faith. The Bible encourages us to ask questions and think things through. The Bible orders us to be loving towards those who disagree with us. The Bible even warns us that Satan Himself quotes scripture. Therefore if someone takes the verse where Jesus apparently advises us to 'cut off' our hands and decides this is literally and relevant, they should listen to their conscience and the spirit of God which will show them that somethings wrong.
For all Christians get called for not thinking, Christianity in truth requires a lot of thinking things through.

 

[Kehaar]

Unfortunately, from what I've seen Dawkins can't...which is part of the problem.

David.

Doesn't mean we can't.

 

[Bonhoffer]

One axe to grind with atheism I have is that without some notion of God the whole idea of equality is gone.
I'm sure atheists such as yourself think men and women are equal, and that black and white people are equal etc... But the secular humanist arguement for 'everyone being equal' has no foundation. Humanism traditionally has be a 'champion of equality' against the 'oppressive and bigoted Christian church'. Christianity has be charged with being homophobic, racist, classist and sexist. However it was Christianity which first came up with the notion of equality in the first place. Not only did they believe this doctrine but they promoted it in a climate where such as idea was unfashionable. In ancient Rome slaves and some foreigners were treated like animals who had no souls. Women were second class citizens. And anyone who threatened the Roman class system would be in severe trouble.
And yet Christianity spread embracing people of all colours, nations, backgrounds, genders and classes.

this was the first time that people began to consider that people were equal. It came from the notion that we are all created by God, therefore God must love us all equally and therefore to mistreat any of Gods creation is akin to blasphemy. The Bible itself says that God made all the tribes and nations, and that he loves them all. Genesis states that God made both men and women in his image. Christianity was and still is radical in this way.
Sure a few heretics came and twisted the Bible for its own ends, but many people have also twisted secular texts to justify evil things.

 

[artybloke]

Many atheists are ignorant or just driven by anger.

They're not that ignorant. When they see a bunch of religious people behaving like ignorant jerks on the news, what other conclusions should they come to but that religion is harmful?

When the loudest voices in Christianity are the most hateful, what is an atheist supposed to do?

By their fruits ye shall know them, as the good book says...

I agree with you about blind dogma though...

 

[David Brider]

Doesn't mean we can't.

Quite. I can understand, though, why Christians who rail against him do so. They feel - not unreasonably - that they're under attack from the guy, and so they counterattack. I don't think it's right (it's unChristian, after all, and "two wrongs don't make a right"), but I do understand why it happens.

David.

 

[meebs]

hmmm...

i agree.. i see a lot of other atheists angry against religion and your right - no wonder!!

but sometimes all im seeing is the media highlighting the bad and rarely focusing on the good stuff people do in the name of religion, so yeah in general peoples opinions will be biased!

 

[David Brider]

One axe to grind with atheism I have is that without some notion of God the whole idea of equality is gone.
I'm sure atheists such as yourself think men and women are equal, and that black and white people are equal etc... But the secular humanist arguement for 'everyone being equal' has no foundation. Humanism traditionally has be a 'champion of equality' against the 'oppressive and bigoted Christian church'. Christianity has be charged with being homophobic, racist, classist and sexist. However it was Christianity which first came up with the notion of equality in the first place. Not only did they believe this doctrine but they promoted it in a climate where such as idea was unfashionable. In ancient Rome slaves and some foreigners were treated like animals who had no souls. Women were second class citizens. And anyone who threatened the Roman class system would be in severe trouble.
And yet Christianity spread embracing people of all colours, nations, backgrounds, genders and classes.

In fairness, though, Roman civilisation wasn't atheist, it was polytheist. And as has been pointed out on many occasions before, Christianity per se has nothing to say against slavery. It may not actively encourage it, but we don't see any of the Biblical writers saying in clear cut terms, "slavery = wrong, bad". In that respect at least, the early Christians did nothing to rock the boat in the Roman culture.

Playing devil's advocate, I can imagine that a properly thought through atheism would actually be totally in favour of equality - after all, if you've got no reason to subscribe to any reference point that encourages any nature of division, then yes, you can see all people as equal. And like it or not, although the charges of classism and racism against Christianity have no basis in reality, the charges of homophobia and sexism do have pretty solid foundation, and Christians corporately have a long way to go to totally overcome them.

David.