Ricahrd Dawkins is wrong

Originally posted by Agerg
I've read his book and find he is "preaching to the converted" (atheists) and p!ssing off the moderate Christians - the main focus of his attack are the fundamentalist types who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth etc.. who are never going to accept a logical argument with respect to their theology so long as they have a hole in their arse.

Try ...[text shortened]... gainst brick walls on these boards arguing with fundies. I need to refrain from doing this.

he does seem to not allow any doubt into his "no god, fuk off" stance. he does come off as petty, arrogant and darn mean.

he is however a rather intelligent scientist. in the god delusion he seems less angry than in his documentaries.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Thank you for your presenting the truth of the matter, and you are 100% correct.

Richard Dawkins has put forward all his flimsy arguments in his books, to create controversy, so he can make a large sum of money through book sales.

He has single handedly made atheism glamorous, and all the less intelligent people have been captivated by his fancy wor ...[text shortened]... mes down to discrediting real spiritual truth....he is lost, and comes across as a an ignoramus.

my view is that all the less intelligent people don't understand his theories.

they would rather believe in a text "trillions" of years old than in current science.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where will all your 'gods' be when the last human has been driven to extinction? The state of the planet is proof enough for me there is no god watching over humanity like a gardener lovingly tending his plants. If there was a god who started the universe like you think, it was more like a scattering of seeds by a cosmic wind and we are just one more life f ...[text shortened]... e are no more important on the large screen than any bug on any other planet in our universe.

god doesn't HAVE to do anything. if you owned a cat who constantly ran away from home, would you say it was your responsability to run after it? to get her vaccined and fed ? even if the cat is perfectly capable of caring for itself?


god is quite possible to exist and watch. intervene? why would he? what would be his incentive?

Originally posted by Doward
His sophmoric attempt at discrediting the worlds (though primarily Christian) faith traditions falls short of its goal. Instead he comes across as angry, arrogant and shallow minded. His book is full of straw man arguments, half truths, inuendo, and bitter vitriol. None of it amounts to a reasoned argument against intelligent design or faith...so there.

I bought and read the book after it was recommended on this forum. I thought it was quite well written. I didn't agree with Dawkins on everything, but on some things, such as the dangers of moderate religion for example, he changed my views.
I would agree with Agerg that it is probably best to look at it as addressed to atheists not Theists.

But if you have any objections to particular arguments of his and would like to discuss them here, I and others would probably be willing to have a go at defending Dawkins.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where will all your 'gods' be when the last human has been driven to extinction? The state of the planet is proof enough for me there is no god watching over humanity like a gardener lovingly tending his plants. If there was a god who started the universe like you think, it was more like a scattering of seeds by a cosmic wind and we are just one more life f ...[text shortened]... e are no more important on the large screen than any bug on any other planet in our universe.

World war-3 can start right now, and i dont care , because if everyone was to be incinerated this second, we would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe.

The soul is eternal and can never be destroyed, so life just goes on, like its been going on for eternity.

Dont blame God for mans screw-ups.......man has created the atheistic world that we live in, with all its corruption and wars and racism, even though there is plenty of spiritual instruction for mankind.....but who is looking?

Originally posted by Agerg
I've read his book and find he is "preaching to the converted" (atheists) and p!ssing off the moderate Christians.

His book should be of great interest to the vast number of people who are theists by tradition or theists in name only. Most people, theists or otherwise see no harm in moderate religion regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Many see it as a good thing. Many people who go to Church and say they are Christian are really more agnostics.
I think Dawkins puts up a good argument that such people should reconsider agnosticism and that moderate religion can be harmful.
He also puts forward different ways of viewing religion than we are used to - as a collection or memes or as mass delusion. I think it is an interesting point of view regardless of whether you think it is the most accurate way to view it.
I think we should look at non-religious beliefs in a similar way (astrology, or homeopathy for example) and consider whether they too are harmless or should be actively discouraged.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
my view is that all the less intelligent people don't understand his theories.

they would rather believe in a text "trillions" of years old than in current science.

Vedanta is older than trillions of year, because its eternal......how long is eternal?

Every time the cosmos is created, Vedanta is given to mankind for their benefit, so they can raise their consciousness out of the gutter, and return home, back to Godhead.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
World war-3 can start right now, and i dont care , because if everyone was to be incinerated this second, we would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe.

Are you a parent or a legal guardian to any children?

Originally posted by John W Booth
Are you a parent or a legal guardian to any children?

He has two daughters and a dog.

Originally posted by lausey
He has two daughters and a dog.

Do you think that someone who reckons... "World war-3 can start right now, and i dont care , because if everyone was to be incinerated this second, we would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe" ought to be considered fit, by the proper authorities, to adopt children?

Originally posted by John W Booth
Do you think that someone who reckons... "World war-3 can start right now, and i dont care , because if everyone was to be incinerated this second, we would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe" ought to be considered fit, by the proper authorities, to adopt children?

A difficult one because it is a religious belief. If it wasn't as part of a "religion", then I believe that the proper authorities would find such a person not fit to adopt (although it does depend what country you are in).

However, I do not consider such a person fit to adopt, religion or not.

Originally posted by lausey
A difficult one because it is a religious belief. If it wasn't as part of a "religion", then I believe that the proper authorities would find such a person not fit to adopt (although it does depend what country you are in).

...because the proper authorities might be a little unclear about a person's right to be a danger to others, and a danger to children under their care, where it is being justified as "religion"?

[I note your own personal opinion, of course]

Originally posted by John W Booth
...because the proper authorities might be a little unclear about a person's right to be a danger to others, and a danger to children under their care, where it is being justified as "religion"?

[I note your own personal opinion, of course]

Well, at least he's not gay.

Originally posted by Doward
His sophmoric attempt at discrediting the worlds (though primarily Christian) faith traditions falls short of its goal. Instead he comes across as angry, arrogant and shallow minded. His book is full of straw man arguments, half truths, inuendo, and bitter vitriol. None of it amounts to a reasoned argument against intelligent design or faith...so there.

Oddly, I think this post exemplifies the very biases it rails against.

The funniest specific counterargument against Dawkins I have pro-religious zealots advocate is that Dawkins himself is an anti-religious zealot.

Now, they disapprove of Dawkins either because he is anti-religious or because he is a zealot.

If the former, then they beg the question, because it is the virtues or vices of religions that are under discussion.

If the latter, then they condemn themselves into the bargain, because they are zealots themselves, albeit of a different stripe.

Originally posted by John W Booth
...because the proper authorities might be a little unclear about a person's right to be a danger to others, and a danger to children under their care, where it is being justified as "religion"?

[I note your own personal opinion, of course]

I don't agree that it is justified, hence my personal opinion. Although dubious behaviour does tend to get unjustified leniency when it comes under the umbrella of religion.

Belief in reincarnation and karma is quite high in Asian countries, and to think that someone will be born again elsewhere after death will be considered quite "normal", and authorities in those environments probably wouldn't even blink an eye at Vishva's comment. My father has similar views (although not as extreme) and he lives in this country (UK).

Leniency applies in western countries as well. I recall where the US legal system had leniency on a particular native American tribe to smoke what would normally be considered illegal to other people because of religious belief.