|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:37 pm
I thought I'd ask the atheists in here what they thought of Richard Dawkins (and anyone who has an opinion on him).
I actually first heard of him a few years ago when my views were fairly atheistic when it came to any deity(ies). I was in love with him then and still am now although its more of an awe for his dedication to science plus the fact that if you listen to any of his speeches that delve into religious beliefs he can be pretty funny in an obnoxious sort of way. I know a lot of Christians are not the biggest fans of his (putting it mildly) and in the past year I started realizing that not all atheists are either.
I have my thoughts on why that is, the first thing that comes to mind is that Dawkins is a biologist and not a philosopher on God or a theologist, and then there's the fact that he seems to evoke more anger and hostility towards atheism.
What are all of your opinions on him?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:53 am
I love him. I try not to make him my god-figure, but he is actually pretty close. Maybe I'll just call him my role model.
He said in a video that he went into the field of biology because he wanted to answer a philosophical question which was "Where did we come from" and "Why are we here?" So yes he is a biologist, but there's philosophy in science that isn't touched by just pure thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quotable Conversationalist
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:36 pm
Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:10 pm
Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. Interesting. I've never watched any interview or speech where he claimed to have disproved the existence of God(s). I'll have to look into that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:00 pm
Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. Richard Dawkins will never disprove the nonexistence of God or any other deity. He just puts God and all other serious deities at the same level as the tooth fairy. Philosophy doesn't always have to be a debate does it? Isn't philosophy a pursuit of knowledge aka truth? Science is the ultimate pursuit of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:03 pm
Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. God is a higher dimensional creature and therefore our three dimensional science does not apply to him. @OP I have not heard of him. Could you link some good speeches?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:08 pm
Apacelull Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. Richard Dawkins will never disprove the nonexistence of God or any other deity. He just puts God and all other serious deities at the same level as the tooth fairy. Philosophy doesn't always have to be a debate does it? Isn't philosophy a pursuit of knowledge aka truth? Science is the ultimate pursuit of truth. He disproves it for the sake of argument, essentially shows you why it is as likely as the tooth fairy existing, which is so unlikely that we essentially accept as fact that it the tooth fairy's existence is disproven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quotable Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:40 pm
Mei tsuki7 Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. God is a higher dimensional creature and therefore our three dimensional science does not apply to him. @OP I have not heard of him. Could you link some good speeches? Here's one speech and a few short interview clips: Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism 29 min. Interview by Bill O'Reilly 4.5 min. CNN Atheists in America 7.5 min.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:09 pm
Jewpanesey Apacelull Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. Richard Dawkins will never disprove the nonexistence of God or any other deity. He just puts God and all other serious deities at the same level as the tooth fairy. Philosophy doesn't always have to be a debate does it? Isn't philosophy a pursuit of knowledge aka truth? Science is the ultimate pursuit of truth. He disproves it for the sake of argument, essentially shows you why it is as likely as the tooth fairy existing, which is so unlikely that we essentially accept as fact that it the tooth fairy's existence is disproven. I eagerly await seeing that... there are good reasons why more people believe in God than in the tooth fairy. Please link this 'proof' for the sake of argument against God's existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:42 pm
Mei tsuki7 Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. God is a higher dimensional creature and therefore our three dimensional science does not apply to him. @OP I have not heard of him. Could you link some good speeches? Prove it. The onus is on you to prove to us that God is a higher dimensional creature. You can't just say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:37 am
Nebulance Jewpanesey Apacelull Nebulance Jewpanesey Not to mention the fact that if you can disprove the existence of god(s) with science (which he has), then it is no longer a philosophical debate but a statement of observable fact. You cannot disprove something which is outside the realm of science, with science. God would exist as part of a separate, spiritual reality. Richard Dawkins will never disprove the nonexistence of God or any other deity. He just puts God and all other serious deities at the same level as the tooth fairy. Philosophy doesn't always have to be a debate does it? Isn't philosophy a pursuit of knowledge aka truth? Science is the ultimate pursuit of truth. He disproves it for the sake of argument, essentially shows you why it is as likely as the tooth fairy existing, which is so unlikely that we essentially accept as fact that it the tooth fairy's existence is disproven. I eagerly await seeing that... there are good reasons why more people believe in God than in the tooth fairy. Please link this 'proof' for the sake of argument against God's existence. Read this book: 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quotable Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:58 am
The first science book I ever read was Climbing Mount Improbable. Richard Dawkins's books taught me evolution. I saw him in person once, and I said a couple of sentences to him and he talked back to me, and it was so freaky.
He never loses his cool when answering questions from the audience. He's a good speaker and a great writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:13 pm
Richard Dawkins is an unparalleled genius, whos dedication not only to science but to using that science to overthrow God is worthy of well. . . worship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:30 pm
I have mixed feelings about him. On the one hand, I really admire his dedication and works, and I agree with many of his points. To me, he is really very charming, and I enjoy listening to his opinions.
On the other hand, he does stir up a lot of hostility toward Atheists in general, and I wish that weren't the case. I admire his steadfastness, but I think he could also show a bit more compassion for the other side.
That being said, if you've read any of his works on religion, you can tell that he does feel very compassionate toward people who feel "trapped" in their religion and want to change, but don't know what their options are or how life works without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
