2007-01-19 01:18:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Plato - Richard DAWKINS
Not Stephen HAWKING.
Be embarrased.
2007-01-19 03:33:55 · update #1
Independentalien - whaaa?
2007-01-19 04:52:38 · update #2
I am interested by the comments that suggest that he is abrasive. I have seen him many times and noted that he is very respectful of people. Quoting him from a recent interview:
Q. (from a caller) do you get a kick out of putting religion down?
A. (Dawkins) "No."
He is to the point, very clear and has extremely well thought out views that are in the most part backed up by evidence (and lots of in the case of evolution). It is sad that the fundamentalists demonise him, because his books contain a wealth of information about the natural world. I guess it is no surprise that atheists do a lot of reading a research about religion yet fundamentalists refuse to even look at anything that might refute their beliefs. Does the latter sound like a learned attitude or wanton ignorance?
In direct answer to your question i think 'Darwin's Rottweiler' is a rather unfortunate nickname since it is suggests something quite unpleasant about his manner, which is simply untrue. 'Darwin's virtuoso' would be much more fitting. 'Scourge of the faithful' definitely. They don't like truth, it messes with their delusions.
2007-01-19 04:52:06 · answer #1 · answered by gbiaki 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That word has already been used while Pope Benedict replaced into observed as Gods rottweiler. "we could be open minded by using all potential, yet no longer so open minded that our brains drop out"- Richard Hawkins "i'm against faith because it teaches us to be satisfied no longer understand-how the international"-Richard Hawkins
2016-10-31 12:43:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
simply Richard Dawkins
2007-01-19 01:24:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I like the Guy even in His abrasive texture, after all I don't plan on hugging Him or inviting Him over to have dinner with me and the Missus. It's the way He presents what He believes that impresses me. I don't particularly care one way or the other but it's interesting in an abstract way to my mind. Mildly entertaining in a often boring world of predictable behavior. I would prefer watching an old Prince video though, maybe "Raspberry Beret.", oh well, on to the trough!
2007-01-19 01:52:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
A great zoologist but sadly a misguided bigot when it comes to religion . he seems to have a great big chip on his shoulder and turns to straw man arguments to support hes narrow minded view of religion . A great antidote to Richards selective arguments is Dawkin's God by Alister McGrath.
2007-01-19 03:18:56 · answer #5 · answered by jack lewis 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think Dawkins is definitely a brilliant scientist and writer, but I am troubled at the way he presents himself to others. His arrogance and overt scornful talk just alienates him from audiences that could really benefit from his works.
2007-01-19 01:26:16 · answer #6 · answered by Alucard 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
A very brilliant and opinionated man in the world of science.
2007-01-19 01:35:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think you need someone like Dawkins to counter the very vocal and very powerful religious lobbies.
He's a genius
2007-01-19 01:26:11 · answer #8 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I dont know, but he sounds like a good egg to me if it helps people realise the truth and to discount the fiction away from reality again.
2007-01-19 01:41:34 · answer #9 · answered by Jon H 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Why can't he just be known as a learned scientist and great man.
The scourge of the faithful is anybody smart enough to look into the realities of religion only to see myth and lies.
There is no god.
2007-01-19 01:21:39 · answer #10 · answered by vertical732 4 · 6⤊ 5⤋