Will Atheists please stop uttering the name Dawkins?

Question

Please, lets talk about Thomas Paine or Voltaire or Jefferson. At least those people had some logic and understanding of religion. I mean c'mon, you've had 2,000 years to disprove the New Testament and the best you can come up with is Dawkins? I much rather would have lived in the 1700s when people could at least pose a challenge to Christianity. Maybe I will subsitute the word "illogical" for "Dawkins", it would be a good euphemism I think."You are a very Dawkins person". Hmmm sounds good. Maybe I am just too hard on the man, maybe it is just his writing that is poor. Maybe he is much more logical in person. Jefferson was the exact opposite, you know, he wrote great but was a horrible speaker. Its a shame the Age of Englightenment ended, the debates back then would have been so much more interesting. Have any of you actually read Age of Reason? How could you possibly enjoy Dawkins after reading Age of Reason? Thats like going from Tolstoy to.... childrens pop-up books. C'mon.

Answer 1

You have too much time on your hands.

Answer 2

I'm sorry but I would have thought such of Voltaire who sounded ignorant if not for the times . My only criticism of Dawkins who has lent some degree of added respectability to the word atheism is that he is not a social psychologist and poses little paradigm into the future for a morally grounded and better world come to age .
for instance ever wondered why we don't bother to teach teach ethics and law in the lower grades in school ;the need is certain and obvious one the most important things in life yet we pass it off till college or after and expect our society to improve . Or Ayn Rand who defines the idea of honor (right from wrong) in the easiest terms that even an elementary student could comprehend these are the most important aspects to life that the controversies of religion or not seem miss. I applaud Mr. Dawkins for his knowledgeable support and find his fine accolades only bring an inherent respectability to the billion others that think along the same lines. My hats off . perhaps those that study comparative religion could lend more insight into the Freudian appraisal of religion in relationship to society as well.. the age of reason and understanding has not yet begun.
peace

Answer 3

Dawkins is relevant as a contemporary scientist...he isnt only known for being a very outspoken atheist you know, let's not forget the fact that he is regarded as one of the worlds top intellectuals and also, top biologists, he has honorary doctorates awarded by several universities and has won literature awards...quite amazing don't you think?

So, before you get on your high horse and start accusing anyone of being illogical, or undermining his acheivements, please show us what you have that qualifies you to make such petty judgements, with respect.


Furthermore, if he had lived in the 1700's, do you really honestly believe he would be free to challenge religious texts? Hmmm, I don't think so.

edit: I also agree with zero cool, it's other people that are making some kind of issue out of Dawkins, perhaps because he is very outspoken, has books and TV programmes...but in any case....yes, Dawkins is a great inspiration to me, not as an atheist however, as a fantastic biologist as I mentioned.

Answer 4

I must admit, I have not read any nor do I know much about Richard Dawkins. Other than what I see on TV occasionally.

I was born an Atheist but as that is the natural state we are all born with, I have never found the need to justify it. After all NOT believing in a non existent thing requires no proof.

Answer 5

I'll use Dawkins when mentioning him is appropriate, but I could just as easily mention Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Michael Shermer, or less famous people like Paul Kurtz, Ibn Warraq, Robert Price, Joe Nickell, James Randi, etc., or none of them at all.

I think it's just a matter of your taste, or how you perceive him since his fame as an atheist has begun to precede his writing and may color his image to people. Even if you took issue with The God Delusion, I find it hard to believe that very many could find other works of his, like The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow to be of such low quality.

And I should much like to hear what you think are areas where Dawkins's reasoning goes horribly astray, especially in his efforts to "disprove" God's existence.

Answer 6

You re really such a foolish one.
Many scientist do science, and they are still afraid of your Christians fiction to tell the truth so they make quotes and relied on the religion. But Darwin is much a brave scientist forever to go into the hard side of life instance, and rely on this many science can develop. I guess that you just a junior school pupil, and you can talk serious problem with professor in the university. You are so mean to blackmail such a great scientist on the world. And remember that England go ahead with French in science and social development now, the American although print "believe in god" on the coins, but they act much science discovery and accept science is a force and tool to develop its society, not by praying as in Rome. When you learn and live by experiments and work better you will see Darwin right on his declaration of evolution theory on which our modern science is based on. Luckily not on base of the ridiculous bibbbble rrrrrr. What you enjoy from this forum by internet connection by science, by dicovering, educating, constructing,.... not by bibbbbbble rrrrrr remember the idiot!

Answer 7

"you've had 2,000 years to disprove the New Testament"

Wrong. You make the claim an invisible sky daddy watches over us all and judges us, you prove it. We don't have to disprove anything. Burden of proof, making the claim, all that. And no, an ancient book written by a bunch of flea-bitten goatherders and then edited heavily over the years is not evidence.

And while you're at it, please prove Zeus, Ra, The Flying Spaghetti monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns. See the point?

Answer 8

Sorry, I've never read Dawkins. And I've read the Age of Reason and found it quite boring. Although I do like the part where Paine says that God created evil and then let it continue simply because he needs evil to have a purpose.

Answer 9

I didn't come up with Dawkins and neither did any of the rest of us. There wasn't some sort of election, you know. I don't know why folks like YOU are treating Dawkins as though he's the atheist guru or leader or spokesperson, etc. No one's making him into any such thing. Well, no one but you and the others like you yapping on and on about it.

Oh, and as for "disproving the NT"... not my job. You claim it's true, it's your job to prove it. All the skeptic needs to do is sit back, enjoy their default philosophical stance of, well, SKEPTICISM, and wait for the person making the positive assertion to back up their claim with evidence.

Answer 10

Indeed. Paine, amazingly enough, debunked the entire Bible in a relatively short book. Considering that us Atheists haven't made much progress since that, I'd think it's safe to conclude that the theists don't have anymore BS to throw at us.

BTW, Shaolts, I read that book you told me to. It was pretty amazing!

Answer 11

i havent read any of dawkins' books yet...popup comic books are better than the bible. and dawkins' books are no comic books.