Haven't read the book, but watched his 2 part documentary on the telly. Hardly compelling stuff, mostly it was a preaching-to- the-converted speil. He interviewed a bunch of religious extremists and made out as if that represented all theists, and when he came across a moderate with an intelligent argument, they got about two lines in and it was over-dubbed with his voiceover ! The hate he has for religion was plain to see; he'd pull this snarly face whenever the religious extremists were being, er, extreme. It was quite amusing. Except for the extremist Muslim, he was sh*t scared of him(I was a little frightened myself). Well, I guess the atheists do need a "Fundie" of their very own. Did you see it ? What did you think ?
2007-06-13 04:57:14 · 20 answers · asked by =42 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The only reason I mention him is because I've noticed his name popping up as a "credible" reference in R&S and just happened to see the show. I agree, many have done it better, getting their point across but with more balance.
2007-06-13 05:04:22 · update #1
Sorry, I don't know who Kirk Cameron is. Was he once an actor in a sit-com ? Off to google.
2007-06-13 05:05:45 · update #2
I'm sorry Eartha Q, didn't realise my question was about God, I thought it was about Richard Dawkins. Is he a God to you ? (not a very impressive response you've got there, btw)
2007-06-13 05:09:08 · update #3
Yeah, thanks for that image taffs. It's gonna be the last thing I'm thinking about now before i go to bed. Snarly face and all !
2007-06-13 05:10:46 · update #4
Hard to judge substance when it's so one sided. The propoganda filter gets raised pretty quickly. (No different to when the Jehovahs come knocking.)
2007-06-13 05:14:23 · update #5
Dawkins is a very credible reference for evolution.
Seeing as fundies like posting evolution questions and strawmen in R&S rather than in Science, Dawkins' name is often used as a good source of information.
Saw the program, read the book. Worked most of it out for myself years ago.
I agree, I wish he could give a more controlled argument. One less likely to discarded before it is considered.
Can you refute his arguments?
2007-06-13 05:26:51 · answer #1 · answered by Simon T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saw it, loved it. I happen to be a religious studies scholar and have definitely kept abreast since graduating. I think that Dawkins has a valid point that there can be no mediocrity in religion, and especially Christian-based religions conscious "watering-down" of the dogma is actually a form of heresy. Although I might not hold the same beliefs as Dawkins, I can appreciate his view on the matter. He simply states that people are picking and choosing what they want to practice and that religious "extremists" aren't extreme at all - they are just practicing the dogma to the fullest extent - as it was written. It's actually a profound argument. You should read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris - he does an excellent job at explaining this. I think the key when discussing religion is that people get so emotional and overworked that they fail to allow themselves to be neutral enough to look at the other side. It is definitely a tough war, that's for sure.
2007-06-13 05:05:29 · answer #2 · answered by Tammy H 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are plenty of other atheist thinkers out there. I'd take Dawkins over Behe in an instant.
See, Dawkins is actually *good* at what he does (evolutionary biology, science education), whereas the creationists rely on deception and faulty understanding of science.
Dawkins is more famous than, say, Daniel Dennett (whom I *love*), mostly because Dawkins's book is more popular right now.
I think Dennett has some pretty interesting writings himself. I'm working my way through "Consciousness Explained" right now, and I plan to cover the new Hofstadter book soon.
2007-06-13 05:04:55 · answer #3 · answered by Minh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We don't really do poster boys and I'm fairly sure that plenty of atheists haven't even heard of him
However people are entitled to their opinions and why shouldn't he get to express his
At least in won't involve the majority of the world being tortured for all eternity for not believing the same thing he does.
2007-06-13 07:35:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religions are all faith depending. Atheism calls for no faith. in truth, that's the completed absence of all faith that leads maximum persons to starting to be Atheist. Atheism basically demands that some SHRED of knowledge accept for the existence of "God". the burden of knowledge is on the non secular individual to provide data. So, Atheism isn't a faith, yet a truth. "God" does no longer exist.
2016-11-23 17:29:36 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Richard Dawkins is too smart for his own good. I would reccomend Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens over Dawkins any day. And they can run circles around any religious figurehead who wants to debate.
2007-06-13 05:01:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes,but the reason you hear the name here is due to the children that watched the South Park episode featuring the guy.Lotsa people here parrot ideas they get from movies and tv.
2007-06-13 07:30:21 · answer #7 · answered by Trish 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You seem to have only raised questions of style. I'm not very fond of his style myself. His arguments however, do have substance.
2007-06-13 05:10:11 · answer #8 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about?
Haven't you seen how Atheists always claim that Christians and theists don't think for themselves? They just ascribe to some book written by man?
I bet most atheists haven't heard of Richard Dawkins, nor would they hold anything that he says to be true, since he is merely a man.
They have all discovered their thoughts and opinions on their own.
[/sarcasm]
2007-06-13 05:00:41 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. A 4 · 0⤊ 5⤋
No, my poster boy is Christopher Hitchens
2007-06-13 05:16:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋