Do atheists agree about this statement regarding Dawkins....?

Question

I saw some atheists criticising Dawkins because his arguments are almost parroted by some atheists. I'd like to make clear that parroting a reasonable argument is not wrong so long as you actually understand the argument.

The reason Dawkins is the most parroted is because he is, far and away, the most effective at systematically dismantling arguments for religion AND (here is the importrant part) offering actual explanations for the universe and putting our existence into context. This is where others fall short and Dawkins picks up the slack and why I find him more effective than Harris or Hitchens. I should say I read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker before The God Delusion and I have been studying evoluton for some time but together those books offer a more complete explanation as to why religion need not exist, and why it does exist anyways, than anything I have seen from anyone else. I'm not suggesting we worship the man, I'm suggesting he is the best we have.

Answer 1

I have to say that his book was great. I couldn't put it down. He struck a chord with me with each chapter. He was so thorough, so objective, so intelligent and so on the money. It really does help that he isn't just spouting his ideas about it, but goes into depth with how it is wrong, and what the effects of religion has had on our society. I loved the indepth science details, as well. I've read Hitchins, and though I liked him greatly, he was a tad snooty and angry compared to Dawkins. Sam Harris' books are a wonderful read, too. It's hard to find much wrong with Dawkins. I didn't understand his meme theory at first, but now I see the wisdom in it as I go alongl His Brights program has me a bit baffled. It seems a little high-handed, but then, I probably don't understand that either.

atheist

Answer 2

I find Dawkins very persuasive, and I sometimes find myself using his ideas or statements to support my beliefs.

For the most part, I do paraphrase so as not to exactly "parrot" him, and add in my own examples to further explain myself. Because not everyone I speak with, can understand the words that Dawkins use. I am not stating I hang around with illiterate people, but they do have a limited knowledge of the english language, as well as being young (young 20's late teens), and not familiar with all words.

I have also paraphrased Hitchins, Harris, and some past philosophers.

Answer 3

Just like any atheist speaker, Dawkins is unfortunately saddled with a lot of responsibilities that don't rightfully belong to him. He makes a valiant effort to answer everything that he can, but I've found that the biggest problem Dawkins runs into is that theists try to get him to explain everything about the universe.

Even though he absolutely destroys any credibility any preacher or other nutjob tries to portray, and completely disproves their religions, these people counter, saying "Okay then, if my god doesn't exist, then tell me all the secrets of the universe, then."

They expect him to replace "Goddidit" with a detailed explanation of exactly how and why everything in the universe exists, as if Dawkins is somehow claiming to be god. When he DOES admit that of course he is not god, and does not have all the answers, the theists say "See, I win!" They think they've won because while Dawkins says he doesn't have all the answers, they say that they do... "GODDIDITT!"

It sickens me. That tool Bill OReilly is a good example of this sort of nonsense.

Answer 4

I thought 'The Blind Watchmaker' was his best book. But he still tends to overstate his arguments. One thing that he seems to not investigate totally is the time necessary for the evolutionary changes he proposes to take effect. As the probabilities go down, the length of time, even for natural selection, goes up. Fortunately, he usually goes too far later in his books and gives the core argument earlier on. Essentially, he extrapolates too far from a basically valid argument.

Answer 5

Dawkins has some brilliant ideas, and he is a public face for atheism. However, I think that atheist need to be careful when the parrot Dawkins. Basically, atheism is more about considered opinion and individual thought. Parroting Dawkins sets him up as a kind of atheist prophet. He doesn't want that, and neither do most atheist.

I do, however, enjoy his books and specials. I research what interest me, and form my own arguments, however.

Answer 6

Dawkins ability to explain evolutionary theory in a simple way crushes creationists arguments, but his philosophical arguments could use some work. I wasn't all that impressed by "The God Delusion".

Answer 7

To me YOU appear to be even better Than Dawkins and others because while they articulate their own points of views ,you have combined the essence of their views and presented them on a broader spectrum.Well done.Religion shall exist as it fills a vital human need to provide escape,shelter and also answers [though of no lasting value] to them in various aspects of their lives,which are either not available else where or are not easily acceptable to them.Worship?when we don't accept and worship an entity such as God,where is the point to worship a human being.Respect and adoration,for sure and why not.

Answer 8

I've actually never seen an Atheist say that. Frankly, I like Dawkins (though I disagree with him on some points), and I think he has a logical and reasonable mind.

Answer 9

I think that applies to all areas. You shouldn't be just blindly parroting something you do not understand. This only leads to ignorance and manipulation. You should always examine new information objectively and logically, and if it doesn't work the way they claim, you should discard it. I'm sure there are some who may only skim the topics without actually researching them further, but there are a great many who find his writing and presentations so valid because they do in fact understand and agree with the points he is making.

Answer 10

Dawkins has his place. I don't think his arguments against religion are especially complete, but he does a good job.

His strength is in two areas. First, he does a great job of making people understand evolution and the evidence for it. Of course, this is expected because he is a biologist. Second, he is a good writer and explains his objections to religion well. He doesn't worry about offending people who have religious beliefs. He speaks his mind in an honest and straightforward way. However, he also doesn't just resort to name calling.