2007-09-17 02:24:38 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes he has. My hope is that Christians actually read the book - they may learn something.
2007-09-17 02:31:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I too think he is a great and fearless man. We need all the popularizers of science such as him and the late Carl Sagan that we can get. I do fear, though, that he may offend some people because of the confidence and extreme frankness with which he speaks. He knows what he thinks, he says what he thinks, but does it with a slight tone of sarcasm that may sometimes be a bit much for some people. The word "delusion" is a strong one to use in describing peoples' concepts of God.
2007-09-17 02:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by Boris Bumpley 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer continually believe Dawkins on attitude, yet he assumes that the matters of reality, technological understanding, etc., are actually not in basic terms matters of opinion or style. In different words, those matters have larger, specially situations severe, result on our lives. As such, they'd't be decreased to espresso-homestead banter wherein the individuals are assumed to be someway "the two top." - they'd't be. Dawkins under no circumstances pretends to properly known "the reality." that could be a question of ever-greater advantageous approximations of our know-how of certainty. those understandings rely. yet confident, he particularly thinks he's top approximately what he has concluded - or particularly "greater top" then the theists. And he thinks that is time the perspectives he represents have been given heard - if for no different reason than that he sees technological understanding and secularism decrease than coordinated attack via those forces of obscurantism.
2016-12-26 15:01:59 · answer #3 · answered by divalerio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"The God Delusion" was a pretty good read ... but really, I couldn't care less whether anyone is actively "promoting" atheism.
I wonder whether some of the respondents here are thinking of Christopher Hitchens, who's a little more shrill. Dawkins, foul-mouthed and immature? His arguments tend to be pretty sober, actually.
2007-09-17 02:33:47 · answer #4 · answered by Cap'n Zeemboo 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
God and I as we speak are working on using new evidence of advanced science discovered in the Bible to prove Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin and all of their followers wrong and the God Yahweh right.
2007-09-17 02:39:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He may not be the best advocate of atheism, but what he does is very valuable in order to get atheists out of the closet, especially on this left side of the pond.
This being said, he is at his best when he sticks to biology - anyone who remains a creationist after reading "The Selfish Gene" and "The Ancestor's Tale" is either too stupid to understand evolution, or intellectually dishonest.
2007-09-17 02:31:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
No. I think he's making it look scarey and even terroristic.
To even intimate that 75% of the world is delusional is not scientific.
Considering the damage science did to billions in the 20th century teaching us Pluto IS a planet and we are in Steady State has left me with the conclusions if you can't prove it to yourself with test tubes and litmus paper it shouldn't be taught to kids younger than 17.
Theoretical science, like violent or sexual movies and music, should be made illegal for consumption by anyone who is a minor.
I didn't think much of Sagan either.
Dawkins and Sagan want to be the Pope and tell you how you should live and what you should and shouldn't believe in.
Sagan has a problem with Astrology, which is probably one of the most popular fads world wide. If he had his way it'd be outlawed.
So organized Atheists are like Facists. They want to take away free will. They don't want to let you be and think as you choose.
If you choose to believe in Astrology and read your daily horoscope and call a psychic line and pay $90 for a reading that is your right. It's your money.
You can choose to go to the bar and get drunk
Choose to go to a girlie club and stick $1 bills
Chose to call a psychic line
Chose to give 20% of your income to a church.
That is your right and Richard Dawkins and CArl Sagan want to take that right away from you.
These people are the enemies of freedom.
And they are turning Atheism into a horrific cult, like the Hare Khrishna people at the airports
Like PETA damaging personal property
Christians have NEVER tried to make a modern law FORCING eveyrone to believe in a certain way.
When a follower is at ODDS with a Church or a Minister they go out and find another Church and Minister who is closer to their belief system.
And Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans don't hold a gun to anyones head
You are free to come and go and to find another church within a group or in another.
Sagan and Dawkins when things their way or no way.
Sagan once asked why there is no Astronomy columns in newspapers.
Well there have been and few people read them so the newspapers took out something that only 500 out of 1 million readers looked at.
On any given day I challenge, IN PERSON ONLY so you can't Google it, that the Average and Typical Atheist has no idea what planets are out in the night skies.
Most of you don't care about Astronomy either. It's not important to your life.
Most of you can't look up at the sky and instantly find Jupiter or Mars
I can, I was a lunar and planetary amateur for ages, published in Sky and Telescope
A Magazine most of you don't read, that is read by about 20,000 people world wide as compared to Playboy with over 1 million readers or Cosmo with over 2 million readers or TV Guide with 4 million readers.
And Astronomy has priced itself out of Business. When I was kid the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada handbook was like $2 and today it's like $50 or $60
A dandy book, but not worth that price.
2007-09-17 02:36:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
He is good with evolution and atheism yes.As far as science goes,NO WAY!!!
Science deals with what we SEE and OBSERVE
http://www.cseblogs.com
2007-09-17 03:28:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to know this basic:
It's preposterous order to teach first, and learn after.
Albert Einstein, on science:
"Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind."
It kinda makes RD lame... LOL.
The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
2007-09-17 02:53:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, not really (agnostic, or maybe athiest) here. He relies on the same kind of logic that a lot of religious shysters use on their own flocks -- that is, flawed and narrow logic.
Plus, his work doesn't promote mutual understanding general social progress. It alienates and probably angers a good portion of the people who might read it.
That's just my opinion, but I say... no.
2007-09-17 02:33:32 · answer #10 · answered by BZR 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋