It might be arrogant of him to say he hasn't heard a good argument (I tend to agree with him) but disrespectful?Presumably you think it would be disrespectful to say I haven't heard a good argument for fairies at the bottom of my garden?Without further ado, I give you evidence of Dawkins' arrogance and disrespect:
The Best Richard Dawkins Moment Ever!!! - YouTube
Granted, that's only one example,
I have read several of his books, which is why I question your choice of language in describing his statements or his views.but I do wonder whether you've actually read any of his books?
He was asked a question and gave his answer as "No" which is understandable coming from someone who bases his entire belief on provable facts is being asked if someone who bases there belief on lack of facts (or denial of facts in some cases) ever posed a interesting argument to challenge his way of thinking. I cant see how his answer could be anything other than no, so it was just the way he said it with a stifled laugh but it was quite humorous.
I'm sure he does look down on some of his debating partners, in probably the same way we* look down on technophobes who cant grasp or refuse to learn basic computing skills.
*unless you have the patience of a saint** after repeat offences
**pun intended :P
My opinion clearly differs from your own, then again I feel you may again be taking my opinion as proposed fact. It is my opinion that a person can hold their own beliefs and that it's none of my business to deny them that. I do believe that they should do so without trying to force their beliefs on to others. Whether or not that is what their religion tells them they should do is a huge debate that has raged for years and certainly won't gain any clarity here. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Qur'an and the Bible there are; dozens!
What I find disrespectful is that Richard Dawkins has met some of the most powerful religious leaders in the world, he has had a chance to discuss and debate an issue that every single human being alive has had to ponder at some point, and he dismissed every single one of their points and arguments with a curt 'No'. That is disrespectful. If you are not interested in hearing both sides of the argument on the matter for which you are a spokesperson, perhaps you should step down and let somebody more willing to listen have a go.
It doesn't matter how many different interpretations are available, the 'right to a belief' means that the only one that IS important is the one that an individual adopts. Some people do believe that they should not condemn others to hell by their inaction. That they must shout from the rooftops etc! So your granting them a right to believe without "shoving it down your throat" is not granting them much of a right at all. It also assumes (rather arrogantly perhaps) that your right not to be confronted by their belief superceeds their right to freely promulgate theirs. I'm not at all clear why your right wins over theirs.My opinion clearly differs from your own, then again I feel you may again be taking my opinion as proposed fact. It is my opinion that a person can hold their own beliefs and that it's none of my business to deny them that. I do believe that they should do so without trying to force their beliefs on to others. Whether or not that is what their religion tells them they should do is a huge debate that has raged for years and certainly won't gain any clarity here. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Qur'an and the Bible there are; dozens!
What is to listen to? The best argument for a belief in god is "because I like to believe". There is no rational, scientific argument for a god. There is no objective, reproducible evidence. And it doesn't matter how 'powerful' the religious leader is, none of them have or can cross that barrier. Someone else listening won't change that and the poor form of the opposition is not really Dawkins fault.What I find disrespectful is that Richard Dawkins has met some of the most powerful religious leaders in the world, he has had a chance to discuss and debate an issue that every single human being alive has had to ponder at some point, and he dismissed every single one of their points and arguments with a curt 'No'. That is disrespectful. If you are not interested in hearing both sides of the argument on the matter for which you are a spokesperson, perhaps you should step down and let somebody more willing to listen have a go.
I believe you fundamentally misjudge Dawkins. I've called you on it several times and you produce no examples which support your use of words and phrases like "extremist", "rude", "disrespectful", "treat people with utter disdain". Dawkins says what he thinks and makes compelling, evidence based, rational arguments. It's not his fault that the 'other side' has only woo-woo to offer in return. What I find strange is that religious people seem to want to dismiss science and/or try and argue on an equal basis. It's called 'faith' because it doesn't work that way.My personal opinion is that Richard Dawkins is a hindrance to Atheism. It is only in recent years it has been possible to admit to being atheist without fear of being shunned by the community at large (generally anyway). In making himself a spokesperson for atheists all over the world, Richard Dawkins is forming an opinion in others minds as to how an atheist thinks. Just as certain people will point at Muslim extremists and brand all Muslims terrorists, many will point at Dawkins and call all atheists arrogant and disrespectful. We do not need that. As a group of people who pride ourselves on being intelligent and balanced, having somebody stand up and metaphorically shove his fingers in his ears and ignore any argument contrary to his own beliefs is damaging our reputation, and it's taken us long enough to get this far as it is.
Last edited by pcstru; 21st September 2012 at 05:35 PM.
Appearances might be deceiving but Dawkins has independently struck me as being a teensy bit vicious in recent years, plus with the country seemingly getting crockier by the year I'm not so sure we should be kicking the local Christians, some of whom genuinely do possess a little traditional, unselfish virtue (see most hospices for instance).
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 21st September 2012 at 06:49 PM. Reason: tpyo
I quite liked Ben Goldacre's description of himself as an ab-atheist (sp?). I might aspire to that but perhaps it's a poor reflection on myself that I still find the issues compelling discussion.
I suppose (to bring us back on topic) we can have some Muhammad look-a-like models for our Muslim brothers. As an agnostic with a sense of humor I'd go for the JC model and soend eternity convincing catholics that judgement day has come.
Plus you would have a list of things you can and can't do because they aren't approved for mac bionics. "oh you want to play tennis with your bionic elbow? sorry that's not supported, you can play the guitar and paint with it though! apple bionics are so creative!"
Religious and technological...all rolled into 1
Have stayed out of this so far, but hey, here goes
Last count, there are at least 1.6 billion Muslims, how many are kicking up a fuss over the film, a few thousand. By those figures, you can easily say that there is a massive majority of Muslims who are very tolerant of the film and really aren't fussed over it, it's just a very, very tiny minority who have taken offence. By those standards, you could argue that Islam is a very tolerant religion. Same with every other major religion, the massive majority are peaceful people just getting on with their lives and following their religion to the best of their ability.
Now, the other comment I have seen in this thread and others is 'I don't mind people having a religion, as long as they only practice it in private.'. As good Humanists/Atheists, I presume your fundamental set of morals are based around the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If so, may I point you to:
Therefore, rather than classing everyone who has any belief in a religion as an idiot, please be a bit more tolerant and accepting, giving everyone the same right to freedom of thought.Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Just to give you an idea of what the religions are doing, in our local town we have the following:
Street Angels - helping people out and about town on a Friday/Saturday night making sure they people are safe, clearing up rubbish, helping people in need or distress.
Drop In Centre - providing food, clothing and support to over 120 homeless, asylum seekers, unemployed in need every Saturday.
Asylum Seekers - providing accommodation, food and activities to asylum seekers, and before you say these are just scroungers coming over for benefits, try talking to them and finding out their life stories, most are very harrowing.
Beds for the homeless - over winter around 30 homeless are given beds overnight in churches.
Rehabilitation for offenders - a house run and funded by the local churches to house and rehabilitate offenders, most having drug/alcohol addictions.
Annual event to celebrate the local area, attracted over 10,000 people this year.
Interfaith organisations working to ease any racial tensions.
There are prison visitors, people supporting the elderly, you name it, all organised and run by religious organisations. They are also not there to start evangelising, in fact that is strictly forbidden for most of these things, they are just there as they want to help people.
The problem is, all the good stuff done by religious groups never makes the news, it's only the extremists causing trouble or the silly arguments in the CofE that make the headlines. Overall, if you actually looked at all the good stuff being done today by religious groups, it far outweighs the negatives.
Just my thoughts and an alternative view...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)