Atheistic Friendly Fire

[En_Route]

Some people  seem to feel that their very identity is bound up with their prejudices and they will defend them (sometimes literally) to the death. However,venting anger or scorn at them achieves nothing except maybe the release of bad chemicals.

Hmmm. Not so sure. I think it's a good thing to stand up to the sort of manipulative, emotional and potentially physical bullies that Dawkin's credentials allow him to. His attitude to some of the day-to-day unthinking social/cultural theist is patronising. However some of the jumped up jackasses do need a damn good kicking. Not that they will respond to the kicking but just to show they can be kicked. Religion has been untouchable for millennia and what Dawkin's does is break down that taboo. 

One doesn't fight a war with just one weapon and one tactic.

Being assertive and refusing to be cowed by bullying; who can demur?  Dawkins for me though oozes a self-satisfaction and shrill righteousness which is wholly counter-productive. I don't think Dawkins in fact has any credentials which equip him to rebut theism; indeed some of his arguments are pretty callow.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I was thinking of more of how he came across in the bullshit episode(s?) dealing with religion....teller doesn't talk so he doesn't really come across in any certain way on them other than by association.  I liked the bullshit series but it would come across a little harsh if I happened to be a strong supporter of whatever he is calling bullshit just because of the tone used.

Then there was the time when he was at a skeptics thing in Vegas (probably TAM) and said something to the extent that the deists shouldn't be there.

Perhaps I should just consider Penn and Dawkins equal on the personable level...both can keep a cool head when they want to but both are a little out of touch.

I can see why Penn comes across as a little abrasive, but I think that's, in part, because they're in the entertainment field. They work in Vegas where everything has to be a shocking and "in your face" to get noticed.

I've come to like him a lot better since I started following him on Twitter. He gets challenged by some pretty crazy/outspoken theists there and he always has really measured, reasonable responses. I also tweeted with him about tea and the fact that his grand-parents were from Newfoundland, so that raised his stock in my book 

[Crow]

I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.

[Tank]

I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.

LOL. I saw him gliding close to a theistic comment once. It was quite amusing he really, really had to bite his tongue! I got the impression that if he had let rip he would make Dawkins look polite! 

[Crow]

I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.

LOL. I saw him gliding close to a theistic comment once. It was quite amusing he really, really had to bite his tongue! I got the impression that if he had let rip he would make Dawkins look polite! 

I just like how straight forward his language is whilst not sounding condescending or particularly insulting whilst directly calling people "twats", "idiots", "morons" which is unusual for a scientist.

[Tank]

I wish Professor Brian Cox would discuss religion more often as he is a fantastic speaker plus he is far more accessible and likeable than the majority of those that do speak openly about religion and atheism. Probably better though that he does focus on science rather than religion.

LOL. I saw him gliding close to a theistic comment once. It was quite amusing he really, really had to bite his tongue! I got the impression that if he had let rip he would make Dawkins look polite! 

I just like how straight forward his language is whilst not sounding condescending or particularly insulting whilst directly calling people "twats", "idiots", "morons" which is unusual for a scientist.

It would be fun to see!

[xSilverPhinx]

In defense of Dawkins, I think he's actually quite calm and focused considering that his subject (evolutionary theory and zoology) take all that they do from inane creationists. If I were him, I would feel very frustrated to fight what is a losing battle (since people prefer comfort over truth). There's nothing more annoying than having to debate someone who

a) doesn't know squat
b) doesn't care to know squat and
c) has a crowd of people who don't know squat and don't care to know squat cheering them on

When he does get into religion, though, IMO he's a bit over his head. 'The God Delusion' was unimpressive. He is good at describing biology for laypeople, though.

Anyways, I think there's a place for all types of people, and if Dawkins has a hand in converting someone who does better than him as an activist, then that's a gain regardless of his style.   

[xSilverPhinx]

The thing he was most concerned with was how I had incorrectly used an apostrophe when writing his name. So I'm not particularly impressed with him as a person. I also agree that his attitude is to smug and patronising.

That does sound a bit...odd. 

[Amicale]

The thing he was most concerned with was how I had incorrectly used an apostrophe when writing his name. So I'm not particularly impressed with him as a person. I also agree that his attitude is to smug and patronising.

That does sound a bit...odd. 

Some folks are hardcore science people. Some folks are 'people' people. Some folks are both, and some just aren't. I think Dawkins is a hardcore science person, but not necessarily a people person. He sees his field and his message as being generally more important than having a sense of patience or acceptance.

[Melmoth]

I'm with En_Route in disliking Richard Dawkins. Partly because of his egomania but also because he's very boring.

I thought the God Delusion getting published and becoming so popular, that fact in itself, was valuable in that it opened up debate and cleared some of the taboo surrounding it. As for the content though, it doesn't accommodate the religious, which he admits, and any atheist who would go to the trouble of reading it must have had some previous interest in the subject, otherwise they wouldn't have been led there in the first place. In other words, they'll likely have thought through all of his arguments already, by themselves. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table, unless you enjoy having your views reiterated by others, which I don't. People who agree with me are idiots, frankly.

He is good at describing biology for laypeople, though.

Definitely worth some praise for that.

[Asmodean]

He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street.

...A quality I, for one, find rather appealing.

[Tank]

He has lived his life in academia and in my opinion has no empathy with 'the person in the street.

...A quality I, for one, find rather appealing.

[Ali]

People who agree with me are idiots, frankly.

I agree!  Oh wait.