Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[BobbyisStrange]

Does anyone realize that if this statement is true,
"Subjects believe that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them" makes believers immoral?

 

[Looncall]

I'm with Dirty Penguin on this...what's wrong with this article?? Or did you just read the title and make assumptions??? I'm sorry I have to assume that is all you did.

I suspect that she thinks that religion should have special privileges and that criticism of it is not allowed. That this is now seen by many to be wrong is an important recent change and, I think, the cause of the hysterical reactions one sees in posts such as hers. I also think this change accounts for the overblown responses by religious people to the "New Atheism" and its proponents.

The religious are losing their privileged place in the world. If they don't like it, tough!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Obviously not all are "brickwalls", but what I find comical is the across-the-board denial that any are brickwalls. The message seems clear, if a person is an atheist, they can do no wrong.

Oh, will the baseless assertions never end?
Who, in this thread, has stated any of the above?
Who among us has said anything to the effect of 'no atheists are brickwalls' or 'atheists can do no wrong'?
C'mon laddie! Let's see some quotes now, or admit that you are in the wrong.

 

[beerisit]

Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.

What are you contending here? Is it a commentary on atheists or a commentary on Americans. I think many non-Americans would opt for the latter.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

...I haven't seen that attitude displayed towards Dawkins from the people here. They simply agree with what he has to say.

Correct..We agree with a lot of what he says but certainly not all of what he says. That hardly describes us as having a cultish mentality.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And your point?

You asked a question. I answered it. I think I made my point....:areyoucra

 

[Road Warrior]

Oh, will the baseless assertions never end?
Who, in this thread, has stated any of the above?
Who among us has said anything to the effect of 'no atheists are brickwalls' or 'atheists can do no wrong'?

So far, on this thread and all the others I've seen, no atheists have said one thing against Dawkins. Not a single negative thing. Additionally, any non-atheist who has said something less than adoring of Dawkins has been met with vehement recrimination.

You don't have to say you believe the man is perfect and completely blameless or faultess. All others have to do is watch how you defend him.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And, just to make it clear, the one that claims he is a good educator or a good human being has the same burden of proof as someone that claims he is a bad educator or a bad human being.

Yes...and so far neither of them have presented anything that substantiates their claims that's (he's a bad educator), (bad human being)....

 

[A Troubled Man]

This is how correct definitions of vague words like "indoctrination" can be determined.

No, I gave you the definition and you ignored it.

You used wikipedia, and didn't cite the sources it used, nor did you say whether or not the page had good ratings. For the record, that page has a trustworthy rating of 2.9 out of 5. As a rule, that's a red flag for me.

In addition, the paragraph you quoted only has two sources cited, neither of them dictionaries.

Staggeringly mind boggling that you're still in denial.

You said indoctrination is the worst form of abuse. If cultural indoctrination is nigh unavoidable, then by your statement, abuse is nigh unavoidable.

Again, your own conclusions. Red Herrings.

But you implied it with passionate, yet likely poorly chosen words which stated that indoctrination is the worst form of abuse. Do you not see where I drew the conclusion?

Yes, thin air.

I know that no one is. I'm saying that indoctrination is not inherently abuse in itself, since it doesn't automatically lack the type of love and care that children most need, nor does it inherently have problems.

I have already shown you the problems based on the definition.

If indoctrination becomes accepted as a form of abuse by child psychologists(who are the real deciders in this matter), then I would expect it to be far lower on the scale of damage than physical abuse.

Seems you are personally the real decider in this matter based on your own personal definitions of words.

Here's my point: indoctrination does not create robot-like people. You forget a few aspects of psychology, especially that of youths. Adolescents are naturally rebellious, and will naturally question the establishment to determine for themselves if it's true. Those who don't are, by far, the exception rather than the rule.

You also forget the rule that if you want to guarantee that someone will do something, shove in his face that he's absolutely not allowed to do it.

Youths being naturally rebellious is not an aspect of psychology and isn't an argument for indoctrination.

No, that is not a rule. That is another Red Herring.

 

[Road Warrior]

What are you contending here? Is it a commentary on atheists or a commentary on Americans. I think many non-Americans would opt for the latter.

Their choice, but like the link I provided, it would be nice to see some proof for once. Not just your usual opinion.

Something like this: How non-Atheists view Atheists:

About Atheism and Atheists

Estimates of the numbers of Atheists are hopelessly inaccurate and essentially meaningless:

According to the 2001 World Almanac, Atheists number:
121 million in Asia
56 million in the former USSR
23 million (3.5%) in Europe
2.7 million in Latin America
1.6 million (0.5%) in North America
0.4 million in Oceania
0.4 million in Africa 8

American Atheists claim that almost 30 million Americans are Atheists. They define "Atheist" broadly to include those who firmly believe that no God exists, those that have no belief in God, and those for whom the term "God" has no meaning. This is a broad enough definition to include what others call Atheists and Agnostics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So far, on this thread and all the others I've seen, no atheists have said one thing against Dawkins.

I've seen plenty of criticism of Dawkins come from atheists. You're obviously not looking hard enough, or purposely not noticing.

Not a single negative thing. Additionally, any non-atheist who has said something less than adoring of Dawkins has been met with vehement recrimination.

Usually because these "less than adoring" statements are based on total ignorance of his position, such as your claims, which were totally baseless and unfounded. Criticism of Dawkins is fine. Misrepresenting him, strawmanning him or reacting to his claims with utter recrimination to the extent that you would consider him "a rotten human being" is not fine. Pointing out that your criticisms of him are based on ignorance and prejudiced is not the same as saying that any and all criticisms of him are invalid.

Perhaps instead of whining and accusing atheists of some form of hero worship, you should actually try to support your views with relevant facts or actually learn something about the man and his opinions before you decide you're going to speak your mind about him. Many people in this thread have said that they consider Dawkins a "poor theologian", and have been met with very little response from Dawkins' supporters aside from requests to explain their opinions.

 

[Koldo]

Their choice, but like the link I provided, it would be nice to see some proof for once. Not just your usual opinion.

Something like this: How non-Atheists view Atheists:

About Atheism and Atheists

What is your interpretation of this data?

 

[jarofthoughts]

So far, on this thread and all the others I've seen, no atheists have said one thing against Dawkins. Not a single negative thing. Additionally, any non-atheist who has said something less than adoring of Dawkins has been met with vehement recrimination.

Oh, I'm sorry, but we've been kinda busy with all the misrepresentations and faulty assumptions, so we haven't gotten around to it.
Perchance when I encounter someone who is actually willing to have an honest discussion and back their opinions up with facts, I'll be more forthcoming.

You don't have to say you believe the man is perfect and completely blameless or faultess. All others have to do is watch how you defend him.

Ha ha ha...
Yeah, right...
I actually have several criticisms of Dawkins and the way he handles certain situations and topics, but that does not mean that I'll agree to someone blatantly misrepresenting him or dealing in outright slander.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The message seems clear, if a person is an atheist, they can do no wrong If they are not a through-and-through atheist.

Wrong and you have no justification for this. Most of my friends, family and co-workers are theist and many of them, regardless of their religion, I respect a lot. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian and I can find no fault in the man from what I knew of his life. Malcolm X converted to Islam and thought he was doing the right thing for the time he lived in and the social pressure facing him at the time and I admire him for never backing down to his oppressors.

if they are a theist, they are incessantly hammered until they either shut up, leave or surrender.

So you're upset because some ones pride, ego or feelings are hurt by words...Really, what harm has been caused here?

Just another reason why this is true: In Atheists We Distrust: Scientific American

The only thing this article proves is that this highly theistic society has an obvious bias toward Atheist.

I did love this part though...which goes to the credibility that Dawkins is a good person.

"the Haiti earthquake led members of Richard Dawkins’ foundation to launch a campaign entitled Non-Believers Giving Aid. In December the Reddit.com online atheism community managed to raise over $200,000 worth of donations for Doctors Without Borders."

So we've already established he's good scientist. He's a good educator (I've presented video evidence of this), and now we've established he's a good person (see your own reference above - thank you for making our case for us)......

 

[Road Warrior]

I've seen plenty of criticism of Dawkins come from atheists. You're obviously not looking hard enough, or purposely not noticing.

An expected response. "Atheists are perfect, therefore it must be your fault". Sorry, buddy, but I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it isn't there since I don't read every thread. Let's limit it to this one and the Dawkins mocking thread.....or better yet, what do you find negative about Dawkins? Hitchens? Myers? Any of the other High Priests of New Atheism or are they all inviolate?

Usually because these "less than adoring" statements are based on total ignorance of his position, such as your claims, which were totally baseless and unfounded.

QED. Thanks!

 

[Road Warrior]

Oh, I'm sorry, but we've been kinda busy with all the misrepresentations and faulty assumptions, so we haven't gotten around to it.

Ever? I find that a bit of a stretch.

Perchance when I encounter someone who is actually willing to have an honest discussion and back their opinions up with facts, I'll be more forthcoming.

Translation: All non-atheists are dishonest and never present facts.

As it is, I seriously doubt you'd ever be forthcoming about Dawkins et al regardless of the facts, which I've presented before. Just because you don't like them or refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean others reading this thread or the others on the subject are so willfully blind.

 

[Road Warrior]

Wrong and you have no justification for this.

Wrong as my experience on this forum has shown me. I won't list the usernames (or their positions) since I don't want another warning, but suffice to say I feel fully justified in stating that and will state it again:

Obviously not all are "brickwalls", but what I find comical is the across-the-board denial that any are brickwalls. The message seems clear, if a person is an atheist, they can do no wrong. If they are not a through-and-through atheist, then they are treated case-by-case. If they are a theist, they are incessantly hammered until they either shut up, leave or surrender. It's a commonly repeated pattern I've seen both here and other forums. While it's sad, it's also illuminating about the mindset of atheists.

Just another reason why this is true: In Atheists We Distrust: Scientific American

 

[McBell]

So far, on this thread and all the others I've seen, no atheists have said one thing against Dawkins. Not a single negative thing. Additionally, any non-atheist who has said something less than adoring of Dawkins has been met with vehement recrimination.

You don't have to say you believe the man is perfect and completely blameless or faultess. All others have to do is watch how you defend him.

That's the best you can come up with?

Well, at least you are consistent.

 

[McBell]

Wrong as my experience on this forum has shown me. I won't list the usernames (or their positions) since I don't want another warning, but suffice to say I feel fully justified in stating that and will state it again:

Ah yes.
The ego factor.

Take what you like,
ignore what you dislike.
Then claim "my experience" blah blah blah.

Interesting that you are a prime example of the "brickwall" you whine so much about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

An expected response. "Atheists are perfect, therefore it must be your fault".

See when we talk about you misrepresenting people? This is what we mean. How in the living hell did you get "atheists are perfect" from "I've seen lots of atheists criticize Dawkins"?

Sorry, buddy, but I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it isn't there since I don't read every thread.

Then stop claiming that all atheists on this forum are somehow fetishistically devoted to defending the man and everything he says.

Let's limit it to this one and the Dawkins mocking thread.....or better yet, what do you find negative about Dawkins?

I don't think he's a great one-on-one debater, and I feel his approach is sometimes too insular, i.e he often feels like he is talking exclusively to other atheists rather than addressing theists.

Hitchens?

A better debater, but I often feel he comes accross as trying too hard to seem intellectual. It's not really his fault - he is, after-all, an intellectual - but I can understand when thiests accuse him of arrogance or pomposity.

Myers?

Can sometimes be too blunt and leave himself open to easy shots.

Any of the other High Priests of New Atheism or are they all inviolate?

Do you accuse all people you fear of being cult leaders?

QED. Thanks!

Oh look! Another misrepresentation.

Your opinion was revealled to be ignorant and unfounded. You're the one trying to pass off your ignorance and accuse those who revealled it of being biased worshippers at the feet of Dawkins. Seriously, Road Warrior, you're clearly behaving like the "brick wall" you keep accusing us of being. Stop jerking your knees and making stuff up and try having an intelligent thing to say for once.