Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think of his views?

Has written many books and had numerous TV shows attacking religion.

If you never heard of him heres a few links to get the general idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wcG3yoSAdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDqN8ymhkKI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6XXiwZ3GZk
http://richarddawkins.net/

I think that he's better off with a specific point to prove, like in most of his books. When he's allowed to just rant, he shows his own prejudices, biases, and becomes nothing less than a jerk toward large groups of people. He hopes to be a catalyst for scientific inquiry and atheist support, but he ends up simply polarizing the opposition to him.

A lot of his books and articles are much better, however. I've read 2 of them and enjoyed them both, both from a reading enjoyment standpoint and also one of scientific curiosity. I haven't read his new "The God Delusion", so I can't comment on it, but his arguments certainly aren't without merit.

Deja vu...

Anscestor's Tale is so stupidly good

It's sad he is more known now for his atheistic work of a far less quality than his biological or genetic work

Bicnarok-

I read the options presented in your poll, and I must say, that I was very disappointed. I simply cannot vote upon the options that you presented! I would say--for those interested--that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man. So brilliant in fact, that I do not understand why (or how) he "convinced" himself of such convictions. Any one who has spent time honestly studying evolution, shares my views and knows that evolution fails to explain "the origins of life." And not just by a little bit, either. I mean, literally, science hasn't the first clue! I am forced to conclude, that he, has philosophical issues relating to his "in ability" in reaching an honest view of the evidence. I love the man to death, and I enjoy hearing his views, but he makes himself look like an idiot. I'm sorry, that is my humble opinion. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Originally posted by ushomefree
Bicnarok-

I read the options presented in your poll, and I must say, that I was very disappointed. I simply cannot vote upon the options that you presented! I would say--for those interested--that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man. So brilliant in fact, that I do not understand why (or how) he "convinced" himself of such convictions. Any one who has spent time honestly studying evolution, shares my views and knows that evolution fails to explain "the origins of life." And not just by a little bit, either. I mean, literally, science hasn't the first clue! I am forced to conclude, that he, has philosophical issues relating to his "in ability" in reaching an honest view of the evidence. I love the man to death, and I enjoy hearing his views, but he makes himself look like an idiot. I'm sorry, that is my humble opinion. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Why would you think that evolution or science would have anything to do with question of the origin of life? If you studied evolution, you would know that evolution never deals with that question.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Bicnarok-

I read the options presented in your poll, and I must say, that I was very disappointed. I simply cannot vote upon the options that you presented! I would say--for those interested--that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man. So brilliant in fact, that I do not understand why (or how) he "convinced" himself of such convictions. Any one who has spent time honestly studying evolution, shares my views and knows that evolution fails to explain "the origins of life." And not just by a little bit, either. I mean, literally, science hasn't the first clue! I am forced to conclude, that he, has philosophical issues relating to his "in ability" in reaching an honest view of the evidence. I love the man to death, and I enjoy hearing his views, but he makes himself look like an idiot. I'm sorry, that is my humble opinion. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Complaining about poll options? Seriously?!

Also, it's inability. One word. And calling him brilliant before chopping him down? Nice use of sarcastic undermining (another amalgamated word that you broke into two words in another thread).

Also, you realize that video is heavily edited, right? Hell, right as he's about to answer the first question they cut to a new clip.

Are you kidding!! Have ever heard the term, "Spontaneous Generation!?"

Originally posted by ushomefree
Are you kidding!! Have ever heard the term, "Spontaneous Generation!?"

Spontaneous Generation does not exist. Therefore were did life come from? This is a false question. It ignores the fact that at the subatomic level, there is no difference between life and non-life.

He's one of the smart-thinking people on the Earth today.

END OF!

DigiMark007-

Richard told the interviewer to stop the tape! The question was obviously whipping his ass! Amazing!

Yeah... exactly Shakyamunison, and I've read the book, "Green Eggs & Ham."

I've read the book 'The Cat in the Hat'. So what?

Oh yeah... well I read, "Bobby Fischer Goes To War."

Originally posted by ushomefree
Yeah... exactly Shakyamunison, and I've read the book, "Green Eggs & Ham."

Well, you need to open a text book on evolution. You will find nothing on the topic in the book Green Eggs & Ham. I know, I just checked.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh yeah... well I read, "Bobby Fischer Goes To War."

But that's not Dr. Seuss so I win.

True... true....

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Richard told the interviewer to stop the tape! The question was obviously whipping his ass! Amazing!

Yes, amazing...considering how everyone on the planet remembers everything they know and can recite it at will, especially about hyper-complex subjects like the highest levels of genetic evolution.



...beyond that, how does that question even bolster Creationism? It doesn't, or if it does they never explain how. "Look! Dawkins can't answer this random-ass question!" isn't exactly proof of anything except that he's human. Anyway, you're either really deluded in your beliefs or you're a troll.

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Richard told the interviewer to stop the tape! The question was obviously whipping his ass! Amazing! http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm







Nice.

He's dead on.

Absoloute Idiot, Most modern day teachers of the subject and he know something about the subject know that he is an idiot, such as Peter Vardy. 'He who is not even willing to sit and the chessboard and play, of course cannot be checkmated' Fredrick Copelstone.

so, who has read "The Selfish Gene"?

I mean this is a discussion about Richard Dawkins, one of the most preeminent biologists of our time.

Oh wait, everyone just wants to ***** about him and God... almost as though they have no appreciation for how far he has forwarded human understanding...

I don't know if I'd call him one of the most preeminent biologists of our time. One of the most well-known, sure.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't know if I'd call him one of the most preeminent biologists of our time. One of the most well-known, sure.

I don't know, I like him better than Gould

the Gould vs Dawkins split is one of the widest in evolutionary theory.

My opinion of course, but I think he deserves his popularity.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know, I like him better than Gould

the Gould vs Dawkins split is one of the widest in evolutionary theory.

My opinion of course, but I think he deserves his popularity. I was thinking more biology in general e.g. Craig Mello and Andrew Fire, among countless others. Even in evolutionary biology I can think of others who I'd be more willing to ascribe the adjective "preeminent."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I was thinking more biology in general e.g. Craig Mello and Andrew Fire, among countless others. Even in evolutionary biology I can think of others who I'd be more willing to ascribe the adjective "preeminent."

meh, fair enough

I'm sure my love of memes slants me more towards the Dawkins camp, but whether or not he is "preeminent" wont keep me up at night.

I agree with inamilist on that account. I've read Selfish Gene...memes revolutionized the way we currently view evolution and molecular biology. Say what you will about him beyond that, but his influence as an evolutionary biologist is certainly profound.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Any one who has spent time honestly studying evolution, shares my views and knows that evolution fails to explain "the origins of life."

I don't have time for this forum, but I saw this and address it.

Natural Selection does not address the Origin of Life. If you're looking for information on it, read Carl Woese's work on the subject. However, as informed as you are, I'm sure you're above information.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't have time for this forum, but I saw this and address it.

Natural Selection does not address the Origin of Life. If you're looking for information on it, read Carl Woese's work on the subject. However, as informed as you are, I'm sure you're above information.
Above information. I like that...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I agree with inamilist on that account. I've read Selfish Gene...memes revolutionized the way we currently view evolution and molecular biology. Say what you will about him beyond that, but his influence as an evolutionary biologist is certainly profound.

Certainly profound, but just as certainly waning. He's turned his attentions to other areas. He frequently forgets that.

"Above information"

What an odd comment to make.

I rather like him. I think he gets way more shit than he deserves, as far as I can see he gets treated as a nutjob by many people, while I can't see that apply. In his public appearances as well as in his writing it seems to me he makes very sensible points and bases them on reasoning alone.

The most aggressive of the things people usually call him also don't seem to apply and he clarifies his stances a lot. I personally don't know enough about biology to know of his impact, but as philosopher I appreciate him quite a bit.