What does the collective think of this then

He's a bit of a dick.

Richard Dawkins is an Religious Extremist, just because his "religion" is atheism doesn't mean he's not as annoying as the crazy christians or muslims.
 
Last edited:
redddraggon said:
He's a bit of a dick.

Richard Dawkins is an Religious Extremist, just because his "religion" is atheism he's just as annoying as the crazy christians or muslims.
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
I don't agree with his views on this subject and I'm staggered that people have not heard of him.
 
Me neither.
 
nilagin said:
I see no reason why I should have heard of him.:shrug:
Click to expand...

The God Delusion is one of the best selling (and most talked about) non-fiction books of the last 10 years. It has sold millions and provoked debate all over the world.
 
nilagin said:
I see no reason why I should have heard of him.:shrug:
Click to expand...

probably because he is about the most noisy, vocal aethiest to have ever walked gods green earth [pun VERY intended]

However, remember the forum rules about discussions that involve politics or religion - I suspect this thread has the potential to be subject to a quickly slammed door if not kept very civil....
 
Interesting

A quote from the article

Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt continued. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.
Click to expand...

I think this in itself is an interesting point to discuss (not referring specifically to the examples he gave here, mind)

The severity of a crime can change over time, indeed whether a particular act is even considered a crime or not can change. Is it right to judge someones actions a long time ago by todays standards? I'm currently not convinced it is.
 
I have read the link several times and I cannot see anything wrong in what he is saying.

In his view it was not sexual abuse and it caused him no lasting harm and he doubts that the other pupils suffered lasting harm either. :shrug:

If he was to say that the actions of a few decades ago was terrible and disgusting would he be able to cope with it or would he have to become a victim?

Perhaps I am biased as I have read a few of his books including The God Delusion and agree with what is in it.
 
Dawkins is just an attention seeking fool. It should be noted that he has of course got a new book coming out/already out.

As a fellow atheist he annoys me.

Edited by staff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RichardtheSane said:
Interesting

A quote from the article



I think this in itself is an interesting point to discuss (not referring specifically to the examples he gave here, mind)

The severity of a crime can change over time, indeed whether a particular act is even considered a crime or not can change. Is it right to judge someones actions a long time ago by todays standards? I'm currently not convinced it is.
Click to expand...
I agree. Times change, so do standards.
Just as an example, In the aftermath of the battle of Rorkes Drift, the victorious defenders buried the fallen Zulus - and shot or bayoneted the wounded. By today's standards that was a war crime but back then it was normal and acceptable.

As for who Richard Dawkins is, he is a very successful self publicist who likes to be controversial, but he is also a very accomplished scientist and thinker.
 
norters said:
Dawkins is just an attention seeking fool. It should be noted that he has of course got a new book coming out/already out.

As a fellow atheist he annoys me.

.
Click to expand...

He's not the only one. I could rattle off a few more but discretion prevents me:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree with his views on this subject - this doesn't mean I disagree with him on all subjects.

There are people of various religious persuasions who have expressed disagreeable views on paedophilia so there's no particular reason to think that Dawkins philosophy generally is undermined by him being wrong (imo) on this particular point
 
In my defence I used the Father Ted usage (was still starred out)! And I was not aware the other was classed as a swearword!

Can I call him a divvy??
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The God Delusion is one of the best selling (and most talked about) non-fiction books of the last 10 years. It has sold millions and provoked debate all over the world.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard of that either.

Yv said:
probably because he is about the most noisy, vocal aethiest to have ever walked gods green earth [pun VERY intended]
Click to expand...
Obviously he hasn't been noisy or vocal enough. :LOL:
 
As above, what Dawkins is trying to say is that we are judging the past on todays standards. Back then, it would have been acceptable to touch up kids. Not saying it is right but look at:

- the greeks: men slept with boys as young as 12 for "recreation" and slept with women for "procreation". By our standards, they were essentially paedophiles. But to them, that was the norm.

- racism: it was acceptable to use various terms to refer to black people. Nowadays you'll get slammed for using them. I recall a recent car advert that stated "eenie meenie minie mo". Whilst to me that was about counting/choosing, it had connotations to black people. Hell, an episode of Only Fools and Horses got censored for using a word for someone from pakistan.

- it was normal to have children working as young as age of 5. Nowadays that would be abhorrent.

- Alan Turing IIRC was punished for being gay. Nowadays that would be discrimination.

Things change and move on. The best thing to do is to learn from the past.
 
redddraggon said:
He's a bit of a dick.

Richard Dawkins is an Religious Extremist, just because his "religion" is atheism doesn't mean he's not as annoying as the crazy christians or muslims.
Click to expand...

lol how can he be a religious extremist when he has no religion. :wacky: Atheism is not a religion and its not a word I would use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god either.

He can get a bit annoying though, I think the "fame" has gone to his head.




I do understand his point but he uses a bit of an odd example to put it across given current events surrounding child abuse - maybe he has another book coming out lol
 
Last edited:
omens said:
As above, what Dawkins is trying to say is that we are judging the past on todays standards. Back then, it would have been acceptable to touch up kids. Not saying it is right but look at:

- the greeks: men slept with boys as young as 12 for "recreation" and slept with women for "procreation". By our standards, they were essentially paedophiles. But to them, that was the norm.
Click to expand...

There is an essential difference though. The acts he is defending were illegal at the time. Trying to defend that using Ancient Greece as an example is flawed
 
POAH said:
lol how can he be a religious extremist when he has no religion. :wacky: Atheism is not a religion and its not a word I would use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god either.
Click to expand...


Did you miss the "" around the word "religion"?
 
boyfalldown said:
There is an essential difference though. The acts he is defending were illegal at the time. Trying to defend that using Ancient Greece as an example is flawed
Click to expand...

Even so the severity of the crime, I believe, is not what it would be today. Happy to be told otherwise by someone in the know though.

My point still stands... is it fair to judge a crime by today standards when at the time it was committed it was not such a serious offence?
 
RichardtheSane said:
Even so the severity of the crime, I believe, is not what it would be today. Happy to be told otherwise by someone in the know though.

My point still stands... is it fair to judge a crime by today standards when at the time it was committed it was not such a serious offence?
Click to expand...

At the time he (Dawkins) is talking about sexual assault was, and remains a crime. By the same token as people argue you can't judge a crime more harshly using today's standards its also unreasonable to judge a crime less harshly because it happened 50-60 years ago then would of been judged at the time
 
Im also amazed how many have not heard of him. You spend to much time on here, and should get out more :)
 
Diluting the severity of sexual crimes against children is abhorrent to most people - most? The civilised people I know anyway - But I suppose he makes his own morality - origins unknown.
 
Yv said:
probably because he is about the most noisy, vocal aethiest to have ever walked gods green earth [pun VERY intended]

However, remember the forum rules about discussions that involve politics or religion - I suspect this thread has the potential to be subject to a quickly slammed door if not kept very civil....
Click to expand...

ahh, that would be why i've never heard of him then. I pay zero attention to anything remotely based around religion or the lack there of.
 
rjbell said:
Im also amazed how many have not heard of him. You spend to much time on here, and should get out more :)
Click to expand...

If I hadn't spent time on here, I'd probably never heard of him at all.:LOL:
 
rjbell said:
Im also amazed how many have not heard of him. You spend to much time on here, and should get out more :)
Click to expand...

He is pretty famous for his work on evolutionary biology, he is a professor, a zoologist, an author and has a lot of other interests and successes. His first book, The Blind Watchmaker, set out his stall pretty thoroughly (and convincingly). In that book, I remember that he argued against the creationist theory rather than against the existence of a God. I think that his atheist views are probably a bit of a sideshow TBH
 
Garry Edwards said:
He is pretty famous for his work on evolutionary biology, he is a professor, a zoologist, an author and has a lot of other interests and successes. His first book, The Blind Watchmaker, set out his stall pretty thoroughly (and convincingly). In that book, I remember that he argued against the creationist theory rather than against the existence of a God. I think that his atheist views are probably a bit of a sideshow TBH
Click to expand...

afaik he is not a professor anymore as he no longer has the chair at Cambridge due to him spending time trying to make money from dissing religion
 
Whether you agree or not with Dawkins work he is undoubtedly one of the prominant scientific minds in the country. He is a strong proponent of evolutionary biology and tries to transpose that onto human social behaviour and coined the term meme a sort of psychological gene. He is the author of groundbreaking books such as the selfish gene and the blind watchmaker and as previous mentioned the God delusion. He has a very respected international reputation and is often considered one of the top British intellectuals. Unfortunately he is on a personal crusade to ridicule those who have any sort of faith and he writes and comments extensively on it. Its this persecution that gets him most publicity these days and in my opinion it has tarnished his reputation and deminishes his previous brilliant work. Its worth me noting here that I am an agnostic, I am skeptical about the likelihood of a creator but I am keeping my options open :)

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top