british press have knifes out for Richard Dawkins (page 4)

tec

For the record, I like him too. More so after his comment that he can imagine things (alien life)... that he cannot imagine. I loved that. I can do this also.

Peace,

Tammy

00DAD

cyberjesus: funny if you dont agree with some then your arrogant

That's an illogical non-sequitor.

I agree with many of the things he talks about. I still find him to be an arrogant ass. Why is that so hard to understand?

Seems like some folks just can't stand the some others of us don't like Rottweilers!

00DAD

cyberjesus

Let me rephrase it... "Its funny that for some, if you dont agree with them, they will label you arrogant"

happy now?

00DAD

CJ: I was happy before and I still am, thanks. But you're confusing. Probably I'm making something of nothing.

I agree with some of what Dawkins has to say and disagree with other parts. The same is true of what I think of most people. Regardless, I find Dawkins to be arrogant because of his manner, not his content or beliefs. In contrast, I do not find most other people to be arrogant. This is also because of their manner, not their content or beliefs.

I really don't know if Richard Dawkins knows me, my beliefs or if he has an opinion on whether or not I am arrogant.

00DAD

Flat_Accent

Well it is a PR thing the press are doing. Dawkins has been in the spotlight recently for the Ipsos Mori poll and speaking with Rowan Williams. But that's the press, quick to jump on anything that tries to bismerch someone, whether it's taken out of context or not. It was the telegraph who did the article about Dawkins descendants being slave owners, but in an discussion between Dawkins and Times' Religious affairs editor, it was pretty clear they were doing it just to make a joke out of him.

I originally found him to be rather arrogant as well, but If you're just watching him on talk shows like The Big Questions and other Religious programs, that's the only side you see. He's hearing the same arguments he's heard hundreds of times, it probably gets on his wick. Half the time they just descend into shouting competitions, and his arguments fall on deaf ears.

However, the debate between him and Rowan Williams, as well as the debate with John Lennox were very civilized. You should watch those 00DAD, it might change your perception of him.

slimboyfat

Calling Dawkins on slave owning ancestors has got to be the most ridiculous thing ever.

Does anyone else remember when Richard Dawkins was primarily an evolutionary scientist? He was a pretty good one! (He convinced me at least, with his book The Blind Watchmaker, that "creation" is nonsense. )

highdose

can i just point out that i meant this thread to be about Dawkins and not about 00DAD?

metatron

Allow me to answer this way, using a quote I have always found to be wise:

"fashion is made by fools but only fools defy fashion"

Dawkins is an arrogant reptile and a jerk. Yes, he spouts facts but so what? Life is more than technical facts.

I have spent most of a lifetime exposing facts to managers, business leaders, etc....... and you know what?

it doesn't mean sh*t! It's as if you aren't even in the room......or you're not speaking English.... or you aren't speaking at all.

Life is myth. Life is sociology. Life is human relations. Life is marketing.

You can call Dawkins a genius, if you like. For me, his lack of mindfulness marks him as a fool. Once you understand how people really think and react, all else is folly. Politicians (if successful) understand this.

metatron

NewChapter

Well facts mean something to me and many others. It's too bad that someone that asserts that facts are not sh*t is painted as arrogant---but that's not uncommon, once you understand how people really think.

highdose

i too have had the same experiance as you metron, but i differ in my opinion as to its outcome

facts matter they matter more than anything else.

What you have described as mattering more than facts actualy depends on facts. Marketing for instance depends on pyschology and statistics. Both these studies depend on facts and without the facts gathered by physcology and statistics you would not have any marketing or sociology.

The point Dawkins makes over and over again is that he will only firmly belive something once it has been proven by facts. In arugement you will find he requests the religous people to prove their points by facts, but they are unable to do so. Dawkins for his part always backs up his arguments with facts.

british press have knifes out for Richard Dawkins

Share this