Professor Richard Dawkins

It would be interesting to talk Thomas S. Kuhn with him.

Kaccani wrote: Being kind and gentle is not always the right solution. It won't convince theists who fear their god more than almost anything else. I suppose that's the people he wants to address.

As a public speaker, well, he gets his shit back.

Best
Kc

i promise you, telling theists that they are stupid and backwards is not going to convince them either

honestly he is too intelligent for me to believe that his goal is to "convince theists" of anything

not only is he is smart enough and educated enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak in regards to religion and its part in human society, but he is certainly smart and educated enough to know that being venomous to people is not the way to convince them of anything except that they are engaging with someone who is venomous

he has chosen his bias, and he is aggressive and demeaning to those who are on the other side of it, just as he chooses the conversations that he participates in and chooses the tone that he uses for those conversations

there is a big difference between promoting science and bashing religion

there is also a difference between critical analysis and overt hostility

there is a lon list of legitmate critiques of religion and religious people throughout history and in the present day, but equally you have only to check the IP righ here at TOTOJO to understand that religion has been the medium through which humanity has expressed our most enduring and relevant ideas about the nature of Being and of how to participate with reality in a healthy way

saying that there are people who didnt or dont use these ideas in a healthy way doesnt at all mitigate the billions and billions of people who have and do

The atheist equivalent of the obnoxious Christian fundamentalist who thrives on media attention and has loads of uncritical followers, most of whom are happy to emulate his rhetoric and attitude. Pretty good scientist, though.

Khaos wrote: Interesting that most made this about his atheistic beliefs when first and foremost, he is a scientist.

He is known for his debates with theists of course, but I think more, he is concerned with not allowing willful ignorance. You can spout the positives of religion all day, but there is always the foundation of a willful ignorance in the face of evidence. Or, using lack thereof, or the ever popular God of the gaps argument as if that proves anything one way or the other.

I imagine it gets frustrating when even in 2016, there is a movement that truly believes the earth is flat.

Especially for such a highly educated individual.

He can be a huge douche, however, that is nothing new in the human populace.

My opinion is he is a well educated man, who knows his stuff, and as time has gone on, has become bitter and frustrated with a world where people believe that all opinions are valid, and equal.

Which, just in case your confused, they are not.

Quality of thought is important.

if the clip used to open the topic had been of dawkins expounding the virtues of science then maybe that would be the theme of our conversation

actually, probably not. because from what i can tell he isnt really in to expounding the value of science these days, he is in to expounding the stupidity of religion

opinions are unequal because some are more or less logical and coherent than others, some have integrated more or less relevant information in a more or less coherent or sophisticated way than others, and some are more or less deliberately biased than others

he makes his opinion worth less than it could be as a result of his own deliberate bias, every bit as much as those with whom he argues who have made their own opinions worth less than they could be as a result of their biases

sorry for the bad language that has culminated in this thread and the video by the way. Thanks for all your points

Adi wrote: ... and has loads of uncritical followers...

Name one.

It is not often to go through a thread and find something to disagree with in just about every post (I know, sounds astounding coming from me).
I do not know much about Professor Dawkins' Tweets, because (a) I'm not registered with Twitter, (b) I don't find that anything like a nuanced or well-informed opinion can be delivered given its extremely restrictive character limits, and (c) I really, really don't care, because Twitter is, unlike what I'd like to think I am, all about attention, never about substance.
When you talk to a group of people who are mostly on your side, you don't win a lot of favours by holding back and not speaking your mind, which is what your listeners came to hear. When you are in a debate, likewise, stepping back and pondering, submitting to your opponent's arguments or challenges will not leave your audience thinking you triumphed and considering your point of view as a result.
That being said, from what I saw and read of his, Dawkins often goes out of his way to address his opposition with dignity and patience that at times is mind-boggling itself. I refer you at this point to his one-on-one with Wendy Wright.
I suppose if there is one thing I have to criticize about Professor Dawkins, it is his insistence on an importance and indeed objectivity of truth, something I would have praised him for just a few years ago. When it comes to matters of ontology, it turns out he doesn't know his stuff and at times when he is debating the religious it really shows. In all fairness, I don't think that your average philosopher does the subject anywhere near the justice it is due either, but at least with zoology and the evolution of behaviour there can be such a thing as an expert and that is what Dawkins is, and it is that field whence his in my opinion best, albeit not most famous anymore, contributions come.