Is Richard Dawkins an ostentatious acrimonious supercilious pusillanimous calumnious censorious vituperative querulous embittered obsessive and bombastic bully? (page 3)

Cadellin

C'mon, Slim, give us an idea of how you really feel...

Life is now

I stand to be corrected. I am ignorant as I was one of those who never got to college.

The statement I made about Scientists wasn't even my own. It was from a TV clip of a Professor of Science decades ago, except that he used 50%. I did not mean it to be a serious statement. I thought that was obvious. I made it because I do think someone who is protesting too much 'SOUNDS' as if they have some doubts themselves. Quietly confident is a little more reassuring but they are not so entertaining.

I love science and read and watch as much as I can. I enjoy all the posts on this site, whether extreme view or not, and am fascinated by the debates.

villabolo

Dudeson: "Has anyone watched the interview he did with Wendy Wright?"

Yes I have and it is obvious that Richard Dawkins was very polite while Wendy Wright was aggressive and arrogant.

Her irrationality was displayed when Dawkins spoke of the evidence of Homo Erectus remains and she responded by saying "I have not seen it". Did she even know which country in Africa the skeletal remains where preserved in, let alone make an effort to fly there and see them? Obviously not. She has no intention of seeing any such evidence and spoke of not seeing it as if it meant that it did not exist. She is therefore is insincere and irrational in her statement.

villabolo

BurnTheShips

I dslike the tone of fundamental Christians who insist that

Dawkins' "tone" is little different.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/148839/1/Is-Dawkins-a-delusion-Video-inside

FireNBandits

I tend to run roughshod over superstitious ignorant people myself. Life is too short and painful not to have some fun at the expense of ones inferiors.

Saint Martin the Frank

fresh prince of ohio

I have a love/hate relationship with Dawkins and his ilk. On one hand, I believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and undeniable, and those who continue to shout through megaphones that "it's just a theory(tm)" or whatever are raving ignoramuses (or perhaps cynical manipulators).

Otoh, I'm a reluctant atheist and I don't wish upon anybody the disappearance of meaning that comes with a loss of faith. The fact that god the idea has been the muse that has kept humanity's collective chin up in what, with blinders off, can only be seen as a brutal and meaningless existence is not a valid argument for said, but still, i don't think that we can survive the demise of the concept as RD seems to. I find that naive.

frankiespeakin

I like the Dawkins stuff I've read some of it and seen plenty of it on the Internet. And I admit that I'm really down on ignorance and being misled by the religion of the bible, I think Dawkins does really good with people and isn't trying to put them down but the ignorant ideas down. He's enlightening to listen to.

wobble

I haven't time to read the whole thread, so sorry if I am repeating a point, but Dawkins strikes me as slightly bullying when someone questions the scientific status quo, he seems to think all things are proven to the point where there will be no more progress.

A bit like the Physics professor at the end of the 19th century who told his students not to bother too much with the subject, it was at the end of its time of discovery. It was of course ,really just at the beginning.

Dawkins comes across as though anybody with doubts is an Apostate (heretic) as far as science is concerned,or is abysmally ignorant, an attitude that does not endear me, an Ex-JW, to him. We get that from the GB and active Dubs.

Love

Wobble

MMXIV

To a neutral party (whoever that could be) he can come across just as fanatical as the religious extremists he's trying to counter which isn't the most effective way of getting his point accross - indeed may be alienating many as a result. He must be so frustrated at ignorant and illogical beliefs but at times he does verge on forcing his own ideas on others. A bully? Passionate and up for a heated debate I would say. I think of a bully as one that takes your money, inflicts misery and threatens your health - see where I'm going with this :-)

MMXIV

bohm

"R are extremist, and D means the opposite of R and disagree strongly, therefore A must be just as extremist to!". I see this logical fallacy a lot by neutral theists...

Is Richard Dawkins an ostentatious acrimonious supercilious pusillanimous calumnious censorious vituperative querulous embittered obsessive and bombastic bully?

Share this