Dawkins is a superstar. His anti-God agenda can be a bit preachy, but all in all the man is a god among men. No one can really deny this, he's just quicker, faster and smarter than most everyone else.
-Sab
Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cofty
It really puzzles me why anybody would not respect Dawkins.
Even as a beliver I respected him as a worthy foe.
I wonder if some people value "nice" as more of a virtue than being authentic.
-
Chariklo
Dawkins is indeed a highly intelligent man.
-
NewChapter
I wonder if some people value "nice" as more of a virtue than being authentic.
Possibly, but he isn't even 'not' nice. I often see him asking the most open ended questions of believers, without editorial, and he simply allows them to answer them. These people often answer him defensively and even call him arrogant---when actually he just asked a question and waited on their answer. I think that under scrutiny, they realize their answer is nonsense, and it makes them angry. And his questions aren't constructed like this OP---they aren't loaded or leading.
Seriously, when I see some people get agitated talking to him, the only thing they seem to be upset about is their own answer.
Of course, there are the debates and speeches, but this is a different context. When addressing a believer interview style, I think he shows amazing restraint, even though they often get flustered.
-
Christ Alone
But a believer looks at him and sees an arrogant militant. Which supports my theory that many believers wish that atheists would just STFU.
You're onto something there, NC. I think many believers are lazy and want to believe what they believe without any resistance. They don't WANT to go and research. Instead of reading 100 hard books, they only want to read 1.
If athesists would just shut up, they could live with their beliefs in peace and not have to defend them. Well that's just not reality. It goes against their own book too. 1Peter 3:15 says: " Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
That should be a wake up call to Christians. They should be able to give an answer. They should also be able to do it with gentleness and respect. Sadly, many don't follow both or one of those things. They either CAN'T give an answer to why they believe what they believe. Or when they give an answer, they attack the other person. Especially when forced to deal with complex issues.
-
Chariklo
NC
So we have phrases like "These people call him militant,", "But a believer looks at him" , "my theory that many believers wish that atheists would just STFU." , etc.
Can you not see that you are lumping together a vastly disparate collection of people who may not even agree with each other and may have widely different beliefs and different foundation for their beliefs?
I've already said that "My title would have been better phrased if it had said "some of the atheists on this board" " and I've apolgised and regetted that mistake; what makes you feel content to consider that all "believers" have a uniform set of actions and behaviours, let alone convictions and beliefs?
You laugh:
LOL, Char certainly disikes Richard Dawkins!
Richard Dawkins, as an Oxford professor, is a highly intelligent and well-respected man for whose learning and thinking I too have great respect. However, I find I am uncomfortable with his explicitly stated mission to have everyone cease any belief in the divine or spiritual.
I do not dislike him as a person; he is a most charming man.
However, if I have genuinely lightened your day by amusing you, New Chapter, then that will be a good thing done.
-
A Ha
While I don't think Dawkins is arrogant or offensive, he is more outspoken than most people have come to expect of atheists, and this causes a bit of a backlash.
I think many atheists that appear in the public eye seem to fit a certain stereotype; the staid, boring scientist who only wants to discuss String Theory all day.
In academic circles (and on TV, when an atheist is wanted for a panel discussion) frankly, they don't come across as very engaging. They usually discuss the scientific background, then the talking heads take over to discuss policy or implementation.
On the debate circuit, the (atheist) Professor of Biology who has been experimenting and teaching in the field for 40 years is almost always trounced by the charismatic theist apologist who has an expert grasp of the use of rhetoric and emotional appeals. The apologist is a born showman, the atheist might not utter five sentences all week that don't contain the word "rhibosome."
More importantly, the atheist biologist is not primarily an atheist; he is first and foremost a biologist, and doesn't discuss evolution much because to him the matter has long ago been conclusively settled.
Anyway, along come the new atheists; guys like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and the late great master of the polemic, Hitchens. They realize that the god debate is primarily one of public relations and rhetoric. Bald, boring facts aren't enough to win the day, as they would be in their particular fields (biology, neuroscience, etc...). They've learned to be engaging, forceful, sometimes even entertaining. Dawkins, in particular, wants atheists to be proud of their non-belief (witness he and Dennett's ill-advised campaign to term atheists the "brights"); to "come out" and let others know they're not alone.
This confidence and forcefulness are not what the theistic crowd has come to expect from their scientists, and it causes an overreaction.
Of course, I think the real cause is that almost all religionsts around the world, no matter how much power their group wields locally or globally, have a deeply ingrained persecution complex. They're told they'll be persecuted for their faith, then some annoying smart guy tells them their faith is baseless; what else can they conclude but persecution?
-
sabastious
CA, notice the Greek word used in 1 Peter 3:15 of apologia.
a verbal defense (particularly in a law court)...answer for oneself, clearing of self, defense.
This goes directly against how the JW's are instructed to preach door to door. They use an out of context Bible verse (Matthew 10:14) to justify halting debates when challenged at the doors. It's always baffled me that JW's will preach, but not debate when challenged. Why go to people's doors claiming that the Kingdom Hall is salvation from Armageddon and refuse to debate?
Atheists would do well to understand WHY Christian's will defend their faith when an atheist challenges them. It's PART of their faith!
-Sab
-
cofty
Aha welcome to the forum.
-
NoStonecutters
Chariklo, to put it simply, it's because atheism is revolutionary, with its roots in the reign of Bolshevik terror in the Soviet Union. Eugene Rose, a Christian convert who was atheist and homosexual, wrote a very interesting short book on the topic as it relates to revolution: Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age.
