Dicky

Northclare

Just wondering why some Atheists don't like Richard Dawkins,are any Boards.ie members among those Atheists.

He seems like a likeable kinda guy.
Kinda funny at times...

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Just wondering why some Atheists don't like Richard Dawkins,are any Boards.ie members among those Atheists.

He seems like a likeable kinda guy.
Kinda funny at times...

I assume you're referring to his public profile as an atheist, not a biologist?

I like him a lot but can see why he, um, rubs people up the wrong way. He's viewed as quite patronising (although I don't usually see it). I think he's far more polite, respectful and honest a commentator than the Hitch ever was (different tactics, not saying Hitch was a baddie).

Daftendirekt

I quite like Dawkins, more for The Selfish Gene than The God Delusion.

It's a shame his atheism has overshadowed his writing on evolution, though. He's great at explaining complex topics without oversimplifying them.

He does have a bit of a reputation for being condescending/arrogant, but IMO it's pretty undeserved.

Sonics2k

Asking why not all Atheists like Dawkins is like asking why not all Catholics don't like the Pope. Opinions differ.

I personally quite like Dawkins, I'm not a huge fan, but will read his books and watch a few of his youtube clips.

I honestly prefer Neil deGrasse Tyson as a person and speaker.

fitz0

I like him well enough. I like his writing, I like how he speaks and I like that he managed to remain more or less patient when confronted with the set-your-teeth-on-edge condescending laugh of Wendy Wright. He knows evolutionary biology inside out and doesn't seem to be out debatable on that front but he has at times shown poor judgement in picking his fights.

I would never have heard of Rebecca Whoson if it hadn't been for the ****storm his comments provoked. I would have been happier were that the case.

On the flip side he has shown excellent judgement in not lowering himself to debating 'notable theological intellectual' WLC so it's ups and downs.

I get why people find him strident and arrogant but I feel it's just because he dares speak up on matters religious. Before he came on the scene the discussion as to how we can be just as moral and good without religion was smaller.

Personally, I prefer the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan when it comes to telling us how awesome existence is. Whereas RD focuses on how amazing the terrestrial world is, they go way further, giving us uncountable planets in an incomprehensibly huge universe to ponder over. Space > Earth

Northclare

I just read about Atheists feeling let down about his debating style etc.
I think he's a grand fellow,he's getting more relaxed with age.

I think Richard Dawkins debates using his intellect rather than his emotions.

I kinda grin to myself when I read posts which are emotionally charged,because it shows who can keep the cool and who cant.

I get caught that way sometimes but think I'm getting better

joseph brand

Nothing wrong with Dawkins. The man's a saint!

Ratzy the Nazi on the other hand. . . . .

Northclare

Even the look of Ratzy is scary,I don't affiliate with any religion,but Ratzy isn't infallible ratzy the Nazi good one

Turtwig

He's a beautiful writer and in a way I think it's a shame that he's associated with Atheism. Some people refuse to read his books because of his association with atheism. I haven't finished the God Delusion. I probably never will. I want him to produce more science books but then if we're being honest he's produced a heck of a lot.

While most of the time he keeps calm he does lose the plot every now and again nothing irked me more than his comments about how if you didn't agree that science was interesting you could f**k off. It was probably said in jest, but even still I believe it to the be the wrong thing to say.

All that said he's definitely made it more comfortable and easier for people to be atheists. There's certainly less of a stigma to it nowadays and whether I agree with it or not most people do seem to cite Dawkins as their source for being more open about things.

Doctor DooM

Jernal wrote: »

While most of the time he keeps calm he does lose the plot every now and again nothing irked me more than his comments about how if you didn't agree that science was interesting you could f**k off. It was probably said in jest, but even still I believe it to the be the wrong thing to say.

Not only was it said in jest, to Neil DeGrassie Tyson, he was quoting someone else when he said it.

Dades

He knows his stuff, that's for sure, but sometimes he just looks a bit smug. Maybe that's just his face, though, and he can't help it. Also, it really seems like he made a conscious decision to make himself the face of atheism.

I've certainy enjoyed his books but give me Carl Sagan any day.

MagicMarker

He's an old, upper class, English intellectual, it's only natural that you want to give him a smack every once in a while. But I do think that some people judge him a little too quickly, his stridency can come across as smug/arrogant but if people actually watched/listened to more of him than youtube soundbites I think they'd agree that he's actually not that bad.

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

He seems like a likeable kinda guy. Kinda funny at times...

The only time I've seen him be consistently reasonably funny was at his gig with William Crawley in the National Concert Hall a few months back. Outside of that, I've found him a fairly joke-free zone. To the extent that, after he missed a couple of very obvious audience-delivered gags at last year's Atheist Conference, I went out and bought him a copy of that "Overheard in Dublin" book. Hope he enjoyed it.

His science writing is good, even if it's the style is fairly pedestrian. His public speaking comes across to me quite often as smug and his impromptu outbursts frequently sound like they've been weeks in the making.

I'm with Dades in saying that he's not a patch on Carl Sagan.

Turtwig

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Not only was it said in jest, to Neil DeGrassie Tyson, he was quoting someone else when he said it.

Ahh yes the editor of NewScientist. I remember now.

joseph brand

Dades wrote: »

He knows his stuff, that's for sure, but sometimes he just looks a bit smug. Maybe that's just his face, though, and he can't help it. Also, it really seems like he made a conscious decision to make himself the face of atheism.

I've certainy enjoyed his books but give me Carl Sagan any day.

Hilarious.

I don't get all this talk of him looking smug. Yeah I know the guy doesn't suffer fools gladly, just like Hitchens, and lacks Hitchen's wit. But I don't think we should expect him to be funny, amusing and pandering to theists. He knows his stuff and he doesn't waste his time, e.g. refusing to debate with WLC. (who would beat Dawkins in a smugness competition)

Come to think of it, most theist debaters are supremely smug. (Ken Ham for one)

If the definition of 'smug' is: to feel exasperated and want to pull your own hair out, then yes, he's pretty smug.

Daftendirekt

I've heard Dawkins take a bit of flak for the "if you don't like science, you can f*ck off" bit before, so here it is in context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik