5 ms·

I can't stand this nimrod - ad hominem. Dawkin's is both an asshole - ad hominem. and a worshiper(sic) of evolutionary theory - strawman. Honestly, what a lo

I can't stand this nimrod - ad hominem. Dawkin's is both an asshole - ad hominem. and a worshiper(sic) of evolutionary theory - strawman. Honestly, what a load of rubbish. Dawkins doesn't worship anything. If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind. That is the direct opposite of all that worship implies. He does not value the idea of evolution any more than any other idea on the planet - he is sceptical, and will reject it if that is where the evidence leads. At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position.

jdminhbg 17y ago
Those are only 'fallacies' if his post is meant to rebut Dawkins claims and he's using those statements as support for an opposing position. Instead, he says he agrees with Dawkins but finds him to be kind of an asshole. I agree.
- amelim 17y ago
  Except he does rebut Dawkin's claims. Did you not read the part about not accepting Dawkin's claim that 40% of the western world does not accept evolution and instead believing in a Young Earth Creationist model? As per the original post, it seems to me that the demonizing of Dawkin's is largely unfounded. Even though I've never met him, from what I can tell from videos and interviews, he is a fairly meek man who just writes passionately about his position. I would hardly call his position evangelical because he is neither unwilling to change his position nor is he founding his statements upon unverifiable evidence. Just because the man is confident, doesn't mean he's an asshole.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    My point though isn't about his confidence level, but the fact that he is being arrogantly hypocritical, suggesting his detractors base arguments on logic and evidence - of which I have no argument with - but then supporting his own stance with stuff he's clearly firing off of the top of his head. It's the arrogance that he is above error combined with the - obvious! - error itself that makes him come off as an asshole.
- demallien 17y ago
  Quibbling. Ok, let's accept your position. They aren't fallacies if you choose to believe that the OP doesn't really have a problem with Dawkins' position. So what are they then? Derogatory assertions without offering any argument to back them up? Childish insults? And anyway, why is the OP so passionate about it all? Frankly, I doubt very much that he accepts Dawkins' factual claims. Why to I think this? Because he rejects the one factual claim that Dawkins is quoted as making in the article (40% of the western population holding creationist beliefs). You only have to watch Dawkins in action for 5 minutes in an interview to know that the guy weighs what he says and writes very carefully indeed, and will always have studies to back up these types of claim. This all leads me to believe that'fallacy' is the right word in responding.
gamache 17y ago
The remarks you complain about in eleventh-grade Debate Club format are expressed more eloquently in the article itself: And here, one feels, lies the paradox about Richard Dawkins. For a committed atheist, he can also be fervently evangelical about the causes he believes in and sometimes seems as driven as a preacher who wants to pass on The Word. It is an analogy that goes down badly, needless to say. The difference between science – where every statement has to be tested and proved – and religion, where basic tenets go unchallenged, is too vast to justify such comparisons, he says. Nevertheless, there is no disguising the chilly exasperation he exudes when confronted by the godly, whose extreme adherents, the creationists, he has described as "pig-ignorant and thick". Such remarks infuriate believers and have earned Dawkins a fearsome reputation for arrogance.
- amelim 17y ago
  "The accusation is unfair, however. He is certainly uncompromising, but not wilfully rude or overbearing. He is generally polite, softly spoken, and precise in his statements – often taking uncomfortably long pauses to weigh up his replies to questions. He is certainly not a ranting demagogue. On the other hand, he is a ferocious debater." If you are going to quote, you should as well include the whole statement on the issue.
run4yourlives 17y ago
First off, what jdminhbg said. Second: If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind. Given his attitude towards those with differing opinions, I'm not sure he would even get to the point of being able to see any perceived flaw. It is this arrogance that I question in him, and yes, it does equate to worship. If you hold your opinion so highly that it prevents you from evaluating other arguments, you have moved into the realm of religious belief. IMO, Dawkins is firmly in that realm, regardless of how he got there or whether or not I hold to the same things. What gets me even more is the seeming willingness of his followers to excuse outlandish statements like the one in my earlier post with nary so much as a comment. At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position. That would assume that I have a) a contrary position and b) care to change anyone's mind.

jdminhbg 17y ago

Those are only 'fallacies' if his post is meant to rebut Dawkins claims and he's using those statements as support for an opposing position. Instead, he says he agrees with Dawkins but finds him to be kind of an asshole. I agree.

amelim 17y ago
Except he does rebut Dawkin's claims. Did you not read the part about not accepting Dawkin's claim that 40% of the western world does not accept evolution and instead believing in a Young Earth Creationist model? As per the original post, it seems to me that the demonizing of Dawkin's is largely unfounded. Even though I've never met him, from what I can tell from videos and interviews, he is a fairly meek man who just writes passionately about his position. I would hardly call his position evangelical because he is neither unwilling to change his position nor is he founding his statements upon unverifiable evidence. Just because the man is confident, doesn't mean he's an asshole.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  My point though isn't about his confidence level, but the fact that he is being arrogantly hypocritical, suggesting his detractors base arguments on logic and evidence - of which I have no argument with - but then supporting his own stance with stuff he's clearly firing off of the top of his head. It's the arrogance that he is above error combined with the - obvious! - error itself that makes him come off as an asshole.
demallien 17y ago
Quibbling. Ok, let's accept your position. They aren't fallacies if you choose to believe that the OP doesn't really have a problem with Dawkins' position. So what are they then? Derogatory assertions without offering any argument to back them up? Childish insults? And anyway, why is the OP so passionate about it all? Frankly, I doubt very much that he accepts Dawkins' factual claims. Why to I think this? Because he rejects the one factual claim that Dawkins is quoted as making in the article (40% of the western population holding creationist beliefs). You only have to watch Dawkins in action for 5 minutes in an interview to know that the guy weighs what he says and writes very carefully indeed, and will always have studies to back up these types of claim. This all leads me to believe that'fallacy' is the right word in responding.

gamache 17y ago

The remarks you complain about in eleventh-grade Debate Club format are expressed more eloquently in the article itself: And here, one feels, lies the paradox about Richard Dawkins. For a committed atheist, he can also be fervently evangelical about the causes he believes in and sometimes seems as driven as a preacher who wants to pass on The Word. It is an analogy that goes down badly, needless to say. The difference between science – where every statement has to be tested and proved – and religion, where basic tenets go unchallenged, is too vast to justify such comparisons, he says. Nevertheless, there is no disguising the chilly exasperation he exudes when confronted by the godly, whose extreme adherents, the creationists, he has described as "pig-ignorant and thick". Such remarks infuriate believers and have earned Dawkins a fearsome reputation for arrogance.

amelim 17y ago
"The accusation is unfair, however. He is certainly uncompromising, but not wilfully rude or overbearing. He is generally polite, softly spoken, and precise in his statements – often taking uncomfortably long pauses to weigh up his replies to questions. He is certainly not a ranting demagogue. On the other hand, he is a ferocious debater." If you are going to quote, you should as well include the whole statement on the issue.

run4yourlives 17y ago

First off, what jdminhbg said. Second: If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind. Given his attitude towards those with differing opinions, I'm not sure he would even get to the point of being able to see any perceived flaw. It is this arrogance that I question in him, and yes, it does equate to worship. If you hold your opinion so highly that it prevents you from evaluating other arguments, you have moved into the realm of religious belief. IMO, Dawkins is firmly in that realm, regardless of how he got there or whether or not I hold to the same things. What gets me even more is the seeming willingness of his followers to excuse outlandish statements like the one in my earlier post with nary so much as a comment. At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position. That would assume that I have a) a contrary position and b) care to change anyone's mind.