Does Richard Dawkins represent the majority of atheists?

[Chuck Jones]

I wouldn't know.

I do like Dawkins. He's bright. I obviously don't agree with him about god, and when I read the god delusion I found it to be mostly about organized religions, and that's where his arguments against god seem to come from mostly.

The impression I've had is that some atheists revere him, and others don't.

I also find him to be mosly quite polite, although I remember watching a short clip where he's giving a talk and someone asks "what if you're wrong", and his response was pretty childish. And when he did a programme a couple of years ago, about auras, atrology etc, I think he deliberately chose people (to interview) who came off as charlatans (with the exception of Deepak Chopra).

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's hard to find a religious apologist that isn't a charlatan on some level - especially those that deny evolution - which are the ones that seem to want to debate Dawkins all the time!

And no, he doesn't represent anyone except himself. He shares ideas with many atheists and has given food for thought to many - on both sides of the argument - but to say he represents anyone implies that there is some kind of homogeny here - and there is not. Atheists just don't believe in god - all else is personality.

[Chuck Jones]

Some people get really snooty about him. I'm not sure which forum it was on, possibly RDF or RatSkep, when some saddo insisted that I call him Professor Dawkins. Was it you, Gawdzilla?

[maiforpeace]

I wouldn't know.

I do like Dawkins. He's bright. I obviously don't agree with him about god, and when I read the god delusion I found it to be mostly about organized religions, and that's where his arguments against god seem to come from mostly.

The impression I've had is that some atheists revere him, and others don't.

I also find him to be mosly quite polite, although I remember watching a short clip where he's giving a talk and someone asks "what if you're wrong", and his response was pretty childish. And when he did a programme a couple of years ago, about auras, atrology etc, I think he deliberately chose people (to interview) who came off as charlatans (with the exception of Deepak Chopra).

(except the God part)

I fall into the latter category of atheists. He's a good scientist and writer and a champion of the cause. When it comes to atheist celebrities I'm more of a Hitchens and Harris fan. The snooty people are his groupies, every famous person has them.

[Santa_Claus]

too many long words for my tastes and a bit soft on religions. and his book should have had some pictures of strap on Nuns

I guess book not aimed at me - science = dull, and I've never thought that cheese could ride bicycles either. so feel no need for someone to hold my hand.

[PsychoSerenity]

And no, he doesn't represent anyone except himself. He shares ideas with many atheists and has given food for thought to many - on both sides of the argument - but to say he represents anyone implies that there is some kind of homogeny here - and there is not. Atheists just don't believe in god - all else is personality.

I also find him to be mosly quite polite, although I remember watching a short clip where he's giving a talk and someone asks "what if you're wrong", and his response was pretty childish.

I assume this is the one you're talking about? Can't see it as childish though. Seems more like a point well made to me.

[hadespussercats]

You say it as though there were some legislative house where he spoke for "his people."

I'm a fan of his science writing, I think he's done good work on behalf of bringing atheism out into the respectable open of Western society, and I think for most of his life he's had pretty great hair. Beyond that, I and I think many/most atheists, tend to be resistant to looking towards leaders, particularly those that could be construed as the "spiritual leaders" of a movement.

[Feck]

Dawkins .MEH .still not forgetting 'Petulant children '

besides he is an arch- humanist and I'm not keen on those people people .

[Pappa]

I ♥ his science books.

I suppose personally he's a knob, but I don't really mind that. I just wish he'd never written TGD, it's wank.

[JOZeldenrust]

I don't particularly like Dawkins. As a writer of books on evolutionary science, he's pretty good, but only in stuff for the general public. I have the distinct impression that he's been out of touch with actual scientific practice for a few years now.

As a well known atheist Dawkins gets on my nerves most of the time. I think he's way too hard on religions, especially when he's talking about them in a historic context. Too easily does he equate negative phenomena correllated with religion with negative phenomena intrinsic to religion, and like many atheists in the natural sciences, he doesn't appreciate the role religion played in the development of human society and intellectual infrastructure.

Dawkins mixes up two issues. The first one is whether theism is true. We've come to a point in our scientific and philosophical development where we can say that theism is either false or it doesn't explain anything, so as a model for reality it is worthless.

The other issue is whether supernatural beliefs are harmful. Here Dawkins drops the ball. Using supernatural beliefs as a model for reality is harmful, sure, but most religious people don't use their religious beliefs that way. Using a map of London to find your way around NYC isn't going to yield good results, but that doesn't make maps of London harmful objects. As an inspiration for behaviour, supernatural beliefs yieldboth good and bad results, depending on a complex system of social factors.

It seems to me that Dawkins would like to turn the question of whether religion is good or bad into an empirical question, when it's clearly not. It's normative, relative, subjective and context-dependant in several ways. Trying to give an absolute answer to such a question is just very bad philosophy.

In the evolution/creation debacle, Dawkins is an ace. In the philosophical debates concerning naturalism/supernaturalism, monism/dualism, idealism/empiricism etc., Dawkins is a hack.

[Animavore]

My favourite atheist, currently, is Ricky Jervais, I think he's closest to me as a person, well, if he was a bit more grumpy . I'm not into that confrontational style, probably because I don't live in an academic bubble. If I behaved the way Dawkins does I might get my head kicked in. I prefer to make light quips which most religious people would laugh at themselves (because, I suspect, your average, easy-going Catholic who watches Father Ted (made by atheists ) suspects it's bullshit themselves.
The only time I would rip into a religion is when it actually is harmful. You can't look at something like Jesus Camp and say that's not harmful. But these people are wing-nuts shunned even by other Christians.
And if I'm very honest, I like the story of Jesus. I was reading Bart Ehrman recently and he put it in a way that made me realise you could like a story like that without believing it (highly recommended by the way, any of his books). I also still like Buddhist stories and the Tao Te Ching.
I do respect that Dawkins et al has helped bring atheists "out of the closet". I mean the testimonies on YouTube and the like of people from the Bible-belt in America who read one of the so-called "New Atheist" books and said, "Fuck it. I'm an atheist and everyone else can just deal with it", speak for themselves.

[Trolldor]

Dawkins loses his appeal when you stop being an atheist cheerleading fanboy.

[amused]

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and PZ Myers are doing the heavy lifting in terms of raising awareness that it's okay to not belong to a religion, and that you are not alone in doing so. It takes a loud voice to rise above the media din, so it takes some hubris and maybe a healthy ego. That's okay. I see the New Atheists as being similar to the shock troops that go into an area and disrupt the status quo. The humanists and less vocal atheists are the ones that come afterward and rebuild new systems.

[Cunt]

Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' made me understand that it is important and okay to speak out against bullshit. I do it at every opportunity now.

I would buy him a beer, but not a second. Don't think I could take him for that long.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

DejaMoo: The feeling that you’ve heard this bull before.