
Richard Dawkins' rage of reason - rglovejoy
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2705/full
======
run4yourlives
I can't stand this nimrod. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with most of
what he says, and consider myself agnostic - rather, that evolution is the
most logical explanation for the origin of our species, and that it is likely
that the notion of "god" as defined my Abrahamic religions is pure fantasy.

But Dawkin's is both an asshole, and a _worshiper_ of evolutionary theory. His
smug demeanor and equation of belief in god with stupidity is small minded. It
smacks of everything he supposedly rails against. It's teenage atheistic angst
with a book deal.

 _40 per cent of people in most Western countries say they still think that
God created men and women and that Earth is only 6,000 years old_

Sorry, what? Only evangelical Christians of certain persuasion believe that
the earth is 6000 years old. Outside of the US, there is nowhere on the planet
where that belief system comes close being 40% of a population.

This is the type of conformist single-minded fear-mongering crap they teach in
churches and mosques Mr. Dawkins.

~~~
demallien
_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
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
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
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.

------
Tichy
Too bad he came up with "lions eating zebras" and "polar bears eating seals"
(if he really did, maybe author just made it up). These are the pictures that
are misleading about evolution - when really it is not always physical
strength that makes for "fitness".

~~~
Allocator2008
Precisely. It is not the strongest nor the smartest often that survive, but
the best adapted. Dawkins has made this point himself, in that the genes which
survive are the "mediocre" genes, genes that tend to do well in the "average"
of their environments. Evolution is more likely to produce spineless wonders
like T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock than Superman, roughly speaking, because
Prufrock, dipshit though he may be, is adapted to the meine of his environs.

------
teilo
Wherever in the geek news sites the names of Dawkins, Harris, or Hutchins
appear, raging debates follow. Even, ironically, debates between agnostics. I
hope that HN can avoid these in the future. I left Slashdot because of them.

------
Allocator2008
Professor Dawkins is one of my all time heroes. Selfish gene theory stands at
the center ultimately of all anthropology, sociology, biology, and psychology.
He has transformed the world by giving us an understanding of our own
existence, he has answered the age-old question of "Why are we here?". We are
here, to preserve and copy the genes. They should build a statue of him next
to Darwin. He is the apotheosis of human understanding. Like Prometheus, he
has "given man a gift they had not conceived, and lifted darkness off the
earth."

