Disgusting article from the telegraph

[Blasphemous]

I give him a bit more credit for his intelligence than you do.
Intelligent people realise that the best way to change endemic belief systems is gradually, over time, with logical persuasion, Which is exactly what he is endeavouring to do.
Now, instead of trying to attack him personally based on your stupid belief that he should be somewhere martyring himself, how about showing us some flaws in his arguments.

I have never said there are flaws in his argument. It is his approach that I question. You obviously believe that he should just stand and preach.

 

[sooey]

I've never heard him preach, but I've heard him put forward some very good arguments against people who do. Not quite as eloquently as Christopher Hitchens used to, but very good non the less.

 

[wreckedit]

I like to watch 'The Big Question' on BBC1 on Sundays and I like to hear what Dawkins has to say because most Christian religious discussions would be one sided without him. They could have others I know but I don't find anything wrong with what he has to say that's because I find religion and illusion.

 

[pred]

Rather than apologising for his part in the slave trade, Richard Dawkins should apologise for his hatred of God and Jesus, and for spreading lies and propoganda to further his heathen agenda.

TM, I was amazed what this guy had to say about the brain, he is at the forefront of his trade, if he were a chippy he would equal Gringlin Gibbons, if he were a nuclear fisisist (only joking) then he would equal Onestone.

He mentions religion in one of his sermons, i found it riviting, and he talks in words of one and two sylables that even i could understand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ghvck

 

[securespark]

Aye well words are nowt if people are suffering sunshine so if you REALLY believe in what you're preaching, get off your backside and go and do something about it.

Absolutely right and, oddly enough, I suspect that's exactly what Jesus would have done!

Indeed he did. In fact, he got off his deceased backside. Now that's impressive!

 

[sooey]

That's what the preachers tell you.

 

[enyam]

That's what the preachers tell you.

Only because it's written down.

 

[cajar]

Astonishing really that the concept of Gods is even being discussed by adults in 2012.

Thought we had learned enough from science about how the world works, but I guess some people will always choose ignorance.

 

[sooey]

People are free to believe what they like, indoctrinating young kids into their beliefs is wrong though. Which is what Dawkins is arguing against.

 

[cajar]

Dawkins actually challenges the idea that people's unbased beliefs should be given respect if they are religion. An adult telling people they have monsters in their cupboard wouldn't be 'free to believe what they like' unchallenged, so why should people believing in mythical gods like jesus and allah go unchallenged?

 

[sooey]

exactly.

 

[Blasphemous]

I've never heard him preach, but I've heard him put forward some very good arguments against people who do.

That's what the preachers tell you.

I draw your attention once again to Dawkins mission (from his own website), which states he is on a:

"quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering."

You stated earlier:

Like him or not, he has a world wide audience, so he's doing far more to spread his beliefs as he is than he would be if he were "on the ground" somewhere.

He is indeed 'spreading his beliefs'. And if his 'beliefs/mission/quest' is to overcome religious fundametalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering, he IS by his very purpose and method of his delivery (which you so admire), 'preaching'. A definition of preaching being:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preaching
Preaching - preach - preached, preach·ing, preach·es
1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon).

Dawkins stands at at lectern in the same way a priest stands at a pulpit, and preaches his beliefs, mission, quest. There's nothing wrong in that. Quite the contrary, at least he's doing something. But that's all he's doing... he's 'talking' about his beliefs. I quite like Dawkins. What I don't like is the almost sycophantic protection of Dawkins by some of his 'followers' toward those that argue against his beliefs. Just as I don't like those with similar sycophantic protection of those who are contrary to Dawkins. The man is indeed doing some good but he's just 'talking'. And he's talking about a subject that hasn't moved on to any great extent since Darwin gave us the 'On the Origin of Species' work. I understand and appreciate Dawkins mission to end intolerance and suffering but the foundation of his argument is Darwin's, not his own. Dawkins isn't saying anything new from a biological point. He's saying it in a new way and challenging religion but I struggle to see why he gets so much publicity. Of course he upsets the religious establishment by preaching a different point of view to theirs (Darwin's), but that's it. He doesn't go out into countries where there is terrible oppression and torture and suffering in the name of religion. Dawkins is no hero. If he were going into countries that oppress and torture their people in the name of religion and delivering his quest then I could at least see some of the reason for the admiration he receives but he doesn't. He preaches in the protected, comfortable surroundings of universities and places of academic study. And in those surroundings he frequently talks about his beliefs and preaches his mission/quest in the same way a priest would preach his/her beliefs.

Dawkins is very much 'Preaching'.

 

[sooey]

No, he's lecturing. What do you expect from an academic. If he went over to Afghanistan or Saudi and personally told them his contempt for their beliefs, and got his head chopped off, or thrown into some sh*thole of a prison I suppose you'd admire him more. Why do you think he should be a "hero"? I don't understand your objection to him, if you were basing it from a religious standpoint I could.

 

[cajar]

Preaching means specifically to deliver a religous message. Thus, Dawkins is not preaching, he is proferring academic ideas based on reason.

He was the professor for the public's understanding of science for oxford university which puts his efforts into perspective.

The man is an academic and that is his strength. I would not expect him to travel with the red cross freeing muslim women or something like you imply, what he can offer is intellectual discussion. That is his contribution. Christopher Hitchens was a far better speaker and debater than Dawkins, but Dawkins still offers a lot more insight to the discussion.

 

[Blasphemous]

No, he's lecturing.

You deny the definition of preaching.

What do you expect from an academic.

I don't expect anything from this particular academic.

If he went over to Afghanistan or Saudi and personally told them his contempt for their beliefs, and got his head chopped off, or thrown into some sh*thole of a prison I suppose you'd admire him more.

What a ridiculous statement.

Why do you think he should be a "hero"?

'I' don't.

I don't understand your objection to him, if you were basing it from a religious standpoint I could.

Where did I say I 'objected' to him? Did you read that last post? I've cleary stated what I don't like about Dawkins (and his followers), in the post.