Dawkins,Dawkins

I've got a question to atheists. Do ya really, consider Dawkins as one of your best??? And if so, can anyone show me any diffrence (in the way of thinking, not object) that differs him for any religious extremist??? Even worse, extremist, however paraniod is understandable, he believes in something, so he follows the path quam absurdum. Dawkins spends years on fightning a crusade, concerning a subject, he is certain , doesn't exists. Weird.

Originally posted by Choreant
I've got a question to atheists. Do ya really, consider Dawkins as one of your best??? And if so, can anyone show me any diffrence (in the way of thinking, not object) that differs him for any religious extremist??? Even worse, extremist, however paraniod is understandable, he believes in something, so he follows the path quam absurdum. Dawkins spends years on fightning a crusade, concerning a subject, he is certain , doesn't exists. Weird.

I consider Dawkins a good academic, scientist and writer. His atheism is of no real importance to me and I certainly don't consider him a figurehead of any sort, I'm bored with the whole 'my team your team rubbsh'.

However, to label him an extremist is overkill. He's outspoken, single-minded and arrogant, but he is far from extreme. His work is not against something which does no exist, it is against what he believes to be the very dangerous pursuit of religion. His beef is not with god, but with the people that blindly follow that concept, that's not weird, it's the same as any other political or religious world view which stands against another.

Originally posted by Starrman
I consider Dawkins a good academic, scientist and writer. His atheism is of no real importance to me and I certainly don't consider him a figurehead of any sort, I'm bored with the whole 'my team your team rubbsh'.

However, to label him an extremist is overkill. He's outspoken, single-minded and arrogant, but he is far from extreme. His work is not ...[text shortened]... t's the same as any other political or religious world view which stands against another.

"My team, your team" I used , only to be legible.
His being far from extreme is, at least discusable. But his athesim, on the contrary, is of the greastest importance. He and his followers,do make another "religion". Dawkins goes much further than just fighting, self- assumed delusions. He states that everyone else can have no truth.

He works on that assumption because no truth has yet been provided by other viewpoints. And his way of thinking is similar to religious extremists as he is very passionate. This shouldn't be confused with religion though. Any religion will disregard counter-evidence, however large it may be. As soon as sufficient evidence counters Dawkins view, he will change his mind.

Originally posted by Choreant
"My team, your team" I used , only to be legible.
His being far from extreme is, at least discusable. But his athesim, on the contrary, is of the greastest importance. He and his followers,do make another "religion". Dawkins goes much further than just fighting, self- assumed delusions. He states that everyone else can have no truth.

You misread, I said it is of no real importance to me. Everyone has some form of institutionalisation, for Christians it religion, for Dawkins it is atheism. Whilst I am an atheist, I'm not an institutionalised atheist, Dawkins' vehemence is of no interest to me.

Originally posted by Choreant
"My team, your team" I used , only to be legible.
His being far from extreme is, at least discusable. But his athesim, on the contrary, is of the greastest importance. He and his followers,do make another "religion". Dawkins goes much further than just fighting, self- assumed delusions. He states that everyone else can have no truth.

Your critique of him is logically extensible to all theists. Are you criticizing yourself?

Originally posted by doodinthemood
He works on that assumption because no truth has yet been provided by other viewpoints. And his way of thinking is similar to religious extremists as he is very passionate. This shouldn't be confused with religion though. Any religion will disregard counter-evidence, however large it may be. As soon as sufficient evidence counters Dawkins view, he will change his mind.

Athesim, as it once was, begun as a counterstirke to religious stupidity. This atheism is very good idea. I am a sworn Christian,however I'm not robbed of thinking nor logical reasoning. I asnwerd myself more question about my beliefs, during discussions with atheists, than I had in church. But, Mr. Dawkins goes much further. If he says, that the only purpose of man's life is to pass on the genes, I do disagree. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. If I would be reborn as the same person apart from my beliefs taken away, I would disagree the same. But for "Dawkinsts", I ' ll be on a border of religious extremism
One of the Polish philosophers, wrote in his review of the " God Dellusion". "If Mr. Dawkins, openly points at me, and my similar as a fools, I am free to say that I consider him blind".

Originally posted by Palynka
Your critique of him is logically extensible to all theists. Are you criticizing yourself?

Not to all. To extresmists. Yes, I do critisize religious extremism.

Originally posted by Starrman
You misread, I said it is of no real importance to [b]me. Everyone has some form of institutionalisation, for Christians it religion, for Dawkins it is atheism. Whilst I am an atheist, I'm not an institutionalised atheist, Dawkins' vehemence is of no interest to me.[/b]

ok I misread your me. Now, it is clear.

Originally posted by Choreant
Not to all. To extresmists. Yes, I do critisize religious extremism.

He's not attempting to impose his views by force, but by reason.

You labeled him an extremist because he, according to you, states that everyone else can never be right. If you believe that the Catholic God exists, than everyone non-Catholic, by construction, can never be right. The corollary is that affirming your belief is always extremist, under that definition of extremism.

Your reasoning is therefore inconsistent. You either define extremism in a way that is consistent with Dawkins being one while excluding yourself or you're just being a hypocrite and criticizing him for doing exactly what you do.

Originally posted by Palynka
He's not attempting to impose his views by force, but by reason.

You labeled him an extremist because he, according to you, states that everyone else can never be right. If you believe that the Catholic God exists, than everyone non-Catholic, by construction, can never be right. The corollary is that affirming your belief is always extremist, under that d ...[text shortened]... g yourself or you're just being a hypocrite and criticizing him for doing exactly what you do.

And telling that Dawkins is not rying to impose his views by force, is ridicoulus.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Because your belief is mutually exclusive. Either the Catholic God exists or he doesn't.

And maybe you should calm down.

Originally posted by Choreant
And telling that Dawkins is not rying to impose his views by force, is a ridicoulus.

Really? How is he imposing his views by force?

Originally posted by Palynka
Because your belief is mutually exclusive. Either the Catholic God exists or he doesn't.

And maybe you should calm down.

But I can believe a God, to which are many ways. It is even based in christian teology, thus I cannot say that musilms are wrong.