Who assumed that?  The main features of bigots for me is that they have a combination of a superiority complex, and are absolutely not open to discussion about their beliefs.  Dawkins is always willing to debate his beliefs with others and, so far as I have seen, never makes things personal; he spends his time discussing the validity of people's beliefs, not the intrinsic worth of the people themselves.


I would better have said "observable" than obvious.  My bad.  Anyway, the key point here is that Dawkins' language is scientific.  The reason he doesn't believe in God (defined in most ways you might reasonably think of), so people like him tend to give if asked about it, is that there's no possible scientifically verifiable method of concluding whether he does exist or not.  So the whole question doesn't really make sense scientifically.  And if something isn't scientific, then there's no way of communicating it to somebody else through rational argument, so it ends up as being some purely emotional/social phenomenon (naturalistically a noumena, as the big K might say).  So far as I can see, this is the most illuminating viewpoint from which to see religious belief and, indeed, general beliefs in the supernatural.

God's problem is that he promised that he'd never do it again.
You'd think, being omniscient, that he would have learned that he just couldn't trust us rather than tying himself into an unnecessarily restrictive contract.

I can't say I've really studied Richard Dawkins, so I can't contribute to the erudite arguments here. Basically I agree with him, but my impression, when I heard him talk once (must have been radio or television) was that he wasn't prepared to admit there was any possible point of view other than his own, and that he didn't have any time for what may loosely be described as a "spiritual" side to life (I don't mean organised religion or belief in a deity). I'd be very surprised if he understood, or liked, poetry or music.

Richard Dawkins is vile.  He is arrogant, rude, insensitive and has a superiority complex that would rival any textbook example.

The examples you have given here are also vile and aren't anything like the same thing we're talking about.  We're talking about the Dawkins attitude.  Just so you have an idea, remember the lady at the airport who wanted to wear her small cross and chain and was forbidden?  Dawkins was quoted publicly as saying "That woman had the most stupid face I've ever seen."

Obviously he isn't a violent man and to liken him to the worst type of thuggist fundamentalist is overreacting a bit don't you think?

I'm totally in agreement with Roslynmuse.  I have most of Dawkins' books because I think it is only fair to read everything you're interested in even if you don't agree with the author.  Having been fair, I'm here to tell you he is absolutely and totally obnoxious. 

And he may not be right either.

Ok...I don't know if we want to get into this.  I certainly can imagine that other people mightn't, especially those who've been through it all before.  Nonetheless, I will respond to points made.


But I was intending, for the most part, to say what I believe to be Dawkins' interpretation of the statement "God does not exist" when he states it.  But anyway.

I, personally, do not think I have anything at all to say about the matter outside of the a rational, scientific framework (I do have some Swedenborg on order though, so maybe in a couple of weeks   ); in this sense, I side with Wittgenstein.  If somebody  wishes to discuss this matter outside of this framework, I would be interested to hear, but do not know how it would constitute anything other than mysticism (not that I have any trouble with mysticism in and of itself); *that* I would certainly be interested in hearing.


If by "made up", you mean that I don't see anything terribly wrong with what I said, then I agree. I would like to think that I am very much open to arguments, however. 

[Of course, I don't think that other people should feel be obliged to mop up my intellectual sloppiness (I do appreciate it, of course, but still).  Rereading what I wrote, I can see it was, indeed quite sloppy].


I do have a passing familiarity with logical positivitism, indeed, though even then mainly as it profited science.


I thought that the point at issue was whether R.D. is a bigot or not, or...was it something about civil unions?  

But let me clarify, when I talk about the supernatural, I talk about phenomena that are not scientifically detectable.  To my mind, science is the only tool for determining truths  about the natural world.  I would ask you to interpret my statements in such a sense; if you wish to work outside of this, then...yeah...what I said above.


He has been known to go about beauty at length; frankly how he talks sort of bores me.  Generally I don't like his rheotoric; and no, I haven't read any of his books through (Have a thing about popular science in general...overexposure to Schroedinger's cats as an adolescent :/ )

Okay, Milly; given what you've said about R.D. there I'm willing to accept he can be quite obnoxious. : )

Educated he is certainly.  Cultured certainly.  Articulate certainly - oh and he doesn't mince his words either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wcG3yoSAdk&mode=related&search=e

Taketh no notice of Dawkins, for he is descended from a monkey ...

A I'm gay.

B I'm a christian.  I see no incompatibility.  (Mind you there is the view that  being gay means compulsory frequent anal intercourse with a variety of partners.  I just think it means being attracted to the same sex, and being intimate.)  When I first realised I was gay, it was the church that provided me the space to accept it, rather than the Daily Telegraph reading world of my parent's provincial town.

C I'm very glad to have a civil partnership.  Of course its a legal contract, and so is marriage.  If only married couples realised the contractual nature of the relationship rather than lots of sentimental twaddle.

Milly - Thank you for your comments on Dawkins - you have no axe to grind against him.  I believe Terry Eagleton's review of Dawkins latest in the London Review began with the comment that reading Dawkins on God and theology was like reading a book on biology by someone whose knowledge of the subject only came from the Observers Book of Birds.