Thread: Is Dawkins really an atheist?

He says that technically he is an agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism, but for all intents and purposes he labels himself as an atheist. So I shall assume that is what he is trully claiming to be.

It's hard to believe though. Personally, I find when you read his works or listen to him debate, he relies more on humour and tactics and the backing of his audience to win arguments rather than any well thought out points.

Im sure others will agree with that statement I have just made, but does anyone else think that he uses such tactics because he realises he is wrong? Or because he at least realises that his arguments are very weak?

Cheers, sox.

i think he uses these tactics because this is how a good debater operates

Mockery? If he was "interested in truth" he wouldnt use such tactics. These are the kind of things that make me doubt his position.

Originally Posted by sox

He says that technically he is an agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism, but for all intents and purposes he labels himself as an atheist. So I shall assume that is what he is trully claiming to be.

It's hard to believe though. Personally, I find when you read his works or listen to him debate, he relies more on humour and tactics and the backing of his audience to win arguments rather than any well thought out points.

Im sure others will agree with that statement I have just made, but does anyone else think that he uses such tactics because he realises he is wrong? Or because he at least realises that his arguments are very weak?

Cheers, sox.

Another lame Dawkins thread.
Why not just ask him yourself.
http://richarddawkins.net/

Simple really Pavlos.

Firstly the chance of him replying to my email out of the thousands he receives is very slim indeed.

Secondly the point of the thread was to ask posters of this forum what they thought his beliefs really were.

Why ask Dawkins when its obvious what his answers going to be?

I do not see any reasons why he needs to lie.
I think his arguments are reasonable. Humor and tactics are added-on to make the book more enjoyable.

Originally Posted by sox

He says that technically he is an agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism, but for all intents and purposes he labels himself as an atheist. So I shall assume that is what he is truly claiming to be.

It's hard to believe though. Personally, I find when you read his works or listen to him debate, he relies more on humour and tactics and the backing of his audience to win arguments rather than any well thought out points.

I'm sure others will agree with that statement I have just made, but does anyone else think that he uses such tactics because he realises he is wrong? Or because he at least realises that his arguments are very weak?

Cheers, sox.

I don't agree with that statement and I suspect he would have you on the ropes before the end of the first round.
Why do you believe that Dawkins puts forward ideas, in his writings and in debates, that he knows are "wrong" or "very weak"?
Are you suggesting he is a charlatan, motivated solely by money, simply because you do not share his views?

Originally Posted by sox

Personally, I find when you read his works or listen to him debate, he relies more on humour and tactics and the backing of his audience to win arguments rather than any well thought out points.

Im sure others will agree with that statement I have just made,

It's either personal, or you're sure others will agree, or you think all other will agree with what is personal to you. Which?

Originally Posted by sox

but does anyone else think that he uses such tactics because he realises he is wrong? Or because he at least realises that his arguments are very weak?

Cheers, sox.

Some points to watch out for:

1. You present only two possibilities as opposed to the vastly greater number available - which could lead you into a logical fallacy (the excluded middle, if I remember one way of labelling it)

2. What evidence do you have that he thinks his ideas weak?

3. What evidence do you have that his ideas are actually weak?

4. What if no one agrees with you on this one?

If he claims to be an atheist.
If he has made major attacks on religion in many media.
If he has been promoting a naturalistic view of the world for many years.
If he does all these things, it seems reasonable to believe he is an atheist.

I have only read his popular books on evolution and his arguments there did not seem to use humour.

Boy this is dumb. He is a prominent member of an atheist organization whose purpose is the promotion of atheist causes.

I became aware of this reading that hilarious anecdote concerning the movie "Expelled: no intellegence allowed" in Minnanapolis where several members in town for an organization meeting went to see a screening of the movie and guards expelled a local biolologist from the theater but failed to recognize Dawkins.

Originally Posted by sox

He says that technically he is an agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism, but for all intents and purposes he labels himself as an atheist. So I shall assume that is what he is truly claiming to be.

It's hard to believe though. Personally, I find when you read his works or listen to him debate, he relies more on humour and tactics and the backing of his audience to win arguments rather than any well thought out points.

I'm sure others will agree with that statement I have just made, but does anyone else think that he uses such tactics because he realises he is wrong? Or because he at least realises that his arguments are very weak?

Cheers, sox.

You ask whether Dawkins is an atheist and, in the first paragraph, you assume he is given that he labels himself as such.
In your second paragraph you claim you find this hard to believe because his arguments are not "well thought out". Even if this were true I don't see why it makes it harder to believe he is an atheist.
Lastly I don't agree with your stated opinions in the third paragraph and I fail to understand how these opinions are relevant to your original question.

Ok based on the responses I think its safe to say this thread has gone norks up!

Originally Posted by sox

He says that technically he is an agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism

Cite?

Originally Posted by sox

It's hard to believe though. Personally, I find when you read his works or listen to him debate, he relies more on humour and tactics and the backing of his audience to win arguments rather than any well thought out points.

That hasn't been my impression; his points seem pretty darn well thought out. Can you name which debates in where his style of debate was as you say?

Originally Posted by sox

Im sure others will agree with that statement I have just made, but does anyone else think that he uses such tactics because he realises he is wrong?

What do you think he's wrong about?

Originally Posted by sox

Or because he at least realises that his arguments are very weak?

Cheers, sox.

Which of his arguments do you think is weak?

He only claims to be an agnostic on the most technical level: one cannot actually disprove God, so we have to resort to the high level of the improbability of it. To put this in perspective, the same goes for fairies and unicorns and hobbits.

So, while he does not (and cannot) logically say, "There is definitely no God," he can say, "There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, so I can feasibly discount such an existence until proven otherwise." Since hedging your bet against God's existence is such a safe stance, you are effectively atheist.

Originally Posted by Reidar

He only claims to be an agnostic on the most technical level: one cannot actually disprove God, so we have to resort to the high level of the improbability of it. To put this in perspective, the same goes for fairies and unicorns and hobbits.

So, while he does not (and cannot) logically say, "There is definitely no God," he can say, "There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, so I can feasibly discount such an existence until proven otherwise." Since hedging your bet against God's existence is such a safe stance, you are effectively atheist.

Spot on!

A lot of debaters use some kind of comedy and a little mockery. But these aren't really tactics. Hes just emphasizing his point. And its not like hes giving false evidence and using tricks.