brink's
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,543
- Reaction score
- 0
I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread on him, considering his name consistently pops up in the religious threads in this section.
Ive been watching interview after interview with him on youtube and am absolutely amazed that no matter how thorough, logical and most of all, respectful, Dawkin's is, much of what he says is either ignored or immediately discarded. And, many of the questions need not be asked if the askers had even the slightest knowledge or understanding of evolution/natural selection/adaptation and Dawkin's position on life in general . Questions like "howcome we are afraid to die" and " why is there something instead of nothing" etc etc etc.
I also noticed that he is constantly on the defensive and i have yet to see him beat around the bush or refuse to answer a question. Every answer he gives comes with reasoning and evidence, something that at this point just isn't expected of his opposition. And, I find that quite ridiculous.
I guess the majority of modern man just isn't ready to even consider the possibility that much of what we have been made to understand could be false and that there are alternatives that are, in fact, more likely to be true then what we are clinging to now.
Anyway, what do you guys think of him?
Ive been watching interview after interview with him on youtube and am absolutely amazed that no matter how thorough, logical and most of all, respectful, Dawkin's is, much of what he says is either ignored or immediately discarded. And, many of the questions need not be asked if the askers had even the slightest knowledge or understanding of evolution/natural selection/adaptation and Dawkin's position on life in general . Questions like "howcome we are afraid to die" and " why is there something instead of nothing" etc etc etc.
I also noticed that he is constantly on the defensive and i have yet to see him beat around the bush or refuse to answer a question. Every answer he gives comes with reasoning and evidence, something that at this point just isn't expected of his opposition. And, I find that quite ridiculous.
I guess the majority of modern man just isn't ready to even consider the possibility that much of what we have been made to understand could be false and that there are alternatives that are, in fact, more likely to be true then what we are clinging to now.
Anyway, what do you guys think of him?
