The illogic of Atheism

I'm not sure that it's especially reasonable to say that much of what goes on here is mockery or ridicule.

If you thought that I implied that, I didn't mean to do so. I don't think that much of what goes on here is mockery or ridicule. I just meant that the people I listed have used mockery and ridicule at some point during various discussions, directed at people both outside and inside the forum.

Most anyone remotely familiar with him, who are themselves reasonable, would likely assure you that he certainly is not, unless we're looking to broadly enlarge the scope of what the word reasonable means.

Can you give me an example? 

Linda

Can you give me an example? 

No

If you've been unable to do so, it's either because you're fabricating that you've done the research or have an incredibly selective memory. No source is good enough for you Linda. 

Of course you're welcome to think what you like. It would be a pity for anyone to waste any time trying to present such an obvious case to so obstinate a person. Again - this is not a controversial topic. We aren't discussing the merits of PSI research. 

I mean, what else are you looking for? You say "a third party" as if you expect that the only reliable option would be Dawkins himself coming out and saying he's an arrogant, dogmatic atheist who pays no heed to anyone who disagrees with him. What source is good enough?

I haven't done any sort of in depth research. I was told to watch Dawkins' debates and I would see the behaviour for myself. So, I watched a long debate between him and Lennox, and did not see any of this behaviour. I've googled "Dawkins" with various search terms like arrogant or dogmatic, and it returns opinion pieces where authors I am unfamiliar with claim he has these negative characteristics. I've looked at the primary sources of a few of their quotes, and they have mischaracterized what Dawkins said or who he was talking about.

It is quite possible, that were I to read more and more of these kinds of posts, that I may eventually stumble across one which leads to an example where Dawkins does appear as dogmatic and arrogant. I was hoping that someone here might refer me to that example directly. 

What source is good enough? Something where the full context is available.

Linda

I just don't swallow what people say, but check the primary sources instead. 

As do most here. 

Since we're discussing perception of an individual's personality and approach, it seems silly to be asking for "reliable resources" when people most likely have been exposed directly or indirectly to Dawkin's writings or talks themselves, and drawn conclusions for themselves, as opposed to having only relied on various third-party "hit-pieces", which appears to be what you think many have formed their opinions on.

I haven't done any sort of in depth research. I was told to watch Dawkins' debates and I would see the behaviour for myself. So, I watched a long debate between him and Lennox, and did not see any of this behaviour. I've googled "Dawkins" with various search terms like arrogant or dogmatic, and it returns opinion pieces where authors I am unfamiliar with claim he has these negative characteristics. I've looked at the primary sources of a few of their quotes, and they have mischaracterized what Dawkins said or who he was talking about.

It is quite possible, that were I to read more and more of these kinds of posts, that I may eventually stumble across one which leads to an example where Dawkins does appear as dogmatic and arrogant. I was hoping that someone here might refer me to that example directly. 

What source is good enough? Something where the full context is available.

Full context is available in any of his writings or talks, in debates, in comments he's made, etc. If you don't have time to look into it more, leave it at that. This is entering the realm of the absurd (perhaps it did long ago?).

You keep saying that all these articles you've found mischaracterize what he's said. Care to share? Or should we just take your word for it?

As do most here. 

Since we're discussing perception of an individual's personality and approach, it seems silly to be asking for "reliable resources" when people most likely have been exposed directly or indirectly to Dawkin's writings or talks themselves, and drawn conclusions for themselves, as opposed to having only relied on various third-party "hit-pieces", which appears to be what you think many have formed their opinions on.

Okay, then I am looking for a reference to something Dawkins wrote (or a talk, if necessary, but I hate watching videos) which supports those conclusions. I've read a few pieces/interviews from him that haven't. 

Linda

Full context is available in any of his writings or talks, in debates, in comments he's made, etc.

I understand that, but in my searches and subsequent readings, I haven't come across one of those things which supports the conclusions put out by Mathis and other here. I'm obviously missing something.

If you don't have time to look into it more, leave it at that. This is entering the realm of the absurd (perhaps it did long ago?).

Why not just reference for me the articles which people are drawing these conclusions from?

You keep saying that all these articles you've found mischaracterize what he's said. Care to share? Or should we just take your word for it?

I did so with the article and video Silence referenced earlier. I could list more, I suppose (I think all you really need to do is start clicking the stories which are brought up with a google search on "Dawkins" and "arrogant"). But I would rather look at the articles which people such as yourself have read, from which you drew these conclusions.

Linda

I just spent a little while browsing through some of Richard Dawkins's tweets. I couldn't avoid the impression that there was something not quite right there, and ended up feeling I shouldn't really be intruding on such thoughts.

But I was interested by his response to an article which said "Denying the existence of God is as much a leap of faith as asserting it." Dawkins's riposte ran as follows: "And the same for the tooth fairy?" As a philosophical argument, that seems a bit on the superficial side:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/statu...2903029760

Okay, then I am looking for a reference to something Dawkins wrote (or a talk, if necessary, but I hate watching videos) which supports those conclusions. I've read a few pieces/interviews from him that haven't. 

Linda

It is apparent the thrust of this thread is to rage over of Dawkins... rather than pointing out the illogic of atheism; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the evidentiary evidences.

Why not just reference for me the articles which people are drawing these conclusions from?

I did so with the article and video Silence referenced earlier. I could list more, I suppose (I think all you really need to do is start clicking the stories which are brought up with a google search on "Dawkins" and "arrogant"). But I would rather look at the articles which people such as yourself have read, from which you drew these conclusions.

Because, Linda, like most people I don't keep a running log or archive of every archive or video I've ever watched. I've been researching and interested in these topics for a long time now, and during that time I've inevitably encountered Dawkins numerous times through a variety of media. 

I know what I took away from those encounters and what my impressions of Dawkins were. Of course, as I said, I (like most) don't have all the videos or articles I every saw him in or read by him, and as a result don't have them readily available. That is what I am saying when I say do your own research. You keep hammering at the idea that we ought to be providing you with all of those resources - but these aren't studies or scientific papers that are hard to find. Me going and searching for those videos and articles would be literally no different than you doing the same - and it is you who is claiming the need to be informed.

Again, I know what my impressions of him were over the long period of time that I encountered him. I apologize, but I don't see why it's our responsibility to go searching for those things when we don't have them any more readily available than you do. 

As a further note, you say that you "hate" videos, but certainly those are the best source for assessing someone's personality and the way they conduct themselves. His mannerisms and all that may be easier to spot there than from an article or written medium.