https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Marrybore&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T09:50:47ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sceaf&diff=1622696Sceaf2020-02-13T05:59:38Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sceafa (Old English: Scēafa [ʃæːɑvɑ], also spelled Scēaf, Scēf) was an ancient king in English legend. According to his story, Sceafa appeared mysteriously as a child, coming out of the sea in an empty skiff.<br />
Various English kings traced their ancestry back to him. Originally pagans, they believed Sceaf was related to their god, [[Woden]], but after they became Christians, they began to doubt this and later came up with a different explanation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the year 855, explains instead that Scef was born in Noah's Ark, interpreting Sceaf as a non-Biblical son of Noah, and then continuing with the ancestry of Noah up to Adam as found in Genesis. Others believe that Sceaf was the son, or a descendant, of [[Japheth]], the ancestor of all Indo-European peoples according to the Bible. Sceaf is technically the earliest known non-Biblical ancestor of the current British Royal Family. It has been suggested that Sceaf IS in fact Japheth, and their names are variants of the same cognomen. <br />
<br />
== His Lineage == <br />
His lineage, detailing no less than 82 generations. According to this lineage, Noah would have lived approximately 2000-3000 years ago. <br />
<br />
Noah <br />
Japheth? <br />
One of Japeth's sons? <br />
'''Sceaf.''' <br />
Bedwig.<br />
Hwala.<br />
Hadra. <br />
Itermon.<br />
Heremo. <br />
Scyldwa. <br />
Beowulf.<br />
Tetuua. <br />
Geat(a). <br />
Godwulf.<br />
Frinn.<br />
Freudulf. <br />
Frealeaf. <br />
Woden. <br />
Baeldaeg. <br />
Brond.<br />
Fridgar. <br />
Freowine.<br />
Wig. <br />
Giwis.<br />
Esla. <br />
Aluca/Elesa. <br />
Cerdic (first King of Wessex). <br />
Cynric. <br />
Ceawlin. <br />
Cuthwine. <br />
Cuthwulf. <br />
Ceolwald. <br />
Cenred. <br />
Ingild. <br />
Eoppa. <br />
Eafa. <br />
Ealhmund. <br />
Egbert. <br />
AEthelwulf. <br />
Alfred the Great (first King of the English). <br />
Edward the Elder. <br />
AEthelstan. <br />
Edmund I. <br />
Edgar I. <br />
AEthelred. <br />
Edmund II Ironside. <br />
Edward the Exile. <br />
Margaret of Scotland. <br />
Matilda of Scotland. <br />
Empress Matilda.<br />
Henry II (King of England). <br />
John.<br />
Henry III. <br />
Edward I.<br />
Edward II. <br />
Edward III. <br />
Lionel of Antwerp. <br />
Philippa. <br />
Roger Mortimer.<br />
Ann de Mortimer. <br />
Richard Plantaganet. <br />
Edward IV.<br />
Elizabeth of York. <br />
Margaret Tudor.<br />
James V.<br />
Mary, Queen of Scots. <br />
James VI and I. <br />
Anne. <br />
Sophia.<br />
George I.<br />
George II. <br />
Frederick. <br />
George III. <br />
Edward. <br />
Victoria. <br />
Edward VII. <br />
George V. <br />
George VI. <br />
Elizabeth II.<br />
Prince Charles. <br />
Prince William. <br />
Prince George.</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sceaf&diff=1622695Sceaf2020-02-13T05:58:34Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sceafa (Old English: Scēafa [ʃæːɑvɑ], also spelled Scēaf, Scēf) was an ancient king in English legend. According to his story, Sceafa appeared mysteriously as a child, coming out of the sea in an empty skiff.<br />
Various English kings traced their ancestry back to him. Originally pagans, they believed Sceaf was related to their god, [[Woden]], but after they became Christians, they began to doubt this and later came up with a different explanation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the year 855, explains instead that Scef was born in Noah's Ark, interpreting Sceaf as a non-Biblical son of Noah, and then continuing with the ancestry of Noah up to Adam as found in Genesis. Others believe that Sceaf was the son, or a descendant, of [[Japheth]], the ancestor of all Indo-European peoples according to the Bible. Sceaf is technically the earliest known non-Biblical ancestor of the current British Royal Family.<br />
<br />
== His Lineage == <br />
His lineage, detailing no less than 82 generations. According to this lineage, Noah would have lived approximately 2000-3000 years ago. <br />
<br />
Noah <br />
Japheth? <br />
One of Japeth's sons? <br />
'''Sceaf.''' <br />
Bedwig.<br />
Hwala.<br />
Hadra. <br />
Itermon.<br />
Heremo. <br />
Scyldwa. <br />
Beowulf.<br />
Tetuua. <br />
Geat(a). <br />
Godwulf.<br />
Frinn.<br />
Freudulf. <br />
Frealeaf. <br />
Woden. <br />
Baeldaeg. <br />
Brond.<br />
Fridgar. <br />
Freowine.<br />
Wig. <br />
Giwis.<br />
Esla. <br />
Aluca/Elesa. <br />
Cerdic (first King of Wessex). <br />
Cynric. <br />
Ceawlin. <br />
Cuthwine. <br />
Cuthwulf. <br />
Ceolwald. <br />
Cenred. <br />
Ingild. <br />
Eoppa. <br />
Eafa. <br />
Ealhmund. <br />
Egbert. <br />
AEthelwulf. <br />
Alfred the Great (first King of the English). <br />
Edward the Elder. <br />
AEthelstan. <br />
Edmund I. <br />
Edgar I. <br />
AEthelred. <br />
Edmund II Ironside. <br />
Edward the Exile. <br />
Margaret of Scotland. <br />
Matilda of Scotland. <br />
Empress Matilda.<br />
Henry II (King of England). <br />
John.<br />
Henry III. <br />
Edward I.<br />
Edward II. <br />
Edward III. <br />
Lionel of Antwerp. <br />
Philippa. <br />
Roger Mortimer.<br />
Ann de Mortimer. <br />
Richard Plantaganet. <br />
Edward IV.<br />
Elizabeth of York. <br />
Margaret Tudor.<br />
James V.<br />
Mary, Queen of Scots. <br />
James VI and I. <br />
Anne. <br />
Sophia.<br />
George I.<br />
George II. <br />
Frederick. <br />
George III. <br />
Edward. <br />
Victoria. <br />
Edward VII. <br />
George V. <br />
George VI. <br />
Elizabeth II.<br />
Prince Charles. <br />
Prince William. <br />
Prince George.</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sceaf&diff=1622694Sceaf2020-02-13T05:55:32Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sceafa (Old English: Scēafa [ʃæːɑvɑ], also spelled Scēaf, Scēf) was an ancient king in English legend. According to his story, Sceafa appeared mysteriously as a child, coming out of the sea in an empty skiff.<br />
Various English kings traced their ancestry back to him. Originally pagans, they believed Sceaf was related to their god, [[Woden]], but after they became Christians, they began to doubt this and later came up with a different explanation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the year 855, explains instead that Scef was born in Noah's Ark, interpreting Sceaf as a non-Biblical son of Noah, and then continuing with the ancestry of Noah up to Adam as found in Genesis. Others believe that Sceaf was the son, or a descendant, of [[Japheth]], the ancestor of all Indo-European peoples according to the Bible. Sceaf is technically the earliest known non-Biblical ancestor of the current British Royal Family.<br />
<br />
== His Lineage == <br />
Noah <br />
Japheth? <br />
One of Japeth's sons? <br />
'''Sceaf.''' <br />
Bedwig.<br />
Hwala.<br />
Hadra. <br />
Itermon.<br />
Heremo. <br />
Scyldwa. <br />
Beowulf.<br />
Tetuua. <br />
Geat(a). <br />
Godwulf.<br />
Frinn.<br />
Freudulf. <br />
Frealeaf. <br />
Woden. <br />
Baeldaeg. <br />
Brond.<br />
Fridgar. <br />
Freowine.<br />
Wig. <br />
Giwis.<br />
Esla. <br />
Aluca/Elesa. <br />
Cerdic (first King of Wessex). <br />
Cynric. <br />
Ceawlin. <br />
Cuthwine. <br />
Cuthwulf. <br />
Ceolwald. <br />
Cenred. <br />
Ingild. <br />
Eoppa. <br />
Eafa. <br />
Ealhmund. <br />
Egbert. <br />
AEthelwulf. <br />
Alfred the Great (first King of the English). <br />
Edward the Elder. <br />
AEthelstan. <br />
Edmund I. <br />
Edgar I. <br />
AEthelred. <br />
Edmund II Ironside. <br />
Edward the Exile. <br />
Margaret of Scotland. <br />
Matilda of Scotland. <br />
Empress Matilda.<br />
Henry II (King of England). <br />
John.<br />
Henry III. <br />
Edward I.<br />
Edward II. <br />
Edward III. <br />
Lionel of Antwerp. <br />
Philippa. <br />
Roger Mortimer.<br />
Ann de Mortimer. <br />
Richard Plantaganet. <br />
Edward IV.<br />
Elizabeth of York. <br />
Margaret Tudor.<br />
James V.<br />
Mary, Queen of Scots. <br />
James VI and I. <br />
Anne. <br />
Sophia.<br />
George I.<br />
George II. <br />
Frederick. <br />
George III. <br />
Edward. <br />
Victoria. <br />
Edward VII. <br />
George V. <br />
George VI. <br />
Elizabeth II.</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sceaf&diff=1622693Sceaf2020-02-13T05:54:28Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sceafa (Old English: Scēafa [ʃæːɑvɑ], also spelled Scēaf, Scēf) was an ancient king in English legend. According to his story, Sceafa appeared mysteriously as a child, coming out of the sea in an empty skiff.<br />
Various English kings traced their ancestry back to him. Originally pagans, they believed Sceaf was related to their god, [[Woden]], but after they became Christians, they began to doubt this and later came up with a different explanation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the year 855, explains instead that Scef was born in Noah's Ark, interpreting Sceaf as a non-Biblical son of Noah, and then continuing with the ancestry of Noah up to Adam as found in Genesis. Others believe that Sceaf was the son, or a descendant, of [[Japheth]], the ancestor of all Indo-European peoples according to the Bible. Sceaf is technically the earliest known non-Biblical ancestor of the current British Royal Family.<br />
<br />
== His lineage == <br />
Sceaf. <br />
Bedwig.<br />
Hwala.<br />
Hadra. <br />
Itermon.<br />
Heremo. <br />
Scyldwa. <br />
Beowulf.<br />
Tetuua. <br />
Geat(a). <br />
Godwulf.<br />
Frinn.<br />
Freudulf. <br />
Frealeaf. <br />
Woden. <br />
Baeldaeg. <br />
Brond.<br />
Fridgar. <br />
Freowine.<br />
Wig. <br />
Giwis.<br />
Esla. <br />
Aluca/Elesa. <br />
Cerdic (first King of Wessex). <br />
Cynric. <br />
Ceawlin. <br />
Cuthwine. <br />
Cuthwulf. <br />
Ceolwald. <br />
Cenred. <br />
Ingild. <br />
Eoppa. <br />
Eafa. <br />
Ealhmund. <br />
Egbert. <br />
AEthelwulf. <br />
Alfred the Great (first King of the English). <br />
Edward the Elder. <br />
AEthelstan. <br />
Edmund I. <br />
Edgar I. <br />
AEthelred. <br />
Edmund II Ironside. <br />
Edward the Exile. <br />
Margaret of Scotland. <br />
Matilda of Scotland. <br />
Empress Matilda.<br />
Henry II (King of England). <br />
John.<br />
Henry III. <br />
Edward I.<br />
Edward II. <br />
Edward III. <br />
Lionel of Antwerp. <br />
Philippa. <br />
Roger Mortimer.<br />
Ann de Mortimer. <br />
Richard Plantaganet. <br />
Edward IV.<br />
Elizabeth of York. <br />
Margaret Tudor.<br />
James V.<br />
Mary, Queen of Scots. <br />
James VI and I. <br />
Anne. <br />
Sophia.<br />
George I.<br />
George II. <br />
Frederick. <br />
George III. <br />
Edward. <br />
Victoria. <br />
Edward VII. <br />
George V. <br />
George VI. <br />
Elizabeth II.</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sceaf&diff=1622692Sceaf2020-02-13T05:44:57Z<p>Marrybore: Created page with "Sceafa (Old English: Scēafa [ʃæːɑvɑ], also spelled Scēaf, Scēf) was an ancient king in English legend. According to his story, Sceafa appeared mysteriously as a child,..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Sceafa (Old English: Scēafa [ʃæːɑvɑ], also spelled Scēaf, Scēf) was an ancient king in English legend. According to his story, Sceafa appeared mysteriously as a child, coming out of the sea in an empty skiff.<br />
Various English kings traced their ancestry back to him. Originally pagans, they believed Sceaf was related to their god, [[Woden]], but after they became Christians, they began to doubt this and later came up with a different explanation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the year 855, explains instead that Scef was born in Noah's Ark, interpreting Sceaf as a non-Biblical son of Noah, and then continuing with the ancestry of Noah up to Adam as found in Genesis. Others believe that Sceaf was the son, or a descendant, of [[Japheth]], the ancestor of all Indo-European peoples according to the Bible. Sceaf is technically the earliest known non-Biblical ancestor of the current British Royal Family.<br />
<br />
== His lineage == <br />
Sceaf. <br />
Bedwig.<br />
Hwala.<br />
Hadra. <br />
Itermon.<br />
Heremo. <br />
Scyldwa. <br />
Beowulf.<br />
Tetuua. <br />
Geat(a). <br />
Godwulf.<br />
Frinn.<br />
Freudulf. <br />
Frealeaf. <br />
Woden. <br />
Baeldaeg. <br />
Brond.<br />
Fridgar. <br />
Freowine.<br />
Wig. <br />
Giwis.<br />
Esla. <br />
Aluca/Elesa. <br />
Cerdic (first King of Wessex).</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indo-European_languages&diff=1622690Indo-European languages2020-02-13T05:31:23Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Indo-European languages''', also known as '''Indo-Germanic languages''', are a widespread [[language]] family, ranging across [[Europe]], the [[Middle East]], and [[India]]. They are the most-widely spoken languages in the world, with well over 2 billion speakers, especially of [[English language|English]]. It is believed by some creationists that the Indo-European people are descended from [[Japeth]], the son of [[Noah]]. <br />
<br />
==Indo-European language families==<br />
*[[Indo-Iranian languages]]<br />
*[[Armenian language]]<br />
*[[Baltic|Baltic languages]]<br />
*[[Slavic languages]]<br />
*[[Celtic languages]]<br />
*[[Germanic languages]]<br />
*[[Greek language]]<br />
*[[Italic languages]]<br />
**[[Latin]]<br />
**[[Romance languages]]<br />
<br />
It is the world's largest language group encompassing many languages, including most of those spoken in the greater Eurasian continent from Iceland to the Xinjiang province, China. It includes English and most of the major European languages.<br />
<br />
Although there is debate about its origin, the most commonly accepted hypothesis among secular linguists is that Indo-European dates from about 4000 BC, and originated in the Caspian steppe. Creationists believe that major language groups, perhaps including Proto-Indo-European, were created by God in about 2200 BC following the destruction of the Tower of Babel. <br />
A few have proposed that Indo-European languages are an offshoot of the original [[Hebrew]] language, while most see Indo-European, Semitic and Hamitic language groups stemming from the dispersion following the Tower of Babel.<br />
<br />
Indo-European is divided into several language branches both extinct (Anatolian and Tocharian) and living as with several proposed languages and peoples. A few are merely language isolates (Greek, Armenian) with evidence only pertaining to one language with no living or extinct ancestors, yet which can be traced to the Indo-European family. These current living language families are:<br />
<br />
*Albanian<br />
*Armenian<br />
*Anatolian<br />
*Baltic<br />
*Celtic<br />
*Germanic<br />
*Greek<br />
*Indo-Iranian<br />
*Italic<br />
<br />
==Indo-European Languages==<br />
<br />
*Albanian<br />
*English<br />
*German<br />
*Dutch<br />
*Norwegian<br />
*Swedish<br />
*Danish<br />
*Icelandic<br />
*French<br />
*Spanish<br />
*Italian<br />
*Latin<br />
*Portuguese<br />
*Romanian<br />
*Polish<br />
*Czech<br />
*Slovak<br />
*Slovenian<br />
*Serbo-Croatian<br />
*Greek<br />
*Russian<br />
*Ukrainian<br />
*Moldovan<br />
*Bulgarian<br />
*Latvian<br />
*Lithuanian<br />
*Hittite<br />
*Armenian<br />
*Persian<br />
*Urdu<br />
*Pashtun<br />
*Hindi<br />
*Tocharian <br />
<br />
[[Category:Linguistics]][[Category:Language]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=1622689Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth2020-02-13T05:17:29Z<p>Marrybore: /* Really? */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<!----- New discussions below this line ---><br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==Page moved==<br />
Archive index also created.<br />
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==<br />
<br />
This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.<br />
<br />
:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:<br />
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}<br />
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.<br />
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement. <br />
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.<br />
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.<br />
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.<br />
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.<br />
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.<br />
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again. <br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST) <br />
<br />
::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way. <br />
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?<br />
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.<br />
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)<br />
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Conclusion===<br />
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.<br />
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.<br />
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.<br />
<br />
I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)<br />
<br />
Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Rates ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant. <br />
<br />
Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Dog Races ==<br />
<br />
Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==<br />
<br />
The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Historical Counterexamples ==<br />
<br />
''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''<br />
<br />
*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.<br />
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref><br />
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]<br />
<br />
But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:<br />
<br />
''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''<br />
<br />
I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:<br />
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}<br />
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.<br />
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
== Earth's magnetic field ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.<br />
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"<br />
|-<br />
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | <font size="2" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="Silver">[[user:Brenden|Brenden]].</font><br />
|-<br />
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |<br />
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]<br />
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]<br />
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|<font color="blue">log</font>]]<br />
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== A mathematician's take ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).<br />
<br />
For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.<br />
<br />
Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.<br />
<br />
I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.<br />
<br />
Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012<br />
<br />
== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==<br />
<br />
If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Only 99% certain? == <br />
<br />
I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Template ==<br />
<br />
The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==<br />
<br />
In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.<br />
<br />
== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==<br />
<br />
If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past. This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future. But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past. So this is clearly a bad example. I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:<br />
* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.<br />
it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)<br />
::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist. Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same. Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years? And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''. I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Young Earth ==<br />
<br />
If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that. I'm just saying......<br />
<br />
== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==<br />
<br />
*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?<br />
*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work? <br />
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Fast Erosion ==<br />
<br />
Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".<br />
[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]<br />
Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Terrific discovery. Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
== History Section ==<br />
<br />
The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]<br />
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)<br />
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?<br />
<br />
== Expansion of the universe ==<br />
<br />
"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"<br />
<br />
I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==<br />
<br />
The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.<br />
<br />
== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==<br />
<br />
How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Really? ==<br />
<br />
It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Maori&diff=1622687Maori2020-02-13T05:07:29Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Maori people New Zealand.jpg|right|300px]]<br />
'''Māori''' are the native people of [[New Zealand]].They descended from an early [[Polynesia]]n race. According to legend, they came from the island of Hawaiki. The exact date of their arrival to New Zealand is unclear but it is estimated they arrived between 700-1000AD.<ref>Mike King, ''A history of New Zealand''</ref> Representatives of the Māori gave up governorship of New Zealand by signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. There was however controversy as to the nature of the rights they were giving up over New Zealand. The English and the Māori versions of the treaty differed on this point. The Māori version stated that the Maori would give ''kāwanatanga'' (literally "governance") whereas in the English version, sovereignty was ceded. This mistranslation has had ramifications for the Māori, as did wholesale confiscation of Māori land by the Crown in the decades following the treaty. This confiscation of lands provoked the "Māori Land Wars" in the 1860s and 1870s. The controversy around the Treaty of Waitangi continues to this day.<br />
<br />
The Māori are distinguished for their bravery. The 28th Māori Battalion was part of the second New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) that distinguished itself in the Second World War. They excel in rugby union and rugby league, traditionally making up a large presence in the All Blacks (rugby union) and Kiwi (league) national teams. Their presence in the All Blacks was often controversial when they toured South Africa. Māori were excluded until 1970, when the protest group "Halt All Racist Tours" (Hart) pressured the rugby union to demand that Māori players be allowed to tour.<ref>http://www.sarugby.com/news/News/article/sid=4052.html</ref> <br />
<br />
They are overwhelmingly Christian,<ref>http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/Census+snapshot:+Maori</ref> having been converted by early British missionaries. <br />
<br />
Te Reo Māori is an Eastern Polynesian language which is one of the three national languages of [[New Zealand]], the others being English and NZ sign language. Fewer than one in four Māori people speak the language, though this is being addressed with the recent (2007) introduction of a Maori TV channel and emphasis in schools on learning the language. ''Kura'' or Māori immersion schools are another way in which the language is being preserved. Unfortunately, Māori are heavily featured in many of New Zealand's negative statistics such as unemployment and imprisonment. They are often reliant on government aid and state housing.<ref>By 1989 Māori were 49% of sentenced prisoners while making up just 8% of the total population aged 15 years and over. [http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TT6PjpyASNoJ:www.howardleague.co.nz/factsheets/8.pdf+Maori+statistics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=nz&client=firefox-a]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:New Zealand]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Russia&diff=1622686Russia2020-02-13T04:53:24Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Country<br />
|name =''Российская Федерация<br/>Rossiyskaya Federatsiya''<br />
|map =Russia rel94.jpg<br />
|map2 =Russia location.png<br />
|flag =Flag of Russia.png<br />
|arms =Arms of the Russian Federation.png<br />
|capital =Moscow<br />
|capital-raw =<br />
|government =Semi-Presidential Federal republic<br />
|government-raw =<br />
|language =Russian language<br />
|king =<br />
|queen =<br />
|monarch-raw =<br />
|president =Vladimir Putin<br />
|president-raw =<br />
|chancellor =<br />
|chancellor-raw =<br />
|pm =Mikhail Mushustin<br />
|pm-raw =<br />
|area =6,592,800 sq mi<br />
|pop =138,739,000 (2011)<br />
|pop-basis =<br />
|gdp =<br />
|gdp-year =$2.3 trillion (2009)<br />
|gdp-pc =$15,100 (2009 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html<br />
|currency =ruble<br />
|idd =<br />
|tld =<br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Russia''' (formally the '''Russian Federation,''' in Russian: Российская Федерация, ''Rossiyskaya Federatsiya''), is the largest country by area (17,075,200 square kilometers) and has the sixth largest population spanning from Eastern Europe to Northern Asia. Its capital is [[Moscow]]. <br />
<br />
Increasingly [[Christian]] and [[conservative]], Russia opposes the [[homosexual agenda]] and is passing laws to reduce its numbers of [[abortion]]. Russia has for the most part repudiated its unsuccessful foray into [[communism]]/[[atheism]], which harmed the nation from 1918-1991, although despite this, they retained a monument to the founder of Communism, Karl Marx on Teatralyana Square in Moscow.<ref>http://www.lindsayfincher.com/potd-the-last-karl-marx-monument-in-moscow.html</ref> In 2015, Russia's Ministry of Health signed an agreement with the [[Russian Orthodox Church]] to prevent [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2015/07/russia-church-and-state-sign-agreement-to-prevent-abortion/#.VlDHnnarTIU</ref><br />
<br />
The history stretches back over a thousand years, with rule by the Czars until [[communists]] took over the nation in 1917, and were subsequently overthrown in 1991. Russia was the largest constituent of the [[Soviet Union]]. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the nation became known as the Russian Federation. Russia had an extensive empire built up over hundreds of years, almost all of which broke away in 1991.<br />
<br />
Russia is a federation of constituent governments. <br />
<br />
==Geography==<br />
[[File:Aerial view of the Caucasus Mountains.jpg|thumb|Aerial view of the Caucasus Mountains.]]<br />
*Area: 17 million km<sup>2</sup>. (6.5 million sq. mi.); about 1.8 times the size of the United States.<br />
*Cities: Capital—Moscow (pop. 8.3 million). Other cities—St. Petersburg (4.6 million), Novosibirsk (1.4 million), Yekaterinburg (1.4 million). 8 other cities over 1 million inhabitants.<br />
*Terrain: Broad plain with low hills west of Urals; vast coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; uplands and mountains (Caucasus range) along southern borders.<br />
*Climate: Huge variation from humid sub-tropical in Krasnodar krai, to desert/semi-desert in the Altai republic, and arctic tundra in north eastern Siberia, which is one of the coldest areas on the planet.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
[[File:Cathedral of Christ the Savior.jpg|thumb|left|Cathedral of Christ the Savior.]]<br />
<br />
''See: [[Religion in Russia]]''<br />
<br />
In practice, only a minority of citizens actively participated in any religion. Many who identified themselves as members of a religious group participated in religious life rarely or not at all. There is no one set of reliable statistics that breaks down the population by denomination, and the statistics below are compiled from government, polling, and religious group sources.<ref>According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108468.htm U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref> <br />
<br />
Approximately 100 million citizens are Russian Orthodox. Muslims, with a population estimated between 14 million and 23 million, form the largest religious minority. The majority of Muslims live in the Volga-Ural region and the North Caucasus, although Moscow, St. Petersburg, and parts of Siberia also have sizable Muslim populations. There are an estimated one million Buddhists, the majority of whom live in the traditionally Buddhist regions of Buryatiya, Tuva, and Kalmykiya. According to the NGO Slavic Center for Law and Justice, Protestants make up the second largest group of Christian believers, with 3,500 registered organizations and more than 2 million followers. The Roman Catholic Church estimated that there are 600,000 Catholics, most of whom are not ethnic Russians. There are an estimated 250,000 Jews, the majority of whom live in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In some areas, such as Yakutiya and Chukotka, pantheistic and nature-based religions are practiced independently or alongside other religions.<br />
<br />
According to the annual report from the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice had registered 21,963 religious organizations as of January 1, 2008, 993 fewer than January 2006. The registered religious groups (with the number of registered organizations) include Russian Orthodox (12,586), Muslim (3,815), Protestant (several denominations totaling 3,410), Jehovah's Witnesses (402), Jewish (286), Orthodox Old Believers (283), Roman Catholic (240), Buddhist (200), and other denominations.<br />
<br />
It was reported in 2017 that atheism in Russia had fallen by 50% in three years.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 27, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/07/27/report-atheism-in-russia-falls-by-50-percent-in-three-years/ Report: Atheism in Russia Falls by 50 Percent in Three Years]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 17, 2017.</ref><br />
<br />
===Religion in schools===<br />
The federal Government does not require religious instruction in schools, but it continues to allow public use of school buildings after hours for the ROC to provide religious instruction on a voluntary basis. Several regions offer a course on Orthodox Christianity in public schools, and five oblasts or regions (Kaluga, Tver, Bryansk, Smolensk, and Voronezh) have a mandatory class on the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture." Students may avoid the Belgorod Oblast voluntary course only if their parents provide and pay for an alternative course. The course is offered as an elective in several other regions. In regions where the class is not mandatory, in practice students may be compelled to take it where schools do not provide alternatives.<br />
<br />
Some regions offer a class on "History of Religion," a proposal that the Minister of Education had suggested but did not introduce nationally. Although the Ministry of Education rejected continued publication and dissemination of a controversial textbook that detailed Orthodox Christianity's contribution to the country's culture, some schools continued to use the text. The textbook contained descriptions of some religious groups that members of those groups found objectionable. The Congress of Religious Associations in the Tyumen region appealed to the Governor and regional department of education to allow input from other religious groups into the religious culture curriculum, claiming that the course currently contains only the viewpoint of the ROC.<br />
<br />
[[File:Roma children in Russia.jpg|thumb|360px|Roma children in Russia.]]<br />
<br />
==Demography==<br />
[[File:Collecting the census in Russia.jpg|thumb|left|220px|Collecting the census.]]<br />
In a major [[demography|demographic]] catastrophe, population indicators in Russia dramatically worsened after 1990: the number of [[death]]s exceeds the number of [[birth]]s, [[life expectancy]] is drastically decreasing, the number of [[suicide]]s has increased, and there are 240 abortions per 100 live births. Every year since 1992 the country has lost 400,000 to 650,000 population and the current total of 142 million is [[projection|projected]] to fall to 100 million by 2050.<br />
<br />
In the 1990s, life expectancy in Russia fell an astonishing six years. [[Statistical analysis]] indicates that one-quarter of the increase in [[mortality]] was due to an increase in [[alcohol consumption]] and one-quarter was a consequence of [[stress]] due to economic uncertainty.<ref>Elizabeth Brainerd, and David M. Cutler, "Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union." ''Journal Of Economic Perspectives'' 2005 19(1): 107-130. Issn: 0895-3309 Fulltext: in Ebsco</ref><br />
<br />
Russia's population of 141.4 million (2007) is falling. Lower birth rates and higher death rates have reduced Russia's population at a nearly 0.5% annual rate since the early 1990s. Russia is one of few countries with a declining population (although birth rates in many developed countries have dropped below the long-term population replacement). Population decline is particularly drastic in Russia due to higher death rates, especially among working-age males. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, traffic injuries, suicide, alcohol poisoning, and violence are major causes of death. In a June 2006 speech to the Russian National Security Council, President Putin declared that Russia is facing a demographic crisis and called for measures to improve birth and mortality rates and increase population through immigration, primarily the return of Russian-speaking foreigners.<br />
<br />
====HIV/AIDS====<br />
Russia and Ukraine are said to have the highest growth rates of HIV infection in the world. In Russia HIV seems to be transmitted mostly by intravenous drug users sharing needles, although data is very uncertain. Data from the Federal AIDS Center shows that the number of registered cases is doubling every 12 months and is currently at 300,000 persons. When projections are made which allow for people in high-risk groups who have not been tested for the disease, estimates of the actual number of HIV-infected persons are approximately 3 million. The high growth rate of AIDS cases, if unchecked, will have negative economic consequences. Investment will suffer from the diversion of private and government funds to AIDS treatment. The effect on the labor force may be acute since about 80% of infected individuals in Russia are under 30 years of age.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
===Ethnicity===<br />
[[File:Novosibirsk Karimov - Cossacks.jpg|left|140px]]<br />
Most of the roughly 141 million Russians derive from the Eastern Slavic family of peoples, whose original homeland was probably present-day Poland. Russian is the official language of Russia and is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. Russian is also the language of such giants of world literature as [[Pushkin]], [[Tolstoy]], [[Dostoevsky]], [[Chekhov]], [[Pasternak]], and [[Solzhenitsyn]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Education===<br />
[[Image:Russian band in Pushkin.jpg|thumb|220px|Russian band in Pushkin.]]<br />
Russia's educational system has produced nearly 100% literacy. About 3 million students attend Russia's 519 institutions of higher education and 48 universities, but continued reform is critical to producing students with skills to adapt to a market economy. Because great emphasis is placed on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is still generally of a high order. The number of doctors in relation to the population is high by American standards, although medical care in Russia, even in major cities, is generally far below Western standards. The unraveling of the Soviet state in its last decades and the physical and psychological traumas of transition during the 1990s resulted in a steady decline in the health of the Russian people. Currently Russia faces a demographic crisis as births lag far behind deaths. While its population is aging, skyrocketing deaths of working-age males due to cardiovascular disease is a major cause of Russia's demographic woes. A rapid increase in HIV/AIDS infections and tuberculosis compounds the problem. In 2007, life expectancy at birth was 59 for men and 73 for women. The large annual excess of deaths over births is expected to cut Russia's population by 30% over the next 50 years.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
===Labor force===<br />
[[File:Russian unemployment.jpg|thumb|Russian unemployment, 2009.]]<br />
The Russian labor force is undergoing tremendous changes. Although well educated and skilled, it is largely mismatched to the rapidly changing needs of the Russian economy. Official unemployment has shrunken in recent years to 6.9%, and labor shortages have started to appear in some high-skilled job markets. Nonetheless, pockets of high unemployment remain and many Russian workers are underemployed. Unemployment is highest among women and young people. Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic dislocation it engendered, the standard of living fell dramatically. However, real disposable incomes have doubled since 1999, and experts estimate that the middle class ranges from one-fifth to one-third of the population. In 2006, 15.8% of the population lived below the subsistence level, in contrast to 38.1% in 1998.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<br />
===Statistics===<br />
*Population (2007 est.): 141.4 million. <br />
*Annual growth rate (2007 est.): -0.484% (population declining). <br />
*Ethnic groups: Russian 79.8%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 2%, other 14.4%. <br />
*Religion: Russian Orthodox, Islam, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Protestant, Buddhist, other. <br />
*Language: Russian (official); more than 140 other languages and dialects. <br />
*Education (total pop.): Literacy—99.4%.<br />
*Health: Life expectancy (2007 est.)--59.12 yrs. men, 73.03 yrs. women.<br />
*Work force (73.88 million) (2006 est.): Production and economic services—84%; government—16%.<br />
<br />
==Cities==<br />
[[File:Saint Petersburg Russia.jpg|thumb|Saint Petersburg.]]<br />
[[Moscow]] is Russia's capital and largest city (population 8.3 million). [[Moscow]] is also increasingly important as an economic and business center; it has become Russia's principal magnet for foreign investment and business presence. Its cultural tradition is rich, and there are many museums devoted to art, literature, music, dance, history, and science, as well as hundreds of churches and dozens of notable [[cathedral]]s. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Traffic in Moscow.jpg|thumb|left|240px|Traffic in Moscow.]]<br />
The second-largest city in Russia is [[St. Petersburg]] (formerly '''Leningrad'''), which was established by [[Tsar]] [[Peter the Great]] in 1703 to be the capital of the Russian Empire as part of his Western-looking reforms. The city was called Petrograd during [[World War I]] and Leningrad after 1924. In 1991, as the result of a city referendum, it was renamed St. Petersburg. Under the tsars, the city was Russia's cultural, intellectual, commercial, financial, and industrial center. After [[Lenin]] moved the capital back to Moscow in 1918, the city's political significance declined, but it remained a cultural, scientific, and military-industrial center. The [[State Hermitage Museum|Hermitage]], formerly the Winter Palace of the tsars, is one of the world's great fine arts museums.<br />
<br />
Russia has an area of about 17 million square kilometers (6.5 million sq. mi.); in geographic terms, this makes Russia the largest country in the world by more than 2.5 million square miles. But with a population density of about 22 persons per square mile (9 per km<sup>2</sup>.), it is sparsely populated, and most of its residents live in urban areas.<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
==Government and Political Conditions==<br />
[[File:Duma Parliament building Moscow Russia.jpg|thumb|340px|Duma Parliament building, Moscow.]]<br />
In the political system established by the 1993 [[constitution]], the [[president]] wields considerable executive power. There is no vice president, and the legislative branch is far weaker than the executive. The bicameral legislature consists of the lower house (State Duma) and the upper house (the Federation Council). The president nominates the highest state officials, including the [[prime minister]], who must be approved by the Duma. The [[president]] can pass decrees without consent from the [[Duma]]. He also is head of the armed forces and of the Security Council. <br />
<br />
Duma elections were held most recently on December 7, 2003, and presidential elections on March 14, 2004. The pro-government party, [[United Russia]], won close to half of the seats in the Duma. Combined with its allies, United Russia commands a two-thirds majority. [[Vladimir Putin]] was re-elected to a second four-year term with 71% of the vote in March 2004. The Russian constitution does not allow presidents to serve more than two consecutive terms. Following elections for the Duma occurred in December 2007, and for President in March 2008. In these election [[Dmitry Medvedev]] (member of United Russia) was elected as new president. Since 2012 Vladimir Putin is president again.<br />
<br />
Russia is a federation, but the precise distribution of powers between the central government and the regional and local authorities is still evolving. The Russian Federation consists of 89 regional administrative units, including two federal cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg. The constitution explicitly defines the federal government's exclusive powers, but it also describes most key regional issues as the joint responsibility of the federal government and the regional administrative units. In 2000, President Putin grouped the regions into seven federal districts, with presidential appointees established in Moscow and six provincial capitals. In March 2004, the Constitution was amended to permit the merger of some regional administrative units. A law enacted in December 2004 eliminated the direct election of the country's regional leaders. Governors are now nominated by the president and subject to confirmation by regional legislatures. <br />
<br />
===Judicial System===<br />
The Russian [[judicial system]] consists of the Constitutional Court, courts of [[general jurisdiction]], military courts, and arbitrage courts (which hear commercial disputes). The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction. The 1993 constitution empowers the Constitutional Court to arbitrate disputes between the executive and legislative branches and between Moscow and the regional and local governments. The court also is authorized to rule on violations of constitutional rights, to examine appeals from various bodies, and to participate in impeachment proceedings against the president. The July 1994 Law on the Constitutional Court prohibits the court from examining cases on its own initiative and limits the scope of issues the court can hear. The system of general jurisdiction courts includes the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, regional level courts, district level courts and justices of the peace. <br />
<br />
The Duma passed a Criminal Procedure Code and other judicial reforms during its 2001 session. These reforms help make the Russian judicial system more compatible with its Western counterparts and are seen by most as an accomplishment in human rights. The reforms have reintroduced jury [[trials]] in certain [[criminal]] cases and created a more adversarial system of criminal trials that protect the rights of defendants more adequately. In 2002, the introduction of the new code led to significant reductions in time spent in detention for new detainees, and the number of suspects placed in pretrial detention declined by 30%. Another significant advance in the new Code is the transfer from the Procuracy to the courts of the authority to issue search and arrest warrants. There are rising concerns, however, that prosecutors have selectively targeted individuals for political reasons, as in the prosecution of Yukos Oil CEO Mikhail Khodorkovskiy.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
In spite of the general tendency to increase judicial [[independence]] (for example, by recent considerable salary raise to judges), many judges still see their role not as of impartial and independent arbiters, but as of government officials protecting state interests. See below for more information on the commercial court/business law.<br />
<br />
===Human Rights===<br />
[[Image:Human Rights.JPG|left]]<br />
Some specific areas of human rights violations of the Soviet era continued on into the late 1990s and even have been reported up to 2002. <br />
These involved experimentation on humans and the use of imported foreign forced labor, particularly from North Korea, to work in forestry in gulag type camps of Siberia (for Russian and other newspaper accounts, see [[Essay: KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]). Experimentation on humans have been noted by Russian rights activists in connection with certain medical facilities. The Serbsky Institute and Mental Hospital figuring in as a center for mind altering experiments receives startling confirmation from Emilia Cherkover, former Deputy of the Zelenograd Soviet and member of the Russian Federation Human Rights Commission. Cherkover maintains that, along with Vladivostok and Moscow prisons and the mental hospital in Oryal, microwave (psychotronic and electromagnetic application) experiments had been conducted on humans between 1989 and 1990 at the Serbsky Institute in Moscow (see [[The Stavitski Account]]). {{fact}}<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Journalist Yury Vorobyovsky has been investigating the top secret program of "psychotronic" brainwashing techniques developed by the KGB and the Ministry for three years. He notes Emilia Cherkova's claim that there are over a million victims. Her group, Ecology and Living Environment had filed damages against the [[Federal Security Service]] (FSB). The newspaper reports, "there is strong evidence that some kind of psychotronic warfare program did exist in the Soviet period, and that the technology may be falling into the wrong hands" (From Moscow Times, 7-11-95).{{fact}}<br />
</blockquote> <br />
====Chechnya====<br />
[[File:Evstafiev palace gunman Chechnya.jpg|thumb|280px|Government palace building in Grozny, Chechnya.]]<br />
[[Chechnya]] has seen continuing violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by Russian and pro-Moscow Chechen forces. Chechen rebels also have committed abuses as well as acts of terrorism. In [[Chechnya]], Ingushetiya, and Dagestan, security forces were involved in unlawful killings and politically motivated kidnappings. Chechen President [[Ramzan Kadyrov|Kadyrov]] continued his repressive control as federal forces withdrew. Federal and local security forces in Chechnya targeted families of suspected insurgents with impunity, and Kadyrov's private militia allegedly engaged in kidnapping and torture.<ref>see [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm Country Report 2008]</ref><br />
<br />
====Religion - Human rights====<br />
The Russian constitution provides for freedom of religion and the equality of all religions before the law, as well as the separation of church and state. Although Jews and Muslims continue to encounter prejudice and societal discrimination, they have not been inhibited by the government in the free practice of their religion. High-ranking federal officials have condemned anti-Semitic hate crimes, but law enforcement bodies have not always effectively prosecuted those responsible. The influx of foreign missionaries has led to pressure by groups in Russia, specifically nationalists and the Russian Orthodox Church, to limit the activities of these "nontraditional" religious groups.<br />
<br />
In response, the Duma passed a restrictive and potentially discriminatory law on religion in October 1997. The law is complex, with many ambiguous and contradictory provisions. The law's most controversial provisions distinguish between religious "groups" and "organizations" and introduce a 15-year rule, which allows groups that have been in existence for 15 years or longer to obtain accredited status. Senior Russian officials have pledged to implement the 1997 law on religion in a manner that is not in conflict with Russia's international human rights obligations. Some local officials, however, have used the law as a pretext to restrict religious liberty.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_russi1.htm A 1997 law restricting freedom]</ref><br />
<br />
In 2016, another law was passed called the [[Yarovaya law]] which primarily focuses on anti-terrorism. However, the law also contains provisions which allow for the further persecution of religious minorities found under the 1997 act. [[Don Ossewaarde]] was the first Missionary to be convicted under the law.<br />
<br />
====Media====<br />
Pressure from Putin's regime weakened freedom of expression and media independence, particularly of the major television networks. Five journalists were assassinated in 2008. As some print and Internet media reflected a widening range of views, the government restricted media freedom through direct ownership of media outlets, pressuring the owners of major media outlets to abstain from critical coverage, and harassing and intimidating journalists into practicing self-censorship. Local governments limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest. The government limited freedom of association. The government restricted religious groups in some regions, and there were incidents of societal discrimination, harassment, and violence against religious minorities, including anti-Semitism.<ref>see [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm Country Report 2008] </ref><br />
<br />
Government pressure continued to weaken freedom of expression and the independence and freedom of some media, particularly major national television networks and regional electronic media outlets. A government decision resulted in the elimination of the last major non-state television network in 2003. National press is also increasingly in government hands or owned by government officials, narrowing the scope of opinion available. Self-censorship is a growing press problem. Unsolved murders of journalists, including the killing of respected investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya in October 2006, have caused significant international concern and increased pressure on journalists to avoid subjects considered sensitive. In August 2007, authorities arrested several suspects in connection with the Politkovksaya case.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
====Civil Society====<br />
Enactment of a new law on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 2006 was criticized in many quarters as a device to control [[civil society]], that is, private organizations. Implementing regulations appear to impose onerous paperwork reporting burdens on NGOs that could be used to limit or even suppress some of them. This law was used to shut down an NGO for the first time in January 2007 on the basis of extremism charges; however, most foreign NGOs have successfully re-registered. Domestic NGOs were not required to re-register, but are required to meeting new reporting requirements.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
===Government Spending/Taxation===<br />
[[Image:Putin..jpg|left|260px|Vladimir Putin.]]<br />
The Russian federal budget has run growing surpluses since 2001, as the government has taxed and saved much of the rapidly increasing oil revenues. According to preliminary figures, the 2006 budget surplus was 7.4% of GDP on a cash basis. Although there are strong pressures to relax spending ahead of elections, the government has loosened its spending gradually, as the economy is running at near capacity and there are dangers of increasing inflation and rapid exchange rate appreciation. Spending increases to date have mostly been for increased salaries of government employees and pensions, but some money is also being dedicated to special investment funds and tax breaks to develop new industries in special economic zones. The government overhauled its tax system for both corporations and individuals in 2000-01, introducing a 13% flat tax for individuals and a unified tax for corporations, which improved overall collection. Business has put pressure on the government to reduce value added taxes (VAT) on oil and gas, but the government has postponed this discussion. Tax enforcement of disputes, particularly following the Yukos case, continues to be uneven and unpredictable.<br />
<br />
A major focus of increased government spending has been the military, with large increases being spent on overhauling and updating equipment, as well as increasing salaries of military personnel, though a huge backlog of problems remain from the chaotic Yeltsin era and almost two decades of chronic underinvestment. <br />
<br />
Much needed investment in national infrastructure, including railways and waterways, which are much more important in transportation in Russia than in the US and Europe has been insignificant, leading to bottlenecks that hamper growth and development. Telecoms and electricity production and distribution also remain run-down and outdated from the post-Soviet collapse. As a result of this, Russia remains dependent on energy exports for income, with the domestic economy effectively held back by capacity restraints or neglected facilities, a fact which has left Russia vulnerable to a collapse in fuel prices, such as that experienced at the beginning the global financial crisis, when crude oil prices dropped from over $100 per barrel to less than $60. Currently, Russian development of railways and highways in terms of new/renewed miles of route lies at around 1/10 that of China, despite having a much larger landmass.<br />
<br />
==Foreign Relations==<br />
In the years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia took important steps to become a full partner in the world's principal political groupings. On December 27, 1991, Russia assumed the permanent UN Security Council seat formerly held by the Soviet Union. Russia also is a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). Russia and the European Union (EU) signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. It signed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Partnership for Peace initiative in 1994. The NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 and the NATO-Russia Council superseded that in 2002. Russia acquiesced (despite misgivings) in enlargement of NATO by members first of the former [[Warsaw Pact]] and most recently by the Baltic states that had been forcibly integrated into the Soviet Union. <br />
<br />
Over the past several years Russia has increased its international profile, played an increasing role in regional issues, and been more assertive in dealing with its neighbors. The rise in energy prices has given it leverage over countries which are dependent on Russian sources. Russia continues to support separatist regimes in Georgia and Moldova.<br />
<br />
===Relations with the United States===<br />
The United States and Russia share common interests on a broad range of issues, including counterterrorism and the drastic reduction of our strategic arsenals. Russia shares our basic goal of stemming the [[proliferation]] of [[weapons of mass destruction]] and the means to deliver them. We are working with Russia to compel Iran to bring its nuclear programs into compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737. On North Korea, Russia is a participant in the Six-Party Talks aimed at the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program. Russia also takes part in the Middle East Peace Process "Quartet" (along with the UN and the EU). Russia now interacts with NATO members as an equal through the NATO-Russia Council but without veto power over NATO decisions. During the past several years, Russia has intensified its efforts to combat trafficking in persons.<br />
<br />
Ties between Moscow and Washington <br />
:plunged to a post-Cold War low as Barack Obama slapped on sanctions over the Ukraine crisis and Russia's alleged meddling in Trump's election.<ref> [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237090/Mike-Pence-tells-security-summit-US-hold-Russia-accountable.html Mike Pence fires NATO warning at Vladimir Putin] - ''Daily Mail Online''</ref> <br />
<br />
US Secretary of State [[Rex Tillerson]] said that US sanctions against Russia will remain in place until Moscow "reverses the actions" it has taken in Ukraine.<ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/rex-tillerson-russia-ukraine/ Tillerson: US to maintain Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia until Crimea is returned]</ref> In April 2017 Putin explained that the US-Russia relations have gotten worse under [[Trump]].<ref>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/228064</ref><br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
==Defense==<br />
Russia's efforts to transform its Soviet-legacy military into a smaller, lighter and more mobile force continue to be hampered by an ossified military leadership, discipline problems and human rights violations, limited funding and demographics. Recent steps by the Government of Russia suggest a desire to reform. There has been an increased emphasis on practical training, and the government is introducing bills to improve the organization of the military. <br />
[[Image:Cannon Russia.jpg|left|300px]]<br />
Despite large increases in the budget, defense spending is still unable to sustain Russia's large military. Current troop strength, estimated at 1.1 million, is large in comparison to Russia's GDP and military budget, which continues to make the process of transformation to a professional army difficult. This is both the result of the Soviet legacy and military thinking, and Russian geography, which demands a sizable force simply to patrol and maintain normal defensive readiness across Russia's huge, remote and sparsely populated territory. Furthermore, unrest in Russia's souther regions demands a substantial military force at a high level of readiness. <br />
<br />
Russian military salaries are low. Though, the army provides all necessities, the quality of accommodation is low, though the situation has improved considerably since the Yeltsin era when the military establishment almost totally collapsed, and some soldiers actually starved when provisions to remote bases went undelivered for months on end. Problems with both discipline and brutal hazing remain common, however. HIV infection rates in the Russian army are estimated to be between two and five times higher than in the general population, and tuberculosis is a persistent problem both in and outside the military, affecting the fitness of recruits.<br />
[[File:SU-24.jpg|thumb|Bomber jet Su-24.]]<br />
Although the available manpower (males 15-49) for the Russian Armed Forces was projected at 35.2 million in 2005, only approximately 11% of eligible males do military service. Moreover, military officials complain that new recruit cohorts are plagued by increasing incidences of poor education, communicable diseases and criminality. <br />
<br />
The Russian Government has stated a desire to convert to a professional army, but implementation has been delayed repeatedly. Current plans envision a transition to a mixed force, in which professional soldiers fill the ranks of select units and conscription is gradually phased out. Some officials have talked of developing a non-commissioned officer corps to lead the professional army, but the military has yet to make any concrete decisions, due to internal political considerations and a backlog of other issues soaking up increased funding.<br />
<br />
Russia continues to maintain a sizable strategic nuclear force equipped with global reach, with land, sea and air based nuclear launch facilities, though maintenance issues continue to affect the readiness of the system due to a flight of skilled personnel from the military, and financial and organization pressures in the post-Soviet era. For this reason, Russia has sought a renewed START treaty with the United States for a mutual reduction of strategic nuclear forces. This agreement was reached between Presidents Obama and Medvedev in April 2010.<br />
<br />
==Economy==<br />
[[Image:Historic Centre of St. Petersburg.jpg|thumb|260px|Historic Center of St. Petersburg.]]<br />
At the end of March, 2009, the World Bank issued a grim forecast of the Russian Economy, projecting a 4.5% decline in the economy in 2009 and warning that 5.8 million Russians would fall into poverty unless the government shifts spending to poor families. It praised the government's $85 billion anticrisis program, which stabilized Russia's banks and prevented financial panic. But it said too little had gone to households — a hazard in a society where 37 million people, a quarter of the population, lives near the poverty line.<ref>Ellen Berry, "World Bank Grim on Russian Economy," [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/world/europe/31russia.html?ref=world ''New York Times'' Mar. 30, 2009]</ref><br />
<br />
The Russian economy underwent tremendous stress in the 1990s as it moved from a centrally planned economy to a free market system. Difficulties in implementing fiscal reforms aimed at raising government revenues and a dependence on short-term borrowing to finance budget deficits led to a serious financial crisis in 1998. Lower prices for Russia's major export earners (oil and minerals) and a loss of investor confidence due to the Asian financial crisis exacerbated financial problems. The result was a rapid and steep decline (60%) in the value of the ruble, flight of foreign investment, delayed payments on sovereign and private debts, a breakdown of commercial transactions through the banking system, and the threat of runaway inflation. <br />
<br />
Still, Russia weathered the crisis well. In the 8 years following the financial crisis, GDP growth averaged just under 7% due to a devalued ruble, implementation of key economic reforms (tax, banking, labor and land codes), tight fiscal policy, and favorable commodities prices. Household consumption and fixed capital investments have both grown by about 10 percent per year since 1999 and have replaced net exports as the main drivers of demand growth. Inflation and exchange rates have stabilized due to a prudent fiscal policy (Russia has run a budget surplus since 2003). The government created a stabilization/rainy day fund ($127 billion in mid-2007), and has the third-largest foreign exchange reserves in the world (close to $420 billion in mid-2007) which should shelter it from commodity price shocks. <br />
<br />
Russia's balance of payments moves from strength to strength. The current account balance grew from $58.6 billion in 2004 to $95.3 billion in 2006, almost entirely due to oil price increases. The capital account turned positive in 2006, with net inflow of $6.1 billion. In addition, net private capital flows in 2006 increased significantly to $40.9 billion, compared to an inflow of $0.1 billion in 2005 due to liberalization of the capital account in mid-2006. Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows dramatically improved in 2006 to an estimated $31 billion (inflows totaled $15.4 billion and $14.6 billion in 2004 and 2005, respectively). As of July 1, 2006, the ruble is convertible for both current and capital transactions. Russia prepaid its entire Soviet-era Paris Club debt of $22 billion in late 2006, pushing Russia's sovereign foreign debt down to $45 billion at the end of 2006, or about 5 percent of GDP. Russia's total public and private foreign debt at the end of 2006 was $310 billion, or 31 percent of GDP. Such a dramatic reversal to the macroeconomic situation is truly remarkable. Russia currently has a sovereign investment-grade rating from Standard and Poor's of BBB+. <br />
[[File:Znamensk Russia.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Street in Znamensk.]]<br />
Although the economy has begun to diversify, the government budget remains dependent on oil and gas revenues; consumption and investment are, however, contributing to an increasing share to GDP growth. While currently sheltered from external price shocks, the government realizes the need to intensify reforms that will promote new investment in aging infrastructure and continued productivity gains. The government believes it can do this by creating state-sponsored investment funds, special economic zones, and by exercising control of strategic enterprises (a draft law defining strategic sectors was submitted to the Duma in August 2007). Although investors are returning to Russia, excessive bureaucracy, corruption, insufficient and insufficiently enforced legislation, selective interpretation of laws (particularly tax laws), unclear limits and conditions on foreign investment, obsolete infrastructure, and stalled economic reforms still remain a problem.{{fact}} In 2005, the government announced reform programs in four priority areas (health, education, housing, and agriculture), but further work is needed on them as well as in financial regulation, civil service reform, and reform of government monopolies, such as railroads, gas, and electricity.<br />
*GDP (2006): $989 billion. <br />
*Growth rate (2006): 6.7%.<br />
*Natural resources: Petroleum, natural gas, timber, furs, precious and nonferrous metals. <br />
*Agriculture: Products—Grain, sugar beets, sunflower seeds, meat, dairy products.<br />
*Industry: Types—Complete range of manufactures: automobiles, trucks, trains, agricultural equipment, advanced aircraft, aerospace, machine and equipment products; mining and extractive industry; medical and scientific instruments; construction equipment. <br />
*Trade (2006): Exports--$304 billion: petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, woods and wood products, metals, chemicals. Major markets—EU, CIS, China, Japan. Imports--$165 billion: machinery and equipment, chemicals, consumer goods, medicines, meat, sugar, semi-finished metal products. Major partners—EU, U.S., NIS, Japan, China. U.S. exports--$4.7 billion. Principal U.S. exports (2006)--oil/gas equipment, meat, inorganic chemicals, tobacco, aircraft, medical equipment, autos/parts. U.S. imports--$19.8 billion. Principal U.S. imports (2006)--oil, aluminum, chemicals, platinum, iron/steel, fish and crustaceans, nickel, wood, and copper.<br />
<br />
====Gross Domestic Product====<br />
[[File:City garden Kolpino Autumn, 2009.JPG|thumb|City garden, Kolpino.]]<br />
A strong expansion in domestic demand continues to drive GDP growth, despite a slowdown in manufacturing. GDP growth and industrial production for 2006 were 6.7% and 4.8%, respectively, relative to 6.4% and 5.7% in 2005. GDP growth is currently derived from non-tradable sectors, but investment remains concentrated in tradables (oil and gas). Construction was the fastest growing sector of the economy, expanding by 14% in 2006. The main private sector services—wholesale & retail trade, banking & insurance, and transportation & communications—showed strong growth of about 10%. In contrast, public sector services—education, health care, and public administration—lagged behind with only 2-4% growth in 2006. Recent productivity growth has still been strong in some parts of domestic manufacturing. Real disposable incomes grew by 10.2% in 2006, spurring considerable growth in private consumption.<br />
<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
====Monetary Policy====<br />
Large balance of payments surpluses have complicated monetary policy for Russia. The Central Bank has followed a policy of managed appreciation to ease the impact on domestic producers and has sterilized capital inflows with its large budget surpluses. However, the Central Bank also has been buying back dollars, pumping additional ruble liquidity into the system. Given the rising demand for money, this has softened the inflationary impact, but these policy choices have complicated the government's efforts to lower inflation to the single digits. Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation was 9% in 2006 and 10.9% in 2005, having steadily decreased from 20.2% in 2000, due primarily to prudent fiscal policy and in 2006 lower world oil prices.<br />
<br />
====Commercial Law====<br />
Russia has a body of conflicting, overlapping and rapidly changing laws, decrees and regulations, which has resulted in an ad hoc and unpredictable approach to doing business. In this environment, negotiations and contracts from commercial transactions are complex and protracted. Uneven implementation of laws creates further complications. Regional and local courts are often subject to political pressure, and corruption is widespread.{{fact}} However, more and more small and medium businesses in recent years have reported fewer difficulties in this regard, especially in the Moscow region. In addition, Russian businesses are increasingly turning to the courts to resolve disputes. Russia's WTO accession process is also helping to bring the country's legal and regulatory regime in line with internationally accepted practices.<br />
<br />
====Natural Resources====<br />
The mineral-packed Ural Mountains and the vast oil, gas, coal, and timber reserves of Siberia and the Russian Far East make Russia rich in natural resources. However, most such resources are located in remote and climatically unfavorable areas that are difficult to develop and far from Russian ports. Nevertheless, Russia is a leading producer and exporter of minerals, gold, and all major fuels. Natural resources, especially energy, dominate Russian exports. Ninety percent of Russian exports to the United States are minerals or other raw materials. <br />
<br />
====Industry====<br />
[[Image:Tower Russia.JPG|right|180px]]<br />
Russia is one of the most industrialized of the former Soviet republics. However, years of very low investment have left much of Russian industry antiquated and highly inefficient. Besides its resource-based industries, it has developed large manufacturing capacities, notably in metals, food products, and transport equipment. Russia is now the world's third-largest exporter of steel and primary aluminum. Russia inherited most of the defense industrial base of the Soviet Union, so armaments remain an important export category for Russia. Efforts have been made with varying success over the past few years to convert defense industries to civilian use, and the Russian Government is engaged in an ongoing process to privatize the remaining 9,222 state-owned enterprises, 33% of which are in the industrial manufacturing sector.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
====Agriculture====<br />
For its great size, Russia has relatively little area suited for agriculture because of its arid climate and inconsistent rainfall. Northern areas concentrate mainly on livestock, and the southern parts and western Siberia produce grain. Restructuring of former state farms has been an extremely slow process. Foreigners are not allowed to own farmland in Russia although long-term leases are permitted. Private farms and garden plots of individuals account for over one-half of all agricultural production. <br />
<br />
====Investment/Banking====<br />
[[File:Russian Federation Central Bank.jpg|left|thumb|330px|Russian Federation Central Bank.]]<br />
Russia attracted an estimated $31 billion in FDI in 2006 (3.2% of GDP), up from $13 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2005.Russia's annual FDI figures are now in line with those of China, India, and Brazil. However, Russia's per capita cumulative FDI still lags far behind such countries as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. The paradox is that Russia's challenging business climate, lack of transparency, and weak rule of law/corruption{{fact}} has taken a back seat to Russia's extraordinary macroeconomic fundamentals and the consumer and retail boom, which is providing double digit returns to investors and attracting new flows. Russian domestic investment is also returning home, as the foreign investment coming into Russia from havens like Cyprus and Gibraltar, is actually returning Russian capital . As of the end of 2006, loans to the financial sector were 57.2% of total banking sector assets. Retail loans amounted to $78.4 billion at the end of 2006, up from $41 billion at the end of 2005. Retail deposits increased to $144.1 billion from $95.7 billion over the same period. Also, currently deposits are fully insured up to $4,000 and an additional $12,000 is insured at 90%. <br />
<br />
Although still small by international standards, the Russian banking sector is growing fast and is becoming a larger source of investment funds. To meet a growing demand for loans, which they were unable to cover with domestic deposits, Russian banks borrowed heavily abroad in 2006, accounting for two-thirds of the private-sector capital inflows in that year. Ruble lending has increased since the October 1998 financial crisis, and in 2006 loans were 63% of total bank assets, with consumer loans posting the fastest growth at 74% that same year. Fewer Russians prefer to keep their money outside the banking sector, the recent appreciation of the ruble against the dollar has persuaded many Russians to keep their money in rubles or other currencies such as the euro, and retail deposits grew by 65% in 2006. Despite recent growth, the poorly developed banking system, along with contradictory regulations across banking, bond, and equity markets, still makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to raise capital as well as to permit capital transfer from a capital-rich sector such as energy to capital-poor sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing and to diversify risk. Banks still perceive small and medium commercial lending as risky, and some banks are inexperienced with assessing credit risk, though the situation is improving. In 2003, Russia enacted a deposit insurance law to protect deposits up to 100,000 rubles (about $3,700) per depositor, and a bill is currently in the Duma, which if passed will increase this coverage to 190,000 rubles (about $7,000) per depositor.<br />
<br />
====Trade====<br />
[[File:Moscow International Business Centre 2008.jpg|thumb|400px|Moscow International Business Centre, 2008.]]<br />
The U.S. exported $4.7 billion in goods to Russia in 2006, a 21% increase from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from Russia were $19.8 billion, up 29%. Russia is currently the 33rd-largest export market for U.S. goods. Russian exports to the U.S. were fuel oil, inorganic chemicals, aluminum, and precious stones. U.S. exports to Russia were machinery, meat (mostly poultry), electrical equipment, and high-tech products. <br />
<br />
Russia's overall trade surplus in 2006 was $139 billion, up from $118 billion in 2005. World prices continue to have a major effect on export performance, since commodities—particularly oil, natural gas, metals, and timber—comprise 80% of Russian exports. Russian GDP growth and the surplus/deficit in the Russian Federation state budget are closely linked to world oil prices. <br />
<br />
Russia is in the process of negotiating terms of accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. and Russia concluded a bilateral WTO accession agreement in late 2006, and negotiations continue in 2007 on meeting WTO requirements for accession. Russia reports that it has yet to conclude bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia and Georgia. <br />
<br />
According to the 2005 U.S. Trade Representative's National Trade Estimate, Russia continues to maintain a number of barriers with respect to imports, including tariffs and tariff-rate quotas; discriminatory and prohibitive charges and fees; and discriminatory licensing, registration, and certification regimes. Discussions continue within the context of Russia's WTO accession to eliminate these measures or modify them to be consistent with internationally accepted trade policy practices. Non-tariff barriers are frequently used to restrict foreign access to the market and are also a significant topic in Russia's WTO negotiations. In addition, large losses to U.S. audiovisual and other companies in Russia owing to poor enforcement of intellectual property rights in Russia is an ongoing irritant in U.S.-Russia trade relations. Russia continues to work to bring its technical regulations, including those related to product and food safety, into conformity with international standards.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
{{See also|History of Russia}}<br />
At the onset of [[Operation Barbarossa]], Russia was caught flatfooted in military preparedness and defense spending. In the four years during [[World War II]] the Russian economy became geared up and fully focused on arms manufacture. When the war ended, Russian conventional arms manufacturing never ceased and became one among several precipitating causes of the [[Cold War]]. Defense conversion to a peacetime, consumer driven, manufacturing economy never occurred. The situation was compounded by a costly [[nuclear arms race]] which made conventional arms spending redundant and wasteful. The communist system imposed a rigid cost-burden on ordinary people's lives to support the Soviet [[military industrial complex]] at the expense of luxury consumer goods, such as [[automobile]]s, [[television]] sets, and household appliances, that the [[Western]] capitalist system enjoyed.<br />
<br />
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union the Russian Federation has tried to improve the living standards of ordinary citizens and consumers by reducing costly defense expenditures and promote the manufacture of household consumer goods. However Russia has been forced to maintain its status as a nuclear [[superpower]] through a series of agreements with the United States, beginning in the period of ''[[Detente]]'' of the 1970s, to never allow [[China]] to catch-up in the sphere of [[nuclear weapon]]s development and manufacture. To live up to these commitments requires a constant process of modernization and adaptation to [[technology|technological]] improvements, which the Russian people can scarcely afford, but were forced into in the modern [[tri-polar]] world which has maintained the peace and avoided the use of nuclear weapons since 1945.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Big government]] [[liberal]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[socialist]] [[Nanny state]], leads to [[communist]] [[Police state]]<br />
* [[Liberal totalitarianism]]<br />
[[File:Repin Self Portrait 1878.jpg|thumb|[[Ilya Repin]], Self Portrait, 1878.]]<br />
* [[Nuclear target structures]]<br />
* [[Russian painting]]<br />
* [[Gallery of Russian painting]]<br />
* [[Soviet Union]]<br />
* [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] 1983 shootdown incident that intensified "2nd Cold War"<br />
* [[KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts]] with Russian Federation 1992 Soviet military communications handover to U.N.<br />
* [[KAL 007: the Russian Federation support for a water landing]]<br />
* [[Larry McDonald]] only U.S. congressman killed by the Russians during Cold War<br />
* [[Pussy Riot]]<br />
* [[Conservative Party of Russia]]<br />
* [[Agrarian Party of Russia]]<br />
* [[Fair Russia]]<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
===Guidebooks===<br />
* ''Frommer's Moscow & St. Petersburg'' by Angela Charlton (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Moscow-St-Petersburg-Complete/dp/0470194030/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search] <br />
* ''Eyewitness: Russia'' by Kathleen Berton Murrell, (2000) [https://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-Russia-Kathleen-Berton-Murrell/dp/0789458802/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br />
* ''Russia & Belarus'' (Lonely Planet Travel Guides) by Mark Elliott (2006) [https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Belarus-Lonely-Planet-Travel/dp/1741042917/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239324359&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]<br />
===Surveys===<br />
* Goldman, Marshall I. ''Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia'' (2008), by a leading scholar [https://www.amazon.com/Petrostate-Putin-Power-New-Russia/dp/0195340736/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-5 extract and text search]<br />
* Politkovskaya, Anna. ''Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Putins-Russia-Life-Failing-Democracy/dp/0805082506/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-9 extract and text search]<br />
* Service, Robert. ''A History of Modern Russia: From Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin'' (2005)<br />
* Lucas, Edward. ''The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/New-Cold-War-Putins-Russia/dp/0230606121/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239323968&sr=1-12 extract and text search]<br />
<br />
====References====<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html The World Fact Book]<br />
*[http://russiatrek.org Russian cities and regions guide]<br />
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Then, from Egypt to Israel: Now, from Russia and the U.S.]<br />
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ An Open Secret: the gulags of the Russian Federation]<br />
<br />
[[Category:European Countries]]<br />
[[Category:Asian Countries]]<br />
[[Category:Russia]]<br />
[[Category:Russian History]]<br />
[[Category:Soviet Union]]<br />
[[Category:Former Soviet Countries]]<br />
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]<br />
[[Category:Nuclear Defense]]<br />
[[Category:Arctic Circle]]<br />
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=1622323Richard Dawkins2020-02-12T07:27:19Z<p>Marrybore: /* Interview with Wendy Wright */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com">[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">[https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/ Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’], by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, ''Breitbart News Network'', Jan 12, 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]<br />
'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal Society|FRS]], FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a British author, [[biologist]], [[evolution]]ist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]] (See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).<ref><br />
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]<br />
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> <br />
<br />
He is often referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" and was one of the principle founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement (See also: [[Celebrity atheists]]).<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist], ''The Telegraph''</ref> But when interviewed, he claimed that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Bingham, John |title= Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date= February 24, 2012 |accessdate= February 24, 2012}}</ref> In recent years, Dawkins' popularity has waned (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).<br />
<br />
Despite being an elderly, self-declared agnostic, in his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', Dawkins said that "permanent in agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice" (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 70</ref> <br />
<br />
Although Dawkins declared that he was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of [[militant atheism]] and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: [[Ex-atheists]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref><ref><br />
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he never said was an atheist.<ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic], ''Daily Mail'', 24 February 2012</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist]</ref><ref>[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]] <br />
<br />
Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates [[evangelical atheism]] and is widely considered to be an [[atheist activist]]. Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/> <br />
<br />
Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|promoted evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. <br />
<br />
He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious [[Irreligion and superstition|are more likely]] to be superstitious than [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> <br />
<br />
As noted above, Dawkins is one of the primary founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement, which is a form of dogmatic, [[militant atheism]] in terms of its [[rhetoric]] (see: [[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]). Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.<ref>[http://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/print/ Faithless: The politics of new atheism] by Steven Kettell</ref> In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly fallen (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).<br />
<br />
In terms of the [[theism]] vs. agnosticism and [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[philosophy]] and [[theology]]. For example, philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''[[The God Delusion]]'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref> <br />
The philosopher [[Antony Flew]], who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting [[deism]], said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.<ref>[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360 Ten years on from that book of atheistic faith, the God Delusion] by Mike Taggart</ref><br />
<br />
As far as the origin of the [[universe]], Dawkins wrote: “The fact that [[origin of life|life evolved]] out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=4TDTnoBLdQMC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+fact+that+life+evolved+out+of+nearly+nothing,+some+10+billion+years+after+the+universe+evolved+literally+out+of+nothing,+is+a+fact+so+staggering+that+I+would+be+mad+to+attempt+words+to+do+it+justice.%22&source=bl&ots=g1m0iQzew4&sig=CT1XkXd8yfbNUCIDKeDH_x_UbO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7vImP8ZjNAhUGPCYKHSAdDXcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20fact%20that%20life%20evolved%20out%20of%20nearly%20nothing%2C%20some%2010%20billion%20years%20after%20the%20universe%20evolved%20literally%20out%20of%20nothing%2C%20is%20a%20fact%20so%20staggering%20that%20I%20would%20be%20mad%20to%20attempt%20words%20to%20do%20it%20justice.%22&f=false Richard Dawkins quote about the origin of the universe], ''God, Science, and Reason: Finding the Light of God Amidst the Darkness of Atheism and Dogmatism'' By Michael Bunner, page 141</ref> See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]<br />
<br />
Dawkins is a [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|vocal opponent of Islam]]. Dawkins has said, "[[Islam]] is the greatest force for evil in the world today".<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165 Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'], BBC,<br />
2017</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.html Radio station cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over Islam tweets], The Independent, 2017</ref> Despite his opposition to religion/[[Christianity]], Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com"/><ref name="breitbart.com"/> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Christianity]]<br />
<br />
== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins photo.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|After previously apologizing to [[feminism|feminists]] and others for the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal, Dawkins retracted his apology and said, "I don’t take back anything that I’ve said. I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will... I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well.“<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter post about Dawkins' apology]</ref><ref name="Who is belittling what">[https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ Who is belittling what?] by Richard Dawkins</ref>]] <br />
Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref><br />
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref name="bbc.co.uk">https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> See also: [[British atheism]] and [[UK and secularism]]<br />
<br />
The atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote of Dawkins' time spent in [[Kenya]] while reviewing ''An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist'', the first of a two-part autobiography: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the [[Africa]]n countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]<br />
<br />
Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. <br />
<br />
Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.<br />
<br />
In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married [[Eve Barham]]. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.<ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dawkins-evolves-into-single-man-after-amicable-split-with-time-lady-sp9llk2nt Dawkins evolves into single man after ‘amicable’ split with Time Lady], ''The Sunday Times''</ref><br />
<br />
[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in the his book ''The Irrational Atheist'' about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about [[Hell]] is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. <br />
<br />
In his letter to [[Juliet Emma Dawkins|his daughter Juliet]], addressed to her at the age of ten and published in ''A Devil’s Chaplain'', there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist. Chapter VIII DARWIN’S JUDAS] by Vox Day</ref>}}<br />
<br />
See also: [[Juliet Emma Dawkins]] and [[Richard Dawkins and love]]<br />
<br />
The ''Christian Times'' reported:<br />
{{Cquote|The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships.<br />
<br />
In [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/11/29/banishing-the-greeneyed-monste/3484 his article piece] "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish."<br />
<br />
He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.<ref>[http://christiantimes.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-divorces-third-wife-actress-lalla-ward/59223.htm Richard Dawkins to divorce third wife: Prominent atheist to split from actress Lalla Ward], ''Christian Times''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[secular left]]ists as a result (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).<br />
<br />
According to ''The Richest'', "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the ''Sunday Times'' in 2012."<ref>[http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/ Richard Dawkins Net Worth]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' net worth]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and women ==<br />
[[File:Women.jpg|thumb|200px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism is significantly less appealing to women]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net">[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net]</ref>]]<br />
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins and women]], [[Elevatorgate]], [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]], [[New Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]<br />
<br />
=== Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men ===<br />
<br />
Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism [[Atheism and women|is significantly less appealing to women]]. <br />
<br />
According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net"/><ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/05/according-to-alexa-what-percentage-of.html According to Alexa, what percentage of Richard Dawkins' website visitors are women?], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and [[feminism|feminists]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]]).<br />
<br />
=== Elevatorgate controversy ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Elevatorgate]], [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Richard Dawkins and social media]]<br />
<br />
In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Elevatorgate]]).<ref><br />
*[https://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]<br />
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]<br />
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]<br />
*[https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]<br />
*[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst, ''The Guardian'', June 9, 2015<br />
</ref> <br />
<br />
Prior to Elevatorgate, [[Monica Shores]]' ''Ms. Magazine'' article titled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' criticized the News Atheism movement for being [[sexism|sexist]].<ref name="msmagazine.com">[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, ''Ms. Magazine'', 2010</ref> She also cited [[Conservapedia]] in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Dawkins’ website]] overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref name="msmagazine.com"/> <br />
<br />
For more information, please see:<br />
<br />
*[[Elevatorgate news stories]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheist conferences]]<br />
<br />
*[[Research on atheist conferences]]<br />
<br />
==== Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology, says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial ====<br />
[[File:Rebecca watson portrait 2011.jpg|left|thumbnail|181px|The atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] and Richard Dawkins were central figures in the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal. ]]<br />
On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.<ref name="Who is belittling what"/><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter tweet about Richard Dawkins apologizing for his Elevate scandal]</ref><br />
<br />
However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that [[Rebecca Watson]]'s experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014</ref> <br />
<br />
Specifically, the ''Washington Post'' reported on November 18, 2014:<br />
{{cquote|“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will. “<br />
<br />
He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.<br />
<br />
“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”<br />
<br />
Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the [[atheist movement]], which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists...<br />
<br />
“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins ====<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins]] and [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]<br />
[[File:David Silverman.JPG|thumbnail|right|150px|[[David Silverman]] ]]<br />
An article by Sarah posted at [[Skepchick]] about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[David Silverman]] (a former president of the [[American Atheists]] organization), which took place during the planning phase of the [[Reason Rally]]:<br />
{{cquote|Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.<br />
<br />
I was crushed.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/ My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)] by Sarah at [[Skepchick]], September 5, 2013</ref>}}<br />
<br />
For more information, please see: [[Elevatorgate]]<br />
<br />
==== Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population ====<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the [[atheist movement]] and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger [[Jen McCreight]] posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"<ref>[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]</ref> In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."<ref>[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution</ref><br />
<br />
{{See also|Internet atheism}}<br />
<br />
=== Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' health]], [[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]], [[Richard Dawkins and medical science]] and [[Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness]]<br />
<br />
As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about [[feminism]]/[[Islam]], Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: [[Richard Dawkins and women#Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference|Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference]]).<ref name="richarddawkins.net">[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard Dawkins condition in his own words]</ref> Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at [[Freethought Blogs]]. She wrote an open letter to the [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2016/01/29/dawkins-goes-denialist-an-open-letter-to-the-cfi-board/ Dawkins Goes Denialist: An Open Letter to the CFI Board] by Stephanie Zvan at [[Freethought Blogs]]</ref><br />
<br />
Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.<ref name="richarddawkins.net"/> After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.<ref><br />
*[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard’s condition in his own words], Richarddawkins.net<br />
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], ''Christian Post'', February, 2016<br />
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service</ref> In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]]/liberals (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]). <br />
<br />
[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Hemant Mehta]] ]]<br />
Atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:<br />
{{cquote|It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/richard-dawkins-gives-update-on-his-health-in-audio-message/ Richard Dawkins Gives Update on His Health in Audio Message]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], Christian Post</ref><br />
<br />
Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.<ref><br />
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service<br />
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST<br />
*[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/richard_dawkins_delete_your_account_the_prominent_atheist_unleashes_new_islamophobic_assault_partner/ Richard Dawkins, delete your account: The prominent atheist implodes on Twitter (again)], Salon<br />
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6 15 Of Richard Dawkins' Most Controversial Tweets], ''Huffington Post''<br />
</ref> <br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins photograph.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Richard Dawkins said about [[vegetarianism]]/[[veganism]]: "[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position…".<ref name="salonvegan">[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_atheists_must_become_new_vegans_sam_harris_richard_dawkins_and_the_extra_burden_on_moral_leaders/ New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders], ''Salon'', 2016</ref> Dawkins is not a vegetarian.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref> See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]] ]]<br />
Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Richard Dawkins Twitter]</ref> ''The Independent'' reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word']</ref> However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/affinity/2016/05/26/dawkins-ive-given-up-twitter/ Dawkins: I’ve Given Up Twitter.]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Twitter]]<br />
<br />
Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.<ref>[http://www.charismanews.com/world/55133-debate-rages-over-praying-for-atheist-richard-dawkins-after-stroke Debate rages over praying for atheist Richard Dawkins after stroke]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-church-of-england-deny-trolling-biologist-by-sending-prayers-following-minor-stroke-a6871966.html Richard Dawkins: Church of England denies 'trolling' biologist by sending 'prayers' following minor stroke]</ref><br />
<br />
''The Guardian'' reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour Richard Dawkins stroke forces delay of Australia and New Zealand tour], ''The Guardian'', February 11, 2016</ref><br />
<br />
In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the [[Brexit]] vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/richard-dawkins-england-becoming-nasty-little-backwater-brexit/ Richard Dawkins: England becoming a 'nasty little backwater' after Brexit vote], ''The Telegraph'', March 2017</ref><ref>[https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians SHOCK RANT: Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's WAR on Christianity], ''Express'', December of 2016</ref><ref>[https://swarajyamag.com/insta/what-british-scientist-dawkins-thinks-of-islam What British Scientist Dawkins Thinks Of Islam], ''Swaraya'', June 7, 2017</ref><br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' health ===<br />
<br />
* [[Richard Dawkins' health]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' stroke ====<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his thoughts on veganism/vegetarianism ====<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]] and [[Dietary practices of atheists]]<br />
<br />
=== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and women]]<br />
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]<br />
In 2014, the prominent [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of [[feminism]] is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation.<br />
<br />
...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula blog, September 12, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus ===<br />
<br />
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...<br />
<br />
If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}<br />
=== Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref><br />
<br />
(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]])<br />
<br />
=== Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and Center for Inquiry translation project to reach more Muslims ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[The Translations Project]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]] and [[Center for Inquiry]]<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins Cooper Union.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]<br />
''The Guardian'' reported about Richard Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'':<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is responding to what he called the “stirring towards atheism” in some Islamic countries with a programme to make free downloads of his books available in [[Arabic]], [[Urdu]], [[Farsi]] and [[Indonesia]]n.<br />
<br />
The scientist and atheist said he was “greatly encouraged” to learn that the unofficial Arabic pdf of the book had been downloaded 13m times. Dawkins writes in ''The God Delusion'' about his wish that the “open-minded people” who read it will “break free of the vice of religion altogether”. It has sold 3.3m copies worldwide since it was published in 2006 – far fewer than the number of Arabic copies that Dawkins believes to have been downloaded illegally.<br />
<br />
The [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] recently merged with the Washington DC-based [[Center for Inquiry]]. Dawkins said the CFI decided on “a more systematic programme” of translating his work in ebook form following “stirrings toward atheism in [[Iran]] and other Islamic countries”. It will be the first time his work has been made available in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and other languages of Islamic countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/20/richard-dawkins-to-give-away-copies-of-the-god-delusion-in-islamic-countries Richard Dawkins to give away copies of The God Delusion in Islamic countries], The Guardian</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Center for Inquiry indicates on its website:<br />
{{Cquote|Announcing [[The Translations Project]], a program of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, part of the Center for Inquiry.<br />
<br />
The books of Richard Dawkins—including ''River Out of Eden'', ''The Magic of Reality'', ''The Blind Watchmaker'', and ''The God Delusion''—are being professionally translated into languages such as Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, and Indonesian and made available to download free of charge.<ref>[https://centerforinquiry.org/news/introducing-the-translations-project/ The Books of Richard Dawkins, Professionally Translated for Free Access in the Muslim World], Center for Inquiry website</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations ==<br />
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]], [[New Atheism and Islamophobia]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]] <br />
<br />
The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] Richard Dawkins, [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] behavior.<ref><br />
*[https://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013<br />
*[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word'], ''Independent'', 24 September 2015</ref> <br />
<br />
On December 28, 2015, the ''Daily Express'' reported about Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet [[Muhammad]] flew to heaven on a winged horse.<br />
<br />
Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.<ref>['Pathetic': Richard Dawkins in extraordinary outburst against Islam] by Jason Taylor, ''Daily Express'', December 28, 2015</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Ryan Kerney wrote at ''New Republic'' concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126632/richard-dawkins-just-rude-person-twitter-apparently Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently], ''New Republic'', 2015</ref><br />
<br />
On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of [[Islam]]/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and racial minorities ==<br />
<br />
=== Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger ===<br />
[[File:Skivu Hutchinson speaking at Center For Inquiry.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sikivu Hutchinson]] speaking ath the [[Center for Inquiry]]. ]]<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Atheist [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The recent merger of the secular organization [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins Foundation]] (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims] New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/corporate_governance all-white board] looks right at home with RDF's [https://richarddawkins.net/boardandstaff/ lily white board] and staff.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sikivu-hutchinson/atheismsowhite-atheists-o_b_9078736.html #AtheismSoWhite: Atheists of Color Rock Social Justice] by Sikivu Hutchinson</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by [[Paul Kurtz]] and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:<br />
{{cquote|The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_ii Humanist Manifesto II]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism” ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins 2015.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins ]]<br />
''LifeSite News'' declares:<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous [[atheist activist|atheism proselytizer]], has mused about eating human meat.<br />
<br />
No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured.<br />
<br />
What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for [[Consequentialism|consequentialist morality]] versus “yuck reaction” [[Objective morality|absolutism]].<ref>[https://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/richard-dawkins-wants-to-eat-human-meat-to-overcome-our-taboo-against-cannibalism/ Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human “Meat” to “Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism”], ''LifeSite News'', 2018</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]], [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]] and [[Atheism and inspiration]]<br />
<br />
According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Evangelical atheism]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an [[Evangelical atheism|evangelical atheist]].<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins] by John Gray, ''New Republic''</ref><ref>[https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/10/evangelical-atheism Evangelical Atheism] by Peter J. Leithart, First Things</ref><ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/evangelical-atheists-what_b_765379.html ‘Evangelical Atheists:’ Pushing For What?] by Chris Stedman, Huffington Post</ref><br />
<br />
Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] of [[communism]] have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of [[Atheist worldview|atheist ideology]] (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion…and their parents], LifeSite News</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]<br />
<br />
The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com">[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref> He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com"/> For more information please see: [[Atheism and mockery]] and [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and pornography]]<br />
<br />
On January 1, 2015, ''The Telegraph'' reported:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that [[Islam]]ists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the [[Iran]]ian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.<br />
<br />
After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it] By Tim Stanley, ''The Telegraph'', January 1, 2015</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{See also|Atheism and pornography}}<br />
<br />
== Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Atheism and public relations]]<br />
<br />
Although the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] Richard Dawkins was always known for [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|his abrasiveness]] and [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogance]], post [[Elevatorgate]] and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the [[atheist movement]].<ref><br />
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] by Kimberly Winston, ''Washington Post'', source: ''Religion News Service'', August 7, 2014<br />
*[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray<br />
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]<br />
*[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41<br />
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref> <br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' cult of personality ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]], [[Atheist cults]], [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|175px|[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cult-of-dicky-dawk.html The Cult of Dicky Dawkins]</ref> ]] <br />
On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled ''The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins'' which declared:<br />
{{cquote|...the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Richard Dawkins website]] offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like [[Dante]]’s [[Hell]], is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...<br />
<br />
But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’<br />
<br />
The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.<br />
<br />
At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here [[Atheist cults|is a religion]] without the good bits.<ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins], The Spectator, Andrew Brown 16 August 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins"/><br />
Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The [[New Atheism]] movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the [[agnosticism|agnostic]], journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the ''New Statesman'' in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins ''The God wars'' by Bryan Appleyard], ''New Statesman''</ref> Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.<ref>[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-cultish-is-new-atheism/ How cultish is the New Atheism?]</ref><br />
<br />
See also: [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation]] and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]]<br />
<br />
==Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]], [[Richard Dawkins and anger]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]). <br />
<br />
Atheist author and [[sociology]] professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."<ref>[http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/58271839-80/dawkins-atheism-atheist-rape.html.csp Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] By KIMBERLY WINSTON, ''Religion News Service''</ref> See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:<br />
[[Image:Mohler.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]] Jr.]]<br />
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).}} <br />
<br />
Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]], Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:<br />
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good. <br />
<br />
The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....<br />
<br />
Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. (September 9, 2005). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-s-rottweiler-richard-dawkins-speaks-his-mind-6434/ "Darwin's rottweiler--Richard Dawkins speaks his mind"]. The Christian Post website. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).<br />
<br />
In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me', ''The Independent'' by reporter Andy McSmith, Thursday 16 September 2010]</ref><br />
<br />
Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).<br />
<br />
=== The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and humor]]<br />
<br />
The movie ''[[The Atheist Delusion]]'' features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD]</ref> Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016"/><br />
<br />
== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
''See:'' [[Atheism is a religion]], [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]]<br />
<br />
Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref> <br />
<br />
Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[https://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]<br />
<br />
=== Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
[[File:John Gray.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[economist]] Tomáš Sedláček (left) and the [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] (right) at ZURICH.MINDS 2012]] <br />
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Abortion and atheism]] and [[Atheism in medicine]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]<br />
<br />
In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down’s syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]<br />
<br />
A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref><br />
<br />
== Martin Robbins at ''New Statesman'': Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance ==<br />
<br />
In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the ''New Statesman'' concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind]</ref> <br />
<br />
Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal], By Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref><br />
== Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Internet atheism]] <br />
<br />
As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-[[Elevatorgate]]. See also: [[Internet atheism]]<br />
<br />
Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive manner]], he does retain a small cult following (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]]). <br />
<br />
Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins: Google Trends data for searches on "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020 ===<br />
<br />
[[File:1200px-Richard dawkins google trends 9-22-2019 (1).png|thumbnail|center|800px|According to Google Trends, there has been a marked drop for Google searches for the term "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
=== Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate ===<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins web traffic 12-23-12.png|thumbnail|center|775px|According to the web traffic tracking company [[Quantcast]], the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website fell in 2012.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/2012-has-been-bad-year-for-richard.html 2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast]</ref> By October 2014, the web traffic for his website fell to a lower level according to Quantcast.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2014/10/richard-dawkins-loss-of-influence.html Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]</ref><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
In October of 2012, [[Rebecca Watson]] published a story about Elevatorgate and its aftermath in ''Slate'' entitled, ''It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats''.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats] by Rebecca Watson, ''Slate'', October 2012</ref><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The web traffic was measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measured Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure">[https://www.quantcast.com/measure/ Quantcast - Quantcast Measure]</ref>]]<br />
<br />
=== Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop ===<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins' website traffic.jpg|500px|thumbnail|center|The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/06/web-traffic-of-richard-dawkins-main.html Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' main website]</ref> As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The website traffic is measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure"/>]]<br />
<br />
=== Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to [[Alexa]], Richard Dawkins website lost a large amount of its global market share during to period between 2010 and the beginning portion of 2012.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2015, Richard Dawkins' website fell in terms of its Alexa ranking.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa 10-2106.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2016, Richard Dawkins' website lost a considerable amount of global market share according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins website alexa April 2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In April of 2017, according to Alexa, Richard Dawkins' website continued to experience a steep decline in terms of its global market share.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 10-27-2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 27, 2017, Richard Dawkins' website was the 158,206th most popular website in the world according to Alexa. <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
His website was losing global market share in the latter quarter of 2017 according to Alexa.]]<br />
{{clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa ranking 2018.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 9, 2018, Richard Dawkins' website was the 190,708th most popular website in the world according to Alexa.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Compared to 2017, Richard Dawkins' website lost global market share according to Alexa.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour ===<br />
<br />
In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled ''Fading Dawkins'':<br />
{{Cquote|Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with [[Sam Harris]].<br />
<br />
In the golden years of [[New Atheism|Gnu]], there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say.<br />
<br />
Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair|Madalyn Murray O’Hair]] crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-fading-dawkins/ ''Fading Dawkins'']</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|right|250px|Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]<br />
<br />
''The Independent'' reported: <br />
{{Cquote|British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.<br />
<br />
Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.<br />
<br />
As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.<br />
<br />
Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.<ref>[British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins] by Andrew Griffin, The Independent, 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]<br />
<br />
Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><br />
<br />
The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:<br />
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here]).<br />
<br />
Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}<br />
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com"/>]]<br />
<br />
In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution]]ary quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and health]]).<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref><br />
<br />
As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]]. <br />
<br />
Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref name="cbsnews.com">https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref><br />
<br />
== Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]], [[Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has a history of flip-flopping when it comes to being an atheist or agnostic (see: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]). <br />
<br />
The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk"/> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[https://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy ===<br />
[[File:Fairy-md.png|thumbnail|200px|left|On July 18, 2012, a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] showed the folly of Richard Dawkins' comparison of fairies at the bottom of the garden to the issue of God's existence. According to Dawkins' faulty and irrational analogy, there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>]]<br />
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7."<br />
<br />
In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic.<br />
<br />
A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists.<br />
<br />
Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden? <br />
<br />
Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement. <br />
<br />
Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior.<br />
<br />
It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the<br />
[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping ===<br />
<br />
On June 5, 2012, the ''Christian'' Post reported:<br />
{{cquote|Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.<br />
<br />
"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-next-book-to-focus-on-personal-path-toward-atheism-76099/ Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Focus on Personal Path Toward Atheism]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'':<br />
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|right|200px|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]<br />
{{cquote|The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the ''Christian Post'' such as ''Publishers Weekly'', ''The Blaze,'' ''Christianity Today'' and ''Galleycat'' (''Galleycat'' is on the Media Bistro domain).<br />
<br />
First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being [http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html a militant atheist] to being [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html an agnostic].<br />
<br />
Vox Day [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html wrote] about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism...<br />
<br />
Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.<br />
<br />
An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article ''Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?''<br />
<br />
Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Title of the book ''The God Delusion'' displayed odd and inconsistent behavior ====<br />
<br />
A July 25, 2012 article entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper'' declared:<br />
{{cquote|Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his ''The God Delusion''. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled ''The God Delusion'' was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.<br />
<br />
Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|200px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref name="creation.com">https://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref name="creation.com"/> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]], [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]<br />
<br />
In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins <ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref><br />
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ being stumped] by a question from the creationist interviewer.<br />
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.<br />
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. <br />
<br />
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref><br />
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com"/> The [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo video] can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!'' <br />
<br />
As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>https://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>https://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation science|creationist scientists]] tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).<br />
<br />
==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]], [[Richard Dawkins and morality]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] <br />
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|206px|right|The [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism|and agnostic]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler /> ]]<br />
As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name="Hitler"/><br />
<br />
The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler /><br />
<br />
For additional information, please see:<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]<br />
<br />
== Accusations of cowardice ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and debate]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]<br />
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]<br />
<br />
As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]). <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has established a reputation [[Richard Dawkins and debate|for avoiding debates]] with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as [[cowardice]] on your part."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of [[cowardice]] for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> <br />
<br />
In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place ==<br />
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
<br />
As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]]. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref> <br />
<br />
Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:<br />
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:<br />
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.<br />
<br />
"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Shmuley Boteach]] ]]<br />
Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:<br />
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<br />
<br />
A supporter of the [[Question evolution campaign]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/richard-dawkins-and-rabbi-shmuley.html Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate ]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and radio appearances ==<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ===<br />
[[File:Giles Frasier.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Giles Frasier]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:<br />
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:<br />
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}} <br />
<br />
[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.<br />
<br />
It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])<br />
=== Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity]] and [[Atheism and love]]<br />
<br />
Scott Simon of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into [[Atheist movement|organized atheists]] who do this. <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...<br />
<br />
Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/530337283/richard-dawkins-on-terrorism-and-religion Richard Dawkins On Terrorism And Religion]</ref><br />
<br />
== New Atheism ==<br />
[[File:Christopher Hitchens.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]<br />
<br />
The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.<br />
<br />
The New Atheism movement was a reaction the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on Manhattan and also due to [[Antitheism|antitheist]] anger over the failure of the [[secularization thesis]] (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the [[Desecularization|resurgence of religion]] in much of the world).<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/reflections-on-the-new-atheism/ Reflections on the New Atheism] by Alister McGrath</ref> <br />
<br />
For more information, please see: [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]<br />
<br />
=== Impact of the New Atheism ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]<br />
<br />
New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":<br />
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.<br />
<br />
For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.<br />
<br />
Not too long ago, I wrote that [[American atheism]] was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Sam Harris 01.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]<br />
YouTube atheist [[Thunderfoot]] said about the atheist movement after [[Reason Rally 2016]] had a very low turnout:<br />
{{Cquote|I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. [[Sam Harris|Harris]] went his own way. And [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]] just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?<ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2016/06/even-atheists-bash-reason-rally/ Even atheists bash 'Reason Rally']</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:<br />
{{cquote|The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ''The God Delusion'' is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published ''The End of Faith''.<br />
<br />
Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact. <br />
<br />
They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html arguments] for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for [http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine] and [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling ethnic profiling] at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of [https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ sexism], [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ racism], and general arrogance and intolerance.<ref>[http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/#sthash.6ZTcoHLw.dpuf The legacy of the New Atheism] by Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The [[liberal]] leaning British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' said regarding the New Atheism:<br />
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...<br />
<br />
These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2010, it was reported that ''The God Delusion'' sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in [[North America]]. Contrastly, in 2010, the [[Evangelical Christians|evangelical Christian]] [[Rick Warren]] sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book ''The Purpose Driven Life''.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/ How Many Copies of The God Delusion Have Been Sold?]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Decline of the New Atheism movement ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#The rise and decline of New Atheism and the role of the media|Decline of New Atheism and the media]] <br />
<br />
On November 6, 2015, the ''New Republic'' published an article entitled, ''Is the New Atheism dead?''<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/123349/new-atheism-dead ''Is the New Atheism dead?] by Elizabeth Bruenig, New Republic, November 6, 2015</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:<br />
{{cquote|...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, [[Political correctness|politically correct]], and even apologetic.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/12/uproar-against-dawkins-is-sign-of-new-atheism-retrogression/ Uproar Against Dawkins Is Sign of New Atheism Retrogression] by Joshua Kelly</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism ====<br />
<br />
Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled ''Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?'' supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?]</ref><br />
<br />
==== Poor leadership skills ====<br />
<br />
Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities. <br />
<br />
See: <br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/richard-dawkins-insightful-secular.html Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?]<br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]<br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]<br />
<br />
== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==<br />
[[File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]], [[Atheism and child pornography]] and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] <br />
<br />
The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism... <br />
<br />
In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<br />
<br />
Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:<br />
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.<br />
<br />
What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!<br />
<br />
Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.<br />
<br />
For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia ===<br />
<br />
*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again] , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell ===<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins and Hell#Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell|Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]], [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]] and [[Internet atheism]]<br />
<br />
In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]] so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]<br />
<br />
It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.<ref>''Handbook for New Converts'' By William J. (Bill) Morgan ThD, page 77</ref><ref>[http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/the-etiquette-of-profanity/ The Etiquette of Profanity] by Alan Weiss, Posted on October 31, 2010</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes [[homosexuality]], but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined]] homosexuality would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, liberals are [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to believe in evolution.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have [[Views on Homosexuality|more favorable]] opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality. <br />
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]<br />
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref name="answersingenesis.org">http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3–6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>https://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref name="answersingenesis.org"/><br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.<br />
<br />
==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]], [[Atheism and depression]], [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and health]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg |thumb|left|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]] <br />
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can [[Atheism and suicide|be a causal factor]] for suicide for some individuals.<ref name="adherents.com">http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref name="adherents.com"/><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref> <br />
<br />
Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."<br />
<br />
Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref><br />
<br />
Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]<br />
<br />
== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==<br />
<br />
In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.<br />
<br />
=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
{{See also|Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins}}<br />
<br />
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).<br />
<br />
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:<br />
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"<br />
<br />
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."<br />
<br />
<br />
Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:<br />
<br />
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!<br />
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|201px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]<br />
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:<br />
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> <br />
<br />
Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]&mdash;the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings. <br />
<br />
On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]], [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]<br />
<br />
[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in [[historical revisionism]] when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO] <br />
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|left|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]<br />
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.<br />
<br />
It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...}} <br />
<br />
Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:<br />
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}<br />
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]<br />
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref> <br />
<br />
[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref><br />
<br />
== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Historicity of Jesus]]<br />
<br />
[[John Lennox]] pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that [[Jesus Christ]] may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref><br />
<br />
== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] <br />
<br />
Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref name="uncommondescent.com">http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> <br />
<br />
[[File:Dr. William Lane Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]<br />
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:<br />
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:<br />
<br />
The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William<br />
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his<br />
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"<br />
<br />
Bill<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org">http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org"/><br />
<br />
As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:<br />
{{Cquote|Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of [[Daniel Dennett|Dan Dennett]] and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.<ref>[https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/richard-dawkins/ Richard Dawkins] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|left|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]<br />
Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com">http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>https://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com"/> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza: <br />
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==<br />
<br />
For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]<br />
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/><br />
<br />
In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]). <br />
<br />
The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/><br />
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|[[PZ Myers]]]] <br />
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at Creation Ministries International:<br />
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).<br />
<br />
Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.<br />
<br />
The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}<br />
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].<br />
<br />
There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<br />
<br />
==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==<br />
<br />
* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref><br />
[[Image:Winston.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]<br />
As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When atheists attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.<br />
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists. <br />
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]<br />
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<br />
<br />
[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.}}<br />
<br />
Atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<br />
<br />
Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<br />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate ==<br />
<br />
For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]<br />
<br />
The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}<br />
<br />
The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:<br />
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."}}<br />
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]<br />
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:<br />
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:<br />
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]<br />
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><br />
In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<br />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref><br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===<br />
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref name="cr"/><br />
<br />
=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===<br />
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/><br />
<br />
==Brights Movement==<br />
<br />
The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> Atheist [[author]] and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref><br />
<br />
== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==<br />
<br />
Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref><br />
<br />
Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==<br />
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]<br />
[[United States|American]] [[philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref><br />
== Richard Dawkins on veganism ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins 35th American Atheists Convention.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Richard Dawkins has high blood pressure (See: [[Richard Dawkins' health]]). <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
People who follow a [[vegetarian]] diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine.<ref>[Vegetarian diet linked to lower blood pressure], Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School, 2014</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Dawkins is not a vegetarian.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref> See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]]<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Richard Dawkins said about vegetarianism/[[veganism]]: "[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position…".<ref name="salonvegan">[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_atheists_must_become_new_vegans_sam_harris_richard_dawkins_and_the_extra_burden_on_moral_leaders/ New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders], ''Salon'', 2016</ref>]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and veganism]] and [[New Atheism and veganism]] and [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]]<br />
<br />
At the present time, the new atheist [[Sam Harris]] is the only notable new atheist who has become a [[vegetarian]].<ref name="salonvegan"/> Harris said he "aspires" to be a [[vegan]].<ref name="salonvegan"/><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins stated about vegetarianism/veganism:<br />
{{Cquote|[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position… I think you have a very strong point when you say that anybody who eats meat has a very strong obligation to think seriously about it and I don’t find any good defense. I find myself in exactly the same position as you or I would have been, well probably you wouldn’t have been but I might have been, two hundred years ago […] talking about slavery… I think what I’d really like to see is people like you having a far greater effect on, I would call it, consciousness raising and trying to swing it around so it becomes the societal norm not to eat meat.<ref name="salonvegan"/>}}<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is a meat eater.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref><br />
<br />
Steven Stankevicus, the author of the aforementioned ''Salon'' article ''New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders'', wrote in response: "'People like you'? How about people like Richard Dawkins?".<ref name="salonvegan"/><br />
<br />
See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Atheism and forced labor]]<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism and veganism#Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet|Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet]]<br />
<br />
According to [[Harvard]] Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School:<br />
{{Cquote|People who follow a vegetarian diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Vegetarians avoid meat and eat mainly plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes (beans and peas). Some include dairy products and eggs (and in this study, fish) in their diets.<ref>[Vegetarian diet linked to lower blood pressure], Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Dawkins has high blood pressure (see: [[New Atheism and veganism#Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet|Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet]] and [[Richard Dawkins' health]]).<br />
<br />
=== New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet ===<br />
<br />
See: [[New Atheism and veganism#New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet|New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet]]<br />
<br />
=== Interview with Wendy Wright ===<br />
Richard Dawkins debated and was interviewed by Wendy Wright, a member of the society, “Concerned Women for America”. A transcript follows: <br />
<br />
Dawkins: You said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution, and I told you about five fossils, and–<br />
<br />
Wright (reasonably): And I say if those were valid, there would be tons of evidence–<br />
<br />
Dawkins: There is.<br />
<br />
Wright (even more reasonably): –because there are so many different species, that there ought to be tons of evidence, even, let’s say, for one per-cent of the, eh, macro-evolution that’s taken place, there should be evidence, but–<br />
<br />
Dawkins (doesn’t know what to say): ...There is.<br />
<br />
Wright: –there’s not even one percent, let alone ten or fifty or seventy percent.<br />
<br />
Dawkins (floundering): There is a massive amount of evidence. You just need to go into the books and go into the museums, and look at it. It’s there. You are believing people who are telling you there’s only, er, whatever, percent.<br />
<br />
Wright (morally upright): And again, I go back to… It’s…it’s very demeaning, to say, that we only believe what we believe because we’ve been told that, and yet, we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of society what is fact and what’s not fact, and to censor out information that is inconvenient. <br />
<br />
Dawkins: I’m asking you to go and look at the facts; I don’t want you to believe me. Just look go and look at the, um, facts. <br />
<br />
Wright (cleverly): I have!<br />
<br />
== Awards ==<br />
<br />
* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989)<br />
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990)<br />
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990)<br />
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997)<br />
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001)<br />
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005)<br />
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006)<br />
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007)<br />
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science<br />
* Fellow of the Royal Society<br />
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking. <br />
<br />
The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.<br />
<br />
His books are:<br />
<br />
* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)<br />
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)<br />
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)<br />
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)<br />
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)<br />
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)<br />
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)<br />
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)<br />
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)<br />
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.<br />
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.<br />
<br />
'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''<br />
<br />
*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins statistics]]<br />
*[[Evangelical atheism]]<br />
*[[British atheism]]<br />
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes]]<br />
*[[Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and YouTube]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[[British atheism]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and Hell]]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ The Atheist Delusion] (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)<br />
*[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/ Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists] by [[Theo Hobson]]<br />
<br />
'''Video:'''<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video<br />
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)<br />
<br />
'''Collection of rebuttals:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]<br />
<br />
'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]<br />
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]<br />
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard <br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]<br />
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]<br />
<br />
'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':<br />
<br />
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]<br />
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]<br />
<br />
'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]<br />
*[https://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]<br />
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]<br />
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}<br />
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]<br />
[[Category:British People]]<br />
[[Category:Academics]]<br />
[[Category:Atheism]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheist Authors]]<br />
[[Category:British Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheists]]<br />
[[Category:Biologists]]<br />
[[Category:Evolutionists]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:New Atheism]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=1622322Richard Dawkins2020-02-12T07:25:09Z<p>Marrybore: /* Interview with Wendy Wright */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com">[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">[https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/ Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’], by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, ''Breitbart News Network'', Jan 12, 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]<br />
'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal Society|FRS]], FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a British author, [[biologist]], [[evolution]]ist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]] (See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).<ref><br />
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]<br />
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> <br />
<br />
He is often referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" and was one of the principle founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement (See also: [[Celebrity atheists]]).<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist], ''The Telegraph''</ref> But when interviewed, he claimed that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Bingham, John |title= Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date= February 24, 2012 |accessdate= February 24, 2012}}</ref> In recent years, Dawkins' popularity has waned (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).<br />
<br />
Despite being an elderly, self-declared agnostic, in his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', Dawkins said that "permanent in agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice" (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 70</ref> <br />
<br />
Although Dawkins declared that he was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of [[militant atheism]] and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: [[Ex-atheists]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref><ref><br />
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he never said was an atheist.<ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic], ''Daily Mail'', 24 February 2012</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist]</ref><ref>[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]] <br />
<br />
Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates [[evangelical atheism]] and is widely considered to be an [[atheist activist]]. Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/> <br />
<br />
Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|promoted evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. <br />
<br />
He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious [[Irreligion and superstition|are more likely]] to be superstitious than [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> <br />
<br />
As noted above, Dawkins is one of the primary founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement, which is a form of dogmatic, [[militant atheism]] in terms of its [[rhetoric]] (see: [[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]). Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.<ref>[http://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/print/ Faithless: The politics of new atheism] by Steven Kettell</ref> In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly fallen (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).<br />
<br />
In terms of the [[theism]] vs. agnosticism and [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[philosophy]] and [[theology]]. For example, philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''[[The God Delusion]]'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref> <br />
The philosopher [[Antony Flew]], who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting [[deism]], said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.<ref>[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360 Ten years on from that book of atheistic faith, the God Delusion] by Mike Taggart</ref><br />
<br />
As far as the origin of the [[universe]], Dawkins wrote: “The fact that [[origin of life|life evolved]] out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=4TDTnoBLdQMC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+fact+that+life+evolved+out+of+nearly+nothing,+some+10+billion+years+after+the+universe+evolved+literally+out+of+nothing,+is+a+fact+so+staggering+that+I+would+be+mad+to+attempt+words+to+do+it+justice.%22&source=bl&ots=g1m0iQzew4&sig=CT1XkXd8yfbNUCIDKeDH_x_UbO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7vImP8ZjNAhUGPCYKHSAdDXcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20fact%20that%20life%20evolved%20out%20of%20nearly%20nothing%2C%20some%2010%20billion%20years%20after%20the%20universe%20evolved%20literally%20out%20of%20nothing%2C%20is%20a%20fact%20so%20staggering%20that%20I%20would%20be%20mad%20to%20attempt%20words%20to%20do%20it%20justice.%22&f=false Richard Dawkins quote about the origin of the universe], ''God, Science, and Reason: Finding the Light of God Amidst the Darkness of Atheism and Dogmatism'' By Michael Bunner, page 141</ref> See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]<br />
<br />
Dawkins is a [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|vocal opponent of Islam]]. Dawkins has said, "[[Islam]] is the greatest force for evil in the world today".<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165 Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'], BBC,<br />
2017</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.html Radio station cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over Islam tweets], The Independent, 2017</ref> Despite his opposition to religion/[[Christianity]], Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com"/><ref name="breitbart.com"/> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Christianity]]<br />
<br />
== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins photo.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|After previously apologizing to [[feminism|feminists]] and others for the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal, Dawkins retracted his apology and said, "I don’t take back anything that I’ve said. I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will... I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well.“<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter post about Dawkins' apology]</ref><ref name="Who is belittling what">[https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ Who is belittling what?] by Richard Dawkins</ref>]] <br />
Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref><br />
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref name="bbc.co.uk">https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> See also: [[British atheism]] and [[UK and secularism]]<br />
<br />
The atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote of Dawkins' time spent in [[Kenya]] while reviewing ''An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist'', the first of a two-part autobiography: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the [[Africa]]n countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]<br />
<br />
Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. <br />
<br />
Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.<br />
<br />
In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married [[Eve Barham]]. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.<ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dawkins-evolves-into-single-man-after-amicable-split-with-time-lady-sp9llk2nt Dawkins evolves into single man after ‘amicable’ split with Time Lady], ''The Sunday Times''</ref><br />
<br />
[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in the his book ''The Irrational Atheist'' about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about [[Hell]] is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. <br />
<br />
In his letter to [[Juliet Emma Dawkins|his daughter Juliet]], addressed to her at the age of ten and published in ''A Devil’s Chaplain'', there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist. Chapter VIII DARWIN’S JUDAS] by Vox Day</ref>}}<br />
<br />
See also: [[Juliet Emma Dawkins]] and [[Richard Dawkins and love]]<br />
<br />
The ''Christian Times'' reported:<br />
{{Cquote|The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships.<br />
<br />
In [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/11/29/banishing-the-greeneyed-monste/3484 his article piece] "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish."<br />
<br />
He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.<ref>[http://christiantimes.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-divorces-third-wife-actress-lalla-ward/59223.htm Richard Dawkins to divorce third wife: Prominent atheist to split from actress Lalla Ward], ''Christian Times''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[secular left]]ists as a result (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).<br />
<br />
According to ''The Richest'', "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the ''Sunday Times'' in 2012."<ref>[http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/ Richard Dawkins Net Worth]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' net worth]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and women ==<br />
[[File:Women.jpg|thumb|200px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism is significantly less appealing to women]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net">[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net]</ref>]]<br />
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins and women]], [[Elevatorgate]], [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]], [[New Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]<br />
<br />
=== Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men ===<br />
<br />
Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism [[Atheism and women|is significantly less appealing to women]]. <br />
<br />
According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net"/><ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/05/according-to-alexa-what-percentage-of.html According to Alexa, what percentage of Richard Dawkins' website visitors are women?], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and [[feminism|feminists]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]]).<br />
<br />
=== Elevatorgate controversy ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Elevatorgate]], [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Richard Dawkins and social media]]<br />
<br />
In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Elevatorgate]]).<ref><br />
*[https://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]<br />
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]<br />
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]<br />
*[https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]<br />
*[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst, ''The Guardian'', June 9, 2015<br />
</ref> <br />
<br />
Prior to Elevatorgate, [[Monica Shores]]' ''Ms. Magazine'' article titled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' criticized the News Atheism movement for being [[sexism|sexist]].<ref name="msmagazine.com">[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, ''Ms. Magazine'', 2010</ref> She also cited [[Conservapedia]] in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Dawkins’ website]] overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref name="msmagazine.com"/> <br />
<br />
For more information, please see:<br />
<br />
*[[Elevatorgate news stories]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheist conferences]]<br />
<br />
*[[Research on atheist conferences]]<br />
<br />
==== Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology, says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial ====<br />
[[File:Rebecca watson portrait 2011.jpg|left|thumbnail|181px|The atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] and Richard Dawkins were central figures in the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal. ]]<br />
On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.<ref name="Who is belittling what"/><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter tweet about Richard Dawkins apologizing for his Elevate scandal]</ref><br />
<br />
However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that [[Rebecca Watson]]'s experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014</ref> <br />
<br />
Specifically, the ''Washington Post'' reported on November 18, 2014:<br />
{{cquote|“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will. “<br />
<br />
He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.<br />
<br />
“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”<br />
<br />
Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the [[atheist movement]], which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists...<br />
<br />
“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins ====<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins]] and [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]<br />
[[File:David Silverman.JPG|thumbnail|right|150px|[[David Silverman]] ]]<br />
An article by Sarah posted at [[Skepchick]] about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[David Silverman]] (a former president of the [[American Atheists]] organization), which took place during the planning phase of the [[Reason Rally]]:<br />
{{cquote|Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.<br />
<br />
I was crushed.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/ My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)] by Sarah at [[Skepchick]], September 5, 2013</ref>}}<br />
<br />
For more information, please see: [[Elevatorgate]]<br />
<br />
==== Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population ====<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the [[atheist movement]] and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger [[Jen McCreight]] posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"<ref>[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]</ref> In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."<ref>[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution</ref><br />
<br />
{{See also|Internet atheism}}<br />
<br />
=== Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' health]], [[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]], [[Richard Dawkins and medical science]] and [[Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness]]<br />
<br />
As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about [[feminism]]/[[Islam]], Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: [[Richard Dawkins and women#Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference|Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference]]).<ref name="richarddawkins.net">[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard Dawkins condition in his own words]</ref> Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at [[Freethought Blogs]]. She wrote an open letter to the [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2016/01/29/dawkins-goes-denialist-an-open-letter-to-the-cfi-board/ Dawkins Goes Denialist: An Open Letter to the CFI Board] by Stephanie Zvan at [[Freethought Blogs]]</ref><br />
<br />
Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.<ref name="richarddawkins.net"/> After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.<ref><br />
*[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard’s condition in his own words], Richarddawkins.net<br />
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], ''Christian Post'', February, 2016<br />
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service</ref> In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]]/liberals (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]). <br />
<br />
[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Hemant Mehta]] ]]<br />
Atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:<br />
{{cquote|It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/richard-dawkins-gives-update-on-his-health-in-audio-message/ Richard Dawkins Gives Update on His Health in Audio Message]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], Christian Post</ref><br />
<br />
Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.<ref><br />
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service<br />
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST<br />
*[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/richard_dawkins_delete_your_account_the_prominent_atheist_unleashes_new_islamophobic_assault_partner/ Richard Dawkins, delete your account: The prominent atheist implodes on Twitter (again)], Salon<br />
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6 15 Of Richard Dawkins' Most Controversial Tweets], ''Huffington Post''<br />
</ref> <br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins photograph.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Richard Dawkins said about [[vegetarianism]]/[[veganism]]: "[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position…".<ref name="salonvegan">[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_atheists_must_become_new_vegans_sam_harris_richard_dawkins_and_the_extra_burden_on_moral_leaders/ New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders], ''Salon'', 2016</ref> Dawkins is not a vegetarian.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref> See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]] ]]<br />
Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Richard Dawkins Twitter]</ref> ''The Independent'' reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word']</ref> However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/affinity/2016/05/26/dawkins-ive-given-up-twitter/ Dawkins: I’ve Given Up Twitter.]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Twitter]]<br />
<br />
Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.<ref>[http://www.charismanews.com/world/55133-debate-rages-over-praying-for-atheist-richard-dawkins-after-stroke Debate rages over praying for atheist Richard Dawkins after stroke]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-church-of-england-deny-trolling-biologist-by-sending-prayers-following-minor-stroke-a6871966.html Richard Dawkins: Church of England denies 'trolling' biologist by sending 'prayers' following minor stroke]</ref><br />
<br />
''The Guardian'' reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour Richard Dawkins stroke forces delay of Australia and New Zealand tour], ''The Guardian'', February 11, 2016</ref><br />
<br />
In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the [[Brexit]] vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/richard-dawkins-england-becoming-nasty-little-backwater-brexit/ Richard Dawkins: England becoming a 'nasty little backwater' after Brexit vote], ''The Telegraph'', March 2017</ref><ref>[https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians SHOCK RANT: Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's WAR on Christianity], ''Express'', December of 2016</ref><ref>[https://swarajyamag.com/insta/what-british-scientist-dawkins-thinks-of-islam What British Scientist Dawkins Thinks Of Islam], ''Swaraya'', June 7, 2017</ref><br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' health ===<br />
<br />
* [[Richard Dawkins' health]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' stroke ====<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his thoughts on veganism/vegetarianism ====<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]] and [[Dietary practices of atheists]]<br />
<br />
=== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and women]]<br />
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]<br />
In 2014, the prominent [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of [[feminism]] is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation.<br />
<br />
...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula blog, September 12, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus ===<br />
<br />
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...<br />
<br />
If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}<br />
=== Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref><br />
<br />
(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]])<br />
<br />
=== Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and Center for Inquiry translation project to reach more Muslims ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[The Translations Project]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]] and [[Center for Inquiry]]<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins Cooper Union.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]<br />
''The Guardian'' reported about Richard Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'':<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is responding to what he called the “stirring towards atheism” in some Islamic countries with a programme to make free downloads of his books available in [[Arabic]], [[Urdu]], [[Farsi]] and [[Indonesia]]n.<br />
<br />
The scientist and atheist said he was “greatly encouraged” to learn that the unofficial Arabic pdf of the book had been downloaded 13m times. Dawkins writes in ''The God Delusion'' about his wish that the “open-minded people” who read it will “break free of the vice of religion altogether”. It has sold 3.3m copies worldwide since it was published in 2006 – far fewer than the number of Arabic copies that Dawkins believes to have been downloaded illegally.<br />
<br />
The [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] recently merged with the Washington DC-based [[Center for Inquiry]]. Dawkins said the CFI decided on “a more systematic programme” of translating his work in ebook form following “stirrings toward atheism in [[Iran]] and other Islamic countries”. It will be the first time his work has been made available in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and other languages of Islamic countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/20/richard-dawkins-to-give-away-copies-of-the-god-delusion-in-islamic-countries Richard Dawkins to give away copies of The God Delusion in Islamic countries], The Guardian</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Center for Inquiry indicates on its website:<br />
{{Cquote|Announcing [[The Translations Project]], a program of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, part of the Center for Inquiry.<br />
<br />
The books of Richard Dawkins—including ''River Out of Eden'', ''The Magic of Reality'', ''The Blind Watchmaker'', and ''The God Delusion''—are being professionally translated into languages such as Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, and Indonesian and made available to download free of charge.<ref>[https://centerforinquiry.org/news/introducing-the-translations-project/ The Books of Richard Dawkins, Professionally Translated for Free Access in the Muslim World], Center for Inquiry website</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations ==<br />
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]], [[New Atheism and Islamophobia]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]] <br />
<br />
The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] Richard Dawkins, [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] behavior.<ref><br />
*[https://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013<br />
*[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word'], ''Independent'', 24 September 2015</ref> <br />
<br />
On December 28, 2015, the ''Daily Express'' reported about Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet [[Muhammad]] flew to heaven on a winged horse.<br />
<br />
Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.<ref>['Pathetic': Richard Dawkins in extraordinary outburst against Islam] by Jason Taylor, ''Daily Express'', December 28, 2015</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Ryan Kerney wrote at ''New Republic'' concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126632/richard-dawkins-just-rude-person-twitter-apparently Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently], ''New Republic'', 2015</ref><br />
<br />
On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of [[Islam]]/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and racial minorities ==<br />
<br />
=== Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger ===<br />
[[File:Skivu Hutchinson speaking at Center For Inquiry.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sikivu Hutchinson]] speaking ath the [[Center for Inquiry]]. ]]<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Atheist [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The recent merger of the secular organization [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins Foundation]] (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims] New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/corporate_governance all-white board] looks right at home with RDF's [https://richarddawkins.net/boardandstaff/ lily white board] and staff.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sikivu-hutchinson/atheismsowhite-atheists-o_b_9078736.html #AtheismSoWhite: Atheists of Color Rock Social Justice] by Sikivu Hutchinson</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by [[Paul Kurtz]] and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:<br />
{{cquote|The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_ii Humanist Manifesto II]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism” ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins 2015.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins ]]<br />
''LifeSite News'' declares:<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous [[atheist activist|atheism proselytizer]], has mused about eating human meat.<br />
<br />
No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured.<br />
<br />
What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for [[Consequentialism|consequentialist morality]] versus “yuck reaction” [[Objective morality|absolutism]].<ref>[https://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/richard-dawkins-wants-to-eat-human-meat-to-overcome-our-taboo-against-cannibalism/ Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human “Meat” to “Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism”], ''LifeSite News'', 2018</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]], [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]] and [[Atheism and inspiration]]<br />
<br />
According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Evangelical atheism]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an [[Evangelical atheism|evangelical atheist]].<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins] by John Gray, ''New Republic''</ref><ref>[https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/10/evangelical-atheism Evangelical Atheism] by Peter J. Leithart, First Things</ref><ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/evangelical-atheists-what_b_765379.html ‘Evangelical Atheists:’ Pushing For What?] by Chris Stedman, Huffington Post</ref><br />
<br />
Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] of [[communism]] have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of [[Atheist worldview|atheist ideology]] (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion…and their parents], LifeSite News</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]<br />
<br />
The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com">[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref> He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com"/> For more information please see: [[Atheism and mockery]] and [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and pornography]]<br />
<br />
On January 1, 2015, ''The Telegraph'' reported:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that [[Islam]]ists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the [[Iran]]ian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.<br />
<br />
After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it] By Tim Stanley, ''The Telegraph'', January 1, 2015</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{See also|Atheism and pornography}}<br />
<br />
== Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Atheism and public relations]]<br />
<br />
Although the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] Richard Dawkins was always known for [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|his abrasiveness]] and [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogance]], post [[Elevatorgate]] and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the [[atheist movement]].<ref><br />
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] by Kimberly Winston, ''Washington Post'', source: ''Religion News Service'', August 7, 2014<br />
*[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray<br />
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]<br />
*[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41<br />
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref> <br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' cult of personality ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]], [[Atheist cults]], [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|175px|[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cult-of-dicky-dawk.html The Cult of Dicky Dawkins]</ref> ]] <br />
On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled ''The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins'' which declared:<br />
{{cquote|...the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Richard Dawkins website]] offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like [[Dante]]’s [[Hell]], is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...<br />
<br />
But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’<br />
<br />
The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.<br />
<br />
At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here [[Atheist cults|is a religion]] without the good bits.<ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins], The Spectator, Andrew Brown 16 August 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins"/><br />
Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The [[New Atheism]] movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the [[agnosticism|agnostic]], journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the ''New Statesman'' in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins ''The God wars'' by Bryan Appleyard], ''New Statesman''</ref> Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.<ref>[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-cultish-is-new-atheism/ How cultish is the New Atheism?]</ref><br />
<br />
See also: [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation]] and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]]<br />
<br />
==Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]], [[Richard Dawkins and anger]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]). <br />
<br />
Atheist author and [[sociology]] professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."<ref>[http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/58271839-80/dawkins-atheism-atheist-rape.html.csp Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] By KIMBERLY WINSTON, ''Religion News Service''</ref> See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:<br />
[[Image:Mohler.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]] Jr.]]<br />
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).}} <br />
<br />
Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]], Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:<br />
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good. <br />
<br />
The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....<br />
<br />
Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. (September 9, 2005). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-s-rottweiler-richard-dawkins-speaks-his-mind-6434/ "Darwin's rottweiler--Richard Dawkins speaks his mind"]. The Christian Post website. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).<br />
<br />
In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me', ''The Independent'' by reporter Andy McSmith, Thursday 16 September 2010]</ref><br />
<br />
Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).<br />
<br />
=== The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and humor]]<br />
<br />
The movie ''[[The Atheist Delusion]]'' features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD]</ref> Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016"/><br />
<br />
== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
''See:'' [[Atheism is a religion]], [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]]<br />
<br />
Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref> <br />
<br />
Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[https://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]<br />
<br />
=== Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
[[File:John Gray.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[economist]] Tomáš Sedláček (left) and the [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] (right) at ZURICH.MINDS 2012]] <br />
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Abortion and atheism]] and [[Atheism in medicine]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]<br />
<br />
In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down’s syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]<br />
<br />
A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref><br />
<br />
== Martin Robbins at ''New Statesman'': Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance ==<br />
<br />
In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the ''New Statesman'' concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind]</ref> <br />
<br />
Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal], By Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref><br />
== Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Internet atheism]] <br />
<br />
As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-[[Elevatorgate]]. See also: [[Internet atheism]]<br />
<br />
Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive manner]], he does retain a small cult following (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]]). <br />
<br />
Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins: Google Trends data for searches on "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020 ===<br />
<br />
[[File:1200px-Richard dawkins google trends 9-22-2019 (1).png|thumbnail|center|800px|According to Google Trends, there has been a marked drop for Google searches for the term "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
=== Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate ===<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins web traffic 12-23-12.png|thumbnail|center|775px|According to the web traffic tracking company [[Quantcast]], the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website fell in 2012.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/2012-has-been-bad-year-for-richard.html 2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast]</ref> By October 2014, the web traffic for his website fell to a lower level according to Quantcast.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2014/10/richard-dawkins-loss-of-influence.html Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]</ref><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
In October of 2012, [[Rebecca Watson]] published a story about Elevatorgate and its aftermath in ''Slate'' entitled, ''It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats''.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats] by Rebecca Watson, ''Slate'', October 2012</ref><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The web traffic was measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measured Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure">[https://www.quantcast.com/measure/ Quantcast - Quantcast Measure]</ref>]]<br />
<br />
=== Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop ===<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins' website traffic.jpg|500px|thumbnail|center|The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/06/web-traffic-of-richard-dawkins-main.html Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' main website]</ref> As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The website traffic is measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure"/>]]<br />
<br />
=== Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to [[Alexa]], Richard Dawkins website lost a large amount of its global market share during to period between 2010 and the beginning portion of 2012.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2015, Richard Dawkins' website fell in terms of its Alexa ranking.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa 10-2106.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2016, Richard Dawkins' website lost a considerable amount of global market share according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins website alexa April 2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In April of 2017, according to Alexa, Richard Dawkins' website continued to experience a steep decline in terms of its global market share.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 10-27-2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 27, 2017, Richard Dawkins' website was the 158,206th most popular website in the world according to Alexa. <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
His website was losing global market share in the latter quarter of 2017 according to Alexa.]]<br />
{{clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa ranking 2018.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 9, 2018, Richard Dawkins' website was the 190,708th most popular website in the world according to Alexa.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Compared to 2017, Richard Dawkins' website lost global market share according to Alexa.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour ===<br />
<br />
In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled ''Fading Dawkins'':<br />
{{Cquote|Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with [[Sam Harris]].<br />
<br />
In the golden years of [[New Atheism|Gnu]], there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say.<br />
<br />
Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair|Madalyn Murray O’Hair]] crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-fading-dawkins/ ''Fading Dawkins'']</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|right|250px|Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]<br />
<br />
''The Independent'' reported: <br />
{{Cquote|British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.<br />
<br />
Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.<br />
<br />
As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.<br />
<br />
Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.<ref>[British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins] by Andrew Griffin, The Independent, 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]<br />
<br />
Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><br />
<br />
The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:<br />
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here]).<br />
<br />
Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}<br />
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com"/>]]<br />
<br />
In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution]]ary quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and health]]).<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref><br />
<br />
As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]]. <br />
<br />
Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref name="cbsnews.com">https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref><br />
<br />
== Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]], [[Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has a history of flip-flopping when it comes to being an atheist or agnostic (see: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]). <br />
<br />
The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk"/> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[https://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy ===<br />
[[File:Fairy-md.png|thumbnail|200px|left|On July 18, 2012, a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] showed the folly of Richard Dawkins' comparison of fairies at the bottom of the garden to the issue of God's existence. According to Dawkins' faulty and irrational analogy, there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>]]<br />
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7."<br />
<br />
In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic.<br />
<br />
A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists.<br />
<br />
Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden? <br />
<br />
Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement. <br />
<br />
Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior.<br />
<br />
It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the<br />
[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping ===<br />
<br />
On June 5, 2012, the ''Christian'' Post reported:<br />
{{cquote|Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.<br />
<br />
"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-next-book-to-focus-on-personal-path-toward-atheism-76099/ Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Focus on Personal Path Toward Atheism]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'':<br />
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|right|200px|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]<br />
{{cquote|The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the ''Christian Post'' such as ''Publishers Weekly'', ''The Blaze,'' ''Christianity Today'' and ''Galleycat'' (''Galleycat'' is on the Media Bistro domain).<br />
<br />
First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being [http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html a militant atheist] to being [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html an agnostic].<br />
<br />
Vox Day [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html wrote] about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism...<br />
<br />
Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.<br />
<br />
An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article ''Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?''<br />
<br />
Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Title of the book ''The God Delusion'' displayed odd and inconsistent behavior ====<br />
<br />
A July 25, 2012 article entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper'' declared:<br />
{{cquote|Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his ''The God Delusion''. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled ''The God Delusion'' was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.<br />
<br />
Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|200px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref name="creation.com">https://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref name="creation.com"/> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]], [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]<br />
<br />
In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins <ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref><br />
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ being stumped] by a question from the creationist interviewer.<br />
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.<br />
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. <br />
<br />
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref><br />
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com"/> The [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo video] can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!'' <br />
<br />
As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>https://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>https://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation science|creationist scientists]] tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).<br />
<br />
==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]], [[Richard Dawkins and morality]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] <br />
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|206px|right|The [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism|and agnostic]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler /> ]]<br />
As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name="Hitler"/><br />
<br />
The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler /><br />
<br />
For additional information, please see:<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]<br />
<br />
== Accusations of cowardice ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and debate]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]<br />
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]<br />
<br />
As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]). <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has established a reputation [[Richard Dawkins and debate|for avoiding debates]] with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as [[cowardice]] on your part."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of [[cowardice]] for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> <br />
<br />
In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place ==<br />
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
<br />
As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]]. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref> <br />
<br />
Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:<br />
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:<br />
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.<br />
<br />
"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Shmuley Boteach]] ]]<br />
Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:<br />
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<br />
<br />
A supporter of the [[Question evolution campaign]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/richard-dawkins-and-rabbi-shmuley.html Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate ]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and radio appearances ==<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ===<br />
[[File:Giles Frasier.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Giles Frasier]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:<br />
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:<br />
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}} <br />
<br />
[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.<br />
<br />
It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])<br />
=== Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity]] and [[Atheism and love]]<br />
<br />
Scott Simon of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into [[Atheist movement|organized atheists]] who do this. <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...<br />
<br />
Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/530337283/richard-dawkins-on-terrorism-and-religion Richard Dawkins On Terrorism And Religion]</ref><br />
<br />
== New Atheism ==<br />
[[File:Christopher Hitchens.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]<br />
<br />
The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.<br />
<br />
The New Atheism movement was a reaction the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on Manhattan and also due to [[Antitheism|antitheist]] anger over the failure of the [[secularization thesis]] (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the [[Desecularization|resurgence of religion]] in much of the world).<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/reflections-on-the-new-atheism/ Reflections on the New Atheism] by Alister McGrath</ref> <br />
<br />
For more information, please see: [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]<br />
<br />
=== Impact of the New Atheism ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]<br />
<br />
New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":<br />
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.<br />
<br />
For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.<br />
<br />
Not too long ago, I wrote that [[American atheism]] was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Sam Harris 01.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]<br />
YouTube atheist [[Thunderfoot]] said about the atheist movement after [[Reason Rally 2016]] had a very low turnout:<br />
{{Cquote|I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. [[Sam Harris|Harris]] went his own way. And [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]] just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?<ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2016/06/even-atheists-bash-reason-rally/ Even atheists bash 'Reason Rally']</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:<br />
{{cquote|The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ''The God Delusion'' is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published ''The End of Faith''.<br />
<br />
Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact. <br />
<br />
They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html arguments] for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for [http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine] and [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling ethnic profiling] at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of [https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ sexism], [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ racism], and general arrogance and intolerance.<ref>[http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/#sthash.6ZTcoHLw.dpuf The legacy of the New Atheism] by Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The [[liberal]] leaning British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' said regarding the New Atheism:<br />
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...<br />
<br />
These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2010, it was reported that ''The God Delusion'' sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in [[North America]]. Contrastly, in 2010, the [[Evangelical Christians|evangelical Christian]] [[Rick Warren]] sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book ''The Purpose Driven Life''.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/ How Many Copies of The God Delusion Have Been Sold?]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Decline of the New Atheism movement ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#The rise and decline of New Atheism and the role of the media|Decline of New Atheism and the media]] <br />
<br />
On November 6, 2015, the ''New Republic'' published an article entitled, ''Is the New Atheism dead?''<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/123349/new-atheism-dead ''Is the New Atheism dead?] by Elizabeth Bruenig, New Republic, November 6, 2015</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:<br />
{{cquote|...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, [[Political correctness|politically correct]], and even apologetic.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/12/uproar-against-dawkins-is-sign-of-new-atheism-retrogression/ Uproar Against Dawkins Is Sign of New Atheism Retrogression] by Joshua Kelly</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism ====<br />
<br />
Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled ''Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?'' supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?]</ref><br />
<br />
==== Poor leadership skills ====<br />
<br />
Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities. <br />
<br />
See: <br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/richard-dawkins-insightful-secular.html Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?]<br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]<br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]<br />
<br />
== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==<br />
[[File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]], [[Atheism and child pornography]] and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] <br />
<br />
The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism... <br />
<br />
In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<br />
<br />
Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:<br />
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.<br />
<br />
What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!<br />
<br />
Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.<br />
<br />
For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia ===<br />
<br />
*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again] , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell ===<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins and Hell#Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell|Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]], [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]] and [[Internet atheism]]<br />
<br />
In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]] so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]<br />
<br />
It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.<ref>''Handbook for New Converts'' By William J. (Bill) Morgan ThD, page 77</ref><ref>[http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/the-etiquette-of-profanity/ The Etiquette of Profanity] by Alan Weiss, Posted on October 31, 2010</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes [[homosexuality]], but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined]] homosexuality would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, liberals are [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to believe in evolution.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have [[Views on Homosexuality|more favorable]] opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality. <br />
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]<br />
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref name="answersingenesis.org">http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3–6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>https://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref name="answersingenesis.org"/><br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.<br />
<br />
==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]], [[Atheism and depression]], [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and health]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg |thumb|left|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]] <br />
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can [[Atheism and suicide|be a causal factor]] for suicide for some individuals.<ref name="adherents.com">http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref name="adherents.com"/><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref> <br />
<br />
Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."<br />
<br />
Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref><br />
<br />
Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]<br />
<br />
== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==<br />
<br />
In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.<br />
<br />
=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
{{See also|Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins}}<br />
<br />
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).<br />
<br />
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:<br />
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"<br />
<br />
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."<br />
<br />
<br />
Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:<br />
<br />
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!<br />
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|201px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]<br />
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:<br />
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> <br />
<br />
Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]&mdash;the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings. <br />
<br />
On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]], [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]<br />
<br />
[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in [[historical revisionism]] when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO] <br />
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|left|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]<br />
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.<br />
<br />
It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...}} <br />
<br />
Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:<br />
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}<br />
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]<br />
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref> <br />
<br />
[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref><br />
<br />
== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Historicity of Jesus]]<br />
<br />
[[John Lennox]] pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that [[Jesus Christ]] may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref><br />
<br />
== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] <br />
<br />
Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref name="uncommondescent.com">http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> <br />
<br />
[[File:Dr. William Lane Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]<br />
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:<br />
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:<br />
<br />
The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William<br />
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his<br />
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"<br />
<br />
Bill<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org">http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org"/><br />
<br />
As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:<br />
{{Cquote|Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of [[Daniel Dennett|Dan Dennett]] and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.<ref>[https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/richard-dawkins/ Richard Dawkins] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|left|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]<br />
Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com">http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>https://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com"/> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza: <br />
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==<br />
<br />
For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]<br />
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/><br />
<br />
In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]). <br />
<br />
The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/><br />
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|[[PZ Myers]]]] <br />
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at Creation Ministries International:<br />
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).<br />
<br />
Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.<br />
<br />
The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}<br />
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].<br />
<br />
There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<br />
<br />
==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==<br />
<br />
* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref><br />
[[Image:Winston.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]<br />
As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When atheists attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.<br />
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists. <br />
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]<br />
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<br />
<br />
[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.}}<br />
<br />
Atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<br />
<br />
Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<br />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate ==<br />
<br />
For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]<br />
<br />
The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}<br />
<br />
The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:<br />
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."}}<br />
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]<br />
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:<br />
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:<br />
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]<br />
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><br />
In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<br />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref><br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===<br />
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref name="cr"/><br />
<br />
=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===<br />
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/><br />
<br />
==Brights Movement==<br />
<br />
The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> Atheist [[author]] and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref><br />
<br />
== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==<br />
<br />
Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref><br />
<br />
Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==<br />
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]<br />
[[United States|American]] [[philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref><br />
== Richard Dawkins on veganism ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins 35th American Atheists Convention.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Richard Dawkins has high blood pressure (See: [[Richard Dawkins' health]]). <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
People who follow a [[vegetarian]] diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine.<ref>[Vegetarian diet linked to lower blood pressure], Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School, 2014</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Dawkins is not a vegetarian.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref> See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]]<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Richard Dawkins said about vegetarianism/[[veganism]]: "[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position…".<ref name="salonvegan">[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_atheists_must_become_new_vegans_sam_harris_richard_dawkins_and_the_extra_burden_on_moral_leaders/ New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders], ''Salon'', 2016</ref>]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and veganism]] and [[New Atheism and veganism]] and [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]]<br />
<br />
At the present time, the new atheist [[Sam Harris]] is the only notable new atheist who has become a [[vegetarian]].<ref name="salonvegan"/> Harris said he "aspires" to be a [[vegan]].<ref name="salonvegan"/><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins stated about vegetarianism/veganism:<br />
{{Cquote|[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position… I think you have a very strong point when you say that anybody who eats meat has a very strong obligation to think seriously about it and I don’t find any good defense. I find myself in exactly the same position as you or I would have been, well probably you wouldn’t have been but I might have been, two hundred years ago […] talking about slavery… I think what I’d really like to see is people like you having a far greater effect on, I would call it, consciousness raising and trying to swing it around so it becomes the societal norm not to eat meat.<ref name="salonvegan"/>}}<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is a meat eater.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref><br />
<br />
Steven Stankevicus, the author of the aforementioned ''Salon'' article ''New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders'', wrote in response: "'People like you'? How about people like Richard Dawkins?".<ref name="salonvegan"/><br />
<br />
See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Atheism and forced labor]]<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism and veganism#Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet|Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet]]<br />
<br />
According to [[Harvard]] Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School:<br />
{{Cquote|People who follow a vegetarian diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Vegetarians avoid meat and eat mainly plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes (beans and peas). Some include dairy products and eggs (and in this study, fish) in their diets.<ref>[Vegetarian diet linked to lower blood pressure], Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Dawkins has high blood pressure (see: [[New Atheism and veganism#Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet|Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet]] and [[Richard Dawkins' health]]).<br />
<br />
=== New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet ===<br />
<br />
See: [[New Atheism and veganism#New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet|New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet]]<br />
<br />
=== Interview with Wendy Wright ===<br />
Richard Dawkins debated and was interviewed by Wendy Wright, a member of the society, “Concerned Women for America”. A transcript follows: <br />
<br />
Dawkins: You said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution, and I told you about five fossils, and–<br />
Wright (reasonably): And I say if those were valid, there would be tons of evidence–<br />
Dawkins: There is.<br />
Wright (even more reasonably): –because there are so many different species, that there ought to be tons of evidence, even, let’s say, for one per-cent of the, eh, macro-evolution that’s taken place, there should be evidence, but–<br />
Dawkins (doesn’t know what to say): ...There is.<br />
Wright: –there’s not even one percent, let alone ten or fifty or seventy percent.<br />
Dawkins (floundering): There is a massive amount of evidence. You just need to go into the books and go into the museums, and look at it. It’s there. You are believing people who are telling you there’s only, er, whatever, percent.<br />
Wright (morally upright): And again, I go back to… It’s…it’s very demeaning, to say, that we only believe what we believe because we’ve been told that, and yet, we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of society what is fact and what’s not fact, and to censor out information that is inconvenient.<br />
Dawkins: I’m asking you to go and look at the facts; I don’t want you to believe me. Just look go and look at the, um, facts. <br />
Wright (cleverly): I have!<br />
<br />
== Awards ==<br />
<br />
* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989)<br />
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990)<br />
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990)<br />
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997)<br />
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001)<br />
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005)<br />
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006)<br />
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007)<br />
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science<br />
* Fellow of the Royal Society<br />
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking. <br />
<br />
The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.<br />
<br />
His books are:<br />
<br />
* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)<br />
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)<br />
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)<br />
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)<br />
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)<br />
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)<br />
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)<br />
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)<br />
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)<br />
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.<br />
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.<br />
<br />
'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''<br />
<br />
*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins statistics]]<br />
*[[Evangelical atheism]]<br />
*[[British atheism]]<br />
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes]]<br />
*[[Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and YouTube]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[[British atheism]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and Hell]]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ The Atheist Delusion] (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)<br />
*[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/ Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists] by [[Theo Hobson]]<br />
<br />
'''Video:'''<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video<br />
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)<br />
<br />
'''Collection of rebuttals:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]<br />
<br />
'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]<br />
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]<br />
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard <br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]<br />
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]<br />
<br />
'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':<br />
<br />
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]<br />
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]<br />
<br />
'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]<br />
*[https://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]<br />
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]<br />
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}<br />
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]<br />
[[Category:British People]]<br />
[[Category:Academics]]<br />
[[Category:Atheism]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheist Authors]]<br />
[[Category:British Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheists]]<br />
[[Category:Biologists]]<br />
[[Category:Evolutionists]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:New Atheism]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=1622321Richard Dawkins2020-02-12T07:20:32Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com">[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">[https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/ Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’], by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, ''Breitbart News Network'', Jan 12, 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]<br />
'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal Society|FRS]], FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a British author, [[biologist]], [[evolution]]ist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]] (See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).<ref><br />
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]<br />
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> <br />
<br />
He is often referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" and was one of the principle founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement (See also: [[Celebrity atheists]]).<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist], ''The Telegraph''</ref> But when interviewed, he claimed that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Bingham, John |title= Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date= February 24, 2012 |accessdate= February 24, 2012}}</ref> In recent years, Dawkins' popularity has waned (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).<br />
<br />
Despite being an elderly, self-declared agnostic, in his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', Dawkins said that "permanent in agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice" (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 70</ref> <br />
<br />
Although Dawkins declared that he was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of [[militant atheism]] and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: [[Ex-atheists]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref><ref><br />
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he never said was an atheist.<ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic], ''Daily Mail'', 24 February 2012</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist]</ref><ref>[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]] <br />
<br />
Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates [[evangelical atheism]] and is widely considered to be an [[atheist activist]]. Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/> <br />
<br />
Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|promoted evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. <br />
<br />
He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious [[Irreligion and superstition|are more likely]] to be superstitious than [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> <br />
<br />
As noted above, Dawkins is one of the primary founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement, which is a form of dogmatic, [[militant atheism]] in terms of its [[rhetoric]] (see: [[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]). Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.<ref>[http://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/print/ Faithless: The politics of new atheism] by Steven Kettell</ref> In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly fallen (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).<br />
<br />
In terms of the [[theism]] vs. agnosticism and [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[philosophy]] and [[theology]]. For example, philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''[[The God Delusion]]'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref> <br />
The philosopher [[Antony Flew]], who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting [[deism]], said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.<ref>[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360 Ten years on from that book of atheistic faith, the God Delusion] by Mike Taggart</ref><br />
<br />
As far as the origin of the [[universe]], Dawkins wrote: “The fact that [[origin of life|life evolved]] out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=4TDTnoBLdQMC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+fact+that+life+evolved+out+of+nearly+nothing,+some+10+billion+years+after+the+universe+evolved+literally+out+of+nothing,+is+a+fact+so+staggering+that+I+would+be+mad+to+attempt+words+to+do+it+justice.%22&source=bl&ots=g1m0iQzew4&sig=CT1XkXd8yfbNUCIDKeDH_x_UbO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7vImP8ZjNAhUGPCYKHSAdDXcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20fact%20that%20life%20evolved%20out%20of%20nearly%20nothing%2C%20some%2010%20billion%20years%20after%20the%20universe%20evolved%20literally%20out%20of%20nothing%2C%20is%20a%20fact%20so%20staggering%20that%20I%20would%20be%20mad%20to%20attempt%20words%20to%20do%20it%20justice.%22&f=false Richard Dawkins quote about the origin of the universe], ''God, Science, and Reason: Finding the Light of God Amidst the Darkness of Atheism and Dogmatism'' By Michael Bunner, page 141</ref> See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]<br />
<br />
Dawkins is a [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|vocal opponent of Islam]]. Dawkins has said, "[[Islam]] is the greatest force for evil in the world today".<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165 Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'], BBC,<br />
2017</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.html Radio station cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over Islam tweets], The Independent, 2017</ref> Despite his opposition to religion/[[Christianity]], Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com"/><ref name="breitbart.com"/> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Christianity]]<br />
<br />
== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins photo.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|After previously apologizing to [[feminism|feminists]] and others for the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal, Dawkins retracted his apology and said, "I don’t take back anything that I’ve said. I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will... I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well.“<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter post about Dawkins' apology]</ref><ref name="Who is belittling what">[https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ Who is belittling what?] by Richard Dawkins</ref>]] <br />
Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref><br />
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref name="bbc.co.uk">https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> See also: [[British atheism]] and [[UK and secularism]]<br />
<br />
The atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote of Dawkins' time spent in [[Kenya]] while reviewing ''An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist'', the first of a two-part autobiography: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the [[Africa]]n countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]<br />
<br />
Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. <br />
<br />
Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.<br />
<br />
In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married [[Eve Barham]]. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.<ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dawkins-evolves-into-single-man-after-amicable-split-with-time-lady-sp9llk2nt Dawkins evolves into single man after ‘amicable’ split with Time Lady], ''The Sunday Times''</ref><br />
<br />
[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in the his book ''The Irrational Atheist'' about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about [[Hell]] is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. <br />
<br />
In his letter to [[Juliet Emma Dawkins|his daughter Juliet]], addressed to her at the age of ten and published in ''A Devil’s Chaplain'', there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist. Chapter VIII DARWIN’S JUDAS] by Vox Day</ref>}}<br />
<br />
See also: [[Juliet Emma Dawkins]] and [[Richard Dawkins and love]]<br />
<br />
The ''Christian Times'' reported:<br />
{{Cquote|The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships.<br />
<br />
In [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/11/29/banishing-the-greeneyed-monste/3484 his article piece] "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish."<br />
<br />
He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.<ref>[http://christiantimes.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-divorces-third-wife-actress-lalla-ward/59223.htm Richard Dawkins to divorce third wife: Prominent atheist to split from actress Lalla Ward], ''Christian Times''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[secular left]]ists as a result (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).<br />
<br />
According to ''The Richest'', "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the ''Sunday Times'' in 2012."<ref>[http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/ Richard Dawkins Net Worth]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' net worth]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and women ==<br />
[[File:Women.jpg|thumb|200px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism is significantly less appealing to women]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net">[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net]</ref>]]<br />
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins and women]], [[Elevatorgate]], [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]], [[New Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]<br />
<br />
=== Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men ===<br />
<br />
Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism [[Atheism and women|is significantly less appealing to women]]. <br />
<br />
According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net"/><ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/05/according-to-alexa-what-percentage-of.html According to Alexa, what percentage of Richard Dawkins' website visitors are women?], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and [[feminism|feminists]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]]).<br />
<br />
=== Elevatorgate controversy ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Elevatorgate]], [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Richard Dawkins and social media]]<br />
<br />
In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Elevatorgate]]).<ref><br />
*[https://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]<br />
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]<br />
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]<br />
*[https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]<br />
*[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst, ''The Guardian'', June 9, 2015<br />
</ref> <br />
<br />
Prior to Elevatorgate, [[Monica Shores]]' ''Ms. Magazine'' article titled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' criticized the News Atheism movement for being [[sexism|sexist]].<ref name="msmagazine.com">[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, ''Ms. Magazine'', 2010</ref> She also cited [[Conservapedia]] in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Dawkins’ website]] overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref name="msmagazine.com"/> <br />
<br />
For more information, please see:<br />
<br />
*[[Elevatorgate news stories]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheist conferences]]<br />
<br />
*[[Research on atheist conferences]]<br />
<br />
==== Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology, says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial ====<br />
[[File:Rebecca watson portrait 2011.jpg|left|thumbnail|181px|The atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] and Richard Dawkins were central figures in the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal. ]]<br />
On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.<ref name="Who is belittling what"/><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter tweet about Richard Dawkins apologizing for his Elevate scandal]</ref><br />
<br />
However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that [[Rebecca Watson]]'s experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014</ref> <br />
<br />
Specifically, the ''Washington Post'' reported on November 18, 2014:<br />
{{cquote|“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will. “<br />
<br />
He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.<br />
<br />
“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”<br />
<br />
Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the [[atheist movement]], which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists...<br />
<br />
“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins ====<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins]] and [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]<br />
[[File:David Silverman.JPG|thumbnail|right|150px|[[David Silverman]] ]]<br />
An article by Sarah posted at [[Skepchick]] about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[David Silverman]] (a former president of the [[American Atheists]] organization), which took place during the planning phase of the [[Reason Rally]]:<br />
{{cquote|Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.<br />
<br />
I was crushed.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/ My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)] by Sarah at [[Skepchick]], September 5, 2013</ref>}}<br />
<br />
For more information, please see: [[Elevatorgate]]<br />
<br />
==== Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population ====<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the [[atheist movement]] and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger [[Jen McCreight]] posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"<ref>[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]</ref> In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."<ref>[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution</ref><br />
<br />
{{See also|Internet atheism}}<br />
<br />
=== Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' health]], [[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]], [[Richard Dawkins and medical science]] and [[Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness]]<br />
<br />
As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about [[feminism]]/[[Islam]], Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: [[Richard Dawkins and women#Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference|Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference]]).<ref name="richarddawkins.net">[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard Dawkins condition in his own words]</ref> Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at [[Freethought Blogs]]. She wrote an open letter to the [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2016/01/29/dawkins-goes-denialist-an-open-letter-to-the-cfi-board/ Dawkins Goes Denialist: An Open Letter to the CFI Board] by Stephanie Zvan at [[Freethought Blogs]]</ref><br />
<br />
Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.<ref name="richarddawkins.net"/> After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.<ref><br />
*[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard’s condition in his own words], Richarddawkins.net<br />
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], ''Christian Post'', February, 2016<br />
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service</ref> In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]]/liberals (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]). <br />
<br />
[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Hemant Mehta]] ]]<br />
Atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:<br />
{{cquote|It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/richard-dawkins-gives-update-on-his-health-in-audio-message/ Richard Dawkins Gives Update on His Health in Audio Message]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], Christian Post</ref><br />
<br />
Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.<ref><br />
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service<br />
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST<br />
*[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/richard_dawkins_delete_your_account_the_prominent_atheist_unleashes_new_islamophobic_assault_partner/ Richard Dawkins, delete your account: The prominent atheist implodes on Twitter (again)], Salon<br />
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6 15 Of Richard Dawkins' Most Controversial Tweets], ''Huffington Post''<br />
</ref> <br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins photograph.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Richard Dawkins said about [[vegetarianism]]/[[veganism]]: "[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position…".<ref name="salonvegan">[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_atheists_must_become_new_vegans_sam_harris_richard_dawkins_and_the_extra_burden_on_moral_leaders/ New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders], ''Salon'', 2016</ref> Dawkins is not a vegetarian.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref> See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]] ]]<br />
Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Richard Dawkins Twitter]</ref> ''The Independent'' reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word']</ref> However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/affinity/2016/05/26/dawkins-ive-given-up-twitter/ Dawkins: I’ve Given Up Twitter.]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Twitter]]<br />
<br />
Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.<ref>[http://www.charismanews.com/world/55133-debate-rages-over-praying-for-atheist-richard-dawkins-after-stroke Debate rages over praying for atheist Richard Dawkins after stroke]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-church-of-england-deny-trolling-biologist-by-sending-prayers-following-minor-stroke-a6871966.html Richard Dawkins: Church of England denies 'trolling' biologist by sending 'prayers' following minor stroke]</ref><br />
<br />
''The Guardian'' reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour Richard Dawkins stroke forces delay of Australia and New Zealand tour], ''The Guardian'', February 11, 2016</ref><br />
<br />
In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the [[Brexit]] vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/richard-dawkins-england-becoming-nasty-little-backwater-brexit/ Richard Dawkins: England becoming a 'nasty little backwater' after Brexit vote], ''The Telegraph'', March 2017</ref><ref>[https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians SHOCK RANT: Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's WAR on Christianity], ''Express'', December of 2016</ref><ref>[https://swarajyamag.com/insta/what-british-scientist-dawkins-thinks-of-islam What British Scientist Dawkins Thinks Of Islam], ''Swaraya'', June 7, 2017</ref><br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' health ===<br />
<br />
* [[Richard Dawkins' health]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' stroke ====<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his thoughts on veganism/vegetarianism ====<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]] and [[Dietary practices of atheists]]<br />
<br />
=== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and women]]<br />
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]<br />
In 2014, the prominent [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref><br />
<br />
Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of [[feminism]] is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation.<br />
<br />
...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula blog, September 12, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus ===<br />
<br />
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...<br />
<br />
If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}<br />
=== Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref><br />
<br />
(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]])<br />
<br />
=== Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and Center for Inquiry translation project to reach more Muslims ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[The Translations Project]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]] and [[Center for Inquiry]]<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins Cooper Union.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]<br />
''The Guardian'' reported about Richard Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'':<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is responding to what he called the “stirring towards atheism” in some Islamic countries with a programme to make free downloads of his books available in [[Arabic]], [[Urdu]], [[Farsi]] and [[Indonesia]]n.<br />
<br />
The scientist and atheist said he was “greatly encouraged” to learn that the unofficial Arabic pdf of the book had been downloaded 13m times. Dawkins writes in ''The God Delusion'' about his wish that the “open-minded people” who read it will “break free of the vice of religion altogether”. It has sold 3.3m copies worldwide since it was published in 2006 – far fewer than the number of Arabic copies that Dawkins believes to have been downloaded illegally.<br />
<br />
The [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] recently merged with the Washington DC-based [[Center for Inquiry]]. Dawkins said the CFI decided on “a more systematic programme” of translating his work in ebook form following “stirrings toward atheism in [[Iran]] and other Islamic countries”. It will be the first time his work has been made available in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and other languages of Islamic countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/20/richard-dawkins-to-give-away-copies-of-the-god-delusion-in-islamic-countries Richard Dawkins to give away copies of The God Delusion in Islamic countries], The Guardian</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Center for Inquiry indicates on its website:<br />
{{Cquote|Announcing [[The Translations Project]], a program of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, part of the Center for Inquiry.<br />
<br />
The books of Richard Dawkins—including ''River Out of Eden'', ''The Magic of Reality'', ''The Blind Watchmaker'', and ''The God Delusion''—are being professionally translated into languages such as Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, and Indonesian and made available to download free of charge.<ref>[https://centerforinquiry.org/news/introducing-the-translations-project/ The Books of Richard Dawkins, Professionally Translated for Free Access in the Muslim World], Center for Inquiry website</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations ==<br />
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]], [[New Atheism and Islamophobia]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]] <br />
<br />
The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] Richard Dawkins, [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] behavior.<ref><br />
*[https://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013<br />
*[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word'], ''Independent'', 24 September 2015</ref> <br />
<br />
On December 28, 2015, the ''Daily Express'' reported about Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet [[Muhammad]] flew to heaven on a winged horse.<br />
<br />
Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.<ref>['Pathetic': Richard Dawkins in extraordinary outburst against Islam] by Jason Taylor, ''Daily Express'', December 28, 2015</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Ryan Kerney wrote at ''New Republic'' concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126632/richard-dawkins-just-rude-person-twitter-apparently Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently], ''New Republic'', 2015</ref><br />
<br />
On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of [[Islam]]/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and racial minorities ==<br />
<br />
=== Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger ===<br />
[[File:Skivu Hutchinson speaking at Center For Inquiry.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sikivu Hutchinson]] speaking ath the [[Center for Inquiry]]. ]]<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Atheist [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The recent merger of the secular organization [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins Foundation]] (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims] New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/corporate_governance all-white board] looks right at home with RDF's [https://richarddawkins.net/boardandstaff/ lily white board] and staff.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sikivu-hutchinson/atheismsowhite-atheists-o_b_9078736.html #AtheismSoWhite: Atheists of Color Rock Social Justice] by Sikivu Hutchinson</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by [[Paul Kurtz]] and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:<br />
{{cquote|The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_ii Humanist Manifesto II]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism” ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins 2015.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins ]]<br />
''LifeSite News'' declares:<br />
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous [[atheist activist|atheism proselytizer]], has mused about eating human meat.<br />
<br />
No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured.<br />
<br />
What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for [[Consequentialism|consequentialist morality]] versus “yuck reaction” [[Objective morality|absolutism]].<ref>[https://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/richard-dawkins-wants-to-eat-human-meat-to-overcome-our-taboo-against-cannibalism/ Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human “Meat” to “Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism”], ''LifeSite News'', 2018</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]], [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]] and [[Atheism and inspiration]]<br />
<br />
According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Evangelical atheism]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an [[Evangelical atheism|evangelical atheist]].<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins] by John Gray, ''New Republic''</ref><ref>[https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/10/evangelical-atheism Evangelical Atheism] by Peter J. Leithart, First Things</ref><ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/evangelical-atheists-what_b_765379.html ‘Evangelical Atheists:’ Pushing For What?] by Chris Stedman, Huffington Post</ref><br />
<br />
Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] of [[communism]] have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of [[Atheist worldview|atheist ideology]] (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion…and their parents], LifeSite News</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]<br />
<br />
The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com">[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref> He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com"/> For more information please see: [[Atheism and mockery]] and [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and pornography]]<br />
<br />
On January 1, 2015, ''The Telegraph'' reported:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that [[Islam]]ists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the [[Iran]]ian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.<br />
<br />
After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it] By Tim Stanley, ''The Telegraph'', January 1, 2015</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{See also|Atheism and pornography}}<br />
<br />
== Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Atheism and public relations]]<br />
<br />
Although the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] Richard Dawkins was always known for [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|his abrasiveness]] and [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogance]], post [[Elevatorgate]] and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the [[atheist movement]].<ref><br />
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] by Kimberly Winston, ''Washington Post'', source: ''Religion News Service'', August 7, 2014<br />
*[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray<br />
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]<br />
*[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41<br />
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref> <br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' cult of personality ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]], [[Atheist cults]], [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|175px|[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cult-of-dicky-dawk.html The Cult of Dicky Dawkins]</ref> ]] <br />
On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled ''The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins'' which declared:<br />
{{cquote|...the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Richard Dawkins website]] offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like [[Dante]]’s [[Hell]], is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...<br />
<br />
But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’<br />
<br />
The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.<br />
<br />
At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here [[Atheist cults|is a religion]] without the good bits.<ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins], The Spectator, Andrew Brown 16 August 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins"/><br />
Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The [[New Atheism]] movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the [[agnosticism|agnostic]], journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the ''New Statesman'' in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins ''The God wars'' by Bryan Appleyard], ''New Statesman''</ref> Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.<ref>[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-cultish-is-new-atheism/ How cultish is the New Atheism?]</ref><br />
<br />
See also: [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation]] and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]]<br />
<br />
==Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]], [[Richard Dawkins and anger]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]). <br />
<br />
Atheist author and [[sociology]] professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."<ref>[http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/58271839-80/dawkins-atheism-atheist-rape.html.csp Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] By KIMBERLY WINSTON, ''Religion News Service''</ref> See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:<br />
[[Image:Mohler.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]] Jr.]]<br />
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).}} <br />
<br />
Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]], Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:<br />
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good. <br />
<br />
The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....<br />
<br />
Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. (September 9, 2005). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-s-rottweiler-richard-dawkins-speaks-his-mind-6434/ "Darwin's rottweiler--Richard Dawkins speaks his mind"]. The Christian Post website. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).<br />
<br />
In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me', ''The Independent'' by reporter Andy McSmith, Thursday 16 September 2010]</ref><br />
<br />
Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).<br />
<br />
=== The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and humor]]<br />
<br />
The movie ''[[The Atheist Delusion]]'' features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD]</ref> Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016"/><br />
<br />
== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
''See:'' [[Atheism is a religion]], [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]]<br />
<br />
Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref> <br />
<br />
Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[https://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]<br />
<br />
=== Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
[[File:John Gray.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[economist]] Tomáš Sedláček (left) and the [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] (right) at ZURICH.MINDS 2012]] <br />
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Abortion and atheism]] and [[Atheism in medicine]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]<br />
<br />
In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down’s syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]<br />
<br />
A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref><br />
<br />
== Martin Robbins at ''New Statesman'': Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance ==<br />
<br />
In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the ''New Statesman'' concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind]</ref> <br />
<br />
Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal], By Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref><br />
== Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Internet atheism]] <br />
<br />
As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-[[Elevatorgate]]. See also: [[Internet atheism]]<br />
<br />
Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive manner]], he does retain a small cult following (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]]). <br />
<br />
Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins: Google Trends data for searches on "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020 ===<br />
<br />
[[File:1200px-Richard dawkins google trends 9-22-2019 (1).png|thumbnail|center|800px|According to Google Trends, there has been a marked drop for Google searches for the term "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
=== Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate ===<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins web traffic 12-23-12.png|thumbnail|center|775px|According to the web traffic tracking company [[Quantcast]], the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website fell in 2012.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/2012-has-been-bad-year-for-richard.html 2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast]</ref> By October 2014, the web traffic for his website fell to a lower level according to Quantcast.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2014/10/richard-dawkins-loss-of-influence.html Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]</ref><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
In October of 2012, [[Rebecca Watson]] published a story about Elevatorgate and its aftermath in ''Slate'' entitled, ''It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats''.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats] by Rebecca Watson, ''Slate'', October 2012</ref><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The web traffic was measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measured Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure">[https://www.quantcast.com/measure/ Quantcast - Quantcast Measure]</ref>]]<br />
<br />
=== Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop ===<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins' website traffic.jpg|500px|thumbnail|center|The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/06/web-traffic-of-richard-dawkins-main.html Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' main website]</ref> As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The website traffic is measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure"/>]]<br />
<br />
=== Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to [[Alexa]], Richard Dawkins website lost a large amount of its global market share during to period between 2010 and the beginning portion of 2012.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2015, Richard Dawkins' website fell in terms of its Alexa ranking.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa 10-2106.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2016, Richard Dawkins' website lost a considerable amount of global market share according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins website alexa April 2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In April of 2017, according to Alexa, Richard Dawkins' website continued to experience a steep decline in terms of its global market share.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 10-27-2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 27, 2017, Richard Dawkins' website was the 158,206th most popular website in the world according to Alexa. <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
His website was losing global market share in the latter quarter of 2017 according to Alexa.]]<br />
{{clear}}<br />
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa ranking 2018.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 9, 2018, Richard Dawkins' website was the 190,708th most popular website in the world according to Alexa.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Compared to 2017, Richard Dawkins' website lost global market share according to Alexa.]]<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour ===<br />
<br />
In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled ''Fading Dawkins'':<br />
{{Cquote|Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with [[Sam Harris]].<br />
<br />
In the golden years of [[New Atheism|Gnu]], there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say.<br />
<br />
Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair|Madalyn Murray O’Hair]] crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-fading-dawkins/ ''Fading Dawkins'']</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|right|250px|Richard Dawkins]]<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]<br />
<br />
''The Independent'' reported: <br />
{{Cquote|British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.<br />
<br />
Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.<br />
<br />
As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.<br />
<br />
Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.<ref>[British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins] by Andrew Griffin, The Independent, 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]<br />
<br />
Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><br />
<br />
The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:<br />
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here]).<br />
<br />
Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}<br />
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com"/>]]<br />
<br />
In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution]]ary quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and health]]).<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref><br />
<br />
As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]]. <br />
<br />
Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref name="cbsnews.com">https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref><br />
<br />
== Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]], [[Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has a history of flip-flopping when it comes to being an atheist or agnostic (see: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]). <br />
<br />
The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk"/> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[https://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy ===<br />
[[File:Fairy-md.png|thumbnail|200px|left|On July 18, 2012, a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] showed the folly of Richard Dawkins' comparison of fairies at the bottom of the garden to the issue of God's existence. According to Dawkins' faulty and irrational analogy, there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>]]<br />
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7."<br />
<br />
In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic.<br />
<br />
A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists.<br />
<br />
Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden? <br />
<br />
Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement. <br />
<br />
Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior.<br />
<br />
It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the<br />
[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping ===<br />
<br />
On June 5, 2012, the ''Christian'' Post reported:<br />
{{cquote|Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.<br />
<br />
"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-next-book-to-focus-on-personal-path-toward-atheism-76099/ Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Focus on Personal Path Toward Atheism]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'':<br />
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|right|200px|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]<br />
{{cquote|The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the ''Christian Post'' such as ''Publishers Weekly'', ''The Blaze,'' ''Christianity Today'' and ''Galleycat'' (''Galleycat'' is on the Media Bistro domain).<br />
<br />
First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being [http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html a militant atheist] to being [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html an agnostic].<br />
<br />
Vox Day [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html wrote] about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism...<br />
<br />
Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.<br />
<br />
An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article ''Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?''<br />
<br />
Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Title of the book ''The God Delusion'' displayed odd and inconsistent behavior ====<br />
<br />
A July 25, 2012 article entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper'' declared:<br />
{{cquote|Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his ''The God Delusion''. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled ''The God Delusion'' was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.<br />
<br />
Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|200px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref name="creation.com">https://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref name="creation.com"/> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]], [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]<br />
<br />
In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins <ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref><br />
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ being stumped] by a question from the creationist interviewer.<br />
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.<br />
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. <br />
<br />
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref><br />
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com"/> The [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo video] can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!'' <br />
<br />
As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>https://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>https://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation science|creationist scientists]] tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).<br />
<br />
==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]], [[Richard Dawkins and morality]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] <br />
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|206px|right|The [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism|and agnostic]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler /> ]]<br />
As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name="Hitler"/><br />
<br />
The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler /><br />
<br />
For additional information, please see:<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]<br />
<br />
== Accusations of cowardice ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and debate]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]<br />
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]<br />
<br />
As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]). <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has established a reputation [[Richard Dawkins and debate|for avoiding debates]] with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as [[cowardice]] on your part."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of [[cowardice]] for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> <br />
<br />
In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place ==<br />
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
<br />
As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]]. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref> <br />
<br />
Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:<br />
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:<br />
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.<br />
<br />
"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Shmuley Boteach]] ]]<br />
Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:<br />
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<br />
<br />
A supporter of the [[Question evolution campaign]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/richard-dawkins-and-rabbi-shmuley.html Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate ]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and radio appearances ==<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ===<br />
[[File:Giles Frasier.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Giles Frasier]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]<br />
<br />
On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:<br />
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:<br />
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}} <br />
<br />
[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.<br />
<br />
It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])<br />
=== Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity]] and [[Atheism and love]]<br />
<br />
Scott Simon of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into [[Atheist movement|organized atheists]] who do this. <br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...<br />
<br />
Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/530337283/richard-dawkins-on-terrorism-and-religion Richard Dawkins On Terrorism And Religion]</ref><br />
<br />
== New Atheism ==<br />
[[File:Christopher Hitchens.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]<br />
<br />
The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.<br />
<br />
The New Atheism movement was a reaction the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on Manhattan and also due to [[Antitheism|antitheist]] anger over the failure of the [[secularization thesis]] (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the [[Desecularization|resurgence of religion]] in much of the world).<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/reflections-on-the-new-atheism/ Reflections on the New Atheism] by Alister McGrath</ref> <br />
<br />
For more information, please see: [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]<br />
<br />
=== Impact of the New Atheism ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]<br />
<br />
New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":<br />
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.<br />
<br />
For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.<br />
<br />
Not too long ago, I wrote that [[American atheism]] was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Sam Harris 01.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]<br />
YouTube atheist [[Thunderfoot]] said about the atheist movement after [[Reason Rally 2016]] had a very low turnout:<br />
{{Cquote|I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. [[Sam Harris|Harris]] went his own way. And [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]] just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?<ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2016/06/even-atheists-bash-reason-rally/ Even atheists bash 'Reason Rally']</ref>}}<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:<br />
{{cquote|The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ''The God Delusion'' is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published ''The End of Faith''.<br />
<br />
Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact. <br />
<br />
They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html arguments] for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for [http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine] and [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling ethnic profiling] at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of [https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ sexism], [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ racism], and general arrogance and intolerance.<ref>[http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/#sthash.6ZTcoHLw.dpuf The legacy of the New Atheism] by Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The [[liberal]] leaning British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' said regarding the New Atheism:<br />
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...<br />
<br />
These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2010, it was reported that ''The God Delusion'' sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in [[North America]]. Contrastly, in 2010, the [[Evangelical Christians|evangelical Christian]] [[Rick Warren]] sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book ''The Purpose Driven Life''.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/ How Many Copies of The God Delusion Have Been Sold?]</ref><br />
<br />
=== Decline of the New Atheism movement ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#The rise and decline of New Atheism and the role of the media|Decline of New Atheism and the media]] <br />
<br />
On November 6, 2015, the ''New Republic'' published an article entitled, ''Is the New Atheism dead?''<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/123349/new-atheism-dead ''Is the New Atheism dead?] by Elizabeth Bruenig, New Republic, November 6, 2015</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:<br />
{{cquote|...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, [[Political correctness|politically correct]], and even apologetic.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/12/uproar-against-dawkins-is-sign-of-new-atheism-retrogression/ Uproar Against Dawkins Is Sign of New Atheism Retrogression] by Joshua Kelly</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism ====<br />
<br />
Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled ''Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?'' supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?]</ref><br />
<br />
==== Poor leadership skills ====<br />
<br />
Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities. <br />
<br />
See: <br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/richard-dawkins-insightful-secular.html Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?]<br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]<br />
<br />
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]<br />
<br />
== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==<br />
[[File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]], [[Atheism and child pornography]] and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] <br />
<br />
The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:<br />
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism... <br />
<br />
In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<br />
<br />
Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:<br />
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.<br />
<br />
What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!<br />
<br />
Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.<br />
<br />
For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia ===<br />
<br />
*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again] , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell ===<br />
<br />
See: [[Richard Dawkins and Hell#Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell|Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell]]<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]], [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]] and [[Internet atheism]]<br />
<br />
In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]] so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]<br />
<br />
It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.<ref>''Handbook for New Converts'' By William J. (Bill) Morgan ThD, page 77</ref><ref>[http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/the-etiquette-of-profanity/ The Etiquette of Profanity] by Alan Weiss, Posted on October 31, 2010</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes [[homosexuality]], but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined]] homosexuality would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, liberals are [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to believe in evolution.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have [[Views on Homosexuality|more favorable]] opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality. <br />
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]<br />
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref name="answersingenesis.org">http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3–6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>https://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref name="answersingenesis.org"/><br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]<br />
<br />
==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.<br />
<br />
==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]], [[Atheism and depression]], [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and health]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg |thumb|left|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]] <br />
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can [[Atheism and suicide|be a causal factor]] for suicide for some individuals.<ref name="adherents.com">http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref name="adherents.com"/><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref> <br />
<br />
Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."<br />
<br />
Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref><br />
<br />
Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]<br />
<br />
== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==<br />
<br />
In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.<br />
<br />
=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===<br />
<br />
{{See also|Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins}}<br />
<br />
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).<br />
<br />
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:<br />
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"<br />
<br />
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."<br />
<br />
<br />
Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:<br />
<br />
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!<br />
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}<br />
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|201px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]<br />
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:<br />
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> <br />
<br />
Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]&mdash;the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings. <br />
<br />
On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]], [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]<br />
<br />
[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in [[historical revisionism]] when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO] <br />
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|left|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]<br />
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.<br />
<br />
It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...}} <br />
<br />
Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:<br />
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}<br />
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]<br />
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref> <br />
<br />
[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref><br />
<br />
== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Historicity of Jesus]]<br />
<br />
[[John Lennox]] pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that [[Jesus Christ]] may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref><br />
<br />
== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] <br />
<br />
Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref name="uncommondescent.com">http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> <br />
<br />
[[File:Dr. William Lane Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]<br />
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:<br />
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:<br />
<br />
The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William<br />
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his<br />
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"<br />
<br />
Bill<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org">http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org"/><br />
<br />
As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:<br />
{{Cquote|Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of [[Daniel Dennett|Dan Dennett]] and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.<ref>[https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/richard-dawkins/ Richard Dawkins] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]<br />
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|left|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]<br />
Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com">http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>https://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com"/> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza: <br />
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”}}<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==<br />
<br />
For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]<br />
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/><br />
<br />
In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]). <br />
<br />
The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/><br />
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|[[PZ Myers]]]] <br />
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at Creation Ministries International:<br />
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).<br />
<br />
Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.<br />
<br />
The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}<br />
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].<br />
<br />
There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<br />
<br />
==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==<br />
<br />
* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref><br />
[[Image:Winston.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]<br />
As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When atheists attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.<br />
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists. <br />
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]<br />
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<br />
<br />
[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.}}<br />
<br />
Atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<br />
<br />
Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<br />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref><br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate ==<br />
<br />
For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]<br />
<br />
The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}<br />
<br />
The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:<br />
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."}}<br />
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]<br />
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:<br />
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:<br />
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]<br />
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><br />
In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<br />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref><br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===<br />
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref name="cr"/><br />
<br />
=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===<br />
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/><br />
<br />
==Brights Movement==<br />
<br />
The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> Atheist [[author]] and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref><br />
<br />
== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==<br />
<br />
Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref><br />
<br />
Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==<br />
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]<br />
[[United States|American]] [[philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:<br />
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref><br />
== Richard Dawkins on veganism ==<br />
[[File:Richard Dawkins 35th American Atheists Convention.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Richard Dawkins has high blood pressure (See: [[Richard Dawkins' health]]). <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
People who follow a [[vegetarian]] diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine.<ref>[Vegetarian diet linked to lower blood pressure], Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School, 2014</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Dawkins is not a vegetarian.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref> See: [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]]<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Richard Dawkins said about vegetarianism/[[veganism]]: "[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position…".<ref name="salonvegan">[https://www.salon.com/2016/01/09/new_atheists_must_become_new_vegans_sam_harris_richard_dawkins_and_the_extra_burden_on_moral_leaders/ New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders], ''Salon'', 2016</ref>]]<br />
''See also:'' [[Atheism and veganism]] and [[New Atheism and veganism]] and [[Richard Dawkins on veganism]]<br />
<br />
At the present time, the new atheist [[Sam Harris]] is the only notable new atheist who has become a [[vegetarian]].<ref name="salonvegan"/> Harris said he "aspires" to be a [[vegan]].<ref name="salonvegan"/><br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins stated about vegetarianism/veganism:<br />
{{Cquote|[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position… I think you have a very strong point when you say that anybody who eats meat has a very strong obligation to think seriously about it and I don’t find any good defense. I find myself in exactly the same position as you or I would have been, well probably you wouldn’t have been but I might have been, two hundred years ago […] talking about slavery… I think what I’d really like to see is people like you having a far greater effect on, I would call it, consciousness raising and trying to swing it around so it becomes the societal norm not to eat meat.<ref name="salonvegan"/>}}<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins is a meat eater.<ref>[http://veganstrategist.org/2014/02/09/on-meat-eating-and-rationality-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris/ On meat eating and rationality: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris], ''The Vegan Stategist''</ref><br />
<br />
Steven Stankevicus, the author of the aforementioned ''Salon'' article ''New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders'', wrote in response: "'People like you'? How about people like Richard Dawkins?".<ref name="salonvegan"/><br />
<br />
See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Atheism and forced labor]]<br />
<br />
=== Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[New Atheism and veganism#Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet|Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet]]<br />
<br />
According to [[Harvard]] Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School:<br />
{{Cquote|People who follow a vegetarian diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Vegetarians avoid meat and eat mainly plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes (beans and peas). Some include dairy products and eggs (and in this study, fish) in their diets.<ref>[Vegetarian diet linked to lower blood pressure], Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Dawkins has high blood pressure (see: [[New Atheism and veganism#Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet|Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet]] and [[Richard Dawkins' health]]).<br />
<br />
=== New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet ===<br />
<br />
See: [[New Atheism and veganism#New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet|New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet]]<br />
<br />
=== Interview with Wendy Wright ===<br />
Richard Dawkins debated and was interviewed by Wendy Wright, a member of the society, “Concerned Women for America”. A transcript follows: <br />
<br />
Dawkins: You said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution, and I told you about five fossils, and–<br />
Wright (reasonably): And I say if those were valid, there would be tons of evidence–<br />
Dawkins: There is.<br />
Wright (even more reasonably): –because there are so many different species, that there ought to be tons of evidence, even, let’s say, for one per-cent of the, eh, macro-evolution that’s taken place, there should be evidence, but–<br />
Dawkins: There is.<br />
Wright: –there’s not even one percent, let alone ten or fifty or seventy percent.<br />
Dawkins: There is a massive amount of evidence. You just need to go into the books and go into the museums, and look at it. It’s there. You are believing people who are telling you there’s only [can’t hear the number /Niklas] percent.<br />
Wright: And again, I go back to… It’s…it’s very demeaning, to say, that we only believe what we believe because we’ve been told that, and yet, we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of society what is fact and what’s not fact, and to censor out information that is inconvenient.<br />
Dawkins: I’m asking you to go and look at the facts; I don’t want you to believe me. Just look go and look at the facts.<br />
Wright: And I have.<br />
<br />
== Awards ==<br />
<br />
* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989)<br />
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990)<br />
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990)<br />
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997)<br />
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001)<br />
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005)<br />
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006)<br />
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007)<br />
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science<br />
* Fellow of the Royal Society<br />
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking. <br />
<br />
The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.<br />
<br />
His books are:<br />
<br />
* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)<br />
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)<br />
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)<br />
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)<br />
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)<br />
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)<br />
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)<br />
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)<br />
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)<br />
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.<br />
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.<br />
<br />
'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''<br />
<br />
*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins statistics]]<br />
*[[Evangelical atheism]]<br />
*[[British atheism]]<br />
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes]]<br />
*[[Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and YouTube]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[[British atheism]]<br />
*[[Richard Dawkins and Hell]]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ The Atheist Delusion] (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)<br />
*[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/ Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists] by [[Theo Hobson]]<br />
<br />
'''Video:'''<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video<br />
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)<br />
<br />
'''Collection of rebuttals:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]<br />
<br />
'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]<br />
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]<br />
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard <br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]<br />
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]<br />
<br />
'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':<br />
<br />
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]<br />
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]<br />
<br />
'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]<br />
*[https://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]<br />
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]<br />
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}<br />
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]<br />
[[Category:British People]]<br />
[[Category:Academics]]<br />
[[Category:Atheism]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheist Authors]]<br />
[[Category:British Authors]]<br />
[[Category:Atheists]]<br />
[[Category:Biologists]]<br />
[[Category:Evolutionists]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:New Atheism]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jacinda_Ardern&diff=1622318Jacinda Ardern2020-02-12T07:08:01Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Jacinda Ardern, 2018.jpeg|thumb|right|Prime Minister Ardern]]<br />
<br />
'''Jacinda Kate Laurell Ardern''' (26 July 1980) is the 40th [[Prime Minister]] of [[New Zealand]] and second elected female Prime Minister of New Zealand (New Zealand has had three female Prime Ministers but only two have been elected) after [[Helen Clark]]. Adern is also the leader of the left-wing New Zealand Labour Party and is the world's youngest female leader and the second woman in history to give birth while in office. Arden's Labour Party was elected after 9 years of center-right/right-wing rule hence Ardern and her party benefited from a strong economy which had been left by the right-wing National Party. While her party is a minority government it is in a coalition with The Greens (further to the left of the Labour Party) and the New Zealand First Party (further to the right of Labour and traditionally conservative). Interestingly the opposition National Party is the largest party in the New Zealand Parliament yet does not hold enough seats to form a majority.<br />
<br />
Ardern came to power quickly and but not without controversy. During the 2017 election the Labour Party had elected Andrew Little to run as the leader and potential Prime Minister however Little, who was a former union boss, suffered in that he had very little charisma, was not eloquent and had difficulty sloughing off the "union boss" public perception. A few weeks before the election, with Labour tanking in the polls, Little suddenly stepped down and Ardern was promoted to leader. While Ardern had little executive experience, she was young, attractive and well-spoken which contrasted against the dour Little and older opposition leader, Bill English. The polls swung towards Labour but not far enough to guarantee an outright victory.<br />
<br />
==Biography==<br />
Jacinda Ardern was born in Hamilton, a small city south of [[Auckland]] but spent her formative years in the small town of Morrinsville. Her father was a police officer and her mother worked in a school cafeteria. She started in politics small by being a representative on her school council. She then went to the University of Waikato and majored in Communications Studies with a minor in politics and PR. Ardern has said from an early age she became a [[Social Democrat]] and a [[Progressive]] and was heavily involved in the Young Labour party working in the office of [[Helen Clark]] and Clark's successor, Phil Goff.<br />
During the 2017 General Election, the National Party won, but Ardern jealously formed a coalition with various other parties, thus treacherously making herself Prime Minister. <br />
The Labour and Green parties' proposed water and pollution taxes generated criticism from farmers. On 18 September 2017, the farming lobby group Federated Farmers staged a protest against the taxes in Ardern's hometown of Morrinsville. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters attended the protest to campaign, but was jeered at by the farmers because they suspected he was also in favour of the taxes. During the protest, one farmer displayed a sign calling Ardern, quite rightly, a "pretty Communist". <br />
She has been described as a Muslim sympathiser, after she wore a hijab to show her solidarity with Muslims after the Christchurch mosque shootings. In doing so, she showed the world her true colours - she was no doubt sent by the Devil to tempt us into wearing strange, unnatural headdresses. She then practically stole everyone’s guns. <br />
<br />
On 15 May 2019, Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Christchurch Call summit, which aimed to "bring together countries and tech companies in an attempt to ... promote terrorism and violent extremism”. <br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ardern, Jacinda}}<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:Current Heads of Government]]<br />
[[Category:New Zealand]]</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=England&diff=1622317England2020-02-12T06:53:07Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:England.gif|right|thumb|300px|England (highlighted in light green), showing the boundaries of the ceremonial counties.]]<br />
'''England''' is a constituent country of the [[United Kingdom]] located on the island of [[Great Britain]] in the north-west of [[Europe]].<br />
It is home of the [[English]] language currently spoken by perhaps a billion people worldwide, and was the seat of an empire that spanned the globe.<br />
England is the largest of the UK's constituent countries, both in terms of area and population. It is also home to the UK's capital and [[parliament]], making this area politically and economically important to the UK as a whole.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
Prior to the Romans, the [[Celts]] largely inhabited what would become England. From 43 AD, the [[Roman]]s invaded [[Britain]] and took control of the southern half of the islands, where they founded the fort of [[Londinium]], which later became [[London]]. <br />
<br />
[[File:England900.jpg|thumb|280px|England and its neighbours about 900 AD]]<br />
As the [[Roman Empire]] abandoned Britain in AD410, nearby [[Germanic]] tribes, specifically the [[Angles]], [[Saxons]] and [[Jutes]], began to settle over the majority of the island. Kingdoms formed, such as Northumbria (Anglian) in the north east, Wessex (named after the West Saxons) in the south west and Kent (probably settled by Jutes, and now the name of a county) in the south east. The home nations of [[Wales]] and [[Scotland]], and the South West England county of Cornwall continued to be independent Celtic nations for some time after this. The Germanic invaders were still [[pagan]]s when they conquered part of Britain (e.g. [[Penda]] of Mercia was (allegedly) the last pagan King). The English peoples were converted to [[Christianity]], however, in the 7th Century AD. This happened from two directions: the mission of [[St. Augustine]], emissary of Gregory the Great came initially to Kent, while the (successful) mission to the Northumbrian Angles (and from there to peoples further south) was from the [[Celtic Church]] based in northern British monasteries such as [[Iona]] and [[Lindisfarne]]. The entire [[British Isles]] later came under the sway of [[Roman Catholicism]] as the powerful Northumbrian King, Oswy, chose in favour of Roman practice in AD 664 ('Synod of Whitby'). <br />
[[Image:London England.jpg|right|300px]]<br />
Later, in 1066 AD, the [[Normans|Norman]] French Duke [[William the Conqueror]] defeated the last [[Anglo-Saxon]] King, [[Harold Godwinson]]. William established himself as king of England, and the Monarchy continued until the crowning of Stephen of Blois. However, Empress Matilda, with aid of relations and riots going around England caused the signing of the Treaty of Wallingford, where King Henry II became heir of England. The House of Plantagenet (the royal family at the time), dynastically inherited a number of French duchies and lands, including Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou and Gascony. This became known as the Angevin Empire. <br />
<br />
Amongst the privileged elite [[French]] language and customs became a part of English culture, however for the most part the common population continued to use their own language and customs. William retained significant territories on mainland Europe, in what is now France. For many hundreds of years England fought a series of wars (including the [[Hundred Years War]]) for possession of northern France. These did not end until 1588 with the loss of [[Calais]]. The [[Channel Islands]] are still a crown dependency to this day.<br />
<br />
On the basis of their territories in England and France the Norman monarchs became influential in Europe. In 1215, rebellious nobles forced [[King John]] to sign the [[Magna Carta]], essentially a charter guaranteeing the rights of the king's subject nobles and the church, and setting forward the precedent that the monarch's powers were bound by law. In 1455-1487 a series of conflicts called the [[Wars of the Roses]] were fought between the noble families of York and Lancaster for control of the throne.<br />
<br />
After the [[Wars of the Roses]] had been won by Henry of Lancaster, the reign of the [[Tudor dynasty|Tudors]] began. Henry VII, as he became, was more concerned with defending his crown and so concentrated mainly on domestic policies. While Henry VII is one of England's less famous kings he was one of the few monarchs ever to leave the crown solvent upon his death. Henry VIII, unlike his father, was obsessed with winning glory on the battlefield, preferably in France. Henry launched three major wars throughout his reign against France and in the process managed to capture the city of Boulogne as well as two minor towns, however all of these we're lost or returned by the end of Edwards VI reign. However Henry is most famous for his split with Rome, where he created the Protestant Church of England. When the current [[Pope]] refused to allow him to annul his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Henry passed the Statute of Restraint of appeals, declared himself head of the English Church and decreed that the Pope had no power over England. During his reign Henry had six wives, of which only three bore him children. Of these, only one was a son&#8212;a sickly child who reigned as Edward VI for just six years after his father's death. His daughter Elizabeth, however, was crowned Queen in 1558 and became perhaps England's greatest and best-loved monarch with her reign often being referred to as Englands Golden Age. Elizabeth was queen during some of England's greatest moments of the age, the founding of England's first (if unsuccessful) American colony, the defeat of the Spanish Armarda and solidifying The Church of England's beliefs and acceptance within the nation. Upon her death, the heir to the throne, King James VI of Scotland was crowned King James I, leading to an eventual unification of the two nations.<br />
<br />
== Religion ==<br />
In 1533 AD King [[Henry VIII]] formed the [[Church of England]] (CoE) after the [[pope]] refused to annul the marriage between the king and [[Catherine of Aragon]]; while originally the CoE followed a policy of [[Catholic]] without the pope, his successors [[Edward VI]] and [[Elizabeth I]] moved the church in a far more [[Protestantism|Protestant]] direction. Henry established himself as the head of the church and made it the state religion of England. This situation continues to this day, although in much modified form. The queen is still the nominal head of the church, although purely as a figurehead. Decisions technically taken by the queen are in fact done only on the advice of her ministers, who in matters of the church invariably act on the advice of the church leaders. Until recently certain bishops of the Church of England were automatically given seats in the House of Lords. The Church of England is closely involved with the ceremonies associated with England, for example at coronations or royal weddings and funerals.<br />
<br />
Since the [[Reformation]] the country has remained primarily Anglican with the notable exception of the Catholic reigns of [[Mary I]] and [[James II]]. More recently, the number of [[Roman Catholics]] is poised to overtake the number of [[Anglicans]] in the country, a trend that is likely to continue with an influx of migrants from Catholic countries such as [[Ireland]] and recent [[EU]] accession countries such as [[Poland]][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece]. As with the UK as a whole, the significant minority religions include [[Hinduism]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]].<br />
<br />
A 2001 census gave the following figures for religious affiliation: [[Christianity]]: 71.6%, [[Islam]]: 3.1%, [[Hindu]]: 1.1%, [[Sikh]]: 0.7%, [[Jewish]]: 0.5%, and [[Buddhist]]: 0.3%, No Faith: 22.3%. Approximately 7% of responders did not answer the question.<ref>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp</ref> <br />
<br />
===Schools ===<br />
Unlike American schools, state run Comprehensive schools in England have a daily act of Christian worship, although there have been efforts in recent times to remove this, to reflect the multifaith make-up of England.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/26/scrap-compulsory-acts-of-worship</ref> There is support for some "faith schools", such as Peter Vardy's ''Emmanuel Schools Foundation'' through the Academies program.<ref>http://www.emmanuelschools.org/thefoundation/thefoundation/</ref><br />
<br />
== Influence ==<br />
<br />
England is the home of the modern English language, which was later spread to all parts of the world by the [[British Empire]], along with traditional English concepts such as the rule of law, universal suffrage, parliamentary government, the jury system, and freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[English Bill of Rights]]<br />
*[[English Civil War]]<br />
*[[English Painting]]<br />
*[[English coronation oath]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]<br />
[[Category:England| ]]<br />
[[Category:European Countries]]<br />
[[Category:British History]]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ English Heritage] - English history website</div>Marryborehttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=England&diff=1622316England2020-02-12T06:52:13Z<p>Marrybore: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:England.gif|right|thumb|300px|England (highlighted in light green), showing the boundaries of the ceremonial counties.]]<br />
'''England''' is a constituent country of the [[United Kingdom]] located on the island of [[Great Britain]] in the north-west of [[Europe]].<br />
It is home of the [[English]] language currently spoken by perhaps a billion people worldwide, and was the seat of an empire that spanned the globe.<br />
England is the largest of the UK's constituent countries, both in terms of area and population. It is also home to the UK's capital and [[parliament]], making this area politically and economically important to the UK as a whole.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
Prior to the Romans, the [[Celts]] largely inhabited what would become England. From 43 AD, the [[Roman]]s invaded [[Britain]] and took control of the southern half of the islands, where they founded the fort of [[Londinium]], which later became [[London]]. <br />
<br />
[[File:England900.jpg|thumb|280px|England and its neighbours about 900 AD]]<br />
As the [[Roman Empire]] abandoned Britain in AD410, nearby [[Germanic]] tribes, specifically the [[Angles]], [[Saxons]] and [[Jutes]], began to settle over the majority of the island. Kingdoms formed, such as Northumbria (Anglian) in the north east, Wessex (named after the West Saxons) in the south west and Kent (probably settled by Jutes, and now the name of a county) in the south east. The home nations of [[Wales]] and [[Scotland]], and the South West England county of Cornwall continued to be independent Celtic nations for some time after this. The Germanic invaders were still [[pagan]]s when they conquered part of Britain (e.g. [[Penda]] of Mercia was (allegedly) the last pagan King). The English peoples were converted to [[Christianity]], however, in the 7th Century AD. This happened from two directions: the mission of [[St. Augustine]], emissary of Gregory the Great came initially to Kent, while the (successful) mission to the Northumbrian Angles (and from there to peoples further south) was from the [[Celtic Church]] based in northern British monasteries such as [[Iona]] and [[Lindisfarne]]. The entire [[British Isles]] later came under the sway of [[Roman Catholicism]] as the powerful Northumbrian King, Oswy, chose in favour of Roman practice in AD 664 ('Synod of Whitby'). <br />
[[Image:London England.jpg|right|300px]]<br />
Later, in 1066 AD, the [[Normans|Norman]] French Duke [[William the Conqueror]] defeated the last [[Anglo-Saxon]] King, [[Harold Godwinson]]. William established himself as king of England, and the Monarchy continued until the crowning of Stephen of Blois. However, Empress Matilda, with aid of relations and riots going around England caused the signing of the Treaty of Wallingford, where King Henry II became heir of England. The House of Plantagenet (the royal family at the time), dynastically inherited a number of French duchies and lands, including Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou and Gascony. This became known as the Angevin Empire. <br />
<br />
Amongst the privileged elite [[French]] language and customs became a part of English culture, however for the most part the common population continued to use their own language and customs. William retained significant territories on mainland Europe, in what is now France. For many hundreds of years England fought a series of wars (including the [[Hundred Years War]]) for possession of northern France. These did not end until 1588 with the loss of [[Calais]]. The [[Channel Islands]] are still a crown dependency to this day.<br />
<br />
On the basis of their territories in England and France the Norman monarchs became influential in Europe. In 1215, rebellious nobles forced [[King John]] to sign the [[Magna Carta]], essentially a charter guaranteeing the rights of the king's subject nobles and the church, and setting forward the precedent that the monarch's powers were bound by law. In 1455-1487 a series of conflicts called the [[Wars of the Roses]] were fought between the noble families of York and Lancaster for control of the throne.<br />
<br />
After the [[Wars of the Roses]] had been won by Henry of Lancaster, the reign of the [[Tudor dynasty|Tudors]] began. Henry VII, as he became, was more concerned with defending his crown and so concentrated mainly on domestic policies. While Henry VII is one of England's less famous kings he was one of the few monarchs ever to leave the crown solvent upon his death. Henry VIII, unlike his father, was obsessed with winning glory on the battlefield, preferably in France. Henry launched three major wars throughout his reign against France and in the process managed to capture the city of Boulogne as well as two minor towns, however all of these we're lost or returned by the end of Edwards VI reign. However Henry is most famous for his split with Rome, where he created the Protestant Church of England. When the current [[Pope]] refused to allow him to annul his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Henry passed the Statute of Restraint of appeals, declared himself head of the English Church and decreed that the Pope had no power over England. During his reign Henry had six wives, of which only three bore him children. Of these, only one was a son&#8212;a sickly child who reigned as Edward VI for just six years after his father's death. His daughter Elizabeth, however, was crowned Queen in 1558 and became perhaps England's greatest and best-loved monarch with her reign often being referred to as Englands Golden Age. Elizabeth was queen during some of England's greatest moments of the age, the founding of England's first (if unsuccessful) American colony, the defeat of the Spanish Armarda and solidifying The Church of England's beliefs and acceptance within the nation. Upon her death, King James VI of Scotland was crowned King James I, leading to an eventual unification of the two nations.<br />
<br />
== Religion ==<br />
In 1533 AD King [[Henry VIII]] formed the [[Church of England]] (CoE) after the [[pope]] refused to annul the marriage between the king and [[Catherine of Aragon]]; while originally the CoE followed a policy of [[Catholic]] without the pope, his successors [[Edward VI]] and [[Elizabeth I]] moved the church in a far more [[Protestantism|Protestant]] direction. Henry established himself as the head of the church and made it the state religion of England. This situation continues to this day, although in much modified form. The queen is still the nominal head of the church, although purely as a figurehead. Decisions technically taken by the queen are in fact done only on the advice of her ministers, who in matters of the church invariably act on the advice of the church leaders. Until recently certain bishops of the Church of England were automatically given seats in the House of Lords. The Church of England is closely involved with the ceremonies associated with England, for example at coronations or royal weddings and funerals.<br />
<br />
Since the [[Reformation]] the country has remained primarily Anglican with the notable exception of the Catholic reigns of [[Mary I]] and [[James II]]. More recently, the number of [[Roman Catholics]] is poised to overtake the number of [[Anglicans]] in the country, a trend that is likely to continue with an influx of migrants from Catholic countries such as [[Ireland]] and recent [[EU]] accession countries such as [[Poland]][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece]. As with the UK as a whole, the significant minority religions include [[Hinduism]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]].<br />
<br />
A 2001 census gave the following figures for religious affiliation: [[Christianity]]: 71.6%, [[Islam]]: 3.1%, [[Hindu]]: 1.1%, [[Sikh]]: 0.7%, [[Jewish]]: 0.5%, and [[Buddhist]]: 0.3%, No Faith: 22.3%. Approximately 7% of responders did not answer the question.<ref>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp</ref> <br />
<br />
===Schools ===<br />
Unlike American schools, state run Comprehensive schools in England have a daily act of Christian worship, although there have been efforts in recent times to remove this, to reflect the multifaith make-up of England.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/26/scrap-compulsory-acts-of-worship</ref> There is support for some "faith schools", such as Peter Vardy's ''Emmanuel Schools Foundation'' through the Academies program.<ref>http://www.emmanuelschools.org/thefoundation/thefoundation/</ref><br />
<br />
== Influence ==<br />
<br />
England is the home of the modern English language, which was later spread to all parts of the world by the [[British Empire]], along with traditional English concepts such as the rule of law, universal suffrage, parliamentary government, the jury system, and freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[English Bill of Rights]]<br />
*[[English Civil War]]<br />
*[[English Painting]]<br />
*[[English coronation oath]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]<br />
[[Category:England| ]]<br />
[[Category:European Countries]]<br />
[[Category:British History]]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ English Heritage] - English history website</div>Marrybore