Talk:Richard Dawkins

• Archive #1| *Archive #5
• Archive #2| *Archive #6
• Archive #3| *Archive #7
• Archive #4| *Archive #8
• Archive #9

Elevatorgate

Develop Elevatorgate article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. Conservative 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --SamCoulter 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Please be more specific about book addition. Conservative 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

There's certainly one called Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--CPalmer 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. Conservative 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [1] (see also: Atheism and cowardice, Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience, etc.).Conservative 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

False dichotomy

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. Baobab 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards often frequented by suicidal atheists. Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the Question evolution! campaign very successful in 2012![2] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) Conservative 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! RedGoliath 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)

Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see your jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? Baobab 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Another book

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True. See here. I think this should be added to the list of books.--CPalmer 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--CPalmer 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [3] Conservative 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. RachelW 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wouldn't this be an example of gotcha journalism? Ayzmo :) 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Vox Day wrote: "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!"[4] Second, the 15 for evolutionist show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience and Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism and Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler and Atheism and cowardice. Plus, see: Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception Conservative 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! RachelW 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --RedGoliath 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)

Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2011 and the Question evolution! campaign will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with William Lane Craig (see: Atheism and cowardice. Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach which is a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost. Plus, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi which shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and liar. Conservative 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)