Originally Posted by Grind_Bastard
As intelligent as Dawkins is*, I find it incredibly hard to take most of his ideas about religion seriously at all. Speaking as an atheist**, he embodies everything I hate about atheism - every bit the smarmy, ridiculous cunt he tries to portray religious people as. Much like most militant atheists. And from what I've seen of his pro-atheism stuff on television and the like, he doesn't seem to act very intelligent or rational about the subject at all.... mostly drawing conclusions out of thin-air*** and using irrelevant science metaphors to make their practices look silly.
He's a fantastic evolutionary biologist and has a great mind for genetics/memetics... but as a religious philosopher, he will surely be laughed at in the future and remembered as being some sort of populist, rambling quack.
Now reading: Martin Heidegger - Being and Time (...and STILL reading Infinite Jest! About 300 pages to go! (minus footnotes))
* - The Selfish Gene is practically required reading for anyone in the life sciences, if not everyone. Meme theory is a highly interesting concept.
** - I'm an atheist more through a general apathy towards religion and avoidance of debate on the matter, rather than being one through any sort of conscious life-choice. A meaningless pigeonhole, really - "not religious" is perhaps more accurate.
*** - It's been a while since I've even thought of Dawkins, so I can only give a vague example - he often says something along the lines of "there is no evidence that atheism influences people to do bad things"... which conveniently forgets about things such as the Great Purge in Soviet Russia under Stalin, the Khmer Rouge and killing fields in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and probably other atrocities I don't know about.