Which of these political commentators is worst?

Post Reply New Topic

1) sam harris....
with his support of conservative war-mongering, his shoving atheism down people's throats, his silence on the persecution of rohingya, his calls for military conquests of all muslims, his personality cult, and his pretending to be an expert on islam when clearly he isnt.... and his views on islam even conflicting with extreme scholars like bilal philips, muhammad salah, assim al hakeem, etc.
2) richard dawkins.... with his treating the THEORY of evolution as FACT and bullying anyone who doesn't agree that it is fact, and pretending to be an expert on Islam when clearly he isn't, and his own views on Islam conflict with even the extreme scholars like bilal philips and muhammad salah and assim al hakeem, etc.
3) ann coulter... with her calls for the deportation of "30,000,000 illegal immigrants"
4) pamela geller..... flamboyant hate speech
5) sean hannity.... self explanatory.

Not too familiar with the others, but Dawkins have gotten on my nerves for a while.

I was a fan of his, but then I saw his decline into the same sort of cognitive extremism he was ranting so much about, albeit without a religious agenda. I mean, live and let live, man. If a Christian, or Muslim or whatever does not beat you over the head with their religion, you do well to do the same. Things are so much better when we don't try to tell each other what to do with their own lives (unless, you know, they are setting people on fire in the name of some doctrine...).

He is, IMO, giving non-believers in general a very bad name.

Mind you, he is an intelligent man. I wish he would stick to biology, which is clearly his strong suit. Must be his age getting to him...

But in general, the loudmouth political commentators tend to be dickweeds one way or another. That's why they attract attention and controversy in the first place. Hell, if they are saying something nice, no one would give a damn these days.

P.S. you seem, like a lot of people, confuse the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context, but I digress...

I agree with everything you've said....

Richard Dawkins has a very rigid point of view. His perception is that his view of social existence as a selfish method of producing offspring becomes annoying when he belittles people for not believing in his own theories of life. He is an incredibly smart and diligent person, but does not see beyond his own experience.
There is a very different, competing theory, that is based on the "me-self" versus the "we-self".
The "me-self" is the theory that Dawkins supports, which is essentially based on the view that the individual is much more important than the group, and that the only reason why we live in social groupings is because the individual needs the rest of the group to fulfil a particular job, think of the lady at the cash register: you need some one to carry out the task, but the individual person does not matter.
The other side is much, much more interesting and intriguing. The other side looks at insects, and how through generations some insects have discovered that through specialisation they are able to build societies without tools, something that humans have used to develop their societies. This is how E.O. Wilson saw the world (you can find more on the PBS website: E.O. Wilson - Of Ants and Men)

Dawkins can be an ass when he tries to convert everyone to his point of view, but evolution is a fact it is just too slow a process for individual people to see on the scale that archaeologists and anthropologists see it.

Dawkins can be exceedingly rigid in his thinking, seems to have an empathy deficit, an over-reliance on logical reasoning, extreme stubbornness, and quite frankly seems surprised when people get offended at what he says. He almost seems AS/ASD...

And when he tries to talk about social issues, he often comes off as a misogynistic jerk. That said, I feel I should point out that evolution actually *is* considered a fact by science. And while he has done a fair job of explaining the arguments that explain how genes and sets of genes survive over time and why a concept of god isn't needed for that particular slice of reality, he's still like that embarrassing uncle that sometimes gets drunk and says inappropriate things.

I chose Sean Hannity, because I think he has the means to reach the most people with his poison.

i follow dawkins on twitter. i don't find him misogynistic. the things he doesn't like about islam (most often talking about female genital mutilation and killing people, usually women, for adultery and apostasy) are things i don't like about islam even if they don't try to convert me. these things also make him pro-woman in my book.

I don't follow Dawkins on a regular basis, but I find him interesting. Maybe he makes a few gaffs occasionally.

I do think he is in a strange dilemma being sucked into debates like this because people presented misinterpretations of The Selfish Gene. That might be why he appears to go out of his way to argue with religious types and might come off as an a**hole for doing so. Also, for some reason he has included Agnostics in his discussion which probably annoyed some of the independent people.

Other than his unnecessarily (IMO) hostile nature to ALL religious people (including the non-violent, reasonable moderates), I find Dawkins fairly... progressive regarding other PC subjects.

I really don't get the point of getting upset when an old fart makes a vaguely sexist or racist comment, unless, you know, they are in charge of, say, gender or racial equality. Then that's bad.

It's a close call between Geller and Hannity. I think I'd have to go with Hannity.

Evolution is considered a useful framework for understanding biology.

HOWEVER, it is a theory, not fact.

If evolution were considered fact, it would be referred to as the "law of evolution."

This might seem like hair-splitting, but it's actually very important.

Misunderstanding of science greatly contributes to the culture war between thiests and the likes of Dawkins...

Having said that, I find Dawkins to be an annoying old douche...

I think maybe we are arguing the science equivalent to angels dancing on a pin head. Or a pinhead (I'm thinking of Zippy, now...).

That said, the pedant in me is prompting me to post the following; rebut if you wish, I won't counter. Here are definitions I was taught some years back, but I accept that nomenclature and language - especially ones that are not rigidly defined - change over time within a discipline.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true". Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Source

The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/rol ... _final.pdf

to scientists, theory = law. examples: the theory of gravity, the wave theory of light, the theory of evolution. these things are facts, or would you jump off a cliff because gravity is "only a theory".

I've no idea who these other people are, but I am interested in Dawkins. I agree that he is at times embarrassing, and the misogyny gets to me sometimes. He seems to have no idea how privileged he is,

However, if there is no strong atheist movement, I believe that various religious groups will start dictating our lives. I am incredibly freaked out when I think about how free I was to express my opinions as a teenager, and how now everyone self-censors because somebody's religious feelings might get hurt.

I think that the loud atheists are a necessary reaction to the return of religion.

When the biggest fight in the world was between the US and the Soviet Union, people were debating real issues, as in what made up a good life, and how could a political system provide that.

Now we are locked in endless discussions about abortion and all kinds of "value" issues that are really personal choices that should not involve politics. Meanwhile, someone runs away with the money.

You guys are seriously arguing about Dawkins when Coulter is on the ballot?

Yeah. Coulter is about as toxic as you can get.

I know Hannity's name and face. But thats about it.

The rest except Dawkins I dont know at all.

So Coulter would get my vote as the worst.

Dawkins (by default) would be a distant second. Dawkins is kind of the Atheist equivalent of a Christian Evangelical Fundy. And can be as off putting as one of them.