Vehemence is a strange choice. He's very mildly spoken, even if impassioned. I'm generally the same. Perhaps slightly louder.
He's not at all narrow-minded.
And he's certainly not intolerant.
Narrow-mindedness won't work in science. Basically you have to follow the evidence. Since there is no evidence for a magical sky man, it's pointless and naive to consider the existence of one. You may as well believe in a whole host of deities or mythical creatures.
I'm not sure about what he is intolerant. Unfortunately religion permeates itself in such a vile way throughout society that much of the dogma should not be tolerated. There's certainly never any cries to be tolerant to other sorts of dangerous beliefs.
It took me a minute, but I figured this one out. Randy Osterberg Flies Lamely Making Feeble Hooting Orations. Got it. Glad I'm not so old that I can't understand the plethora of acronyms that exist on the internet.
Tolerance must not be confused with acceptance of falsehoods. If somebody tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm not being "intolerant" by expressing an absolute refusal to believe that crap, I'm not being narrow-minded either.
Very well said, Adriana. How can refusal to accept a proven falsehood be considered "intolerant?" It just doesn't make any sense. Or, at the very least, it completely perverts any meaning of the word "intolerant."
I honestly can't think of a post by Adriana for which I disagree. Is that a double negative? Who cares.
Anyway, I completely agree (see above).
Richard Dawkins is definitely forward and open about his knowledge of the world. In a way, I find his open attitude towards religion far more tolerant than those who question religion but sit on their hands when it comes time to ask questions because they feel they need to "respect" those viewpoints. As Adriana stated, Dawkins maintains a respectful and polite demeanor when he debates religion.
Intolerance would be sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la" while someone with an opposing viewpoint tried to tell you what they thought, which is exactly what religious fundamentalists do when it comes to philosophy and science.