[wavefunction]

Dawkins and everyone else in the world are certainly entitled to express themselves, but there are also repercussions for that expression. He's said some rather dim-witted stuff about religions in general and some religions in particular and while I will defend to the death his right to say those things, it doesn't reflect all that well on his person imo.

[cconroy]

What is the worst thing he said that was dim-witted that you remember off hand? Generally curious, he defends his positions rather well I believe.

[jimbokun]

I think his comment about Muslims and Nobel Prizes was not one of his finer moments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard...

It's one of those comments that was so obviously stupid and pointless, its difficult to know where to start in responding to it.

[jackcosgrove]

For one he has attacked Christianity for being, well, religulous, more than he has attacked Islam. And that doesn't mean Christianity is more religulous than Islam; it means Dawkins is a coward and fears fewer repercussions from attacking Christianity than from attacking Islam.

[vectorjohn]

There is nothing wrong with being afraid to attack Islam. It is a legitimate scary death cult. So is Christianity, but Christianity is somewhat safer to criticize.