The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Marciano on January 23, 2016, 07:41:18 PM
-
According to Richard Dawkins...
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-today-the-theory-of-evolution-is-about-as-much-open-to-doubt-as-the-theory-that-the-richard-dawkins-7-39-05.jpg)
-
"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." ~ Richard Dawkins
Well, sorry to break it to you Richard, but The Earth doesn't go round The Sun. The Sun travels across the face of the earth and evolution is about as silly as gravity.
-
"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." ~ Richard Dawkins
Well, sorry to break it to you Richard, but The Earth doesn't go round The Sun. The Sun travels across the face of the earth and evolution is about as silly as gravity.
Good talk. Hit the showers.
-
"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." ~ Richard Dawkins
Well, sorry to break it to you Richard, but The Earth doesn't go round The Sun. The Sun travels across the face of the earth and evolution is about as silly as gravity.
Good talk. Hit the showers.
thanks! lol
-
He bugs me to no end. Basically, he takes the logically and sensibly suspect tactics of those he hates and uses them to advance his theory. Shame on him - he should know better.
-
He bugs me to no end. Basically, he takes the logically and sensibly suspect tactics of those he hates and uses them to advance his theory. Shame on him - he should know better.
What is Dawkin's theory that he is advancing?
-
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
-
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?
-
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?
Find me one firefighter that uses a flamethrower.
-
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?
Find me one firefighter that uses a flamethrower.
Many firefighters are arsonists. It's called a Hero Complex and it's a real problem.
-
But he says theory he doesn't say fact. So his quote can mean that people are so indoctrinated into these theories that they are unable to think for themselves and have any doubts about it.
-
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?
Find me one firefighter that uses a flamethrower.
To be fair, you can use fire to fight a fire by doing a controlled burn around a large fire to stop it from spreading.
-
Dawkins is the living embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I agree with his conclusions a fair fraction of the time, but is debating style is at best obnoxious.
Fire with fire amirite?
Find me one firefighter that uses a flamethrower.
To be fair, you can use fire to fight a fire by doing a controlled burn around a large fire to stop it from spreading.
Well...
It's a figure of speech.
I'm not proposing actually using fire to put out a fire.
I'm just saying that obnoxiousness can sometimes only be answered in kind.
A sentiment which I first expressed in 19 letters as opposed to 61.
-
It might be difficult to tell the difference between the trolls and the genuine loonies here, but I think luggage lad's old adage remains true, "Ironic shitposting is still shitposting."
-
But he says theory he doesn't say fact. So his quote can mean that people are so indoctrinated into these theories that they are unable to think for themselves and have any doubts about it.
He usage of theory is not one of an idea that may or may not be true. He is using the scientific definition of theory, which is a well substantiated explanation for a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
-
But he says theory he doesn't say fact. So his quote can mean that people are so indoctrinated into these theories that they are unable to think for themselves and have any doubts about it.
He usage of theory is not one of an idea that may or may not be true. He is using the scientific definition of theory, which is a well substantiated explanation for a phenomenon or group of phenomena. A scientific theory is composed of many facts in the form of evidence which supports the theory indirectly.
-
Well...
It's a figure of speech.
I'm not proposing actually using fire to put out a fire.
I'm just saying that obnoxiousness can sometimes only be answered in kind.
A sentiment which I first expressed in 19 letters as opposed to 61.
Sure, in some situations. Public broadcast is rarely one of those cases.
He's a good biologist, I'll give him that, but anything past that...
-
Well...
It's a figure of speech.
I'm not proposing actually using fire to put out a fire.
I'm just saying that obnoxiousness can sometimes only be answered in kind.
A sentiment which I first expressed in 19 letters as opposed to 61.
Sure, in some situations. Public broadcast is rarely one of those cases.
He's a good biologist, I'll give him that, but anything past that...
True, but if some prominent religious person was being obnoxious, most people would excuse them just for their religiosity.
He makes the point that religion is not something that needs protecting, least of all from obnoxiousness.
I reckon he is simply passionate, maybe a little old and grumpy, but passionate nonetheless.
-
True, but if some prominent religious person was being obnoxious, most people would excuse them just for their religiosity.
He makes the point that religion is not something that needs protecting, least of all from obnoxiousness.
I reckon he is simply passionate, maybe a little old and grumpy, but passionate nonetheless.
Some might, it doesn't happen too much in my experience. Plenty of people get called out on issues: more often that not it seems Dawkins is the one being defended on the basis of his belief whenever he goes too far. At best he's a hypocrite.
Passion's great, but it can go a bit too far.
-
"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." ~ Richard Dawkins
Well, sorry to break it to you Richard, but The Earth doesn't go round The Sun. The Sun travels across the face of the earth and evolution is about as silly as gravity.
I think I'm going to shoot myself.
-
True, but if some prominent religious person was being obnoxious, most people would excuse them just for their religiosity.
He makes the point that religion is not something that needs protecting, least of all from obnoxiousness.
I reckon he is simply passionate, maybe a little old and grumpy, but passionate nonetheless.
Some might, it doesn't happen too much in my experience. Plenty of people get called out on issues: more often that not it seems Dawkins is the one being defended on the basis of his belief whenever he goes too far. At best he's a hypocrite.
Passion's great, but it can go a bit too far.
People have free speech and their right to be obnoxious and/or a hypocrite should be protected. Dawkin's protests the privileged position that religion has in society, and I think rightfully so. Is he occasionally cantankerous, yes, but who cares? His ideas are by and large good ones: do not accept anything on bad evidence, be aware of intrinsic bias, do not protect privilege merely because of legacy, etc...
To say he is a hypocrite is to say that his position is formulated in the same way as the religious position which it obviously is not and so I can't see how you can call him a hypocrite in that respect. Am I missing your point?
-
People have free speech and their right to be obnoxious and/or a hypocrite should be protected. Dawkin's protests the privileged position that religion has in society, and I think rightfully so. Is he occasionally cantankerous, yes, but who cares? His ideas are by and large good ones: do not accept anything on bad evidence, be aware of intrinsic bias, do not protect privilege merely because of legacy, etc...
To say he is a hypocrite is to say that his position is formulated in the same way as the religious position which it obviously is not and so I can't see how you can call him a hypocrite in that respect. Am I missing your point?
It's not a 'who cares?' situation. He is right, in many cases, but that doesn't excuse both he other things he says, and the way he often says them.
His position is formulated differently (in some cases) but that wasn't what I was referring to. He receives the same treatment as do the people he decries: whole swathes of people willing to overlook slights or errors, for no good reason. That's no inherent fault with him, it's human nature to want to think the best of people we previously liked, but the fact remains he refuses to call people out on it, and complains when he's subjected to the same standards he insists religions be held to.
Plus he says far more than the limited examples brought up in this thread. This (http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/in-which-richard-dawkins-disappoints-me) would be an easy example. Then there's the fact he's more in favour of erasing than educating religions.
There's some good, and there is plenty of bad.
-
People have free speech and their right to be obnoxious and/or a hypocrite should be protected. Dawkin's protests the privileged position that religion has in society, and I think rightfully so. Is he occasionally cantankerous, yes, but who cares? His ideas are by and large good ones: do not accept anything on bad evidence, be aware of intrinsic bias, do not protect privilege merely because of legacy, etc...
To say he is a hypocrite is to say that his position is formulated in the same way as the religious position which it obviously is not and so I can't see how you can call him a hypocrite in that respect. Am I missing your point?
It's not a 'who cares?' situation. He is right, in many cases, but that doesn't excuse both he other things he says,
Can you give an example? I want to know specifically what you are taking exception to.
and the way he often says them.
This is the biggest part of the issue for me. Who cares if he is not always pleasant when he speaks his mind? It has no bearing on the truth of it. It might alienate some people who think decorum is more important than substance, and I appreciate that, but it does not make him incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
His position is formulated differently (in some cases) but that wasn't what I was referring to. He receives the same treatment as do the people he decries: whole swathes of people willing to overlook slights or errors, for no good reason. That's no inherent fault with him, it's human nature to want to think the best of people we previously liked, but the fact remains he refuses to call people out on it, and complains when he's subjected to the same standards he insists religions be held to.
Again, I would love a specific example, so I can comment more accurately.
Plus he says far more than the limited examples brought up in this thread. This (http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/in-which-richard-dawkins-disappoints-me) would be an easy example.
Yeah, I can see how people can dislike what he says there. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, even within those comments specifically, but it is fair to say he is being insensitive in his viewpoint.
Then there's the fact he's more in favour of erasing than educating religions.
I have never heard him propose this, only wish it. What I have heard him propose is to teach children the facts about religion and let them evaluate them for themself instead of indoctrinating them against his will.
There's some good, and there is plenty of bad.
I would propose there is much more good than bad, but the bad is brought out in relief more often.
-
Nice Hegelian Dialectic False Dichotomy shill-circle-jerk you got going on here.
Fact is that Dawkins is a Children's Entertainer.
And you are the Children.
-
This is the biggest part of the issue for me. Who cares if he is not always pleasant when he speaks his mind? It has no bearing on the truth of it. It might alienate some people who think decorum is more important than substance, and I appreciate that, but it does not make him incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
Well if he's seeking to convince people, insulting them would count as a pretty incompetent way of doing it.
Even so, I'm not the OP. I think he's a good biologist, just nothing more than that. His conclusions may, in some cases, be correct but he's often not all that good at arguing for them, and inevitably comes across terribly. It's fair to say public figures should be expected to have a certain amount of decorum.
Yeah, I can see how people can dislike what he says there. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, even within those comments specifically, but it is fair to say he is being insensitive in his viewpoint.
What he's saying fundamentally makes no sense, in some cases, and is downright backwards in others: the same things he accuses religions of perpetuating, yet almost anything that brings it up or criticizes is prefaced with an apology. Plus it's easy to find accounts of Dawkins insisting people not 'manufacture controversy:' the exact claim he directs at believers.
Then there's the fact he's more in favour of erasing than educating religions.
I have never heard him propose this, only wish it. What I have heard him propose is to teach children the facts about religion and let them evaluate them for themself instead of indoctrinating them against his will.
That's what he says, but it's easy to see him state that his goal is the removal of religion, and religious influence. The latter goal could easily be reached by educating, and letting religion develop alongside science. Instead e constructs conflict, which is a surefire way to ensure you won't convince anyone of anything.
The easiest example would be the Muslim headscarf. which he constantly insults. It's an item of clothing of major spiritual importance to the people of a religion: some choose to wear it, because that's how they want to practise their religion. Instead, Dawkins constructs a mildly ludicrous narrative more at home in 20s adventure novels, of poor women oppressed by a terrible religion.
Except that's rarely the case. Sure, it's easy to make a case that Islam is saying men couldn't control themselves if they looked under a veil: just as it's easy to make the case that Muslim women are freed from the restrictions on beauty that other women have to meet. It might be possible to have an interesting debate on that topic: but it doesn't happen. I'll give him this: Dawkins is more reasonable than some, and doesn't propose banning the headscarf, though that also neatly allows him to sidestep actually justifying his constant insults.
Because the fact is, the headscarf is important to the adherents of that religion. Sure, technically free speech holds, and he can say what he likes, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous, or make it any more reasonable to mock something of great personal importance to those people. I've seen people get mad when their favourite football team's insulted and no one bats a eye, yet Dawkins and his crowd act horrified when Muslims call him out on his actions.
He paints religion as evil, no exceptions. And sure, there are problems. Notably, many problems are shared (to reuse the headscarf example: some women feel pressured to wear a more restrictive scarf because others insist they should be a 'real' Muslim. I've lost count of the number of cliques even beyond religions that use the exact same "You're not a real ____" line) with non-theistic settings.
I would propose there is much more good than bad, but the bad is brought out in relief more often.
In my experience, it tends to be the opposite. The bad gets called out, and then the most you hear about it is angry internet users leaping to his defence.
-
Well if he's seeking to convince people, insulting them would count as a pretty incompetent way of doing it.
Even so, I'm not the OP. I think he's a good biologist, just nothing more than that. His conclusions may, in some cases, be correct but he's often not all that good at arguing for them, and inevitably comes across terribly. It's fair to say public figures should be expected to have a certain amount of decorum.
He is seeking to educate people and at that he has been extremely successful. The number of people who are now aware of good arguments both for and against religion because of him is quite large by my lights.
What he's saying fundamentally makes no sense, in some cases, and is downright backwards in others: the same things he accuses religions of perpetuating, yet almost anything that brings it up or criticizes is prefaced with an apology. Plus it's easy to find accounts of Dawkins insisting people not 'manufacture controversy:' the exact claim he directs at believers.
But he does make sense, you just don't like what he is saying, or more specifically how he is presenting it. The plight of women in Western democracies is better than women in islamic fundamentalist countries by almost every plausible metric. I am not entirely sure why he is making a point of it, and on that I would disagree, but on point of fact, he is right.
That's what he says, but it's easy to see him state that his goal is the removal of religion, and religious influence. The latter goal could easily be reached by educating, and letting religion develop alongside science. Instead e constructs conflict, which is a surefire way to ensure you won't convince anyone of anything.
The easiest example would be the Muslim headscarf. which he constantly insults. It's an item of clothing of major spiritual importance to the people of a religion: some choose to wear it, because that's how they want to practise their religion. Instead, Dawkins constructs a mildly ludicrous narrative more at home in 20s adventure novels, of poor women oppressed by a terrible religion. Except that's rarely the case. Sure, it's easy to make a case that Islam is saying men couldn't control themselves if they looked under a veil: just as it's easy to make the case that Muslim women are freed from the restrictions on beauty that other women have to meet. It might be possible to have an interesting debate on that topic: but it doesn't happen. I'll give him this: Dawkins is more reasonable than some, and doesn't propose banning the headscarf, though that also neatly allows him to sidestep actually justifying his constant insults.
Because the fact is, the headscarf is important to the adherents of that religion. Sure, technically free speech holds, and he can say what he likes, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous, or make it any more reasonable to mock something of great personal importance to those people.
I would be happy to have that debate with you sometime, but it is best left for another place.
I've seen people get mad when their favourite football team's insulted and no one bats a eye, yet Dawkins and his crowd act horrified when Muslims call him out on his actions.
Sorry, you are comparing football matches to this? Why do you think they compare?
He paints religion as evil, no exceptions. And sure, there are problems. Notably, many problems are shared (to reuse the headscarf example: some women feel pressured to wear a more restrictive scarf because others insist they should be a 'real' Muslim. I've lost count of the number of cliques even beyond religions that use the exact same "You're not a real ____" line) with non-theistic settings.
Social pressure or fearing for their life in some cases.
In my experience, it tends to be the opposite. The bad gets called out, and then the most you hear about it is angry internet users leaping to his defence.
I'm not angry and I will admit, I totally get why people don't like Dawkins. He is bullish and cantankerous. He is obviously not incompetent either, he is extremely smart and has also convinced a great number of people of his position. What people don't like about him is that he preaches to the choir, and does not particularly care to be respectful of religious beliefs, nor should he. It is detrimental to his position ultimately.
-
He is seeking to educate people and at that he has been extremely successful. The number of people who are now aware of good arguments both for and against religion because of him is quite large by my lights.
That's just not true. He's made more people aware of atheism arguably, though one could easily say that's as much a sign of the times as it is his doing: but the arguments he uses generally aren't all that great. Take an honest look at, say, The God Delusion. The theistic arguments he rebuts are generally in their weakest form, and more often than not they're cliches dealt with countless times. There's maybe a page or two of actual, substantial content: the rest rarely counts for much.
That's not necessarily a flaw with him: the problem is the whoel atheism/theism discussion generally takes the form of a debate, and so is impossible to cover well in a book like that. In most debates, you can predict how the first two or three turns will go, because the discussion's been had so much there's little new to add. Books like that start a debate, they can't progress beyond the first round. Of the major atheists, Harris probably stands out as the one who's actually contributed something. The likes of Dawkins just rehash.
His books on evolution are, from what I've gathered, pretty good: but that's biology. It may tie to religion and atheism in some aspects, but the focus is biology.
But he does make sense, you just don't like what he is saying, or more specifically how he is presenting it. The plight of women in Western democracies is better than women in islamic fundamentalist countries by almost every plausible metric. I am not entirely sure why he is making a point of it, and on that I would disagree, but on point of fact, he is right.
What I'm disagreeing with is the point he's trying to make. Just because someone else has it worse means you can't complain: that's basically it, and it's absurd. Without that conclusion, what he said was pointless: it's vital to what he's saying, and it remains utterly untrue.
Plus the context in which he's speaking should be mentioned. To my knowledge there was an accusation of misogyny levelled during a convention, and that was his contribution. He can't deal with criticism: he just avoids it with the most transparent of means.
[quote
I would be happy to have that debate with you sometime, but it is best left for another place.[/quote]
Suffice to say, a debate can be had.
Sorry, you are comparing football matches to this? Why do you think they compare?
They don't compare. How someone views their religion is clearly far more important to them: and yet they're expected to act otherwise.
Social pressure or fearing for their life in some cases.
Social pressure is hardly unique to religion, and the latter extreme case is typically reliant on certain areas of the world and to be honest there's a lot to be said on whether Islam causes Muslims to be violent and alter regions, or if the social and political landscape in Islamic regions is what drives Muslims to extremism, but that's a whole other issue).
I'm not angry and I will admit, I totally get why people don't like Dawkins. He is bullish and cantankerous. He is obviously not incompetent either, he is extremely smart and has also convinced a great number of people of his position. What people don't like about him is that he preaches to the choir, and does not particularly care to be respectful of religious beliefs, nor should he. It is detrimental to his position ultimately.
'Extremely smart' is rarely a good qualifier. He's a great biologist, Ben Carson is a great neurosurgeon, that doesn't preclude idiocy in other areas. Dawkins primarily does just preach to the choir (sometimes with dodgy arguments) and insults those who disagree. That's not going to convince anyone of his position. Look at how you act at, say, JRowe on this forum when he starts insulting people: he pretty much concedes his position there and then. Not that Dawkins is like JRowe, I'm not that critical, but equal standards should be applied.
(I haven't seen Dawkins walk into a church and immediately announce "You're all ignorant c___s!" mind you, though to be honest I kind of want to now).
I'll give him this: he's raised awareness of atheism. That's his main contribution: he's made more people aware that atheism exists, and is a real possibility.
The problem is, he in many ways became the face of atheism through doing that, and if he's going to still be obnoxious and insulting, that's not a good thing. And besides, he's done all he really can. At best he's redundant by now: at worst, harmful.
-
That's just not true. He's made more people aware of atheism arguably, though one could easily say that's as much a sign of the times as it is his doing: but the arguments he uses generally aren't all that great. Take an honest look at, say, The God Delusion. The theistic arguments he rebuts are generally in their weakest form, and more often than not they're cliches dealt with countless times. There's maybe a page or two of actual, substantial content: the rest rarely counts for much.
That's not necessarily a flaw with him: the problem is the whoel atheism/theism discussion generally takes the form of a debate, and so is impossible to cover well in a book like that. In most debates, you can predict how the first two or three turns will go, because the discussion's been had so much there's little new to add. Books like that start a debate, they can't progress beyond the first round. Of the major atheists, Harris probably stands out as the one who's actually contributed something. The likes of Dawkins just rehash.
He basically started the New Atheism movement with others like Dennett, Hitchens and Harris joining him in the public eye there after and yes he does rehash some points; but they are key points: the value of evidence and rational thinking.
What I'm disagreeing with is the point he's trying to make. Just because someone else has it worse means you can't complain: that's basically it, and it's absurd. Without that conclusion, what he said was pointless: it's vital to what he's saying, and it remains utterly untrue.
Plus the context in which he's speaking should be mentioned. To my knowledge there was an accusation of misogyny levelled during a convention, and that was his contribution. He can't deal with criticism: he just avoids it with the most transparent of means.
Hmm.. Ok, that does matter and it does make his comments more distasteful. He probably was trying (and failed) to be didactic or illuminating, not that that is an excuse, but for all his faults, being a mysoginist dick is sort of out of character.
Social pressure is hardly unique to religion, and the latter extreme case is typically reliant on certain areas of the world and to be honest there's a lot to be said on whether Islam causes Muslims to be violent and alter regions, or if the social and political landscape in Islamic regions is what drives Muslims to extremism, but that's a whole other issue).
Either way, it is pretty clear that these people have little to gain by throwing battery acid in the face of the women in their community if not for Islam. It may not be the only factor, but it certainly is an extremely prominent one.
'Extremely smart' is rarely a good qualifier. He's a great biologist, Ben Carson is a great neurosurgeon, that doesn't preclude idiocy in other areas. Dawkins primarily does just preach to the choir (sometimes with dodgy arguments) and insults those who disagree. That's not going to convince anyone of his position. Look at how you act at, say, JRowe on this forum when he starts insulting people: he pretty much concedes his position there and then. Not that Dawkins is like JRowe, I'm not that critical, but equal standards should be applied.
(I haven't seen Dawkins walk into a church and immediately announce "You're all ignorant c___s!" mind you, though to be honest I kind of want to now).
I'll give him this: he's raised awareness of atheism. That's his main contribution: he's made more people aware that atheism exists, and is a real possibility.
The problem is, he in many ways became the face of atheism through doing that, and if he's going to still be obnoxious and insulting, that's not a good thing. And besides, he's done all he really can. At best he's redundant by now: at worst, harmful.
I actually have not seen him insult people too often. His usual tactic is a very british sort of incredulity that for me stops just short of insulting. For example, I just watched a video of him being interviewed by an Al Jazeera reporter, who openly professed belief in Mohammed riding a winged horse to heaven. Dawkins was pretty blown away, he asked if the reporter really believed that, but he did not insult him.
All in all, you have done an excellent job convincing me he is a jerk. I still think incompetence is a charge that his record just doesn't reflect though. On a side note, Hitchens manages to say some things that are every bit as scathing and piercing as Dawkins, but because he was drunk, charming and eloquent, no one seemed to mind as much.
-
He basically started the New Atheism movement with others like Dennett, Hitchens and Harris joining him in the public eye there after and yes he does rehash some points; but they are key points: the value of evidence and rational thinking.
I agree that he had a major role in starting the movement, and bringing atheism into the public eye, but it's rare for the founders of a movement to remain relevant.
but for all his faults, being a mysoginist dick is sort of out of character.
Why do you think that? The link I gave earlier went through several examples of such behaviour.
Either way, it is pretty clear that these people have little to gain by throwing battery acid in the face of the women in their community if not for Islam.
It's quite easy to show that's not the case: because Islam had a beginning. The religion you're blaming and the attitudes therein had to come from somewhere. Obsession with female 'purity,' anger at rejection...
Besides, women have been outright murdered in the west by the exact same motives as the acid-throwers.
I actually have not seen him insult people too often. His usual tactic is a very british sort of incredulity that for me stops just short of insulting. For example, I just watched a video of him being interviewed by an Al Jazeera reporter, who openly professed belief in Mohammed riding a winged horse to heaven. Dawkins was pretty blown away, he asked if the reporter really believed that, but he did not insult him.
Seems pretty insulting to me (https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416). Questioning someone's suitability for their job over a relatively minor aspect of their religion feels pretty insulting.
All in all, you have done an excellent job convincing me he is a jerk. I still think incompetence is a charge that his record just doesn't reflect though. On a side note, Hitchens manages to say some things that are every bit as scathing and piercing as Dawkins, but because he was drunk, charming and eloquent, no one seemed to mind as much.
I never argued that he was incompetent, beyond a one-off bit of snark. He was certainly very successful at raising the profile of atheism. Beyond that, though, he hasn't done much, and I'm a little tired of people claiming he has. That's not incompetence mind you: he's managed an awful lot before that.
Oh believe me there's a lot to say on Hitchens, Dawkins was just the topic. Of the 'big four' atheists though, Dawkins does stick out a little. Hitchens was an excellent researcher, Dennett a great philosopher, Harris a superb neuroscientist: those are areas where new, lesser-known facts can often be supplied. Sure, there are some issues with them (Harris particularly, from what I've seen), but at least they bring something good to the table, and a genuinely interesting discussion can be had. For all the distinctly dodgy statements, Harris is the one I find most interesting because his discussions on morality, free will etc are the kinds of things there's too little of. Plus, more importantly, they're actual arguments.
Ever since the atheist movement kicked off though, Dawkins doesn't do much. Maybe he's a good introduction to atheism, but most of what he says (focus on rationality etc) is done by others, and I'm pretty sure James Randi did something similar on a larger scale before him. By now, the evolution debate is frankly overdone. Dawkins hasn't really provided anything that hasn't been said countless times before.
-
Your Islamophilia will not make you any more popular or successful. It just makes you more of an irrational cuck.
-
Your Islamophilia will not make you any more popular or successful. It just makes you more of an irrational cuck.
Very little of that makes sense. I've no particular love for Islam, any more than I do Christianity or any religion, I just prefer that if something is going to be claimed as evil or dangerous, there should be actual evidence. Radical, I know.
-
I agree that he had a major role in starting the movement, and bringing atheism into the public eye, but it's rare for the founders of a movement to remain relevant.
True enough.
Why do you think that? The link I gave earlier went through several examples of such behaviour.
Because I found the instances in that article to be insufficient in showing him a misogynist.
It's quite easy to show that's not the case: because Islam had a beginning. The religion you're blaming and the attitudes therein had to come from somewhere. Obsession with female 'purity,' anger at rejection...
Besides, women have been outright murdered in the west by the exact same motives as the acid-throwers.
For going to school?
I actually have not seen him insult people too often.
Seems pretty insulting to me (https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416). Questioning someone's suitability for their job over a relatively minor aspect of their religion feels pretty insulting. [/quote]
I didn't say ever, I said not too often.
-
True, but if some prominent religious person was being obnoxious, most people would excuse them just for their religiosity.
He makes the point that religion is not something that needs protecting, least of all from obnoxiousness.
I reckon he is simply passionate, maybe a little old and grumpy, but passionate nonetheless.
Some might, it doesn't happen too much in my experience. Plenty of people get called out on issues: more often that not it seems Dawkins is the one being defended on the basis of his belief whenever he goes too far. At best he's a hypocrite.
Passion's great, but it can go a bit too far.
Hypocritical in what way?
EDIT- Whoops, replied before reading more of thread. Silly me.
-
Because I found the instances in that article to be insufficient in showing him a misogynist.
At the very least, such behaviour is hardly out-of-character when there are multiple examples.
For going to school?
Quite a specific answer, though again that's cultural. Many other motives for acid attacks are still problems in the west, and to be fair, in the US it was only the 70s when it became illegal for women to be excluded from education, and the 80s when men and women were educated similar amounts (according to a hasty google and wikipedia).
Besides, the issue more typically is women 'knowing their place' which motivates the attackers in those cases, and that's most definitely shared.
I didn't say ever, I said not too often.
I only brought up that situation because it was the specific case you said he didn't insult someone.
He doesn't insult with every word he says, but it is pretty common.
-
"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." ~ Richard Dawkins
Well, sorry to break it to you Richard, but The Earth doesn't go round The Sun. The Sun travels across the face of the earth and evolution is about as silly as gravity.
I think I'm going to shoot myself.
Do it from a mile away; then you'll know for sure wether the earth is flat or round! ha ha
-
Nice Hegelian Dialectic False Dichotomy shill-circle-jerk you got going on here.
Fact is that Dawkins is a Children's Entertainer.
And you are the Children.
Well put! lol
-
It's not a 'who cares?' situation. He is right, in many cases, but that doesn't excuse both he other things he says, and the way he often says them.
I don't even like Dawkins but you can fuck right off with your tumblr woes. Being right is the perfect reason to be "mean". Dawkins insults the religious because they are stupid, and because they are wrong. This cuckolded nu-atheism femyn-ally nonsense you're preaching will not reward you with sex, but it does make you look like a jackass.
-
It's not a 'who cares?' situation. He is right, in many cases, but that doesn't excuse both he other things he says, and the way he often says them.
I don't even like Dawkins but you can fuck right off with your tumblr woes. Being right is the perfect reason to be "mean". Dawkins insults the religious because they are stupid, and because they are wrong. This cuckolded nu-atheism femyn-ally nonsense you're preaching will not reward you with sex, but it does make you look like a jackass.
Geez, that's pretty fierce!
-
But he says theory he doesn't say fact. So his quote can mean that people are so indoctrinated into these theories that they are unable to think for themselves and have any doubts about it.
I don't think that's how he meant it. I think he meant, people who believe in flat earth are similar to creationist, in that they are going against the flow of "science," because they are superstitious bigots, who stubbornly cling to silly/dangerous/malicious/incompetent ideas from darker times.
Personally, I think he's got it backwards.
-
I don't really mind Dawkin's candor. I sort of like that in an "enemy;" it helps clarify things.
-
But he says theory he doesn't say fact. So his quote can mean that people are so indoctrinated into these theories that they are unable to think for themselves and have any doubts about it.
He usage of theory is not one of an idea that may or may not be true. He is using the scientific definition of theory, which is a well substantiated explanation for a phenomenon or group of phenomena. A scientific theory is composed of many facts in the form of evidence which supports the theory indirectly.
I heard you the first time, but yeah I guess you'r right. :)
-
But he says theory he doesn't say fact. So his quote can mean that people are so indoctrinated into these theories that they are unable to think for themselves and have any doubts about it.
I don't think that's how he meant it. I think he meant, people who believe in flat earth are similar to creationist, in that they are going against the flow of "science," because they are superstitious bigots, who stubbornly cling to silly/dangerous/malicious/incompetent ideas from darker times.
Personally, I think he's got it backwards.
I was just saying :)
-
It's not a 'who cares?' situation. He is right, in many cases, but that doesn't excuse both he other things he says, and the way he often says them.
I don't even like Dawkins but you can fuck right off with your tumblr woes. Being right is the perfect reason to be "mean". Dawkins insults the religious because they are stupid, and because they are wrong. This cuckolded nu-atheism femyn-ally nonsense you're preaching will not reward you with sex, but it does make you look like a jackass.
What.
So, this is the second time you've ranted at me and I'm still struggling to find any sense or reasoning or indeed anything that even relates to what I've been saying.
Free speech and all, he's perfectly allowed to be 'mean,' just as everyone else is allowed to call him on it. What I take issue with is hypocrisy and poor arguments delivered with arrogance.
-
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
-
Atheism is for biological machines !
-
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?
-
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?
Given how discussions on whether or not there is evidence/proof of God typically go, it may be better to start a thread if you actually want to discuss that rather than overtake this one. Besides, it's pretty common knowledge that there are many supposed arguments/proofs for God.
-
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?
I really don't think most atheists are so much a-theists, as they are monists (as opposed to dualists) or naturalists, that is, they don't believe in the supernatural world at all, but rather they only believe in the natural world.
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/fareforward/files/2013/09/dualism-2.jpg)
-
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?
Yaakov thinks a syllogism is sufficient to show the existence of God. If he can think that, you can expect a bunch of faulty reasoning to follow.
-
Dawkins is a blithering idiot, & that is putting it very mildly. The entire atheist perspective is illogical in the extreme, but he's an asshole to boot. If a believing person were to criticise him or atheism in the public discourse the way he criticises believers, that person would be creamed by the Libtard media, @ least in the US. I can't speak for other countries, obviously.
Why is it illogical for absence of belief to be the default perspective?
There is no proof either way, really, for the existence of a god, so the default position should be one of atheism, should it not?
Yaakov thinks a syllogism is sufficient to show the existence of God. If he can think that, you can expect a bunch of faulty reasoning to follow.
To which syllogism are you particularly referring?
Or are you referring to his use of them as a whole?
-
The thing about theism is that while there is a very limited logical basis for claiming that a god may exist, and a very tenuous and circumstantial basis for claiming that a god does exist, there is absolutely no logical basis for believing in the existence of a specific god.
-
The thing about theism is that while there is a very limited logical basis for claiming that a god may exist, and a very tenuous and circumstantial basis for claiming that a god does exist, there is absolutely no logical basis for believing in the existence of a specific god.
Good point there.
-
My objection isn't even so much to atheism per se, although I do find it illogical. My brother is agnostic. His wife is a screaming atheist. But Dawkins is an asshole about it. If he only followed the basic rules of civilised discourse, he wouldn't bother me. Like I said, if a theist was to publicly criticise him the way he does us, CNN & MSNBC would have a field day. Ultimately, what he believes is a personal issue. I would prefer he keep it that way, just as I get offended by Fundamentalists preaching their crap. He teaches crap just as they do. Its just different crap. Outside of boards like this, where the point IS to spout off, I keep my religious views to myself. I would like him to afford me the same courtesy. He doesn't. Ergo, he's an asshole.
-
To comment a bit further, many of you probably think you know my beliefs well. If asked, you would say, "He's a rather obnoxious Orthodox Jew". In that you would only be half right. Aside from the question of the syllogism being valid to prove G-d's existence, & I have yet to see a convincing argument that would prove otherwise (& yes, I DO have a BA in Philosophy w/ 1 of the courses required being Philosophy of G-d), there is a whole separate element to my religious life that I have NEVER discussed here, simply because everyone has been content to assume (IOW, to make an ASS out of U & ME) that my being a Jew is the sum total of my religious life. If anyone had bothered to ask, they would have found out that I'm also a Shintoist. Further questions would have led to finding out how I reconcile Judaism & Shintoism, & how one can BE Shinto & NOT Japanese. But no one ever asked.
-
My objection isn't even so much to atheism per se, although I do find it illogical. My brother is agnostic. His wife is a screaming atheist.
Thats a lie. You frequently call atheists morons and have most likely called for them to be imprsioned.
But Dawkins is an asshole about it. If he only followed the basic rules of civilised discourse, he wouldn't bother me.
Pot meet kettle.
Like I said, if a theist was to publicly criticise him the way he does us, CNN & MSNBC would have a field day.
Maybe and FOX news would embrace it. What does that have to do with it?
Ultimately, what he believes is a personal issue. I would prefer he keep it that way, just as I get offended by Fundamentalists preaching their crap. He teaches crap just as they do. Its just different crap. Outside of boards like this, where the point IS to spout off, I keep my religious views to myself. I would like him to afford me the same courtesy. He doesn't. Ergo, he's an asshole.
Oh well. Welcome to America. People can say and do what they want.
To comment a bit further, many of you probably think you know my beliefs well. If asked, you would say, "He's a rather obnoxious Orthodox Jew". In that you would only be half right. Aside from the question of the syllogism being valid to prove G-d's existence, & I have yet to see a convincing argument that would prove otherwise (& yes, I DO have a BA in Philosophy w/ 1 of the courses required being Philosophy of G-d), there is a whole separate element to my religious life that I have NEVER discussed here, simply because everyone has been content to assume (IOW, to make an ASS out of U & ME) that my being a Jew is the sum total of my religious life. If anyone had bothered to ask, they would have found out that I'm also a Shintoist. Further questions would have led to finding out how I reconcile Judaism & Shintoism, & how one can BE Shinto & NOT Japanese. But no one ever asked.
Maybe because no one cares about your Shinto secret.
-
Sounds like someone has a personal problem. Personally, I do think both you and Dawkins should be shot, but not for being Atheist. It is NOT illegal to be stupid. As much as I wish it was, we're probably fortunate its not. If it WERE illegal to be stupid, 3/4 of the population would be in jail. I think you should be shot because you are crass and have no manners.
-
Furthermore, your attitude about another person's spiritual life, your total lack of caring, represents the crassness of the Atheist Movement. Perhaps you are not interested, not due to the lack of merits of my "secret", as you pointedly put it, but because YOU are a self centered,egotistical pig.
-
To comment a bit further, many of you probably think you know my beliefs well. If asked, you would say, "He's a rather obnoxious Orthodox Jew". In that you would only be half right. Aside from the question of the syllogism being valid to prove G-d's existence, & I have yet to see a convincing argument that would prove otherwise (& yes, I DO have a BA in Philosophy w/ 1 of the courses required being Philosophy of G-d),
It's impossible to prove otherwise: God as an abstract is undefined, there's nothing to disprove. The impossible should not be required.
Assuming, for a moment, that the syllogism does not hold, then your position should be that God doesn't exist. It's impossible to disprove countless things, but so long as they're not proven people disbelieve by default.
Besides, it's often fairly easy to disprove certain concepts of God. The Christian, seeks-to-save-souls deity is easier because more traits are appended, meaning there's more room to find a flaw, but similar things can be done even with others. The issue is what traits that deity under question has. Such things need to be clearly defined for any kind of argument.
For example: benevolent, perfect, creator, exists in the real world. That deity can be disproven fairly easily. That wouldn't disprove God, because God is too abstract a term.
-
Sounds like someone has a personal problem. Personally, I do think both you and Dawkins should be shot, but not for being Atheist. It is NOT illegal to be stupid. As much as I wish it was, we're probably fortunate its not. If it WERE illegal to be stupid, 3/4 of the population would be in jail. I think you should be shot because you are crass and have no manners.
Nice. You want to shoot me for being "crass"; if this does not stink of hypocrisy, then nothing does.
Furthermore, your attitude about another person's spiritual life, your total lack of caring, represents the crassness of the Atheist Movement. Perhaps you are not interested, not due to the lack of merits of my "secret", as you pointedly put it, but because YOU are a self centered,egotistical pig.
I never brought up your spiritual life. You brought it up when you cried about no one asking you about Shintoism, as if they should probe you about your spiritual life for all the interesting answers they might get. Unfortunately for you, this is not a group of people looking to learn about your inner life, that is all there is to it. My specific attitude about your spiritual life is that it is yours and if it leads you to lead a fulfilling life, then bully for you. I do not need to talk to you about it except as it shapes your moral life in the public realm; that is literally the only part I care about, because that part has an effect on the world at large.
-
See, Rama Set, that is just where you present more of your own crass conduct. If you are going to sit there and whine about people who believe (which you do incessantly), it would behoove you to find out WHAT they believe. But you would rather put us all into an amorphous group.
That is the thing with most atheist types. They would would rather paint ALL believers as intolerant ignorami. The fact that Judaism and Shinto are 2 of the most tolerant religions on Earth does not register with the atheist mindset. In their mind, any religious person MUST be a dolt and intolerant. After all, it is this assumption that allows them to sleep at night and not think of the brutalities that atheism has visited upon people in the name of Militant Godlessness (to use the Russian term for it; they actually had an organisation named "the League of the Militant Godless" that went about destroying churches and killing priests and nuns and the like in the name of their Godlessness).
I of course don't dispute that some religions can be quite intolerant. But none have aproached the level of vicious intolerance displayed by atheism that lashes out and rages like a petulant child against anything that challenges it. The League of the Militant Godless was just one example. During the Chinese GPCR, "Destroying the Four Olds" was another. Under that rubric the Red Guards went into Tibet. In 1966 there were 6000 monasteries in the region. By 1976 there only 8 left. Say hello to Atheism, Class.
In Albania in 1967, the Socialist Republic was OFFICIALLY declared an Atheist State. No other country in the world has EVER gone that far. Attendence at, or participation in, any religious exercise was declared illegal. Ownership of a Bible or Qur'an became punishable by shooting.
So the question isn't about a person's individual right to believe or not to believe. The question is what non-believers do when they become the majority. As we have seen, the results have a high risk of being disastrous. This much is obvious.
-
I've never whined about people believing. That's your own narrative. Speaking of which: what is your criteria for being considered "tolerant"? When have I said that religious people are intolerant?
I would really appreciate clear, succinct answers, if you can because I simply do not believe the things you accuse me of. This includes atheism, something I mention frequently, yet you have never questioned me about? Once again, "Pot meet Kettle..."
-
My criteria for being tolerant is simple: don't be a dick. Atheists generally, albeit not always, are dicks. Judaism & Shintoism by definition of being National Faiths CANNOT be dickish unless they are really messed up. In their basic forms, however, they HAVE to acknowledge the possible validity of other religious traditions simply because it is hard to imagine that G-d spoke only to 2 groups of People. As for your beliefs, you have OFTEN expressed intolerance for mine. You have expressed yourself like an Atheist, ergo, it is understandable that I should perceive you as such. If that is inaccurate, I stand corrected. I could go through many threads both here & @ the other site & demonstrate what an intolerant dick you have been to me. I simply don't have the time. I admit that in response I have often become equally dickish, but that is a defensive reaction. Not appropriate, but understandable. So there you are. & the fact that you would even think of defending an asshole like Dawkins tells me a great deal.
-
(cont) So, Kettle, meet Pot! (reversal intended).
-
I conceded, in this thread, that Jane did an excellent job of convincing me Dawkins was an asshole. I was ignorant of the magnitude of his behavior and am less so now and have been honest about that. Yet, you don't even mention that. Seems myopic on its face.
Ultimately, nothing you have said in this thread is in the least bit surprising. You never turn down down an opportunity to label an atheist as moronic and often call for their execution via firing squad (some tolerance!), so you stayed true to form, mazel tov!
Anyway, Dawkins is an asshole, who is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Good night, and good luck.
-
I SHALL grant you one point that is fair. You have admitted that Dawkins is an asshole.
But your criticism of me just for existing seems unfair. It is that kind of dickishness that arouses an equal level of dickishness in me.
Nevertheless, your point about Dawkins is well taken. I differ with you on one point, however. I can't think of a time when Dawkins has EVER been right. He's just an asshole.
-
Criticism of you "just for existing"? What? Are you an angsty 16 year old?
-
Criticism of you "just for existing"? What? Are you an angsty 16 year old?
He claims to be a Shinto Jew, what do you think?
-
Touché
-
Rama, that actually made me laugh! Your last comment w/ the character script. But it would have been more creative if you had used Hebrew letters rather than Roman ones for the 1st part thereof. "A" for effort, though. My wife, currently teaching Third Grade, would call you a rock star & reward you w/ a skittle! Bully for you!
-
Rama, that actually made me laugh! Your last comment w/ the character script. But it would have been more creative if you had used Hebrew letters rather than Roman ones for the 1st part thereof. "A" for effort, though. My wife, currently teaching Third Grade, would call you a rock star & reward you w/ a skittle! Bully for you!
I'm Canadian. We speak french here. It is not a big deal.
-
Ah. Now that I am NOT on my phone browser, I see! The phone supports four languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, and Korean. I see on my Kindle's browser that you wrote a French letter. Somehow my phone read that as Chinese. And Japanese has two Scripts, one derived from Chinese. Here I thought you were being clever!
I withdraw my "A" grade and the skittle! Now why the phone DIDN'T read it as a Spanish character, I don't know...
-
Ah. Now that I am NOT on my phone browser, I see! The phone supports four languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, and Korean. I see on my Kindle's browser that you wrote a French letter. Somehow my phone read that as Chinese. And Japanese has two Scripts, one derived from Chinese. Here I thought you were being clever!
I withdraw my "A" grade and the skittle! Now why the phone DIDN'T read it as a Spanish character, I don't know...
*cough* french.
-
Yes. You wrote French, which the phone doesn't support. So why didn't it pick the language closest TO French to display, which would have been Spanish, rather than Simplified Chinese? Weird!