Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find out more hereHide
Custom Search
Sort by: Relevance Relevance Date |
Web |
Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name
He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if wants to be the face of a welcoming movement, he’s doing a terrible job
I became an atheist on my own, but it was Richard Dawkins who strengthened and confirmed my decision. For a long time, I admired his insightful science writing, his fierce polemics, his uncompromising passion for the truth. When something I’d written got a (brief) mention in The God Delusion, it was one of the high points of my life.
So, I’m not saying this is easy, but I have to say it: Richard Dawkins, I’m just not that into you anymore.
The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it. Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence.
Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies.
But over the last few months, Dawkins showed signs of détente with his feminist critics – even progress. He signed a joint letter with the writer Ophelia Benson, denouncing and rejecting harassment; he even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter. On stage at a conference in Oxford in August, Dawkins claimed to be a feminist and said that everyone else should be, too.
Then another prominent male atheist, Sam Harris, crammed his foot in his mouth and said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male”. And, just like that, the brief Dawkins Spring was over.
On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them.
For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.
Benson, with whom Dawkins had signed the anti-harassment letter just weeks earlier, was not impressed. “I’m surprised and, frankly, shocked by Richard’s belligerent remarks about feminist bloggers over the past couple of days,” she told me. “Part of what made The God Delusion so popular was, surely, its indignant bluntness about religion. It was a best-seller; does that mean he ‘faked’ his outrage?”
There’s no denying that Dawkins played a formative role in the atheist movement, but it’s grown beyond just him. Remarks like these make him a liability at best, a punchline at worst. He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job. Blogger and author Greta Christina told me, “I can’t tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I’ve talked with who’ve told me, ‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’”
It’s not just women who are outraged by Dawkins these days: author and blogger PZ Myers told me, “At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”
What’s so frustrating, from the standpoint of the large and growing non-religious demographic, is that Dawkins is failing badly to live up to his own standards. As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is publicly recycling the bad arguments so often used against him as an atheist: accusing his critics of being “outrage junkies” who are only picking fights for the sake of notoriety; roaring about “thought police” as though it were a bad thing to argue that someone is mistaken and attempt to change their mind; scoffing that they’re “looking for excuses to be angry” as though the tone of the argument, rather than its factual merits, were the most important thing; encouraging those who are targets of criticism to ignore it rather than respond.
The artist Amy Roth, who recently debuted an exhibit in which she literally wallpapered a room with the misogynist messages that she and other feminists have received, finds the systemic sexism incredibly frustrating. As she told me this week:
So, I’m not saying this is easy, but I have to say it: Richard Dawkins, I’m just not that into you anymore.
The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it. Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence.
Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies.
But over the last few months, Dawkins showed signs of détente with his feminist critics – even progress. He signed a joint letter with the writer Ophelia Benson, denouncing and rejecting harassment; he even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter. On stage at a conference in Oxford in August, Dawkins claimed to be a feminist and said that everyone else should be, too.
Then another prominent male atheist, Sam Harris, crammed his foot in his mouth and said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male”. And, just like that, the brief Dawkins Spring was over.
On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them.
For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.
Benson, with whom Dawkins had signed the anti-harassment letter just weeks earlier, was not impressed. “I’m surprised and, frankly, shocked by Richard’s belligerent remarks about feminist bloggers over the past couple of days,” she told me. “Part of what made The God Delusion so popular was, surely, its indignant bluntness about religion. It was a best-seller; does that mean he ‘faked’ his outrage?”
There’s no denying that Dawkins played a formative role in the atheist movement, but it’s grown beyond just him. Remarks like these make him a liability at best, a punchline at worst. He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job. Blogger and author Greta Christina told me, “I can’t tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I’ve talked with who’ve told me, ‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’”
It’s not just women who are outraged by Dawkins these days: author and blogger PZ Myers told me, “At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”
What’s so frustrating, from the standpoint of the large and growing non-religious demographic, is that Dawkins is failing badly to live up to his own standards. As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is publicly recycling the bad arguments so often used against him as an atheist: accusing his critics of being “outrage junkies” who are only picking fights for the sake of notoriety; roaring about “thought police” as though it were a bad thing to argue that someone is mistaken and attempt to change their mind; scoffing that they’re “looking for excuses to be angry” as though the tone of the argument, rather than its factual merits, were the most important thing; encouraging those who are targets of criticism to ignore it rather than respond.
The artist Amy Roth, who recently debuted an exhibit in which she literally wallpapered a room with the misogynist messages that she and other feminists have received, finds the systemic sexism incredibly frustrating. As she told me this week:
The men and women in this community have a right to speak up about it, and if the best argument you have against us is that we are the ‘thought police’ or we are writing for ‘clickbait’ or that the weight of our words is equivalent to an actual ‘witch hunt’, then perhaps it’s time to retire to your study and calmly reevaluate the actual topics at hand.
On other occasions, Dawkins himself has emphasized the importance of awakening people to injustice and mistreatment they may have overlooked. But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised. Instead, he clings to his insular and privileged viewpoint – and, worse, he’s creating the impression that “true” atheists all share his retrograde attitudes.
Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery.
Whatever he may say, it’s up to the wider atheist community to make it clear that this one public intellectual doesn’t speak for all of us. If the atheist movement is going to thrive and make a difference in our society, it needs to grow beyond its largely older, largely male, largely white roots. Dawkins’s very public hostility toward the people who emphasize the importance of diversity, who want to make the community broader and more welcoming, and who oppose sexual harassment and sexist language, is harming the cause he himself claims to care about.
In the long run, however, the reputation Dawkins will damage the most is his own.
Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery.
Whatever he may say, it’s up to the wider atheist community to make it clear that this one public intellectual doesn’t speak for all of us. If the atheist movement is going to thrive and make a difference in our society, it needs to grow beyond its largely older, largely male, largely white roots. Dawkins’s very public hostility toward the people who emphasize the importance of diversity, who want to make the community broader and more welcoming, and who oppose sexual harassment and sexist language, is harming the cause he himself claims to care about.
In the long run, however, the reputation Dawkins will damage the most is his own.
Get the best of Comment is free
The most shared comment, analysis and editorial articles delivered every weekday lunchtime.
Sign up for the Comment is free email
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
|
x
Sign up for the Guardian today - UK edition
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
(Emails are sent every morning)
|
These comments have been chosen by Guardian staff because they contribute to the debate.
- No comments have been picked yet.
- There are no staff replies yet.
Open for comments. Sign in
or create your Guardian account
to join the discussion.
-
84 people, 112 commentsunretrofiedRecommend2113Atheist movement? Thats your problem right there. I just don't believe in God or gods, I'm not joining a fucking club about it.
-
ElDanielfire unretrofiedRecommend97You haven't, but many have and kinda took over the athiest narrative and threw it at everybody else. Likewise many people believe in God by attend no religious service.
-
unretrofied ElDanielfireRecommend411I know, but it really bothers me, I have about as much in common with other atheists as I do any other arbitrary group of people.
-
SevenSeas7 unretrofiedRecommend124Atheist movement? Thats your problem right there. I just don't believe in God or gods, I'm not joining a fucking club about it.Yes, exactly! I'm an atheist and agree with you totally!
-
Rarian Rakista unretrofiedRecommend107Problem is that in less accepting climes like the American South, they can replace the social network one loses by going Atheist.Seriously, in some communities down there if you stop believing in God and people find out about it they stop being your friends and family. The question isn't "Do you believe in God?" down there as much as "What church do you go to?"
-
horrypops ElDanielfireRecommend37Many people who go to church don't believe in god, they go for social reasons.
-
GuiltyBystander unretrofiedRecommend134Agreed. Atheist activism is rather an odd concept. I can't imagine anything more passive: I was born an atheist and, through zero effort, I have remained one.Dawkins was raised a Christian. Maybe they're all former theists who, upon realising we don't have a benevolent father-like deity looking out for us, felt rather lonely and so formed a club. Or maybe they just missed Sunday school.
-
OneManIsAnIsland unretrofiedThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
Steamdog unretrofiedRecommend244I've been thinking of starting an agnostic movement but I'm not sure...
-
Pazoozoo unretrofiedRecommend180The other problem is that like most of the anti-Dawkins atheists, they seem to think if they attack Dawkins, it makes them clever than him. Even if it means making stuff up likeFor good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.which he simply didn't say.AlsoRichard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to addressBut earlier on in the piecehe even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter.I can't think of any public thinker who apoligies as much as Dawkins.
-
deadcatclub unretrofiedRecommend55There isn't much need for an atheist movement in the UK, because being an atheist here doesn't really limit your opportunities much. But it does in many places in the world, including the USA, where most of the atheist activists are located.
-
Guardian contributor
AllyF unretrofiedRecommend141Yep, Rarian Rakista has it right.If you're British (especially WASP British) it is really easy to be an atheist, there is very little need for an organised movement for social support, security, friendship etc.I live in an atheist community, to all intents and purposes, in that very few of my friends, family etc believe in gods and I can literally go for weeks without anyone even mentioning any kind of religious belief or observance.If I lived in most parts of the world it would be a very different -
unretrofied AllyFRecommend73That's very true, but if, as an atheist, I start to speak out against religious dogma and oppression in other countries, I will be called a racist, or a western imperialist, or islamaphobe, or what ever derogatory term seems to be the buzz word of the week. Having an atheist organisation does nothing, helps virtually no one, and is largely pointless, since it only creates vitriolic opposition. You might feel comfortable attacking Christianity for its history and oppressions , but how do you feel criticising other religions for the same abuses? Bit of a no-no around here it seems, ATL at least.Better to be a member of group which speaks up against and raises awareness of human rights abuses, regardless of their cause. It is at least consistent.
-
liam1994 unretrofiedRecommend29The atheists I know take their atheism far more seriously than any religious person i've ever, saying atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in god/s is a bit indigenous and a little sneaky imho
-
Aileen Elsbury unretrofiedRecommend24Atheism is a lonely lonely place to be.Church-goers flock together once a week with people that they have nothing else in common with other than religion, and if they feel lonely or like people are against them spiritually, they have the belief that god will welcome them at the end of times to back them up.Atheists don't have a weekly group for people who are wavering in their non-belief and the only thing we have to look forward to once we die is empty, black, nothingness.Not that we'll care at that point mind, but when you get lonely, it can be a very dire place indeed.
-
Kajatan Aileen ElsburyRecommend23If you are a lonely atheist there are plenty of Humanist & Sceptic groups all over the country now, you should look them up online.
-
deadcatclub unretrofiedRecommend28if, as an atheist, I start to speak out against religious dogma and oppression in other countries, I will be called a racist, or a western imperialist, or islamaphobe, or what ever derogatory term seems to be the buzz word of the week. Having an atheist organisation does nothing, helps virtually no one, and is largely pointless, since it only creates vitriolic opposition.But the atheist activists do argue for the right to criticize all religions, and that this can be done without being racist or whatever. Seeing as you would appear to think that it's legitimate to criticize any religion, that's one point in their favour. A lot of BTL criticisms of Islam that you get on Cif do appear to be tinged with racism, or at least seem quite ignorant; but you get some more thoughtful reactions to it on some of the atheist blogs.
-
unretrofied Aileen ElsburyRecommend87It's not a choice, I don't choose not to be believe, I just can't take the idea of god seriously, it just seems so utterly obvious to me that its made up.But I have friends, I have family. When I am feeling lonely I have them, support comes from places other than religion you know.
-
AllyF unretrofiedRecommend43well I'll criticise any religious belief that harms people (I have very little personal interest in people's peculiar beliefs otherwise) but as it happens I share my blog network/platform with a lot of the people mentioned in this post - PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson etc.I'm also very proud to share that platform with the likes of Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasrin, Heina Dadabhoy and various other ex-Muslims or secular Muslims, all of whom know far more about Islam as a religion and Muslim culture than I do, so I tend to try to amplify their voices rather than parade my own ignorance.
-
Dominika Kasolik GuiltyBystanderRecommend27I was raised a Catholic and attended 12 years to Catholic schools. I was even seen as good priest material by people both in my family and school circles( granny stilltoday tells me hiw she dreamed with me becoming a missionaire). Yet I have never believed in God. At age 6 I could already rationalize that Jesus was just a story people told each other and pretended they believed in order to be able to gather and sozialize together. I don't believe in believers. I think they are all fake, or at least the majority of them . I'm not of special intelligence and I never made a fuzz about my personal views, because I also understood from a very early age that everything else people cared about (moral values, romanticism, human rights, nationalism or even money) was just again stories that people who had nothing in common needed to tell each other in order to make the world work. Now I know it is. a. ahlot more complex and would definitely struggled a lot mire to define the world than when I was 6, though I doubt I'm more correct now that I was then about the basics.If a 6 year old of average intelligence raised in a Catholic household, part of a Catholic and particularly conservative (yet largely benign) city and society, and educated in a Catholic school didn't waste a second believing in these man-made stories,I presume the same is true for most other humans. Even the ones that present themselves as religious leaders and proselitists.Most of us now that in the material world, physical world or in "reality", there are no such thung as human righys, good or evel or anthropomorphic gods that give humans very specific rules of conduct. But most of us still know that without those imaginary ideas we wouldn't be able to live in large societies.
-
lichkingsmum unretrofiedRecommend69Atheist movement? Thats your problem right there. I just don't believe in God or gods, I'm not joining a fucking club about it.Exactly, and I've never read anything Dawkins has written/posted that would indicate he's interested in forming any kind of 'movement'.He's always stuck me as being passionate in defending women's equality and encouraging people to think clearly and rationally for themselves.I can't see how anyone can slag him off for that really.
-
AlexJones unretrofiedRecommend18Same here. I don't get the idea of "organised atheism". I mean, what do you need to organise about? I can understand the point of organisations campaigning for secularism, but you don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist.
-
ScepticBen unretrofiedRecommend18Quite so.
Movement?
Organised atheism?
I also am atheist and have never heard of them (or wish to).
I do not proselitise.
I am just a happy little bunny atheist content in my own skin. -
WithoutMalice unretrofiedThat's for sure. I've only known one other atheist in my life and that was a guy I met in the navy nearly 50 years ago. Didn't much like him. Well, I'm sure I probably have met others, but I think most of them are like me, it's not a subject I start conversations with.
-
ErnyRoamer unretrofiedI think what he means is people who follow other atheists on twitter and then write about it on twitter. That is a movement these days.Dawkins should just give up twitter then he wouldn't be exposed to the idiots that cause him such frustration.
-
unretrofied AllyFRecommend49I think the point of what I was clumsily trying to make (I don't get paid for my ramblings, so I'm not that good at it), is that I don't see how an Atheist movement can help. You are correct, I can live in the UK as an atheist and its not a problem, but this isn't a situation that arose out of nowhere. This came from centuries of struggle and increased questioning, of a combination of scientific and religious enlightenment, but this did not come from some burgeoning atheist movement, it was from religious people.The power of the papacy was challenged by many, by business and trade interests wishing to avoid taxes, but kings seeking to increase their own power, by religious people who challenged orthodoxy, Martin Luther springs to mind, but not by a direct confrontation to the idea of god.In Britain it was an ever greater splintering of beliefs which eventually necessitated religious tolerance, we pretty much had to or the resulting violence and sociological division was too damaging to us as a functioning society. It was religious people who brought this about, and in part gave rise to an environment where I can safely be an atheist. Its a gross simplification of course, there many other factors at play, but I hope you accept my general argument in this regard.This is why I would rather associate with groups who at least try to address human rights abuses, who seek to educate women, since that makes a huge difference, rather than those who think they enlighten everyone by shouting there is no god, especially since they seem to be developing a dogma of their own, as if suddenly all religious people will stand in realisation and cry "you are right, what a fool I have been!".The challenge isn't to god, but to the intolerance and inertia of cultures which accept no deviation from the narrow norm, and I feel that this can only be brought about by education, support and closer interaction. There are many within who desire change, they need our support, but not from militant atheist organisations.
-
Tom W unretrofiedThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
jojuki lichkingsmumIf I were religious, I doubt that I would hang out with other religious people, on a weekly basis or any other. Same with being the agnostic I am. There are far more important reasons to bring people together in common interest than whether or not they hold spiritual beliefs.
-
foolisholdman unretrofiedI was speaking to an ex-Soviet citizen the other day about the fact that in the USSR all sorts of religions co-existed more or less peacefully. (Rather more than less, actually.) She said that mostly one did not know what religion anyone one knew had. "It was no big deal, at least not unless one was a party activist. It was more like which football club one supported. Nothing to fall out over."I think maybe she was underestimating the hatred between various football fan clubs! -
AlexJones Aileen ElsburyRecommend43I'm a bit of a lonely atheist in that I've mysteriously ended up with a whole load of friends who are religious. Not quite sure how that happened. I don't know if you have this, but when I meet a new person who seems really nice and they tell me that they're religious, I get an awful sinking feeling. Just at the point when I thought I'd found a kindred spirit, it turns out they believe in something I regard as utterly bonkers.
-
Kimpatsu unretrofiedRecommend15So you don't mind swearing an oath to a god in which you do not believe in front of a captive school audience who are forced to worship a god in which they do not believe either...?
-
NarcissusMarximus unretrofiedRecommend13Amen to that.The real issue behind militant atheism is not whether God exists or not, it's that Christian churches have social power. And to whatever extent they have social power, they have political influence as well. And all of that exists because churches are organized, they have organizations, they ARE organizations. And those organizations provide services (literally as well as euphemistically) and benefits to their members. THAT is the single sole source of hatred and juvenile animus against them on the part of atheists (and Dawkins, despite his reputation, is as juvenile as they come). Atheists do not and will not - ever- have an organizational structure that can ever compete with Christian churches, or Jewish synagogues, or Muslim mosques, or Hindu temples, or Buddhist sanghas. Because they cannot provide either the inspiration or the hope or the vision of life or the sense of beneficent community that organized religion provides. And I speak as particular fan of organized religion when I say this...I am simply pointing out the facts. Organized religions serves real human beings in ways that atheism is simply not able to and is apparently completely unconcerned with. So their "movement" is always going to be nothing but a bunch of sour grapes eggheads beating up straw men and fighting for power and influence that they will never have because they don't have a message that will truly inspire a broad spectrum of humanity.And that's the fact, Jack.
-
AllyF unretrofiedRecommend12This came from centuries of struggle and increased questioning, of a combination of scientific and religious enlightenment, but this did not come from some burgeoning atheist movement, it was from religious people.Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that. Over about three centuries there was a succession of radical heretical or atheist movements which in their day were considered at least as extreme and unreasonable as the so-called new atheists are today (often far more so, to the extent of legal persecution and oppression).Obviously they took a different form and character, because those were different times with different norms, but the reason so many people are comfortable in being and calling themselves atheists today is precisely because the hard work was done by radicals like Tom Paine, James Froude, George Foote, George Bernard Shaw etc etc etc.And yes, they did gather at conferences and public meetings, write books and pamphlets and do all the things still being done to this day.
-
chewybb AlexJonesMy now ex-girlfriend and I were invited to dinner by our new neighbours.
She quickly agreed and the following night the conversation soon turned to "What church do you go to?" and "Join us at our church on Sunday." Of course, the obvious argument took place later that evening and it was the one and only time my ex dragged me to church out of politeness towards our neighbours.
Nowadays I find it much easier to be honest with people. -
Kaitain unretrofiedRecommend27But you might if you saw that theists were exerting political pressure on, oh, I don't know, education policy or health policy, or if you noticed your political leaders invading other countries because they felt that god was on their side. Let's just hope it never comes to that, though, right?
-
clickclickdrone Aileen Elsbury
Not round here they don't. Half a dozen VERY old dears and a locum vicar who does the rounds of the local empty churches on a Sunday. We did have a resident vicar (well, several actually, one per church flavour) but they've long gone.Church-goers flock together once a week -
SeamasWilliams unretrofiedyes, joining a club is antithetical to whole thing anyway. We don't belong to clubs, will belong to free and critical thinking, and there's no membership fee.
-
Zepp Aileen ElsburyIf you're one of these "lonely atheists", join a book club, or a chess club. Take up square dancing, or join a rock band. All kinds of things. You're only as lonely as you want to be. Join a political party. Even the ones that engage in noisy bible banging have their fair share of atheists. All you have to do is engage in dishonest pretence, and if you're joining a political party you're going to be doing that anyway.As for your "belief", waver away! Contrary to what the religious types claim, there's no rule amongst atheists saying you MUST believe there is no god. Atheists find the concept of gods unlikely, and the gods described in various holy texts to be absurd. If you are happier with the unlikely and the absurd, that's your choice. The only thing I would say is if you do decide to become a Christian or a Moslem or whatever, please stop calling yourself an atheist, but beyond that, it's your choice.
-
Isabelle Herbert unretrofiedRecommend15I know exactly what you mean, but I think the main use of 'organized atheists' is to gather funds to bring lawsuits against local authorities who do such things as sneaking prayer into public schools and erect tableaux of the nativity and the 10 commandments outside public buildings etc. It happens quite often here in the USA. I fully accept the irony of 'organized atheism' but I can see some purpose.
-
brianfp deadcatclubThere isn't much need for an atheist movement in the UK, because being an atheist here doesn't really limit your opportunities much. But it does in many places in the world, including the USA, where most of the atheist activists are locatedIn such cases, they'd be better appealing to secularism rather than atheism, because the problem there is with religious intolerance rather than belief in God per se. There are plenty of people who do believe in God who would also take exception to demonising non-believers. The self-proclaimed New Atheists alienate such people. Actually the also alienate plenty of atheists like me with their ignorant denunciations and very unscientific approach to, and highly opinionated rants on, anthropology.
-
missfritton unretrofiedRecommend15They don't just sit about not believing. They examine the influences of religion on law, science, politics and life in general. They encourage different thinking and change in the blind acceptance that still dominates the lives of so many world wide
-
Sineady PazoozooApologising for something doesn't always undo the damage of saying it in the first place. Making antagonistic statements either smacks of desperate attention seeking, or reveals a lot about what you truly think. The fact he goes on to say similarly sexist things is further evidence that he is indeed a sexist. As well as an egotistical, rabble rousing, hypocritical megalomaniac. I wish he'd bore off.
-
deadcatclub brianfpRecommend18So there is a problem with the acceptance of atheism in the US.Officially, the US is a secular country, but religion plays a far bigger part in public life than it does in the UK.
-
ukslimer Aileen ElsburyI don't want to go to meet up with atheists, for the same reason I don't go to meet up with people-who-have-no-interest-in-fishing.I'm not lonely, because I meet people with interests similar to mine - for example, a weekly board gaming group.
-
longlivedpr unretrofiedRecommend14You're missing the point. It's fine to be a passive atheist and in an ideal world that would suffice.But some of us are sick of having God shoved down our throats and sick of being "less equal" members of society than members of certain religions. So we have decided to defend ourselves. Proactively if need be. Don't scorn us for that. Nobody is forcing you to join.
-
tjt77 PazoozooAnyone who engages in controversy ( and especially those who question long established 'belief's') is bound to face criticism .. what I find objectionable about certain atheists is the same self assuredness that effects the 'believers' .. personally I remain 'agnostic' ..seem's to me that life has far too many truly beatiuful mysteries to be answered by sheer 'chance' ..there is something other afoot that defies explanation.
To assume that Dawkins has all the answers is ludicrous..those he offends will continue to 'cherry pick' and mis reprsent his words to bring the issue towards their own advantage ..overall its a useful and valuable debate he has started.. I trust it will continue... -
weetabixeater unretrofiedYes. Completely agree. I'm bemused by this. Atheism isn't a 'movement' and Richard Dawkins has no more or less power to be a non-believer than anyone else, surely. I am a non-believer in God, I am an atheist. Isn't that pretty simple? I can remember, as a child, wishing I could believe in a God (I still do, occasionally), but I simply didn't and never have since. I don't need Richard Dawkins or anyone else to lead me or any 'faction' of atheism. He and others may set themselves up as speaking for atheists, but they don't. Sexist, racist and homophobic people can be atheists - it's not something to join, it's just a fact of a person's life. Their sexism, racism and homophobia is to be deplored whether they believe in a God or they don't.
-
weetabixeater KaitainSurely that's an argument that education should be secular - not that atheists should persuade other people not to believe in God. I can see that belief in God is comforting, helpful etc. to a religious person, but I think that is between them and their thoughts, as is my atheism. Neither position is something that should be publicly lauded and incorporated into the education system as a positive influence.
-
ferka PazoozooFor good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.which he simply didn't say.True. But what did he say?Exactly. If you want to drive, don't get drunk. If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don't get drunk.Which can be interpreted in many ways. But essentially means if you want to be taken seriously in court, don't ever get drunk in case you get molested and need to testify.Now, it is to some extent logical. It's a little like saying if you don't want to get raped, reduce the chances by dressing very conservatively.Which is also true, but misses the context. The context being that rape victims are all to often not taken seriously, drunk or sober, short dress or long. This is for various reasons including, it has been suggested that the police don't understand responses to trauma. The problem is men raping and authorities not responding appropriately. Getting drunk is almost a side issue.(It's also like saying to men, don't get drunk in case you get beaten up and you need to testify - but we don't often hear that argument)Now to be fair, I might be missing the context of this whole twitter conversation. Perhaps it's all understandable if you've followed the whole thing. But perhaps Dawkins should stay away from twitter. It is not a good medium for discussion.
-
weetabixeater AllyFApologies - I don't know who Rarian Rakista is, so can't comment on that.
I don't really see that it is easier to be an atheist if you are White British, because it is not a choice. It may have been easier for me to be open about my atheism, and to be sceptical about religious worship, but I did grow up in this country, where being an atheist wasn't an issue for me - I see no reason to apologise for that. I live in a multicultural part of London where my children found it much harder when they were at school and needed a lot of support to be able to assert their atheism - they were frequently told they would burn in hell by Christian and Muslim school 'friends'. This was shocking and stressful for me, because I felt that my rights and my children's rights to ignore religion had been set aside as 'challenging'. I don't see how on earth my or my children's non-belief can challenge other people's religious belief. -
Kaitain weetabixeaterRecommend19Surely that's an argument that education should be secular - not that atheists should persuade other people not to believe in God.Dawkins's real beef is with religion's propensity to subvert reason in myriad ways that affect other people's lives for the worse: it affects policy, it affects education, it affects funding, it affects women's rights, it increases tensions between groups, it makes people act without thinking because they are convinced of the righteousness of their actions, in ways that have deleterious effects on the lives of others.If religious people did none of these things, I doubt that Dawkins would be devoting much energy to the cause of atheism: theists would be curiosities whose beliefs seemed strange but of little real consequence to others, and the very term "atheist" would be a baffling one to use, like creating a term for people who did not believe humans had wings.It seems to me that Dawkins puts great energy into attacking religion not for its own sake but because religion is dangerous, either directly or through the opportunity cost that comes with wasted potential and wasted lives. It is no coincidence that the height of religious control was the era known as the Dark Ages and that the rise of secular reason and the increase in living standards and rights that followed was called The Enlightenment.
-
Kaitain ferkaNow to be fair, I might be missing the context of this whole twitter conversation. Perhaps it's all understandable if you've followed the whole thing. But perhaps Dawkins should stay away from twitter. It is not a good medium for discussion.Isn't there a bit of a question-begging aspect to this? Would it be equally fair to tell Salman Rushdie to stay away from writing books? You seem to be saying that so long as somebody somewhere is being offended by X writing Y, X should stop writing Y, and you're happy to back this position even in the absence of having read Y yourself, having only read soundbite interpretations written by others in service of an agenda. Why not suspend judgement until you have an informed position, rather than calling for X to stay silent?
-
Aileen Elsbury ZeppThank you for that lovely, well thought out reply. I'm not wavering and I'm only slightly lonely, but that's because... well... Burton-Upon-Trent, but thank you for your advice. I hope others see it who need it.
-
PlanetNat GuiltyBystanderI think you have hit the nail on the head.
In the same way that new converts to a religion go through a tedious stage of zealotry, it's probs much the same for 'born again' atheists....he should have gotten it all out of his system by now though.
Perhaps he is just a narcissist sexist after all... -
ArthursCat SevenSeas7Yes, exactly! I'm an atheist and agree with you totally!Perhaps you could get together and found a club?
-
Teratornis Aileen ElsburyRecommend14Atheists don't have a weekly group for people who are wavering in their non-beliefI don't believe in unicorns, and my non-belief in unicorns has never wavered. If some evidence for unicorns were to appear, my non-belief in them could start to waver, depending on the strength of said evidence. But nothing of the sort has ever happened, and therefore continuing to not believe in unicorns is utterly effortless and requires no social reinforcement.There is no more evidence for the supernatural claims of any religion than there is for unicorns. Thus my non-belief in the supernatural claims of any religion is equally unwavering and in no need of social reinforcement.I'd look at it another way. One of my friends back in college was a psychology major, and he said that after he spent a lot of time in a mental institution around the patients, he found it relieving to get back in the company of sane people. I don't think this was because his belief in reality wavered, but rather because being around insane people is mentally exhausting.Being around religious people is like that - the endless excuse-making, selective irrationality, refusal to face facts, etc. It's just tiring for anyone who isn't working so hard to deny reality.and the only thing we have to look forward to once we die is empty, black, nothingness.There are far worse alternatives. Many religions have fabricated worse alternatives to nothingness as a way to threaten people who demand evidence for the unsupported supernatural claims of said religions.
-
sergeberard GuiltyBystanderI think one would need some historical perspective here. The development of science, of modern rationality depended on some people risking their lives to promote a godless understanding of the world.
-
btaofoodie horrypopsThat may be true, but it doesn't make it any less problematic. It further perpetuates a common problem, apathy.All my friends do it, I don't really care, I try not to think, but it sounds nice, so I'll do it just in case, better than nothing...
-
katiec7 liam1994I've never shown up at someone's door step to convince them of my unbelief, nor have I lobbied to get a slogan printed on a dollar bill to the effect of "In No God do We Trust".Etc...There have been no wars fought in the name of atheism.No terror attacks in the name of atheism.Etc.So, really, please. You need to get out more.
-
croboy unretrofiedHere in Croatia, many people declared as catholic, but only 20 % of them are going in church, most of them are atheists, just don´t want to say that... I am atheist... But, in politics, in year 2000. president became man who declared himself as atheist, he was re-elected 2005. 2010 president became man who declared himself as agnostic, and he will be re-elected at beginning 2015, for sure... why? they support human rights, women´s rights, gay rights, rights of minorities... one word, they are normal, tolerant liberal humans... not some benighted religious idiots... unfortunately, in US if you are atheist, possibility for win on some elections are minimal... So, unretrofied is right, even if they have organised some club (what is stupid), they must explain people what else can they offer except not believing in God or gods... you don´t need club for that, you just don´t believe in that and that is final...
-
Teratornis AllyFI live in an atheist community, to all intents and purposes, in that very few of my friends, family etc believe in gods and I can literally go for weeks without anyone even mentioning any kind of religious belief or observance.I.e., Britain itself is a kind of de facto atheist movement.
-
FreyBentos unretrofiedExactly, 'organized Atheism' ?? 'movement' Dawkins as a spokesman?
Im an atheist and he aint my spokesman, there shouldn't be a club or movement or anything to join.If you find yourself wanting to join and 'Atheist movement' or 'organized Atheism' maybe you should just go back to religion as clearly you need an organised set of beliefs in your life. -
randomrob unretrofiedClass comment. Why do all views need to be turned into entrenched clubs with membership rules. 'I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.' GM
I have opinions but don't feel the need to sign a petition before expressing them. -
ferka KaitainYou seem to be saying that so long as somebody somewhere is being offended by X writing Y, X should stop writing YNot really. Or not at all. People should be free to write what they want. I've not read only soundbite interpretations - indeed as you can see from the rest of my post, I went to the bother of going back to the source, although, I did not, as I admitted have the time to read all of the context (just some of it).I have two main reasons to feel that Dawkins is being unwise in engaging in endless controversial twitter discussions.1. He does not seem to understand all the issues he discusses. In the case I discuss, he's sidelining a major issue with a red herring. Yes, logically, one can always choose to some extent whether or not to put oneself at risk (drink, climb, horse ride, take ecstasy, wear a short skirt). However, that is a separate issue from attempting successful support of victims and treatment of perpetrators. In this case, the major issue is ineffective action against crimes against women. The red herring is whether a woman should get drunk. By sidelining this issue he simply encourages people with opinions like:not exactly but if you put yourself in a situation to become a victim than you are in the wrong tooWhat he does not do, is promote good quality discussion.Which leads to:2. He polarises debate. He approach does not appear to promote rationality in other people, indeed it seems to promote the opposite. If he was indeed super rational and logical, he would surely take stock of his approach. His books, of which I have read several, are well argued, in depth and thought provoking. His tweets are not.
-
artwest unretrofiedIn Britain it was an ever greater splintering of beliefs which eventually necessitated religious tolerance, we pretty much had to or the resulting violence and sociological division was too damaging to us as a functioning society. It was religious people who brought this about, and in part gave rise to an environment where I can safely be an atheist.In the UK it was a gradual lose of faith in the general population which was more significant. The religious didn't kindly grant atheists safety, it is more that they had lost the power to threaten atheists.
The remaining, often aging, religious followers were disinclined to enforce at least lip-service to religion amongst the rest of the population as they had in previous generations.
Seriously, do you think that at any time in the 20th Century, or even earlier, the Anglican church would have been able to mobilize its congregations to physically threaten non-believers?
That's not to say that there aren't other religions recently with the will and the muscle to threaten atheists and others. We are in imminent danger of losing that safe environment. -
GuiltyBystander sergeberardActually the biggest (including the most controversial) scientific breakthroughs were made by Christians. Grosseteste, Bacon and Galilei were Catholics, as was Copernicus if I recall correctly, Keplar was a Lutheran, Newton was Anglican, Huygens was Protestant... Darwin, a Unitarian, was alleged to be a Bible-bashing bore on the Beagle, and remained part of his parish church long after he formulated his theory of natural selection. Lord Kelvin was a Christian, Maxwell was Church of Scotland, and Planck -- the founder of quantum theory -- died a Catholic.However, those pesky Crick and Watson boys were heathens, it's true.
-
notreallydavid RattelI think the term can be validly applied to some non-believers. It's possible to be culturally and ancestrally protestant, in the same way as you can grow up on a Muslim or Jewish community and be steeped in the prevailing culture, whilst having none of the associated religious beliefs. -
backfeed GuiltyBystanderNewton may have been Anglican, but his private belief system was all over the place.
-
Guardian contributor
kikichan horrypops"Many people who go to church don't believe in god, they go for social reasons."Those social reasons can be very good reasons, however. Churches can be the centre of a community, and offer not just emotional and psychological but also practical help to people. They're also part of a shared culture, and a link to the past. The architecture, art, music, literature and rituals of religion are all part of a shared heritage, and they can still have an incredibly strong value even to people who have serious theological doubts.Rejecting everything about religion seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater somewhat. In other cultures and religions - I'm thinking Buddhism in particular, but perhaps Hinduism and maybe also in branches of Judaism - people can happily enjoy the cultural and communal aspects of religious life while holding serious doubts as to the existence of God.Moreover, when that cultural heritage is abandoned into the hands of religious fundamentalists, it often gets destroyed or abandoned, because they tend only to be interested in promoting their own agenda in the present. You only need to see how a deeply valuable tradition of church music has been tossed aside by a lot of groups. -
Jacob Garbo unretrofiedExactly. How can you join a group that does NOT believe in something? I've been an "atheist" ie realized the whole God thing is baseless, since I was 12, easy with "atheist" parents and strict banning of religious teaching at school (I was "punished" with extra French classes). Life's too short to waste of nonsense - and groups.
Grown-up people don't need to be reassured by other uncertain people. -
Jack Rawlinson unretrofiedOtherwise known as the "screw you, I'm alright, Jack" school of atheism. The people suffering under ISIS salute you and your kind.
-
DubaiTiger unretrofiedIf you don't choose not to believe, does that mean that you also believe that people who believe don't choose to believe?
-
MaynardChiaroscuro unretrofiedComment of the f***ing yearWell done for getting in firstGot to admit I love Dawkins' antics, but I'd never self-identify as an 'Atheist'
-
MaynardChiaroscuro GuiltyBystanderThat's how I've always found it to be"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."– Einstein
-
Yourbandsucks unretrofiedHa! I now say I'm not an atheist, I refuse to accept that essentially not having a belief in other people's barmy hysteria and stupid made up fictions is worthy of a name, and/or set of principles. It's stupid! It's of no consequence!Do I believe Jesus died for mankind's sins? Well there's a chance he thought that that it what he was doing, do I believe he rose from the dead three days later? Nope, he was either not dead or someone's telling porkies. It's not much to think about, is it?Do I believe the Sci Fi author Philip K Dick had visions from god in his later years as he thought? No, I think he was an alcoholic, and a professional bullshitter.Thinking like this is hardly worthy of a name or even a movement now is it? It's up there with what socks shall I wear today, or shall I cultivate an ironic moustache, brain farts.
-
waynebijljeerheid ferkaActually, if you are a working class man, a black person or any male who has been "celebrating" and found themselves alone and in the wrong area and ended up being beaten or mugged, the police will say "what were you doing in such and such place in a drunk condition? Just asking for trouble that was mate. We'll do our best to catch them, but not much chance."
-
liam1994 katiec7You have obviously never heard of the league of militant atheists Katie.Atheists lobby for many things, have you never watched the news?You do realise most wars are/were secular in origin and most killings in the last century were by atheist regimes?I suggest you get an education, your put downs may be more effective if you do.
-
ferka waynebijljeerheidFair enough. I guess the common factor is crimes that have few witnesses and limited evidence and difficult to prosecute. Certainly my experience is that even when the police could get evidence (CCTV when knocked off a bike in my case) they will not even bother.
-
bigwhitebird AllyFRegarding Maryam Namazie, I remember her as one of the speakers at the rally to protest against Pope Benedict's visit to UK in 2010. I was standing right behind Richard Dawkins as she was speaking, and I remember seeing him have a whispered conversation with Geoffrey Robertson - the pair of them ignoring Namazie. I had the distinct impression of them forming their own white male rationalist "boys' club" in which women's concerns and experiences were unimportant.
-
gorgeouscleo Aileen ElsburyDear Heavens! (Joke) What a load of twaddle! Are you quite sure you'll go to heaven when you die? I've heard that St Peter can be very strict, you know!If you want company, join a group of agnostics in your wavering non-belief, there must be plenty online, and as for looking forward to death, I'm anticipating returning to stardust, which is where I came from. Lovely idea.
-
Rattel notreallydavidIf that is the case then WASP should have included little signs lack 'lapsed WASP' or 'WASP background or culture'. As it was stated religion was explicit.
-
mk11 AllyFIf I lived in most parts of the world it would be a very differentBut have you? I (technically agnostic though having studied history of religions) live in a country which is mostly Catholic, and mostly seen as quite rabidly so, and yet can go for months without hearing of religious observance (except as jokes). Granted, I avoid local news because I mostly don't watch TV. And no one except the Mormon leap year missionjaries and local Jehovah's Witnesses has ever asked me about my beliefs. -
JohnDakin unretrofiedAs I was coming to the end of Adam Lee's article, the thought occurred to me: why does atheism need a movement? Secularism as a movement I can understand: a secular state is a defined goal, with aims and objectives;humanism stands for certain values;but atheism?It's just a negative: denying the existence of a god; why does one need a movement for that?Atheism does not imply equality of gender, or any other kind of equality; it is just a position denying the existence of God. I say this as a secularist, humanist and atheist.
-
marbleflat Aileen Elsbury
Just like before you were born, that's all. I can't say I ever think of that as empty black nothingness....the only thing we have to look forward to once we die is empty, black, nothingness.
Show 109 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 5:54pm -
-
20 people, 27 commentsBigRabbit1066Recommend431I don't see how anyone can get so exited about being an atheist to want to attend a bloody conference!
-
Buckster69 BigRabbit1066Recommend47Dawkins is the God of Atheism.I agree, these conferences are not the way to go as it infurs at organised belief/non-belief.
-
Buckster69 Buckster69Recommend15Case in point belowLike all religions, it's been hijacked by self-promoting idiot who miss the point entriely.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/atheist-sunday-assembly-to-launch-33-more-congregations-in-london-9740364.html
-
Kajatan BigRabbit1066Recommend13Maybe you haven't been exposed to the damage religion can do, maybe you should attend one and learn how people are cast out of their communities, rejected by their parents and brainwashed from childhood. Having an alternative where you are free to think freely and mix with like minded people may even open 'your' mind!
-
BigRabbit1066 KajatanRecommend13I still find the Church of England is quite happy to see me at weddings, funerals and maybe Christmas day.
-
Juicylicious BigRabbit1066It's like a religion in its own right.I believe in the right not to believe and believe that belief is stupid.
In the name of Dawkins Amen. -
PeterInSeattle BigRabbit1066Recommend20Agreed as a matter of general principal, but imagine you live in a country where many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars subsidize religion annually through tax exemptions on property and deductibility of contributions, where military academies actively proselytize evangelical Christianity, where public policy on sex, contraception, abortion, the Middle East, and environmental stewardship are heavily influenced by religious dogma, and where certain states allow parents to kill their children by denying them religiously objectionable but objectively necessary medical care. For that matter, imagine some of your fellow humans live in a country where it can mean death not to profess belief in and actively practice the majority religion. (You won't have to go back in time to the Spanish Inquisition to find one.) There's nothing inherently exciting about being an atheist -- well, maybe there is, if you're a convert -- but there's no end of issues to discuss at a conference.
-
Guardian contributor
tauriqmoosa BigRabbit1066Recommend57I live in South Africa, grew up Muslim and when I first started questioning my faith, it felt very alien. Seeing conferences discussing such issues gave me the sense it was OK to talk about; at smaller ones here, I met people like myself and it didn't feel so isolated. It might seem weird to others, but for someone like me, it helped me feel safe, secure and not weird for engaging with ideas, looking at evidence and arriving at conclusions. -
BigRabbit1066 PeterInSeattleIf you are referring to the USA presumambly donations to church are treated for tax purposes in the same way as any other charity including one set up to promote atheism. Not really sure where religous dogma comes into your other points on policy either.Last time I looked church and state are very much seperate in the USA, you just happen to have a high proportion of practicing ChristiansTotally fair point re certainMiddle Eastern countries but presumably such conferences would be banned there anyway.
-
clickclickdrone tauriqmoosaIt's a bit different when you start off religious and have a social circle/family that would take a dim view of a change of heart. For the vast majority though, the existence of God or not just doesn't get thought about much from one year to another.
-
SkepSteve BigRabbit1066Recommend16Perhaps if you felt more personally oppressed by religious groups your mileage would vary? As a gay man in the USA I have on occasion perceived a hostile attitude from fans of an Invisible Sky Monster.So, for me, atheism is a place of sanctuary, besides just being consistent with objective reality.
-
Teratornis BigRabbit1066I don't see how anyone can get so exited about being an atheist to want to attend a bloody conference!It's like getting excited about a conference for people whose hobby is not collecting stamps. Actually, that could be pretty exciting - a conference of infinite possibilities.
-
Teratornis tauriqmoosaI live in South Africa, grew up Muslim and when I first started questioning my faith, it felt very alien.In some strict Muslim countries that could even get you killed. Clearly there is a need for a movement that defends the right of people to question supernatural claims that lack any supporting evidence.
-
GeoffreyB BigRabbit1066If you are referring to the USA presumambly donations to church are treated for tax purposes in the same way as any other charity including one set up to promote atheism.You presume wrong. See e.g. Walz v. Tax Commission, where SCOTUS held that the First Amendment doesn't prevent government from making laws that grant tax exemption specifically to religious groups.Last time I looked church and state are very much seperate in the USAThat's the theory. The practice is rather different.Just yesterday, the Guardian reported on a case where a US Air Force sergeant was told he'd be out of a job if he refused to swear a religious oath on re-enlistment. The USAF only changed their position after an atheist (humanist) organisation threatened to sue on his behalf.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/us-air-force-atheist-airman-reeinlistUS abortion laws are heavily influenced by the religious lobby - things like mandatory fetal ultrasound and doctors being required to read statements that contain inaccurate information about abortion.I was in the USA at the time of 9/11. When George W finally emerged from his bunker to speak to the nation he was supposed to lead, here's what he said:Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a Power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23:Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me....Thank you. Good night. And God bless America.The guy either didn't know or didn't care that he was supposed to be president of all US citizens, including the ones who don't believe in prayer and don't find comfort in religious psalms.
-
deiseach tauriqmoosaI live in South Africa, grew up Muslim and when I first started questioning my faith, it felt very alien. Seeing conferences discussing such issues gave me the sense it was OK to talk about; at smaller ones here, I met people like myself and it didn't feel so isolated. It might seem weird to others, but for someone like me, it helped me feel safe, secure and not weird for engaging with ideas, looking at evidence and arriving at conclusions.Is the internet not a good place to meet like-minded people?<looks at internet>Er, the conference looks like the better bet.
-
ClaytonW BigRabbit1066I don't see how anyone can get so exited about being an atheist to want to attend a bloody conference!I think the degree to which someone sees their atheism as a core part of their identity generally tends to have a lot to do with the surrounding culture where they happen to live. If someone is lucky enough to live in a place where religion doesn't dominate the culture, identifying oneself as an atheist can seem almost trivial. On the other hand, if someone has grown up in a place where conformity to a particular religious perspective is almost mandated socially, openly renouncing belief in God becomes much more significant. Those who "come out" as atheists in such social environments are much more likely to experience it as a major life event and subsequently have a desire to find others to associate with who share their newfound perspective on life and reality. To someone with this experience, attending an atheist conference makes perfect sense.
-
SuperNerd1 Buckster69Please explain why that is not the way to go, For me I'm not saying it is the way to go. But you didn't explain why you think it's not the way to go.
-
SuperNerd1 Buckster69Please explain why they are not the way to go. I have no interest or time to go but I don't know why you think they are not the way to go.
-
formerlefty KajatanThen they should be described as apostate conferences, or gatherings for those who feel they've been abused by believers (OK, that's a bit wordy, probably needs work).People who have been bought up in very close-minded communities or families, or just raised in cults, and have 'escaped', might very well want to discuss their common experiences, but I just don't see that that is about 'atheism' as such.I dunno - maybe we need two different words? Like the distinction some make between the deaf and the Deaf.A good part of the reason why it worries me that the UK may become more like the US or other countries in which religion is central to the culture is that I don't want non-belief here to be like "Atheism" in the US.I don't want to go to conferences and associate with Dawkins fans, dammit! I'm much happier just quietly not believing and getting on with worrying about other things, like everyone else, religious or not.(In my opinion both nationalism and hard-line religion flourish when people feel economically divided and insecure.)
-
sdorst BigRabbit1066Personally, being surrounded by fundamentalists, going to a conference where others believed the same way that I did, was very important when I first was clarifying to myself that I was an atheist. I went to two of them, and then decided I no longer needed that kind of support. It sounds like your experience has been quite different than mine, but an atheist conference or two was very helpful to me at the time.
Show 24 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 6:24pm -
15 people, 25 commentsElDanielfireRecommend278,blockquote>Richard Dawkins has lost it: he's now a sexist pig giving atheists a bad nameSome people have been pointing this out for years, he's always been a passive- aggressive intolerant man.
-
MysteryTor ElDanielfireThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
Ted10000 ElDanielfireRecommend30It's almost like there's an expectation that all atheists should be nice people. Lots of people are dickheads regardless of whether they believe in a God or not.
-
limastelwart ElDanielfireRecommend100He has been accused of sexism by a number of intellectually and morally bankrupt ideologues. People who claim to represent certain demographics that they are neither a part of nor endorsed by. This article is an absolute shambles:
1) The 'Dear Muslima' letter was not arguing that 'women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation'. It was pointing out that a man politely asking a woman back to his hotel room for coffee does not constitute sexual harassment. Why play these ridiculous word games?
2) The quotes in this article come from Ophelia Benson, Greta Christina, PZ Myers and Amy Roth, all of whom are written about as if they are a random group of atheists who have come to individual and separate revelations about Dawkins. In fact they are a close knit group of activists who have been long time advocates for each other professionally. They are all well known for throwing around unfounded accusations and trying to run people out of 'the movement'. They recently tried to get a conference organiser fired because he had the temerity to assure women that conferences were safe, going against their approved line that conferences are in fact sordid rape pits. They are not well like nor well respected people within 'the movement'
3) The sexual harassment policies that Dawkins was 'sneering' at included a policy against women wearing what they want to. You see, some women in 'the movement' were stating to get alarmed by some of the hysterical rhetoric coming from those mentioned in point 2. So much so in fact they started going to conferences wearing T-Shirts with messages such as 'I am a strong atheist woman and I feel safe at atheist events'. These T-shirts were a step too far for the above people who asked organisers to ban them. That's right, they tried to ban some writing ... at an atheist conference. It boggles the mind.Please do some research before you write any more of this dreck. -
phreakdown ElDanielfireRecommend21If I were to go looking for sexism, I'd be looking at the organisations (or the co-dependent cultures) Dawkins criticises rather than the man himself. I doubt his wife uses a different door, walks behind him, covers her face or hair, sleeps in a different bed or has t take a ritual bath while menstruating. I doubt he'll be marrying his daughter off to a relative or business partner. So, sexist?
-
RobinFaichney limastelwartRecommend10I just googled the names mentioned in point 2 and read a few blog posts. I found the atheist infighting quite shockingly ludicrous. But then I vaguely recall hearing similar things about other movements of the self-righteous. I wouldn't know, I'm a liberal-tending atheist but like Groucho I belong to the group that wouldn't join any organisation that wanted me as a member. (Didn't Russell also have something to say about that?) And I suspect that most of the movementistas are in it mainly for what they can get out of it.
-
Teratornis phreakdownI doubt his wife uses a different door, walks behind him, covers her face or hair, sleeps in a different bed or has t take a ritual bath while menstruating. I doubt he'll be marrying his daughter off to a relative or business partner. So, sexist?Not to mention that bit about mutilation.Of course the fact that far worse sexists live in the world today, and some of them are earning fortunes off the religion scam, is no reason not to critically examine milder forms of sexism wherever we may find them. Sadly, the article above the line fails to do anything of the sort. It merely trades in pejorative labels and outrage. Why not analyze something Dawkins has written, and point out where he made a mistake and why it was wrong?
-
eveofdestruction ElDanielfireWhat Dawkins actually twittered was;
Which is not an indictment on women but on the legal system. Being drunk and then having to testify will make it difficult no matter what the issue. The writer is clutching at straws, Dawkins always reasonable and intelligent to me.Exactly. If you want to drive, don't get drunk. If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don't get drunk. -
iruka RobinFaichneyAnd I suspect that most of the movementistas are in it mainly for what they can get out of it.A good many are in it because it promises the same sort of certainty and 'clarity' that religion does -- and that (once upon a time) the stale dogmas of official Marxism did. It isn't an absence of religious belief for these sorts; it's a functional alternative to it, and pretty much its equivalent in most epistemological and affective respects.All of which would be neither here nor there (there are few things less interesting than other people's determined certainties, and the gerrymendered consciousnesses they police) if the authoritarian strands of atheism hadn't found a common cause in the self-appointed authority of science, and so of the institutions that science in turn serves.Thus (ok, in a roundabout way) the absurd belief in human salvation through genetically modified crops; and in a few years -- I predict! -- a widespread conviction in the 'objective' need for radical geoengineering projects in response to global warming.Such projects, despite their self-evident stupidity by any measure that starts from human common sense, are compelling because they're demonstrations of power such as the average religious believer would give their eye teeth to experience. And it's power that stands in the same position as that of the most punitive and prescriptive religious hierarchies, with respect to the general run of humanity -- our needs, our interests, our happiness, our hopes of liberty, equality and solidarity. It has as little room for the happy ambiguities of pataphysics, anarchism or drug-inspired visions, all of them quite compatible with atheism in the broader sense.
-
iruka irukaWas looking for Richard Dawkins' blog to make a sneering comment about its exultant use of the term 'clarity'. Couldn't find it. I did find the 'Richard Dawkins Foundation website', which is a gobsmacker in its own right.Its banner boldly proclaims: "Reason. Science. Progress." This strikes me as no different in spirit, on virtually any important level, from sort of thing you'd see in the propaganda of unrepentant Catholic Falangists, or of the sort of political parties that Latin American ex-dictators form once they're kicked from office.It certainly sends the same shiver of fear and loathing up my Gypsy spine: "Certainty. Technology. Governmentality" is more like it.Rest assured: if a true believer in Reason. Science. Progress. decides that feminism is the anti-science, the proofs will be found.
-
iruka irukaWas looking for Richard Dawkins' blog, in order to make a sneering comment about its exultant use of the term 'clarity'. Couldn't find it. I did find the 'Richard Dawkins Foundation website', which is a gobsmacker in its own right.Its banner boldly proclaims: "Reason. Science. Progress." This strikes me as no different in spirit, on virtually any important level, from sort of thing you'd see in the propaganda of unrepentant Catholic Falangists, or of the sort of political parties that Latin American ex-dictators form once they're kicked from office.It certainly sends the same shiver of fear and loathing up my Gypsy spine: "Certainty. Technology. Governmentality" is more like it - just a little more triumphalist and threatening.Rest assured: if a true believer in Reason. Science. Progress. decides that feminism is the anti-science, the proofs will be found.
-
GeoffreyB limastelwartRecommend111) The 'Dear Muslima' letter was not arguing that 'women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation'. It was pointing out that a man politely asking a woman back to his hotel room for coffee does not constitute sexual harassment.Here's the original context of the "invite for coffee":http://www.shakesville.com/2011/07/point-you-are-proving-it.htmlRebecca Watson had just finished giving a talk on how it made her uncomfortable to be sexualised. A guy who could have "asked her for coffee" (we all know what that means, right?) at any time during the conference waited until 4 am until he was alone with her in an elevator to proposition her. She said:I loved talking to you guys—um, all of you except for the one man who, um, didn't really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel…? Because, um, at the bar later that night—actually, at four in the morning—um, we were at the hotel bar, 4am, I said, you know, "I've had enough, guys, I'm exhausted, going to bed," uh, so I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me, and said, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more; would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"Um. Just a word to the wise here, guys: Uhhhh, don't do that. Um, you know. [laughs] Uh, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room, right after I've finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.That's the concern Dawkins sought to mock and belittle.
-
GeoffreyB limastelwartThey recently tried to get a conference organiser fired because he had the temerity to assure women that conferences were safe, going against their approved line that conferences are in fact sordid rape pits.Since you don't give any searchable citation it's hard to be sure, but I suspect what you're referring to here is them asking that a conference have a well-formed policy for dealing with sexual harassment.Unfortunately, harassment does happen at geek cons (see http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents for a partial list). Being proactive in setting up policies for prevention and resolution of those incidents is sensible in the same sort of way that having a fire evacuation policy is sensible. It doesn't mean anybody expects an incident to happen, it just means that if an incident DOES happen people know how to handle it.(Several of the incidents on that list illustrate why making up a harassment policy on the fly, after the fact, is a bad thing.)
-
limastelwart GeoffreyBThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
skepticaloud limastelwartAs a Canadian atheist, I'm sorry to learn that the British organization has been infected with Church Ladies.
-
GeoffreyB irukaThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
aarthoor ElDanielfireWhat everyone seems to have missed is that he said if you want to reliably testify against a rapist you should stay sober NOT that the abuse doesn't count. It's the feminists responding to him that got that wrong in saying that he was claiming it was their fault FOR being drunk.Seems like a small point but he's right in saying they are looking for an excuse to be angry, at least in this instance. If you witnessed a crime on the other side of the street and you were blind drunk, should we consider you a good witness? Of course not. Should we automatically believe a woman because she's a woman? Of course not, evidence has to be weighed carefully and drunk people make unreliable witnesses. Besides, everyone has done things they regret and might want to change their mind about in the cold light of day.Dawkins wins this round,
-
Quackersyard aarthoorDawkins wins this round,I don't know, what exactly has he gained by pointing out the obvious? Nothing but angry reaction to (perceived) provocativeness. Of course don't get drunk if you think you might be needed to testify later on, but that's an unreasonably costly measure of risk-avoidance. Of course don't get your car out of the garage if there's the slightest chance you might be involved in a road accident.In other words, he's giving a counsel of perfection, which (like all such things) is practically useless, while pissing off lots of hotheads. Nobody benefits.
-
limastelwart GeoffreyBRebecca Watson had just finished giving a talk on how it made her uncomfortable to be sexualised. A guy who could have "asked her for coffee" (we all know what that means, right?) at any time during the conference waited until 4 am until he was alone with her in an elevator to proposition her.Had she just finished giving a talk at 4am in the morning? Or had she given the talk earlier in the day before heading to the bar for a drink with a group of attendees, one of whom possibly made a clumsy drunken pass at her hours later and then accepted her rejection? Do you know that he even attended her talk?
You might consider this man's behaviour rude, annoying, creepy etc (though I don't think most people would), but is it sexual harassment or physical intimidation as this writer implies?Regarding the organiser it was actually D.J Grothe the former head of the James Randi Foundation. You can look it up as I've tried to post details only to have my comment sucked down the Guardian memory hole. -
limastelwart skepticaloudI'm afraid that these problems are a little closer to home than you think. All this stuff is happening in America.
-
GeoffreyB limastelwartYou might consider this man's behaviour rude, annoying, creepy etc (though I don't think most people would)Yep, I think waiting until a woman is alone and propositioning her while they were in a confined space is creepy.As for how "most people" would react to it... my experience has been that women's willingness to talk about feelings of personal safety etc depends very much on whether they feel they're in safe company to discuss that. The flak Watson got for saying "this made me uncomfortable, don't do that" illustrates why many women aren't going to volunteer their feelings on the matter for your edification.is it sexual harassment or physical intimidation as this writer implies?Apparently she felt intimidated, so yes, it's intimidation. At no point that I can see did Watson call it "sexual harassment" or accuse him of deliberate intimidation; a lot of people seem to be responding to some exaggerated imagining of her words rather than what she actually said.Regarding the organiser it was actually D.J Grothe the former head of the James Randi Foundation.Your words above were:They recently tried to get a conference organiser fired because he had the temerity to assure women that conferences were safe, going against their approved line that conferences are in fact sordid rape pits....okay, I'm going to be charitable and assume that you're misinformed about that one rather than deliberately misrepresenting what happened.Karen Stollznow reported being sexually assaulted at JREF's annual meeting by a JREF ally & member of the Center for Inquiry on three separate occasions. Grothe, president of JREF, refused to do anything about the allegations.When Stollznow wrote to Grothe to complain that the issue wasn't being taken seriously, he replied to say "I am happy to learn from you that the CFI has responded to your complaints with the seriousness they deserve".Another woman, Carrie Poppy, also alleged unethical behaviour by Grothe, including attempting to stop her speaking at the Women in Secularism conference because it might look bad for JREF to have a speaker at a feminist conference, and because he was concerned she might be asked if he was sexist.You can believe or disbelieve those allegations as you like, but let's be clear on the fact that this is NOT just about "assuring women that conferences were safe" - it's about how he reacted to an allegation of repeated sexual assault and about how he treated a female staffer.http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/
-
limastelwart GeoffreyBYep, I think waiting until a woman is alone and propositioning her while they were in a confined space is creepy.I wouldn't personally do it but then again it takes a brave man to proposition somebody in front of a group of strangers. Perhaps he was just taking the only chance he had to try his luck in private.As for how "most people" would react to it... my experience has been that women's willingness to talk about feelings of personal safety etc depends very much on whether they feel they're in safe company to discuss that. The flak Watson got for saying "this made me uncomfortable, don't do that" illustrates why many women aren't going to volunteer their feelings on the matter for your edification.Well if a friend told me of a personal experience of hers that was the same as Watson's, and told me that she'd felt threatened by it, then I'd sympathise. If she came over, told me and then said 'don't do that' to me then I'd be less sympathetic and probably a bit pissed off.pparently she felt intimidated, so yes, it's intimidation. At no point that I can see did Watson call it "sexual harassment"Well if you're going to play word games then according to your quote above she didn't say she was intimidated either. She said she was uncomfortable. People can feel uncomfortable (or indeed intimidated) by a whole host of things. Some people feel intimidated enough to cross the road when they see a group of youths coming the other way. This does not mean that the teenagers are being physically intimidating. If anything it says more about the person crossing the road than it does them. In the same way it's a massive stretch to say that this admittedly incompetent romeo was demonstrating overt physical intimidation.
I do understand what you're saying but I at the same time I do also have female friend who have been propositioned in such a manner. Their response has been something along the lines of telling the fella to 'jog on son' and then coming to me to take the piss. Also, one time a friend of mine was propositioned out of the blue at a houseparty and said 'yeah OK, why not?'
Talking about these situations as if they are in the same ballpark as actual sexual intimidation implies that there is a big danger of women having non-consensual sex with guys who do nothing more than ask for it. So essentially asking a person if they want sex is tantamount to initiating rape. Silly.
Regarding D.J. Grothe I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about the statement he released reassuring women that conferences were safe, and blaming well intentioned but misguided feminists for this misperception. Either way I'm aware of Freethoughtblogs and it's record for publicly outing potential rapists without a scrap of evidence. I'll take a look at the link though.
Show 22 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 5:47pm -
StVitusGerulaitisThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
20 people, 21 commentsJeremiah2000Recommend128Liberals eating their own. They have so divided the world in to -ist people and non-ist people that everyone becomes some sort of -ist person: sexist, heterosexist, misogynist,....And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberal.
-
IgnatiusJWryly Jeremiah2000Recommend40
Being able to Weave Yoghurt is also a Requirement...And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberal. -
Sidfishes Jeremiah2000Recommend391And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberalHave you filled in your application form yet?
-
Pagey Jeremiah2000Recommend57And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberal.That's archetypal conservative behaviour.
-
BewilderedMark Jeremiah2000Recommend71And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberal.You've got that smug, humourless insensitivity down pat. But you don't come across as a liberal.
-
Tooncgull Jeremiah2000Recommend78Liberal - someone who believes in Liberty. I always have to laugh at those (often) middle-Americans who have so rejected one of the main tenets of their great nation, with its Statue of Liberty, "Land of the Free" et al, that they use "Liberal" as an insult.
-
Nicholas Millington JimNolanHe's in roughly the same position as most senior atheist scientific lecturers end up - centrism.
-
yesfuture Jeremiah2000Recommend20And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberal.No, you've got them mixed up with Dick Cheney
-
CountOfPithy PageyRecommend19It used to be. Not anymore. Modern day feminists ARE the new conservatives. If there was ever a group hell bent on carving out trenches of entitlement and discrediting any dissent then they have it down as well as any crusty old pheasant blasting yahoo shitbag.Modern liberalism; no moral compass, intellectually decrepit, and inherently deceitful. Naming names will probably see this post vapourised, but there is a certain lady who somehow has become a very prominent feminist leader through very little effort, and has enriched herself considerably through the contributions of others.It is transparent to the point of absurdity, and yet this lady, and her project, have someone been elevated to a point where questioning such things is considered some form of social heresy. Dissent with these groups is something simply not tolerated.So you could easily argue that the fellow you're responding to has a valid point. It's all been turned on it's head, and now "liberal" does not go hand in hand with "tolerance" or even the basic questioning of the societal status quo. These days it seems synonymous with being exceedingly manipulative and stuffed to the rafters with dissemblers rapaciously safe guarding their own little slice of shit in an increasingly shitty world.
-
Jamws Billingham Jeremiah2000I don't know about all "liberal", as you put it. But what I believe is that everyone is -ist, that you should acknowledge and try to counter it as you would any other cognitive bias. Skepticism is the name of the game... Evidence based, check out Harvard Implicit for the mountains of evidence!
-
ID5964208 Jeremiah2000Recommend13Liberals eating their ownAtheist =/= Liberal. Ayn Rand was very famously an atheist, and you could hardly call her a liberal. Martin Luther King, Jr was a democratic socialist (and not a Republican, no matter what Fox News says), and he was deeply religious.
-
Zepp Jamws BillinghamYou'll have to excuse Jeremiah; he thinks anyone who doesn't accept the gospel of Faux News is a liberal, and since in his world religion is represented by Pat Robertson and mad air force generals, and most other people think they are dolts, this means people who don't believe Pat Robinson is sane are both atheist and liberal.
-
shreddedmeat Jeremiah2000And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberal.Oh boohoo.
-
insanityprawnboy Jeremiah2000And I thought that being a smug, humourless, insensitive jerk was a requirement for being a liberalInteresting: I'd never pegged you as a liberal.
-
Jeremiah2000 shreddedmeatThe atheists are in trouble if they are going to start revoking membership cards to the Atheist Club for being despised:
-
formerlefty ID5964208Actually Ayn Rand was very much a liberal.The term 'liberal' has gotten so abused and confused that it hardly means anything any more.But I still see liberals as being essentially on the right (I cite Nick Clegg).
-
nickir Jeremiah2000I am so fed up with liberal being a term of abuse with the US right. My dictionary says that liberal means generous, willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own, open to new ideas, respectful of individual rights and freedoms, favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Does that mean that the US right is mean, intolerant, close minded, intolerant and unwilling to accept change? Perhaps it does.
Show 18 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 2:11pm -
-
19 people, 57 commentsNicholas MillingtonRecommend647Well I imagine that since Dawkins receives daily hate and death threats of his own and seems to continue on without issue... Perhaps he has a better idea of what it means to overcome hate than his thin skinned critics? We're talking about a man who publicly criticizes Islam. You don't think he gets almost a daily death threat?Yet another PZ Myers apologist, a man who has continually destroyed his own community, actively attempts to suppress free thinking and talks utter nonsense with such astounding regularity I am honestly considering using it as a measurement of the passing of time.You white knights really need to grow the hell up. Get over it, man. Atheism+ died a vainglorious death over a year ago. We're just atheists now. There are pro-feminism atheists, anti-feminist atheists, atheists who believe in faeries and atheists who are brain dead. The only thing we have in common is that we are atheists.Never mind the continual attacks on people like Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris for making idle comments over nothing.You do not speak for us. I do not speak for us. Dawkins does not speak for us. That's the fucking point of rationalism! You make your own goddamn arguments.
-
BarabbasFreed Nicholas MillingtonRecommend76
Wow. Just ..... wow.That's the fucking point of rationalism! You make your own goddamn arguments. -
Nicholas Millington BarabbasFreedRecommend120I actually can't tell if you're agreeing, disagreeing or just commenting. Please clarify.
-
BarabbasFreed Nicholas MillingtonRecommend25I can't tell if you meant to write the sentence that I quoted or not. Please clarify. As it stands you are saying that rationalists make up their own arguments.
-
TelePom Nicholas MillingtonRecommend44A million likes for this man. My third favorite Millington.
-
Orpheushart BarabbasFreedRecommend61Rationalists strive to think for themselves. In part, this does involve formulating ones own arguments and also evaluating the arguments of others, to determine is they are worthy of considered assent or fit only for rejection.
-
AntID BarabbasFreedRecommend84As it stands you are saying that rationalists make up their own arguments.Do you think there is a difference between making and argument and making up an argument?If you don't, then what is weird about someone making their own arguments?If you do, why did you misrepresent the poster you were responding to?
-
BarabbasFreed OrpheushartRecommend14Yes, I know. And I applaud that. It was the idea that they make up their own argument, which is certainly how I read it first time round. If that's not was intended, then fair enough, but it struck me as odd phrasing.
-
BarabbasFreed AntIDRecommend13If it was misrepresenting, then I apologise. I didn't intend to. That was the meaning (ie to make up and argument) that struck me as I read it, (as I say above to Orpheus)
-
IdiomSavant BarabbasFreedRecommend75As it stands you are saying that rationalists make up their own arguments.No, he's not. 'Make' does not mean the same as 'make up'. You can't just insert an extra word to build a strawman.
-
IdiomSavant IdiomSavantAh, I see this has already been covered in the time it took me to refresh the page. Oh, well.
-
BarabbasFreed IdiomSavantRecommend13Hence I asked for clarification. I intended no straw man. I read it as meaning make up. He is at liberty to clarify. I have already said that if I misunderstood/misrepresent then I apologise
-
Nicholas Millington BarabbasFreedRecommend27If by make up you mean "falsify" then no. I mean rationalists tend to (but not always) produce arguments based on what they can understand and work from there, taking pride in their own reasoning skills.Let's say you are a rationalist and you are fed information that is bad BUT makes sense - is it rational to then produce the wrong argument?I would say it is. The moment your argument becomes irrational is when evidence comes to the fore which disproves your argument and you refuse to reconsider when it becomes clear that you have lost the inevitable argument.That's why I have a lot of time for the scientific thinkers of antiquity who were theists - from their perspective, the complexity of the human body in particular must have been a remarkable work. Only a philosopher, working from a position far removed from real physics could produce a convincing argument to the negative.
-
Nicholas Millington Nicholas MillingtonRecommend22I should also say that like most rationalists, I am not a perfect rationalist. I do occasionally pick arguments where I know I am in the wrong and run with them anyway regarding opinions I am passionate about.Manchester United being one of them.
-
NotWithoutMyMonkey Nicholas MillingtonRecommend24Yet another PZ Myers apologist, a man who has continually destroyed his own community, actively attempts to suppress free thinking and talks utter nonsense with such astounding regularity I am honestly considering using it as a measurement of the passing of time.and...You do not speak for us. I do not speak for us. Dawkins does not speak for us. That's the fucking point of rationalism! You make your own goddamn arguments.Oh the irony. Surely by the standards set down in your argument, PZ Myers is also entitled to make up his own goddamn arguments and as such he's entitled to criticise Dawkins as he sees fit. I personally amdire Myer's ability to cut through the pretensions and hypocrisies, as well as the outright kookiness of some of the fringe and even quasi-religious associations within the so-called Atheist movement - his dissection of Transhumanism for one.
-
Mokosha Nicholas MillingtonRecommend24- "You white knights really need to grow the hell up" - that must be an ironic statement? Right? Because the term "white knight" is not used by adult people, rather by teenage boys on reddit and 4chan.I also didn't knew that such "angry pubescent MRA" rants are allowed here on the Guardian. I thought that this paper has higher standards than that.
-
Nicholas Millington NotWithoutMyMonkeyRecommend76PZ Myers has been attempting to get other atheists censored for some time now. What part of "actively attempts to suppress free thinking" do you not understand? Never mind the fact he repeats false rape claims - something for which I am utterly disgusted with him.- "You white knights really need to grow the hell up" - that must be an ironic statement? Right? Because the term "white knight" is mostly not used by adult people, rather by teenage boys on reddit and 4chan.I also didn't knew that such "angry pubescent MRA" rants are allowed here on the Guardian. I thought that this paper has higher standards than that!White knights is a term used by people who are used to dealing with social justice activists to describe the men who gravitate around movements involving women. They invariably never add to the conversation but instead spend most of their time defending their damsels from outside attack.It's got absolutely nothing to do with MRA bullshit and everything to do with respecting women enough to allow them to describe their own opinions WITHOUT MY HELP. If I agree with them, I say as much. If I think someone is being unfairly attacked for being a woman, I say as much - the article involving two female astrophysicists being one such time. Further, I don't hold women as having a uniquely special opinion and thus if they say something I disagree with, I will disagree with them.However, yet again, we see another tactic of the social justice movement - any dissent is labelled as a shill of their offensive cause of the month. MRAs are the current one. In feminism circles, it WAS neckbearded fedora wearers until the fat phobic crowd started piping up.In reality, I regard extreme feminism and extreme male rights activism as entirely equivalent and their more moderate movements in a lot more esteem. I associate with neither - this is my lot as an egalitarian, which means I get attacked by both. Always a funny situation to find yourself in, I find.But please, continue your lazy generalisations. It only makes smashing your arguments into the metaphorical dirt even easier.
-
BarabbasFreed Nicholas MillingtonI posted a reply, but it seems to have gone awol. Just to say thanks for your reply, and yes, as a Christian I too aim for rational thinking. I do, however have my foibles and hope for miracles (Come on ye Spurs)
-
NotWithoutMyMonkey Nicholas MillingtonAhem, your reply was misdirected. You appear to be quoting and responding to someone else.Nice rant though.
-
Nicholas Millington NotWithoutMyMonkeyRecommend10I put both replies in the same post. It's intentional.
-
Nicholas Millington BarabbasFreedI feel like backing Spurs is a lot like being a believer in the Greek pantheon. You see a film every year which tells you how relevant you are but by the time the hype is gone, you feel the magic fading.
-
Mokosha Nicholas MillingtonRecommend25"White knights is a term used by people who are used to deal with social justice activists...." - no it isn't. It is in 95% of the cases used by angry pubescent reddit boys and the other 5% by adult MRAs. Educated grown up people that mostly don't use such terms because they have valid arguments against the people they argue. They don't have to apply immature slurs to their opponents.
-
Mokosha Nicholas Millington"White knights is a term used by people who are used to deal with social justice activists...." - no it isn't. It is in 95% of the cases used by angry pubescent reddit boys and the other 5% by adult MRAs. Educated grown up people that mostly don't use such terms because they have valid arguments against the people they argue. They don't have to apply immature slurs to their opponents.
-
Nicholas Millington MokoshaRecommend54Is that really all you could come up with to attack my argument? Yes, white knight is short for a particularly patronising breed of male social justice groupie. No, I am not an MRA and no amount of you bleating to the contrary is going to change that.Your wishing your opponents had easily separable identities which you can then attack as the Other does not make it so. Perhaps you ought to try actually thinking about your viewpoint, rather than just uncritically parroting the nearest person who agrees with you.There are plenty of people who use the term "white knight" in that context, including plenty of socially liberal women who are sick to death of sycophants and uncritical bullshit.It must really rack your coals to know I'm LGBT too and thus am probably even more oppressed/likely to be abused than you are. After all, that's what this is about, isn't it. The Oppression Olympics.
-
FelonMarmer Nicholas MillingtonYou do not speak for us. I do not speak for us. Dawkins does not speak for us. That's the fucking point of rationalism! You make your own goddamn arguments.Well said. I decided I was an atheist all by myself, despite my upbringing. In fact what did it for me was reading into the beliefs of many different religions. I didn't need a Dawkins, although a Darwin was handy.
-
Mokosha Nicholas MillingtonRecommend10There aren't plenty of people using the term white knight. I have already described what kind of people use that term, pubescent angry teenagers and MRAs.You are part of the LGBT? Great! Are you also calling people "white knights" who are fighting against the discrimination of LGBT people in the West and other parts of the world? Are you? I bet you aren't.
-
limastelwart MokoshaRecommend23There aren't plenty of people using the term white knight. I have already described what kind of people use that termYour description has just been found wanting. Maybe you should come up with a new description.
-
Nicholas Millington MokoshaRecommend22Your repeating a statement does not make it any more true. If you wish I will link this to the anti-social justice corners of the internet and let the women speak for themselves. They're sick of you too.Further, it wouldn't be any of your business if I am (as it is, I do). However, even if they were, I am not a plaything with which they may gain morality points and whether they claim to be battling for my rights or not - the way they go about doing so is utterly detestable.Their agreeing with my right to exist does not elevate them above anyone else. It is the basic standard I apply to all my acquaintances. Meeting a minimum standard is not a cause for celebration.
-
Mokosha Nicholas MillingtonYou yourself stated that you part of the LGBT, so if you think that it's no ones business than why have you mentioned it? My question to you has been very clear, but you started to talk around it. My question was if you give immature slurs to people who fight for LGBT rights and against the intimidation, discrimination and harassment of LGBT people? Are you calling them SJW and white knights? I bet you don't!
-
Mokosha limastelwartRecommend15Believe it or not, there are are men out there who care about women and who are against harassment and discrimination. And they don't support women just because they hope to get laid. They are not white knights but normal human beings that can make out the difference between right and wrong. And it's a lot of such men out there, that's why people like RD are getting more and more unpopular. And yes, my description on who uses the term white knight still stands, pubescent angry teenagers.
-
WretchedWight MokoshaEducated grown up people that mostly don't use such terms because they have valid arguments against the people they argue. They don't have to apply immature slurs to their opponents.It is in 95% of the cases used by angry pubescent reddit boysThey don't have to apply immature slurs to their opponentsangry pubescent reddit boys........................................................
-
Mokosha WretchedWightI could also copy-paste comments to make them sound how it suits me.We discuss the term "white knight" (which was first used as a.slur against people here who oppose RD) not the other way around.I still can't find any decent discussion with adult people using such a terms against their opponents. I can't find any web site of merit that uses such terms to describe people. On the other side, the term is mostly present on gamers sites, male rights activist sites, reddit and co...Which means that my argument still stands. No matter how you shape it. Unless of course you can provide links to discussions where men that oppose harassment and discrimination of women are called white knights by other adult men?
-
limastelwart MokoshaWhich means that my argument still stands. No matter how you shape it. Unless of course you can provide links to discussions where men that oppose harassment and discrimination of women are called white knights by other adult men?Your are in one.
-
TRISHJARVIS Nicholas MillingtonRecommend10Fervent, mouth-foaming ultra-rationalists are just as deluded, myopic and dangerous in their zealotry as right-wing religious nutters.
-
IdiomSavant Nicholas MillingtonRecommend13It must really rack your coals to know I'm LGBTAll four of them? You must own quite the range of footwear.
-
Nicholas Millington MokoshaThe point is, their fighting for my rights (not their own, for the most part) neither excuses their detestable actions nor makes me indebted to them.If I want to fight for my rights, I am more than capable of doing so by myself AND better at it than they are. They are welcome to support me when they do so, as are all other rational thinking individuals, but not because they think they must. I want to convince on the strength of argument, not the "rightness" of my viewpoint.White knights do not care for rational debate. They want to stifle it and stifle criticism of their targets of obsession and their damsels. While I won't be so crude as to imply that they expect a sexual reward for this (it's never going to come) it may be a motivation for some. It's a very immature, dishonest way of going about debating and it is no surprise that white knights infest majority male communities with a minority female presence.If you truly respect women, you'll respect them enough not to treat them like easily shattered objects who cannot be exposed to the full intensity of your ideas.
-
Nicholas Millington TRISHJARVISConsidering fervent and mouth foaming implies a state of rabidity, I don't think you can call those people rational. Part of being rational is the willingness to adhere to civil discourse - albeit cutting civil discourse. There's little about this discussion which has required me to be mouth foaming or rabid and Dawkins is certainly never in that category.Rationality is a heavy burden and it carries with it a life long commitment to reflection.
-
Xandrammes Nicholas MillingtonRecommend14Regardless of the particulars of this issue (which I don't know much about), 'white knight' is among the most idiotic of insults, only surpassed in its inanity by its close cousins, 'beta' and 'mangina'.Is it 'white knighting' for a straight person to speak up in defence of gay people? Is it 'white knighting' for white people to speak in defence of black people? So why then is it 'white knighting' for a man to speak up in defence of women? It's funny - I remember when the Left used to prize this as solidarity.If you don't think the man in question is making a good argument, then by all means, attack the argument. Pick apart its logic, and explain why your view is better. But to toss around childish slurs that deride a man for having the temerity to stick up for women degrades rational discourse, it doesn't elevate it.In short: play the ball, not the man.
-
BTCrowther Nicholas Millington'If you truly respect women, you'll respect them enough not to treat them like easily shattered objects who cannot be exposed to the full intensity of your ideas.':)
-
Nicholas Millington XandrammesI take your point, with one proviso.It is not white knighting to stand up in defence of women. It is white knighting to stand up in defence of women simply to be seen to be standing up in defence of women, regardless of the merits of their argument.I am implying a fundamental dishonesty behind their reasoning. These people do it all the time - they throw around lazy slurs and then look back to their damsels in distress for approval. You see them circle jerking around the lone woman in their group, desperately trying to one up each other and rabidly attacking anyone who takes issue with any complexes their lone female has. This is not a new thing, mate.Say what you will about my views, but I am as terse and as honest with men as I am with women. I have the balls to stand by my egalitarianism, which means if I think someone is wrong, I think -they- are wrong. Not their gender, their race, their sexuality or even their political persuasion. When I say "those people", I mean "those people" who engage in behaviours akin to that of which I am making an example.In this case, lazy rhetoric, a fundamental assumption of female victimhood, a desperate desire to prove oneself as a "feminist man" and frankly, an intellectual disingenuous reason for doing so.
-
dt2003au Nicholas MillingtonPZ Myers has been attempting to get other atheists censored for some time now. What part of "actively attempts to suppress free thinking" do you not understand?Those of us who've had the misfortune to live our lives partly under the rule of the Soviet-style communism can recognise this kind of attitude.I've once had a falling out with PZ on Twitter over that (the benefits of full-on socialism, that is)... his characteristic smug reaction that assumes that mere mortals have nothing to say after his pronouncements, follows the decrees of a Politburo quite closely.Lefties, beware of such authoritarians.
-
Alfred Karius BarabbasFreedThere cannot be such a thing as a christian rationalist. Its a contradiction. -
Alfred Karius BarabbasFreedThere cannot be such a thing as a christian rationalist, its a contradiction.
-
AtticusDogsbody Nicholas MillingtonThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
Alfred Karius BarabbasFreedA god that sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself to get himself to forgive the humans he created for their sins.
-
Alfred Karius BarabbasFreedan omniscient god that knows the future yet humans have free will. That minds are not the product of brains but of 'souls' whatever souls are in the face of absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That a god that is responsible for a world of the most horrific suffering imaginable is somehow 'good'. That a god that murdered every single human and animal on the plane except for Noah's family and two of every species that somehow fitted on a wooden boat is good. That a god described (in a book supposedly written by the god himself) as a tyrannical mass murdering sociopath that threats infinite torture to all those that do not worship him is somehow good. That a god with a need to be worshiped so overwhelming that he created an entire universe just so he could plant a species of life on an obscure little planet in an arbitrary galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars among hundreds of billions of galaxies that he could get to worship him. I could go on for days. Nothing is more irrational than contradictions and the bible is absolutely full of contradictions.
-
BarabbasFreed Alfred KariusYou base most of your arguments on the concept of good. Tell me, is the concept of "good" rational?
-
BarabbasFreed Alfred KariusOh, and by the way, nothing you have said negates the idea of a christian rationalist.
-
Xandrammes Nicholas MillingtonNo, it's not a new thing. Similar accusations of insincerity are thrown at white people who've stood in solidarity with black people - they get told they must be suffering from 'white guilt' or that they're 'fashionably liberal', 'politically correct' 'race traitors' with some sexual angle - they get called 'mud sharks', 'coal-burners' and worse. In my personal experience, when a group of friends and I defended the only person in my sixth form to come out as gay from bullying, we were called 'closet fags', his 'bum-chums' and equally daft slurs for weeks afterwards.Can you in any way substantiate your presumptions that men like the author of this article who stand in solidarity with particular women on these issues, do so for brownie points, and not because they believe the points they are making? To me it seems that when you care about social justice, there are always imputations of secret agenda for those who speak up in defence of others. There are always slurs of this kind. The idea that you could simply care about what happens to another human being who is slightly different from you seems beyond the ken of some folk.
-
limastelwart XandrammesI don't use the term White Knight myself simply because I'd rather argue the point than dismiss it with a label. Part of my problem with the rhetoric of certain feminists is that they do exactly this. Men with whom they argue are dismissed as MRA's or neckbeards, women as 'chill girls' or 'queen bees'.I see the White Knight thing as applying to men who buy into the idea of privilege and so berate other men who disagree with feminists by saying 'as a man you can have no opinion on this, why don't you just shut up and listen'. They don't seem to get that they are also men and as such the same rule applies to them. But of course they don't see it that way, they have the correct opinion of course and so can bloviate over everyone, even non-feminist women. It's all a bit silly.
-
TRISHJARVIS Nicholas MillingtonThat's a very Utopian view of rationality you've posited there. A look at some of the online debates regarding Dawkins will demonstrate the ferocious tribalism, personal veneration and disturbing cult of personality in which many Dawkins acolytes engage. Those who disagree with his (allegedly) scientific, rational views such as the objective immorality of parents who decide to have babies with Down's syndrome are regarded, by his merry band on online zealots, as hysterical, clouded by emotion, stupid etc etc.Rationality is neither inherently good, nor bad. It's a particular mode of problematising the world. A naive belief that rationality is always a good thing, will always lead to positive outcomes, and must take priority above all other considerations is as dangerous as it is laughable.You need more than rationality; you need empathy, emotion, compassion, understanding of subjectivity, that human people are not rationally calculating automatons. These are the things that Dawkins (and most of his followers) cannot seem to grasp - the the very ABCs of being a human being.
Show 54 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 11:46am -
-
15 people, 20 comments
-
charliechristian omegamannRecommend342Nah, he's done a pretty excellent job of ripping apart the ancient lies which so many use to govern their lives and the lives of others.
-
omegamann charliechristianRecommend188I don't think he's achieved anything of the sort. He's repeated the same arguments others have made before him (just made them louder), and doesn't really have an answer to those who prefer a more allegorical interpretation of their religious texts.
-
some1elsenotme omegamannRecommend56I don't think he's achieved anything of the sort. He's repeated the same arguments others have made before him (just made them louder), and doesn't really have an answer to those who prefer a more allegorical interpretation of their religious texts.I quite agree and would add that he has shifted atheist debate into the cul-de-sac of 'science good, faith bad', which does a disservice to both sides of the debate.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Dawkins is that he increasingly looks and sounds like the thing he claims to despise. He is blind in his own faith of science and quite fundamentalist in his arguments. Furthermore it is hard to read his work without coming away with the strong idea that nature displays intention, which is something of a kick in the gonads for an atheist argument. -
TelePom omegamannThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
TelePom omegamannThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
markusb charliechristianRecommend26I was fan of his work, but he's become a bit of a caricature really. He's an increasingly strident troll who wrote some good popular biology books once.
-
smuglyfrombrazil omegamannRecommend10That may be so, but lots of people have heard those arguments through him.
-
yesfuture omegamannRecommend60doesn't really have an answer to those who prefer a more allegorical interpretation of their religious textsThat's because he doesn't need one. If you're not taking it literally, and interpreting it however you choose to see it, then you're just demonstrating how these sacred texts are no different to Aesop's fables.
-
Krustallos omegamannRecommend26He...doesn't really have an answer to those who prefer a more allegorical interpretation of their religious texts.I don't think he has a problem with people who prefer an allegorical interpretation. It's the ones who are trying to ban Darwin from classrooms (or give creationism equal weight) that he's concerned about.Anyway, how allegorical are we talking about? Are we saying the whole notion of God is an allegory? In that case no atheist would have much of an issue with 'belief' as we're moving more into the realm of philosophy. If we're saying the creation myth is an allegory but still maintaining that there is a Supreme Being of some sort, Dawkins has indeed made those arguments (none of which are new, as you note, but whoever claimed they were?).
-
omegamann KrustallosI think it depends to a certain amount on the individual, and whichever church (or other religious organisation) they claim membership of. I know for example, that there are members of the Vineyard Church who don't believe in the Devil, and believe during the story of creation, that God was a creator, but left much of it up to natural selection, occasionally guiding things as he saw fit.I myself, am completely Agnostic. I'm still stuck on deciding what is meant by the word 'G/god' and whether the concept of a deity is simply beyond human understanding.
-
omegamann KrustallosI think it depends on the individual, and whichever church (or other religious organisation) they claim membership of.
-
sococds charliechristianRecommend16Dawkins seems to think that most religious people are fundamentalists. I don't know many like that. Really he only attacks those on the very bottom rungs of the ladder. There are many stages of faith. Most grow out of fundamentalism in the early stages of childhood.
-
Gingertomcat omegamannDawkins should stick to biology.I don't like his take on biology either. The Selfish Gene, whether he meant it to be or not, has been used to justify right-wing policies and individualism in general.I much preferred Stephen J Gould's writings.
-
Kaitain omegamannRecommend10Those who prefer a more allegorical interpretation of their texts should admit that they are neither theists nor religious, and certainly should not be in the business of supporting faith schools or politicians who claim to believe in a god. These people would be doing little more than admiring fables.
-
longlivedpr GingertomcatSo you are basically saying that you prefer a politically biased take on science that gives you warm fuzzy feelings, rather than a neutral take on science that might expose uncomfortable truths about the human mind?
-
Gingertomcat longlivedprSo you are basically saying that you prefer a politically biased take on science that gives you warm fuzzy feelings, rather than a neutral take on science that might expose uncomfortable truths about the human mind?Au contraire. There's nothing neutral or apolitical about Dawkins' views.
-
Quackersyard GingertomcatI don't like his take on biology either. The Selfish Gene, whether he meant it to be or not, has been used to justify right-wing policies and individualism in general.Have you actually read it?
Show 17 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 2:43pm -
-
7 people, 18 commentsStVitusGerulaitisRecommend417if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive optionThat is not his goal. Dawkins does not present atheism as an "option" like joining a club because that is a stupid argument. His point is that atheism is not a lifestyle choice, it is just a rational rejection of falsehoods.This article, going on about an "atheist community", seems to have completely missed the point of Dawkins' argument.
-
Petervandolen StVitusGerulaitisRecommend16Only it is an option. For one, there are at least two responses to falsehoods: rejection and apathy. I do not give a hoot about the question at the centre of the atheist movement and religion movements; i.e. "is there a god?" It has absolutely no effect on my life. None.
People acting on that question do, but that, to me, is purely a cultural matter. People are jerks, and often under the guise of religion (and sometimes under the guise of atheism). But the question atheism choses to actively reject is the God question. That focus is an option.
Atheism, especially the type advocated by Dawkins, is an active philosophical stance. -
StVitusGerulaitis PetervandolenRecommend117I do not give a hoot about the question at the centre of the atheist movement and religion movements; i.e. "is there a god?" It has absolutely no effect on my life. None.That is categorically not the central question at the heart of the "atheist movement".For atheists who are politically and socially active (which I assume is what you mean by "atheist movement"), the issue is about the privileged position of organised religion in society - the special protections afforded to organised religions, the suppression of free speech on religious grounds, the ignorance of basic science, the persecution of non-believers, the indoctrination of children.These things do affect you and billions of people around the world.
-
Petervandolen StVitusGerulaitisAnd these are all cultural, and important, and should be dealt with. Atheism therefore is a particular way of approaching these issues. But the thing is, then you get into cultural and sociological matters, to which it is a fundamental error to try to apply 'hard science' (for all its merits), and about which Dawkins is woefully lacking in understanding (as this article aptly, if incompletely, demonstrates). I don't disagree with the ultimate goals of atheism as a movement, but the means are not always as inclusive, exemplary, or even critically astute (see Harris's ridiculous claim, or Dawkins's stunted thinking on feminism) as people would want.
-
StVitusGerulaitis PetervandolenRecommend19I don't disagree with the ultimate goals of atheism as a movement, but the means are not always as inclusiveAgain, I don't think there really is a "movement". There are outspoken atheists, of whom Dawkins and Harris are two, and there are many other people who have taken it upon themselves to speak up.I don't really see how it can either be "inclusive" or otherwise because it isn't really a thing in itself. It's just an umbrella for a bunch of outspoken people. If we are talking specifically about Dawkins, he is pompous and condescending, but that is precisely why he is so high-profile. He doesn't have any responsibility to reign it in lest it harms a movement that doesn't really exist.
-
Petervandolen StVitusGerulaitisI suppose the disagreement was always going to be in the details. I think you're right in that it's an umbrella for outspoken people, including a lot of amazing ones, but the very fact that you classify them as outspoken implies an agenda. Just as feminism (or Scottish independence) might have different, even contradictory, aims, their shared goal, and their frequent organising (in conferences, etc) is what makes them a movement... of sorts.In terms of Dawkins having the responsibility to reign in... no, not to the atheist movement/fellow atheists perhaps, but certainly as someone with such a podium, he does have a responsibility not to be a jerk and say misogynist or otherwise offensive things.
-
Kaitain PetervandolenRecommend18I'm glad to hear religion has no effect on your life. It certainly has an effect on the lives of children receiving an education based on millennia old mythology rather than science, and on women unable to have abortions. But so long as YOU'RE okay...
-
Kaitain PetervandolenYeah, Dawkins should acknowledge that society, ideas and learning play a role in human development. If I were him, I would study concepts such as memes. Bet he's never even heard of them.
-
EricDravland Kaitaininteresting the way you chose to frame that. doesn't abortion have a far greater (i.e. terminal) effect on children than religious education ever could?
-
uncollective KaitainI take it you havent really read his works.
I dont agree with him on many things but portraying him as an unthinking automaton completely misses the point. You only need to read his books to see his love of idea and learning. That he is a member of the humanist society should give a hint about his feelings about society and human development. -
EricDravland balticdaveI think you're being disingenuous. I dare surmise you prefer living to having been aborted.
-
Kaitain uncollectiveI take it YOU haven't read his works if you missed my gag. Dawkins invented the term "meme", and the final chapter of The Selfish Gene (2nd edition) is all about the importance of cultural transmission in humans and the interplay between this and genetic traits in generating personality, behaviour and other aspects of ethology.
-
Kaitain EricDravlandNo, of course not. The early termination of a pregnancy has no more effect on children than contraception does.
-
EricDravland KaitainThere's a big difference between a gamete and an embryo, friend! In your estimation, what's the logical difference between an abortion, and painlessly euthanizing an infant?
-
Petervandolen KaitainWay not to get the point.The difference I clearly meant was between religion as it influences society, and the question of whether there is a god, which has no bearing at all on religion. It's about refusing to be drawn into pointless debates that set up their own, pointless, rules (i.e. the god debate) and debates about actual lives. Once you remove the god question, religions become social movements, and can be tackled on those terms. And necessarily lose any "special" place of protection as well.
-
Petervandolen Petervandolen...no bearing at all on religion as a factor in people's lives beyond the personal.
Show 15 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 11:07am -
-
Jem BoThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
6 people, 7 commentsaliendrumRecommend175"he's now a sexist pig giving atheists a bad name" Perhaps but the great thing about atheism is that we are all individuals with no inter-connected belief structure. I do not believe in the supernatural and that is it. I have nothing else in common with any other atheists. Richard Dawkins is certainly not the Pope of atheism as we don't have one.
-
Malasangra aliendrumRecommend67This is one of the many reasons that it's great to be atheists. When a religionists favourite mythical character says or does something horrifically misogynistic, violent or homophobic the liberal ones have to tie themselves up in notes trying to excuse it.Personally I like Dawkins, but recently strongly disagreed with his views on aborting babies with genetic disorders. That creates no mental conflict for me, I don't have to justify anything he says.
The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it.
One of the other great things about atheism is that it doesn't take up any of my time. It's really not about replacing religion, it's realising that there isn't any need for religion, even an atheistic one, -
MattVauxhall MalasangraRecommend79grauniad might have a bit more credibility if it hadnt been running a dawkins lynch mob for the last few years
The guy has changed the planet and the strength of these arguments are as flimsy as adams fig leaf
tawdry click bait -
Malasangra MattVauxhallRecommend16The guy has changed the planet and the strength of these arguments are as flimsy as adams fig leafPersonally I wouldn't give him that much credit. I think the Internet provides young people who are starting to question religious beliefs and unprecedented opportunity to discuss those believes outside their religious communities.I think Dawkins just happened to be a smart guy in the right place at the right time. If he hadn't been around I'm pretty sure his role would have been filled by Christopher Hitchens.Fortunately, we're not religionists so I don't have to hunt you down and kill you for heresy.
-
Darren Mitton MattVauxhallRecommend18"This guy has changed the planet" makes you sound like an enormous fan-boy with no ability to be rational.
-
JohnDakin MalasangraIt's useful to be able to see the flaws in people you admire; otherwise you can start seeing them as infallible.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 6:48pm -
-
23 people, 33 commentsbatchyRecommend188Oh what nonsense. Dawkins speaks for himself. The case to be an atheist is self evident - to be anything else in 2014 is a delusion of the highest order but he doesn't speak for anyone except himself. Everyone that loves to attack Dawkins the man is suspiciously quiet when it comes to the arguments for and against religion, I wonder why?
-
movedtorant batchyRecommend54Atheism is a belief just the same as believing in God. You might think you know but actually you know nothing. We are extremely tiny creatures, with extremely limited knowledge circling a minor star on the edge of a medium sized galaxy in an unimaginably large universe. You are entitled to your beliefs but don't you feel just a little pompous asserting with such blind and unswerving conviction that there isn't a God?
-
Krustallos movedtorantRecommend194Atheism is a belief just the same as believing in GodNo it isn't.Atheism is the refusal to believe when there is no evidence. Not the same thing at all.
-
Gray62 KrustallosRecommend16Atheism is based on assumptions (=believes), too. Like the assumption that what your senses tell you is true. No evidence for that at all, it's possible that you're simply an artificial intelligence in an advanved virtual reality system!
:P -
1Essex movedtorantRecommend65Atheism is a belief just the same as believing in God.Amazing how many people continue to say this. They are not equivalent.Is not believing in unicorns a belief just the same as believing in them?Or in fairies, or werewolves, or the abominable snowman? -
UtgardLoki Gray62Recommend11
This is true. The atheist argument isn't against the possibility of an infinity of realities, simply against the choosing of realities unsupported by any evidence.Atheism is based on assumptions (=believes), too. Like the assumption that what your senses tell you is true. No evidence for that at all, it's possible that you're simply an artificial intelligence in an advanved virtual reality system!
:P
The belief in an ineffable, supreme being that is untestable, and thus not falsifiable, is more irrational than believing you are the only human and everybody you meet is actually a giant pink rabbit in a human suit.
At least, with a sharp knife, you could test the second belief system. -
UtgardLoki user0Recommend13No. I'm a theoretical physicist. I leave the experiments to the applied physicists.
-
RoomSixteen movedtorantRecommend39Atheism is a belief just the same as believing in God.Atheism is a belief like not playing golf is a sport.
-
user0 1Essex"Is not believing in unicorns a belief just the same as believing in them?"Yes. If you hold an idea that you think is true, then that is a belief and you should have no problem saying so. So a belief I hold is that the unicorn is not a physically extant animal.Having a belief doesn't make you irrational. Holding beliefs that that are untrue may make you irrational, although there are examples where that is not the case; e.g. Stephen Hawking bet against the Higgs boson existing and we don't think he was irrational because of that. In fact, at the time he made the bet, there was no evidence that the Higgs boson existed and yet plenty of people who we think of as rational believed in it's existence.
-
user0 RoomSixteenNot playing golf doesn't stop golf being a sport. You've conflated two different things.
-
Rodri76 1EssexAtheism is not more rational at all. People like to think so. It can be just as dogmatic as religion. True open minded people leave the door open to any possibility.
The axioms of science, like for example concepts of causality and ideas about time, can not be "proved" at all. Science, like any line of thought, is based on assumptions. What if our starting points are mistaken and what if we perceive reality in a totally distorted way?
A lot of atheists take it for granted that physical reality is all there is or that it is the only field we can study. That is a very dogmatic point of view, is not based on any evidence and closes roads of investigation.
A little more humbleness in attitude would be more in place. -
steemonkey movedtorantRecommend10To quote some unknown person, atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colour.
-
weetabixeater movedtorantNo - it's not a choice. It's just a fact of my life. My rational, sceptical mind will not believe, even if I want to.
-
user0 UtgardLokiSo have you witnessed the experimenters perform their tests first hand or are you reliant on reports? If the latter, how many times has the experiment been conducted? How many witnesses each time? Are the groups independent of each other and did they use different apparatus?Should those criteria be satisfied, it could still be a conspiracy, but I'd admit the probability would be low. Equally, the discovery of the Higgs doesn't fully satisfy those tests, I think, but probably exists. (And is probably fully Standard Model, too. *sigh*)Or, for another worked example, I now have to decide whether I believe you are a physicist. Believing you're a physicist or believing you're not a physicist will both be valid beliefs. Only one of them will be true (i.e. a justified belief) and I will never know which. Whether it is true will partly depend on how I define physicist (I could say it was only people earning their living from physics but that would exclude retired physicists and Einstein while he was working in the patent office).As a rule, you either have no opinion at all or you believe (assign the probability of truthhood) to a set of mutually exclusive cases. Assigning the probability of 1 to God's non-"existence" is a belief and it shouldn't be a controversial thing to say - indeed, it isn't, amongst philosophers.
-
user0 weetabixeaterA fact is merely a belief that is true. The rest of your comment is a statement about how much free will you possess; on the basis outlined, I suspect you're a Chinese Room.
-
weetabixeater user0Sorry, I didn't read the whole thing about the Chinese Room. If you prefer it, my honest experience is that my mind cannot conceive of a supernatural being that cares for me / drives my actions / knows what my actions will be / whatever it is that people beleive God is / does etc. I don't believe there is a God, despite trying to believe. Philosophy may have an explanation, but I only have my own head.
-
PeteTaylor user0Recommend14Not playing golf doesn't stop golf being a sport. You've conflated two different things
No he hasn't.
Golf is a sport, not playing golf is not a sport.
Is equal to.
Belief in a god is a religion, not believing in a god, is not a religion. -
UtgardLoki user0So have you witnessed the experimenters perform their tests first hand or are you reliant on reports? If the latter, how many times has the experiment been conducted? How many witnesses each time? Are the groups independent of each other and did they use different apparatus?Should those criteria be satisfied, it could still be a conspiracy, but I'd admit the probability would be low. Equally, the discovery of the Higgs doesn't fully satisfy those tests, I think, but probably exists. (And is probably fully Standard Model, too. *sigh*)Or, for another worked example, I now have to decide whether I believe you are a physicist. Believing you're a physicist or believing you're not a physicist will both be valid beliefs. Only one of them will be true (i.e. a justified belief) and I will never know which. Whether it is true will partly depend on how I define physicist (I could say it was only people earning their living from physics but that would exclude retired physicists and Einstein while he was working in the patent office).As a rule, you either have no opinion at all or you believe (assign the probability of truthhood) to a set of mutually exclusive cases. Assigning the probability of 1 to God's non-"existence" is a belief and it shouldn't be a controversial thing to say - indeed, it isn't, amongst philosophers.
The important distinction between the bunny imposters and God is that, even if I have not witnessed the experiment, I am aware that there is an experiment to determine the truth of the existence of bunny imposters. Hence, bunny imposters is a strong theory (it can be tested) whereas the theory of an ineffable God is a weak theory, as it cannot be tested.
I have an opinion on Classical Mechanics, and I am relaxed that it is used as the basis for much of our daily lives. Yet I am aware that it is fundamentally incorrect. Thus I can have an opinion an yet have no belief. I would be even more of a fool than I am to believe in the false.
A probability of 0 assigned to the existence of God would seem appropriate, as would any unsupported theory, especially as the existence of God cannot even be examined.
It is a mistake to make false equivalences between belief and non-belief in support of any individual "god". Pascal's Wager is founded on such seduction. If we cannot know whether there is a God or not, then only a fool would take the chance of not believing. This seems entirely reasonable until the infinity of possibilities of what is the correct god to choose is introduced. Considering that choosing the wrong God might seriously annoy the right god, then choosing no god suddenly becomes more attractive. Why invite wrath?
When this infinity of gods is examined, it does lead to the probability of there being God (as opposed to "god") being 0, or the probability of His non-"existence" being 1. -
katiec7 movedtorantNooooo.I don't believe in flying elephants. However, if you show me evidence of their existence, I'll probably change my mind.I don't believe in gods, but show me some evidence that I should believe in their existence, I'd change my mind.I have a lack of belief in a god.It's not that I believe, or have faith, in no gods.It's that I have no reason TO believe in a god.Big difference.I also don't believe in a tooth fairy. You probably don't either.How come?Because you have no reason to. Right?
-
TheDumbMoney Michael BaterIt sounds like a lot of you "atheists" are actually agnostics. The existence or not of some form of god is presently unknown. The evidence currently favors no god. But we don't know. What makes atheists so irritating is that they operate on belief, while refusing to acknowledge it. There is insufficient proof one way or the other. "Agnosticism...is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." -- Huxley
-
notreallydavid Rodri76Hi. Not all possibilities are worth entertaining. My mind's pretty much made up on the Father Christmas question, and the yogic flying one. There's no compelling evidence to believe that we experience reality in a way that's wholly distorted, so - provisionally - I don't.Humility, not humbleness. I'm full of the former, obviously. All the best.
-
GeoffreyB batchyEveryone that loves to attack Dawkins the man is suspiciously quiet when it comes to the arguments for and against religion, I wonder why?...uh, because you haven't been paying attention? Several of his strongest critics are atheists who've put a lot of effort into arguing against religion - Myers for instance.
-
idliketoteach movedtorantAtheism is a belief just the same as believing in God.jesus-fucking-h-christ-sharing-a-bike-with-mohammed-on-turtles-all-the-way-down! When are you people going to realise the simple fact that a lack of belief cannot be a belief?
-
humph3 1EssexIt is disingenuous to claim that belief in God is equivalent to believing in a flying spaghetti monster etc. When we are talking about God, we are talking about known mysteries of the universe, which the whole of science is working towards understanding. We are already in a position to confirm whether or not a giant spaghetti monster exists etc. You are not comparing alike things.Let me put it another way. The rational position on the existence of God is to be agnostic. An atheist is not only denying the existence of God, but of all possible definitions of God - therefore he is asserting a belief. If I say that God is whatever caused the Big Bang to start, who can say that my God does not exist? If frustrates me that people think they can have an argument on this matter without first agreeing what God they are arguing about. When Nick Cave sings "I don't believe in an interventionist God", he gets it right, because he is more specific. I believe that the real argument is between people who approach mystery with a scientific desire to explain it and those who are happy to live with the mystery. It is merely an attitude to life that each side is irritated by the other about. In fact there is no necessary conflict between having a scientific point of view, and accepting mysteries to which poetic names can be given.
-
WasterofTime Rodri76An atheist doesnt believe there is no god; an atheist is someone who doesnt believe there is a god. For most atheists the term agnostic does just as well,but say youre an agnostic around a God believer and risk being 'invited' to join their religion.
-
JohnDakin movedtorantDawkins itself put it well when he said that there probably is no God, but that if the evidence went the other way, he would change his views. Of course, conviction should not be "blind and unswerving", but open to review and based on the available evidence. As for us being tiny, with limited knowledge, that is true, but our knowledge is growing all the time. Richard Robinson said one should hold views tentatively, but that is not the same as not holding them at all.
-
JohnDakin TheDumbMoneyThe agnosticism point is interesting, but A C Grayling argues against it, with particular reference to Bertrand Russell, who usually described himself as an agnostic, but did not act as if there was any uncertainty about the issue; Grayling suggests that the issue is not one of knowledge but of rationality; of course, we cannot know for certain that there is no God, but that it is irrational to believe that there is one.
Show 30 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 7:03pm -
-
charliechristianThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
7 people, 7 commentsATM1985Recommend148Dawkins has lost his shit, basically.It's hardly surprising when you consider how many nutbags he's had to deal with over the years. When you think about how many times somebody has approached him, asking a question like 'If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, eh Mr. Atheist?', it's frankly a miracle that the old boy hasn't gone on a killing rampage by now.
-
TheDumbMoney ATM1985What if we came from monkeys and the earth is 5 billion years old and there are a hundred billion galaxies, all of which are true, and there still is a god?
-
DoesNotComputer ATM1985Where the hell are the quotes? Everything is a link to a link to someone bitching about something Dawkins allegedly implied. And the phenomenon is now extending to Sam Harris, and to the "atheist movement" as a whole, painting it as venomously anti-feminist and misogynistic. I'm sorry, but, in classic atheist fashion, I don't fucking buy it. It drips too much of special interest and motive.
-
fredgold57 TheDumbMoneythere could be.....but It will have nothing to do with the current or past religions
-
baldyman01 TheDumbMoneyIt's a perfectly reasonable conjecture. As long as you don't pretend its anything else, thats absolutely fine.
-
ForSparta TheDumbMoneyWhat if we came from monkeys and the earth is 5 billion years old and there are a hundred billion galaxies, all of which are true, and there still is a god?
You didn't get the line: 'If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, eh Mr. Atheist?'
Well, we don't come from monkeys, if you don't believe me just try it. Apparently we shared a common ancestor.Either way, if the proposed god existed (in all its glorious redundancy) yet still failed to make an appearance, there would still be atheists as it would not be rational to believe in its existence, especially on the basis that there could be, so let's just f***ing go for it! -
weeyin ATM1985
Most people in most jobs have to deal with their share of idiots on a daily basis. It doesn't turn us into misogynist whackjobs.It's hardly surprising when you consider how many nutbags he's had to deal with over the years. When you think about how many times somebody has approached him, asking a question like 'If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, eh Mr. Atheist?', it's frankly a miracle that the old boy hasn't gone on a killing rampage by now.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 7:13pm -
-
16 people, 25 commentsPageyRecommend80He lost me long ago, but his views (and non-apology) on Down's Syndrome confirmed it for me.
-
Nicholas Millington PageyRecommend277Oh, that was the one where everyone accused him of being in favour of eugenics, despite the fact his comment said nothing of the sort.That one I found particularly funny. It just goes to show how far the easily offended will attempt to stretch an argument in the hope of gaining some traction.
-
groovemaneuvers PageyRecommend31Yes my initial reaction to what he said was'Who are you to say whether its immoral to give birth to a Down's Syndrome child, you're not God!'
-
Pagey Nicholas MillingtonRecommend60Oh, that was the one where everyone accused him of being in favour of eugenics, despite the fact his comment said nothing of the sort.I don't buy his "clarification", as a person who has grown up Disabled and hearing constant thinly-veiled Disablism from so-called intellectuals.
-
groovemaneuvers Nicholas MillingtonRecommend46Yes but its really not his place to tell a pregnant woman he's never met to have an abortion if her child has Down's Syndrome
-
Nicholas Millington PageyRecommend11Disabled how, exactly? I ask because I think it's important to know.
-
Brauchsel Nicholas MillingtonRecommend27
Why do you think that?Disabled how, exactly? I ask because I think it's important to know. -
charliechristian groovemaneuversRecommend101He didn't say that, though, did he? He said that if it were him in the same position, he would probably choose to abort it because the child would have a lower quality of life than the average human being as a result of a genetic lottery.That this was turned into "Richard Dawkins demands all Down's babies be aborted" is a farce.
-
groovemaneuvers charliechristianRecommend30Ha ha I never said"Richard Dawkins demands all Down's babies be aborted"which makes you guilty of thing you just accused me of.he did say“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,”My point is he doesn't get to decide what's immoral.
-
rainyjaney charliechristianRecommend40He didn't say that if he were in the same position he would probably choose to abort. He didn't. That simply isn't what he said. He said it is immoral *not* to abort if you know your future child has Down's Syndrome. See the difference?He then issued a rambling non-apology, where he claimed his aim was to increase the sum total of human happiness and that emotion shouldn't come into it (into happiness? How do you figure that out then Richard?), and that he had noooo idea that his public post on a public forum would end up being viewed by the public. For someone who claims to be so clever, that's pretty idiotic, and incredibly irrational, and the blind devotion of his followers, no matter how off the mark he is, is, well, ironic, to say the least.
-
Nicholas Millington BrauchselRecommend12Well, for one thing, peoples opinion of what counts as disabled varies. Secondly, I am used to social justice warriors claiming autism and entire spectra of diseases despite apparently not demonstrating the behaviour of any of them. Thirdly, because it gives me the opportunity to ask, if it turns out that they do have a disability, exactly what they have suffered through and see if I can help in any way.So a whole host of reasons, really. I have no real interest in strawman attacks or accusing people of being dishonest. If my argument relies solely on personal attacks then it isn't much of an argument to begin with.
-
mijas99 PageyI was astounded by Dawkins' comment about Down Syndrome because it seems to contradict a lot of his actual worthy work on evolutionary biology. A couple of points:1. As Dawkins' told us, evolution is down to genetic defects occuring in individuals that become advantagous in a rapidly changing environment. So much so that the individuals with the new genetic defeat out-compete individuals without the defect i.e. the "diabled" individuals are better adapted to the new environment, as the new environment enables them and/or disables the rest of the population
2. There is no such thing as a "perfect" human or a perfect rabbit. When we draw a rabbit, we will probably draw long ears, but there is a lot of variation in rabbit ear length and several hundred years from now, rabbit ears may be much longer (on average) or much shorter than now, depending on how the environment has changedSo with Dawkins recommending that we abort children with "defects" is he actually wanting to become God himself and put a stop human evolution?He may argue that Downs Syndrome children will rarely reproduce, but still, who is he to decide? And who is he to determine how much a Down Syndrome child suffers? -
jet199 Nicholas MillingtonRecommend22Don't use the phrase "social justice warriors" if you want to be taken seriously.
-
RaboKarebekian groovemaneuversI don't necessarily agree with the way he put it, and I can understand people being offended and finding him obnoxious.Nevertheless, I'm glad that Dawkins (and others like him) are around to make controversial statements and provoke debate. This to me is the mark of a robust liberal society.Of course he's not god, he's just a public figure stating his opinion on a theoretical situation! I would rather hear some offensive views from time to time than live in a bland consensus.
-
Kevin Sinclair groovemaneuverserr - yes he does - he gets to decide why is moral for him, as is his right - as is yours :)
-
jamathan groovemaneuverstests for down syndrome are performed for virtually all pregnant women precisely so they can abort as desired. people dont generally dont want babies with downs. get over it.
-
Catch22 charliechristianA lower quality of life than the average human?Define lower quality if life and average human.How does he know it would have a lower quality of life? How does he know what an average human being's life quality is? Average to where? Average to whom?He's making a normative judgment that disability is a problem, it doesn't have to be seen that way it can just be seen as diversity.
-
groovemaneuvers Kevin Sinclairbut when you say “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” then you're imposing your morals on somebody else
Show 22 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 6:19pm -
-
9 people, 15 commentsfordasshRecommend128parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadershipWhat on earth is "problematic" about that? If they're the ones who want to get up and make speeches, and people want to listen to them, what's the problem?
-
Guardian contributor
wightpaint fordasshRecommend40It's problematic because the author is an American; a form of feminism was imported from the USA years ago which made this sort of thinking orthodox. It never was a good fit with European society, politics or ideology because rather than seeking to remove equality, it sought to privilege bourgeois women - so much of this kind of "feminism" is about getting women on the boards of big companies, promoting them politically by removing competition, advancing their careers in the media.It's not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that (other than removing competition as a means of advancing a sectional interest), and it reflects the career backgrounds from which those women come or which they wish to adopt: but it's not primarily related to societal change or challenge to class structures: quite the reverse, if anything.The tend is exemplified by those who speak of "my feminism", as though it were a personal possession: it reflects their self-interest. -
rainyjaney fordasshRecommend34'if they're the ones who want to get up and make speeches....'. You know that's not how conferences work, right? It's not Speakers' Corner. You have to be invited to speak at conferences. Choosing entirely, 100%, male speakers shows a startling lack of imagination, and smacks a little bit of old-boys-club slapping each other on the back and bigging up each others' world view. They couldn't find a single woman, not one single woman who might have had something interesting and informative to say? Bah.
-
fordassh rainyjaneyRecommend15So if the best 5 - 10 speakers on a given subject just happen to be male, and thus they are the ones invited, why is that "problematic"?
-
rainyjaney fordasshRecommend28It's just incredibly unlikely, and smacks more of laziness, and calling up your buddies because you think that they're more interesting than anyone else. Having organised many conferences and events, I can tell you that the tendency to default to just asking your closest mates and the people who you interact with and agree with day-to-day is a danger: it very rarely has anything to do with them being 'the best', even though they're competent. Try harder, open the field.
-
fordassh rainyjaneyAnd why is "just asking your friends" such a bad thing?If they don't have anything interestign to say, people won't go. If you want an event to feature your friends, why not host one?If the event is opened up to a handful of the organizer's female friends too, is that really any better?
-
rainyjaney fordasshRecommend14I'm fairly sure I've answered your first point, several times:'smacks more of laziness''shows a startling lack of imagination''They couldn't find a single woman, not one single woman who might have had something interesting and informative to say?'.I don't want an event to feature *my* friends. Sigh. You have wholly missed the point. Making the slightest bit of effort to seek out the 'best' (as you seem so keen on) rather than the 'easiest to get hold of' (which is what is really happening) makes for a more interesting, diverse conference, where you might actually learn about something new, or discover a speaker you hadn't heard before who really challenges your worldview or ideas. Why is that so awful? Sounds a heckload more interesting than listening to the same cluster of posterboys making the same points over and over in different venues for 15 years.
-
insanityprawnboy fordasshSo if the best 5 - 10 speakers on a given subject just happen to be male, and thus they are the ones invited, why is that "problematic"?Presumably because lacking a Y chromosome makes your non-belief in God different from a man's non-belief in God. Or something.
Show 12 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 12:30pm -
5 people, 6 commentsgroovemaneuversRecommend58It seems he's taken the view that he knows best on, well everything, which means he's offended all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.Its almost as if he thinks he's god, quite ironic really.
-
yesfuture groovemaneuversRecommend97It seems he's taken the view that he knows best on, well everything, which means he's offended all sorts of people for all sorts of reasonsIf you watch him being interviewed, and actually listen to the words coming out of his mouth and then use your mind to interpret those words, you realise that this simply isn't true. Dawkins often declines to comment on subjects he doesn't understand, and often stresses that there is very much he doesn't know.I think what it is is people who very strongly disagree with what he's saying projecting this persona on to him, and jumping on everything he says looking for things to disagree with.The Dawkins you object to is a Straw Man.
-
groovemaneuvers yesfutureI said 'he seems ... ' by which I meant that's the way he comes across to people.If he spent a bit of time thinking about what he said, before saying it, using better examples to illustrate his point, expressing himself in an intelligent manner, then he wouldn't have the reputation he has.
-
AbFalsoQuodLibet yesfutureDawkins often declines to comment on subjects he doesn't understand,Unfortunately not. Evidence in fact points to the opposite conclusion.
-
tommyboy79 groovemaneuversIts almost as if he thinks he's god, quite ironic really.You thunk?Precisely the sort of hubris that has kept Dawkins away from understanding religious thinking is what's bringing him down now. It's quite amusing really.Despite what he says, religion is ultimately about right-sizing yourself, about humility and cutting down the ego. And it's only when you see a man with a towering ego in all its ugly nakedness like this, that you realise how important that is.Dawkins has been handed a lot of power and attention. And look what he's doing with it. If you wanted a better (and more ironic) example of precisely what religion is for, I'd be hard pushed to think of one.
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 1:20am -
-
3 people, 3 commentsfordasshRecommend342For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.
No he didn't. I just clicked the link - he says that women who are drunk are less able to give reliable testimony. Not that they shouldn't be taken seriously.Saying how the world is does not imply you are saying how you think it should be.-
colombobilly fordasshRecommend61It doesn't matter. What is the actual fact of what he said does not fit the narrative here. The reporter quoted many people from obscure blogs that no one reads and calls the writers journalists. Shit, you could write a blog read only by your mother and thus be called a writer and then asked for a quote from this reporter; it doesn't mean that you represent any kind of group or ideal.Its lazy journalism, a lazy attack, lazy extrapolation from a quote that someone who has, like many others have mentioned, been subjected to the most vile filth because he denounces the madness that is organized religion. I find it quite pathetic really.You don't have to agree with his ideas on religion but, please, stop resorting to this character assassination Guardian. It demeans you.
-
tenzin25 colombobillyRichard Dawkins has become a very divisive figure. Many ordinary people (yeh that's me) who have no god or club take an instant dislike to him. Evolutionary instinct? 6th sense? Anyhow, his usefulness is now to be found in the realm of click bait. An article with comments allowed about Richard Dawkins inevitably turns into an argument. Is this what you wanted Richard? You have become one of the internets favourite Trolls. Undoubtedly you will be reading this, your vanity fulfilled with every comment, positive or negative. Atheism. Relational schism. Consciousness prism. Sexist pigism.
-
-
7 people, 7 commentsplanetmattRecommend44Why do Atheists need organised Atheism? You have belief or you don't. Do we need a fan club or leaders?
-
TelePom planetmattRecommend16Why do any group of people need to form support groups? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
-
pughbrain planetmattIt does initially seem strange that a shared non-belief can form a community of sorts. But it's not so strange when you appreciate how full of religion the world still is, and how it still affects so many aspects of our lives, being entrenched the way it is in politics etc.There's also the celebration of a shared standard of morals and thinking: don't believe things on bad evidence, think critically, don't discriminate on arbitrary grounds etc. It extends far beyond just not believing in God.
-
danielearwicker planetmattHaving grown up in the UK to atheist parents, I should be inclined to agree. What's the big deal? Why does anyone need to "assert" their atheism, go on about it, or reach out to others?But my background in this respect is the equivalent of winning the lottery. If I'd been born in Bangladesh I might have been arrested for questioning the existence of god on my blog. If I grew up in Kansas I might be taught from school biology textbooks full of utter tosh.This kind of religiously-motivated oppression is strongly correlated with poverty. To have inherited an environment in which atheism is no big deal is like being born rich.Imagine if someone born into money said, "I don't see what the problem is! Why don't these people born into poor families simply become rich without making a fuss about it?"
-
manozezez planetmattTo fight against discrimination, to protect against the erosion of the separation between church and state, to discourage harm done in the name of religions, to encourage more evidence-based rather than faith-based approaches to solving the problems of humanity, etc.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 2:54pm -
13 people, 17 commentsjason batesRecommend55Ricky Gervais is doing more harm than good too. Atheists have become such bullying, sneering tw@ts over the past decade I don't wish to be associated with them anymore.
-
Pagey jason batesRecommend141Some twats are atheist, some are religious. The only correlation is that they are twats. -
hardatwork jason batesRecommend67
so what will you do? Start believing in God?I don't wish to be associated with them anymore -
johnoldcastle jason batesRecommend15The Ricky Gervais thing, it upsets me so much, because he's such a great comedian and well-intentioned person. It feels hurtful to listen to mockery of religion. He seems to have latched onto the anti-authority sentiment that atheism stirs, perhaps for personal reasons?For me the thing about religion is that it lives, its something people actively carry out and it benefits so many people in so many ways that are enriching. And so much religious work happens under the radar, by people humbly helping others quietly and with dignity.Religion is subject to hijacking by politics, and used as an excuse for wars which are really about making money for weapons manufacturers.There is a good argument that the deep wisdom of religion is the height of human civilised life. Did anyone see that Leonardo Da Vinci exhibition a few years back? It was astounding.
-
phreakdown johnoldcastleRecommend18I disagree. Ithink he's a woeful comedian. And that the religious and deluded should be fair game.
-
TimKay johnoldcastleRecommend57If you are arguing that religion is part of life, then it needs to toughen up and listen to its critics. The objection Richard Dawkins et al have to religion is not anything to do with what people believe - freedom from tyranny is a strong atheist motive.No, what motivates atheists is the actions that follow belief. So campaigning against gay marriage, the imposition of clerical law above state law when dealing with child abuse, the demanding that the campaign against Aids in Africa must be on an abstinence basis rather than using condoms and so on. If you see the "deep wisdom" of religion in these, then I am afraid your moral compass is adrift.
-
sidarthur johnoldcastleRecommend39What is wrong with mockery of religion. It's certainly what it deserves and often needs.
-
warbler hardatworkYou don't need to 'belong' to an aetheist "movement". It's a strange concept which might lead to evangelism similar to religious bigots.
-
Gray62 FredinSpainFunny that you mention him, I thought of Dave Allen earlier today when I wondered what he would have thought about the referendum. Anyway, he was a great comedian who was able to mock religion, exposing hypcrisy and lack of logic, without making it feel as if he hated religious people. I'm sure many catholics liked Allen. I did.
-
FredinSpain Gray62Like many Irish he had both a talent and a liking for self deprecation. Recently on the TV there was a compilation of his shows covering many years. It just reminded me how good he was. But as he said, "I am an atheist, thank God."
I love this quote from him."The hierarchy of everything in my life has always bothered me. I'm bothered by power. People, whoever they might be, whether it's the government, or the policeman in the uniform, or the man on the door - they still irk me a bit. From school, from the first nun that belted me - people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies … they used to knock the fuck out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain - grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same. And I sit and watch politicians with great cynicism, total cynicism." -
Gray62 FredinSpainI guess it's exactly because he didn't take himself too seriously, his obvious understanding of human nature, that made the difference in his criticism of religion. Dave Allen was great, I have the DVD of "at large" to commemorate him.Dawkins, on the other hand, is too coldly rational, seems to look down on less intelligent people, without being aware that the average IQ is only 100 and that he was simply lucky in the lottery of life. And don't get me started on mean Ricky Gervais, who isn't worthy to kiss George Carlin's unwashed feet...
-
lizziee phreakdownI disagree. Ithink he's a woeful comedian. And that the religious and deluded should be fair game.You're right. He's a terrible comedian. But do explain more why certain members of society should be fair game for bullying.
-
jet199 jason batesThe thing is with Dawkins and Gervais is they would both probably be bullies any way (Dawkins certainly was when science was his main shtick and Gervais losses no sleep about calling down thousands of his sheep like fans to flame whoever dares to say he might not always be funny). They have both latched on to atheism as a way to feel even more superior to everyone else then they do already but plenty of bullies have done the same with religion. With atheism if their superiority is undermined then they can say "look, science" and they feel at peace again.
-
romantotale17 Pagey'The Twat Delusion', by R. Totale XVII, pre-orders available now for Kindle, Iplop etc.
Show 14 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 2:34am -
-
3 people, 6 commentscynicalbuggerRecommend33Dawkins is an Oxbridge tool and does atheism a huge disservice with his half-arsed Papal edicts.
-
WinstonThatcher cynicalbuggerRecommend121If, as seems to be the case, Richard Dawkins offends both the religious and Grauniad writers, he goes up in my estimation pretty much by the day.
-
Gray62 WinstonThatcherBecause Hitler was somebody who offended both the religious and Grauniad writers, too. There's a serious flaw in the way you compute your level of estimation, dude. That "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule can backfire horribly!
-
WinstonThatcher Gray62Recommend25Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't a native English speaker. I just clicked on your profile and saw that you were German."I understand (that)..." means that you have prior knowledge of something. Had you said "I take it (that)" or "I assume (that)" then I wouldn't have even responded, because I would've realized you were attempting to be funny; my assumption was that I had made some previous comments that suggested I admired Hitler that you had read.In any case, Hitler was both a socialist and a God-botherer.
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 18 September 2014 5:49pm -
-
6 people, 7 commentsbluejewelRecommend193Dawkins can say what he likes. He can spout utter shite if he wants. If you don't like his ideas, argue with them. Or don't. Who cares? What you cannot legitimately do is denounce something he says by classifying it as some kind of unacceptable 'ism' and then trash both him peronally and everything he has ever said. And if you have in your own mind elevated him to the status of 'leader' of some movement and are now disappointed he is not living up to what you expect, I'd suggest that is a problem you go away and resolve for yourself and not bother the rest of us with. If you need any more advice, just let me know.
-
FredinSpain simon4444But so many are sheep when you see statistics that so called celebs like Fry, FFS, have over 7 million followers on twitter. Many people just like to follow someone, it's in the human psyche hence people follow Jesus or Mohammed or some Canadian non entity that is said to be a singer.
-
sambeckett2 bluejewelPretty much nails it. I get the impression that Dawkins has just got tired of playing the offense games which basically constitute liberal politics these days. I don't even like the man but the article just makes me feel sorry for him.People can always burn him in effigy if it makes them feel better.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 18 September 2014 7:22pm -
2 people, 2 commentsAlex RobinsonPerhaps for the sake of his own views and others such as feminists and other atheists, doubters or whatever, he should keep quiet for a few months and let the dust settle, That's the trouble with leaders of 'movements'--they don't know when to keep their gobs shut.
-
Kaitain Alex RobinsonRecommend14So even if he's being misrepresented, he should shut up because the credulous and dim-witted are being offended?
-
-
IfThenThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
simon4444Recommend68I don't think dawkins considers himself to be a leader of the atheist movement.Admittedly he has written a few books on the subject. He may be a proponent of atheism, but not a leader. We don't have nor need any leaders. Having a hierarchy in religious groups is one of the things that make them so distasteful.And just because you argue against women, does not make you sexist. If your argument is that she is wrong because she is a woman, that is sexist. If your argument is that she is wrong for any other reason, that is not sexist.The pro religious types are enough of an 'enemy' without lots of infighting amongst the enlightened, creating 'enemies' within.Dawkins is a geeky scientist, who may not have had the benefit of PR counselling, and he may put his foot in his mouth occasionally, but on the big things, the important things, he is always spot on.
-
6 people, 8 commentsronconiRecommend260Oh, no! Not another Dawkins-bashing article! And, as usual, a dishonest and badly-argued one.
in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation
Wrong. His intention was to highlight the pettiness of the complaints, not to dismiss real sexual harassment and real physical intimidation. So your "he essentially argued" betrays either a lack of comprehension or a surplus of dishonesty.
...said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male”
Wrong. Anybody who watches the video can clearly see Harris was joking. He published in his blog an exhaustive account of the incident, which you either have not read or have wilfully decidend to ignore or misrepresent.
... author and blogger PZ Myers told me... Blogger and author Greta Christina told me... Benson...told me...
Did you at any time contemplate the possibility of relying upon sources other than FTB bloggers? Were you interested in information or confirmation?
Whatever he may say, it’s up to the wider atheist community to make it clear that this one public intellectual doesn’t speak for all of us
I hope so. I cannot imagine any reasonable person wanting to speak on your behalf.-
lizziee ronconiRecommend26Really? It's "petty" to complain that a man is promoted over you by virtue of his gender? It's "petty" to complain that you get paid less than your male peers? It's "petty" to complain about being able to walk home late at night without fear of attack?It might not be what women in Muslim countries go through - and many Muslim women would really be pissed off that you automatically think they're downtrodden purely because their lifestyle is not a way that you in your nice Western home think is acceptable - but it is certainly not petty.
-
RaboKarebekian lizzieeRecommend35Those weren't the complaints he highlighted though.As I understand it, the complaint he considered "petty" (though he never used that word), was from a woman who objected to being asked out on a date by a man while at one of these conferences. There was, as far as I know, no harassment involved and the man took the rejection in good grace and did not pester her further.
-
UnlikelyStory lizzieeNice "straw man" argument. I take it you're a feminist? I'm starting to recognise the debating style. :-)
-
sambeckett2 ronconiRecommend15You don't get it. He's a suspiciously white, middle aged and middle class male with an Oxbridge background. He needs to be slapped down when he doesnt toe the party line.
-
lizziee UnlikelyStoryI'm female and I think men and women are equal so if that makes me a feminist, yes I am.Your post made me smile, tho, so take a recommend!
-
UnlikelyStory lizzieeI'd tip my Fedora are your gracious response, but that'd me sexist of me. Another merry day in the gender wars!
Show 5 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 9:31am -
5 people, 7 commentscandy_cane_armyRecommend21Organised Atheist movement sounds as bad and destructive and is being as sexist and discriminatory as any religious movement. The irony of this seems to be lost on 'The Most Rational Man Alive'
-
TelePom candy_cane_armyRecommend81Yep, because of all the stonings that atheists get up to and that.
-
warbler candy_cane_armyWho says he is the most rational man alive? I simply cannot believe anyone thinks that. Of course Dawkins is rational but more than other scientists? I don't think so. Compare with e.g. the late Richard Feynman and the picture might look rather different..................
-
Gray62 candy_cane_armyDoesn't work. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but tweets won't hurt me.'
:)
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 18 September 2014 10:41pm -
-
2 people, 2 comments
-
MichaelBulleyThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
6 people, 10 commentsgeorges1Recommend161Yet again a Guardian anti-Dawkins rant. Is Andrew Brown on holiday or something?
-
UnlikelyStory georges1Recommend10He made the mistake of criticising a feminist - that's misogyny, don't you know. And I'm still on pre-moderation because I did the same thing.
-
orangebag georges1As the Guardian turns towards america to prop up its income, it has to be more cultural left than economic left.
The economic left is dead in america, but there's room aplenty for reflexively cursing anyone daring not to have minority status. "Belittling" such disgraceful majority-ists is de rigeur. -
notreallydavid orangebagRigueur. And 'reflexive' =/= 'as a reflex'. But good points. Nothing makes me want to join an organisation or movement less than watching its members engage in an identity-based scrap.
-
orangebag notreallydavidLooking at contemporary usage, "reflexively" seems to mean "by reflex" nowadays, as opposed to meaning only "this verb is reflexive".Let me guess,you still say "battery of cells", "set of compasses" and "to whom did I give my pencil?"I did mis-spell de rigueur.
-
notreallydavid orangebagWell hit. I'm happy to take the spike partway out of my ass when I'm speaking, but when I'm rewriting overseas PhD students' theses for them (usually unpaid) I'm an entirely miserable bastard. 'Impact' as a verb? Not while I'm copy editing.
-
notreallydavid orangebagNot miserable because of absence of payment (it's a good cause) - just soul-suckingly rigorous. I'll go now.
Show 7 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 5:00am -
2 people, 2 comments
-
iclavdivs“At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”The problem with religion is that it leads to this type of tribalism; not, as seems to so obsess Dawkins, that it believes in things unsupported by evidence.
-
3 people, 7 commentsimaloserbabyRecommend21Couldn't agree more with this article. Just as being religious doesn't prevent you from being a nice person, being an atheist doesn't give you immunity from being a massive douche.
-
Kaitain imaloserbabyRecommend14Out of interest, did you read all these threads on Twitter yourself, or did you just rely on this journalist's executive summary?
-
oxygen84 KaitainI have read some of the threads. And you know what? He's a massive douche.I honestly don't get the Dawkings cult (yes, it's a cult, there're people who will agree with everything he says, because he's DAWKINS). The author was right to portray it as one.This guy is rationalism for idiots. He's rationalism for people who think there's only one way of thinking rationally. He rejects any criticism as irrational. He's "science" for people who believe scientists can't be wrong, because dude, they are scientists! He's "science" for people with IQ<70 [just an irony, don't shout!].Cheers.
A scientist. -
imaloserbaby KaitainI've read some of them. I've also seen some of the other tweets he has written - adequate evidence for me that he's a massive douche.It doesn't stop The God Delusion (the first half of it at least) being one of the most important and persuasive books of the century. Which makes the alternately condenscending and bullying tone he adopts with people all the more disappointing.
-
Kaitain imaloserbabyOut of interest, was there a sock puppet mix-up here? Just that oxygen84 also used the phrase "massive douche", and appears to write comments around once every six months.
-
imaloserbaby KaitainPossibly. I couldn't tell you whether there has been a sock puppet mix-up as, in this context, I have no idea what the phrase means.I just think Richard Dawkins is a massive douche. I think oxygen84 used it as well as he was replying to a comment on the same thread.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 8:49am -
-
7 people, 8 commentsinappropriateRecommend11Coincidentally, all the subcultures which SJWs are appropriating and 'ruining' (atheism, video games, comic books, punk rock etc.) were always security blankets for perpetual adolescents. It's a blessing in disguise... there's a great big world out there.
-
Jesher inappropriateRecommend39Explain how not believing in a deity is a 'security blanket' for 'perpetual adolescents'. Explain precisely what it is protecting these people from.
-
inappropriate JesherRecommend16Explain precisely what it is protecting these people from.Gladly - it's the dawning realization that reality can't be explained in purely literal / objective terms, and you need to introduce a metaphorical / subjective element to actually describe reality without any reductionist cop-outs. Pretty scary stuff if you're 13.Also - it's not so much 'not believing in a deity' that is immature. Taoists don't believe in a deity, for example, and I have no problem with them. It's more the formation of a special club dedicated to not believing in anything you can't measure that I find hard to respect.
-
fordassh inappropriateRecommend12I think there is something inherently juvenile about militant atheism (I'm an atheist, but I don't feel the need to be an "activist" about it).But I don't understand how you think atheism is somehow a protection against "describing the world with metaphors", as though that were some brave, adults-only way of thinking.
-
Bochi fordasshBut I don't understand how you think atheism is somehow a protection against "describing the world with metaphors", as though that were some brave, adults-only way of thinking.I agree. In fact children continually invent play worlds stuffed with metaphor and symbolism in which they act out ideas and emotions they are learning to use in the real world.What often characterises adolescent thinking is the need to differentiate the self from the family and form groups that the adolescent feels are self-determined. Hence the focus on banding together around a belief or sport or style of music - any form of self-expression that has a tribal force that builds a separate identity to that of the family unit and other tribes.
-
yesfuture inappropriateRecommend10Gladly - it's the dawning realization that reality can't be explained in purely literal / objective terms, and you need to introduce a metaphorical / subjective element to actually describe reality without any reductionist cop-outs. Pretty scary stuff if you're 13.Yeah. I look at all the conflict and suffering in the world and I think: gosh, if only we were all more subjective...
-
orangebag inappropriateneed to introduce a metaphorical / subjective element to actually describe reality without any reductionist cop-outs.
What on earth does that even mean??
The cop-out begins with "we do not currently understand this, so we will stop trying."
Show 5 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 8:41am -
-
2 people, 2 comments
-
2 people, 2 commentsAnophelesOn the other hand, is the article author saying that everyone should have the exact same thoughts and beliefs or he or she is out of the special friends club?
-
4 people, 5 comments
michaelmichaelRecommend14Dawkins the fundamentalist...The God Delusion was really his autobiography
-
yesfuture michaelmichaelRecommend46And that's how we know you didn't read it.You do know that Dawkins has never said - not once - that he's absolutely certain there is no God?You do know that Dawkins frequently reminds us that are plenty of questions science hasn't answered, and may never answer?
-
Ian Weaver michaelmichaelRecommend11Because he expresses an opinion on a whole variety of issues. Doesn't everyone?
-
UnTribalist michaelmichaelI don't think people have missed the point, it's just the point is stupid.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 8:20am -
-
1 person, 2 commentsAnophelesOn the other hand, is the article author saying that everyone should have the exact same thoughts and beliefs or he or she is out of the special friends club?
-
JesherRecommend57As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is...The irony and implications of what you've just said is obviously lost on you too.
-
MysteryTorThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
6 people, 16 commentsextremophilesheepRecommend14‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’”Now replace "atheism" with "religion".Atheism is some sort of belief - the belief that there isn't a god etc. Not all religious people are brainless morons who agree with what their church says, just like not all atheists are balanced down to earth logical people.....
-
extremophilesheep phreakdownNot if you're convinced of it and a lot of atheists have very strong convictions. Which is fine, but no better or worse than other things.
-
phreakdown extremophilesheepNo. It means without a belief. Not of a belief. Ideally I'd not let myself believe anything that I have no evidence for. When I do I am allowing myself to about under a misapprehension or deluding myself. If I believe anything about religion it's that people wo believe things that there is no proof for are deluded. I wouldn't go as far as t say morons
-
mauinglionz phreakdownNot for everyone it isn't, otherwise how can a club be formed around a lack?One good point that emerges through the above article is that now atheists can stop conflating everything the Pope says with what every other Christian must believe.
-
EricDravland phreakdownI don't get this part. If you don't believe the universe was created, you must believe that it came into being spontaneously, or at least that such a virgin birth of the cosmos is possible, right? Neither of which you could have direct evidence of, let alone proof, without assuming the universe wasn't created in the first place. Does that make you deluded too?
-
phreakdown EricDravlandI don't believe the universe was created by a 'creator' - certainly not the ones described in any holy books. Those are obviously fictional. I believe that many many scientists working on the best understanding of the laws of physics have an idea about the 'big bang'. I'd be happy to change my 'belief' should further evidence be discovered. Do you think the same could be said for the religious? your suggestion that a belief in a virgin birth of the universe makes me deluded, ignores the obvious question, and the oldest question, the one asked by any intelligent 7 year old. If there is a creator how was it created? And so on?
-
EricDravland phreakdownIf you look back you'll find that Big Bang cosmology was originally developed by a priest, and was vigorously opposed by the atheist scientists of the day! Indeed, Arno Penzias, one of the discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation which confirmed the Big Bang theory (Nobel Prize 1978) has stated "This world is most consistent with purposeful creation.”An intelligent 8 year-old could point out that how a creator was created is logically non sequitur to the question of whether our universe was created or not. And I wasn't calling you deluded; I was asking whether your own standards did!If you're truly interested I'd recommend a book called New Proofs for the Existence of God by Fr. Robert Spitzer. It's a tough read and far more intellectually rigorous than The God Delusion (which I've read too), but also totally mind-bending and exhilarating.
-
notreallydavid EricDravlandAs I understand it, spontaneous generation (an extra-big cosmic fluctuation) might be the best description of what happened, given current understanding - that's the way the maths and physics point. I'm not aware of any compelling reason to invoke a supernatural element in modelling the universe's origins - but even if there were, it'd still be necessary to describe how that agency did what it did. So it wouldn't really be an explanation.The working principle of science is to get the best understanding you can with the tools and information you've got. Sometimes direct observation of the process you're interested in will be possible, sometimes it won't. Sometimes you have to rely heavily on inference (geology) and sometimes a lot of the investigative work will have to be monstrously theoretical (cosmology). It's still science, and it's still the only way to understand how the stuff in the universe works.
-
orangebag EricDravlandhow a creator was created is logically non sequitur to the question of whether our universe was created or not.Iff (sic) you consider that a creator is not part of the universe.
Which reduces the notion of universe to a small of what exists rather than all of that which exists.You point out others inability to account for ex nihilo while simply saying "there is a creator that did not need to be created." Unconvincing, turtles all the way down-ish. -
EricDravland notreallydavidBut quantum events still need physical laws, and occur in time. And there's a very compelling reason to suspect agency was involved in the creation of the universe. Physical constants that govern our universe have very precise values, but there's no evidence that these quantities are necessary. Id est, there's no obvious reason they shouldn't be vastly different than they are. If you were to roll the dice, you'd be much more likely to have a universe where only hydrogen atoms exist (if the strong nuclear force were a percent or two weaker) or a universe where stars burn out long before life could develop (if gravity were much stronger). And yet we intelligent conscious beings exist.Of course, there are theories that infinite numbers of universes actually exist, and what have you, but obviously if you're objecting to purposeful creation on grounds of evidence or testability you'll find no solace with a multiverse hypothesis. Not to mention, it's far less parsimonious than creation.
-
EricDravland orangebagWhich reduces the notion of universe to a small of what exists rather than all of that which exists.Various cosmological theories do that.You point out others inability to account for ex nihilo while simply saying "there is a creator that did not need to be created."Nope, I emphatically did not say that. I pointed out that they're separate questions.
-
orangebag EricDravlandVarious cosmological theories do that.
Do you mean multiverse theories? I believe they describe regions that may have for example differing physical laws and values of constants.
Well then, I restate the point. If your creator created all of creation or all things that exist or have existed then why should we consider this entity as distinct and special and needing of no cause? Merely so that you do not have to answer a difficult question?An intelligent 8 year-old could point out that how a creator was created is logically non sequitur to the question of whether our universe was created or not.
You attempted to separate the questions because you believe in a creator. Perhaps you believe in a creator because ex nihilo really bothers you, so "there must be a prime mover."
OK.
Not everyone agrees with you. They are only separate if you want them to be. -
EricDravland orangebagI don't mean to be rude, but you're not making much sense. You're attacking an argument I never even made, and not addressing the arguments I did make.Further, I didn't "attempt" to separate the questions. They're logically separate. A valid explanation doesn't necessarily require an explanation of itself. If that were true, we couldn't accept the theory of evolution because we don't know how DNA and life arose.Finally, ex nihilo isn't "a problem for me". It's a problem for anyone interested in the origin of the universe. Unless "it just happened and that's all there is to it" is satisfactory for you. I understand that's more or less the standard atheistic interpretation. But that's not really much of an explanation.
-
orangebag EricDravlandLet's take a look at the arguments you did make:how a creator was created is logically non sequitur to the question of whether our universe was created or not.
Why do you believe this to be true?Please be specific in your response. You assert that a possible creator is not part of the totality of all things that exist? Why?
Or do you agree that it is a part of all things that exist, but uniquely requires no explanation. Again, why is this the case, and be specific.Few, apart from those predisposed to believe in purposeful creation would agree with you. This arbitrary separation, claiming that a creator does not need to be accounted for, is no explanation at all.In a reply to another person you make reference to the fortuitous values of physical constants.
Wow. The shortest response to this is "puddle thinking". I hope you are familiar with this.Physical constants that govern our universe have very precise values
To go into more detail - "physical constants are of those values that permit the existence of things such as atoms with nucleii and stars that undergo fusion. If this was not the case, we could not exist - therefore there was a creator."
Have you considered that you would not exist at all if the finely tuned constants were less finely tuned? The only reason you can be here to make such assertions is that the existence is possible. We already know that. Specific values of constants tell us nothing. The house is built on quicksand.
The strong anthropic principle reminds me of the ontological argument in its circularity.
Show 13 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 6:30am -
3 people, 3 commentsbananamanrulesRecommend112he's now a sexist pig giving atheists a bad namename-calling. that's the strategy? how old are you?
-
Lycidas bananamanrulesRecommend32Someone at the Graun seems to have taken that point. The original headline indeed described Dawkins as a "sexist pig". Now that has been expunged and replaced with a reference to "ignorant sexism". There is no editorial acknowledgement of this revision..Doesn't make the piece any more convincing though.
-
-
SybilSandersonRecommend92
can you please point me to the quote. ThanksHe’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense -
MysteryTorThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
2 people, 3 commentsStoodent71Building a church to atheism? Organising non-belief? What a bloody idiotic and ideologically self-contradictory thing to do! Aping the enemy.Dawkins, and the author of this article, and everyone he mentions in it, can have a club - but no matter how much I don't believe in god - and that's as much as anyone else - I'd never want to share a non-existent afterlife with these soulless Trots. Gobshiting their way to irrelevance and an early grave.It now seems appropriate to say, Jesus Christ.
-
Stoodent71 TelePomNah not really. But your name suggests you don't get out much either? We should start a movement...
-
2 people, 2 comments
-
insanityprawnboy JulesSW11Better than Richard Dawkins on Twitter, or better than Adam Lee in the Guardian ;-)?
-
-
8 people, 8 commentsTooncgullRecommend90So - to sum up - a man who is an outspoken advocate of not believing in God - which is quite probably the ONLY thing he and I have in common (I dont know, Ive never really cared enough to find out), has somehow become an embarressment to some sort of "Atheist Movement" ??
What "Atheist Movement"? I am an atheist, because I do not believe in God. I do not see myself as part of some sort of "movement" or fucking "community" - what Dawkins says or does has absolutely no bearing on me whatsoever.Its a bit like saying that Hitler is an embarressment to vegetarians - utterly facile argument.
I'm an atheist - I'm not part of some "Atheist Community" - what a bizarre concept.-
Bochi TooncgullRecommend16I'm an atheist - I'm not part of some "Atheist Community" - what a bizarre concept.There does, however, seem to be a group of atheists who go around publishing books, giving talks, attending conferences on issue of interest to them, and writing blogs calling attention to stuff like religious influences in schools and politics etc.Alos, clearly, in the USA, where the separation of church and state is demanded by the constitution, there is a loose political movement of people determined to ensure it stays that way, and who support lawsuits against things like putting up the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom or teaching creationism in schools. Just as there are politico-religious groups trying to make those things happen.In academic philosophy there is a more clearly defined set of thinkers who make a particular point of arguing from an atheist standpoint. Dawkins is sometimes associated with them but he is not one of them, since his actual appreciation of philosophy falls far short of what is required to hold up an end in that game.
-
Gray62 TooncgullThat's like an independent left winger protesting that Milliband is portrayed as a leader of the left wing movement. Understandable, but somewhat besides the point. It's the number of followers that define the prominent role. Complain as much as you like, but Dawkins isn't simply a nobody and of course his opinions receive more attention and critical judgment than yours.
-
JuniusMaximus BochiAlos, clearly, in the USA, where the separation of church and state is demanded by the constitution, there is a loose political movement of people determined to ensure it stays that way, and who support lawsuits against things like putting up the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom or teaching creationism in schools.Those are secularist groups, not atheist groups.
-
EricDravland JuniusMaximusThe American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are explicitly atheistic.
Show 5 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 3:43am -
-
3 people, 5 commentsengagebrainRecommend95What has the Guardian got against Richard Dawkins.The conventional, usually religious, approach is to distort and misrepresent opinions after their proponent's death - but the Guardian bypasses the niceties.Or even better just give RD a regular column in the Guardian - a least we would read what he actually wrote or said first hand.
-
cping500 engagebrainI bought four of his books the other day from the Book People for about seven quid. I don't think he need a column just a barrow in a market or two.
-
makingtime engagebrainRecommend41I think it's just that these distasteful ad hom articles intercept social media traffic. It's like staging a car crash in order to attract rubberneckers, then setting up a hotdog stand.Ultimately it demonstrates poor editorial judgement when these attacks are repeated so regularly while their basis is never fact-checked or challenged ATL, on the grounds that it is an opinion piece so facts are not relevant. This consciously ignores the need for balance, perspective and accuracy across the coverage. It is a question of quality assurance.I suspect Andrew Brown is behind some of this; as a serial Dawkins attacker whose blatant propaganda is regularly destroyed BTL (it doesn't take much), he has rather more influence over editorial policy than his writing skills and intellect suggest he deserves.If I were a senior editor at the Graun, assuming I hadn't already sacked him for the quality of his own work, I would be looking to insulate the paper from the effects of his personal animus rather than allowing him to just run with it and grasp at any old blogger who happens to share his biases.As a reader, I can only despair at the stupidity of a reputable publication allowing this to continue for so long. Can we expect the Guardian to drag every discussion into the gutter in order to generate social media clicks? If so, its reputation will rightly suffer, and it will deserve the consequences.
-
makingtime engagebrainI think it's just that these distasteful ad hom articles intercept social media traffic. It's like staging a car crash in order to attract rubberneckers, then setting up a hotdog stand.Ultimately it demonstrates poor editorial judgement when these attacks are repeated so regularly while their basis is never fact-checked or challenged ATL, on the grounds that it is an opinion piece so facts are not relevant. This consciously ignores the need for balance, perspective and accuracy across the coverage. It is a question of quality assurance.I suspect Andrew Brown is behind some of this; as a serial Dawkins attacker whose blatant propaganda is regularly destroyed BTL (it doesn't take much), he has rather more influence over editorial policy than his writing skills and intellect suggest he deserves.If I were a senior editor at the Graun, assuming I hadn't already sacked him for the quality of his own work, I would be looking to insulate the paper from the effects of his personal animus rather than allowing him to just run with it and grasp at any old blogger who happens to share his biases.As a reader, I can only despair at the stupidity of a reputable publication allowing this to continue for so long. Can we expect the Guardian to drag every discussion into the gutter in order to generate social media clicks? If so, its reputation will rightly suffer, and it will deserve the consequences.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 18 September 2014 4:56pm -
-
6 people, 8 commentsSpoonfaceRecommend30Being an atheist myself, I find the whole idea of an 'organised atheism' rather weird. I just don't believe in something. I might enjoy reading atheist writers or people making arguments about atheism, but I don't feel any need to identify with Dawkins on anything beyond the very basic fact that we don't believe in god. What he thinks about anything beyond that has no more inherent importance to me qua atheist than anybody else's ideas. Atheism isn't a corporate pursuit.
-
Tooncgull SpoonfaceRecommend18Exactly - how can he be an "embarressment" to me, purely because he shares one belief with me? I'm not part of any "Atheist Community" - what a bizarre concept. I really do not give a monkey's whotsit what the man says or does - I havent even read his book! I just do not believe in a god.
-
warbler SpoonfaceRecommend11Just what I was about to say. I do not belive in a deity but in a sense the whole notion of belief or otherwise is quite a dated concept, certainly over-simplisitc.
Surely there isn't an aetheist movement? One of the things that this could mean is that aetheists try to 'convert' people which would become just as evangelical as any religious bigotism.
In fact I have found Dawkins to be quite evangelical about his aetheism which, along with his often judgemental approach to religious people, I find both senseless and arrogant. He has at times implied that people who believe in a deity are stupid, which is not necessarily the case. Surely it is better to engage in discussion - often interesting - rather than condemn anyone not of his own view, scientific or otherwise?
Furthermore being religious is not always a matter of evangelism. At the opposite end of the spectrum of those who kill & maim or even those who shout about judgement day being imminent there are those for whom religion simply means trying to lead a life which puts other people first and tries to make the world a better place. -
warbler SpoonfaceJust what I was about to say. I do not belive in a deity but in a sense the whole notion of belief or otherwise is quite a dated concept, certainly over-simplisitc.Surely there isn't an aetheist movement? One of the things that this could mean is that aetheists try to 'convert' people which would become just as evangelical as any religious bigotism.In fact I have found Dawkins to be quite evangelical about his aetheism which, along with his often judgemental approach to religious people, I find both senseless and arrogant. He has at times implied that people who believe in a deity are stupid, which is not necessarily the case. Surely it is better to engage in discussion - often interesting - rather than condemn anyone not of his own view, scientific or otherwise?Furthermore being religious is not always a matter of evangelism. At the opposite end of the spectrum of those who kill & maim or even those who shout about judgement day being imminent there are those for whom religion simply means trying to lead a life which puts other people first and tries to make the world a better place.
-
sourpatchkid SpoonfaceI said something similar below (but in a much meaner way).The idea of a community is bizarre. I really do believe that people joining in "atheist" communities are people who find still comfort in expressions of religious belief ,like dogma and community, but who can't find it in them to believe in a god. They have just replaced a particular religion with the religion of atheism. I
-
cping500 warblerHas it not struck you that Dawkins holds that it is WRONG to believe in a certain kind of 'god', indeed bad for us all because such a belief encourages it's believers to do wicked things and more - to feel pangs of guilt if they do (sin) only assuaged by by some sacrificial action. The alternative is to believe whatever the latest promulgation of 'science' says which is the only 'reality'. No do-gooding there.
. -
Michael Hillier SpoonfaceMost organisation's are set up so someone can make money from it. This is probably no different
Show 5 more replies Last reply: 19 September 2014 1:20pm -
Open for comments. Sign in
or create your Guardian account
to join the discussion.
-
Watch our new ad and answer a question to be in with the chance of winning an iPad with one year subscription to the Guardian and Observer daily edition app.
Enter now
Today's best video
-
David Cameron: Scottish independence debate settled for a generation
Prime minister David Cameron says he is 'delighted' that Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom -
Acid Thunder
Alexis Petridis recommends a collection of house classics compiled by Terry Farley4 comments -
Art thief caught in the act
Police CCTV footage shows a man trying to take an exhibit from a Birmingham gallery -
Rare giant panda triplets open eyes for first time
Cubs born at China's Chimelong Safari Park in Guangzhou
The Guardian's
online dating site
online dating site
-
Guardian Membership brings you closer to the stories of the day and connects you to the conversations that matter.
Find out more from Alan
On Comment is free
Last 24 hours
-
1. 5 reasons to be cheerful even if you voted yes for Scottish independence | Alex Andreou
- 2. I confess, I thought yes would win. But I’m glad Scotland has given Britain a fright | Ian Jack
- 3. British Muslims shouldn’t feel obliged to speak out against Isis atrocities | Remona Aly
- 4. An English parliament? That’s a recipe for instability | Andrew Adonis
- 5. Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | Adam Lee
- More most viewed
Last 24 hours
- 1. The Guardian view on Scotland’s referendum: a big moment that demands a big response | Editorial
- 2. The latest message for female writers – don’t think, just spill | Hadley Freeman
- 3. Whatever Alex Salmond does next, he’ll always be ‘the chief’ of Scottish politics | Martin Kettle
- 4. We must remember antisemitism is far from the whole UK Jewish experience | Giles Fraser
- 5. In praise of … Buck Showalter | Richard Adams
- All today's stories
This week's bestsellers
-
1. This Changes Everything
by Naomi Klein £13.50 -
2.
Plenty More
by Yotam Ottolenghi £17.00
-
3.
For Who the Bell Tolls
by David Marsh £5.99
-
4.
Establishment
by Owen Jones £11.99
-
5.
Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else
by James Meek £10.39
Search the Guardian bookshop
Latest posts
-
36min ago
The Guardian view on the Scottish referendum: a big moment that demands a big response
Editorial: When 45% of your citizens tell you they want out, they are saying that the system needs changing, as it must be and will be 31 comments -
39min ago
The latest message for female writers – don’t think, just spill
Hadley Freeman: Lena Dunham’s memoir is a reminder of the literary obsession with women divulging their private lives 12 comments
Comment from the paper
-
Richard Adams: In praise of … Buck Showalter
-
Simon Jenkins: Finally, the west is acting on Ebola. What took us so long?
Find the latest jobs in your sector:
- License/buy our content |
- Privacy policy |
- Terms & conditions |
- Advertising guide |
- Accessibility |
- A-Z index |
- Inside the Guardian blog |
- About us |
- Work for us |
- Join our dating site today
- © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Send to a friend
Share
Short link for this page: http://gu.com/p/4xkbh
Contact us
- Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@theguardian.com
- Letters for publication should be sent to: guardian.letters@theguardian.com
- If you need help using the site: userhelp@theguardian.com
-
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 3353 2000
Close