What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[JoeEllison]

I like Dawkins a lot, but I have also noticed that some people* I know don't like him because he's aggressive and insulting towards some of the morons. They feel that his attitude is going to prevent him from convincing anyone, and may in fact push religious people even further away from rational thinking. I think these people are mostly wrong, because I know from experience that no matter how politely you put an argument to a woo believer, they will get angry. If they don't get angry right away, they will get angry when you crush their counter arguments.

There are moments however, when even I feel that he's too aggressive, for example when he talked to Ted Haggard and immediately said that what he had just seen made him think of a Nuremberg rally^WP. It would have been more interesting to see him go in there well prepared to counter any argument Haggard might have, and own him completely when he says something dumb, like "...and it doesn't contradict itself". (Haggard said that about the bible).

No offense, because you're a science nerd in Sweden, but Ted Haggard's sort of church can be pretty goddamned scary.

 

[Gazpacho]

My questions wasn't loaded-- you just hear stuff that isn't there because you've been trained to take offense at the words of atheists. That is why I doubt you are an atheist

Oh, that's beautiful. You deny saying what you said, then you repeat it, all in the space of two lines. I still don't need your validation.

 

[articulett]

Good gazpacho, I'm not handing out validation... nor is Dawkins. And you appear to be the only person who heard what you imagined. I didn't deny saying what I said-- what I said is still there for everyone to see. I just deny that it was loaded... I think you are bonkers-- seeing stuff that isn't there.

For example, where all these supposed atheists you know who moan about the "unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs"-- can you cut and paste their words... or is that another one of your crazy straw men?

Let's see the actual words without your magical interpretation. Just because you think I was asking a loaded question... (and I don't think I was asking a question much less talking to you), doesn't make it so. What's going on in your head isn't translating to others. So let us draw our own conclusion of the words. Cut and paste Dawkins words that offend you so much if you want to, as well. I contend that you are hearing things that aren't there.

And, fwiw, ... I don't believe you are an atheist. The ones I know in person are all much smarter sounding than you. I suspect most of the theist are to, come to think of it.

 

[Unbudgeable Atheist]

Dawkins delivers! I promise!

Nobody ****s you up like Richard Dawkins. Nobody...

 

[Fredrik]

I recall that episode, and I seem to recall that it was in response to something Haggard had just said... that WAS reminiscent of a Nuremberg Rally. And Haggard, I think, had just insinuated that maybe Dawkins grandchildren would find out he was wrong one day. To me, Haggard came off as arrogant while trying to make Dawkins sound arrogant.

It's possible that I'm the one remembering it wrong, but as I recall the Nuremberg comment was one of the first things Dawkins said, maybe the very first thing after they sat down. It seemed to me that he just wanted to provoke some hostility from Haggard right away.

I agree that Haggard was even more arrogant, and also really creepy. It was the first time I saw him, so it was interesting to watch.

Ted Haggard's sort of church can be pretty goddamned scary.

I thought Haggard was really scary all by himself, but the fact that he had millions of followers is of course much more disturbing.

 

[Civilized Worm]

You're right Fredrik it was one of the first things he said.

 

[Gazpacho]

Good gazpacho, I'm not handing out validation... nor is Dawkins. And you appear to be the only person who heard what you imagined. I didn't deny saying what I said-- what I said is still there for everyone to see. I just deny that it was loaded... I think you are bonkers-- seeing stuff that isn't there.

Maybe you're hung up on the word "validation." Let me rephrase. I have no particular need to convince you that I'm an atheist.

For example, where all these supposed atheists you know who moan about the "unfairness that there are people in the world with religious beliefs"-- can you cut and paste their words... or is that another one of your crazy straw men?

How much detail do you want? Names? Citations? I don't have that. I remember a particular editorial I came across years ago, while in college, that started off something like "It boggles my mind that anyone would be so stupid as to believe in a god." There have been discussions I've had online (That they were online doesn't mean the other person didn't exist.) That included one Dawkins groupie who was ready to accuse just about anyone of being a neanderthal bible-thumper if they didn't share his intolerant atheism.

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity. He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.

 

[JoeEllison]

Forum fight! Woohoo!!

The Interwebs are ablaze!

 

[articulett]

Forum fight! Woohoo!!

The Interwebs are ablaze!

Nah, I like a bigger challenge... I'll let someone else deal with gazpacho. I just like to rile up the apologists and get them frothing... and then I step away... Clearly, he has no links... just memories of what he believes people said and meant-- and he can't coherently interpret my words which are there for everyone to read. The "mean oppressive atheist" is a big stereotype propagated by bigots like gazpacho. They never pull through with evidence. None for Dawkins either. They think what they hear or read translates to others--but if they plugged in different woo, they would understand how crazy they sound to me. I don't think any woo should get any special respect-- not religious woo or apologist woo. I do think it's ironic that HE would call Dawkins a bigot, however. Luckily his words ARE there for everyone to see. As are Dawkins words.



One time, in 6th grade, a girl called me out and I agreed to fight her, and a big crowd gathered around, and I slipped out in the crowd. Really... people were gathering for the fight and I had already left.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity.

What comments about Peter Kay? You mean the comments he was misled in to giving that he apologised for? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/mar/10/leadersandreply.mainsection3 What a bigot!

He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.

That's a non-sequiter. Just because he wants to stop religious beliefs being afforded special privileges and being exempt from critical examination doesn't mean he wants to "insult theists with impunity". So no, I don't think you're justified in calling him a bigot at all.

 

[articulett]

You're right Fredrik it was one of the first things he said.

Yeah; you're right. But so was Dawkins. Watch.

 

[articulett]

people who say "it's OK to be a bigot if you're right" ought to know better.

You're right. And you're a bigot. You hear things in the words of atheists that aren't there to promote a false view of them. Time to put you on ignore (3 straw men and you're out!). I hope you evolve. The first step in overcoming a problem is admitting you have one.





Don't be like my sig... unless of course you want to be a font of amusement for those who love irony.

 

[Robin]

Maybe you're hung up on the word "validation." Let me rephrase. I have no particular need to convince you that I'm an atheist.


How much detail do you want? Names? Citations? I don't have that. I remember a particular editorial I came across years ago, while in college, that started off something like "It boggles my mind that anyone would be so stupid as to believe in a god." There have been discussions I've had online (That they were online doesn't mean the other person didn't exist.) That included one Dawkins groupie who was ready to accuse just about anyone of being a neanderthal bible-thumper if they didn't share his intolerant atheism.

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity. He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.

Hmmm... isn't there a bit of a contradiction here? If Dawkins says that religious beliefs should not be entitled to special privileges for respect and politeness you call him a bigot.

And yet you feel perfectly entitled to use insulting terms like "Dawkins groupie" about other people. Would you also describe yourself as a bigot in that case?

 

[Lithrael]

Good gazpacho, I'm not handing out validation... nor is Dawkins. And you appear to be the only person who heard what you imagined.

No he isn't. I don't agree with everything he said but I do agree that was loaded. Lots of people just naturally take umbrage when they read something that looks like an exaggerated description of a position they hold and goes on to wonder if the holders of the described position might be big lying liars.

Seriously, a few people on this board do seem to jump the fence into big jerk country once in a while, and land directly on a high horse. I spent my first month here thinking Claus was a troll.

I know it's not your job to worry about easily bruised egos, but I was also pissed off, because when I read your post, even though most of it didn't apply to my thinking, I felt like you were calling me a liar too, because I'm an atheist and want to stay friends with a few people who aren't.

 

[articulett]

I'm friends with tons of people who aren't atheists. So is Dawkins. You seem, also, to have heard stuff that isn't there. I suspect you know lots of people who believe things you don't believe-- not just god woo-- and you're still friends right? But you don't promote a stereotype that those who don't believe in astrology or don't believe in hell or don't believe in homeopathy are "strident" and mean, do you? They don't expect you to "respect" stuff just because they "believe" it.

Btw, Claus IS a troll.

Kidding. Claus is a lover of straw men. Like gazpacho-- he hears things that aren't there, and then you feel sucked into a miasma of trying to explain (yet again) why you didn't say what they are accusing you of saying.... conversational snafus abound as he does the gish gallop derailing conversations to win points in a game that is only in his head.

That's why I like direct quotes. We can examine them. I don't like these bizarre interpretations that I think are exaggerations or false memories-- there because people have learned to blind themselves to the deference they give religion.... and they imagine so much more should anyone treat it like they do every other woo. Not because religion is better or different or worth more than other woo-- but because they've learned to protect the meme that the Emperor is wearing clothes.

And yet there is no reason not to treat faith woo differently than we'd treat other beliefs or claims of divine knowlege or feel good fetishes, right? It's best if people keep these things to themselves unless they are prepared to hear your opinion on the subject. You don't let other people inflict other woo on you, right? You hope they keep it private or don't expect you to "respect" it and see them as special or good because of their "belief", right? Plug in other woo when people talk about god or some other kind of disbelief when you hear atheism and learn how cultural memes you've picked up about the topic are shading your view. That's why I like quotes. It's easy to plug in other woo and prove that the error is in the interpretation-- not the person speaking the words. I don't want to argue about caricatures of myself, others, or what someone thought I meant or insinuated. My words are good enough and I'm glad to clarify. The most annoying folks never let you clarify e.g. (Claus)-- they would rather believe that you meant whatever the hell they interpreted.

I'm asking you to go back and look at whatever I said that bothered you and imagine I was talking about Scientology or reincarnation or belief in hell. Go ahead. Instead of atheist, put in disbeliever of (insert whatever woo you use).

See what I mean?

People hear what isn't there? How can anyone fix that until they become aware of their biases. It's easier for me to ignore such people. They would rather believe their straw man then understand what I (or Dawkins) actually said.

 

[Robin]

Science is actually a process to gain knowledge. Philosophy, mathematics and logic deal with truth one way or the other.

Well, no, Randfan was right in the first place, the whole point of science is not simply to gain knowledge but to have a mechanism for deciding whether or not it is true.

In general philosophy does not have this mechanism.

Science is a subset of philosophy in any case and mathematics (including logic) is a key part of the scientific epistemology.

 

[articulett]

Here's the quote that I said where people appeared to take it personally and think I was saying something mean about them. I was responding to JoeEllison:

I wonder if it's worse among the apologists claiming to be atheists. If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist? What if it was Sylvia' Browne's church or some hell-damning woo that the persons "faith" lead them to? Do they really think it's okay to defer to faith as a means of knowledge? They're atheists but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "strident atheists versus the noble believer"?

Or are they lying about the atheist bit too?


So let's try my statement with alternate woo:

I wonder if it's worse among the woo apologists claiming to be skeptics. If they are really skeptics, do they really think it's fine that other people are paying money to Sylvia Browne while they've understood how she's scamming people?-- What if the promotion of faith over critical thinking leads to harm? Do they really think it's okay to defer to woo like it's something good or harmless? They're skeptics but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "closed minded" skeptic versus the "open minded believer" in psychics.

Or are they lying about the skeptic bit too?

Why do you take offense at the former if you don't take offense at the latter. And what exactly is different if not the bias in your head? I said nothing about not being friends with people or nothing about moaning because people have faith or trying to oppress people nor did I "snarl" or reveal contempt... nor was it loaded...

and yet some people heard that in the first statement.

It's time to examine yourself and ask why? Is it my words or your bias?

 

[skeptical]

Now as to Dawkins himself: His comments about Nadia Eweida and Peter Kay show how he is on a hair-trigger to express his, not just disagreement, but sheer revulsion that there are people in the world who believe in a deity. He has said specifically that he wants to put an end to the notion that a person's religious beliefs are entitled to respect or politeness. He wants to be able to insult theists with impunity. When someone aspires to insulting entire classes of people for their beliefs, I think I'm justified in calling him a bigot.

So I have 2 questions:

1) Do you think there is a difference between criticizing an idea, and criticizing the person who has the idea?

2) Do you think an idea is entitled to automatic "respect" on the sole basis that someone says it is a _religious_ idea, or should all claims about the world be subject to the same criticism and scrutiny?

 

[Lithrael]

Here's the quote that I said where people appeared to take it personally and think I was saying something mean about them. I was responding to JoeEllison:

I wonder if it's worse among the apologists claiming to be atheists. If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist? What if it was Sylvia' Browne's church or some hell-damning woo that the persons "faith" lead them to? Do they really think it's okay to defer to faith as a means of knowledge? They're atheists but they still have the "faith in faith" meme and the double standard about the "strident atheists versus the noble believer"?

Or are they lying about the atheist bit too?


So let's try my statement with alternate woo:

Why do you take offense at the former if you don't take offense at the latter.

But I do.

It's this line right here:

"If they are really atheists, do they really think it's fine that other people hang on to their primitive beliefs while they've "moved beyond them"-- isn't that like a scam artist?"[/QUOTE]

I fully acknowledge that I am reading into this, but to me it implies that I am not a real atheist (and possibly am like a scam artist?) because I do not want to piss my friends off by insisting that they ditch ghosts and gods. It implies that I am doing my friends a disservice by allowing them to go on thinking the way they do.

I do indeed think it's fine for people to hang on to their beliefs if I can't do anything about it. I don't care to start any (more) fights.

I said nothing about not being friends with people or nothing about moaning because people have faith or trying to oppress people nor did I "snarl" or reveal contempt... nor was it loaded...

and yet some people heard that in the first statement.

The 'loaded' part is the only thing I read into it. It read like you were accusing people of being liars, of being dishonest about their professed position. If you had accused a specific person I wouldn't have felt offended. Because it was vague I felt like I was being accused too. As if anyone who thinks that religion (or indeed woo) does work fine for some people, does not deserve to describe themselves as an atheist.

It's time to examine yourself and ask why? Is it my words or your bias?

I find the tone of that insulting as well, actually. It implies I do not examine myself and have not considered my bias. (In this case my bias is mostly that I am defensive as all hell.)

 

[articulett]

Well I don't think people should ditch their friends... nor would I tell anyone to stop their beliefs... but I don't believe faith is a good way to know anything and I don't think it's harmless to promote it or defer to it. I was a kid of faith... I was afraid of atheists... I wish I knew adults who could speak the way I now speak. There needs to be room for people to discuss doubts... to discuss whether belief is good or not. I guess I am just accustomed to people hearing it as an attack no matter how nice you say that. I'm sure Dawkins gets that too. I always think of this video:




I wish I was as brave as that kid... I don't want to be an adult that encourages this kind of bigotry. Most people don't mention their beliefs around me... I tend to assume that people are rational.... and I hardly say anything when they invoke astrology or god or whatever... unless there is the presumption that I agree or believe too. I don't treat religion any differently than I treat other woo. And I don't think a Christian is more entitled to blabber about their beliefs than a Scientologists nor a psychic believer. I don't think it's right to praise Jesus any more than I think it's right to praise Allah--

I think there is no nice way to tell people that their faith is as wooish as all the other faiths they don't believe, and by golly it would be nice if they kept their faith as private as they wish those who believe differently would keep theirs. I mean people always hear criticism of religion as criticism of believers or even oppression of believers. They always hear criticism of faith as a means of knowledge as criticism of the faithful. But if you support the paradigm or defer to the paradigm that "faith is good", then little girls kids like me sometimes grow into big kids ready to obey whomever and whatever they've come to have faith in. Whether it's hellfire Christianity, Sylvia Browne, Scientology, fundamentalism, or homeopathy. It creates sloppy thinking, and the only way to get people to consider this is to ruffle some feathers sometimes. If people hear stridency in Dan Dennett then there is no way I can avoid offending people. And if it means a little less prejudice like the clip I linked-- then I am glad. I wish I would have had smart people around speaking up when I was her (Nicole Smallkowski's) age. I would have been cowed into pretending in a similar situation. Heck, I was cowed into pretending. I hope I never am again.

I don't tell people my opinion of their beliefs in real life-- I'd prefer not to know them if they need me to respect them. But on line, I'm getting bolder.

And people do lie all the time about being atheists or not being creationists. You might not. But I've come across quite a few. Really. It's not hard. Ask them why they are atheists or what they were before and what changed their mind. They'll answer obliquely or with a stereotyped view of what an atheist was (mad at god).