What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[Dragoonster]

Well, you have to accept two things here:

1) People DO pose as atheists, and then spew anti-atheist rhetoric on an infrequent-but-regular basis around here.

I'll keep that better in mind. I'm somewhat naive among other things so if that happened and I saw it I probably didn't even realize it.

2) Articulette has a temper, and she's ignoring you for her peace of mind more than anything else. I have a couple of people on ignore here for the sole reason that I find them infuriating, and unpleasant to interact with on the issues I'm most interested in.

Accepted.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks RandFan. I may be going overboard in being contrary, but I don't try to. I like reading your posts too, you seem quite objective.

And btw, I've never had someone literally ignore me before so am still trying to figure out how to react to it. She may have good cause--she's posted here a long time and what she read of me may have seemed the same hogwash as she'd had to slog through in the past. I'm not anti-Articulett either, I just can't understand that particular response. Especially when it seem she still responds to the ignored posters through other people's quoting of them.

Well, I'll try to relax, and not be so full of myself.

I'm on skpetigirl's ignore list so I understand.

 

[articulett]

Well, you have to accept two things here:

1) People DO pose as atheists, and then spew anti-atheist rhetoric on an infrequent-but-regular basis around here.

2) Articulette has a temper, and she's ignoring you for her peace of mind more than anything else. I have a couple of people on ignore here for the sole reason that I find them infuriating, and unpleasant to interact with on the issues I'm most interested in.

I do NOT have a temper @%^&$!!



I do get peeved on a skeptics forum when people push this idea that "lack of belief" can lead to something. It's what people "believe in" that motivates them. There's an infinity of things that people don't believe in... how does that motivate people--? how does someone's lack of belief in Scientology or rain dances or superstitions motivate them? It can't. It's what they "believe in" that motivates them-- the stuff they think is good or right-- be it truth, education, critical thinking, following "god's" laws, prayer, faith, humanism, understanding, love of opera-- whatever. You are not motivated by what you don't believe in... and yet religions have taught people to hear atheism and lack of faith as being something scary. They invent a problem-- "hell "--and offer the magic solution (faith). They fearmonger against atheism and train people to see all that as good as coming from god or faith while being absolutely blind to the harms that come from faith-- blaming it on everything but the truth-- people can be convinced to do anything if they truly truly believe that it's the key to the "happily ever after" of them and their family. It would be wrong not to. What wouldn't you do if you were afraid that the alternative might be hell... what wouldn't you believe or claim to believe or try to prove you believe? Faith as a means of knowledge has horrific potential for abuse-- and faith ensures that everyone demonizes those who dare to say so.

People dislike Richard Dawkins because he points this out-- it's true. And faith is threatened... so they teach people to promote this stereotype where people are afraid of the truth tellers-- they see faults that aren't there... they connect evil to lack of faith while ignoring the harms caused by faith. Yet all faiths lack belief in other faiths. Lack of belief is no more or no less than that. It's not a motivator. I do get angry when someone tries to spin the lie that it is on a skeptics forum. They are promoting a bigotry that enables stuff like this:



It encourages a witchunt mentality that people seem blind to, and it forces the atheist to lie or defer or pretend the Emperor is wearing clothes. To me, the critique of Dawkins sounds like the Courtier's reply...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

I don't like to get involved in situations where people might be building up biases in their heads they are unaware of. I don't want to be an audience for this kind of thinking. I don't think faith is a means to anything valuable... and it often leads to arrogance, judgment, and suffering of others under the guise of humility and higher good.

So, yes, I get mad. The vilification of atheists is way over the top-- while the blindness towards everyday bigotry like the above barely makes a blip... people think it's "fine". What if that was your kid? How else does one fight this bigotry? We praise and worship people who spread this bigotry while demonizing folks like Dawkins and Randi who dare to call it what it is-- woo. A delusion. Primitive thinking. Prejudice. Superstition. Why doesn't the above clip make apologists angry? Why don't they see their own readiness to see something in "atheism" that isn't there while hand waving away this kind of abuse which they are promoting.

An atheist can say nothing right once the faithful realize that the person doesn't believe what the believer has been told is necessary for morality. Everything will be exaggerated in demonic intent and anger and stridency-- no matter how nicely they say it. Because people would rather believe that the atheist is the bad guy rather than hear what they are actually saying. They've trained their brain to hear what isn't there and ignore what is.

I get angry when people on a skeptics forum promote the thinking that allows stuff like what I linked to happen. And it happens all the time. Horrors come from faith all the time too-- people have just learned to blame it on everything but faith-- or "not enough faith". If you are going to think I'm strident and evil for not believing in whatever you believe or giving you my opinion of your opinion-- then why should I care if I "offend" you. Bigotry offends me. Even if people don't see themselves as bigoted. Only a person with a bias can fix their bias--but the theist and apologist would rather hear things that I am not saying then examine themselves for the biases I perceive.

I understand it. I am sure I was that person at one time. But I don't want to be a part of it. I want to expose the ugliness for what it is or tune it out. I don't want it inflicted upon me.

 

[Dragoonster]

I do get peeved on a skeptics forum when people push this idea that "lack of belief" can lead to something. It's what people "believe in" that motivates them.

Lack of belief can motivate someone to act. Lack of belief in global warming, or homeopathy, or theism can motivate someone to be active against those beliefs. The neutral atheist position is free of social criticism, but the activist is not free of criticism solely due to happening to be an atheist. The anti-theist has an agenda that "atheism" simply doesn't profer. Atheism is merely a "lack of belief in god", it's not also "criticize belief in god".

"lack of belief" and "criticizing belief" aren't equally neutral, there has to be a motivating factor between the neutral position and the positive action. It's that motivation that atheists need to own up to, rather than believing they are merely a neutral extension of a neutral philosophical position. When they begin to criticize, they are no longer neutral.

I'm on skpetigirl's ignore list so I understand.

That's surprising! But I'll not dwell on it, I enjoy reading both of your arguments (even if they're not cross-ways )

 

[JoeEllison]

"lack of belief" and "criticizing belief" aren't equally neutral, there has to be a motivating factor between the neutral position and the positive action. It's that motivation that atheists need to own up to, rather than believing they are merely a neutral extension of a neutral philosophical position. When they begin to criticize, they are no longer neutral.

I think those are two separate issues. One should not be conflated with the other. I honestly believe that religious belief is one of the greatest evils in the world. If I changed my mind on that point, it would not change my complete lack of belief in any and every religion.

There seems to be an issue of people believing that atheists should also be anti-religion... which I believe everyone should be, of course. The problem that articulett spends a great deal of time railing against is the apparent cognitive dissonance involved in being an atheist and expressing what appears to be a POSITIVE stance towards religion. I don't get as up in arms as she does, but I understand the feeling completely.

 

[articulett]

Lack of Scientology and criticizing Scientology are also not equally neutral.
Lack of belief in Psychics and Criticizing Sylvia Brown are also not equally neutral.
Lack of belief in woo and encouraging critical thinking are not equally neutral.
Lack of belief in divine truths and challenging the notion that there is such thing as "divine truths" are not equally neutral.

Lack doesn't lead to anything. Actions are encouraged by what we believe in. I am a passionate believer in the truth-- the one that is the same for everybody... I am against encouraging magical thinking in adults for any reason. If people kept their faith as private as they kept their fetishes, no one would ever need to know I'm an atheist. But they don't. The girl in the video just lacks a belief in god-- no one needed to know-- they forced the issue and then they saw what wasn't there and missed the ugliness in what they were doing.

I think the clip makes my point well. I think Dawkins does too. Just by not deferring to faith, you are seen as an angry strident atheist... just like that kid... you may as well get angry, because people see what isn't there anyhow.

Lack of belief is just lack of belief. It's nothing. What we believe in motivates us. I believe that all adults are responsible for ensuring that atheist kids are not treated as Nicole Smallkowski was. And that other kids see it and recognize the bigotry for what it is. I believe in that. I am motivated by what I believe in. My lack of belief in god is the same as my lack of belief in psychics and homeopathy and truthers. It's just that people have learned to hear hostility that isn't there to avoid the message that is.

It's wrong to support or defer to this nutty notion that faith is good for something-- and wrong to demonize those who ask "what is it good for?"

 

[JoeEllison]

articulett,

I'm with you 110% on the idea that it is always wrong to defer to religion, and we should not give any credence or respect to religious ideas in any form. That's my main criticism of Gould... "NOMA" is a crap idea, and unworthy of serious consideration. Pretending that religious beliefs have ANY validity, on ANY level, is always the wrong direction to take.

So, I do understand your hostility towards those "weak sisters" who make accomodations for woo, religious or otherwise, in the name of "politeness" or other seemingly lame excuses.

On the other hand, I also wish you wouldn't automatically label "weak" as "evil". I must kill a spider. Excuse me for a moment.

 

[RandFan]

I'll add my voice to the choir but I'm not sure how much it will be appreciated. I don't really take a "why can't we all get along" attitude. I don't mind that there is conflict and disagreement. I just hope we don't become enemies too easily.

articulett, you are one of my favorite posters and I don't see that ever changing. I hope you have the humility to give someone a second chance unless they have crossed some serious line.

I don't mind someone playing devils advocate so long as they are not trolling but doing so because there is a valid point to be made.

 

[Dragoonster]

I think those are two separate issues. One should not be conflated with the other. I honestly believe that religious belief is one of the greatest evils in the world. If I changed my mind on that point, it would not change my complete lack of belief in any and every religion.

I agree. But my anti-religionist bents aren't related to my atheist position; at least they aren't advised proactively by it. If I wax anti-religionist it's from my own subjective position, not a pure objective position that theism is inherently evil.

My problem is with atheists who fall back to "it's just a lack of belief" in defense of what is actually a proactive position that at that point has little to do with atheism.

There seems to be an issue of people believing that atheists should also be anti-religion... which I believe everyone should be, of course. The problem that articulett spends a great deal of time railing against is the apparent cognitive dissonance involved in being an atheist and expressing what appears to be a POSITIVE stance towards religion. I don't get as up in arms as she does, but I understand the feeling completely.

Ah...well I have very little positive stance towards religion. At most I think it may be positive as a moral position, though not in any way objective. I do have a modern positive stance towards humans (pretend I do, I'm misanthropic), which affords them/us the right to believe in whatever crap they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with my beliefs or actions. But this is a moral argument, not a theist-atheist argument.

As a libertarian, my current anger with religion is...anti-homosexuality, in marriage benefits and in "don't ask-don't tell". Anti-animal stances. Anti-abortion stances. Maybe anti-drugs stances, not sure if they have a religious reason to be against weed or something (I don't like weed, but those who do should be able to smoke it). Whatever dumb stuff their book or god says that they're actually able to legislate I have a problem with.

It's wrong to support or defer to this nutty notion that faith is good for something-- and wrong to demonize those who ask "what is it good for".

I'm not trying to demonize you.

But faith is as good or bad as any other moral position--that is, not based on any Truth, it should be evaluated as objectively as any other, with whatever moral paradigm the evaluator holds. Morality is very subjective, has nothing to do with atheism. If an atheist morality impugns upon individuals more than a theist morality, it's worse. I can't imagine that case, but it is possible.

 

[JoeEllison]

But faith is as good or bad as any other moral position--that is, not based on any Truth, it should be evaluated as objectively as any other, with whatever moral paradigm the evaluator holds. Morality is very subjective, has nothing to do with atheism. If an atheist morality impugns upon individuals more than a theist morality, it's worse. I can't imagine that case, but it is possible.

Garbage, all of it... just my opinion, but not as purely subjective as I think you'd portray it.

And, of course, the idea of an "atheist morality" seems ridiculous to me, since atheism is a neutral lack of belief... a position you seem to have difficulty understanding, but is as natural to me as breathing.

 

[articulett]

RE: second chances

I do...

Let me just calm down a little.

I put quixotecoyote on ignore before, and now I like him again.

I encourage people to put me on ignore too-- that way I can't hurt their feelings.
I'm Italian--hot headed sometimes. Passionate. But I'm not passionate about the infinity of things I don't believe in. I'm passionate about what I DO believe in. I believe there is a very strong double standard that even other atheists are blind to. I think we are trained to notice "bad things" in those who lack belief in god and ignore the bad things that come from belief in god. I think this is a way of keeping a superstitious backward way of thinking alive and encourages abuse of those who are smart enough to question it.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. Nor am I forcing my opinions on others. I just want the freedom not to have to hear this kind of stuff. I want people to watch the video I linked and think about the consequences of what they are saying and consider if maybe, just maybe, they are inadvertently promoting a prejudice that could come back to harm the people they love, respect, and care about.

I feel like all critics of Dawkins tend to be doing this... the courtier's reply-- the making a big deal out of this evil atheist persona that exists mostly in their heads while not acknowledging their own ugly prejudice and judgment and arrogance. Sometimes you have to shake things up a little to get people to think, don't you?

But I don't stay pissed forever. I just rant and then let it go and then take everyone off ignore (and then put Claus and westprog, etc. back on. ) I heartily endorse them doing the same to me. In this way my "passions" won't bum them out. It's just opinions... just like their opinions that I find so grating.

I don't ask others to share my opinions. Just let me have them and ignore who I please when I please. I'm not asking anyone else to ignore them.

Yes... I can be "strident"... but it's a skeptics forum... I keep this stuff in all day and every day... usually it doesn't come up, and I know that people tend to assume that others are believers...

But this is one place where I feel free enough to declare my non belief-- to ask what the hell is belief good for-- and to be made to feel like something I'm not because I lack faith in a god is more than I can stomach. My lack of faith is like the believers lack of faith is reincarnation or Scientology. But society has been trained to see and hear it as so much more. They hear scrutiny of faith as an attack upon the faithful. And I feel defensive-- for me... for Dawkins... for Randi... for the kid in the clip.

Lack of faith isn't anything. I'm tired of having to explain to people why this is so. I'm frustrated that, even on a skeptics forum, we are forced to treat some woo with kid gloves.

I guess I feel like him: That's fair right?



Sure, I'm a snob-- I prefer people who like me and think like me or whom I feel are as smart as me or on the same page as me. Who doesn't, though? I don't stop anyone from finding their kindred spirits by ignoring them now do I?

 

[Dragoonster]

Garbage, all of it... just my opinion, but not as purely subjective as I think you'd portray it.

Morality is as objective as that which would define it. So yeah, I share your opinion, unless you're claiming morality is objective.

And, of course, the idea of an "atheist morality" seems ridiculous to me, since atheism is a neutral lack of belief... a position you seem to have difficulty understanding, but is as natural to me as breathing.

Of course it's ridiculous...but it's equally ridiculous as a "theist morality". That's all I'm freaking saying. If an atheist supposes a high-and-mighty attitude based on a lousy assumption, I'll laugh at it the same as I'd laugh at a theist doing the same.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't think there is any actual religious reason to be against marijuana. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

I put quixotecoyote on ignore before, and now I like him again.

Yeah, quixotecoyote is one of the good guys.

 

[JoeEllison]

Morality is as objective as that which would define it. So yeah, I share your opinion, unless you're claiming morality is objective.



Of course it's ridiculous...but it's equally ridiculous as a "theist morality". That's all I'm freaking saying. If an atheist supposes a high-and-mighty attitude based on a lousy assumption, I'll laugh at it the same as I'd laugh at a theist doing the same.

What you're "freaking saying" makes you seem like you need to go back and rephrase it, so it comes out clearly enough so that I KNOW, on first reading, that we actually share the same opinion.

 

[articulett]

Pat Condell's latest is good too:



Lack of faith is not the same as faith
Just as lack of drugs is not the same as drugs

Lack of superstition is not the same as having superstition.

Science is not another faith. It's an evidence based way of understanding the world-- the opposite of faith. It's sloppy theistic memetics that makes people connote the two.

I have no patience with those who try to convince me, themselves, or anyone else that the two are equivalent. It's doublespeak at it's most stupid. And theism ennobles this sort of dishonest stupidity. It makes people who cannot tell a fact from an opinion-- who commit bigotry and think they are being diplomatic and reasonable and even humble.

No thanks. Theists and apologists seem to feel entitled to spouting their faith and opinions at will--they even want them respected and heard. They don't give atheists the same privilege. I don't want to hear the opinions of those who aren't interested in my opinions of their opinions. Why should I be? Aren't I just serving as fodder for their self important beliefs or opinions or delusions?

 

[Damien Evans]

Whatever it is that Zeus believers were... or believer in Psychics are astrology are-- so, too, are believers in invisible entities--be it gods, demons, ghosts, or thetans.

I think "delusional" fits the ticket.

or just plain wrong, but to each their own...

I personally don't think calling theists delusional is particularly useful, as all I've ever seen it do is make them angry or defensive.

 

[JoeEllison]

I personally don't think calling theists delusional is particularly useful, as all I've ever seen it do is make them angry or defensive.

That's pretty much the crux of the discussion, isn't it? Some of us consider your view to be useless, and there are plenty who take your side.

 

[Lonewulf]

or just plain wrong, but to each their own...

I personally don't think calling theists delusional is particularly useful, as all I've ever seen it do is make them angry or defensive.

I'll have to agree, it's not particularly useful.

While I like how Dawkins isn't wearing the kid gloves and isn't treating religion like the woman in the dress, he's still not getting anywhere useful by his methods. At the very least, plastering it up on the cover of his book isn't guaranteed to sell.

Still, he sold a very great many copies in spite of the title. And he did have a great many other arguments besides "they're delusional". I say that the good outweighs the bad; even if he didn't bring anything new to the table, he still wrote it in a very down-to-earth way that was easier for me to understand, and to articulate what I already thought.

 

[articulett]

I don't think there is any actual religious reason to be against marijuana. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

Yeah, quixotecoyote is one of the good guys.

I know... I can't remember what pissed me off. Really, it's probably good for me to put people on ignore, because I have a tendency to provoke a bit much-- and I find I like it.

If I'm going to be thought of as "strident"-- I figure I've been given permission to be "strident". And because people tend to hear a lot more than what I'm saying anyhow-- it's good for me not to be tempted sometimes.

I like this forum because I really like the smart and funny people-- the overall crowd-- but there are kids and crazies and dummies and whack jobs and self important preachers too... and there are some regular folks who I just don't like (and they don't like me, so it's all fine and dandy). I consider them "commercials" that I would rather zip through than pay attention to.

I like Dawkins (what this thread is about)-- I like him a lot more than his critics I find.

 

[Dragoonster]

What you're "freaking saying" makes you seem like you need to go back and rephrase it, so it comes out clearly enough so that I KNOW, on first reading, that we actually share the same opinion.

Well hell.

1. A person has a lack of belief in something
2. That belief in that something is held by others
3. Person in 1) continues to have a lack of belief, nothing else, even though others believe in it
4. The others in 2) affect society based on their belief
5. 1) continues to have a lack of belief in something...

Thats seems akin to "pure atheism"...non-actionating, merely a lack of belief, nothing more.

Compare to:

5. The person in 1) objects to the belief in the something...

Why? How does a lack of belief turn into an anti-belief? There's a lot of reasons it should, including society being dumbasses that belive in the belief, but once it does it becomes something other than pure atheism.