-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate
- Thread starter AAequal
- Start date
- Status
Phonomezer
Banned
I didn't realise Dawkins was almost 300 years old.
CornBurrito
Member
The blood of baptized babies is a known immortality serum.
When people stop making "lol child rape" jokes in every Christian thread regardless of context I'll consider a retraction.
mclaren777
Member
I came here to post this.
MotionBlue
Member
What he means to say isn't that Dawkins refuses to be a Religion apologist, and so he doesn't like him.
Dude Abides
Banned
This would make sense if being descended from someone was the same as belonging to an organization. But it isn't, so it doesn't.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I think the only thing I could criticize Dawkins for is what Degrasse pointed out in one of their panels. That being that his method of communicating things (which I agree with) carries with it a particularly viscous tone and lack of forethought as to how this method might instantly cause people to disregard what he's trying to teach them.
Earthstrike
Member
Well, I guess the entire southern USA is up for criticism then.
Tell me how you would criticize him.
he's a meanie.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Yeah, it's generally not a good idea to begin a debate on any topic with, "Well, you're a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, but I'll try to put this in words small enough for you to understand."
Dawkins' biggest failing is sinking to mud-slingers' level repeatedly.
narcosis219
Member
HE COULD HAVE SLAVERY GENES! EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
natural selection has weeded out those socially unfavourable genes.
I'd argue that once he sees a topic he can involve himself in he starts mixing dirt and water in anticipation. There's a difference in saying I don't believe in your religion or even that I think religion can often be harmful and walking up to a church and wiping your ass with the bible. And that's pretty much what he does every time he wades into a debate. It's atheists like him that give atheists the reputation of being smug arrogant assholes. And anyone that calls him out on it gets to listen to 20 minutes of how Dawkins is the only guy out there with the balls to tell it like it is, when he could get his message across just as easily without being incredibly insulting, only he wouldn't have the same percentage of his fans being of the asshole fringe that they are now.
But yeah, he's a meanie works best.
I'm sure this is quite unrelated to the hilarious allegations against Dawkins but perhaps this method of change has to do with modern churches being ran like corporations? Companies usually don't change on will, but of the times and the tides of forces outside of their hand. The faults of the church can be seen in similar principles as we've seen in companies in the past few years; they do some pretty corrupt shit and try to hide it in sickening ways, but not every person there deserves to be labeled for it. I'm not saying companies like BP fondle kids or all scoffed off the oil disaster we had or anything of the sort, but this seems to be in the territory of things when you have men in charge of big things, trying to keep the "boat" on fine shores, I suppose. Power brings corruption, even if there is some good to be had beyond that power. I think that's led to an explosion of people distancing themselves from the main churches, considering the corruption and secretive nature of their evils go exactly against what they're supposed to be about.
slidewinder
Banned
Could you point to some of the more egregious examples of him acting like this?
Every belief system is offensive when people try to push it on you.
Nope. I've seen what happens when atheistGAF gets in an uproar and I don't feel like spending the next four hours defending myself against 20 people. So feel free to just disregard my comments since I won't back them up with specifics.
Have you ever been to the South? Those genes are still alive and kicking. They're just represented by a seething, unspoken contempt.
Give me a link.
In the mean time, let me give you one of my own.
Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne on his faith
What's that? Respectful discussion and criticism? What a militant.
The only time that Dawkins (regrettably) loses his rag is when people shout at him or make idiotic statements such as "it is my belief that homosexuality is wrong and you should respect that" as has happened before.
He doesn't push athiesm on anybody. He pushes for separation of religion and political policy. He pushes for rational thought. He fully admits the possibility of god-like beings and the like. Read a single one of his books and you'd know that. He is athiest due to lack of evidence for a god, not because he has some "militant" (and people really don't understand that word when using it to describe him) belief hard-boiled into him that he has to preach.
Even his bus advert, that had people up in arms, was worded like this: "There is probably no god, so relax". That's about as inoffensive as it gets, and absolutely no different from any religious person reasonably stating "I thank God for..." or "God listens to me..." or "He is waiting for you..."
Monocle
Member
I would like to see you produce a single example of atheism being pushed on someone from GAF's archives or Dawkins's career.
scar tissue
Banned
Well, if you get offended by facts, you're a moron.
I'm more of an agnostic atheist than a hardliner, but the fact is, there is zero evidence supporting any god/s right now and if you believe in any god/s you should be able to take any criticism coming your way.
speculawyer
Member
Sorry religion fans . . . Sins of the father tainting future generations is a religious dogma, not an atheist one.
slidewinder
Banned
You characterized his approach as in some way comparable to "wiping [his] ass with the Bible." We aren't splitting hairs here; you should be able to provide some kind of justification for that claim, or else you shouldn't make it at all.
Well, just to play advocate, I would say that the whole "Brights" Movement thing was one example.
Another is the scarlet "A" shirts that his organization peddles. The notion that atheism is a religion exists (I think) because Dawkins seemed to be trying to rile up atheists and organize them under a banner.
Also, aside from Dawkins, how some atheists come across on the internet can be very damaging to the reputation of atheists at large. I remember reading a thread years ago and two atheists were talking about Einstein, and lamenting how he could have been smarter had he been an atheist (for all intents and purposes, he was, but these two didn't know that). The level of smug emanating from these two was almost palpable.
Atheists have no dogma. Some see that as an issue. They equate that as having no bond, no honor, no word of trust.
Uh oh. Belief is a bad word to use when arguing in the direction of atheism, or at least from what I've seen. Perhaps that's because I've seen the cesspit at Reddit go apeshit over the idea that atheism is not the belief in no god too much for my own sanity.
Maybe that's my fault for visiting Reddit.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I like and agree with Dawkins. But Degrasse nails down exactly what he does that I do consider to be thoughtless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
They could just stop protecting child predators. Just a thought.
I have honestly never seen Dawkins act as rudely and abrasively as people claim he does.
The only time I've ever seen him act slightly rude is when he's trying to get a point a cross and his debating partners constantly keep trying to cut in
I was also a little bit annoyed with him when he called himself a militant atheist on Newsnight the other night because he is in no way militant. He's rude and abrasive (apparently) but I mean that's hardly militancy as I would understand the term.
The only time I've ever seen him act slightly rude is when he's trying to get a point a cross and his debating partners constantly keep trying to cut in
I was also a little bit annoyed with him when he called himself a militant atheist on Newsnight the other night because he is in no way militant. He's rude and abrasive (apparently) but I mean that's hardly militancy as I would understand the term.
Monocle
Member
The fuck is this shit right here. I can't even.
He also speaks about that at length. Listen to/read the man. It's a gay rights thing.
I'm not joking. LGBT had to do a massive "we are here" thing back in the 70s and 80s. Right now, more in America than anywhere else, atheism is a dirty word. According to polls, atheists are untrustworthy as rapists in the mind of the American public at large. Only one member of congress is 'out' as an atheist, which is a statistical improbability. There has not and will not for a very long time be an American President who could choose not to say "God bless America". People are afraid to be atheist.
His point is that if all the many atheists just 'come out', non-computationally, but proudly, the huge stigma associated with atheist will start to fade, much like it continues to do with LGBT stigma.
I'm agnostic as well. I've spent some time volunteering in some hospice situations and I tend to be forgiving of religion for the comfort it brings people. Historically religion has been pretty harmful as well, but in many of those situations religion was used as a tool to control the destitute. When it's not religion being the tool, it's resources or ethnicity. The most ill educated and desperate will always be ripe for manipulation by those with the charisma and ambition to do it.
I agree with that to a point. I don't see the stranglehold that religious organizations have in many aspects of the operations of our country ending anytime soon. And though those that come out might bring swifter change, it likely will be career suicide for most of them to do it at this stage.
convergent evolution, the two populations found a way to adapt to enviromental changes through different means due to geographic seperation.
Or even further and say that if homosapiens didn't kill off the neanderthals, we probably wouldn't be here today. So basically the entire foundation of the human race is built on genocide. But let's go back even further to an even darker past. If neanderthals and homosapiens did not collaborate with the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, we probably wouldn't exist. So in all actuality, the entire foundation of the human race, including Dawkins, was based on the mass genocide and exstinction of entire species.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I'm going to create a reptile reparations fund so you can all donate millions to make up for what you're all responsible for.
?? How
It's a fair point some of the time. It's undermined when Dawkins does so much of the softly-softly education, too.
But the problem is, we so no problem with a religious man declaring positively that "there is a God". People act in revulsion when an atheist says anything even approaching that level of assuredness. I will agree that sometimes he goes a bit far, but not nearly as much as people think he does. The very act of criticising religion in the general, conceptual sense with any amount of confidence sets of a reaction in people that they think it is wrong an disrespectful.
And, as Dawkins himself once said, people are celebrated by academics, commentators and the common masses a like for making scathing comments on corporations, politicians, celebrities, soldiers and artists. Why is religion exempt from that fiery criticism? Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the subject you are criticising is religion?
YOU ASSHOLE!
Angry Fork
Member
The catholic church was allies with hitler/nazi germany for many years and has since tried to apologize for it. That's the entire institution not just a couple clergyman. The organization protects the rapists btw and cares more about the damage to the church than the damage to the children. Then there's the millions of deaths they indirectly cause in starving countries by saying contraception = murder and not allowing women the right to control their reproduction.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
- Status