CharminUltra
Member
Dawkin's Christian acenstors were slave owners...
-
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
Yeah, exactly. This concept of you are not guilty for your ancestors sins should be lost on Christians since being guilty of their ancestors sins is a key tenant of their faith.
Hungry Ghost
Member
None of it was his fault though. He had no control over how he was brought into this world.
Maleficence
Member
Don't see the big deal if he owns up to it and makes up for it somehow.
It's certainly not a reflection on his character.
And I say that as someone who's not a fan of his anti-religious tirades.
It's certainly not a reflection on his character.
And I say that as someone who's not a fan of his anti-religious tirades.
Dogmas don't have to be religious in nature.
So basically nothing will come of this
Yet outside of "you need evidence", science has no dogmas, and thus neither does Dawkins or any self-identified atheist who is rational, rather than the nuts who truly believe "no god, no possibility of a god, end of discussion"
He has humanistic principles though so I guess you could say his firm beliefs that all humans deserve equality is dogmatic.
I don't get it. Why the dislike for Dawkins? I'd imagine a man so vitriolic in his opinion of religion and all that follows, would be championed on this forum by a great majority of members. Not trying to be an ass here, just genuinely wondering what the deal is with this guy. Thanks in advance.
Maleficence
Member
Not everyone on Gaf is an atheist, and even less are as aggressive as Dawkins is.
I imagine many atheists and agnostics don't like Dawkin's tactics when religion is involved, and the way he deals with the religious does not reflect kindly on his character.
Well, wasn't the initial question posed to Volimar how someone could not like Dawkins? I think he does a good job of demonstrating how Dawkins can come off as smug and rude while on his campaign.
I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins either as he tends to represent a rather... fanatical side of atheism. I accept, however, that he's a natural counterbalance to the fanaticism often found in those that are religious. As an agnostic, though, I would prefer that we just drop all the fanaticism altogether. Many atheists like to dismiss religion in its entirety without accepting that there are some benefits and comforts found in people's beliefs of an afterlife or a higher power.
I would prefer if Dawkins would be more moderate, but I understand why he's not.
CornBurrito
Member
I think Tyson is just bitter toward Dawkins because his family was slave-owners.
So basically his inability to apply tact when discussing his viewpoints on religion, goes directly against the ultimate goal of educating the target.
Like when a Christian starts off by reminding you you are going to hell.
CornBurrito
Member
Yeah this is why I am confused why mclaren777 doesn't feel that this is a reason to criticize Dawkins.
What evidence do you have for fanaticism within Dawkins? Please. A single example. Just one.
Because:
How is making the statement that as their is currently no evidence for a deistic being thus he cannot believe in one anything but moderate? He would be the first to tell you that the moment good evidence for deistic entities emerge scientists should take the idea seriously.
He doesn't say "there is no god", he says "there is probably no god".
That is the scientific mind. It is entirely moderate because it is without presumption and always willing to accept it has been fundamentally wrong.
Why should he make up for something he had nothing to do with?
It's all a matter of perspective. I always assumed I was in the minority.
This is a weird thing about Gaf. There are threads indicating that they never run into religious people. However, in other threads they seem to hear people telling them they're going to Hell all the time. Different people I guess, but still it's odd that that would be the thing to stir them up.kinggroin said:
Who cares if someone tells you you're going to a fictional place? That would be like me concerning myself with Dawkins' views on God. Everytime I do, I find that I've wasted my time so it may be a good idea to assume that with these religious wingnuts assaulting ones about hellfire all day long.
To be fair, he does a bit more than make statements doesn't he. The dude has a pretty nice size empire. It's his career now. Nothing wrong with making money though.
Angry Fork
Member
Doesn't matter, with the qualifier 'Atheist' alone, there is no dogma. Atheism is simply the absence in belief in a deity. That's it. If you want to say an Atheist has any other characteristics, that's not a characteristic of his lack of faith.
I know this is going to come as a great surprise, but I haven't been following his lectures or speeches recently. Nor do I keep a copy of his books on my nightstand for some light evening reading. But here we go:
I find it intriguing that people don't see him as being rather aggressive in his attacks on religion. He describes himself as a militant atheist and whether you agree with that self assessment or not indicates that the man himself is conscious of the hard line he's pursuing.
But just a quick overview of his wiki page brings up this little nugget: "According to Dawkins, faith - belief that is not based on evidence - is one of the world's great evils."
I don't think a dissertation is necessary to point out that this is not a moderate viewpoint.
He purports a position of denial on a subject that, by its definition, can neither be proven or unproven. Religion and gods are by their nature exist wholly in a category that we can not and will not ever be able to understand. It falls outside the purview of science and a scientific mind should be able to accept that and move on. He doesn't. He spends a great deal of time dragging faith and, specifically, Christianity through the mud.
I understand why he does it, I don't fault him for it but I would prefer if he didn't.
But the thing is Dawkins does read religious documents and essays by religious thinkers. He criticises religion with religious literature - something I think is entirely fair. You cannot make a statement about someone if you're not prepared to read their work. How can you even begin to claim you have an opinion on the man if you don't read his stuff?
He doesn't deny a subject, he says there's no evidence for it.
When he does deny something, it amounts to along the lines of 'there might be a god, it certainly won't be as the bible describes' as the events described in the bible can be disproved and have been. There are falsifiable claims in there.
The more modern religious mindset - one he respects, even if he disagrees with - states that God or whatever works through the literature, but is not as the literature describes.
To take the Bible or whatever similar scripture literally is undeniably ignorance. The Pope would probably tell you the same thing.
Denial as in he believes there is no god? This does not describe his position.
Also, do you consider that faith in supernatural beings draws the criticism from him precisely because they are, as you describe, supernatural?
Fusion Pizza
Member
This is retarded.
Does that mean I should apologize to europeans because my ancestors raped and pillaged a thousand years ago? (danish)
Does that mean I should apologize to europeans because my ancestors raped and pillaged a thousand years ago? (danish)
If he identifies himself as an atheist, does that not mean he's denying religion? Atheism's whole stance is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
But my, and Volibar's, original point was that he's a bit extreme and that it rubs some people the wrong way. Perhaps he plays up the aggressiveness in order to 'fight the good fight' and that they aren't his true personal beliefs. Then, at the very least, he has a very off putting public image.
Either way, not everyone is required to like him and those are some reasons why some people don't.
There are plenty of things to criticize about all organized religions. That's fine and good, but he often purports a stance that faith is one of the worst things in the world. Which I think is a little extreme and unfair.
This at least leads to the hilarious game where I make up religions and deities and you refuse to not believe in them even though they're coming directly from my ass.
I can absolutely understand why someone who has such a strong opinion about something that they've done no research on would be put off by someone like Dawkins.
No. And if you'd read anything he's said on the subject you'd know that.
Outright rejection of the possibility of a deistic entity is completely non-scientific. He dislikes the label atheist though uses it simply because it is the most convenient. He might prefer anti-theist, as he is against the belief of a god where no empirical evidence for one exists. He is not against the concept of a god in general. He freely admits he cannot disprove a person's belief in a god.
You haven't given a single example of an "extreme" approach and you've revealed you know very little about the man or what he says. It seems to me that your image of Dawkins is entirely based on other people's reactions to him, rather than your own decision.
You're not required to like the man, no, but it is entirely poor-form to do so without first observing honestly.
Atheism is simply not believing in God - there are no other qualifiers. You can add other qualifiers, like being gnostic or agnostic - those imply that you are specifying that from the knowledge of Gods that you have (note, you do not have to have knowledge of Gods to be Atheist) - you either:
Gnostic Atheist: "There definitely are not any gods, I know this to be true"
Agnostic Atheist: "I don't think there are gods, but I can't know for sure"
Of course, the language can change a bit, and the level of conviction is variable - but that's essentially what it is.
On a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being completely agnostic and 7 being gnostic, Dawkins puts himself somewhere around 6.x.
I think you misread - I haven't been following Dawkins recently. I heard and read enough of his stuff two years ago to form an opinion on the subject but lack a robotic memory to pull exact details in the middle of the evening. Perhaps you will accept my apology for lack of interest in doing a great deal of research tonight to explain how the guy is abrasive.
Agnostic?
He writes books and does speaking engagements criticizing religion! THE HORROR!
this.
Agnostic is being undecided. Dawkins is not undecided - there is currently no evidence for a god and thus he won't currently believe in one.
In The God Delusion, he appropriates the Kinsey scale of sexuality and turns it into theism/atheism. If 0 represents total belief in a god and 6 represents total belief in there not being a god, very, very few people fall on either 0 or 6. Dawkins would be somewhere around a 4 or a 5. Atheist, but not unshakable in that position should good evidence present itself.
Its quite baffling to me as a white man, since where im from, the ancestral wars and wrongings between races dont seem to have any relevance today, and they shouldn't.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
That's all British journalism. Hell you ever listen to debate in the House of Commons? To claim it unique to the Telegraph or just newspapers is missing the bigger picture. Smug behavior is a common part of British rhetoric.
Yeah you should.... you sick fuck! >=[
I think most of us are bro...
An agnostic believes we cannot or do not know for sure if god exists(or does not exist). An agnostic can still have faith in god as it does not say anything about belief. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. To say you have faith in god implies belief without knowledge, which is agnostic theism. Dawkins, as he describes himself, can be considered an agnostic atheist.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Don't sweat it. We Anglo-Saxons ain't even mad.
Ouych
I'll be the first to admit that the state of British print journalism (I firmly believe our television journalism outclasses the rest of the English-speaking world) is an absolute disgrace; all of it. We don't have a single decent newspaper to be proud of.
But smug behavior as a common part of the British rhetoric? Citation needed. Political debates aren't exactly the most honest example.
History is always relevant. However, it is not relevant when it comes to making judgement of character or morality of a modern individual.
How this would bring anyone down is beyond me. "Kinitari, I heard 300 years ago one of your ancestors punched some dude in the face and stole his woman, what do you have to say about that?"
"Cool, how did you find that out?"
Well, by wikipedia, agnosticism is: the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
It doesn't have to mean that one is undecided. But really, what you're saying should describe any rational person - "I believe what I do because there is no evidence to disprove it." But should that evidence come about, then I would reevaluate my position.
So... I'm not really sure what your argument is. He calls himself an atheist and says he doesn't believe in God. Yes, he's open to being proven wrong, but he still doesn't believe in any of it. He then goes into arguments about religion explaining how, rationally, those beliefs are wrong. I don't see how you could not see that as him believing that religion isn't true.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I actually think British news papers are pretty good: Telegraph and Guardian for example. BBC is great on the front.Ouych
I'll be the first to admit that the state of British print journalism (I firmly believe our television journalism outclasses the rest of the English-speaking world) is an absolute disgrace; all of it. We don't have a single decent newspaper to be proud of.
But smug behavior as a common part of the British rhetoric? Citation needed. Political debates aren't exactly the most honest example.
Regarding political debate true, but the Commons debeates and behavior seem to be structured on being a troll. LOL
The comment was also meant to be slightly tongue in cheek about Brits being smug. I do love both of the examples I joke about.
You've got the agnosticism part right - but on the bold
He is disputing active claims - if someone makes an active claim "Creationism is Real, Evolution is not" (This is the most frequent anti-religious argument he gets into), he says "That is not what we see, this is incorrect" - he will also go through a religious doctrine and say "none of these things can be taken literally, as we have no evidence of them ever actually happening". Does that mean he 'believes religion isn't true'? Maybe, I don't know what that phrase entails and what baggage may come with it. A simpler way to say it is - he isn't convinced by religious claims, and will lay out the reasons why.
Edit, also
"I believe what I believe because there is no evidence to disprove it" is irrational
"I believe what I believe because there is a lot of evidence substantiating it, and nothing disproving it" Is rational
- Status