Support NeoGAF

[Pollux]

I don't even like Dawkins but as far as this goes...who gives a shit? Dawkins didn't own slaves, so who cares...

 

[Suairyu]

I actually think British news papers are pretty good: Telegraph and Guardian for example.

They are better. They are not good by any means. International scientists will generally refuse to speak to them, for example.

The British print tradition is to not reveal the source. They will always say things like "a source close to Whitehall said today.." etc., which in other countries is a massive no-no - unless you can provide either a credible source or hard-written evidence, you don't report a damn thing.

 

[Bombadil]

The fuck is this shit right here. I can't even.

I'm sorry that statistical evidence pointing to a lack of trust in atheists has overwhelmed your senses.

I wasn't stating my views on the matter. Using the term "some" should have tipped you off that I'm not included in the group who feels that way.

Anyway, the thread has seemed to veer off into a debate about the semantics of "agnosticism." This is a common occurrence from my experience.

 

[BeesEight]

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.

Agreed. I can't remember his arguments word for word anymore, my main point was just trying to explain why some people don't particularly like him. He does have some aggressive viewpoints that are very... anti-religion. I understand that he's presenting the other side of a very heated debate and often resorts to similar hard tactics when faced against people that are going to get very emotional about the discourse.

I know why he does it, I just wish he didn't have to. Is that a better way to phrase it?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I always wondered if Dawkins feels people who could have hidden their religion, but didnt and died because they didn't, are idiots? The problem I have with Dawkins is I think he would. Now I am not saying he thinks its right or that people don't have freedom of religion (though I wonder on the latter).

 

[Rocket Punch]

Can we as a forum try and stay away from inflammatory and scandalous thread titles that have little to no merit? It's very irritating and doesn't elevate the level of discussion one bit.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

They are better. They are not good by any means. International scientists will generally refuse to speak to them, for example.

The British print tradition is to not reveal the source. They will always say things like "a source close to Whitehall said today.." etc., which in other countries is a massive no-no - unless you can provide either a credible source or hard-written evidence, you don't report a damn thing.

I'd say not revealing the source is a fairly universal trait.

 

[Insane Metal]

If we all look at what our ancestors did in the past I'm pretty sure most of us would be at the very least, upset.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

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?

I think you misunderstand what is being said or what I was trying to get across. My point isn't that Dawkins should be more sensitive to religious folk for the sake of empathy, my point is that he should present his reasoning to the people he's convinced are deluded in a way that won't immediately have them back away as if they're being bullied and antagonized.

It is one thing for somebody to say you're mistaken and show you evidence as to why their belief system is woefully wrong. It is another to eloquently tell them they are fucking morons and THEN expect them to take your argument in good graces.

I want more people to hear what Dawkins has to say, rather than shunning him because he doesn't care to take the steps required to get them to meet him half way.

 

[JGS]

I always wondered if Dawkins feels people who could have hidden their religion, but didnt and died because they didn't, are idiots? The problem I have with Dawkins is I think he would. Now I am not saying he thinks its right or that people don't have freedom of religion (though I wonder on the latter).

Right or wrong, I get the impression that he (& ones of his persuasion) views religious people the exact same way as he would kids who believe in the tooth fairy. So I then get the impression that he feels religious people are ones to be talked down to and their leaders should be ashamed of duping us.

There's no reason in particular to actually like the guy unless you believe him or believe in God but view him as an authority figure which is highly unlikely. After all, there are better scientists out there for religious and non-religious to admire.

With that said, I think it's good for any group to have a role model, I'm just not sure if atheists want Dawkins for that. It sure seems like it.

 

[lupinko]

Dear population of Germany.

Did you all know what your granddads did?
Huh? Do you!?

They do, they hear about it every time.

 

[Wildesy]

I bet if they went further back they might have found an ancestor who used to swing around in trees and fling poo at his relatives. That would've been a real smear campaign, how would he recover from that revelation?

 

[Sblargh]

Dawkin's response:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645002-the-sins-of-the-fathers-also-in-polish

He missed the opportunity be honest about the issue.
He could say something like how slavery was evil, how he is probably not the only white man on the same situation, how this shows that slavery is not a closed subject. He could have said something, raised the issue, talked about.
But slavery is not the inquisition, so it is a 300 year old story that doesn't deserve atention.

 

[JGS]

I bet if they went further back they might have found an ancestor who used to swing around in trees and fling poo at his relatives. That would've been a real smear campaign, how would he recover from that revelation?

He could use it as proof in his next book? Respect regained.

 

[Pollux]

He missed the opportunity be honest about the issue.
He could say something like how slavery was evil, how he is probably not the only white man on the same situation, how this shows that slavery is not a closed subject. He could have said something, raised the issue, talked about.
But slavery is not the inquisition, so it is a 300 year old story that doesn't deserve attention.

Nobody ever said Dawkins wasn't a hypocrite.

 

[Count Dookkake]

He missed the opportunity be honest about the issue.
He could say something like how slavery was evil, how he is probably not the only white man on the same situation, how this shows that slavery is not a closed subject. He could have said something, raised the issue, talked about.
But slavery is not the inquisition, so it is a 300 year old story that doesn't deserve atention.

Why does he need to say that? I mean, duuuuh.

 

[Sblargh]

Why does he need to say that? I mean, duuuuh.

Because there are consequences today. I don't want him to say "treating people as property in general is evil", but "this historical moment in our pasts that still affects life today is an evil and as such, we should not dismiss it like an old story that just wastes time of good hard working citzens".

 

[Count Dookkake]

Because there are consequences today. I don't want him to say "treating people as property in general is evil", but "this historical moment in our pasts that still affects life today is an evil and as such, we should not dismiss it like an old story that just wastes time of good hard working citzens".

Ok, so what should he have done instead of dismissing it? Please be specific.

 

[Pollux]

Ok, so what should he have done instead of dismissing it? Please be specific.

Well the next time that Dawkins bashes the Church for the Inquisition we can now just dismiss his claim as a smear tactic and say that it's all in the past. Right?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well the next time that Dawkins bashes the Church for the Inquisition we can now just dismiss his claim as a smear tactic and say that it's all in the past. Right?

No, because there is quite a big difference between the crimes of a distant ancestor and the crimes of an organization that claims to have the inside scoop on god's will and morality.

EDIT: Nice dodge, btw. lol.

 

[Pollux]

No, because there is quite a big difference between the crimes of a distant ancestor and the crimes of an organization that claims to have the inside scoop on god's will and morality.

Yea, i'm not seeing the difference. It's all in the past.

 

[Mumei]

Yea, i'm not seeing the difference. It's all in the past.

He explained the difference. You see it; you're just not willing to acknowledge it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yea, i'm not seeing the difference. It's all in the past.

One allows you to the condemn the Church the other to condone Dawkins. That's the importance.

 

[Sblargh]

Ok, so what should he have done instead of dismissing it? Please be specific.

Acknowledge it. I would not write the text for him, but it's what he does, isn't it?
He could have at least wrote something relating christianism and racism if that one-note is so important to him, he could have gone on the history of biology on how pseudo-scientific arguments were used to justify slavery, there is plenty he could do within his sphere of knowledge while saying "yes, my ancestors were involved, propagating knowledge is a way to prevent that sort of thing from happening again", bla bla bla.

In short, he could have written a text about a subject that people usually don't want to touch, which he should be used to; instead he dismissed one of the greatest crimes of the ocident as an old story.

I'm not even saying it isn't a smear campaign, but once the subject was thrown in his face like that, he shouldn't pass the opportunity.

 

[FutureZombie]

Why is the article written as if this revelation is ironic?

 

[state-of-the-art]

This whole situation is ridiculous.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yea, i'm not seeing the difference. It's all in the past.

That's probably because you don't want to, but I'll play along. It's really quite simple.

A genetic line makes no claim about anything, unlike a church which makes many claims, some of which relate to the possession of certain knowledge regarding moral or virtuous behavior. So, it is humorous and shameful that any church could ever have been involved with any sort of crime, if their claims about god (and his perfection) and their connection to him are allegedly correct. The same is not true of a descendant of an odious person.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Yea, i'm not seeing the difference. It's all in the past.

I agree. When people are offended by the Confederate flag, I always say it's all in the past bro.

 

[likeGdid]

Acknowledge it. I would not write the text for him, but it's what he does, isn't it?
He could have at least wrote something relating christianism and racism if that one-note is so important to him, he could have gone on the history of biology on how pseudo-scientific arguments were used to justify slavery, there is plenty he could do within his sphere of knowledge while saying "yes, my ancestors were involved, propagating knowledge is a way to prevent that sort of thing from happening again", bla bla bla.

In short, he could have written a text about a subject that people usually don't want to touch, which he should be used to; instead he dismissed one of the greatest crimes of the ocident as an old story.

I'm not even saying it isn't a smear campaign, but once the subject was thrown in his face like that, he shouldn't pass the opportunity.

Unless I read it wrong, he's not saying slavery is some old story of the past to be dismissed. He's specifically addressing the "criticism" of his ancestors owning slaves, which should be dismissed because it's a dumb thing to criticize someone for.

 

[Pollux]

.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Considering the issue is slavery, I'm sure Dawkins would agree with you.

Why only slavery? Why can't we just outright dismiss every atrocity as "it's all in the past." Then we'd never have to hear about sad stuff like slavery or the holocaust ever again!

 

[Pollux]

Why only slavery? Why can't we just outright dismiss every atrocity as "it's all in the past." Then we'd never have to hear about sad stuff like slavery or the holocaust ever again!

I dunno, ask Dick. He's the one dismissing things.

 

[Suikoguy]

Why only slavery? Why can't we just outright dismiss every atrocity as "it's all in the past." Then we'd never have to hear about sad stuff like slavery or the holocaust ever again!

There is a difference between blaming the current generation for what their ancestors did and learning from the mistakes of our ancestors.

 

[jamesinclair]

My great-great-great-grandfather may have once fucked a chicken and broken its neck.

I guess that makes my purchase of free-range eggs hypocritical in the world of this newspaper?


If my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather once raped someone, does that mean I condone rape...?

 

[Sblargh]

Unless I read it wrong, he's not saying slavery is some old story of the past to be dismissed. He's specifically addressing the "criticism" of his ancestors owning slaves, which should be dismissed because it's a dumb thing to criticize someone for.

What he says:

Reparation to whom? Should I make a pilgrimage to Jamaica and seek out the descendants of the slaves whom my ancestors wronged? But why the descendants of people who were oppressed by my ancestors 300 years ago rather than to people who are oppressed today? It’s that “sins of the fathers” fallacy all over again, taken a good couple of generations further than even Yahweh had in mind.

Which is almost word by word what a republican would say when against any kind of affirmative policies.
Yet another topic he could develop was how one family can't be expected to be blamed for slavery as a whole, but as a societal issue, society as a whole could find a way to deal with it.
Instead:

Whatever I possess is hardly at all inherited from past centuries but earned by me in my own lifetime.

Wasting the opportunity to get in the subject how the worse isn't even the money, but the starting conditions of white people compared to black people. Again, there is so much that could be said, if he doesn't feel this is something he should be talking about, he could get in touch with someone that studies this topic and asked him to talk about it.

Instead, he is a hard working white man and everything he has was by the sweat of his brow and what should he do about the tricky past he shares with other white people? What, should he go to Jamaica and apologize?

 

[Vaporizer]

Never liked dawkins. He's a tool. But he's not to blame for what his ancestors has done. Everyone is responsible for their own actions

 

[Pollux]

.

 

[state-of-the-art]

There is a difference between blaming the current generation for what their ancestors did and learning from the mistakes of our ancestors.

Yes, snark aside, it's one thing to criticize somebody for something their ancestors did. It is another to criticize an institution or government. One has historical merit, the other is a baseless ad hominem.

“We’ve been researching the history of the Dawkins family, and have discovered that your ancestors owned slaves in Jamaica in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. What have you got to say about that?”

I replied, “Your ancestors probably did too. It’s just that we happen to know who my ancestors were and perhaps we don’t know yours.”

He persisted by reeling off several of my forebears including, I think, Henry Dawkins (b 1698) and his father Colonel Richard Dawkins (d.o.b. unknown to me), giving gruesome (and indeed deplorable) figures about the numbers of slaves they owned, asking me whether I felt any guilt about it.

I replied by quoting Numbers 14:18 (from memory so – oh, calamity – I may not have been quite word-perfect), that charming little verse about the Lord “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”: a nice example, incidentally, of biblical morality.

When he persisted with his insinuations I made my somewhat peremptory excuses and left (I was in a hurry because I was about to go on stage in London to give a lecture and wanted to prepare for it).

I’d scarcely had time to re-open my lecture notes when he rang back: “Darwinian natural selection has a lot to do with genes, do you agree?” Of course I agreed. “Well, some people might suggest that you could have inherited a gene for supporting slavery from Henry Dawkins.”

Haha, unbelievable.

I dunno, ask Dick. He's the one dismissing things.

Something so ridiculous should be dismissed. Should you be held accountable for something your long lost ancestors did? It's an egregious tactic that lacks any substance and only makes the proponent look like a hack.

 

[06nbarnhill]

Who cares? Its not like he had say in the matter.

This.

Don't get the hoopla. I don't believe in sins passed down genetically. My great grandfather could have owned a million slaves and I wouldn't feel even slightly responsible or feel that I owe anyone anything.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Since he won't answer the question in a PM:



Nice dodge of what?

lol.

Don't cry because I don't want a PM relationship with you.

You quoted me asking a question and you did not answer it.

That is the dodge, and it was a nice one. So nice, that I didn't notice it at first.


EDIT - VVVV Cry more and get a better dictionary.

 

[Pollux]

fuck it.

 

[Fusebox]

My great-great-great-grandfather may have once fucked a chicken and broken its neck.

I guess that makes my purchase of free-range eggs hypocritical in the world of this newspaper?

Lol!

 

[FromTheFuture]

is this thread serious

 

[Kinitari]

What he says:

Which is almost word by word what a republican would say when against any kind of affirmative policies.
Yet another topic he could develop was how one family can't be expected to be blamed for slavery as a whole, but as a societal issue, society as a whole could find a way to deal with it.
Instead:

Wasting the opportunity to get in the subject how the worse isn't even the money, but the starting conditions of white people compared to black people. Again, there is so much that could be said, if he doesn't feel this is something he should be talking about, he could get in touch with someone that studies this topic and asked him to talk about it.

Instead, he is a hard working white man and everything he has was by the sweat of his brow and what should he do about the tricky past he shares with other white people? What, should he go to Jamaica and apologize?

You're being ridiculous - you're putting too much on this man for something that has nothing to do with him.

Does Dawkin's own slaves or condone slavery? Nope - should he have to clarify every single time people bring up slavery that this is the case? No - why the fuck make him feel guilty for it at all? That's such bullshit.

And in regards to his other statements - he is directly answering questions, the fact that he does even that much is ridiculous to me

Question: Reparations?
"To whom? I give to charity, what else am I supposed to do?"
Question: Your fortune is built on the back of slaves, feel bad?
"That's not really true, most of that money is gone, the only thing left from the slave times is one farm, my personal money is pretty much money I got from my books and whatnot"

Not everyone needs to put as much acknowledgement and emphasis on black slavery as you think they do - fuck, I barely acknowledge it because it does not personally impact me in any way. If someone wants to argue that slavery is good, I will argue against them - but short of that, I don't get worked up over issues that don't exist.

In this particular scenario, Dawkin's giving this man even these simple answers legitimises it far more than it deserves, the fact that he even needs to clarify, to argue in his own defence is a travesty.

 

[First Name]

is this thread serious

I don't even know anymore.



If I say I have a mild dislike of Dawkins based off of his response to his tech guy being an unrepentant asshole during a site revamp would that make me petty? I feel like it makes me petty.

The article is absurdly idiotic. The comments about slavery genes are comedy gold.

 

[Pandaman]

Not sure is serious...

really?

 

[rdrr gnr]

I like the condescension on the first page. Followed by the backpedaling. Hilarious.

 

[mavs]

I'm not even saying it isn't a smear campaign, but once the subject was thrown in his face like that, he shouldn't pass the opportunity.

Passing seems like the smart thing to do if the person smearing you would benefit from a response. Why should Dawkins make a story out of this? That's doing a lowlife's job for him. Dawkins can't keep his mouth shut though.

 

[krameriffic]

What evidence do you have for fanaticism within Dawkins? Please. A single example. Just one.

It's simple really. People don't like him because he has a smug British accent and a tendency to speak in vernacular that is very condescending (much like using the word vernacular). When you listen to what the guy says, or better yet, read it in a book where you don't have to hear that smug, self-satisfied tone, his ideas make a lot of sense and are not militant or vitriolic at all.

 

[Monocle]

I'm sorry that statistical evidence pointing to a lack of trust in atheists has overwhelmed your senses.

I wasn't stating my views on the matter. Using the term "some" should have tipped you off that I'm not included in the group who feels that way.

Anyway, the thread has seemed to veer off into a debate about the semantics of "agnosticism." This is a common occurrence from my experience.

Oh sorry duder, I must have missed all of your citations.

It's simple really. People don't like him because he has a smug British accent and a tendency to speak in vernacular that is very condescending (much like using the word vernacular). When you listen to what the guy says, or better yet, read it in a book where you don't have to hear that smug, self-satisfied tone, his ideas make a lot of sense and are not militant or vitriolic at all.

Dawkins is one of the most soft-spoken public figures I've ever heard. I think people must be projecting their own expectations when they talk about his "smug tone," because really, just listen to the guy. Most of the time he sounds like a grandfatherly librarian who's just finished a cup of honey lemon tea.