Support NeoGAF

[Gr1mLock]

Its all his fault. Clearly had he believed in god his ancestors wouldn't have owned slaves.

 

[ScientificNinja]

 

[Sblargh]

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.

He is a public figure and he became a public figure by discussing matters intelectually. I'm not putting too much into him, I'm expecting him to be himself.

The matter of white guilty is more complex than just feeling it or nothing. The journalist oversimplified in one way and Dawkings (as well people in this thread) is oversimplifying in the other. I'm not demanding him to do anything, what I'm saying, over and over, is that, as a famous intellectual, he could have grabbed the topic. Again, I'm not saying what he should have done, I'm saying what he could have done. He missed an opportunity and if he thinks that's not an opportunity there to miss because, agreeing with you, he thinks black slavery don't impact our lives, then I disagree with both of you.

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.

Maybe so. But raising questions to the public is as much his job as is the journalist. What wiill be his next headline? "Dawkings wants frank discussion about racism on the UK"? Would that be a bad thing?

 

[teh_pwn]

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.

Seriously, he almost sounds like what Americans would expect the Queen of England to sound like.

Hitchens was at times condescending, but it was awesome at times (lookup hitch slap on youtube).

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Should have just said "My ancestors were also Christians. Fortunately, I'm a bit wiser than they were."

 

[squidyj]

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?

seems more like a failure of logic on your part than anything. If oppression 300 years ago results in no problems today then there's no goddamn point in doing anything. If oppression 300 years ago leads to oppression today then addressing the current issue is all anyone can do and where they ought to be focusing their resources. Yet you seem to be making the implication that he's saying racism and race don't matter because slavery happened 300 years ago which is ridiculous and is not what he's saying.

Furthermore your standards for this guy are ridiculous, every issue that lands in his lap requires a crusade? cmon.

 

[Cyan]

He is a public figure and he became a public figure by discussing matters intelectually. I'm not putting too much into him, I'm expecting him to be himself.

The matter of white guilty is more complex than just feeling it or nothing. The journalist oversimplified in one way and Dawkings (as well people in this thread) is oversimplifying in the other. I'm not demanding him to do anything, what I'm saying, over and over, is that, as a famous intellectual, he could have grabbed the topic. Again, I'm not saying what he should have done, I'm saying what he could have done. He missed an opportunity and if he thinks that's not an opportunity there to miss because, agreeing with you, he thinks black slavery don't impact our lives, then I disagree with both of you.

"Hello, this is Richard Dawkins."
"Mr. Dawkins, Jimmy McReporter here! Your ancestors kept slaves and built a fortune on the back of human misery. How does this jibe with your self-righteous attitude on morals and the Church? Also, some have called for you to apologize and start an anti-slavery museum. How do you respond?"
"Ah, Mr. McReporter. Excellent questions, and what a wonderful opportunity to talk about modern-day racism and white privilege."
"But Mr. Dawkins, we've got more important things to talk about. Like: wouldn't you say your genes are racist?"

 

[Byakuya769]

Abject smear tactics. That "journalist" is an assclown.


He's a scientist and public educator who rightly holds pseudoscience and mythology peddled as fact in low regard. There no good reason to act shocked when well-informed people evince pity for uninformed or misinformed people.

I pity you for not knowing the love of God.

Spoiler

Am I doing it right?

 

[njean777]

I dont really like the man, but even I think this journalist is dumb, and just trying to bring a crazy reaction out of him. You can not be held responsible for your families past unless you had a way to stop this from happening. (which he didn't)

 

[mavs]

Maybe so. But raising questions to the public is as much his job as is the journalist. What wiill be his next headline? "Dawkings wants frank discussion about racism on the UK"? Would that be a bad thing?

That's quite a leap. I think the next headline would be "Row over Dawkins family slave history widens". You did read the first article didn't you? How would that article lead to your headline?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'm still waiting for Christian GAF to explain how this is any different than inheriting the sins of our forefathers many more generations ago? At least in this case Dawkin's isn't being asked to repent for the crime of his ancestors who ate an apple.

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm still waiting for Christian GAF to explain how this is any different than inheriting the sins of our forefathers many more generations ago? At least in this case Dawkin's isn't being asked to repent for the crime of his ancestors who ate an apple.

What part of christian gaf cares about this?

 

[Pollux]

What part of christian gaf cares about this?

By this do you mean original sin?

 

[Byakuya769]

By this do you mean original sin?

Dawkins's slave holding ancestry. The original sin connection makes little sense.

 

[bengraven]

Okay, one:

Why the absurd, loaded title? You're not the goddamn daily mail.

Two:

This is a ridiculous attempt to slander a man who shares no fucking common traits with these ancestors, and if you'll look at the irony of this libel against an atheist man by an angry Christian (who most likely has slave ownership in his history as well)... The slave owners in Dawkins' ancestry were Christians.

God damn.

I don't even need to post, you basically reflected my anger completely.

 

[JGS]

I'm still waiting for Christian GAF to explain how this is any different than inheriting the sins of our forefathers many more generations ago? At least in this case Dawkin's isn't being asked to repent for the crime of his ancestors who ate an apple.

I never knew this question came up since it's pretty simple to answer. Actions as sinners is not the same thing as being a sinner.

Further no one is asking anyone to repent. That's always been a voluntary action and we couldn't care less if you do...unless you do.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

What a waste of time. His Christian ancestors owned slaves during a time when slavery was justified via biblical passage. Has nothing to do with him.

 

[nib95]

I think Dawkins is a bit of a twat, but then I would wouldn't I? The whole ordeal with that girl and the lift etc didn't help.

But, this is a pretty poor attempt at smear. I mean, really now, who gives a shit about what his great great great great brothers sisters cousins mothers friends boyfriends pet dog did to amass the wealth. It's kind of reaching here...

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I think Dawkins is a bit of a twat, but then I would wouldn't I? The whole ordeal with that girl and the lift etc didn't help.

But, this is a pretty poor attempt at smear. I mean, really now, who gives a shit about what his great great great great brothers sisters cousins mothers friends boyfriends pet dog did to amass the wealth. It's kind of reaching here...

I missed this. What happened?

 

[nib95]

I missed this. What happened?

Aww dude, I don't want to open up that can. Something something girl weirded out by creepy lift follower stalker dude. She rambled about it on her blog. Dawkins re-rambled about it and was imo, rather rude, misogynistic and managed to get a few anti Islamic non related two pence in there too.

A lot of people didn't agree, but then again this is the internet. A male orientated breeding ground for misogyny in itself. Though I'm sure people will disagree with that vague summary too.

 

[Mario]

I missed this. What happened?

http://communities.washingtontimes....m-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

 

[neorej]

Fun fact; the Vatican approved slave-trading back in the days.

So....

WTF does this have to do with anything?

 

[Sye d'Burns]

I missed this. What happened?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=30451938

 

[F#A#Oo]

Who cares?

I don't like Dawkins but this is just silly...

 

[Enron]

This is retarded. Why is this thread 6 pages long? Why is this even a thread?

Old family money comes from slavery, film at goddamned 11! What a shock! WHAT A REVELATION!

And I hate Richard Dawkins for the most part. whogivesashit.gif, indeed.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

By this do you mean original sin?

Yes. The concept of our ancestors apparently tainting us by their actions. They seem quite similar to me, I'm certainly open to clarification/correction though.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I will have to say Dawkins' 'impromptu' dialectical skills aren't the greatest. He does what he does best in book form with months of focused thinking beforehand.

I missed this. What happened?

Nothing of any substance.

Aww dude, I don't want to open up that can. Something something girl weirded out by creepy lift follower stalker dude. She rambled about it on her blog. Dawkins re-rambled about it and was imo, rather rude, misogynistic and managed to get a few anti Islamic non related two pence in there too.

A lot of people didn't agree, but then again this is the internet. A male orientated breeding ground for misogyny in itself. Though I'm sure people will disagree with that vague summary too.

Vague? How about utterly fatuous? Then again, it's not like I'd except anything different from you, given your previous unfounded remarks in Dawkins-related threads.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I never knew this question came up since it's pretty simple to answer. Actions as sinners is not the same thing as being a sinner.

Further no one is asking anyone to repent. That's always been a voluntary action and we couldn't care less if you do...unless you do.

Could you expand on your first point, I don't understand.

The second point is false. If there were no consequences involved with repentance then I would agree with you, but apparently this isn't the case (Eternal damnation).

Edit: I apologise JGS, I just remembered you don't believe in the concept of eternal punishment, I shouldn't have directed that response to you. Unfortunately others in this thread do, and thus repentance takes on a different meaning.

 

[BakedPigeon]

I want a check cut for my ancestor who died in the gladiator arena as a slave during roman times.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I've got no problem with Dawkins being tainted with the attrocities committed by his forbears in the same way that atheists continue to judge the entire Catholic clergy based on the horrific crimes of the few.

For the record this doesn't influence my thoughts on Dawkins in the slightest.

It's never been that we blame the entire church for the actions of the few. We blame the church for covering up those crimes.

 

[JGS]

Yes. The concept of our ancestors apparently tainting us by their actions. They seem quite similar to me, I'm certainly open to clarification/correction though.

Their action isn't what tainted us. Their action tainted them. They became imperfect because they were no longer were perfect.

If they had had kids prior to the sin, the kids would have stayed perfect because that had nothing to do with the action.

The second point is false. If there were no consequences involved with repentance then I would agree with you, but apparently this isn't the case (Eternal damnation).

Eternal damnation isn't a Bible teaching.

Even it it were or if ones believe that, consequences aren't linked to repentance. Repentance is a personal view that you screwed up and no longer wish to do the wrong. Hence it's voluntary. Punishment/reward/nothing is the consequence of our actions and we may still face those whether repentant or not.

 

[Emitan]

he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour.

I love blaming someone for something that happened before they were born!

 

[Evlar]

Well, he's putting his estate to better use than some of his ancestors did, so good for him.

 

[FStop7]

Ham fisted attempt at a hit piece surreptitiously backed by religious nuts. Couldn't be more obvious.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Their action isn't what tainted us. Their action tainted them. They became imperfect because they were no longer were perfect.

If they had had kids prior to the sin, the kids would have stayed perfect because that had nothing to do with the action.

I'm still confused then... So 'sin' is inherited in the genes? That still wouldn't make sense because we don't all originate from one pair of Homo Sapiens? This is actually really interesting though, have you written more about it previously, I haven't really read this interpretation before?

 

[JGS]

I'm still confused then... So 'sin' is inherited in the genes? That still wouldn't make sense because we don't all originate from one pair of Homo Sapiens? This is actually really interesting though, have you written more about it previously, I haven't really read this interpretation before?

I'm sure I stated somewhere in a religion thread but I try to avoid talking about my actual beliefs. I'm just explaining the Biblical interpretation of sin, not the origin of man. The explanation works even if we view the Bible solely as fictional literature.

Anyway, it's not quite like radiation poisoning because it's a standards based sin which is why a ransom would cover it. The only reason God would grant you everlasting life is if you did what he wanted. Since they didn't follow through with that, they were incapable of passing on a perfect example for their kids to even follow.

This makes the question of other pairs irrelevant since if they didn't know about God, there would be no way for them to live up to his standard either. The goal was to have Adam & Eve fill the Earth and subdue it- i.e. if there were indeed others, they would learn about worship too.

 

[Kinitari]

Their action isn't what tainted us. Their action tainted them. They became imperfect because they were no longer were perfect.

If they had had kids prior to the sin, the kids would have stayed perfect because that had nothing to do with the action.Eternal damnation isn't a Bible teaching.

So taken scientifically, did that apple change their genetic makeup? And what gene would you say was changed (I'm asking vaguely, ie, the goodness gene)

I'm sure I stated somewhere in a religion thread but I try to avoid talking about my actual beliefs. I'm just explaining the Biblical interpretation of sin, not the origin of man. The explanation works even if we view the Bible solely as fictional literature.

Anyway, it's not quite like radiation poisoning because it's a standards based sin which is why a ransom would cover it. The only reason God would grant you everlasting life is if you did what he wanted. Since they didn't follow through with that, they were incapable of passing on a perfect example for their kids to even follow.

This makes the question of other pairs irrelevant since if they didn't know about God, there would be no way for them to live up to his standard either. The goal was to have Adam & Eve fill the Earth and subdue it- i.e. if there were indeed others, they would learn about worship too.

Interesting - this is getting way off topic, but this is really fascinating to me. So why did God stop after Adam and Eve, why not try again with a new untainted pair?

 

[Orayn]

I love blaming someone for something that happened before they were born!

If he were as smart as he claims to be, he would have invented a time machine and erased his family from existence.

Checkmate, atheists!

 

[Bombadil]

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

There was a thread about it on Gaf. My only mistake was not pointing out that the study concerns the United States, and not other parts of the world. But in the US, statistically speaking, atheists are one of the least trusted... dare I say groups?

 

[jaxword]

Clearly this proves atheists are in favor of slavery, obviously.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'm sure I stated somewhere in a religion thread but I try to avoid talking about my actual beliefs. I'm just explaining the Biblical interpretation of sin, not the origin of man. The explanation works even if we view the Bible solely as fictional literature.

Anyway, it's not quite like radiation poisoning because it's a standards based sin which is why a ransom would cover it. The only reason God would grant you everlasting life is if you did what he wanted. Since they didn't follow through with that, they were incapable of passing on a perfect example for their kids to even follow.

This makes the question of other pairs irrelevant since if they didn't know about God, there would be no way for them to live up to his standard either. The goal was to have Adam & Eve fill the Earth and subdue it- i.e. if there were indeed others, they would learn about worship too.

This is possibly the most interesting post I've seen regarding sin and homo sapiens in a Christian context... I'm not going to push, and I understand that the Theist vs Athiest thread turns into a pile-on but I would like to talk about this further some time. Cheers JGS

 

[SmokyDave]

Oh wow, this is desperate. That Ipsos MORI poll evidently shook some foundations.

 

[polyh3dron]

I'm honestly surprised that Kozmo didn't make this thread.

 

[Famassu]

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.

Yes, look how much he talks down to a man of faith:

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

He clearly treats this Ignorant Man of Faith™ like a 5-year-old for believing in God.

 

[danwarb]

That's a pretty good response from Dawkins in the OP.

As it happens, my ancestry also boasts an unbroken line of six generations of Anglican clergymen, from the Rev William Smythies (b 1635) to his great great great grandson the Rev Edward Smythies (b 1818). I wonder if Adam thinks I’ve inherited a gene for piety too.

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.

 

[Dead Man]

Clearly this proves atheists are in favor of slavery, obviously.

What other conclusion can there be?

 

[iapetus]

Yes, HE campaigns against those things, but his ancestors surely did not. How the fuck would it weigh down his message in any way that he has 1/128th of the same genes as that guy?

Discussing how many of Dawkins' genes come from that ancestor is already giving too much credibility to the idea that there's a 'supporting slavery gene'.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Yes, look how much he talks down to a man of faith:


He clearly treats this Ignorant Man of Faith™ like a 5-year-old for believing in God.

Good thing Bill O'Reilly is here to stop him from brainwashing children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQQv47FqSI&feature=related

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Good thing Bill O'Reilly is here to stop him from brainwashing children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQQv47FqSI&feature=related

Why oh why did you have to post this? It hurts.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Its ok, if you go back far enough his ancestors were black.