People hatin' on Dawkins

[Druac]

Considering a religious upbringing to be a form of child abuse, for example.

When you mock people for their 'stupidity' for being religious and then present such an illogical argument, then people might rightly consider you a bit of a condescending hypocrite.

Mocking ignorance in general is definitely not something I respect. However, mocking willful ignorance is another subject all together. As for the analogy of indoctrination in antiquated belief systems being akin to child abuse, that is exactly what it is, an analogy, one that does work well in this context with how some parents indoctrinate their children.

When you think of it as it can be, a selfish act that can remove the ability of your child to learn and think for themselves, particularly when combined with ridicule and the application of fear mongering and punishment when they don't think or believe as you want them to...I really have no problem calling that 'abusive'.

 

[Orbit]

Why is it so much criticism leveled against him seem to be about tone and never seem to really line up with what he really says? It's like his infamy causes people's brains to shut down and not think at all, and instead read too much into things they think he's saying but really isn't. They all seem threatened by his criticism and call him things like "ignorant" and "nasty". They can't separate criticism of religion from supposed bigotry. And that's really, really sad because the guy has some pretty good insights.

Maybe it has something to do with his British accent lol

I think he gets himself into trouble a couple of different ways. First, the religion that he criticizes really is just one form of Christianity --fundamentalist, literalist Christianity. He uses arguments based on the ridiculousness of literalist Chirsitianity to say that liberal Christianity is also basically valueless, while himself attending church with his family. ( http://www.examiner.com/article/ric...hurch-believes-bible-should-be-taught-schools http://thechristians.com/?q=content/francis-wearing-out-dawkins-church-muslim-brotherhood-canada ). Liberal Christians, who see the Bible was full of myths, metaphors, and symbolism that they find value in, get tired of being equated with ignorant socially regressive creationist-type fundamentalist morons.

He is also an atrocious sexist. ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name) That gets him into trouble even with the atheist community. In fact none of the Four Horsemen are particularly enlightened on gender issues.

That said, I think The God Delusion is an important book that everyone should read. But I too am not so much a fan of the man because he sees things in such a black-and-white way, with little nuance or perspective. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think people often give these guys too wide of a berth. First, these guys are what I would call "scientific fundamentalists" they're just as nutty as the religious version of the same they just build their ideology around a different dogma. (And yes, there is a religious element to science -- start talking about global warming, arctic ice, and whatnot and you'll see some of it... There is no data that backs up the claims... Despite how they cook it... ) There is really no leeway for them, or allowance of the "whatever floats your boat" factor -- most spiritual outlooks aren't as fixed as these guys argue and most spiritual outlooks do not reject scientific data. Sometimes the answer isn't black or white, but grey... and sometimes the answer doesn't matter both are right in different situations... They don't speak of knowledge as much as they try to define absolute truths -- if you happen to disagree you're an idiot. You're not just wrong. That's kinda why I am sick of these guys... I don't watch their videos not because I don't adore science it's because they're just as stupid as turning on the 700 club...

 

[psychoslice]

I think its because people don't like their bubbles burst, or sand castles kicked down, he is a threat to their treasured beliefs, I also like bursting bubbles, why not, its fun lol.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think its because people don't like their bubbles burst, or sand castles kicked down, he is a threat to their treasured beliefs, I also like bursting bubbles, why not, its fun lol.

You can't change someones beliefs without emotionally supporting that change. These guys are generally asshats, have no tact, and moreover have an inability to be sympathetic. If we are judging things by a scorecard they're failing regardless - if they want to change things they need to kill 'em with kindness. Few people respond well to having their fundamental understandings of the universe attacked, and if these guys are as smart as they say they know it. So that leaves only a few possibilities for me:

1) They're sadistic and enjoy making these people suffer.

2) Hubris. They certainly aren't lacking in this department. They even assume ancient people are less intelligent than themselves. Note to Dawkins and crew: See Aristotle, Plato, etc..

3) Questionable Intelligence. They don't actually come up with anything brilliant on their own most of them are "towing the line" as far as scientific viewpoints. There are lots of bleeding edge stuff that seems to line up with spiritual concepts that they avoid. Probably because they don't even bother to read about it. Most of them are more famous for being atheist personalities than scientists. I doubt many of them are qualified to even render the opinions they emit from their mouths.

4) Being that they "kick the bees nest" repeatedly they make everything more difficult for when any person who presents a scientific argument attempts to have a conversation with someone of faith.

So my opinion is... They aren't very helpful, and therefore they classify as oxygen thieves regardless of what they are supposedly correct about or wrong about. Personally, I don't get why some atheist gets so much joy out of causing misery for folks of faith. I've spent most of my life as a Satanist and I find myself less militant in view than these people, and I have legitimate grievances with certain parties. I've always done my best to understand the views of the person I am speaking with and try to find the common ground to begin the dialogue -- I've even presented facts whether they bolster my position or theirs if they are the correct facts. Scientific facts are facts, but so are historical facts and facts that can be understood via ones own rationalization and intuition. Absolute truth is a myth -- and one should be wiser than to take hard line positions on anything... As all facts are subject to change with time..

 

[psychoslice]

You can't change someones beliefs without emotionally supporting that change. These guys are generally asshats, have no tact, and moreover have an inability to be sympathetic. If we are judging things by a scorecard they're failing regardless - if they want to change things they need to kill 'em with kindness. Few people respond well to having their fundamental understandings of the universe attacked, and if these guys are as smart as they say they know it. So that leaves only a few possibilities for me:

1) They're sadistic and enjoy making these people suffer.

2) Hubris. They certainly aren't lacking in this department. They even assume ancient people are less intelligent than themselves. Note to Dawkins and crew: See Aristotle, Plato, etc..

3) Questionable Intelligence. They don't actually come up with anything brilliant on their own most of them are "towing the line" as far as scientific viewpoints. There are lots of bleeding edge stuff that seems to line up with spiritual concepts that they avoid. Probably because they don't even bother to read about it. Most of them are more famous for being atheist personalities than scientists. I doubt many of them are qualified to even render the opinions they emit from their mouths.

4) Being that they "kick the bees nest" repeatedly they make everything more difficult for when any person who presents a scientific argument attempts to have a conversation with someone of faith.

So my opinion is... They aren't very helpful, and therefore they classify as oxygen thieves regardless of what they are supposedly correct about or wrong about. Personally, I don't get why some atheist gets so much joy out of causing misery for folks of faith. I've spent most of my life as a Satanist and I find myself less militant in view than these people, and I have legitimate grievances with certain parties. I've always done my best to understand the views of the person I am speaking with and try to find the common ground to begin the dialogue -- I've even presented facts whether they bolster my position or theirs if they are the correct facts. Scientific facts are facts, but so are historical facts and facts that can be understood via ones own rationalization and intuition. Absolute truth is a myth -- and one should be wiser than to take hard line positions on anything... As all facts are subject to change with time..

Are you one of those who believe in that which cannot be proven ?, I think they need to be told strait out, no holds banned, why ***** foot around with mere beliefs, I'm sure they wouldn't ***** foot if they had true evidence, they would be rubbing it in our face. But they haven't got anything at all, and hence their frustration when reminded of this.

 

[Mindmaster]

Are you one of those who believe in that which cannot be proven ?, I think they need to be told strait out, no holds banned, why ***** foot around with mere beliefs, I'm sure they wouldn't ***** foot if they had true evidence, they would be rubbing it in our face. But they haven't got anything at all, and hence their frustration when reminded of this.

They're not frustrated with you at all, or Dawkins and crew... Your lack of empathy and also these supposed scientists misunderstand the psychology at work. You haven't attacked their religion -- you have attacked them personally, their ancestors, and everything else they admire and respect in life. They haven't even given a single **** about whether there is any credence to what you say at that point. You can pontificate with your data and research and they still don't care... Why? They don't trust you. When you attack someones religion directly you automatically discredit yourself for reason number one: You're a butt hole. They might be wrong on something or whatever, but that doesn't mean tact shouldn't be used in the presentation and basically that's a call from me: Up your game skeptics... Or shut up because no one cares anyway.

People don't understand what the word evidence means:

noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records,documents, or objects.

As you can see.. Evidence is a subjective term in every use -- it is whatever one deems good enough to make sense of the situation. For some people that is The Bible, various data, intuition, and/or physical facts. Whether we are using The Bible or a ruler as the basis of a certain proof they are both evidence if they are accepted by a single human mind. Sorry kids, I don't write the rules.. Maybe their evidence isn't good enough for you, but it is perfectly adequate for them. There doesn't have to be any consensus for certain evidence to be valid only an accepting party. Thus, for the average Christian The Bible is good enough evidence of Jesus or God and it is qualified evidence. Don't like that? Tough apples.

To quote one of my favorite books:

Memorize these-
Evolution uses a best-fit proof.
Psychology uses a statistical proof.
Astronomy uses a causality proof.
God requires an existence proof.

Many types of spirituality use statistical or causality proofs which should be good enough for science, but apparently there are... Politics!

Anyway, one is liable to fault the minute one ceases to have an adaptable mind. That doesn't necessarily imply one has to be agreeable.

 

[psychoslice]

They're not frustrated with you at all, or Dawkins and crew... Your lack of empathy and also these supposed scientists misunderstand the psychology at work. You haven't attacked their religion -- you have attacked them personally, their ancestors, and everything else they admire and respect in life. They haven't even given a single **** about whether there is any credence to what you say at that point. You can pontificate with your data and research and they still don't care... Why? They don't trust you. When you attack someones religion directly you automatically discredit yourself for reason number one: You're a butt hole. They might be wrong on something or whatever, but that doesn't mean tact shouldn't be used in the presentation and basically that's a call from me: Up your game skeptics... Or shut up because no one cares anyway.

People don't understand what the word evidence means:

noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records,documents, or objects.

As you can see.. Evidence is a subjective term in every use -- it is whatever one deems good enough to make sense of the situation. For some people that is The Bible, various data, intuition, and/or physical facts. Whether we are using The Bible or a ruler as the basis of a certain proof they are both evidence if they are accepted by a single human mind. Sorry kids, I don't write the rules.. Maybe their evidence isn't good enough for you, but it is perfectly adequate for them. There doesn't have to be any consensus for certain evidence to be valid only an accepting party. Thus, for the average Christian The Bible is good enough evidence of Jesus or God and it is qualified evidence. Don't like that? Tough apples.

To quote one of my favorite books:



Many types of spirituality use statistical or causality proofs which should be good enough for science, but apparently there are... Politics!

Anyway, one is liable to fault the minute one ceases to have an adaptable mind. That doesn't necessarily imply one has to be agreeable.

Thank for your time in writing all that, but the whole of what you said means nothing to me, I call a spade a spade, no beating around the bush just to make others feel good, its either you have evidence or you don't, if you don't then its wise to keep it to yourself, that way you wont make a fool of yourself.

 

[Jumi]

Many types of spirituality use statistical or causality proofs which should be good enough for science, but apparently there are... Politics!

Should be good enough, that would depend on how such a proof was presented. Would adherents get different results from in depth studies? I'm sure there is something useful there, but it may not be universal.

And proofs of what? I think these would go on a case by case basis.

 

[Mindmaster]

Should be good enough, that would depend on how such a proof was presented. Would adherents get different results from in depth studies? I'm sure there is something useful there, but it may not be universal.

And proofs of what? I think these would go on a case by case basis.

Generally, I find there is humor in this whole notion of proofs. There are many experiences that we don't directly observe that exist or we just plainly agree they do. Emotions in general, currency, and our concept of government. One could make a case that to believe in such things is delusional. Science says that emotions are chemical reactions -- well in that case... They are imaginary... And, currency/governments/states exist mainly because we all agree to pretend they do. What mania is this?

You wouldn't accept my proof (based on my experience) that X supernatural phenomena occurred to me would you?

In that case, why should I accept your notion that such experiences aren't real based on a book you've read, or statement you've heard from someone else? How do you know they aren't lying? If I were you I'd trust 'ole MM first -- at least you know him.. kinda... Just saying...

Largely, scientists are about these fun and games. They slip into biased areas of thought, or it's along political lines. They have incomes to protect whereas I simply only care about the accuracy of the experience. Take from that what you will..

 

[Amenuel]

Hello,

Mr. Dawkins is most likely devoted to his anti-religion campaign for all the damage religion causes in the World and that is the agenda for chasing way to busting the myth of God (in his perception). Of course he has many valid points when challenging the views of God and religion. His view of God and faith is based on the pathetic portrayal by the world religions and on the phenomenon of God. I can have empathy with him because I understand it all from his point of view.

In my faith system, the World including our "husks" (the bodies) is a contradiction intended to be a delusion that we are blinded into believing is the true reality and obviously then God cannot be visible either or else it would not really be a test. It is not about belief in any God either but the mission is to realize ourselves, our souls to grow. Even with God "visible" this phenomenon is not found elsewhere but within yourself. In ways there is a "God delusion" because people do not really know what they are looking for.

Actually, the important point is not on what is usually called God but more about your self and your personal growth. We may perceive that we are so advanced beings but actually we are very predictable and primitive. Anyone who comprehensibly studies psychology will know this. Religion has a tendency to make us even more primitive and predictable and thus these people are seldom perfected who join them. Simply seeking group identity (like sheep) rather than gaining independence is an instinctive weakness. These people do not understand that "satan" is our own instinct. It does not matter whether people are calling themselves "religious" or "non-religious". And it is not so important whether they call themselves theist or atheist, the person's being is most important. Being able to be degraded into a Beast must be the most humiliating (self-afflicted) "punishment", without any kind of fabricated Hell phenomenon.

Jesus said: "If you know yourself then you know the Father".

Jesus did diminish the word usage of God for a reason in the Biblical Gospels. It is more about what you do with that "I" of yours and if you even are an "I", i.e. that you even have an independent person rather than being a primitive beast without perceiving it yourself.

Mr. Dawkins focuses on Abrahamic religions probably because he perceives these as the most damaging and unhealthy faiths on Earth. I have not listened to many of his speaks but it is understandable that he would attack the need for a deity to be worshiped as if it had an ego bigger than a mountain and then telling its followers that they need to reduce their ego. It would say itself that it is pretty hypocritical. This is because this God portrayal is invented. So by saying that I could likely empathize with many of Mr. Dawkins arguments and I could counter him with several sharp responses too.

Be safe
Amenuel

 

[SomeRandom]

Dawkins just cuts straight to the chase. Some people are naturally gifted in their word choice. Others have to learn it. And the rest don't have that talent.

I don't agree with him about everything, obviously. But I can at least respect the fact that he has the balls to say what he thinks and simply not give a ****.

Though I prefer Tyson. He seems like a really cool bloke. And Attenborough is a boss. I actually did like Hitchens, even if he wasn't as soft on the Eastern Religions as his counterparts. (Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, just a statement about my own inherent biases.)

 

[cambridge79]

I think is because Dawkins never bothered much to call some particularly stupid views with their name.