• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More Dawkins idiocy...

Olinda

Member
So, back to the question. Should you be respected more or less than Dawkins? Why?

You are so far off topic I have trouble keeping up ;). Whether I'm respected or not on the forum depends on my posts and readers' interpretation of them. What Dawkins writes, tweets, says likewise can affect the respect in which he is held.
 
What we've not settled is whether or not we should call people idiots and jerks and meanie-meanie-badie-bads who happen to have certain ideas come out of their breathing/eating holes.

We haven't discovered the secret of turning base metal into gold or decided whether Godfather 1 or 2 is the superior film either, as the thread wasn't about these things.

Feel free to start a new one though.

Went over some ones head lol :D

See for example: Page 1 Post 1

It is why I started this thread. It is what this thread is about.

You still haven't worked this out yet I assume.

The OP amounts to academia bad berry berry bad. :p

Only because you didn't understand it.

Go back to the post where Olinda explained it to you (and you told her she was wrong)

And for someone who is promoting academia, you do seem to be a touch unfamiliar with evidence.

Because as far as I know, RD is all about academia VS fanaticism.

Why someone secular would side with fanaticism is beyond me.

He is mostly about his opinion Vs religion. He thinks religion is bad, not just fundamentalism.

He is academic in regards to evolutionary biology, he is not academic in his discussion of the effect of religion on society and net positive/negative effects of religion compared to non-religion.

Listen to him speak about religion, how much biology is there in this? How many academic sources does he cite?

And since when does disagreeing with a biologist when he is talking about an unrelated field = siding with fanaticism? Evidence? :wink:
 

outhouse

Atheistically
he is not academic in his discussion of the effect of religion on society

All we have to do is watch the nightly news for that information.

He thinks religion is bad

Are you trying to tell us it does not have "bad" aspects? Maybe its the wording your using, words like bad can be vague and misleading.

But yes religion factually is bad. It is also factually good.

In its current forms it reduces education and knowledge and is embarrassing humanity daily.

The positive aspect of religion could and would be replaced, by human kindness and social gatherings, ect ect.

Religion is the global source of fanaticism and fundamentalism that breeds violence and retards knowledge.
 
Are you trying to tell us it does not have "bad" aspects? Maybe its the wording your using, words like bad can be vague and misleading.

It's supposed to be vague. Dawkins simply sees religion as something 'bad' to be eliminated.

Of course it has many negatives though, especially when people resort to literalism. Monotheisms tend to be worse than polytheisms too.

The positive aspect of religion could and would be replaced, by human kindness and social gatherings, ect ect.

Religion is the global source of fanaticism and fundamentalism that breeds violence and retards knowledge.

This goes back to the OP.

Humanism relies on a view of societal progress, a teleological view of history. We are gradually getting 'better'. I consider this utopian though, as while technology does progress, I don't think we progress morally.

I feel that the evidence shows history is cyclical rather than teleological and the evidence certainly shows that human society is prone to violence and irrationality.

Of course many of the good aspects of religion can come from other sources (although arguably not all), the problem is that so can the bad.

If we look at 2 recent examples of violent secular ideologies: communism and neo-conservatism. These movements were not led by ignorant and backward people, they were led by the intelligentsia: intellectuals, artists, writers, etc.

They both attracted people with good moral intentions, people who genuinely wanted to make the world better. For the communists, many of them were willing to sacrifice their lives to make the world better. [Neo-cons, shamefully, were much more willing to sacrifice other people's lives than their own]

Violent utopianism comes in many forms, what we know is that each form comes and goes, but sooner or later another one will arise.

Removing religion from society creates a vacuum, something must fill this gap. Dawkins assumes it will be secular humanism, I see little evidence for this assumption.

Religion is bad, when it is bad. I'm happy to attack this.

I just see no reason to attack people who share pretty much all of my values just because they happen to base their morality in god, rather than an arbitrary secular construction like 'humanity'.

If fundamentalism and extremism are the problem, than 'moderate' religious people are part of the solution. Dawkins sees them as part of the problem though, which is why many people find him to be a bit of a buffoon.

Just to show you that it isn't only religious wingnuts and anti-truth reactionaries who hold this view:

Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism'
Higgs boson theorist says he agrees with those who find Dawkins' approach to dealing with believers 'embarrassing'

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Olinda, why the sigh? Why the repetition? if you're not noticing an aspect that others do notice, it's not that big of a deal to me. I don't think there's a single member of this thread, Who wouldn't feel pretty insulted if the comments made about Dawkins were being made about them.

Again, my question to you was:: should you be respected more or less than Dawkins? I wasn't asking how respect normally works. I was asking about your opinion.
 
Last edited:

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Augustus, I was not commenting on what this thread is and isn't about. I also wasn't commenting on what this thread should be or shouldn't be about. I was simply stating the facts. What has and what has not been settled onthis thread.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Back to the OP:

Augustus started off with:

Earlier today, arch-buffoon Richard Dawkins tweeted these:

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 10h10 hours ago
Religious faiths such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means.

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 9h9 hours ago
Evidence-free ideologies such as Stalinism, Nazism & Islam are dangerous because they teach that pie-in-the-sky Ends justify horrific Means

These are classic examples of why he is far less rational than he believes himself to be.

The first one labels Stalinism and Naziism 'religions' to support his ideological assumptions. His arguments about the "unique danger" of religious belief have to come up against the major flaw that some non-religious ideologies have been even more murderous than the religions he hates. To solve this, hey why not just just say that they are religions instead?...

== end of the OP

First off, these are tweets - they're easy to misinterpret, and they require context. As I've listened to, and read from "the 4 horsemen" atheists over the years, one consistent theme has been to contrast dogma against evidence. You can do a lot of good analysis using that simple contrast.

So you can ask: Is a particular movement dogma-based or evidence-based?

From that perspective, it's easy to see how Stalinism, Nazism, Islam (and Christianity BTW), all fall into the dogma-based side of analysis. In that way, it's not unreasonable to lump them - albeit crudely - into the "religion" bucket.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I find it quite unusual that whenever one of these "Look what Richard Dawkins said - clearly he is a fool/racist/bigot/misogynist/rape apologist" threads pop up, the statement under scrutiny is invariably a comment made on Twitter. Why is it that I have never seen one of these threads dealing with a poin-by-point analysis of one of his essays or blog posts, or any of the far more detailed opinions he gives in his books? Why is the this kind of outrage almost always directed at a comment limited to 144 characters that is left deliberately free of context and never afforded even the possible consideration of an opinion that could be better expressed at length?

I'm certain many of Dawkins more inflammatory tweets are partly designed to do just that - inflame, but I am not surprised he continues to do it when it continues to expose many of his detractors of being unwilling to bother addressing any opinion or argument of his that is longer than an average sentence, and are instead only interested in disparaging him as a figure in this debate so that they feel somehow justified in not bothering to acknowledge or even understand many of the man's arguments laid out in any of his books or essays. I can't recall a single time anyone on this forum has ever started a threat about Dawkins which deals with any of the more detailed points he has made in the God Delusion or the Blind Watchmaker, and yet everyone anything remotely inflammatory is written by the man on Twitter people seem to enjoy pointing them out as if doing somehow de-legitimizes him and all of his opinions. It's like responding to the entirety of a scientists thesis by saying "Well, you once wrote a dirty limerick on a bathroom wall, so clearly you're just an idiot and nobody should take what you say seriously."

Honestly, Richard Dawkins' twitter account could be full of nothing but racist haiku and selfies of Dawkins pouting and it still wouldn't one bit of difference to the validity of anything he is written in any of his essays or books. The question is why are people so desperate to disparage the man without even bothering to address his actual opinions in any reasonable depth?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Why is the this kind of outrage almost always directed at a comment limited to 144 characters that is left deliberately free of context and never afforded even the possible consideration of an opinion that could be better expressed at length?

Excellent points.

I agree.

Why is it that I have never seen one of these threads dealing with a poin-by-point analysis of one of his essays or blog posts, or any of the far more detailed opinions he gives in his books?

In this thread all we see is goal post constantly moved out of desperation when the OP is backed in a corner.

Richard is not perfect, he is not the answer to everything, but he is on the front line fighting fanaticism that is the worlds enemy today.

Academia trumps fundamentalism.

As I've listened to, and read from "the 4 horsemen" atheists over the years, one consistent theme has been to contrast dogma against evidence. You can do a lot of good analysis using that simple contrast.

Exactly.

Academia wins

And religion deserves criticism, as some of the religious will be known as a stain of humanity in a hundred years when we look back. The same way WE look back at the inquisition and witch hunts with negativity, because it was factually negative.

The difference is those on the front line trying to steer humanity in a better direction then ancient mens mythology. And for that, my hats off to the man.
 
First off, these are tweets - they're easy to misinterpret, and they require context. As I've listened to, and read from "the 4 horsemen" atheists over the years, one consistent theme has been to contrast dogma against evidence. You can do a lot of good analysis using that simple contrast.

From that perspective, it's easy to see how Stalinism, Nazism, Islam (and Christianity BTW), all fall into the dogma-based side of analysis. In that way, it's not unreasonable to lump them - albeit crudely - into the "religion" bucket.

I agree in the sense that religions are simply another kind of ideology, therefore some religious ideologies share much in common with religious ideologies - Stalinism, nationalism, Naziism. No problem with this view at all.

Millenarian ideologies are clearly the worst, be they Islamism, Communism or Naziism, as they strive for a perfect society, almost anything can be justified. "What violence would you not commit to exterminate violence?"

Looking back at history will show us that millenarian movements are a recurring feature of human life [The pursuit of the millennium - Norman Cohn and The Bullet's Song by William Pfaff are really interesting on this topic. Highly recommended]

In this case, based on the evidence, we have to say that human society will always be prone to such ideologies when the 'right' societal conditions appear.

On to dogma, I'll define this as meaning holding something which is not objectively true to be incontrovertible. You would have to say that Dawkins also holds some dogmatic beliefs. For example, he holds that we have a responsibility towards humanity [a religious concept]. In addition, I cannot see him ever accepting that holding a false belief can be anything other than bad i.e. religion. He dogmatically holds the belief that truth is always important [whereas there is no objective reason to think that holding a false but beneficial belief should be corrected, if it results in purely negative effects].

Now not all such beliefs are equal of course, but beliefs are based in evidence or they are not. And many of his beliefs, even if not dogmatic, are not based in evidence.

As you noted, secular ideologies can be millenarian too, and there is some evidence that secular millenarian ideologies are the most murderous [although small sample, historical circumstances, etc could have skewed this].

This all has to be put into context of Dawkins' belief that religion in intrinsically harmful and every effort should be made to purge it from society. This logic only works if he assumes that it would be replaced with something 'better' - i.e. Dawkins' secular humanism. Again, he has no evidence to believe this will be the case.

Humans make meaning through myths [stories about the nature of the world which aren't objectively true] - humanist myths, nationalist myths, communist myths, religious myths, etc. One thing is certain, there will always be a diversity of myths in the world.

Some will be benign, others malignant. If society managed to destroy benign and moderate religious beliefs, it might well create a fertile breeding ground for malignant new ones. A radical break from the past with its unsettling and dislocating effects has a reasonable, but ultimately unknowable chance of this.

If all he focussed on was fanaticism then there wouldn't be a problem, but he finds fault with people who hold benign views also simply because they are not 'true'. I still fail to see how he can decide that his views are 'true' by any objective standard though. He ultimately shares the same failings as universal monotheists, that given the correct 'education' everybody can see the light and achieve 'salvation' [freedom from violence an irrationality]. To see the world this way though requires avoiding certain apparent truths about human nature and society. Collectively, we are violent and irrational.
 
Last edited:
Why is the this kind of outrage almost always directed at a comment limited to 144 characters that is left deliberately free of context and never afforded even the possible consideration of an opinion that could be better expressed at length?

Did you actually read the OP or just the title?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
If all he focussed on was fanaticism then there wouldn't be a problem

This is one of your errors I keep personally finding.


Religion breeds fanaticism. In islam it is a requirement to all.

40% of Christians are severe.

Judaism orthodox, are all severe.

You cannot operate and remove fanaticism fully. It would be like saying we can remove the brain and have the patient survive.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Where does Dawkins assert that humanity can "see the light and achieve salvation?"

You hold the view opposite of Dawkins that people should hold false views as long as they are benign?

Among benign views, are truthful views better than untruthful views?

Do you think Dawkins would remain silent about harmful views that have nothing to do with religion or would he speak out against them?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Because your post wasn't really relevant to anything I wrote.
I didn't address anything you wrote, just an observation I have made that is relevant to the fact that you are exclusively addressing a tweet by Richard Dawkins and calling him an idiot. Do you have any response to my observation?

The majority of the post is context.
No, the majority of the post is your response and argument against his statements. The only context you give to his statements in that they are drawn from a comment he made - and later corrected - on Twitter. I see absolutely no attempt whatsoever to give his comments any kind of context or expand on them with reference to anything else he has written on the subject. Perhaps you have done this in other pages of the thread, but I have no interest in reading the entirety of this thread when all I wanted to do was post a relevant observation I have made and why I find it curious.
 
Top