Richard Dawkins says he is a Cultural Christian

[YoursTrue]

Oh, you are so immature!

BTW, within Catholicism, many conservative Catholics have problems with the Jesuits because of the strong emphasis on education they have. I know two of them personally for just one example, and they each have two ph.d.'s. Another I took two Catholic theology classes from when doing my undergrad work, and I wasn't even Catholic, and he was one of the brightest professors I had.

Obviously, Judaism has long put heavy emphasis on education, and I always appreciated the give & take in Torah study. And you're not too shabby yourself, btw.

ok. Here I reveal myself. When I attended synagogue with my family I remember how they taught the high schoolers about God. In fact, many would wear it as a symbol. And now that I remember, it's on paper currency in the U.S. It's the big eye. I remember that -- we were taught that God could be considered as a big eye that sees everything but never blinks. Oh wow I thought. No wonder I got on drugs..there's more but won't talk about it. Now. Except to say I went to college away from home and looked more closely at other religions. And as you may know, I attended church as a paid musician. I loved that because (1) I was paid and (2) the music was and can be so beautiful. I still enjoy listening to Handel's Messiah. But again -- I learned nothing about God. Ran my wild ways and no one cared. End of my story right now. Except -- when I finally prayed -- I got help. I am so glad.

 

[metis]

Well, then there wasn't even the Catholic religion either.

The "Catholic Church" is a denomination, not a religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh, you are so immature!

BTW, within Catholicism, many conservative Catholics have problems with the Jesuits because of the strong emphasis on education they have. I know two of them personally for just one example, and they each have two ph.d.'s. Another I took two Catholic theology classes from when doing my undergrad work, and I wasn't even Catholic, and he was one of the brightest professors I had.

Wow, I didn't know that. For me, the emphasis by Jesuits on scholarship is the very thing I appreciate about them.

Obviously, Judaism has long put heavy emphasis on education, and I always appreciated the give & take in Torah study. And you're not too shabby yourself, btw.

LOL thanks. I don't have any advanced degrees because I simply don't have the self discipline needed to do independent work like a thesis. But I've continued reading voraciously even after my graduation.

I also enjoy your posts as well, as you are both knowledgeable and rational.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "Catholic Church" is a denomination, not a religion.

ah hope you don't take this as an insult, but that was my first out loud laugh today. Look, back then (I won't forget this now) the synagogue invited the police chief to speak to the high schoolers. And the chief did not speak in such good language about the Chinese, calling them coolies in the field. I objected, even though I didn't KNOW much about God -- and the police chief put me on notice. That didn't make me too happy either. And I'm laughing as I write the last sentence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Billy Graham is the only televangelist that I think was authentic. He was the real deal.

I always saw Billy Graham as a political opportunist.

I found Charles Price (from Living Truth, filmed at the People's Church in Toronto) to be decent. I'm not sure how much play he got outside of Canada, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow, I didn't know that. For me, the emphasis by Jesuits on scholarship is the very thing I appreciate about them.

LOL thanks. I don't have any advanced degrees because I simply don't have the self discipline needed to do independent work like a thesis. But I've continued reading voraciously even after my graduation.

I also enjoy your posts as well, as you are both knowledgeable and rational.

Seems to me that when going for an advanced degree, it's the goal (being the degree), not necessarily the knowledge that keeps a person forging ahead. But as I think about it, an advanced degree would keep a person in the company most likely of those who have studied a great deal In that subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

I always saw Billy Graham as a political opportunist.

I found Charles Price (from Living Truth, filmed at the People's Church in Toronto) to be decent. I'm not sure how much play he got outside of Canada, though.

You could be right about Billy Graham, I never thought of it that way. In the political sense. He was easy to listen to, though.

 

[metis]

I always saw Billy Graham as a political opportunist.

Late in his life, he said his single biggest mistake was when he got involved in partisan politics when he cozied up to Nixon.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, then there wasn't even the Catholic religion either.

I think you meant to say "church" or "denomination."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Seems to me that when going for an advanced degree, it's the goal (being the degree), not necessarily the knowledge that keeps a person forging ahead.

I suppose that for a few people, getting a degree is only a means to getting a job. But I think that for most individuals, especially those in graduate school, the objective is to learn, to understand, to appreciate. There is a joy in learning, and a curiosity, that for some people drives them to keep learning more and more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see Dawkins as hostile--he doesn't mock or belittle people, he just speaks his mind and doesn't make any apologies about it, and so has offended many people because of it. For me, it's refreshing to see someone say what they think.

When did you become a fan of Dawkins, exactly?

If you were following him closely in 2011, you would have seen him mock Rebecca Watson (owner and manager of the Skepchick blog) for expressing her views on unwelcome - and unwelcoming - behaviour towards women in the skeptic movement.

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Dawkins and “Dear Muslima”

Now that Zombie Pharyngula has been raised from the dead and is sort of walking mindlessly over at ScienceBlogs, I have another complaint, and it’s aimed at National Geographic. Years ago, wh…

freethoughtblogs.com

 

[YoursTrue]

I suppose that for a few people, getting a degree is only a means to getting a job. But I think that for most individuals, especially those in graduate school, the objective is to learn, to understand, to appreciate. There is a joy in learning, and a curiosity, that for some people drives them to keep learning more and more.

I amended that. Because likely it would put a person in another realm of status.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I amended that. Because likely it would put a person in another realm of status.

So now you are saying that most people get degrees for status? Oy veh. You are either really jaded, or you are just jealous.

 

[YoursTrue]

So now you are saying that most people get degrees for status? Oy veh. You are either really jaded, or you are just jealous.

not at all. Jaded maybe. But not jealous, that's for sure. To recap, I do not like this world at all. Hope you understand that. Call me jaded if you like. I look forward to what the Bible foretells. I am most certainly not jealous of those with higher educational degrees although I can respect their knowledge. But certainly getting an advanced degree in an area of study is not always about one's ability. Or desire to learn. If you think it is, that's your viewpoint. Anyway, my case is closed and thanks for expressing your thoughts. I'm about to read some Psalms and learn. Thanks, though.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

When did you become a fan of Dawkins, exactly?

If you were following him closely in 2011, you would have seen him mock Rebecca Watson (owner and manager of the Skepchick blog) for expressing her views on unwelcome - and unwelcoming - behaviour towards women in the skeptic movement.

That's not at all what he was doing. He was using sarcasm to make a point about how ridiculous it was for her to call getting politely asked out by a man "harassment" when there is actual, horrific treatment of women in Muslim-dominated countries that most feminists of that time didn't even acknowledge was a problem or just attributed to "cultural differences."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not at all what he was doing. He was using sarcasm to make a point about how ridiculous it was for her to call getting politely asked out by a man "harassment" when there is actual, horrific treatment of women in Muslim-dominated countries that most feminists of that time didn't even acknowledge was a problem or just attributed to "cultural differences."

Yes... and this is called mocking.

And when called out on it, he followed it up by mocking Rebecca Watson further:

Many people seem to think it obvious that my post was wrong and I should apologise. Very few people have bothered to explain exactly why. The nearest approach I have heard goes something like this.

I sarcastically compared Rebecca’s plight with that of women in Muslim countries or families dominated by Muslim men. Somebody made the worthwhile point (reiterated here by PZ) that it is no defence of something slightly bad to point to something worse. We should fight all bad things, the slightly bad as well as the very bad. Fair enough. But my point is that the ‘slightly bad thing’ suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story.
But not everybody sees it as end of story. OK, let’s ask why not? The main reason seems to be that an elevator is a confined space from which there is no escape. This point has been made again and again in this thread, and the other one.

No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here’s how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

No, I obviously don’t get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word **** in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.

Richard

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yes... and this is called mocking.

And when called out on it, he followed it up by mocking Rebecca Watson further:

Well, semantics aside, I don't think there was anything wrong with what he said and I agree with the point he was trying to make. People who claim to be feminists but think the average American guy asking a woman out politely is the problem but don't address the obvious misogyny of guys like the Muslim in this video should be mocked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, semantics aside,

Semantics is what makes something mockery or not, so that's really the core issue here.

I don't think there was anything wrong with what he said and I agree with the point he was trying to make.

Your agreement with Dawkins's mockery doesn't make it not mockery.

People who claim to be feminists but think the average American guy asking a woman out politely is the problem but doesn't address the obvious misogyny of guys like the Muslim in this video should be mocked.

So you do agree now that Dawkins was mocking her.

And if you don't think that Rebecca Watson addresses misogyny in Islam, then you haven't paid much attention to her or her blog.

... of course, Islam was a red herring from Dawkins here, anyway.

Do you understand the context here? It doesn't seem like you do.

At the time, there was a lot of discussion in the skeptic community about how the community is very male-dominated and how to be more welcoming to women.

Amongst all this, Watson shared her perspective as an actual woman who is very active in the skeptic community, which was basically this: women who come to skeptic events get hit on a lot and have to deal with creepy men a lot, and this makes them feel unwelcome and decide not come back. To illustrate this, she talked about an unwelcome advance she had from a guy in an elevator at a recent (at the time) skeptic conference.

In response, Dawkins jumped on her to the effect of "how dare you, a woman, participate in this conversation while FGM is going on in Muslim countries?!" It was bizarre.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Semantics is what makes something mockery or not, so that's really the core issue here.



Your agreement with Dawkins's mockery doesn't make it not mockery.


So you do agree now that Dawkins was mocking her.

And if you don't think that Rebecca Watson addresses misogyny in Islam, then you haven't paid much attention to her or her blog.

... of course, Islam was a red herring from Dawkins here, anyway.

Do you understand the context here? It doesn't seem like you do.

At the time, there was a lot of discussion in the skeptic community about how the community is very male-dominated and how to be more welcoming to women.

Amongst all this, Watson shared her perspective as an actual woman who is very active in the skeptic community, which was basically this: women who come to skeptic events get hit on a lot and have to deal with creepy men a lot, and this makes them feel unwelcome and decide not come back. To illustrate this, she talked about an unwelcome advance she had from a guy in an elevator at a recent (at the time) skeptic conference.

In response, Dawkins jumped on her to the effect of "how dare you, a woman, participate in this conversation while FGM is going on in Muslim countries?!" It was bizarre.

I don't think Islam is a red herring--the point is that the skeptic community has done a lot of good for women and fought against religious misogyny and yet she chose to focus on the fact that a guy at a skeptic event asked her out instead. Or do you think it's wrong for a man to ask a woman out in any circumstance? Lol

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think Islam is a red herring--the point is that the skeptic community has done a lot of good for women and fought against religious misogyny and yet she chose to focus on the fact that a guy at a skeptic event asked her out instead.

Why did you leave out the details of the story? It wasn't just "a guy at a skeptic event asked her out." Other important details:

- it was 4:00 am and she had announced that she was tired and going to bed. IOW, anyone paying attention would have realized that an advance would have been unwanted.

- they had been out at the bar (so potentially, she was visibly drunk). IOW, she may have felt - or been - especially vulnerable.

- the guy followed her and waited until she was alone and wouldn't be able to immediately leave to "ask her out." IOW, he made choices to increase her vulnerability.

Definitely creepy, unwelcome behaviour.

Or do you think it's wrong for a man to ask a woman out in any circumstance? Lol

Not any circumstance, but if you don't have good reason to think the woman's answer will be "yes," then you ought to know that there's a good chance that the advance will be unwelcome.

And when a woman is:

1) in a vulnerable position (e.g. she's alone, tipsy or both), or
2) has already indicated that isn't interested in doing what you want to do with her,

... then no, you definitely shouldn't ask her back to your hotel room for "coffee."