Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability? Post 20 has a new story from RNS.

[hrmjustin]

This discussion thread was locked by kentauros (a host of the Interfaith Group group).

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Kimberly Winston

(RNS) It may go down as one of the shortest-lived peace accords on record.

Late last month, two heavy-hitters within organized atheism, activist Ophelia Benson and scientist Richard Dawkins, reached a detente of sorts about online debate and posted it on their separate websites.

“Disagreement is inevitable, but bullying and harassment are not,” the statement reads. “ If we want secularism and atheism to gain respect, we have to be able to disagree with each other without trying to destroy each other.”

Before the virtual ink was dry, Dawkins had stepped in it again.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins/


I normally don't post about atheism or atheists here but I think this is a good question and I like to get this groups view on the man.

[Htom Sirveaux]

1. i think both believers and atheists often feel looked down on by the other side.

And part of the way they deal with that is by finding examples of the other side behaving badly to bring them down to size, as it were. And then each side rushes to disassociate itself from the now-embarrassing target. The same thing happens day in and day out between Democrats and Republicans.

It really does seem like this whole thing is more of a political dispute than an intellectual one. And that's a shame, because politics is not always the healthiest form of human expression, especially in this day and age.

[MADem]

9. Excellent points. nt

[hrmjustin]

10. Good points. I would say he creates a large amount of his problems.

[el_bryanto]

2. He's kind of irrelevant

He wrote a key book in modern atheism, but as our Atheist friends say, there's no atheist pope. His opinions and style don't define atheism.

Atheists more than believers you have to take them as they are, because each one is unique.

Believers are unique too of course, but they do have sources you can point back to as important. You can't really be a Christian and not have an opinion on the New Testament (in my opinion) but you can certainly be an atheist and have no opinion on Richard Dawkin's work (let alone the man himself).

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

11. Good points. I think he should pick his battles with more care.

[rug]

3. He's turned into Dudley Moore.

At one time, Dudley was a virtuoso pianist. Then he did Arthur.

[truebrit71]

7. Yeah, not so much....

.... He got an Oscar nod for Arthur didn't he?

[rug]

8. He played a buffoon well.

[hrmjustin]

12. lol I see your point.

[okasha]

5. He may be a liability to atheists in general,

but he's become an accurate and valuable tool for identifying male chauvinist oinkers among self-identifying "progressives."

[hrmjustin]

13. Yes he does seem to have issues.

I think he is smart but needs to do better at picking his battles.

[hrmjustin]

14. For the record I did not alert but the post was not civil and you must be civil in this room.

The post was not appropriate.

[rug]

15. It was downright homophobic.

Good hide.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Lying is a sin

You know the post can be seen, right? It was not homophobic in the least.

[rug]

27. So is trolling.

Do not expect me to explain to you why calling a gay man a baby is homophobic.

I don't have the patience to peel off your privilege.

[rug]

29. It is and it's also not open for trolling.

And now you double down.

Seems like it might be you that is fixated on Justin's sexual preference.

But for your privilege, you would not be so crass as to suggest sexual orientation is a preference. Nor would you use someone's orientation to make a snide personal attack.

Make that triple down.

Keep going, Goblinmonger.

BTW, you do know that edits still show, don't you?

[Goblinmonger]

30. I haven't edited anything

I should have used "orientation." You're right.

I am still confused as to why "baby" is homophobic. I even tried searching it to see if I was missing something. "Sissy baby" came up and, if that is what was said, I would agree with it being homophobic. But it wasn't what was said. If I'm missing something, though, I'd appreciate a link for a head's up so that I don't continue with something that is a slur.

[hrmjustin]

31. I don't know what he meant but he can no longer post in this room.

[rug]

32. I'm not going to parse anti-gay slurs with you but I will give you something to read.

http://bullshit-blog.com/2013/09/29/casual-homophobia-and-why-its-got-to-stop/

[Goblinmonger]

33. I don't want to "parse anti-gay slurs"

First, the link you give makes no even remotely vague reference to the use of the term "baby" as even slightly homophobic in regards to gay males (and I didn't even know Justin was gay).

Second, I think the fact that the article that you linked to takes exception with the use of the term homophobia when that is a term you use is hilarious. Though I'm a sucker for irony. YMMV. I'm quite sure you don't see it as so funny.

Third, you made a claim that the post "was downright homophobic" because it used the term "baby" to describe a gay man. I asked you to educate me and show me a link to something that explained why that was "downright homophobic." If it is that "downright homophobic," I would expect you could easily find something explaining that. You clearly can't. I even checked what some think is a great dictionary--Urban Dictionary--and it wasn't listed there as an "anti-gay slur." In short, I'm calling BS on your claim that the post was "downright homophobic." Which leads me to...

Finally, the SOP of this group is

to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance.

I think calling someone's post "downright homophobic" when you can provide nothing to back up that claim to not be in line with the SOP here. I would imagine that there are many others that could come in here and incorrectly throw around the homophobic label and they would be blocked from the group. Yet you seem to be getting a pass from all but me. Which is interesting. I think you need to either show how that phrase is "downright homophobic" or apologize for doing so which would be in line with the SOP in this safe haven.

[kentauros]

34. The first part of his post was neither positive, civil, or tolerant.

It was a personal attack. Justin was called a liar, and then more, albeit veiled, insults were piled on. Considering truebrit71's behavior elsewhere on DU (please take a look at his transparency page) the hide above and subsequent blocking from our group is justified.

If you don't like it, take it up with Skinner.

[Goblinmonger]

35. I'm sorry. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

I am not arguing that the block was bad. I have no problems with him being blocked.

I have problems with him being called homophobic when there is nothing to support that claim. If rug had called him an asshole, I wouldn't have replied.

Do you think the post was homophobic?

[kentauros]

36. The reference to the worm certainly comes across as a penis reference to me.

I don't understand the baby reference, but that in itself can be insulting, especially as truebrit has continued to use it even in PM.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I guess I didn't read the worm reference as homophobic but I could be wrong.

Though rug's claim was about the term "baby." Which I can assure you isn't about him being gay. Though I've asked for some link to help educate me on the term if I am wrong. Given that there was a link provided which did not address that term, my guess is that he looked but found nothing.

As much as I have no problem with you making the block you did, I would think that rug's posting claims of homophobia when that isn't the case also seem out of line with the SOP and the attitude you are trying to cultivate here.

[kentauros]

39. I don't consider it out of line to the SOP

as it was used in a post where the entirety of it was used as a personal attack. How the little bits, the minutia, work individually doesn't matter. It was all an attack on Justin and definitely against the SOP. To me, and to the other hosts here, the entirety of his post comes across as thinly veiled homophobia. If any one part is homophobic, it pretty much tends to taint the rest of the post.

[Goblinmonger]

41. I will agree it was an attack on Justin

And I will agree that the block was a good block.

I don't agree that it was homophobic and I have yet to have anyone indicate to me why it was. That's a pretty bold claim to make when there is nothing in the entirety of the post that anyone can point to and explain how it is homophobic. But again, I'm not arguing that the block was bad.

Since you can't bring yourself to say that rug is out of line, could you at least tell el_bryanto to back the fuck off me, please? Unless I have violated the SOP, and, like I have told el_bryanto, let me know where I have and I'll make the appropriate changes.

(I'll help you out on one regard: the worm reference is that what Justin posted was flamebait. You'll have to get the other one on your own. Sometimes explaining things ruins the effect.)

[kentauros]

43. truebrit's original post is the issue.

I don't feel the need to repeat myself either, as it's all in print above you. But I may have to, for emphasis. The entirety of the post is a homophobic attack on Justin. No need to tear out the little bits and judge them individually. The whole is what's in question here, not the bits.

Neither you nor el_bryanto have violated the SOP, but I would ask that you both take it to PM, where this entire threadjack should have gone, too.

I think we've explained ourselves enough. This isn't the Religion group where it's downright expected for players to go round and round arguing the same little bit back and forth while ignoring the entirety of the original post.

[el_bryanto]

38. Hey it's great to have you over here to lecture us

Why don't you stick to your own forum?

Atheists already have the AA forum and the Religion forum to shit on believers - do you really need this forum too?

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

40. I'm not lecturing an "us"

I'm saying that one person's post seems out of line to the SOP of this group. He has not been able to provide any indication that the phrase he indicated was clearly homophobic is homophobic at all.

I have shit on nobody in this forum, and I thought this forum was open to believers and non-believers alike. If I am wrong in that, please let me know. Especially since and I other atheists that gave our support to make this forum a reality did so with the understanding that this group would be a safe haven open to all. I have abided by the SOP with every post, in my opinion. You, on the other hand, shit on me enough so that a jury of your peers hid your post. And rather than realize that perhaps you were unwarranted in being an asshole to me, you decide, instead, to come over here and continue to be rude to me. As I told you in that thread you can no longer post in, if I have violated the SOP with any of my posts, please point it out to me and I will make the necessary changes. Perhaps you got locked out of that thread before you could point it out to me.

I certainly hope that some other regulars in this group let you know that the way you are treating people is not the way this group is supposed to be.

[okasha]

16. For the record, I alerted.

I was also pleased to note from the poster's transparency page that I was on a jury that voted unanimously to hide another one of his excretions.

[goldent]

17. He is happy to be the un-elected leader of a people

who don't necessarily want him as their leader. This kind of thing happens everywhere.

To remain relevant, he has to remain controversial.

[hrmjustin]

18. he should quit twitter.

[goldent]

19. lol - twitter isn't for everyone

Including me!

[hrmjustin]

20. Richard Dawkins keeps digging on ‘mild’ date rape and pedophilia

Brian Pellot

Richard Dawkins is at it again. And again. And again.

The famed atheist, author and evolutionary biologist addressed the World Humanist Congress on Sunday (Aug. 10). Interviewer Samira Ahmed dived right into the unavoidable — his recent controversial tweets on “mild” date rape and pedophilia.
http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/11/richard-dawkins-atheist-world-humanist-congress-rape-pedophilia-oxford/?preview_id=1110

I added this here and decided not to stzrt a new op.

[okasha]

21. Molly Ivin's First Rule of Holes

When you're in one, stop digging.

[hrmjustin]

22. I agree. He seems to not get what crap he stirs up.

He needs to stop tweeting.

[okasha]

23. He needs to go back to being a scientist,

which he does well. As a professional celebrity, he's ju.mped the shark.

[hrmjustin]

24. Agreed!

[hrmjustin]

25. kick.

[kentauros]

44. I am locking this thread due to the threadjacking.

It has all devolved into the style of arguing found in the Religion-group, and that's another reason why we formed this group, to get away from that method of "discussion."

If you have a problem with this, take it up with the hosts in PM or with Skinner. We're done here.