Richard Dawkins Event Cancelled

[rjd970]

I don't understand why every one has to tread lightly around religion, especially Islam. It is not a religion of peace.

Hardcore religious people say and do the most vile things; to hell with being PC about it. #teamdawkins

This is the crux of the issue and the biggest problem. In literally every other area of discourse....be it politics, science, social justice, relationships, sports, buying a new car, what medication to take.....facts talk and bull **** walks. Faith takes a back seat to data, evidence, and most reasonable explanations. Why should religion be treated any different?

This is true with all religions, but especially so with Islam. Even suggesting a suicide bomber did it for religious reasons is met with accusations of "Islamaphobia" and racism. There is a real problem here, and as long as top cover is provided that doesn't allow critical debate then it will continue. Liberals are perhaps the worst in this regard, because they are especially concerned about not offending Islam over everything else.

 

[volinbham]

I don't understand why every one has to tread lightly around religion, especially Islam. It is not a religion of peace.

Hardcore religious people say and do the most vile things; to hell with being PC about it. #teamdawkins

Very few people tread lightly around religion except for Islam.

Nothing wrong with critiquing any religion. However, if you draw negative, blanket conclusions about people adhering to any religion then you might a religious bigot.

 

[volinbham]

This is the crux of the issue and the biggest problem. In literally every other area of discourse....be it politics, science, social justice, relationships, sports, buying a new car, what medication to take.....facts talk and bull **** walks. Faith takes a back seat to data, evidence, and most reasonable explanations. Why should religion be treated any different?

This is true with all religions, but especially so with Islam. Even suggesting a suicide bomber did it for religious reasons is met with accusations of "Islamaphobia" and racism. There is a real problem here, and as long as top cover is provided that doesn't allow critical debate then it will continue. Liberals are perhaps the worst in this regard, because they are especially concerned about not offending Islam over everything else.

I think it's fine to debate the merits of religion (like Dawkins) does. Even religious people might cite facts to assert why religion persists and what they consider evidence of some type of creator. There is no shortage of debate about religion.

Where it moves from debate to bigotry is when people make blanket statements like religious people are mentally inferior, deluded, etc.

I have an atheist friend and he loves to throw the "invisible guy in the sky" stuff into any conversation about religious people. It's clear he's using the term mockingly to suggest he's smarter than people who aren't atheists. That's not debating with facts, that's straight up arrogance and religious bigotry.

It's absolutely fine to think religious people are wrong in their beliefs. It's bigotry to think you (not you RJD) are better than them, smarter than them, etc. because you don't have religious beliefs.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Dawkins was the first holder of the Oxford Simonyi Chair for Public Understanding of Science endowed by Charles Simonyi of Microsoft specifically to enable Dawkins to propagate more books propounding atheism.

A rich atheist choosing an author (or vice versa- I forget which) then bankrolling a college chair to write about atheism which makes it appear more acceptable. It's doubtful Oxford would have created the chair otherwise.

I find it particularly fitting that other holders of chairs of science at Oxford have debated Dawkins over faith vs atheism and one even famously left Dawkins speechless, only able to keep repeating, f*** you, f*** you, over and over.

Good science that.

 

[Septic]

Dawkins was the first holder of the Oxford Simonyi Chair for Public Understanding of Science endowed by Charles Simonyi of Microsoft specifically to enable Dawkins to propagate more books propounding atheism.

A rich atheist choosing an author (or vice versa- I forget which) then bankrolling a college chair to write about atheism which makes it appear more acceptable. It's doubtful Oxford would have created the chair otherwise.

I find it particularly fitting that other holders of chairs of science at Oxford have debated Dawkins over faith vs atheism and one even famously left Dawkins speechless, only able to keep repeating, f*** you, f*** you, over and over.

Good science that.

So you're bummed about him having a title?

 

[rjd970]

I think it's fine to debate the merits of religion (like Dawkins) does. Even religious people might cite facts to assert why religion persists and what they consider evidence of some type of creator. There is no shortage of debate about religion.

Where it moves from debate to bigotry is when people make blanket statements like religious people are mentally inferior, deluded, etc.

I have an atheist friend and he loves to throw the "invisible guy in the sky" stuff into any conversation about religious people. It's clear he's using the term mockingly to suggest he's smarter than people who aren't atheists. That's not debating with facts, that's straight up arrogance and religious bigotry.

It's absolutely fine to think religious people are wrong in their beliefs. It's bigotry to think you (not you RJD) are better than them, smarter than them, etc. because you don't have religious beliefs.

I agree, but do you think the reverse is true as well? Is it bigotry when a religious person thinks they are better than someone (or saved, or enlightened, or whatever) because they believe something said person doesn't? The arrogance absolutely cuts both ways.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said everybody is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. Discussion of the facts is what is generally missing or denied in the name of political correctness. The problem is discussion of facts and points often gets conflated with bigotry/racism because one party gets hurt feelings. Both sides know once they get back in a corner on facts, just say "bigot" or "I'm offended" and the conversation has to end.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

So your bummed about him having a title?

You can be trivial too, eh?

 

[volinbham]

I agree, but do you think the reverse is true as well? Is it bigotry when a religious person thinks they are better than someone (or saved, or enlightened, or whatever) because they believe something said person doesn't? The arrogance absolutely cuts both ways.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said everybody is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. Discussion of the facts is what is generally missing or denied in the name of political correctness. The problem is discussion of facts and points often gets conflated with bigotry/racism because one party gets hurt feelings. Both sides know once they get back in a corner on facts, just say "bigot" or "I'm offended" and the conversation has to end.

On point one I completely agree. It goes both ways. If you draw broad, negative conclusions about someone because they subscribe to a specific religion, religion in general, or no religion at all you are being bigoted.

On the second point I think we're saying the same thing. I have no problem with a Dawkins or other atheist arguing why they believe (don't believe) what they do. It's when we get to the superiority complex that it moves from debating facts/views to being bigoted. I think ND Tyson crosses the line sometimes when he mocks people for believing in God. I hate PC but also have seen intolerance from both highly religious and atheist alike. We both agree that many who revel in mocking Christians get more and more PC as it comes to Jews then to Muslims.

 

[Septic]

You can be trivial too, eh?

I'm just saying, you posted a wall of text complaining about him having a title.

He's a smart guy, smarter than most. He's worked hard, earned his position, he deserves it. Don't be a hater.

 

[apevol]

"I ain't kin to no damn monkey."

-joe, probably

youre damn right he ain't.

 

[zeppelin128]

This is the crux of the issue and the biggest problem. In literally every other area of discourse....be it politics, science, social justice, relationships, sports, buying a new car, what medication to take.....facts talk and bull **** walks. Faith takes a back seat to data, evidence, and most reasonable explanations. Why should religion be treated any different?

This is true with all religions, but especially so with Islam. Even suggesting a suicide bomber did it for religious reasons is met with accusations of "Islamaphobia" and racism. There is a real problem here, and as long as top cover is provided that doesn't allow critical debate then it will continue. Liberals are perhaps the worst in this regard, because they are especially concerned about not offending Islam over everything else.

Some of us are not at all concerned with offending Islam; I have no sympathy whatsoever for radical Islamists, Christians, etc. I love discussing religions, but when some one mentions Sharia or attempts to define MY rights because of THEIR personal opinion, I turn into quite the prick.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

I'm just saying, you posted a wall of text complaining about him having a title.

He's a smart guy, smarter than most. He's worked hard, earned his position, he deserves it. Don't be a hater.

Not exactly a wall there. Every word true.

You don't hate truth do you?

 

[Septic]

Not exactly a wall there. Every word true.

You don't hate truth do you?

Actually, your posts hinges on personal speculation.

Your perception doesn't necessarily equate to reality.

Therefore, it's not truth but opinion.

As for your question, what an odd thing to ask - do you hate lettuce?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Actually, your posts hinges on personal speculation.

Your perception doesn't necessarily equate to reality.

Therefore, it's not truth but opinion.

As for your question, what an odd thing to ask - do you hate lettuce?

The facts are that the chair was endowed by Simonyi to give Dawkins a platform.

Oxford is the oldest university in the English speaking world. Not a few of the Oxford dons were offended the public education of science chair was endowed for the express purpose of expounding on a religious view feeling it should have been created in the religious studies department, not the science department.

So now, because Oxford is among the most respected universities in the world, we have Dawkins often introduced as the holder of this chair in the science department which these Oxford professors felt lent an artificial cache of authority to topics actually belonging in theology, not science.
These educators felt rich man was poorly using their renowned university's reputation. Had the chair been created in the religous studies department, probably not a peep.

Dawkins attack dog persona only bore out their misgivings as today many see his antics as not living up to standards of academia, as others are finding him passe. He really only smeared some char on the Oxford reputation.

Those are facts.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/after-the-new-atheism/

 

[Septic]

Those are facts.

The crux of your blathering rests solely on your completely subjective personal opinion.

A rich atheist choosing an author (or vice versa- I forget which) then bankrolling a college chair to write about atheism which makes it appear more acceptable. It's doubtful Oxford would have created the chair otherwise.

I find it particularly fitting that other holders of chairs of science at Oxford have debated Dawkins over faith vs atheism and one even famously left Dawkins speechless, only able to keep repeating, f*** you, f*** you, over and over.

Good science that.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

The crux of your blathering rests solely on your completely subjective personal opinion.

Back in the day, all this was common knowledge.

Dawkins has continuously behaved ill mannered, and often ill logically. It's become sort of a hallmark of his and so doesn't bring distinction to Oxford, but more of a "What the hell were they thinking placing that crass person in an Oxford Chair?

Sure, militant atheists were/are impressed, but he has done some really foolish things. One being the letter he wrote to his daughter when she was 10.

https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/09/04/dawkins-incredibly-illogical-letter-to-his-daughter/

His daughter recently forbade him to see his grandchildren.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TerryMcCracken/status/369899897647935488

Dawk just wasn't worthy to hold the chair, except that he was a militant atheist as was wanted by the endower.

http://strangenotions.com/is-richard-dawkins-close-to-christianity/

http://www.catholicstand.com/atheist-richard-dawkins-responsible-statements/

I'm not presenting religion here, I'm saying Dawkins did nothing to enhance Oxford's reputation among most folk. Just as the catholicstand.com article brings into question the "hard science" Dawkins often uses, so did some of the Oxford professors. And they weren't happy about the chair being in the science department.

Of course, militant atheists love him.《=that is, as you say, subjective

 

[Septic]

I'm not presenting religion here, I'm saying Dawkins did nothing to enhance Oxford's reputation among most folk. J

Good, so we agree then, your opinion is just that - your opinion. I personally think more highly of Oxford for doing what they did.

 

[dduncan4163]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKH4fZP3X7I[/youtube]

 

[dduncan4163]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oAhCA8FZBU[/youtube]

These videos are worth your time.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Good, so we agree then, your opinion is just that - your opinion. I personally think more highly of Oxford for doing what they did.

It was the opinion expressed by enough Oxford professors and others at the time that it became newsworthy. I only learned of "the opinion" by reading about it. I agree with it. I disagree with Dawks (and your) atheist opinions.

Now, you go right ahead with your Worship of the Great Dawk.

 

[Septic]

It was the opinion expressed by enough Oxford professors and others at the time that it became newsworthy. I only learned of "the opinion" by reading about it. I agree with it. I disagree with Dawks (and your) atheist opinions.

Now, you go right ahead with your Worship of the Great Dawk.

Did you intentionally spell worship with a capital W?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpoSwe2buU[/youtube]

Which one of those letters came from you old timer?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Phhhuuuut- I've played this game before with others like you.

That you belong to the "Worship of the Great Dawk" cult doesn't suprise me.

Hmmm... 🤔 One could say, "Richard Dawkins is the Donald Trump of 'Scientific Atheism'".😂😂😂😂

 

[Orangedogsrule]

And I've watched plenty of his youtube debates, pontifications, and rants.

I've read The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale, and The Blind Watchmaker.

My oldest brother was a founding member of the Worshipful order of the Great Dawk. You never heard a fundamentalist preacher any more fervent as he railed against anyone with faith. To keep my brother, he had his go. I read his books. I tried to get him to read mine... With Squakin' Dawkins I been there, done that.

I don't respect the man. Not because he's an atheist, but his too often attack dog behavior. There are many much more readable logical people out there preaching it.

Also many readable, logical people of faith.

But you go right ahead Ol' Son, have at it.

 

[Septic]

Phhhuuuut- I've played this game before with others like you.

That you belong to the "Worship of the Great Dawk" cult doesn't suprise me.

Hmmm... 🤔 One could say, "Richard Dawkins is the Donald Trump of 'Scientific Atheism'".😂😂😂😂

That you managed to misspell "surprise" while ridiculing the superior intellect of Dr. Dawkins was not an irony that was lost on me.

Why does it bother you that the Oxford Professor believes religion is tripe? I mean, he is an equal opportunity anti religion firebrand - he thinks you're just as wrong as the muzzies.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

That you managed to misspell "surprise" while ridiculing the superior intellect of Dr. Dawkins was not an irony that was lost on me.

Why does it bother you that the Oxford Professor believes religion is tripe? I mean, he is an equal opportunity anti religion firebrand - he thinks you're just as wrong as the muzzies.

Ooh ooo! Got me didja! I can fat finger any speling. So what?

I am going no further into what the Dawk has to say about religion. I've already said that, from the beginning.

It's his behavior, often illogical, that did nothing for Oxford's reputation, I find abhorent. So did too many of his collegues in the Oxford science department and they let it be known.

That was what I had to say.

His behavior is too often much like Trump.

If you're looking for someone to have the Is/Is NOT! argument with, it ain't me.

I believe. You say you don't. He should have been allowed to speak, even offered debate.
Such is life.
Hasta manana...