Seattle
Valued Senior Member
How do you enter a thread prior to the OP?
"Atheism has a Richard Dawkins problem"
- Thread starter Musika
- Start date
If you can't conceive of how atheism can "own" a problem, you can't really participate in the thread ... although you are welcome to take your puzzlement to one of several other threads that don't require a bridging of that impasse.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm can also join the discussions going on here. You are confused and I'll do my best to help clear up that confusion if possible.
I reject Richard Dawkins as a spokesmodel for atheism. He should be held accountable for his statements.
You asked when was the last "time we heard someone advocate atheism in a manner like him?"
If someone answering your question is "derailing the thread" - then you're looking mighty foolish, because you are criticizing your own derailment.
So which is it? Is the thread about advocating atheism like Dawkins, or are you really trying to criticize yourself, and just hope nobody notices?
If one cannot entertain the notion of "atheism owning a problem" there is no question of "advocation", much less an individual one can hold accountable for doing such ... which pretty much places one's thoughts outside any of the axis of the OP, save for the link to the other thread (which offers one of the most recent offerings in that department).
He's clueless on various subjects, especially sexual harassment and feminism.
Not invite him to atheist events. Condemning him when he says something stupid.
Are you suggesting that anybody else but Richard Dawkins is responsible for anything Richard Dawkins said?
Were you raised by wild animals?
If anyone is publishing their ideas to the tune of 100s of millions of editions, there is a fair chance the ideas end (and probably begin) at points further than the author.
And you think the originators of those ideas are responsible for what Dawkins said? Seriously? Charles Manson could read too. Are you going to blame his murders on the authors of the books he read?
But what you're doing is even sillier than that. You're trying to project Dawkins' shortcomings on the people who read his books. And even worse than worse, you're trying to project Dawkins' shortcomings on people who haven't even read his books.
If the originators of those ideas (whoever "they" may be ... I genuinely don't know who you are talking about .... and I suspect you don't either) don't have distribution runs in the hundreds of millions, its not clear exactly what one would be holding them responsible for or to.
Throwing the word "Seriously?" before a question doesn't somehow seamlessly connect it to points under discussion.
What you are doing is not even in the parameters of civilized human society. You are trying to project several nonfiction books (specifically about atheism) that probably sold over 100 million copies over 15 or so years as having no tangible effect on society.
When you speak like this, it just makes people wonder if you were raised by wild animals.
Most people don't merely buy books to prop up the legs on uneven tables or whatnot .... so once again, we are just left questioning your upbringing prior to adolescence.
You would be hard pressed to even hold the publication of "Where's Wally" to this sociological void.
Last edited:
Looks like religion has a Musika problem.
IOW, if a theist comes on this forum claiming that one man represents all of atheism and thus poses a problem for it, it would behoove that theist to not prove himself a complete ass - lest he demonstrate what sort of debate theists are capable of when challenged, and how that represents theists.
You're the one who brought them up.
I didn't suggest any such thing. I said that Dawkins can not be blamed for what other people do. And people who have read his books (or who have not read his books) can not be blamed for what he wrote.
Gee, and I only have 44 likes on sciforums under my belt.
Seems like their parity to facebook likes must be pretty substantial.
Yes, but in a general sense, as in there was a lot going in the name of atheism before Dawkins hit the scene, and pumped it up with a specific flavour.
So I guess my point still stands : in your haste to disagree, you have no idea what you are talking about
Yes, it would be silly to blame people for agreeing with him. I mean, you don't even see atheists do that with their criticism of religious communities, do you?
To the extent the phenomena falls short of being a "fashion" , perhaps you are right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_effect
The difference is that religious communities exist. Atheist communities do not.
Staunch individualism in groups is so pubescent.
Individualism is important especially in groups - otherwise you're susceptible to groupthink.
But of course there are no monolithic atheist groups, despite your vigorous attempts to ignore that fact.
I disagree. There was a movement centered around some prominent, mostly male figures in atheism, which struggled to figure out what their goals and collective values might be. Since atheism doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive ethos, the community is left to decide. So there's a split between the libertarian dude-bro wing and a more liberal human rights-centered wing.