Senile Richard Dawkins falls deeper into the rabbit hole of popular hatred

testaccount123 · 06-10-2015 3:58pm

What is it with SJWs hard on for Islamics? This notion of the 'ordinary peaceful Muslim' is laughable, the ideologies of Islam have no place in a modern liberal country because they are morally repugnant.

DarkyHughes · 06-10-2015 3:59pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Didn't Bill Maher support the invasion of Iraq? Some fucking liberal he is.

If he had a pair of liberal balls he'd take on the wholesale crushing of dissent in Universities that's the routine practice of Zionist/Pro Israel ultra-nationalist elements. People have lost their jobs for not toeing the line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHqou7SP9wI

Just makes my respect for Norman Finkelstein greater with all these extreme hostile obstacles in his way.

Wibbs · 06-10-2015 4:44pm

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You are free to criticise catholism but Dawkins shouldnt be allowed to criticise islam?

Ah but you see MT, catholicism isn't nearly so exotic hereabouts. Islam comes from the mysterious east and some go mad for that kinda thing. I've known a few atheists tell me with a straight face that they're buddhists.

Again it's the exotic thing. Has always been quite the draw, for europeans in particular. They wear such things like a fashion. Catholicism is out this season, Islam is in. Among the left anyway. The Right are more likely to go against that trend.

Though I think Dawkins should now quietly toddle off away from public spaces. He's done his bit, but time he stopped being the spokesman for atheist thought. Maher is a tool IMH. Again had his moments when younger, but way past his use by date.

WarZ wrote:

People with conservative and racist views have been proven to have lower intelligence and tend to be beta males.

To be conservative and racist is to be fearful of anything different. Scared beta males essentially who are terrified of anything that doesn't look and act like them.

More of this imported American shíte. WTF is it with this alpha beta nonsense? The yanks love it for some reason.

Then again a large chunk of their culture is might is right. In any event you do realise that these labels quite simply don't apply to humans? Oh and among the most intelligent and powerful men in history have been extremely racist and cultural conservatives, so that doesn't really say much.

130Kph · 06-10-2015 4:45pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

^ That's US right. And it's as mental as it sound & looks. I can't imagine any UK Tory acting that mental.

this is the US right.....Tee hee hee :pac:

Funny video all right

I could picture Gerry Adams, Ho Chi Minh & Mao Tse-tung sitting in a pub in Crossmaglen wearing boiler suits - watching this Alex Jones video on youtube.

Then when it’s over they look at each other in disbelief and nod in unison and say “yes comrades, we have to kill a lot (& we really mean a lot) of conspiracy nut shock jocks to make the world fit for socialism” :eek:

DarkyHughes · 06-10-2015 6:12pm

130Kph wrote: »

this is the US right.....Tee hee hee :pac:

Funny video all right

I could picture Gerry Adams, Ho Chi Minh & Mao Tse-tung sitting in a pub in Crossmaglen wearing boiler suits - watching this Alex Jones video on youtube.

Then when it’s over they look at each other in disbelief and nod in unison and say “yes comrades, we have to kill a lot (& we really mean a lot) of conspiracy nut shock jocks to make the world fit for socialism” :eek:

He is a conspiracy nut alright but that helps drag in all of the other conspiracy nuts & there's millions of them to his far-right point of view. He 's virtually the NRA's spokesman, thinks global warming is a conspiracy & is a huge Ron Paul supporter who thinks the state should have no role at all in peoples lives.
And I really hate making Nazi comparisons but he really reminds of Hitler when he starts shouting insane ramblings while almost foaming at the mouth & those hand gestures.

Donkey Oaty · 06-10-2015 7:01pm

testaccount123 wrote: »

What is it with SJWs hard on for Islamics?

Someone arrives who irrationally hates Ireland/Europe/The West almost as much as the SJW does.

What's not to like?

stunmer · 06-10-2015 7:22pm

Can someone please give me some evidence that Richard Dawkins is racist or hateful towards people?

There are literally hundreds of videos of him on youtube.

Evidence of this please.

Vomit · 06-10-2015 7:37pm

"SJW".. :rolleyes: I had to look that up as I'm not a huge consumer of popular media. Why are the views of some boards users reduced to the narrow lenses of memes and quips? It's sad. How about taking some real interest in the world around you eh? Wouldn't that be better than rushing off to find the best meme that you can pour your understanding into? This 'SJW' label helps to prove my original point about the Maher/Harris term 'Regressive Leftist'-- i.e. finding a label to tar and feather people who just disagree with you.

Donkey Oaty · 06-10-2015 7:39pm

stunmer wrote: »

Can someone please give me some evidence that Richard Dawkins is racist or hateful towards people?

There are literally hundreds of videos of him on youtube.

Evidence of this please.

It's an interesting question you raise, but you have sung from the subversive hymn sheet.

You will have plenty of opportunity to dwell on these issues with your like-minded friends in the Gulags once the revolution comes.

Donkey Oaty · 06-10-2015 7:44pm

Vomit wrote: »

This 'SJW' label helps to prove my original point about the Maher/Harris term 'Regressive Leftist'-- i.e. finding a label to tar and feather people who just disagree with you.

Have a look at this guy's posting history, everyone, for good evidence of that.

Keep it up, comrade!

Vomit · 06-10-2015 7:51pm

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Have a look at this guy's posting history, everyone, for good evidence of that.

Keep it up, comrade!

And from your last two posts, what do you expect I write back? Something like, "Look all you want if you can take two seconds away from worshiping the free-markets, you bourgeois scally-wag!" Is this the level we're at now?

06-10-2015 7:52pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

It happens to a lot of people when they get old they move to the right. Unless your Tony Benn.

I think it was best put by Winston Churchill:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

One eyed Jack · 06-10-2015 7:52pm

stunmer wrote: »

Can someone please give me some evidence that Richard Dawkins is racist or hateful towards people?

There are literally hundreds of videos of him on youtube.

Evidence of this please.

I wouldn't ever say he was racist, but certainly he has displayed a tendency to be hateful towards people, particularly those people who are religious, referring to them as religious idiots, and then there's this -

Of Nadia Eweida, the check-in worker whom British Airways tried to prevent from wearing a cross round her neck, he said she had ‘one of the most stupid faces I have ever seen’.

A bitter, hateful, nasty, spiteful comment. There are many more examples I could offer as evidence, but I'm likely to be wasting my time when it's quite likely we'll disagree over his obnoxious, misanthropic musings on twitter.

He just IMO doesn't represent a very positive image of a person who is atheist. I know many people who are atheist and non-religious and they are some of the most endearing and enjoyable people to spend time with, who have no interest in this notion Dawkins has of 'the intelligentsia'. They show leadership in their actions, in their interactions with other people, in showing people respect and treating people with dignity as human beings.

Dawkins IMO, shows none of these traits, no compassion for humanity, he is the epitome of the barstool intellectual idiot.

lawlolawl · 06-10-2015 7:55pm

Vomit wrote: »

"SJW".. :rolleyes: I had to look that up as I'm not a huge consumer of popular media. Why are the views of some boards users reduced to the narrow lenses of memes and quips? It's sad. How about taking some real interest in the world around you eh? Wouldn't that be better than rushing off to find the best meme that you can pour your understanding into? This 'SJW' label helps to prove my original point about the Maher/Harris term 'Regressive Leftist'-- i.e. finding a label to tar and feather people who just disagree with you.

This is same thing as Hipsters denying that they are Hipsters or that the concept of Hipsters even exists.

Vomit · 06-10-2015 7:57pm

lawlolawl wrote: »

This is same thing as Hipsters denying that they are Hipsters or that the concept of Hipsters even exists.

Don't know much about that- I do remember some people on this thread randomly bringing up women's rights and gay rights, as if it were somehow related to this topic, yet those are things I know little about and care even less about. Are those hipster issues?

stunmer · 06-10-2015 7:59pm

Vomit wrote: »

"This 'SJW' label helps to prove my original point about the Maher/Harris term 'Regressive Leftist'-- i.e. finding a label to tar and feather people who just disagree with you.

Sam Harris is not calling some people from the left "Regressive Leftists" because they disagree with him.

He says they are abandoning the principles that most liberals believe in (free speech, equal rights for men and women, secular values, freedom of religion, equal rights for homosexuals) when looking at Islam as opposed to looking at other groups and religions.

Ideas can be criticised. Islam is just a set of ideas. Why aren't they up for criticism like everything?

OP you are the exact people Sam Harris is talking about when you conflate criticising Islam with criticising muslims as a people.

Vomit · 06-10-2015 8:08pm

stunmer wrote: »

Sam Harris is not calling some people from the left "Regressive Leftists" because they disagree with him.

He says they are abandoning the principles that most liberals believe in (free speech, equal rights for men and women, secular values, freedom of religion, equal rights for homosexuals) when looking at Islam as opposed to looking at other groups and religions.

This is the problem-- assuming that because somebody says one thing, that they automatically hold other values that you associate with that 'label'. That's why labeling people in this way is somewhat disturbing.

Believe it or not, there a Muslims out there (Lots and lots) who subcribe to modern values, same as people who call themselves Christians etc. As long as people keep confusing Muslims with extremists, the discussion will go on forever.

I wonder if Dawkins had a group of Muslim students in a small classroom environment, hanging on his every word as he is discussing evolution, would he say to them, "Take off that hijab and to hell with your culture".

super_furry · 06-10-2015 8:09pm

Dawkins is a dick who occasionally says things I agree with.

KingBrian2 · 06-10-2015 8:16pm

Such misinformed garbage being spouted on Boards.ie Maher did not support the Iraq war infact his opposition meant he was censored. That is like saying Aleksandr Solzehenitsyn was a fan of Stalinism.

testaccount123 · 06-10-2015 8:25pm

Vomit wrote: »

Believe it or not, there a Muslims out there (Lots and lots) who subcribe to modern values

Its not possible to be a Muslim and subscribe to modern liberal western values. The ideology proscribes it. You are confusing secular people of a certain races and from certain places with people who actively follow a religion.

Sand · 06-10-2015 8:29pm

super_furry wrote: »

Dawkins is a dick who occasionally says things I agree with.

I like Dawkins. He seems like a genuinely decent and intelligent human being. He does seem to be deeply outraged by the useless stupidity and cruelty of billions of children being bullied and brainwashed into leading reduced lives due to the superstitious primitivism of one magic sky man or another.

We're in an era when people genuinely feel obliged to murder cartoonists for drawing an image of their magic sky man and this is entertained by useful idiots as having some rational basis.

Twitter is probably a bad medium for him. Outrage and a form of instant communication are usually not good companions. But he is ultimately human, and human beings make mistakes. So dont be so quick to judge him as a dick. No matter how much human beings on a mission from their magic sky man might try to claim they have a right to judge and execute those they find wanting.

Donkey Oaty · 06-10-2015 8:29pm

Vomit wrote: »

I wonder if Dawkins had a group of Muslim students in a small classroom environment, hanging on his every word as he is discussing evolution, would he say to them, "Take off that hijab and to hell with your culture".

This exact event happened very recently - in fact, it occurs on a daily basis. Not that the MAIN STEAM MEDIA will report it.

Dawkins only got into science to bash Muslims. And the only reason he stayed was because he wanted to sneer at the occasional Sikh who happened to be passing by.

Sand · 06-10-2015 8:38pm

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its not possible to be a Muslim and subscribe to modern liberal western values. The ideology proscribes it. You are confusing secular people of a certain races and from certain places with people who actively follow a religion.

True - you can be culturally Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Jedi...but if you don't actually live your life in line with those beliefs and adhere to them you're no more religious than I am.

Another poster raised a good point: Its very difficult for their to be significant reform of the core Muslim theology because its a crime punishable by death to even entertain the idea that there is any flaws to reform. That said, Muslims throughout history have successfully sidestepped that ecumenical issue by simply drowning out the core theology with addendums and caveats. People talk about Muslim tolerance as if it was a core value - it wasnt, it was a political necessity. Muslims rapidly conquered a vast empire where they were a tiny elite. They had to practise tolerance of local beliefs to avoid unrest and revolt. So, caveats were added to Muslim beliefs to justify and excuse the necessity of tolerance.

The issue is that in the last 60-70 years, fanatics in the Arab world - increasingly funded by Saudi oil wealth have been (successfully) rolling the clock back to the 7th century, negating all the caveats requiring tolerance. The muslim world directly, and the west indirectly, is reaping the bitter harvest that was sown.

Donkey Oaty · 06-10-2015 8:43pm

Sand wrote: »

That said, Muslims throughout history have successfully sidestepped that ecumenical issue [....]

A very overlooked point. They're my heroes, as are their Christian equivalents.

Inspirational guys, spinning in their graves at what's going on now.

Vomit · 06-10-2015 8:49pm

testaccount123 wrote: »

Its not possible to be a Muslim and subscribe to modern liberal western values. The ideology proscribes it. You are confusing secular people of a certain races and from certain places with people who actively follow a religion.

It is possible. Most religious people are not truly religious- ask any Christian if they wear mixed fabrics (banned in the Old Testament). In fact, this is a point that Dawkins himself brought up before. So, you also have Muslims who don't actually believe the Koran or subscribe to the 'nasty' parts (just like the Bible).

All of these people have the right to call themselves whatever they like (delusional or not) without being harassed and told what they should believe. This fuels and legitimises the more sinister strain of anti-islamic sentiment that people like the EDL, BNP, UKIP and right-wing journalists exhibit. The best way to spread atheism and secularism is to do it by example. Richard Dawkins is at his best when discussing the wonders of science, and at his worst when associating with a-holes like Bill Maher and saying, "To hell with their culture" to Muslims.

Sand · 06-10-2015 8:53pm

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

A very overlooked point. They're my heroes, as are their Christian equivalents.

Inspirational guys, spinning in their graves at what's going on now.

True - on all sides you had essentially civilized men trying to find the best in their beliefs (I doubt they were atheists in the modern sense) whilst struggling to keep the ISIS style factions of their day onside and under the thumb.

Religion has sometimes been a positive, especially on the individual scale, but in the main it has been a problem like famine or plague to be planned for and managed.

KingBrian2 · 06-10-2015 8:53pm

Vomit wrote: »

It is possible. Most religious people are not truly religious- ask any Christian if they wear mixed fabrics (banned in the Old Testament). In fact, this is a point that Dawkins himself brought up before. So, you also have Muslims who don't actually believe the Koran or subscribe to the 'nasty' parts (just like the Bible).

All of these people have the right to call themselves whatever they like (delusional or not) without being harassed and told what they should believe. This fuels and legitimises the more sinister strain of anti-islamic sentiment that people like the EDL, BNP, UKIP and right-wing journalists exhibit. The best way to spread atheism and secularism is to do it by example. Richard Dawkins is at his best when discussing the wonders of science, and at his worst when associating with a-holes like Bill Maher and saying, "To hell with their culture" to Muslims.

I will agree he can go too far at times but he's a comedian you don't have to laugh at everything he says. I personally find political humour brilliant it is so smart and true whereas other forms of humour is bad really really bad.

Donkey Oaty · 06-10-2015 9:09pm

Sand wrote: »

True - on all sides you had essentially civilized men trying to find the best in their beliefs (I doubt they were atheists in the modern sense) whilst struggling to keep the ISIS style factions of their day onside and under the thumb.

Religion has sometimes been a positive, especially on the individual scale, but in the main it has been a problem like famine or plague to be planned for and managed.

Agree with the thrust of what you say. Secularist, pragmatist types have existed everywhere in history, even in the unlikeliest quarters - but they're seldom given airtime these days, which is a real shame, because they are undoubtedly the solution to sectarian problems around the world.

Herb Powell · 06-10-2015 9:29pm

testaccount123 wrote: »

What is it with SJWs hard on for Islamics? This notion of the 'ordinary peaceful Muslim' is laughable, the ideologies of Islam have no place in a modern liberal country because they are morally repugnant.

But you're totally not a bigot, right?

I've met plenty ordinary peaceful muslims, what's laughable to me is someone thinking that out of the billion-odd muslims on the planet there's not a single decent one. Same as , wait for it, christians, jews, hindus, any other group you can name.

There's a serious miscommunication on this, i.e people are arguing over two different things. People say "we're not allowed to criticise islam" when what they actually mean is "it's socially unacceptable to bash muslims".

I myself am no fan of organised religion at all and would be left-leaning on most things I can think of, but I have the cop-on to realise that even plenty devout followers of religion are for the most part normal people.

Nobody on the left that I have ever seen (and feel free to prove me wrong on this with examples) is calling for sharia, or saying the likes of ISIS are ok. It seems like anyone asking for a more nuanced approach to the current problems (oh look, I even acknowledged that problems exist!) than "SEND EM BACK" is liable to be labelled an islamist apologist. When dealing with such complex issues regarding the lives of real people, I really don't think it's too much to ask for a bit of care in how things are worded, or at least not be offended by a request for clarification of ambiguous statements.

stunmer · 06-10-2015 9:44pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A bitter, hateful, nasty, spiteful comment.

I had to look this up.

Dawkins responded to a photo of the woman and said she "had one of the most stupid faces he had ever seen". Maybe she had a stupid face in the photo. Maybe he was bitter. Hardly hateful.

I'm not going to say Dawkins doesn't make mistakes but to say he has hatred towards people or is racist is to unfairly describe him.

Senile Richard Dawkins falls deeper into the rabbit hole of popular hatred

Comments