Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Andrew Brown on Dawkins

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    iMyself wrote: »
    I think he is perfectly entitled to ridicule and mock people who believe in wacky crazy stuff, i.e. all religion.

    I was watching the 9 o'clock news and there was a cardinal (or maybe a bishop, not sure) talking about the pending abortion legislation while dressed up like St Patrick, staff stick and all. It was a very wtf moment, am I the only one who finds this outrageous that a clown like this is not only getting air time talking about legislation and our constitution, but he also has a strong say in it?! I would really love to dress up as a clown, walk up beside him, put my arm around him and imitate everything he says, maybe then people might get a sense of what I see.

    No, I absolutely agree 100% with Richard Dawkins. People like this need to be mocked and ridiculed and most definitely should not be in a position where they can spread their bullsh!t through the media.

    You sound like a Reddit Atheist.

    Are you one of those ?


  • Options
    #33
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Geomy wrote: »
    You sound like a Reddit Atheist.

    Are you one of those ?

    What's a reddit atheist?:confused:


  • Options
    #34
    iMyself
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭iMyself


    Geomy wrote: »
    You sound like a Reddit Atheist.

    Are you one of those ?

    Can't say I'm familiar with the term.


  • Options
    #35
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Nodin wrote: »
    By which standard Isaac newton would have been put in an asylum.

    If he was around now with the beliefs he held then, perhaps rightly so.

    Dawkins has often been overly blunt. It seems to just be his style. Personally, I quite enjoy it. Not everyone has the tip-of-the-tongue verbal dexterity of Hitch or the general calmness of Sam Harris but he is consistent.


  • Options
    #36
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I'm somewhat on the fence here. Yes, I do believe that if people believe in stupid/crazy things they shouldn't be exempt from criticism and indeed, ridicule. However, I think Dawkins should pick his battles. If Mehdi Hasan isn't letting his personal beliefs, however wacky, influence his work that's fine by me and I'd be inclined to give him a free pass as he's not doing any harm. For me, this is a far cry from say the IONA Institute or some bishop actively campaigning, on behalf of their religious beliefs, to limit the rights of others.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I'm somewhat on the fence here. Yes, I do believe that if people believe in stupid/crazy things they shouldn't be exempt from criticism and indeed, ridicule. However, I think Dawkins should pick his battles. If Mehdi Hasan isn't letting his personal beliefs, however wacky, influence his work that's fine by me and I'd be inclined to give him a free pass as he's not doing any harm. For me, this is a far cry from say the IONA Institute or some bishop actively campaigning, on behalf of their religious beliefs, to limit the rights of others.

    I don't know, it sort of seems like a double standard to me. On this forum we've often had religious apologists citing papers, books etc on various subjects only for people to google the name of the "scholar", find that he's an evangelical or something and dismiss him out of hand often without ever even having read the literature.

    That we're happy to see "this guy's religion isn't influencing his work" simply because his views on a few things happen to fall in line with something we largely agree with is a bit presumptuous.


  • Options
    #38
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,397 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    iMyself wrote: »
    I think he is perfectly entitled to ridicule and mock people who believe in wacky crazy stuff, i.e. all religion.

    I was watching the 9 o'clock news and there was a cardinal (or maybe a bishop, not sure) talking about the pending abortion legislation while dressed up like St Patrick, staff stick and all. It was a very wtf moment, am I the only one who finds this outrageous that a clown like this is not only getting air time talking about legislation and our constitution, but he also has a strong say in it?! I would really love to dress up as a clown, walk up beside him, put my arm around him and imitate everything he says, maybe then people might get a sense of what I see.

    No, I absolutely agree 100% with Richard Dawkins. People like this need to be mocked and ridiculed and most definitely should not be in a position where they can spread their bullsh!t through the media.

    And again, that's why I think Dawkins was wrong. There is no indication whatsoever that Hasan's personal beliefs would in any way affect his job as a journalist. If he was hired to write opinion pieces, then yes, maybe his religion would affect that, in which case NS would have known that and hired him with that knowledge. If he's just writing normal articles, his personal beliefs simply do not matter. He can't spread bullsh*t through the media, because it wouldn't make it past the editors etc.

    I don't respect religious beliefs, but I respect people's freedom to have religious beliefs. If their religious beliefs have no impact on their job, then their religious beliefs would not be a factor in whether or not they should be hired for that job.

    It's like the Dunnes case where the woman couldn't wear a hijab at work because of their uniform policy. In that case (in my opinion), her religious beliefs meant she couldn't comply with the uniform policy, and so she couldn't fulfill the job requirements. If Hasan's beliefs do not affect his ability to fulfill the job requirements, then his beliefs do not matter.


  • Options
    #39
    Sycopat
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    Jernal wrote: »
    What's a reddit atheist?:confused:

    AFAICT, the denizens of r/atheism have a reputation for being super-confrontational.

    Seemingly because of a tendency to use their subreddit to post atheist memes.


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    keane2097 wrote: »
    We're happy to criticise Iona for pontificating on laws citing their religious beliefs as reasons they're unqualified to make judgements.


    ...on matters related to same, because they're seeking to impose their values on us.

    Yer man is not the muslim David Quinn.


  • Options
    #41
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMyself wrote: »

    No, I absolutely agree 100% with Richard Dawkins. People like this need to be mocked and ridiculed and most definitely should not be in a position where they can spread their bullsh!t through the media.


    ....give us a few examples of this lad spreading his "bull****" if ye would.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,397 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sycopat wrote: »
    AFAICT, the denizens of r/atheism have a reputation for being super-confrontational.

    Seemingly because of a tendency to use their subreddit to post atheist memes.

    Funnily enough, this is from today:

    http://i.imgur.com/uAp5kcR.jpg?1

    tl;dr - 4chan took a quote from Hitler about faith, made it look like Dawkins said it, and loads of people on the atheism subreddit posted saying how brilliant a quote it was and basically how smart Dawkins is. Original thread seems to have been deleted from the atheism subreddit since it was revealed to be from Hitler


  • Options
    #43
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...on matters related to same, because they're seeking to impose their values on us.

    Yer man is not the muslim David Quinn.

    I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying he was. I'm simply saying it's disingenuous to ignore the religious nonsense people who agree with you believe in while using the same nonsense as a reason to dismiss ad hominem the opinions of people who disagree with.

    I guarantee if he were to write an article on why abortion should be illegal people would immediately dismiss it as being religiously motivated regardless of whether his article referenced his religion or not.


  • Options
    #44
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    keane2097 wrote: »
    I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying he was. I'm simply saying it's disingenuous to ignore the religious nonsense people who agree with you believe in while using the same nonsense as a reason to dismiss ad hominem the opinions of people who disagree with.
    .
    You seem to be confusing a man with religous belief who works as a political journalist with a man who campaigns on the basis of his religous beliefs.

    keane2097 wrote: »
    I guarantee if he were to write an article on why abortion should be illegal people would immediately dismiss it as being religiously motivated regardless of whether his article referenced his religion or not.

    How would we do that if it didn't use a religous argument and he didn't refer to it? Is there some vetting committee that hands out certs on the matter?


  • Options
    #45
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I'm somewhat on the fence here. Yes, I do believe that if people believe in stupid/crazy things they shouldn't be exempt from criticism and indeed, ridicule. However, I think Dawkins should pick his battles. If Mehdi Hasan isn't letting his personal beliefs, however wacky, influence his work that's fine by me and I'd be inclined to give him a free pass as he's not doing any harm. For me, this is a far cry from say the IONA Institute or some bishop actively campaigning, on behalf of their religious beliefs, to limit the rights of others.
    Hasan is a frequent commentator on Muslim issues and is probably the most high profile British devout Muslim journalists. So it's not a case of Dawkins attacking him just for being Muslim, the guy has dubious views and airs them in public.

    I'd imagine videos like the ones below puts in Dawkins' sights. Hasan saying Mulsims have the moral high-ground and accusing non-Muslims of living like animals;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hpfqFt-0Q

    Atheists are people of no intelligence;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APAPqT3QdFU


  • Options
    #46
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Nodin wrote: »
    You seem to be confusing a man with religous belief who works as a political journalist with a man who campaigns on the basis of his religous beliefs.

    John Waters then, if you can't manage the slight modification to the analogy yourself.
    Nodin wrote: »
    How would we do that if it didn't use a religous argument and he didn't refer to it? Is there some vetting committee that hands out certs on the matter?

    I didn't say it would be justified, but past performance would indicate it would happen.


  • Options
    #47
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,397 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    keane2097 wrote: »
    John Waters then, if you can't manage the slight modification to the analogy yourself.

    It's still an inaccurate analogy because John Waters writes opinion pieces. His articles are specifically designed to be a reflection of his opinion.


  • Options
    #48
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    How many journalists writing about sports, the arts, business etc. believe the Creator of all of space and time sent his son to the Middle East as a sacrifice to pay a debt to himself, and watches and listens to our every thought keeping a ledger so he can punish or reward us?

    Just as bonkers but we don't judge their worthiness to contribute to a publication all the same.


  • Options
    #49
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Penn wrote: »
    It's still an inaccurate analogy because John Waters writes opinion pieces. His articles are specifically designed to be a reflection of his opinion.

    As opposed to what? Hassan's articles in the New Statesman are riddled with opinion, what else could political commentary be?


  • Options
    #50
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Penn wrote: »
    It's still an inaccurate analogy because John Waters writes opinion pieces. His articles are specifically designed to be a reflection of his opinion.

    Hasan writes opinion pieces too.
    Guardian columns
    Staggers blogs
    HuffPo blogs


  • Options
    #51
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Dades wrote: »
    How many journalists writing about sports, the arts, business etc. believe the Creator of all of space and time sent his son to the Middle East as a sacrifice to pay a debt to himself, and watches and listens to our every thought keeping a ledger so he can punish or reward us?

    Just as bonkers but we don't judge their worthiness to contribute to a publication all the same.

    That's actually a good example of the type of thing I'm talking about, take a stroll over to the GAA or Soccer forum and you'll find myriad examples of people ignoring the fact that I'm a Kerry fan or an Arsenal fan when I agree with them, only to immediately accuse me to be intrinsically biased and incapable of making a rational judgement the moment I speak negatively about Dublin or Liverpool or whatever.

    Similarly on this forum, it seems we're happy to give a guy a pass when he's agreeing with us, but similarly absurd beliefs are typically set upon when someone says something we don't agree with.

    It's pretty hypocritical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Jernal wrote: »
    What's a reddit atheist?:confused:

    Google it,I came across it somewhat by accident.

    They're quite cool,like modern day breakers lol


  • Options
    #53
    iMyself
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭iMyself


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....give us a few examples of this lad spreading his "bull****" if ye would.
    That depends, are you implying what he is spreading is not bull**** or are you implying that he keeps his bull**** to himself?

    http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/12/god-best-answer-why-there-something-rather-nothing


  • Options
    #54
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,275 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    robindch wrote: »
    Probably the same aim that most scientists work towards - to make the world a better, safer place.

    But the vast majority of people of faith would welcome any scientific developments that make the world a better place, surely?

    They aren't mutally exclusive.


  • Options
    #55
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,397 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Rascasse wrote: »
    Hasan writes opinion pieces too.
    Guardian columns
    Staggers blogs
    HuffPo blogs

    Okay, fair enough. But then what I said earlier in the thread holds true:
    Penn wrote: »
    If he was hired to write opinion pieces, then yes, maybe his religion would affect that, in which case NS would have known that and hired him with that knowledge.


  • Options
    #56
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    iMyself wrote: »
    That depends, are you implying what he is spreading is not bull**** or are you implying that he keeps his bull**** to himself?

    http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/12/god-best-answer-why-there-something-rather-nothing

    It's a blog entry. The interweb is rife with blog entries brimming with stuff some people would consider nonsense.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #57
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Rascasse wrote: »
    Hasan is a frequent commentator on Muslim issues and is probably the most high profile British devout Muslim journalists. So it's not a case of Dawkins attacking him just for being Muslim, the guy has dubious views and airs them in public.

    I'd imagine videos like the ones below puts in Dawkins' sights. Hasan saying Mulsims have the moral high-ground and accusing non-Muslims of living like animals;
    .......

    Cherry picked from a speech against muslim radicals....


  • Options
    #58
    iMyself
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭iMyself


    koth wrote: »
    It's a blog entry. The interweb is rife with blog entries brimming with stuff some people would consider nonsense.
    It's published on the New statesman website. Doesn't matter if its a blog or not and the fact that it is his direct response to Dawkins makes it even more relevant.


  • Options
    #59
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Nodin wrote: »
    Cherry picked from a speech against muslim radicals....

    He still said it and as a devout Muslim believes it, just as he does the winged horse nonsense.

    I fail to see what the controversy is here. Guy says something to Dawkins that he finds funny, he tweets it, lefties get knickers in twist as they don't like seeing their mate ridiculed. Non story.


  • Options
    #60
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    iMyself wrote: »
    It's published on the New statesman website. Doesn't matter if its a blog or not and the fact that it is his direct response to Dawkins makes it even more relevant.

    But a blog is just an opinion piece. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to express his personal opinion on his NewStatesMan blog?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    iMyself
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭iMyself


    koth wrote: »
    But a blog is just an opinion piece. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to express his personal opinion on his NewStatesMan blog?
    His personal opinion about a New statesman interview he made? I'm not sure what your point is?! Can everyone start a New Statesman blog? I don't think they can. So clearly he is using his position to spread his religious nonsense. Calling it a blog doesn't change anything.


Advertisement