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

biko

Dawkins hates religion.
He has no time for Islam nor Judaism, Christianity, nor any other religion..
But he doesn't hate Muslims.

Fleawuss

Vomit wrote: »

I can criticise whomever I want, and I don't have to wait for Dawkins to do it first. He is not my leader. Yes, I am actually an atheist who doesn't like Dawkins!

An invitation to pretend.

KingBrian2

Vomit wrote: »

No, they were criticising a new convenient group of people who disagree with them, who they call, "Regressive Leftists", and decrying the supposed lack of free speech in Universities to spread their brand of back-door hatred.

By a new group you mean Islamist apologists.

Mark Tapley

Vomit wrote: »

I can criticise whomever I want, and I don't have to wait for Dawkins to do it first. He is not my leader. Yes, I am actually an atheist who doesn't like Dawkins!

What has that got to with my point that you are being hypocritical?

Vomit

KingBrian2 wrote: »

By a new group you mean Islamist apologists.

Nope...

One eyed Jack

Vomit wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

My last shred of respect for Dawkins has finally disappeared. Here we have two 'heroes' of popular media...

It's not a new word (as I'm not at all as clever as Dawkins or Maher, or Harris who coined the 'regressive leftists' term), but I think Father Jack hit the nail on the head in identifying those two sniffing each other's arse holes -

Vomit

Mark Tapley wrote: »

What has that got to with my point that you are being hypocritical?

In the post you quoted, I was referring to the sociological issues of my own country, not inciting widespread hatred of every single Catholic. I'm against that kind of sh*t. On the other hand, it is popular and fashionable to hate Muslims. It infects every crevice of our social conversation. Just look at the reasons given by right-wing commentators for turning away Syrians. (Hint: it's their religion)

Eugene Norman

Vomit wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

My last shred of respect for Dawkins has finally disappeared. Here we have two 'heroes' of popular media knocking over some nicely placed strawmen, creating a new concept from their asses, the "Regressive Leftist" and giving each other a pretty cringy and congratulatory 69 over having both recognised and named this concept. *Applause* Let's hear it for these heroes of the intelligentsia! Bravo.

These two men have totally different reasons for hating Muslims. Dawkins is politically unaware, only caring about the ivory tower atheist agenda, and Bill Maher is using him. In this clip, Maher looks like he's struggling to appear calm and intellectual- you can almost see the dummy within waiting to make a quip about the 47 virgins.

Truly frightening how this kind of conservative attitude is masquerading as progressive- conflating Islam with jihadism and extremism. There are literally billions of peaceful Muslims and guess what- they have a right to be Muslim if they want!! Every 'era' has a group of people in the spotlight of 'acceptable hatred' - how about this once we stand up, as real liberals, and say ENOUGH! Muslims are ordinary people FFS! They are not all bearded men in caves plotting against the rest of us.

Bottom line- you cannot bully and harrass people into believing like you believe! Let's examine the 'racism' part-- turns out a great majority of Muslims are in/from the middle-east, and by a totally unrelated co-incidence, we (in the west) are at war with them and are occupying their countries. I wonder why we've turned on them! Oh right...they are trrrrrrrists!

Damn these men. And Bill Maher- the tw*t who applauds every time Israel carpet bombs thousands of children. If anyone gets a free pass, it's THAT country. Why? Well, because they are just another white European colony "civilising" a lesser people.

History..same sh*t, over and over...

Where were you lads when Dawkins was pissing over Catholicism. Another minority religion in both the UK and the US. Nowhere. And rightly so, since it deserved a kicking. But now the poor Islamics are getting a bit of Dawkins lip and we are nearly at a holocaust

Nonsense I say.

inocybe

If you believe Richard Dawkins is senile why are you upset about anything he says?

Vomit

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Where were you lads when Dawkins was pissing over Catholicism. Another minority religion in both the UK and the US. Nowhere. And rightly so, since it deserved a kicking. But now the poor Islamics are getting a bit of Dawkins lip and we are nearly at a holocaust

Nonsense I say.

I like your down-to-earth colloquial delivery- makes your view seem like common sense!

wes

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Where were you lads when Dawkins was pissing over Catholicism. Another minority religion in both the UK and the US. Nowhere. And rightly so, since it deserved a kicking. But now the poor Islamics are getting a bit of Dawkins lip and we are nearly at a holocaust

Nonsense I say.

Did Dawkins ever have a go at a 14 year old Catholic kid for bringing a clock to school? Doubly bad because the man is scientist and came off sounding like a conspiracy nutter in his tweets against that kid.

Same goes for Maher who also had a go at that kid, with his frankly appalling bull**** he spouted about him.

When you have wealthy old men using there considerable influence to go after a 14 year old kid who did nothing wrong, then we are far beyond criticism of Religion, and are in irrational conspiracy theory territory.

Both of these men have made fools of themselves, and it hard to take there criticism as being based on a criticism of religion, when they embrace conspiracy theory nonsense against a 14 year solely due to his religion.

Vomit

biko wrote: »

Dawkins hates religion.
He has no time for Islam nor Judaism, Christianity, nor any other religion..
But he doesn't hate Muslims.

But Bill Maher does, and Dawkins should know better than to associate with morons like him.

Mark Tapley

Vomit wrote: »

In the post you quoted, I was referring to the sociological issues of my own country, not inciting widespread hatred of every single Catholic. I'm against that kind of sh*t. On the other hand, it is popular and fashionable to hate Muslims. It infects every crevice of our social conversation. Just look at the reasons given by right-wing commentators for turning away Syrians. (Hint: it's their religion)

Could you supply a link where Dawkins says he hates muslims? After all isnt he the topic of this thread. Fashionable to hate muslims not in my experience. Perhaps I dont spend enough time with arsèholes.

Eugene Norman

Vomit wrote: »

In the post you quoted, I was referring to the sociological issues of my own country, not inciting widespread hatred of every single Catholic. I'm against that kind of sh*t. On the other hand, it is popular and fashionable to hate Muslims. It infects every crevice of our social conversation. Just look at the reasons given by right-wing commentators for turning away Syrians. (Hint: it's their religion)

Dawkins clearly attacks Islam not "all Muslims". And it's a good deal more popular and fashionably to hate Catholicism than Islam. The evidence for that is you not hating Islam.

If there's any example of fashion-think its attacking Catholicism and crying racism when Islam ( not Muslims) is attacked. In pretty much all of the criteria fashionable leftists claim to believe in , gay rights, women's rights etc. Islam in practice is vastly more problematic than Catholicism and even evangelical Christianity. Both the latter are fashionable to attack.

Dawkins is trained as a scientist. If he attacks religion A and doesn't attack religion B ( B being worse) then he would feel like a fraud.

That kind of cognitive dissidence and insane logic doesn't work with scientifically trained minds but with the fashion thinking of certain types of cultural leftism.

KingBrian2

Vomit wrote: »

In the post you quoted, I was referring to the sociological issues of my own country, not inciting widespread hatred of every single Catholic. I'm against that kind of sh*t. On the other hand, it is popular and fashionable to hate Muslims. It infects every crevice of our social conversation. Just look at the reasons given by right-wing commentators for turning away Syrians. (Hint: it's their religion)

Catholic, Islamic and Israeli extremism are all disreputable ideologies as bad ad Nazism, Stalinism and Crony Capitalism. No place in society period. Free speech, love for your fellow citizen and country and a devotion to your beliefs and passions are sacrosanct. Those other ideologies are incompatible with these values. Liberty, Fraternity and Equality.

Eugene Norman

wes wrote: »

Did Dawkins ever have a go at a 14 year old Catholic kid for bringing a clock to school? Doubly bad because the man is scientist and came off sounding like a conspiracy nutter in his tweets against that kid.

Same goes for Maher who also had a go at that kid, with his frankly appalling bull**** he spouted about him.

When you have wealthy old men using there considerable influence to go after a 14 year old kid who did nothing wrong, then we are far beyond criticism of Religion, and are in irrational conspiracy theory territory.

Both of these men have made fools of themselves, and it hard to take there criticism as being based on a criticism of religion, when they embrace conspiracy theory nonsense against a 14 year solely due to his religion.

He definitely attacked individual Catholics as frauds and particularly attacked the last Pope.

The clock thing is massively under emphasised. He tweets a lot. He apologised later.

You know what really turned people against Dawkins? The ludicrous elevator incident

Vomit

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Dawkins clearly attacks Islam not "all Muslims". And it's a good deal more popular and fashionably to hate Catholicism than Islam. The evidence for that is you not hating Islam.

If there's any example of fashion-think its attacking Catholicism and crying racism when Islam ( not Muslims) is attacked. In pretty much all of the criteria fashionable leftists claim to believe in , gay rights, women's rights etc. Islam in practice is vastly more problematic than Catholicism and even evangelical Christianity. Both the latter are fashionable to attack.

Dawkins is trained as a scientist. If he attacks religion A and doesn't attack religion B ( B being worse) then he would feel like a fraud.

That kind of cognitive dissidence and insane logic doesn't work with scientifically trained minds but with the fashion thinking of certain types of cultural leftism.

I don't know or care about those issues- I'm not fashionable, trust me. And the term you're searching for is "Cognitive Dissonance".

Fleawuss

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Is it any wonder given comment such as the following:



I don't believe in the Santa Claus, but you don't hear me going on and on about it, especially with venom for those that do.

And it's not just cause they all tend to be kids either. That's of minor consequence.

So why listen to him. Change channel. And if people are so sick of him why start another thread about him and inflict him on more people. Contradiction in terms. Take it to the atheist forum or the Christianity or Islam. If he's so offensive why amplify further; unless it serves some hidden agenda.

Vomit

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Catholic, Islamic and Israeli extremism are all disreputable ideologies as bad ad Nazism, Stalinism and Crony Capitalism. No place in society period. Free speech, love for your fellow citizen and country and a devotion to your beliefs and passions are sacrosanct. Those other ideologies are incompatible with these values. Liberty, Fraternity and Equality.

Who's talking about extremism????

wes

Eugene Norman wrote: »

He definitely attacked individual Catholics as frauds and particularly attacked the last Pope.

Attacking the Pope and a 14 year old kid is not comparable at all. He attacked the Pope, a man with a great deal of wealth and power.

Going after a 14 year old kid, is not even in the same league, and what he went after him for had nothing to do with religious criticism either btw.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The clock thing is massively under emphasised. He tweets a lot. He apologised later.

Its good that he apologized, but come on, he is well respected scientist, surely he must have known, how bad spouting a bizarre conspiracy rant against some kid would look.

Not to mention that this kind of thinking would discourage kids from science from minority back grounds, if there going to be arrested (not to mention in this case the 14 year old kids rights were violated, by not having a parent present), have your rights violated, and be suspended from school for no reason, and have the police (who broke the law by violating his rights) still leaving open the threat of prosecution.

It was however good to see President Obama and various other voices in the US support this kid, which is something a scientist like Dawkins should have been a part of.

Pherekydes

What is this vomit?

Technocentral

Vomit wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

My last shred of respect for Dawkins has finally disappeared. Here we have two 'heroes' of popular media knocking over some nicely placed strawmen, creating a new concept from their asses, the "Regressive Leftist" and giving each other a pretty cringy and congratulatory 69 over having both recognised and named this concept. *Applause* Let's hear it for these heroes of the intelligentsia! Bravo.

These two men have totally different reasons for hating Muslims. Dawkins is politically unaware, only caring about the ivory tower atheist agenda, and Bill Maher is using him. In this clip, Maher looks like he's struggling to appear calm and intellectual- you can almost see the dummy within waiting to make a quip about the 47 virgins.

Truly frightening how this kind of conservative attitude is masquerading as progressive- conflating Islam with jihadism and extremism. There are literally billions of peaceful Muslims and guess what- they have a right to be Muslim if they want!! Every 'era' has a group of people in the spotlight of 'acceptable hatred' - how about this once we stand up, as real liberals, and say ENOUGH! Muslims are ordinary people FFS! They are not all bearded men in caves plotting against the rest of us.

Bottom line- you cannot bully and harrass people into believing like you believe! Let's examine the 'racism' part-- turns out a great majority of Muslims are in/from the middle-east, and by a totally unrelated co-incidence, we (in the west) are at war with them and are occupying their countries. I wonder why we've turned on them! Oh right...they are trrrrrrrists!

Damn these men. And Bill Maher- the tw*t who applauds every time Israel carpet bombs thousands of children. If anyone gets a free pass, it's THAT country. Why? Well, because they are just another white European colony "civilising" a lesser people.

History..same sh*t, over and over...

you wouldn't last pissing time in an intelligent debate with 'senile" Dawkins, he'd "own you" forthwith.

Vomit

Technocentral wrote: »

you wouldn't last pissing time in an intelligent debate with 'senile" Dawkins, he'd "own you" forthwith.

I'd probably beat you though.

Eugene Norman

Vomit wrote: »

I don't know or care about those issues- I'm not fashionable, trust me. And the term you're searching for is "Cognitive Dissonance".

I know the term.

Technocentral

Vomit wrote: »

I'd probably beat you though.

Thanks for linking to that piece hadn't heard of it if you hadn't, how dare they stand up for free speech and liberal secular values eh? Burn them at the stake!!
Mahers bit at the end about solidarity with gays, blacks and Latino workers was particularly disgusting, what a Nazi eh?

Mark Tapley

Vomit wrote: »

I'd probably beat you though.

I dont think you could beat your way out of a hijab. Correcting peoples spelling and not giving coherent answers to points put to you is pretty poor. I get it you think Dawkins is an islamophobe and islam is the best thing since sliced bread.

One eyed Jack

Technocentral wrote: »

you wouldn't last pissing time in an intelligent debate with 'senile" Dawkins, he'd "own you" forthwith.

Wouldn't that depend upon what standards you're using to measure intelligence?

An intellectual debate on the other hand...

Well that would depend upon the subject being debated, you'll notice Dawkins remains uncharacteristically silent while Maher lists the causes they as liberals support. Dawkins was never a strong supporter of anything other than promoting atheism, and his ideas about encouraging intelligent atheists to 'come out', weren't even his own either, he borrowed that notion from the LGBT community.

Vomit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wouldn't that depend upon what standards you're using to measure intelligence?

An intellectual debate on the other hand...

Well that would depend upon the subject being debated, you'll notice Dawkins remains uncharacteristically silent while Maher lists the causes they as liberals support. Dawkins was never a strong supporter of anything other than promoting atheism, and his ideas about encouraging intelligent atheists to 'come out', weren't even his own either, he borrowed that notion from the LGBT community.

Yes, this is a point I've made in the past- ivory tower atheism is ALL that Dawkins cares about nowadays, and it doesn't matter to him who he associates with or who or what he appears to support. A little awareness would go a long way with Dawkins, but he's in his own bubble.

lawlolawl

I love that Dawkins breaks religious people by making them look so utterly foolish that they have to attack every single thing that he does "wrong".

Sorry guys, he has come up with numerous extensively explained reasons as to why you are basically children believing in Santy Claus.

A perfectly reasonable man living in a world full of buffoons.

Donkey Oaty

Vomit wrote: »

it doesn't matter to him who he associates with or who or what he appears to support.

:pac: