nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

robindch

During last month's atheist conference in the Alexander Hotel, it seems that some guy invited Rebecca Watson for a coffee back in his room. At four in the morning. While the two of them were alone together in the lift going up. Watson declined, nothing further happened and the two went their separate ways when the lift doors opened. Those are the facts as far as I'm aware of them.

PZ blogged about it, Dawkins sounded off in the comments section, Watson went nuclear. And now, it's gone viral, even earning a post on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.

Now, I've no idea what happened in the elevator and I suspect that at least one of the participants had a few drinks aboard. But while Dawkin's initial sarcastic response was dumb and unhelpful, the ensuing mad fracas seems to be completely out of all proportion to what actually happened.

Anybody else been following this?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MrStuffins

I hope they don't serve coffee on the escalators!

Turtwig

MrStuffins wrote: »

I hope they don't serve coffee on the escalators!

If they are sponsored by Illy or Domus they just might.
(1st prize)

Oranage2

I'm not one to slander or throw out crazy accusations but it's nice to know that your non-spiritual leader advocates sexual assault.

But I'm not surprised, one google of Rebecca Watson and it ll becomes clear.

Rebecca looks a like a nice young lady though probably naive and easily lead, girls like her are vulnerable and by looking for acceptance would perhaps fornicate with a man she'd perceive with a great social standing in the quest to find this acceptance - So what I'm saying is this may possibly be the type of girl Dawkins would perhaps prey on.* Just a theory now.

Also I'd have my concerns over this Dawkins fellow. He has basically commercialized the belief of nothing. Like how many books can you write disproving a God?

Well a quick Wiki search shows me he's wrote many. Seems quite extensive no?

For example some people here say they believe in a spaghetti monster(some sort of satire I'm sure), but I dont, in fact I think it would be stupid to believe that, and how many books have I read to disprove a spaghetti monster....None!

How many conventions have I gone to to disprove a spaghetti monster?
Again none so thats why I'd suspect these 'God denier speakers' just want to get the proverbial 'leg over'.

Just goes to show what type of scam Atheism really is!!!

*I'm not saying he does do it just saying its a possibility.

MrStuffins

robindch

Oranage2 wrote: »

a spaghetti monster (some sort of satire I'm sure)

You're on form today, Oranage!

MagicMarker

Ah, I see Oranage2's uncanny ability to post utter bollocks doesn't diminish with time.

[Deleted User]

was he drunk too?

Dades

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also I'd have my concerns over this Dawkins fellow. He has basically commercialized the belief of nothing. Like how many books can you write disproving a God?

Well a quick Wiki search shows me he's wrote many.

With the exception of The God Delusion, all his books focus on popular science and evolutionary biology.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Seems quite extensive no?

Not unless you consider "1" extensive.

Sarky

Why does this forum never get any good trolls?

Galvasean

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not one to slander or throw out crazy accusations

Hmmm....

Oranage2 wrote:

but it's nice to know that your non-spiritual leader advocates sexual assault.

stevejazzx

Sarky wrote: »

Why does this forum never get any good trolls?

This is a forum of people who can spot bullsh1t a mile off...most trolls fail on the application form

cianisgood

yeah dawkins can come off a bit smug or sarcastic which can be funny sometimes but all it takes is saying the wrong thing at the wrong time and it can blow up in your face

Galvasean

cianisgood wrote: »

yeah dawkins can come off a bit smug or sarcastic which can be funny sometimes but all it takes is saying the wrong thing at the wrong time and it can blow up in your face

*splat*

strobe

Sarky wrote: »

Why does this forum never get any good trolls?

Or maybe if atheists weren't so smug they'd be able to get over themselves and take a joke.

MrStuffins

strobe wrote: »

Or maybe if atheists weren't so smug they'd be able to get over themselves and take a joke.

Yup! Bloody atheists! They should be more like religious people, who are of course famous for their ability to take mentions of their beliefs as a joke!

I pray I can be more like them!

A Primal Nut

This story is crazy and Richard Dawkins is 100% right.

There is nothing sexist about asking a girl to come for coffee at 4 in the morning. Fair play for him being confident enough. Some women will say yes and would be happy about it, some would say no. If women are really sexually liberated, they shouldn't be so conservative as to be offended by something like this.

If a girl fancies a guy she will say yes and say he is charming. If she doesn't fancy him she will say no and say he was creepy. It doesn't matter if it's the middle of the day or middle of the night.

Dades

bnt

A Primal Nut wrote: »

This story is crazy and Richard Dawkins is 100% right.

What bothers me is not whether he was "right" or not. He didn't have to say anything at all, and it would have been better had he just kept his hands off the keyboard that day.

I stopped trying to analyse or explain human feelings years ago, except where it's understood all round to be a bit of fun. Rebecca felt the way she felt, and it's not for me, or Dawkins, or anyone else, to tell her her feelings were invalid. If there's any analysis to be done, it's for her to do, with a professional therapist if she has one.

robindch

bnt wrote: »

it's not for me, or Dawkins, or anyone else, to tell her her feelings were invalid. If there's any analysis to be done, it's for her to do, with a professional therapist if she has one.

I agree with that. Though I should point out (without wishing to open this thread much more) that the issue that many (most?) people had with Watson wasn't what she said at the start, but subsequent inflammatory and disjunctive comments she made about the rest of the world's atheists and skeptics, and males in general -- they did little to increase the world's reserves of good karma.

blatantrereg

Women say stuff like that to men too. There's nothing sexist about it. Her response to it is highly sexist.

Dawkins reply is just a pile of **** though.

Sarky

A couple of years ago at a convention a nice lady offered to jump my bones to save money on a hotel room for the weekend.

Probably not terribly relevant, but it's a story that always cheers me up.

Corkfeen

Sarky wrote: »

A couple of years ago at a convention a nice lady offered to jump my bones to save money on a hotel room for the weekend.

Probably not terribly relevant, but it's a story that always cheers me up.

Two questions, was she hot and what was your response? Maybe she just wanted coffee....

Dades

Corkfeen wrote: »

Two questions, was she hot and what was your response? Maybe she just wanted coffee....

Did you not read Sarky's blog post about the incident and witness the ensuing Internet kerfuffle? :pac:

"Roomgate" caused a huge online schism!

Sarky

By a happy coincidence that hotel kept each room stocked with a kettle, teabags and coffee for every guest, so win-win really.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

A couple of years ago at a convention a nice lady offered to jump my bones to save money on a hotel room for the weekend.

Probably not terribly relevant, but it's a story that always cheers me up.

Does the story have a happy ending?

Hobbes

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not one to slander or throw out crazy accusations

Digging up year old thread + poorly done troll. I give you 2 out of 10, but only because you posted a nice picture.

robindch

It looked for a second last night that Crawley was going to raise elevatorgate, but he didn't. But the topic did come up later in conversation in the pub and dropping by skepchick later on, it turns out that Watson has announced that she's not going to TAM this year:

Watson wrote:

(Blog) I will not attend TAM this year, because I do not feel welcomed or safe and I disagree strongly with the recent actions of the JREF president, DJ Grothe. [...] (from USA Today) “I thought it was a safe space,” Watson said of the freethought community. “The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space. . . ”[...] (Blog) Over the past several years, I’ve been groped, grabbed, touched in other nonconsensual ways, told I can expect to be raped, told I’m a whore, a slut, a bitch, a prude, a dyke, a cunt, a twat, told I should watch my back at conferences, told I’m too ugly to be raped, told I don’t have a say in my own treatment because I’ve posed for sexy photos, told I should get a better headshot because that one doesn’t convey how sexy I am in person, told I deserve to be raped – by skeptics and atheists. All by skeptics and atheists. Constantly.

Oddly, 40% of last year's TAM attendees were women, while this year, it's only 18% so far. Without a whole lot more information + analysis, it's impossible to know whether the low percentage is connected in any way with Watson's activities over the last year and her continuously disparaging and disjunctive comments about the guys in the skeptic and atheist communities. Though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they are.

MagicMarker

Does she offer any context about all those things that are said to her? Sounds strange...

UDP

I'm skeptical about what she says...

fisgon

robindch wrote: »

It looked for a second last night that Crawley was going to raise elevatorgate, but he didn't. But the topic did come up later in conversation in the pub and dropping by skepchick later on, it turns out that Watson has announced that she's not going to TAM this year:Oddly, 40% of last year's TAM attendees were women, while this year, it's only 18% so far. Without a whole lot more information + analysis, it's impossible to know whether the low percentage is connected in any way with Watson's activities over the last year and her continuously disparaging and disjunctive comments about the guys in the skeptic and atheist communities. Though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they are.

If what she says is true than there is obviously an issue and something that needs to be talked about. Her comments are not disparaging if they reflect a reality that she has experienced. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss her concerns. If these things have been said to her it's pretty sickening.