Atheist Civil War: Angry Feminists Get Richard Dawkins Disinvited from Skeptics' Conference

[FloatingFatMan]

53 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

you're developing an apostles behaviour. He's only a man, and not very good at it, by the looks of it.

Nope. I don't follow ANYone like that, not even my favourite bands or scientists. The "fanboy" behaviour doesn't exist in my psyche.  I might enjoy listening to some people, I might comment about them, but "apostle" behaviour? Not a chance. 

 

I've listened to maybe 6 or 7 of Dawkin's interviews/lectures, most of them fairly old. If he's going off the deep end in his more recent stuff, well... meh... Senility hits everyone sooner or later.

[Noir Angel]

1 hour ago, DocM said:

1) don't watch Fox 

2) recovering Democrat

 

Atheists have reported this too, so go argue with them.

 

Ex: Adam Lee in The Guardian

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

 

Rebecca Watson in Slate

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html

Oh so, left wing SJW outlets tell lies. Then all of a sudden they start bashing atheists and just like magic  you're suddenly lapping up their crap like a cat around a saucer of milk. Hmm, I wonder what could possibly be going on here.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

There was a previous attack on Atheism called "Atheism+" - some of that may be related to it. The short and long of it was "Atheism is sexist - join Atheism+ and talk about your sexuality and non-binary nature with fellow teenagers" or something mind numbing like that.

 

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Please provide evidence. Islamism is fundamentally opposed to western feminism.

To google!

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks/

http://www.infowars.com/feminists-denounce-german-born-men-after-migrant-sex-attacks/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/07/feminists-blame-german-born-men-for-mass-sex-attacks-apease-migrants/

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

3 minutes ago, _Alexander said:

There was a previous attack on Atheism called "Atheism+" - some of that may be related to it. The short and long of it was "Atheism is sexist - join Atheism+ and talk about your sexuality and non-binary nature with fellow teenagers" or something mind numbing like that.

 

To google!

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks/

http://www.infowars.com/feminists-denounce-german-born-men-after-migrant-sex-attacks/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/07/feminists-blame-german-born-men-for-mass-sex-attacks-apease-migrants/

 

A blog, a conspiracy site and a right-wing propaganda network - you're not very good at using Google. Even so, if you actually look at what they're reporting the feminists mentioned are not defending Islamic values towards women, they're objecting to xenophobic attacks against refugees and denouncing the right for being hypocritical (they don't care about women being raped until it's by Muslims). They're criticising the obsession over rapes being committed by Muslims when most rapes aren't committed by immigrants - they're criticising the framing of the issue. One can criticise Islamophobia and biased reporting without condoning Islam's subjugation of women.

 

What you haven't demonstrated is any evidence of feminists defending Islam's record on women's rights. Even if you were to find such evidence—which seems unlikely—there is nothing to suggest it is widespread within the feminist movement.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

5 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

So, you're of the opinion that not believing in god means you're stupid? OK, just so I know what bias you're posting from...

 

 

I know little of Harris, but I challenge you to prove that Dawkins says stupid things. He's probably far far smarter than any of the folks posting on here.

 

 

 

Uh no, not at all. I was setting myself up for any rebuttal from DocM to make it clear I know stupid people exist no matter what they identify as. I might add atheism really has nothing to do with anything. It's the default state everyone is born as before being influenced one way or another. Some people just return to how they were born, seeking answers for questions we might never get and as things stand rejecting the current answers we have for these big questions (why are we here? what happens after we die? is there a god? etc).

 

Like feminism the term itself has been dragged through the mud the past few years, and usually I just like to say I'm a freethinker, or someone who doesn't believe in a God(s) before I get tarnished for being "yet another atheist". I have no agenda or care for changing anyone's mind (at least on atheism), at the most a good debate is simply enjoyable and at times I do accept other points of view I hadn't considered. When I debate proper crazy I do hold out some hope to influence minds, but that's more so when there are fellow humans causing unnecessary pain/injury/threats or even death to each other. I do dream of us all getting along and loving each other, and allowing passive and harmless religious beliefs to remain personal <3

 

To summarise I do not believe in a God, and I sure as heck am not stupid  (well maybe at the weekend after a few pints...)

[Noir Angel]

59 minutes ago, _Alexander said:

There was a previous attack on Atheism called "Atheism+" - some of that may be related to it. The short and long of it was "Atheism is sexist - join Atheism+ and talk about your sexuality and non-binary nature with fellow teenagers" or something mind numbing like that.

 

To google!

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks/

http://www.infowars.com/feminists-denounce-german-born-men-after-migrant-sex-attacks/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/07/feminists-blame-german-born-men-for-mass-sex-attacks-apease-migrants/

 

Atheism + was basically another attempt from feminist women to invade a community and make it all about their vaginas. They like to make out that it's all about inclusivity and all that crap, but it's really about using the atheist community as a vehicle to feminise men.

[Athernar]

49 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

A blog, a conspiracy site and a right-wing propaganda network - you're not very good at using Google. Even so, if you actually look at what they're reporting the feminists mentioned are not defending Islamic values towards women, they're objecting to xenophobic attacks against refugees and denouncing the right for being hypocritical (they don't care about women being raped until it's by Muslims). They're criticising the obsession over rapes being committed by Muslims when most rapes aren't committed by immigrants - they're criticising the framing of the issue. One can criticise Islamophobia and biased reporting without condoning Islam's subjugation of women.

 

What you haven't demonstrated is any evidence of feminists defending Islam's record on women's rights. Even if you were to find such evidence—which seems unlikely—there is nothing to suggest it is widespread within the feminist movement.

You're not very good at starting posts without using a genetic fallacy.

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 minute ago, Athernar said:

You're not very good at starting posts without using a genetic fallacy.

Ad hominem - you haven't refuted any of my points.

[Torolol]

2 hours ago, wakjak said:

We know. "You used to be a democrat". That means nothing now.

well, theres really big figure: Sheldon Adelson which former Democrat has turned into GOP Oligarch, with his famous quote: "I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left me"

[Athernar]

2 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Ad hominem - you haven't refuted any of my points.

I think you need to look up the definition of an ad hominem. The closest thing you could try to claim is a Fallacy fallacy, but that would generally require to actually prove something first.

 

Also a fine hypocrisy too.

[DocM]

2 hours ago, wakjak said:

1. For someone who doesn't watch Fox News, you've got their topics and agendas down to the letter.

2. DINO in name only. You and PGHammer are both Republicans/Conservatives to the fullest. 100% Right wing. You're just both too embarrassed to label yourselves as such, because of how much of a joke the GOP have made themselves out to be. We know. "You used to be a democrat". That means nothing now.

You wear delusion well. 

 

I won't speak for PGH, but my leanings were largely aligned with  JFK and Sen. Scoop Jackson of Washington,  I also had common points with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY - Hillary Clinton's immediate predecessor.  

 

I left the party when the New Left took over DNC and instituted some very un-democratic representation rules at conventions, superdelegates in such large numbers so as to defy the will of caucus and primary voters, and they started a theological cleansing of anyone who disagreed with their hyper-"progressive" policies. So much for the Big Tent Party™.

 

Don't have cable. Cut the cord. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[T3X4S]

7 hours ago, DocM said:

He's recently tweeted blaming rape victims for being either drunk or dressing in a way that provoked it, so yeah - stupid.

Cite sources - 

[T3X4S]

6 hours ago, Ulyses said:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

 

And he's probably far far dumber than many of the folks posting here. He's been "misunderstood" for a long long time now, it seems. He's developing a god complex and you're developing an apostles behaviour. He's only a man, and not very good at it, by the looks of it.

Come again ?

Are you trying to claim Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins is "dumb" ?

One is the world's foremost expert on evolutionary biology and a tenured professor @ Oxford
The other is a Neuroscientist 

Both are best selling authors

So I'd like to hear the basis for your laughable comment.

Im sure you consider William Lane Craig as an intellectual though  

[DocM]

You can be intellectual in one field and dumb as a post in others. 

 

 

[seta-san]

is there any low that these SJW feminist scum isn't willing to go?

[PGHammer]

6 hours ago, wakjak said:

1. For someone who doesn't watch Fox News, you've got their topics and agendas down to the letter.

2. DINO in name only. You and PGHammer are both Republicans/Conservatives to the fullest. 100% Right wing. You're just both too embarrassed to label yourselves as such, because of how much of a joke the GOP have made themselves out to be. We know. "You used to be a democrat". That means nothing now.

I'm conservative (to you) only because I'm not 100 percent liberal - that is, unfortunately, the opinion of all too many modern (that is to say hardcore) Democrats of today.  I'm pro-ERA (how many conservatives is that true of?) yet I'm also anti-gun-control (for entirely practical reasons - no gun-control law that does NOT involve total confiscation has worked anywhere on the planet, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution in and of itself makes confiscation a non-starter).  I don't believe in the ends justifying the means - period.  (Further, I don't know of any centrist that does; however, a lot on the right AND left do - it is why authoritarianism is looked upon favorably along BOTH fringes.)  While I am pro-choice, I utterly detest and despise late-term abortion (in my opinion, LTA should ONLY be permissible to save the mother's life).  While I DO watch Fox (both News and Business), I also watch CNN and (for non-political stories) even watch TRMS (regardless of her politics, Rachel Maddow IS a solid investigative journalist - as is John Stossel, who I started following when he was with ABC; in short, his being a libertarian has absolutely zero impact on whether or not I watch him - same applies to Rachel Maddow, for that matter) - and Bloomberg, and even the Beeb.)

 

My opinions are mostly liberal on social issues - however, I have nothing against opinions I don't share; I'll debate you until moonset as long as the debate itself remains civil and polite.  The problem with all too many liberals (and this is especially true of US members of today's Democratic party; however, how many will admit it publicly?) is that they literally feel guilt-tripped into joining it - and especially in the case of minority members OF the party.  Whenever a political party - ANY political party, anywhere - has to resort to coercion to drum up membership, it has a problem.  Whenever it resorts to "the ends justify the means", it has an even bigger problem.

 

In fact, have you been watching CNN's coverage of the Iowa caucuses?  The "entrance polling" that CNN has been doing at the caucus sites is itself eye-opening - however, since you are so determined to dismiss anything I have to report, hie yourself to CNN and actually read their findings for yourself.

 

No - I'm not one hundred percent liberal; however, how many Democrats is that true of?

[PGHammer]

4 hours ago, DocM said:

You wear delusion well. 

 

I won't speak for PGH, but my leanings were largely aligned with  JFK and Sen. Scoop Jackson of Washington,  I also had common points with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY - Hillary Clinton's immediate predecessor.  

 

I left the party when the New Left took over DNC and instituted some very un-democratic representation rules at conventions, superdelegates in such large numbers so as to defy the will of caucus and primary voters, and they started a theological cleansing of anyone who disagreed with their hyper-"progressive" policies. So much for the Big Tent Party™.

 

Don't have cable. Cut the cord. Sorry to burst your bubble.

My own leanings are also alongside the late President Kennedy (and his AG - his brother Robert) - both were in favor of a strong defense (in fact, if you want to blame anyone for escalation of Vietnam, blame him and his VP - Lyndon Baines Johnson) and the pair of anti-waste gadflies William Proxmire and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (the ONLY reason that the Moynihan Wing of New York City's Penn Station even EXISTS is that they waited until after he was conveniently DEAD to get construction through Congress; be glad of it, as his shade would very INCONVENIENTLY haunt Capitol Hill for daring to use HIM to justify pork).

The amount of "pork barrel" spending diverted to my district is utterly disgusting (MD - US Fifth Congressional District) - the one GOOD thing I have on my conscience is that I have never - as in ever - cast a single vote for the incumbent Congresscritter FROM that district (Steny Hoyer) - and I have made quite plain (not only to Neowinians, in a public post, but to Hoyer to his face) exactly why I won't - to do so would be a hypocritical thing for me to do.  Ti vote for soemone just because he brought pork-barrel spending to my district is a hypocritical act of me as a voter if I claim to be against wasteful spending; however, such a claim (being against wasteful spending) is a position plank of the Democratic party - of which Hoyer is, at worst the number three officer in Congress.  Hoyer may be able to sleep at night being a hypocrite - I couldn't.

[DocM]

Yup - Hoyer is pretty bad. About as bad as Richard Shelby on the right side of the aisle, but then Sir Richard also changed partys to preserve his chairmanships and seniority. He was a Democrat for decades before.

[Ulyses]

2 hours ago, T3X4S said:

Come again ?

Are you trying to claim Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins is "dumb" ?

One is the world's foremost expert on evolutionary biology and a tenured professor @ Oxford
The other is a Neuroscientist 

Both are best selling authors

So I'd like to hear the basis for your laughable comment.

 

Did you even bother following the link to the article? Dawkins is been like that for a long time now, a bozo, he only backtracked because PR stuns. And, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Hitler is a best selling author too, are you putting Hitler on a pedestal too?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, T3X4S said:

Im sure you consider William Lane Craig as an intellectual though  

 

I don't want to be responsible for your brain acne to break out, but Arthur C. Clarke does it for me, for example.

[FloatingFatMan]

8 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Uh no, not at all. I was setting myself up for any rebuttal from DocM to make it clear I know stupid people exist no matter what they identify as. I might add atheism really has nothing to do with anything. It's the default state everyone is born as before being influenced one way or another. Some people just return to how they were born, seeking answers for questions we might never get and as things stand rejecting the current answers we have for these big questions (why are we here? what happens after we die? is there a god? etc).

 

Like feminism the term itself has been dragged through the mud the past few years, and usually I just like to say I'm a freethinker, or someone who doesn't believe in a God(s) before I get tarnished for being "yet another atheist". I have no agenda or care for changing anyone's mind (at least on atheism), at the most a good debate is simply enjoyable and at times I do accept other points of view I hadn't considered. When I debate proper crazy I do hold out some hope to influence minds, but that's more so when there are fellow humans causing unnecessary pain/injury/threats or even death to each other. I do dream of us all getting along and loving each other, and allowing passive and harmless religious beliefs to remain personal <3

 

To summarise I do not believe in a God, and I sure as heck am not stupid  (well maybe at the weekend after a few pints...)

Ah, OK. Well then, my most profound apologies for misunderstanding you.

 

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, Ulyses said:

 

Did you even bother following the link to the article? Dawkins is been like that for a long time now, a bozo, he only backtracked because PR stuns. And, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Hitler is a best selling author too, are you putting Hitler on a pedestal too?

Wow, not untill the third page. Also I believe the argument there was about intelligence, and while he was a lot of things, dumb wasn't one of them. 

 

Either way, being a best sellign author in itself doesn't have much do to with intelligence either, it's more about the books you sell. I mean 50 shades, the twilight fanfic that got publishes has outsold anything by Hawking, but who would you say is the most intelligent... 

3 hours ago, DocM said:

You can be intellectual in one field and dumb as a post in others. 

 

 

having a different opinion from you doesn't make one dumb though... 

[FloatingFatMan]

6 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

having a different opinion from you doesn't make one dumb though... 

Indeed.  If that were true, then I'd be forced to conclude that DocM was as dumb as a rock, but he isn't. Far from it in fact; he's one of the smartest cookies on here!  I just completely disagree with him on religion and politics.

 

[bonalste]

I just watched the video and it's crap. Why is Richard Dawkins retweeting this? The message is fine, being that feminists and Islamists share similar thought processes (I totally disagree with that, but that isn't relevant), but the execution is embarrassing. And what's with comparing femanists and Islamists to people with Cerebal Palsy (quote: "we're both spastics")? Honestly, I thought people had gotten over the whole mental disability thing. What was he thinking tweeting it? It appears to have been made by a particularly stupid teenager.

[T3X4S]

1 hour ago, Ulyses said:

 

Did you even bother following the link to the article? Dawkins is been like that for a long time now, a bozo, he only backtracked because PR stuns. And, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Hitler is a best selling author too, are you putting Hitler on a pedestal too?

 

I don't want to be responsible for your brain acne to break out, but Arthur C. Clarke does it for me, for example.

Ulyses - you were the main reason I stopped posting in the Religion Thread - 

I can't say what I think because there are a couple mods that love to give me 10 day warnings, but I will say this:

You are in absolutely no position whatsoever to call anyone a "bozo", "stupid", "dumb" - especially Oxford professors and celebrated neuroscientists.

My "brain acne" ?  Are you 12 ?  I thought I remember you being over 50 - which only makes this sadder.

If there was ever any uncertainty to my views - the fact you invoked the Hitler analogy just puts a little icing on my comment - so thank you for making my point.

[DocM]

46 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

having a different opinion from you doesn't make one dumb though... 

But in Dawkins case it can make him a mysogynistic, boorish, and self-aggrandizing arse. Among other things.