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

[T3X4S]

7 minutes 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.

 

 

 

Harris is no slouch for sure - the guy is brilliant in debate with a comedic timing, and an intellectual insight that is a pleasure to watch & listen too.

Its funny - the faithful dislike anything pointing to evolution - yet most have no idea what it is, many cant even spell it.

But this thread's topic is just another insight to a growing fungus.

[T3X4S]

He did have a little bit of a pissing match with Noam Chomsky - I didnt follow it closely - both are smarter than me so I dont know if I could pick a side...
 

[HawkMan]

14 minutes 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...

Not even close to what he said though. 

[FloatingFatMan]

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

Not even close to what he said though. 

It's pretty much exactly what he said.  Try reading it again, paying attention to the punctuation.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

10 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

Harris is no slouch for sure - the guy is brilliant in debate with a comedic timing, and an intellectual insight that is a pleasure to watch & listen too.

Its funny - the faithful dislike anything pointing to evolution - yet most have no idea what it is, many cant even spell it.

But this thread's topic is just another insight to a growing fungus.

I like how Harris argues - straight to the point. Dawkins is more... restrained.

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

It's pretty much exactly what he said.  Try reading it again, paying attention to the punctuation.

IT's really not. I mean, sure if you absolutely want to twist the meaning for some weird reason to make him look bad, then you can decide to interpret it that way. but the meaning the way it as written is not. just that Atheists are just people who don't believe, and that includes all kinds of people including idiots, just like believers are all kinds of people, including idiots. 

 

He did not write "Atheists don't believe in god and are therefore idiots, so I'll believe that". 

[Ulyses]

2 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

just that Atheists are just people who don't believe, and that includes all kinds of people including idiots, just like believers are all kinds of people, including idiots.

 

Well, he's wrong. He forgot the idiots in between. The transidiots.

[T3X4S]

I'm an idiot... because I just realized I totally missed my lunch date because I was waiting for some of the more hilarious posts... oh look - one just popped up ...

[HawkMan]

3 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

Well, he's wrong. He forgot the idiots in between. The transidiots.

are we inventing new words again ?

[Dashel]

Bill Nye needs to chime in here.  That reflects badly on NECSS.  I do love the Brietbart spin though.

[Ulyses]

4 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

are we inventing new words again ?

It would be wrong to assume the majority on any side is formed from individuals with positive mind sets. The majority on any side is formed from those that believe they believe or they believe they don't believe. Anything else is heresy or idiocy. Herediosy.

[T3X4S]

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

are we inventing new words again ?

Could be transsexual boneheads....
Could be people in between boneheadedness and non-boneheadedness
Could be people not sure of their views on religion, gods, etc (atheism/agnosticism)

Or.... it could be idiots who walk alot...  (sorry that was lame)

Heresiosy - thats a good one - I like that one.

what about.... transheresiostictheodemogaugory ?

 

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

It would be wrong to assume the majority on any side is formed from individuals with positive mind sets. The majority on any side is formed from those that believe they believe or they believe they don't believe. Anything else is heresy or idiocy. Herediosy.

what...  what are ... ... do you even... ... I ... ugh...

[HawkMan]

3 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

Could be people not sure of their views on religion, gods, etc (atheism/agnosticism)

Isn't that basically what agnostic is ?

[Ulyses]

11 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

what...  what are ... ... do you even... ... I ... ugh...

Basically, any transidiot, no matter the side, will acuse you of herediosy. You are only allowed to be smart or pious, but not both at the same time. When smart, you must slander, when pious, you must stammer. If not, you're herediosiotical. That's bad, on either side.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ulyses

[Dashel]

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Let me start by saying that as much as I respect Richard Dawkins the link he posted was extremely offensive and inappropriate, as equating feminism with Islamism is intellectually dishonest. At the same time the correct response is not to censor him but to challenge his opinions, which is why they were wrong to disinvite him. To claim they support free expression whilst censoring people for expressing themselves is hypocritical. Neither side comes off looking good in this matter.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why its so offensive/dishonest.  I agree, for the most part you can't compare them so, but in the examples cited, I think there is reason to be critical.  Dawkins qualified in his tweet that it only applies to a some proclaimed feminists, of which he counts himself a member...

 

After reviewing his feed I would say that others have been 'worse', so maybe this was their last straw.  Still pretty pedantic.  I think the first speaks to the point he was reacting to in the video, the 2nd could cause problems for people who don't understand the concept of generalities.

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Dashel

[theyarecomingforyou]

3 minutes ago, Dashel said:

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why its so offensive/dishonest.

No form of feminism—unlike Islamism—involves beheading homosexuals, denying women basic rights (education, the ability to drive, the ability to have their face uncovered), torture, barbarism, invading other countries, etc. As I said, the comparison was intellectually dishonest. As much as I respect Richard Dawkins he was completely out of line here, though that doesn't excuse the event revoking his invitation.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

6 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No form of feminism—unlike Islamism—involves beheading homosexuals, denying women basic rights (education, the ability to drive, the ability to have their face uncovered), torture, barbarism, invading other countries, etc. As I said, the comparison was intellectually dishonest. As much as I respect Richard Dawkins he was completely out of line here, though that doesn't excuse the event revoking his invitation.

You are not on the right track there.

Feminists are not hypercritical of Islam's lack of women's rights and genuine rape culture - not like the fake rape propaganda they are spreading around campuses. Islam gets a free pass. "Muslims can't rape" - this is the punch line at the end of the satirical music video.

 

Additionally, both groups use victim culture to spread themselves and rely on dumb liberals to support their every move.

[Dashel]

13 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No form of feminism—unlike Islamism—involves beheading homosexuals, denying women basic rights (education, the ability to drive, the ability to have their face uncovered), torture, barbarism, invading other countries, etc. As I said, the comparison was intellectually dishonest. As much as I respect Richard Dawkins he was completely out of line here, though that doesn't excuse the event revoking his invitation.

I quite agree with the first sentence.  However, I don't think we can ignore however that the video was a response to the surprising defense of Islam from some feminists who seem to be able to overlook such gruesome things.  I'm sure Dawkins would be the first to agree with your sentiment as well as a feminist.  No one is saying they actually do those things, that's really the point of the video - that feminists ignore behavior in defending the ideology.

[MikeChipshop Member]

1 hour 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

 

 

 

 Err. I'm not entirely sure how you that idea from what AB posted.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Just now, _Alexander said:

Feminists are not hypercritical of Islam's lack of women's rights and genuine rape culture - not like the fake rape propaganda they are spreading around campuses. Islam gets a free pass.

Please provide evidence. Islamism is fundamentally opposed to western feminism. In fact I regularly see articles like femen protesters staging topless protests against Islam or Sweden's feminist foreign minister criticising Saudi Arabia. Could it not simply be that Muslims make up such a small percentage of the US population that they're not the primary concern of feminists, whereas issues like jock and fraternity culture are much more relevant to them? To put it in perspective, when was the last time you discussed the human rights abuses in Myanmar? When was the last time you criticised the Catholic Church's sexual abuse of children in Poland? I don't see you mentioning those topics enough, therefore you must support those crimes.

 

Your comment is very similar to the Fox News tactic of attacking Muslims in the United States for not being critical enough of the Islamic State, even though the US Council Of Muslim Organisations and others regularly put out statements criticising the atrocities of the Islamic State. Unless feminists are condoning the Muslim subjugation of women, which they're not, you don't have a point.

[DocM]

5 hours ago, Javik said:

Curious, I'm a "leftist" and I don't want that. Did I miss something? Or are you doing the typically ignorant Fox News thing of making this about left v right again, when it's about authoritarian v libertarian.

1) don't watch Fox 

2) recovering Democrat

 

5 hours ago, Javik said:

 

Yeah, it's gotta be true if Salon says so, certainly not a site loaded with polemical BS or anything, right?

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

[DocM]

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

 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.

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

[Ulyses]

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

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.

 

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

Quote

Instead, he clings to his insular and privileged viewpoint – and, worse, he’s creating the impression that “true” atheists all share his retrograde attitudes.
Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery.

 

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.

[wakjak]

53 minutes ago, DocM said:

1) don't watch Fox 

2) recovering Democrat

 

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.