He's a cunt.No matter how qualified me may be in his field, and how much I may agree with him on various matters, the man is a total fucking cunt.
(,
Mon 20 Dec 2021, 21:00,
archived)
Being a cunt is not quite the same thing as being wrong.He writes very well (when not on Twitter), and he knows a thing or two. I find it adorable when people say he's Islamophobic, anti-trans, or a racist. They should try reading one of his books.
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile,
Mon 20 Dec 2021, 21:10,
archived)
His books are edited. That’s why it’s worth listening to him, particularly during his quasi-religious “lecture” tours. Unedited, people can’t hide who they are for long. He has no compassion whatsoever. Surely the deluded and misled deserve compassion? Instead they get publicly mocked in front of crowds who exhibit utter dogmatic devotion to his views. He’s also completely disingenuous in his dealings with others. I’ve seen him begin a conversation with a deeply religious person, doing it in a way that was guaranteed to offend such a person, and then act shocked and perplexed when he got verbally attacked in response. In public, his constant straw-man arguments seem to be his mainstay. Many of his other arguments rely upon laughably simplistic applications of ‘popular logic’ which only reveal his ignorance, and the poverty of his inner life.
Yes, he’s a cunt.
“There is no God, and I am His prophet!”
(Yes, he’s a cunt.
“There is no God, and I am His prophet!”
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Tue 21 Dec 2021, 0:01,
archived)
celebrity scientists often come off like child starsthere's an critical gap in their awareness of themselves and their image, that neither their fans nor their publicists care to make them aware of.
i gave up on the infinite monkey cage after just two episodes of cox raging, apparently white-knuckled, against non-scientific arguments, evidently oblivious to his own fits of unreason.
s'why i prefer the likes of edward de bono or louis theroux. they clearly realise that to understand, appreciate and ultimately help humanity, you need to accommodate its irrational, spiritual and philosophical inclinations.
(,
Tue 21 Dec 2021, 0:49,
archived)
i gave up on the infinite monkey cage after just two episodes of cox raging, apparently white-knuckled, against non-scientific arguments, evidently oblivious to his own fits of unreason.
s'why i prefer the likes of edward de bono or louis theroux. they clearly realise that to understand, appreciate and ultimately help humanity, you need to accommodate its irrational, spiritual and philosophical inclinations.
There's not that much difference between what he does and what Channel 5 documentarians do.He does it with an air of foppish Oxbridge undergraduate humour. A bit like Boris Johnson, now I think about it.
( brb homonecrobatrachophile,
Tue 21 Dec 2021, 19:22,
archived)
How do you know his books aren't edited by a transexual reikki healer?I've seen most of his lectures from the God Delusion era, and I disagree with your characterisation. He has plenty of compassion. He has a low tolerance for dishonesty. The mocking of religion is a good thing. The mockery of the religious is a good thing. It's progress. Who cares if a religious person is offended by a reasonable question? They're not reasonable people. Which of his arguments are straw men? Can you name one of his arguments based on 'popular logic' and what do you mean by that? What is an inner life? And who are you quoting?
( brb homonecrobatrachophile,
Tue 21 Dec 2021, 18:14,
archived)
Quote is from Alan W. Watts, regarding anti-religious zealots generally. ‘Popular logic’ is not really logic at all. True logic is a formal analytical tool with rules. ‘Popular logic’ isn’t so fussy, because it has an axe to grind, and the people it’s addressed to are not really interested in logic, only the appearance of it. It’s a fig leaf for their prejudices and projections. One example is the assertion that there can be no god because the names and numbers of gods worshipped have changed throughout history. That is not a logical conclusion by any standards, nor is it proof of anything except the ubiquity of religious beliefs and practices among humans.
The central straw-man argument he leans on relates to the nature of god(s), and his characterizations of the beliefs of religious people in that regard. Of course there are people who believe very literally in Magic Sky Dad. But that is by no means the extent of religious thought, belief, or experience, and to characterize it as such is deeply dishonest, and avoids some of the more uncomfortable questions that smart religious people tend to raise.
Full disclosure: I was raised atheist, later joined a non-theistic tradition, which I still practice. I’ve met some very smart religious people as a result of that, and have had to change my opinions about what ‘religious’ actually means, among other things. I’ve heard it said that organized religions often serve as a way for adherents to avoid real personal religious or ‘spiritual’ inquiries of their own, by transferring that responsibility to someone or something else. Such people may be conventionally Religious, but they are not usually truly religious people, in the sense that their religious practices are performative and come from dogma rather than deep personal realization.
Which leads to: what do I mean by ‘inner life’ in this instance? I mean familiarity with the voice of your own knowing - with your emotional household and its effects, with your intuitions, with your darkest and most embarrassing hopes and fears, with your delusions. It is all there in you, in all of us. An inner life begins when we observe our own inner workings without judgement.
As for compassion… I just don’t think compassion goes on a stadium tour specifically to call a certain group of people stupid. And I don’t for a second believe his intention was to persuade, either. From my perspective, it was a group celebration of being smarter than a strawman. And for Dawkins of course, a chance to cash in on the people who follow him. Ironic, that.
(The central straw-man argument he leans on relates to the nature of god(s), and his characterizations of the beliefs of religious people in that regard. Of course there are people who believe very literally in Magic Sky Dad. But that is by no means the extent of religious thought, belief, or experience, and to characterize it as such is deeply dishonest, and avoids some of the more uncomfortable questions that smart religious people tend to raise.
Full disclosure: I was raised atheist, later joined a non-theistic tradition, which I still practice. I’ve met some very smart religious people as a result of that, and have had to change my opinions about what ‘religious’ actually means, among other things. I’ve heard it said that organized religions often serve as a way for adherents to avoid real personal religious or ‘spiritual’ inquiries of their own, by transferring that responsibility to someone or something else. Such people may be conventionally Religious, but they are not usually truly religious people, in the sense that their religious practices are performative and come from dogma rather than deep personal realization.
Which leads to: what do I mean by ‘inner life’ in this instance? I mean familiarity with the voice of your own knowing - with your emotional household and its effects, with your intuitions, with your darkest and most embarrassing hopes and fears, with your delusions. It is all there in you, in all of us. An inner life begins when we observe our own inner workings without judgement.
As for compassion… I just don’t think compassion goes on a stadium tour specifically to call a certain group of people stupid. And I don’t for a second believe his intention was to persuade, either. From my perspective, it was a group celebration of being smarter than a strawman. And for Dawkins of course, a chance to cash in on the people who follow him. Ironic, that.
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Wed 22 Dec 2021, 0:56,
archived)