Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Reads Anti-Gay Hate Mail

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Jan 23, 2015 2:21 AM GMT
    Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Reads Anti-Gay Hate Mail





    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/richard-dawkins-anti-gay-hate-mail_n_6524644.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 2:31 AM GMT
    Hey faggot, you're nothing more than God's fart. Priceless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:24 AM GMT
    Monkies. Oh that's funny. I guess the writer didn't know it's monkeys.

    So that's kind of curious because--I presume by pronunciation--he removed the y and added ies; though, I guess he lost the e.

    What's curious about that is that it shows some schooling but that the learning simply never took effect. It could be he was just absent that day, or it's almost as if you can see where the person's brain stops.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 7:35 AM GMT

    OMG icon_eek.gif

    It does sound funny when an englishman reads it, like Shakespearean poetry played by sir Patrick Stewart or sir Ian Mckellen icon_lol.gif






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 12:07 PM GMT
    Brilliant man. I highly recommend reading "The God Delusion" and while you're at it, Christopher Hitchen's "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything".

    As a scientist myself, it amuses me to listen to the uneducated Proletariat.

    As a rational Humanist, I'm in the minority of course, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 23, 2015 3:05 PM GMT
    pouncer said
    CLTMike46 saidAs a scientist myself, it amuses me to listen to the uneducated Proletariat

    Is that you Stéphane Charbonnier?

    Doubtful, but it wouldn't surprise me if you wrote the homophobic letters, considering you support the far, far (falling off the scale they're so far) right wing religions.
  • rdberg1957

    Posts: 662

    Jan 23, 2015 3:57 PM GMT
    As someone who studies psychoanalysis, the material Richard has received is quite evocative. Many of these writers project their self-hate onto Richard, who seems to find endless amusement.

    Those who have fundamentalist beliefs find it intolerable that anyone can believe something different than what they believe. Mr. Dawkins has some interesting things to say, but this is threatening to those who hold rigidly to religious beliefs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 4:15 PM GMT
    rdberg1957 saidAs someone who studies psychoanalysis, the material Richard has received is quite evocative. Many of these writers project their self-hate onto Richard, who seems to find endless amusement.

    Those who have fundamentalist beliefs find it intolerable that anyone can believe something different than what they believe. Mr. Dawkins has some interesting things to say, but this is threatening to those who hold rigidly to religious beliefs.


    So the diplomat should coddle his oppressors after they've rejected reason?

    Aw, poor Hitler and his personality disorder. He didn't mean to be such a cruel man. All is forgiven. Signed, the spineless scientists society
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 23, 2015 8:23 PM GMT
    I'm very much a fan of Dawkins, and I appreciate what he's done for advocating the soundness of evolution. Nothing against science here.

    But when he speaks of religion, he reveals himself to be utterly ignorant on all matters theological. The analogy would be for me, very versed in Catholicism and Judaism, to then start writing about Islam and how Catholicism and Judaism are superior. When, in fact, I know very little about Islam (and I've had very intense studies in university about the religion, there's just simply too much to study from original source material, to historical and current Islamic theologists and writers).

    Well, I can't say it better, so I'll leave it to Mr. Eagleton to put Dawkins in his place when he tries to address theology:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 23, 2015 9:00 PM GMT
    pouncer said
    HottJoe said
    pouncer said
    CLTMike46 saidAs a scientist myself, it amuses me to listen to the uneducated Proletariat

    Is that you Stéphane Charbonnier?

    Doubtful, but it wouldn't surprise me if you wrote the homophobic letters, considering you support the far, far (falling off the scale they're so far) right wing religions.

    The same logical short-circuit yet again?
    Even if I did "support" a world religion - incidentally, I do not - your assumption would be gross and bigoted on its own terms. At that point most people would assume good faith in my religious beliefs (unless I changed the equation by confirming my homophobia) and defend me from your bigoted slander. In fact, given that you assumed bigotry on my part on the basis of no evidence at all (even if later proved "right") you would still be a bigot.

    Nope, sorry, I'm not a bigot. Religious people are just bigoted against atheists. That's what this thread is about, smart guy.icon_wink.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 23, 2015 9:03 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI'm very much a fan of Dawkins, and I appreciate what he's done for advocating the soundness of evolution. Nothing against science here.

    But when he speaks of religion, he reveals himself to be utterly ignorant on all matters theological. The analogy would be for me, very versed in Catholicism and Judaism, to then start writing about Islam and how Catholicism and Judaism are superior. When, in fact, I know very little about Islam (and I've had very intense studies in university about the religion, there's just simply too much to study from original source material, to historical and current Islamic theologists and writers).

    Well, I can't say it better, so I'll leave it to Mr. Eagleton to put Dawkins in his place when he tries to address theology:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

    Just leave atheists alone. Your friend in the sky should be good enough. You don't need to harass scientists in order to be forgiven for your impurities.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 23, 2015 9:12 PM GMT
    @HottJoe

    A bully can't throw a rock and then claim to be the "victim." First and foremost tell Dawkins to stop pontificating about that which he is unfamiliar with, under the veil and imprimatur of a so-called scientific razor wit, and I will quit critiquing Mr. Dawkins. Unless and until then, I will continue to voice my concern about a man who lambasts religion in the laziest and most caricatured of ways.

    He might very well have the right answer, though I don't believe so, but by no means has be presented a sound or even tenable argument for debasing religion and faith as he does. I've purchased all of his books, he has my royalty money, he can take my valid criticism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 11:30 PM GMT
    As a Christian myself, I was appalled at the vicious, snide comments thrown at Dawkins by those who claim to believe in God and advocate his existence.

    I own and have read Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, and being fully acquainted with the Old Testament, I have a good idea where Dawkins is coming from -that is to say, that he has a good knowledge of the Bible but having no faith in its divine inspiration.

    For a person in his standing, such snide and cruel comments has only made the scientist laugh with amusement rather than to bring him to a point whether to consider the existence of God a serious matter. In other words, none who posted these comments online had shown an iota of the character of Jesus Christ, whose universal love to all mankind had motivated him to go to the Cross.

    The only impressive feature of the video was the superb aquarium with stunning coral and tropical fish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 3:55 AM GMT
    Dawkins is not gay. He is married to a woman. He simply requires evidence for the existence of god. As Christopher Hitches once wrote: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

    I am not an athiest, but at the present time, there is not enough evidence to validate the existence of god. If more compelling evidence becomes available at a later time, I will be happy to reevaluate my current position.

    With that being said, why would you consider a crudely written Bronze Age text (the bible) as something that is valid? It villifies homosexuality, calls for genocide, human trafficking and genital mutilation. Is that good for the world? I think this stuff is absolutely evil and incorrect. It was so clearly penned by primitive mammals and is nothing more than a work of crude fiction.

    So-called "biblical scholars" should abandon their vocation and do something constructive: study medicine, the arts, architecture. Become a firefighter, police officer or social worker. Do something tangible to help your fellow man.

    There is nothing I distrust or detest more than someone who describes themselves as a "person of faith". They are worthless and dangerous. They belong to the infancy of our species.
  • johndubuque

    Posts: 319

    Jan 24, 2015 4:03 AM GMT
    This is hilarious. Do the right wingers know how ridiculous they are?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 4:10 AM GMT
    I never quite saw the point of those books that Dawkins wrote. The insane are impervious to logic or rational argument. To everyone else, it's just, "Breaking news: Water Still Wet!"
  • starboard5

    Posts: 969

    Jan 24, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI'm very much a fan of Dawkins, and I appreciate what he's done for advocating the soundness of evolution. Nothing against science here.

    But when he speaks of religion, he reveals himself to be utterly ignorant on all matters theological. The analogy would be for me, very versed in Catholicism and Judaism, to then start writing about Islam and how Catholicism and Judaism are superior. When, in fact, I know very little about Islam (and I've had very intense studies in university about the religion, there's just simply too much to study from original source material, to historical and current Islamic theologists and writers).

    Well, I can't say it better, so I'll leave it to Mr. Eagleton to put Dawkins in his place when he tries to address theology:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching


    Thank you for posting this. I don't believe in God, myself, but men like Dawkins put me off. They seem motivated by childish emotions when it comes to any consideration of religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI'm very much a fan of Dawkins, and I appreciate what he's done for advocating the soundness of evolution. Nothing against science here.

    But when he speaks of religion, he reveals himself to be utterly ignorant on all matters theological. The analogy would be for me, very versed in Catholicism and Judaism, to then start writing about Islam and how Catholicism and Judaism are superior. When, in fact, I know very little about Islam (and I've had very intense studies in university about the religion, there's just simply too much to study from original source material, to historical and current Islamic theologists and writers).

    Well, I can't say it better, so I'll leave it to Mr. Eagleton to put Dawkins in his place when he tries to address theology:


    I took the time to read that review you mentioned in your post. I found it suffering from the usual malady of faith defenders (of which religion defenders is a subset, I'm gathering): begging the question.

    And comparing (contrasting) faith to love--that each is somehow an unmeasurable, intangible truth--appears to be the spear with which Eagleton hopes to pierce Dawkins's perceived tone-deafness. Plus, this line: "Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that...he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false."

    We're actually capable of quantifying--measuring--what love is. Eagleton seems to be suggesting that love is something manufactured by the spirit of God (or our spirit, as a descendent of God). This bullshit is easily unraveled with a simple thought experiment: ask yourself if your dog loves you; if he does, is that evidence of your dog's connection to The Divine?

    About faith (and its profound effect on humanity's progress): Dawkins would never suggest that faith--an emotion--does not exist. Everyone concedes the power of faith. Shit, even a baseball player will tell you how his two-scratch-hat-tip-bunny-foot-fondle gives him the power to get on base. But Eagleton is suggesting that faith is a thing that brings us--what?--to God?

    I can use a similar thought experiment as the one above. Does my dog have faith that I'll return from the gym? You can actually measure a dog's faith with their behavior: does he tear a hole through the door in anxiety because of his fear of abandonment--or does he sleep peacefully? Does he deliver the corpse of a dead squirrel to me when I return? Without faith in my return, my dog digs a hole and joins a biker gang.

    The difference between my dog and a human's faith in God is big, though. My dog has MET me. His faith is warranted, right? Who has met God?

    This is why the word "delusion" was chosen. There is no evidence necessary, just faith. Is that faith well-placed? If your argument is, yes, because it's done some good things for mankind, then we have to measure the good against the bad. If it's net positive, faith in God is good. If not, it's bringing us down (even slowly). And then there's the Santa Claus theorem: when you lose faith in Santa Claus--he's no longer an agent of your child's imagination and arbiter of good children--do children stop doing good?

    This is Dawkin's argument, and why Eagleton doesn't get it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 9:47 PM GMT
    I like Dawkins, and agree with a lot of what he's written, but not all of it, and especially not this next bit. In it, he failed miserably, because reporting abuse would have stopped the perpetrator from doing it to others.

    Here:

    " Now, given the terrible, persistent and recurrent traumas suffered by other people when abused as children, week after week, year after year, what should I have said about my own thirty seconds of nastiness back in the 1950s? Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?

    No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. To have done so would have invited the justifiably indignant response: “How dare you make a fuss about the mere half minute of gagging unpleasantness that happened to you only once, and where the perpetrator was not your own father but a teacher who meant nothing special to you in your life. Stop playing the victim. Stop trying to upstage those who really were tragic victims in their own situations. Don’t cry wolf about your own bad experience, because it undermines those whose experience was – and remains – so much worse.”

    Mr Dawkins, this is unbelievable crap.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 24, 2015 10:31 PM GMT
    @MickeyTop

    But your reasoning is circular. If you a priori start from the proposition that there is NO evidence of God, then you already have your conclusion and are begging the question.

    You and Dawkins keep stating, in various iterations, "there is no evidence of God." FOR YOU. For you. I get it, for YOU, there is no evidence of God. But for many, there is private revelation and evidence of God. I cannot "give" you a personal piece of evidence to substantiate faith or belief, or enough evidence that it is logically valid to believe in God. All I can do is say that, for me, I have direct evidence and private revelation of God. And no, my team winning is not a "miracle."

    Regarding a kind of "public" revelation, I'd simply point you and Dawkins to the incorruptible bodies of saints in the Catholic Church. These are a few (few hundred) saintly people who died and whose bodies either don't compose, or the natural decomposition process is so stunted that they will be around for thousands of years at this rate.

    When meat dies it should rot out in a matter of weeks to months. Skeptic magazine attempted to do a write-up debunking it but couldn't. Dawkins has been asked the question in a public forum and once said he "wasn't familiar" with it, and now simply says he "won't get into that." Scientists around the world have tested various incorruptible bodies and determined there was no embalming (which wouldn't produce these effects anyway), no mummification (which wouldn't produce these effects anyway), and no other means to preserve flesh from bacteria decomposition.

    Now we come to what this means. So even assuming you accept the "public" evidence that, in my opinion, God has provided to make you at least question, or perhaps believe in his existence, what will you do with that evidence? Incorruptible bodies does not logically mean God exists. You can be unable to explain something scientifically and still deny the existence of God. But if hundreds of holy people die, and their bodies don't decompose, that should give you pause to reflect.

    No amount of evidence can prove the existence of God. Those who have SOME evidence of his existence, supplant that evidence with faith. But by no means can you or Dawkins say there is no evidence whatsoever, the incorruptible saints categorically refute that claim.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 11:00 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MickeyTop

    But your reasoning is circular. If you a priori start from the proposition that there is NO evidence of God, then you already have your conclusion and are begging the question.

    I cannot "give" you a personal piece of evidence to substantiate faith or belief, or enough evidence that it is logically valid to believe in God. All I can do is say that, for me, I have direct evidence and private revelation of God. And no, my team winning is not a "miracle."

    Regarding a kind of "public" revelation, I'd simply point you and Dawkins to the incorruptible bodies of saints in the Catholic Church. These are a few (few hundred) saintly people who died and whose bodies either don't compose, or the natural decomposition process is so stunted that they will be around for thousands of years at this rate.


    You certainly don't believe that bullshit about the saintly bodies, do you? I mean, today, in 2015? Come on!!!

    We've got Egyptian mummies from 2000 BC, frozen Otzi from god-knows-when, and formaldehyde! The "saints" not decomposing--not a miracle. Not even a good hoax. Plus, the bodies: do we get to examine the bodies? Not a good claim. Because, shit, Piltdown Man. Google it.

    And, MY circular reasoning? YOU haven't met God. That I'm certain of. I have never, nor will I ever make the mistake of saying "there is no God." Because, I don't have to, to be an atheist. YOU provide the proof, I'll tell you if your methodology is right or wrong.

    Your PERSONAL "proof" of God's existence has no bearing on me or the rest of mankind, because you can't 1) replicate your results, and 2) falsify your conclusion. As in, find an explanation that contradicts your--circular reasoning aside--claim. Plus, have I had a chance to examine you...medically? Like, do you have a tumor, or do you hear voices? If you cannot meet even these basic criteria, you have no authority to claim anything but, well, your delusion.

    Plus, this must be asked: God revealed himself to you? And which God? There's thousands, of which you're guilty of concluding don't exist by virtue of 1) the saints bodies, and 2) your own personal experience. Because, I'm telling you, India. Millions like you. And certainly with non-decomposing holy people as well.

    Faith is a thing, as in, emotion. It has as much power as people give it. The power to build a pyramid, found a civilization even. But the object of that faith has eluded mankind since the concept was conceived. That don't make that object real. Or real-er.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 24, 2015 11:29 PM GMT
    @MickeyTop

    Your very UNscientific dismissal of evidence that contradicts your theory is rather ironic given your position. You've merely decried them as a "hoax" and seem to be offended that you can't personally examine the bodies.

    First and foremost, among scientists the incorruptible saints remain and unexplainable mystery to date. Most scientists think there's a scientific explanation that has yet to be found, a minority of scientists see it as evidence of a divine act. But in either event, your dismissal of the incorrupt saint as a "hoax" does not speak for the broader scientific world community that accepts most claimed cases as "authentic" in the sense that its a scientific mystery.

    Second, you can see lots of the physical relics (body parts) or intact bodies in Cathedrals around the nation and world. With respect to scientific inquiry, the Vatican and many secular doctors have performed many tests on the bodies, flesh, bones, and tissues of these dead humans.

    Third, your lumping the incorruptibles into the same category as mummies lets me know you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in this subject area. The perservation process of mummification has nothing to do with incorruptible saints, and even if mummification were imposed, would not render the types of results seen in some incorruptible saints. Just like Dawkins waxes on religion writ large without any real knowledge, so too do you seem to be waxing about incorruptibles with no real knowledge of the subject matter.

    But again, getting to the larger issue, even if you saw enough evidence to believe something was going on with the alleged incorruptibles, that by no means would draw a logical line or deduction to the existence of God. Faith is always required in religion. For the record, from a philosophical standpoint, there is no logical reason the sun will rise tomorrow because there is no axiomatic reason that the future must resemble the past (Hume). But almost all sane humans believe the sun will rise tomorrow. So even scientists have "faith" in a sense, it just a question of "in what" and "to what degree."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2015 12:19 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MonkeyTop


    OK, that's adorable...my new profile name. By all means, make your position stronger by...not sure what you're doing. Regardless, I'm flattered.

    All right, it seems like you're incapable of seeing the circular reasoning of the claim of the "incorruptible saints." Begging the question. I'll stop saying that.

    Instead, I'll say "elephant in the room." You'll be able to follow this, because the irony of the previous two terms, thrown about willy-nilly, is escaping you:

    I'll ACCEPT that the bodies ARE intact, non-mummified, scientifically mysterious oddities of nature. Defying scientific explanation, I'll allow (actually, I'll defend that point even in a roomful of Christians).

    Here's the elephant: you're accepting the Roman Catholics' claim that this is proof of these bodies' saintliness. Roman Catholic saintliness to be exact. WHICH GOD said a non-corrupt body was a sign that this was His saint? It's not in my bible.

    This is pure Roman Catholic mythology. Oh, also Byzantium Catholic mythology too. THEY say that this is a sign from God. GOD did not say that. Nor has he ever said it (whether he exists or not).

    OK, and there's a non-Catholic "incorrupt" body too. I read that on Wikipedia. Who's God is she a saint of?

    IT'S POSSIBLE that these are saints, right? But these saints never claimed they were saints, and God never said they were saints. Just the Catholics. And unless they're infallible (they claim the pope is), that's just horseshit.

    You believe they're saints because you want to believe. And right now you'll accept any evidence. But you're smarter than this. If God exists, he expects you to be more vigilant than this in the face of these HUCKSTERS. Make your God proud.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 25, 2015 12:36 AM GMT
    @MickeyTop

    My apologies, I never consciously intended to bastardize your name. I edited my post to reflect your screenname. I don't argue like that, with stupid or low blows, and though I made the error, I can assure you it was subconscious and inadvertent.

    With respect to your response, I readily admit I can never prove God's existence, and certainly not the RCC's claim that it is the one Holy and true Church.

    I only mean to say that in the larger context of Dawkins' work on religion, he keeps going back to the "there is no evidence of God" claim, when I disagree. There is no scientifically verifiable or acceptable evidence that God exists, but I think there's SOME evidence he does (e.g., the incorruptible bodies of saints).

    Personally, I don't think I could ever believe in God based off of someone else's experience of claim of a miracle or evidence. My position is quite simple. I think God gives everyone enough signs, in accordance with the particularities of his or her nature (some people believe more easily than others, etc), and that each person can IGNORE those small pieces of private revelation, or they can analyze and accept them, and potentially come to faith. How, precisely this works, is entirely above my pay grade.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2015 12:51 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MickeyTop

    My apologies...

    I only mean to say that in the larger context of Dawkins' work on religion, he keeps going back to the "there is no evidence of God" claim, when I disagree. There is no scientifically verifiable or acceptable evidence that God exists, but I think there's SOME evidence he does (e.g., the incorruptible bodies of saints)...

    How, precisely this works, is entirely above my pay grade.


    Apology accepted.

    About Dawkins: I think there's a more eloquent way this can be put. The "there is no evidence..." claim is too...strong. A better way to say this is, insufficient. Lacking. Inconclusive. Improbable. Unlikely.

    Every supernatural claim that concludes that God exists can be twisted very easily. Just replace God with any other "lacking sufficient evidence" agent:

    1. Aliens
    2. Satan
    3. Vishnu
    4. Q entity
    5. David Copperfield

    And it's just that sort of lack of credibility and evidence that undoes a believer's claim and opens themselves up to ridicule by (let's argue he's a dickhead) Dawkins.

    This is why non-believers are exasperated by believers. No believer will accept that their agent (God) could actually be another agent (aliens, or Beelzebub) because they've reached their conclusion already (via Faith). But if God exists--God help me for using this as my cudgel--he'd expect YOU to know him better. Not by easily misconstrued signs, or by "personal experiences" but by proof.

    The God who expects to meet his children via their Faith (a tenet of Christianity) obviously never met his children, nor does he know how easily snowed his children can be. This cannot be the golden ticket a God dangles before his children, because--goddamn--that's some fucked-up, cynical shit.

    Or Santa exists.