"Atheism has a Richard Dawkins problem"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Musika, Aug 15, 2018.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,290
    How do you enter a thread prior to the OP?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If you can't conceive of how atheism can "own" a problem, you can't really participate in the thread ... although you are welcome to take your puzzlement to one of several other threads that don't require a bridging of that impasse.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,290
    I'm can also join the discussions going on here. You are confused and I'll do my best to help clear up that confusion if possible.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,923
    I reject Richard Dawkins as a spokesmodel for atheism. He should be held accountable for his statements.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,580
    You asked when was the last "time we heard someone advocate atheism in a manner like him?"

    If someone answering your question is "derailing the thread" - then you're looking mighty foolish, because you are criticizing your own derailment.

    So which is it? Is the thread about advocating atheism like Dawkins, or are you really trying to criticize yourself, and just hope nobody notices?
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Why?

    How do you propose to do that?
     
  10. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If one cannot entertain the notion of "atheism owning a problem" there is no question of "advocation", much less an individual one can hold accountable for doing such ... which pretty much places one's thoughts outside any of the axis of the OP, save for the link to the other thread (which offers one of the most recent offerings in that department).
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,923
    He's clueless on various subjects, especially sexual harassment and feminism.
    Not invite him to atheist events. Condemning him when he says something stupid.
     
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,911
    Are you suggesting that anybody else but Richard Dawkins is responsible for anything Richard Dawkins said?
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Were you raised by wild animals?
    If anyone is publishing their ideas to the tune of 100s of millions of editions, there is a fair chance the ideas end (and probably begin) at points further than the author.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,911
    And you think the originators of those ideas are responsible for what Dawkins said? Seriously? Charles Manson could read too. Are you going to blame his murders on the authors of the books he read?

    But what you're doing is even sillier than that. You're trying to project Dawkins' shortcomings on the people who read his books. And even worse than worse, you're trying to project Dawkins' shortcomings on people who haven't even read his books.
     
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If the originators of those ideas (whoever "they" may be ... I genuinely don't know who you are talking about .... and I suspect you don't either) don't have distribution runs in the hundreds of millions, its not clear exactly what one would be holding them responsible for or to.

    Throwing the word "Seriously?" before a question doesn't somehow seamlessly connect it to points under discussion.

    What you are doing is not even in the parameters of civilized human society. You are trying to project several nonfiction books (specifically about atheism) that probably sold over 100 million copies over 15 or so years as having no tangible effect on society.
    When you speak like this, it just makes people wonder if you were raised by wild animals.

    Most people don't merely buy books to prop up the legs on uneven tables or whatnot .... so once again, we are just left questioning your upbringing prior to adolescence.

    You would be hard pressed to even hold the publication of "Where's Wally" to this sociological void.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,580
    Looks like religion has a Musika problem.

    IOW, if a theist comes on this forum claiming that one man represents all of atheism and thus poses a problem for it, it would behoove that theist to not prove himself a complete ass - lest he demonstrate what sort of debate theists are capable of when challenged, and how that represents theists.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,911
    You're the one who brought them up.
    I didn't suggest any such thing. I said that Dawkins can not be blamed for what other people do. And people who have read his books (or who have not read his books) can not be blamed for what he wrote.
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Gee, and I only have 44 likes on sciforums under my belt.
    Seems like their parity to facebook likes must be pretty substantial.
     
  19. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Yes, but in a general sense, as in there was a lot going in the name of atheism before Dawkins hit the scene, and pumped it up with a specific flavour.
    So I guess my point still stands : in your haste to disagree, you have no idea what you are talking about

    Yes, it would be silly to blame people for agreeing with him. I mean, you don't even see atheists do that with their criticism of religious communities, do you?

    To the extent the phenomena falls short of being a "fashion" , perhaps you are right.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_effect
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,911
    The difference is that religious communities exist. Atheist communities do not.
     
  21. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Staunch individualism in groups is so pubescent.
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,911
    Individualism is important especially in groups - otherwise you're susceptible to groupthink.

    But of course there are no monolithic atheist groups, despite your vigorous attempts to ignore that fact.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,923
    I disagree. There was a movement centered around some prominent, mostly male figures in atheism, which struggled to figure out what their goals and collective values might be. Since atheism doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive ethos, the community is left to decide. So there's a split between the libertarian dude-bro wing and a more liberal human rights-centered wing.
     

Share This Page