Dr. Richard Dawkins shares mail from his fans (again)

[Aethrys]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607Y ... e=youtu.be

Thought some people would find this entertaining. As most of you are probably aware, Dawkins has previously shared a few of the more colorful comments he's received from cultists around the world, and depending on your view point, it was either hilarious (if you enjoy laughing at angry stupid people.) or depressing, if you thought further into it and realized that a majority of the human population holds similar viewpoints. Anyway, he's prepared another batch for your amusement or further dismay.

So, what say you NSG, does Doctor Dawkins deserve to receive such vitriol? I have heard him described as among other things, an "Asshole, jerk, douchebag, or generally rude individual." Though I have yet to see any real evidence of this. In my view he is an intelligent individual who presents his points in a fair and logical manner. Those taking offense are, in my opinion, simply upset because they can neither defeat his points intelligently, nor can they bear to admit defeat, making their only remaining recourse impotent rage like that exhibited here.

What about the people writing these hate letters, what does it tell you about them? Is this a fair viewing of the average cult? Are some cults more predisposed to irrational anger than others? Are Christian cultists more polite than the average grizzly bear? Take it away.

[Benuty]

Well given they are a bigot (especially in terms of women), they most certainly do need to receive some criticism.

However, in their defense they do a fine job at what they actually are supposed to do when they aren't making books that collect from this guy.

[Benuty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso&feature=youtu.be

Thought some people would find this entertaining. As most of you are probably aware, Dawkins has previously shared a few of the more colorful comments he's received from cultists around the world, and depending on your view point, it was either hilarious (if you enjoy laughing at angry stupid people.) or depressing, if you thought further into it and realized that a majority of the human population holds similar viewpoints. Anyway, he's prepared another batch for your amusement or further dismay.

So, what say you NSG, does Doctor Dawkins deserve to receive such vitriol? I have heard him described as among other things, an "Asshole, jerk, douchebag, or generally rude individual." Though I have yet to see any real evidence of this. In my view he is an intelligent individual who presents his points in a fair and logical manner. Those taking offense are, in my opinion, simply upset because they can neither defeat his points intelligently, nor can they bear to admit defeat, making their only remaining recourse impotent rage like that exhibited here.

What about the people writing these hate letters, what does it tell you about them? Is this a fair viewing of the average cult? Are some cults more predisposed to irrational anger than others? Are Christian cultists more polite than the average grizzly bear? Take it away.

That definition of cult is rather vague. Are they Protestant "cultists", Orthodox "cultists", Catholic "cultists", Miaphysite "cultists", Gnostic "cultists", or first century C.E "cultists"?

[Scomagia]

Dawkins is a bigoted twat.

[Aethrys]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso&feature=youtu.be

Thought some people would find this entertaining. As most of you are probably aware, Dawkins has previously shared a few of the more colorful comments he's received from cultists around the world, and depending on your view point, it was either hilarious (if you enjoy laughing at angry stupid people.) or depressing, if you thought further into it and realized that a majority of the human population holds similar viewpoints. Anyway, he's prepared another batch for your amusement or further dismay.

So, what say you NSG, does Doctor Dawkins deserve to receive such vitriol? I have heard him described as among other things, an "Asshole, jerk, douchebag, or generally rude individual." Though I have yet to see any real evidence of this. In my view he is an intelligent individual who presents his points in a fair and logical manner. Those taking offense are, in my opinion, simply upset because they can neither defeat his points intelligently, nor can they bear to admit defeat, making their only remaining recourse impotent rage like that exhibited here.

What about the people writing these hate letters, what does it tell you about them? Is this a fair viewing of the average cult? Are some cults more predisposed to irrational anger than others? Are Christian cultists more polite than the average grizzly bear? Take it away.

That definition of cult is rather vague. Are they Protestant "cultists", Orthodox "cultists", Catholic "cultists", Miaphysite "cultists", Gnostic "cultists", or first century C.E "cultists"?

All those groups are indeed cults, and their members are therefore cultists. I suppose if you wanted to be technical you could go into it and investigate whether they're a truly independent cult or just a subsect of a larger grouping of various cults, but at the end of the day they're still just cults.

Dawkins is a bigoted twat.

Please explain the reasoning for your viewpoint in greater detail.

[Romalae]

Fun fact, I was once about five/ten feet away from Richard Dawkins, in the hallways of Hogg Memorial Auditorium after he gave a speech. Closest I think I've ever physically been to a public figure/celebrity.



I liked the video you posted. Not sure that this deserves its own thread, though.

[Benuty]

That definition of cult is rather vague. Are they Protestant "cultists", Orthodox "cultists", Catholic "cultists", Miaphysite "cultists", Gnostic "cultists", or first century C.E "cultists"?

All those groups are indeed cults, and their members are therefore cultists. I suppose if you wanted to be technical you could go into it and investigate whether they're a truly independent cult or just a subsect of a larger grouping of various cults, but at the end of the day they're still just cults.

Dawkins is a bigoted twat.

Please explain the reasoning for your viewpoint in greater detail.

That is hardly a proper definition of a cult.

[Scomagia]

That definition of cult is rather vague. Are they Protestant "cultists", Orthodox "cultists", Catholic "cultists", Miaphysite "cultists", Gnostic "cultists", or first century C.E "cultists"?

All those groups are indeed cults, and their members are therefore cultists. I suppose if you wanted to be technical you could go into it and investigate whether they're a truly independent cult or just a subsect of a larger grouping of various cults, but at the end of the day they're still just cults.

Dawkins is a bigoted twat.

Please explain the reasoning for your viewpoint in greater detail.

Cult has a specific meaning, you know, it isn't just a word for religion.

And Dawkins is a twat because he's intentionally inflammatory and seems to do his absolute best to be as much of a prick towards religious folks as possible.

[MERIZoC]

All those groups are indeed cults, and their members are therefore cultists. I suppose if you wanted to be technical you could go into it and investigate whether they're a truly independent cult or just a subsect of a larger grouping of various cults, but at the end of the day they're still just cults.



Please explain the reasoning for your viewpoint in greater detail.

Cult has a specific meaning, you know, it isn't just a word for religion.

And Dawkins is a twat because he's intentionally inflammatory and seems to do his absolute best to be as much of a prick towards religious folks as possible.

Confirmed. Dawkins is Cannabis Islands.

[Aethrys]

All those groups are indeed cults, and their members are therefore cultists. I suppose if you wanted to be technical you could go into it and investigate whether they're a truly independent cult or just a subsect of a larger grouping of various cults, but at the end of the day they're still just cults.



Please explain the reasoning for your viewpoint in greater detail.

Cult has a specific meaning, you know, it isn't just a word for religion.

And Dawkins is a twat because he's intentionally inflammatory and seems to do his absolute best to be as much of a prick towards religious folks as possible.

A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

I fail to see how these are not accurate descriptions of most, if not all religions on the planet.

In what way do you find Dawkins inflammatory? Does the idea of engaging in logical dialogue with religious people constitute being a prick to them?

[The Sanguinian Islands]

Atheist Jesus decides to be a dumbass.

good luck inventor of memes :^)

[Benuty]

Cult has a specific meaning, you know, it isn't just a word for religion.

And Dawkins is a twat because he's intentionally inflammatory and seems to do his absolute best to be as much of a prick towards religious folks as possible.

A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

I fail to see how these are not accurate descriptions of most, if not all religions on the planet.

In what way do you find Dawkins inflammatory? Does the idea of engaging in logical dialogue with religious people constitute being a prick to them?

Depends on the definition of cult when you use it. There is a difference between say the ancient cult of the god Marduk vs Heaven's Gate (a negative association of cult).

[Angleter]

All those groups are indeed cults, and their members are therefore cultists. I suppose if you wanted to be technical you could go into it and investigate whether they're a truly independent cult or just a subsect of a larger grouping of various cults, but at the end of the day they're still just cults.



Please explain the reasoning for your viewpoint in greater detail.

That is hardly a proper definition of a cult.

Who needs proper definitions when you can just be gratuitously and smugly insulting?

[Geilinor]

Dawkins, instead of trying to reason with people without making them angry, goes out of his way to harm his cause.

[Benuty]

Dawkins, instead of trying to reason with people without making them angry, goes out of his way to harm his cause.

He'd make a great comedian if that quack Bill Maher didn't fill the position already.

[The Sanguinian Islands]

Dawkins, instead of trying to reason with people without making them angry, goes out of his way to harm his cause.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ned-to-you

[The Sanguinian Islands]

Dawkins, instead of trying to reason with people without making them angry, goes out of his way to harm his cause.

He'd make a great comedian if that quack Bill Maher didn't fill the position already.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quack
stahp

[Aethrys]

That is hardly a proper definition of a cult.

Who needs proper definitions when you can just be gratuitously and smugly insulting?

Please explain what words you view to be used with improper definitions, as well as how you find them to be insulting. Also what definitions should be properly applied to these words.

Dawkins, instead of trying to reason with people without making them angry, goes out of his way to harm his cause.

Keeping the anger of your debate opponent in check is surely the responsibility of your opponent, not you, right? I mean, if I'm in a discussion with someone about whether or not liquid water is wet and they're telling me it's not, I'm not going to be walking on egg shells when I tell them they're wrong.

[Benuty]

He'd make a great comedian if that quack Bill Maher didn't fill the position already.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quack
stahp

Well Bill Maher is a quack, they endorse an Anti-GMO position, and encourage people to keep away from vaccines (to only get them if they desperately need them). The best part is his cancer quackery (they approve of Laetrile's), and their position that hygiene not the vaccine helped reduce the majority of Polio.

[Geilinor]

Dawkins, instead of trying to reason with people without making them angry, goes out of his way to harm his cause.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ned-to-you

The attention has gotten to him, basically.

[Benuty]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ned-to-you

The attention has gotten to him, basically.

Its unfortunate.

Atleast Hitchen's knew when to deliver a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIviufQ4APo

[Mushet]

I don't have a problem with atheism, but Dawkins is an asshole. He preaches Islamophobia, he claims to not be a fan of any religion but he denounces seemingly all things Muslim disproportionately while calling himself a cultural Christian, certainly has his double standards.

And there was that whole Muslima elevator incident...

[Scomagia]

Cult has a specific meaning, you know, it isn't just a word for religion.

And Dawkins is a twat because he's intentionally inflammatory and seems to do his absolute best to be as much of a prick towards religious folks as possible.

A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

I fail to see how these are not accurate descriptions of most, if not all religions on the planet.

In what way do you find Dawkins inflammatory? Does the idea of engaging in logical dialogue with religious people constitute being a prick to them?

I actually shouldn't have been so specific. It appears that he's an equal opportunity asshole.
Here he is belittling a woman's experience with sexual harassment: http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/07 ... ents/39637

He consistently demonstrates a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions and, despite how intelligent he is, never seems to exercise tact when talking to other people. Telling the truth (or what you believe to be the truth) is good, telling the truth with the most arrogant language possible is being a prick. Telling a woman that she should stop complaining about sexual harassment makes him an even bigger prick.

[The Sanguinian Islands]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quack
stahp

Well Bill Maher is a quack, they endorse an Anti-GMO position, and encourage people to keep away from vaccines (to only get them if they desperately need them). The best part is his cancer quackery (they approve of Laetrile's), and their position that hygiene not the vaccine helped reduce the majority of Polio.

Food would be better without GMOs anyway, but this is Atheist Jesus thread

[Benuty]

I don't have a problem with atheism, but Dawkins is an asshole. He preaches Islamophobia, he claims to not be a fan of any religion but he denounces seemingly all things Muslim disproportionately while calling himself a cultural Christian, certainly has his double standards.

And there was that whole Muslima elevator incident...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... slim-nobel

Well then there was that whole incident.