I'm genuinely curious: does anyone know to what extant Richard Dawkins is a student of the Marquis de Sade? How about his fellow travellers?


“The assurance we should feel that no god has ever had a hand in our existence and that we are here because it could not be otherwise, inevitable creatures of Nature like plants and animals—this assurance without doubt quite demolishes, as one can see, the first group of duties, those which we falsely believe we have towards divinity; and with them disappear all the religious transgressions, all those known under the vague and intangible names of impiety, sacrilege, blasphemy, atheism, etc.: the transgressions, in fact, which Athens punished so unjustly in Alcibiades, and France in the unfortunate Labarre. If there is one thing in the world grotesque beyond others, it is to see men, with only their own circumscribed ideas of their god and what this god demands, wish nevertheless to determine the nature of what pleases or angers this ridiculous phantom of their imagination. I would not stop at allowing all the sects an equal liberty; I should like a man to be free to ridicule and scoff at anything; I should like men gathered in this temple or the other and invoking the eternal, each in his own fashion, to look like comedians in a theatre whom anyone is free to go and laugh at. If you do not look at religions in this light, they will regain the seriousness that makes them seem of consequence; soon they will start to defend their views, and then it will not be a question of disputing religions but of fighting for them; equality, destroyed by the preference or protection accorded to one religion, will soon vanish from the government, and out of theocracy reborn will spring aristocracy.”

—The Marquis de Sade—
—Philosophy In The Bedroom—

Hey, I can't provide any evidence for a "god," and can't counter any of Dawkins' arguments, so instead I'll just compare him to someone I consider a nasty historical figure! Yeah! That's a great idea!

Heh. Ya, that's it. Ignore the passage and concentrate on the writer, then pretend that is what I'm doing.

Look at the passage and compare it to some of the things Dawkins has said and written, especially the infamous screed at the Reason Rally (sic) of 2012.


But why not de Sade? Are you saying his writing is worthless to an atheist reader because in person he was "nasty"? His atheism at least didn't filch to explore the implications. At the very least, his writing shows up someone like Ayn Rand as a weak-assed pablum-pusher. He at least had the courage to think through to the end of his premises, did he not?

Buck up and take it like a man--or at least like a human.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 12:15PM by steve benson.

So Sade used atheism to justify his wild ways just like the religious right have used religion to justify their atrocities both physical and psychological down through the ages.

This is not news.

Atheism is not an agenda. Many atheists however do have an agenda of using facts and reason for no other purpose than to seek truth and even gladly find out they are wrong sometimes.

I've reached some of the same conclusions about some things as Francis Bacon did. Few, but some.
Doesn't mean I'm a follower of Bacon, a "student" of him, or that he and I have anything in common. In fact, I didn't even know about the few things we came to the same conclusions on until long after I had already come to my conclusions. And there's a LOT more we *don't* agree on that there are things we do.

Get the point?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 01:20PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Here's a wild idea... why don't you look up Dawkins yourself and then tell us?

Love this.

"I would not stop at allowing all the sects an equal liberty; I should like a man to be free to ridicule and scoff at anything; I should like men gathered in this temple or the other and invoking the eternal, each in his own fashion, to look like comedians in a theatre whom anyone is free to go and laugh at."

I imagined "going through a session" in a Mormon temple.

Cheers to you, Elder Berry. At least you read the passage rather than weakly balk at the names "Dawkins" or "de Sade".

I've read De Sade. Some interesting and bad stuff there. He was quite the character. I hope what he wrote was more fiction than autobiography.

I've never read Dawkins. I don't think genes are as involved in humans being selfish. I guess I'm waiting to find a compelling reason to read him.

Sade had sex, Dawkins I think has gametes. Too low level for my interests in sex. I've read Freud for much the same reasons. Titillating stuff and wrong on so many levels.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never read Dawkins. I don't think genes are
> as involved in humans being selfish. I guess I'm
> waiting to find a compelling reason to read him.

Just FYI, "The Selfish Gene" has nothing to do with genes being involved in humans being selfish. Maybe you *should* read it :)

Dawkins doesn't represent atheism. He's, in my opinion, a deeply immoral person (due in part to his disgusting comments about Down's syndrome) and has become a fame whore. I am still an atheist because I don't believe in any deities. My personal dislike of Dawkins has no effect on my atheism. Atheists who are obsessed with defending him don't make much sense to me because he has no effect on atheism and no power over atheist thought.

The thing about atheism is that it doesn't require any "leaders." Insulting somebody who is a vocal atheist doesn't have the same impact that, say, insulting Thomas Monson would. The nature of atheist thought indicates that Dawkins isn't a leader, a prophet, or inherently more well versed in atheism than anybody else. He really is just some guy. He promotes himself and his opinions. He is not a religious leader because atheism is not a religion. It's just a lack of belief in deities. That's it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 11:50AM by woodsmoke.

Here's a novel idea: hows about we stop invoking the name of Richard Dawkins every fucking time we discuss atheism?

That man is a celebrity, but he in no way represents me or the vast majority of atheists. I don't give two shits about what he says.

On the subject of ridicule, the Comedian from Watchmen discusses, quite aptly, the absurdity and hypocrisy inherent in being overly zealous toward any cause, ideology, or organization while either ignoring or desparaging others we arbitrarily deem inferior to our own pet crusades.

Human social groups, from religions to nonprofits to governments to corporations, all follow similar patterns. None of us are particularly unique, and our own pet groups are even less so.

In my mind, we're all worthy of ridicule in one way or another, and dogmatic devotion to our chosen passions is worthy of satire.

Our ideals need to be held in check, and ridicule is a vreat tool in keeping us from becoming overly earnest.

Religions tend to be viewed by their adherents as sacrosanct, exempt from scrutiny or satire. Which is bullshit. They deserve it every bit as much any other political, social or corporate group.

+1 Thank you! It's so disturbing to me when insulting Dawkins is considered a coup by religious people or a "sin" by other atheists. Why the fuck should I care what he says? The entire point of atheism is that nobody is "in charge." I am in charge of my own destiny and responsible for my own opinions. His beliefs aren't related to mine and don't represent me...precisely because I choose not to be religious!

My goodness. It just gets more bizarre. Now I'm "insulting" Dawkins because I ask if he has read Sade. Weird.


Nowhere did I say or imply that Dawkins "represents" atheism.

And wherefore this idea that Dawkins's public atheism cannot be discussed? Weird, really.

Guys, gals, really, there's no need to be so touchy.

Human

What I find funny, Human, is that you seem far more interested in invoking Dawkins' name than the average atheist when we discuss atheism, althougn you claim to want to separate New Atheism from the typical atheist. Hypocrisy, thy name is Human (Oh my god, that phrase is amazing in a broader context).

En Sabah Nur (nli) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hypocrisy, thy name is Human (Oh
> my god, that phrase is amazing in a broader
> context).


Poetry in the widest sense.

Truth to tell, En Sabah Nur, you're not quite correct here. I've written far more on Sam Harris than Dawkins.

Either way, it's weird that you make an issue about my or *anyone* talking about famous professional atheists. Wouldn't it be weird to talk about basketball without also talking about Shaq and Kobi and whomwholike?

Why the prohibition? Public figures speak *precisely* in hopes that others discuss their speakings.

I get that you and other atheists on the board don't want to be associated with Dawkins. Fine. But that is *exactly* what the term *New Atheism* does. It distinguishes. It's an important term.

Warning: Condescension Alert! (My apologies in advance)

Do you know the term "prevarication," Human? If not the term, you are certainly familiar with the practice.

The point is, religion is worthy of ridicule, just like any social group.

I would love to read your response. I mean that in a sincere way. I want to know if you believe that churches and their dogma, and the beliefs of its adherents, deserve special privilege in this context over other social groups.

En Sabah Nur (nli) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I want to know if you believe that
> churches and their dogma, and the beliefs of its
> adherents, deserve special privilege in this
> context over other social groups.


No. I defend free speech absolutely. I even disagree with special 'hate crime' laws. However:

https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Human

You and I are in agreement, then.

I think what people are saying is not that we don't want to be associated with him, but that we are not. You can't be a "professional atheist." Dawkins has a cult of personality and does a lot of videos making fun of religious people and proving them wrong. That's what he is famous for. It's not like Christianity where people share the same core beliefs. Atheism is not a belief system. Comparing it to basketball doesn't make sense as basketball is an activity with universal rules.

He is also a scientist and a humanist. I am neither, like many atheists. His public activities are more in line with the practice of science, political advocacy, and humanism than with atheism, which just means you don't believe in God.

Finally, the point is not that you can't talk about Dawkins. You can do whatever you want. It just has no relevance to the average atheist like talking about Kobe would for a basketball fan.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 12:47PM by woodsmoke.

woodsmoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Finally, the point is not that you can't talk
> about Dawkins. You can do whatever you want. It
> just has no relevance to the average atheist like
> talking about Kobe would for a basketball fan.


I beg to differ.

Many who have found themselves to be atheists since 9-11 have found their atheism via Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et. al.

I would suggest that many people find themselves to dislike religion and to be secular humanists through those writers. Unfortunately for clarity's sake, those things aren't equivalent to atheism, but they are often conflated by the media and by religious people looking to take down atheists (i.e., anything inflammatory those celebrities say can be associated with atheism like the Duggars are associated with fundamentalist Christianity). But the fact is that it's not a one to one comparison.

En Sabah Nur (nli) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our ideals need to be held in check, and ridicule
> is a vreat tool in keeping us from becoming overly
> earnest.

After rereading this I understood but at first to spawned a thought,

Our ideals need to be held in check, and ridicule is not a reason to retreat in keeping us from becoming overly earnest.

Or at least it hasn't been in the past. This is why "Saints" are venerated.

I keep my atheism private; it's just between ghawd and me.

Good. Just make sure you don't let your ghawd loose on the public.

This video explains why I have no respect for many beliefs in god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_5yUXjXizQ

Great video. I love the spectrum of parents. I was raised by controlling parents. Hopefully, I'm more on the love side.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm genuinely curious: does anyone know to what
> extant Richard Dawkins is a student of the Marquis
> de Sade? How about his fellow travellers?
>
No expertise here. Still I doubt that Dawkins is a student of the Marquis de Sade. Really.

What you did imply here, whether you intended to or not. Is that Dawkins somehow got his idea that religion should be an object of mockery from De Sade. This is such a weak connection that others can't help wondering if you are going for more of a guilt by association: "Dawkins mocks religion. De Sade mocks religion. See how people who mock religion are?"

I think a lot of people mock religion because they have been made to feel broken or less than others because of religion, so they feel kind of pissed off. I don't think it's usually because of reading De Sade.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 01:06PM by fool.

Hey fool,

Yep, I was being provocative, no doubt.


> I think a lot of people mock religion because they
> have been made to feel broken or less than others
> because of religion, so they feel kind of pissed
> off.

Yes. And in their pissed-offness they return the favour and seek to make the religious "feel broken or less than others."

Well, I think they should do their best to make their case without making the religious feel broken or less than.

I suggest you call out the person who does it, and point out the language that you feel is belittling. Some will disagree and feel that mockery is merited. So there will be disagreement there. But at least you will know who and what you disagree with instead of some generalized atheist herd.

Perhaps they are not pissed off, but simply see those who prefer fantasy and fairytales to be a bit "less than" because they consider fact a reason to be more enlightened?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 01:14PM by blueorchid.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2015 01:09PM by steve benson.

Yes to this.

Also, as a Bible scholar, I like to point a finger at the folks who proclaim their scriptures to be holy but have very little understanding of its content or construction. It's hilarious and sad and worthy of derision.

Religious people have a right to ridicule atheism and atheists have a right to ridicule religion.

I wouldn't suggest anyone ought to jeer other individuals, but mocking beliefs? I say go for it!

You often drive me crazy, but you're always fascinating, Human.

Why don't you ask Dawkins? Not sure he'd answer, but he is the only one who can answer that question.

Apparently, you see similarities in their philosophy.

As an atheist, I just want to agree with those who said he doesn't represent me in any way. He's a militant atheist, and I think there is room for respectful discussion. Although I also think we shouldn't treat crazy assertions as if they have merit.