lol .. ?

---


American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins

Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/

Well.

Someone should set up a 24 hour suicide watch for the poor guy.

His life must be in shambles.

Have they told him?

I was reflecting with my wife just yesterday that an advantage of being our age is we are not employed, are not members of any church, do not belong to any clubs or social groups.
So if we happen to say or do something that offends the self appointed thought police, what can they threaten us with?
Dawkins book on atheism was highly influential in my decision to step away from Mormonism, Christianity, and religion in general.
If Dawkins says something, I listen.

And this proves what ?

Dave, check your pudding!

How "Humanist" of them. lol
This is hilarious.
I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but I did love his book, the God Delusion and his BBC Special, "The Root of Evil" both of which were brilliant reactions to 9-11, as was the "New Atheist" movement. I do think that Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" were better reactions to 9-11. But all three books are great answers to the problem of religion that brought us 9-11 and 20years of War since then.
Thank goodness we're finally ending America's Longest War.
Just in time for another one building on the Ukraine/Russia border.

> I'm not a fan of Dawkins,
> but I did love his book,
> the God Delusion and his
> BBC Special, "The Root of
> Evil" both of which were
> brilliant reactions to
> 9-11 ...

So where did he fail you? What did he do to get rejected?

what turned me off of the guy is “At the March 24, 2012 “Reason Rally” in Washington, D.C., an estimated 20,000 atheists and agnostics heard author and activist Richard Dawkins encourage mockery of Catholic beliefs and those of other religions.

“Don't fall for the convention that we're all 'too polite' to talk about religion,” Dawkins said, before urging rally attendees to ridicule Catholics' faith in the Eucharist.

“Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged – and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt,” he told the cheering crowd on the National Mall.

“For example, if they say they're Catholic: Do you really believe, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?”

If the answer is yes, Dawkins suggested atheists should show contempt for believers instead of ignoring the issue or feigning respect. Mock them,” he told the crowd. “Ridicule them! In public!” But those who hold to the doctrines of their faith should be openly ridiculed, Dawkins said.

“I don't despise religious people; I despise what they stand for,” he explained."

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/24617/dawkins-calls-for-mockery-of-catholics-at-reason-rally

I'm a pantheist, which is not much different from an atheist, but I don't agree with showing contempt for believers. If I did, I probably wouldn't be employed long. Showing contempt for somebody because of their religion is kind of like showing contempt for people because of their political party. I guess it happens all the time, but that is not something to STRIVE for in life, having contempt for others. WTF?
How about we "Imagine" no religion?
Imagine no borders to fight over.

> I'm a pantheist, which is
> not much different from an
> atheist, but I don't agree
> with showing contempt for
> believers.


Aren't there quite a number of mormon missionaries who in person or via phone and/or internet would say that you've shown them quite a bit of contempt for what they believe?

Asking the official representatives of the abusive CULT real questions and expecting real answers isn’t ridiculing them or showing contempt for them. It’s using the Socratic Method to confront them with the truth. I wish I had met somebody on my mission who was well educated about the abusive CULT I was flogging, so they would have educated me about the major structural flaws in my beliefs. It would have been like a real estate salesman trying to sell a building with a cracked foundation to a structural engineer.

So...

A structural engineer, upon discovery of the cracked foundation, would start yelling and carrying on at the real estate agent who, not being a structural engineer, knew nothing of the situation the structural engineer discovered. The real estate agent was just trying to do what he thought was best.

You don't see the problem?


> I wish I had met somebody on my
> mission who was well educated
> about the abusive CULT I was
> flogging, so they would have
> educated me about the major
> structural flaws in my beliefs.

So you wish you'd met someone like you on your mission, to gently, kindly, with loving patience, precept upon precept, led you to the truths you now hold dear... Just like you do now when you have the opportunity?

And most of us remember reviewing your chat logs with the missionaries, as you lovingly spoon-fed them the Truth...

You don't get that you were being a bully? Sure, a bully with the truth, so that makes it all okay?

Failure to disclose structural deficiencies in a building is grounds for invalidating a real estate contract. Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to selling a religion?
There are structural faults with MORmONism. It’s an abusive CULT that exploited me and five generations of my family before me, not to mention at least 10 of my loved ones, who were raped by Mormon penisholders, who were protected by this abusive CULT. I am bound and determined not to allow it to claim any generations of my family or friends after me. If the representatives of that abusive CULT are clueless about how abusive it is, that’s what I’m there to remind them of. That’s not bullying them. That’s called not being a coward.

> That’s called not being a coward.


Oh, I'm sure no one here thinks of you in terms of cowardice.

But you continually avoid a sore point: In the case of the structural engineer discovering the rotten foundation, why is he screaming at the real estate agent? Why doesn't he realize the real estate agent is just a dupe, and treat him in a fashion that allows him to discover just what a dupe he is/has been?

You are a whole lot of bluster and 'normal' people don't trust such a presentation.

Nobody is screaming, except you, defending liars, trying to deceive gullible dupes into buying their obviously flawed religion.

You think I am promoting mormonism??

For the umpteenth time:

If you don't know you're lying, you're not lying.

Kindness--always. Always.

>> "....so they would have educated me about the major structural flaws in my beliefs."

Many have attempted that here regarding your take on science, word definitions, etc.....but it doesn't seem to make any difference.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> "....so they would have educated me about the
> major structural flaws in my beliefs."
>
> Many have attempted that here regarding your take
> on science, word definitions, etc.....but it
> doesn't seem to make any difference.

What structural flaws have you educated me about in terms of my take on science, word definitions, etc.....?

I didn't say "I" have tried, I said "many" have tried. You sometimes interpret science and words to your liking, and many here have pointed out flaws in those interpretations. I'll them chime in if they want to.

Feel free to back up your bogus claim. Give me a for instance, just for giggles.

Your use of "ad hominem" your definition of god, good, etc. for a couple.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your use of "ad hominem" your definition of god,
> good, etc. for a couple.


I use it the way it is defined in the dictionary,
“ ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Definition of god, I use it the way Einstein defined it, as in, ‘the Mind of God’, which is the way Hawking, Sagan and Kaku used it. Even Dawkins admits to believing in Einstein’s religion in the first chapter of The God Delusion.
I’m confident I am in good company.

Definition of good: opposite of bad.

Where are the structural flaws in my understanding again?

“I use the word ‘God’ in an impersonal sense, like Einstein did, for the laws of nature, so knowing the mind of God is knowing the laws of nature.” Hawking, “Brief Answers To The Big Questions, Chapter 1, Is There A God?” Pg 28.

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.”
Carl Sagan

“When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe."

That other kind of God clearly has less appeal for Kaku, as it generally does for physicists and other scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who says that believers he talks to tell him that God is all-powerful and good, but when he looks at ”all the ways Earth wants to kill us,” he just doesn’t see how both could be true.

So when Kaku asserts that the goal of string field theory is to “read the mind of God,” it’s important to remember he’s talking about Einstein’s God of Order. To “read the mind of God” would be to find that (one-inch) equation that explains everything in the cosmos. Bearing in mind the continual game of leapfrog going on between math and physics, and that the latest leap is physics' string theory, which requires a new type of math, Kaku mischievously suggests that the ultimate solution to the schism between physicists and mathematicians could be that God is a mathematician. And, he says, the mind of God — the explanation of Order — may turn out to be string field theory’s “cosmic music,” the resonating of strings through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

Michio Kaku

We know, SC. Jesus, we KNOW. How many times are you going quote that same thing?

I'm defining Jesus here as Good Grief.

As many times as idiots make bogus assertions they can’t back up.

By your idiosyncratic standards, you just engaged in yet another ad hominem attack.

I am allowed to defend myself against ad hominem attacks.

So ad hominems are wrong for others but okay for you? I mean, they are "idiots," right?

You are singularly incapable of learning--or even of consistency.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2021 03:42PM by Lot's Wife.

singularity incapable of learning

I think most TBMs would want me to stick to the Socratic method of hemlock tea drinking.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree with showing
> contempt for believers.

D'oh!

Dawkins is a dick. Does this mean Atheism is wrong ?

The old atheism or the new atheism?

I'm waiting for the Gluten Free one.

Now that it's Atheism Zero Sugar, it just doesn't taste the same.

Of course, it is better than Diet Atheism or the competition's Atheism One and Atheism Light.

Tyson "Don't even get me started on Crystal Atheism...."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2021 02:45PM by Tyson Dunn.

Old atheism: Christian says shut up; atheist says ok.

New atheism: Christian says shut up; atheist says no.

This is the Benny Hill version of James Watson being stripped of all his titles for racist remarks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2021 02:05AM by Cold-Dodger.

They withdrew the award because he was a dick, not because he was an atheist. People can be more than one thing. That's probably even a Sesame Street song of some sort.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They withdrew the award because he was a dick, not
> because he was an atheist. People can be more than
> one thing. That's probably even a Sesame Street
> song of some sort.


Trying to be a "humanist" in the first place was the problem that as an evolutionary scientist he should've known would be a problem. They can't handle uncomfortable truth.

Tell me what you mean by uncomfortable truth. That seems like an odd statement to make.

The uncomfortable truths are stated in the AHA screed against Dawkins. I would go further and say that it has more to do with evolutionary and scientific data about what we know than what is limted to some off-hand remarks thrown out. He made a few comments about "identity" and what constitutes identity or what doesn't constitute it.

In any case "humanism" comes down to just another religious or moral stance.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dawkins is a dick. Does this mean Atheism is wrong
> ?

I think atheists who openly mock religion Dawkins, above, are the reason scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris reject the "Atheism" label. They don't want to be associated with people who treat others with contempt, just because of their religion. People change religion all the time, based upon scientific facts.
We did. But having people treat us with contempt isn't what changed our minds, it was following evidence to its logical conclusion. Identifying your self with anything can be harmful, especially if it motivates you to show contempt for most of your fellow men/women.

I find that really, really surprising, given that he wrote An Atheist Manifesto: https://samharris.org/an-atheist-manifesto/

As for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he is an agnostic, not an atheist, and has gone so far as to attempt to edit Wikipedia to get that right.

Tyson

https://samharris.org/the-problem-with-atheism/
“ My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.

We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.” Sam Harris, “The Problem With Atheism” 2007

Your lack of insight, your ability to write that without laughing at the irony, is astounding.

Through a glass dark matteredly.

"I think atheists who openly mock religion Dawkins, above, are the reason scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris reject the "Atheism" label."

There is nothing about the 'atheist' label that implies any attitude toward religion (or the religious), other than that it's (their) claims are false. If someone rejects the atheist label, that means they are uncomfortable, or unsure, about their identification as an atheist, and not because some atheists are disrespectful to theists.
______________________________________

"They don't want to be associated with people who treat others with contempt, just because of their religion."

Again, associating as an "atheist" does not imply treating others with contempt, and moreover, in general atheists do not do that. The fact that some do, is just an empirical fact about some human beings that has nothing to do with being an atheist or identifying as an atheist. In other words, the definition of 'atheist' does not entail, 'contempt for theists.'
_______________________________________

"People change religion all the time, based upon scientific facts. We did. But having people treat us with contempt isn't what changed our minds, it was following evidence to its logical conclusion."

Yes. None of us who are 'atheists' factored into this decision any idea of 'contempt' because the word 'contempt' is not logically associated with the word atheist. Again, that some people have contempt for atheists, and some atheists have contempt for theists is just an empirical social and psychological fact, having nothing do to with the word 'atheist' or the word 'theist.'
________________________________________________

"Identifying your self with anything can be harmful, especially if it motivates you to show contempt for most of your fellow men/women."

Again, there is nothing about being an atheist, or associating one's self with 'atheism' that naturally motivates any particular attitude about religion--other than it is false. That's it!

Now, that said, none of the above applies to organizations and institutions than have mission statements that encompass beliefs and attitudes that go beyond just being an atheist. When such organizations adopt social values--like humanism--that go beyond atheism, that is something else. And an atheist may or may not subscribe to the values of such organizations.

To me, if you say that you are atheist, you are still talking about God and religion in a way, if only to say what you *don't* believe. It's like using the term ex-Mormon to say that you are not Mormon. Maybe at a certain point you want to move beyond talking about what you are not, and just put all of it in your rear view mirror.

Wisdom. Thank you, summer.

Never was a more god & religion obsessed group than those loudly proclaiming their atheism with reams of books, public declarations etc over years and years and years. Thanks a lot of god talk.

On the other hand, there was a good living to be made on it for awhile. Seems the fad for many is disappearing into the rear view mirror, though.

hgc refers to "self-appointed thought police." May I suggest: "self-anointed thought police?"

Just goes to show there are no sacred cows among the atheists.

Edit: And this was done by the "inHumanist Association?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2021 01:08AM by caffiend.

The very denial of humanism is in their chosen name.

Are they taking back the trophy that they gave him?