3 ms·

That you associate them with any of the things you mentioned tells me you haven't listened to or read any of their works with the intention of understanding the

That you associate them with any of the things you mentioned tells me you haven't listened to or read any of their works with the intention of understanding the contents, rather than picking out sentences that can be twisted to fit into your completely wrong image of them.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
I was already an atheist and agreed with most of the points Dawkins makes in his books before I even read them. That doesn't detract from him demonstrating various human follies that could, and have been argued to be caused or exacerbated by organised religion. And if it was just one older gentlemen then you could probably just write it off, but when lots of younger atheists form communities to actively practice and promote many of these things, it really just blows that argument out of the water totally.
- moccachino 9y ago
  You are confused. 1) Sam Harris / Richard Dawkins are not promoting any of these Bad Qualities (xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc.). You seem to concede that because you now talk about "lots of younger atheists" that "form communities to actively practice and promote" these Bad Qualities. Probably some exist but I haven't seen any of consequence. In any case, they are not SH/RD so your entire opening statement is therefore baseless. 2) The main argument of SH/RD is NOT that only religious people or groups promote Bad Qualities. The main argument is that religious faith is a set of made-up doctrines and "truths" that can lead to a whole variety of behaviors depending on the specific set of "truths" and doctrines. Some of those are good, many of those are bad (see Bad Qualities). The Bad Qualities arise because the faith is made-up and therefore will unavoidably have components incompatible with the real world. 3) The good parts of religion can all, each and every one, be achieved without religious faith. Sam Harris especially has been advocating this. You can have "spirituality" and meditation without all the bullcrap of gods.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    So... 1) yes they are, that's why I named them specifically as part of a broader group of "Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins". Here's one item where Richard Dawkins apologized for doing so: https://the-orbit.net/greta/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins-apologizes-for-dear-muslima/ https://the-orbit.net/greta/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins-apolo... 2) I never said it was the main argument, just an argument, 3) yes, I mostly of agree, but don't really see that much benefit if these non-religious people are still committing genocide based on pseudo-science or other such things. It's not the believing in nonsense part that ever really bothered me about religion, as I'm self aware enough to realise that atheists believe a lot of non-religious nonsense too.
    - moccachino 9y ago
      I was not aware of this "Dear Muslima" thing, but let's analyze it. Someone makes a video complaining about being propositioned (I didn't watch the video but read the context). Dawkins, a homosexual who as been around for quite some time, when things were not very pleasant for them, thinks this is really not anything to complain about so he makes this remark comparing the suffering of people under a particular religion. He then apologizes for the comment. Was the comment unnecessary? Yes. Was the comment tacky? Yes. Is it indicative of sexism? I'll say not, given Dawkins' context, his previous statements and also importantly, the fact that he apologized.
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        I'm fairly certain Dawkins isn't gay. He's been married to women three times. And I don't really see how telling people they're not allowed to complain about sexism unless they are the person most affected in the entire world would be made better if he was. It's a logically preposterous claim. If he truly believed it then he'd never have complained about religion, since people in other countries have it much worse than him.
coldtea 9y ago
>That you associate them with any of the things you mentioned tells me you haven't listened to or read any of their works with the intention of understanding the contents, rather than picking out sentences that can be twisted to fit into your completely wrong image of them. So similar to how they read religious texts?

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

I was already an atheist and agreed with most of the points Dawkins makes in his books before I even read them. That doesn't detract from him demonstrating various human follies that could, and have been argued to be caused or exacerbated by organised religion. And if it was just one older gentlemen then you could probably just write it off, but when lots of younger atheists form communities to actively practice and promote many of these things, it really just blows that argument out of the water totally.

moccachino 9y ago
You are confused. 1) Sam Harris / Richard Dawkins are not promoting any of these Bad Qualities (xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc.). You seem to concede that because you now talk about "lots of younger atheists" that "form communities to actively practice and promote" these Bad Qualities. Probably some exist but I haven't seen any of consequence. In any case, they are not SH/RD so your entire opening statement is therefore baseless. 2) The main argument of SH/RD is NOT that only religious people or groups promote Bad Qualities. The main argument is that religious faith is a set of made-up doctrines and "truths" that can lead to a whole variety of behaviors depending on the specific set of "truths" and doctrines. Some of those are good, many of those are bad (see Bad Qualities). The Bad Qualities arise because the faith is made-up and therefore will unavoidably have components incompatible with the real world. 3) The good parts of religion can all, each and every one, be achieved without religious faith. Sam Harris especially has been advocating this. You can have "spirituality" and meditation without all the bullcrap of gods.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  So... 1) yes they are, that's why I named them specifically as part of a broader group of "Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins". Here's one item where Richard Dawkins apologized for doing so: https://the-orbit.net/greta/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins-apologizes-for-dear-muslima/ https://the-orbit.net/greta/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins-apolo... 2) I never said it was the main argument, just an argument, 3) yes, I mostly of agree, but don't really see that much benefit if these non-religious people are still committing genocide based on pseudo-science or other such things. It's not the believing in nonsense part that ever really bothered me about religion, as I'm self aware enough to realise that atheists believe a lot of non-religious nonsense too.
  - moccachino 9y ago
    I was not aware of this "Dear Muslima" thing, but let's analyze it. Someone makes a video complaining about being propositioned (I didn't watch the video but read the context). Dawkins, a homosexual who as been around for quite some time, when things were not very pleasant for them, thinks this is really not anything to complain about so he makes this remark comparing the suffering of people under a particular religion. He then apologizes for the comment. Was the comment unnecessary? Yes. Was the comment tacky? Yes. Is it indicative of sexism? I'll say not, given Dawkins' context, his previous statements and also importantly, the fact that he apologized.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      I'm fairly certain Dawkins isn't gay. He's been married to women three times. And I don't really see how telling people they're not allowed to complain about sexism unless they are the person most affected in the entire world would be made better if he was. It's a logically preposterous claim. If he truly believed it then he'd never have complained about religion, since people in other countries have it much worse than him.

coldtea 9y ago

>That you associate them with any of the things you mentioned tells me you haven't listened to or read any of their works with the intention of understanding the contents, rather than picking out sentences that can be twisted to fit into your completely wrong image of them. So similar to how they read religious texts?