Dawkins stopped from presenting one of his anti religion rants.

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Deemed islamophobic

Richard Dawkins event canceled by station citing 'abusive' anti-Islam comments - CNN.com

Right or wrong? Sadly in my view free speech must trump his obnoxious views?
Or did the organisers fear becoming Charlie hebdo 2?

What I don't get is why they call him a " scientist". His anti religious polemics, are some of the least scientific works I have read. They are nothing more than badly based Apriori Opinions , that use every logical fallacy type there is, that he tries to dressed up with an aurora of respectability, misusing the word "science" to do it.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton

Wolfe

Pack Leader
Aug 24, 2016
1,345
1,115
United states
✟59,662.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You think if what he was saying was somehow incorrect he wouldn't be taken so seriously.
Point is, tons of rather uneducated people do take him seriously.

The mental gymnastics you atheists preform, is truly remarkable.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
He made an interesting statement I am known as a frequent critic of christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give islam a free pass. Why is it fine to criticize christianity and not islam.
 
Upvote 0

Wolfe

Pack Leader
Aug 24, 2016
1,345
1,115
United states
✟59,662.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
He made an interesting statement I am known as a frequent critic of christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give islam a free pass. Why is it fine to criticize christianity and not islam.
I may not like the man, but you've gotta respect that.

Even if he's less of a critic, and more of a raving mad man, you've still just gotta respect that.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,694
LA
✟551,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Point is, tons of rather uneducated people do take him seriously.
So?

The mental gymnastics you atheists preform, is truly remarkable.
Here's my point... If this were truly the case, people wouldn't be so upset by what he says. They'd simply dismiss it as the incoherent rant they claim it really is. It's only because they know there's some truth to what he says and can't argue against it that they take any offense to it.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Wolfe

Pack Leader
Aug 24, 2016
1,345
1,115
United states
✟59,662.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Here's my point... If this were truly the case, people wouldn't be so upset by what he says. They'd simply dismiss it as the incoherent rant they claim it really is. It's only because they know there's some truth to what he says and can't argue against it that they take any offense to it.
Well if I went up to your house, and starting cursing your family, and swearing, saying all types of vile stuff.
You'd be offended on some level.

Besides, everything Dawkins said can easily be argued against, so easy in fact he right out refuses to debate people he knows are going to sit him down.

Your vain insistence that if people don't like a person, then they must believe what he says, is unfounded, and quite silly.
Christians do not like him, because he leads our youth astray, and/or our more uneducated.
Effectively killing them.
Not because deep down we know what he speaks is true, honestly, this may very well be the worst argument I've ever seen.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,694
LA
✟551,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well if I went up to your house, and starting cursing your family, and swearing, saying all types of vile stuff.
You'd be offended on some level.
I doubt that I'd be genuinely offended by it. More likely I'd just write you off as some crazy person and then proceed to ignore you and go about my life. You know... The opposite of what religious people do when their claims and beliefs are questioned.

Besides, everything Dawkins said can easily be argued against, so easy in fact he right out refuses to debate people he knows are going to sit him down.
It looks more like people are refusing to debate him. If it's so easy to argue against him, why do so many fail to do so? Why shut him down like the story in the OP if he can so easily be shown to be wrong?

Your vain insistence that if people don't like a person, then they must believe what he says, is unfounded, and quite silly.
I didn't say it's because they don't like him. I said they take offense because what he says makes sense on at least some level and because they can't argue against what he says, they take offense. It's a classic pattern most people follow when their beliefs are shown to be flawed. They get angry and close themselves off from the argument.

Christians do not like him, because he leads our youth astray, and/or our more uneducated.
Because what he says makes more sense than what their pastors are telling them. That's not Dawkins' fault

Effectively killing them.
That would be your belief. I believe he's helping people.

Not because deep down we know what he speaks is true, honestly, this may very well be the worst argument I've ever seen.
It wasn't an argument against gods or for atheism. It was an explanation of why religious people react the way they do to their beliefs being challenged.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wolfe

Pack Leader
Aug 24, 2016
1,345
1,115
United states
✟59,662.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That would be your belief. I believe he's helping people.
Missed the point entirely.
Christians don't, we believe he is effectively killing them. Hence why most of us do not like him, it's not because we somehow think what he is saying is true, or it threatens our beliefs.

My goodness, just where did you learn to bend like that sir?

It was an explanation of why religious people react the way they do to their beliefs being challenged.
Lol... An atheist explaining to a Christian why they don't like Dawkins.... lol
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No matter what your religion or non-theist bent, your view at the end of the day is eclectic and is moulded by your experience and education.

I take on board everything.... some I discard and others i hold to, while others i put in the NOT SURE basket to be further examined. I dont want to cut off from any positive opinion or knowledge of the universe. What I end up with might be a set of philosophies that dont fit anyone elses. Cant we all respect that?
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Probably because he's a scientist.

I should not have put the last para in, because I was more interested in reactions to whether Dawkins rabid ranting deserves a platform.

But as for your comment:

He leaves science (and critical thinking) at the door of the lab, when he goes home to write his books, using every type of logical fallacy there is.

He has also repeated sagans folly : "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which is all about subjectivity , which is the very antithesis of science. All claims need the same standard of evidence , including Dawkins own fantasies. So he is clearly not a scientist. Thosewho seek roles in "public understanding of science" are generally those who want to abuse that platform to pronounce their own beliefs. Take his silly book "magic of reality". Any student of logic can rip it to shreds.

Worse - A lot of his pronouncements are on science he doesnt even understand (take quantum chemistry) - yet his followers hang on his every word. Like dawkins - they are more interested in trying to justify an apriori conclusion, rather than discover the truth. Not science.

Reality is Dawkins is the advocate a thinking atheist would rather not have!

But I really am more interested on peoples views on whether he should have been denied a platform - I do not think it should be denied, however much I dislike his views and his abuse of position of authority.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Rather amused by this thread. I pretty much ignore Dawkins and have much better things to focus on. And I'm Christian. I just ran through all the "new" threads in the sidebar.

He made an interesting statement I am known as a frequent critic of christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give islam a free pass. Why is it fine to criticize christianity and not islam.

I'm interested to read that he made this statement. This is pretty much my thought on what I had gathered had probably happened. So yes, I can respect that he said this.

Carry on folks. Not my area of concern. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rubiks

proud libtard
Aug 14, 2012
4,293
2,259
United States
✟137,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Richard Dawkins is an excellent evolutionary biologist, but when whenever he tries to step outside his field he ends up butchering that field. I'd call him more of a pop culture figure. I find that "militant atheist" types can have just as many bizarre beliefs and misconceptions about religion and history as religious fundamentalists. (ignore any whining about "the dark ages" or someone questioning the historicity of Jesus)
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

LinguaIgnota

Newbie
Nov 26, 2014
738
1,131
✟59,588.00
Faith
Atheist
He leaves science (and critical thinking) at the door of the lab, when he goes home to write his books, using every type of logical fallacy there is.

I don't think he's ever claimed that his musings on theism is scientific. They belong in the realm of philosophy and logic. His work as an accomplished scientist does not lend credence to his comments on theism - and his comments on theism does not detract from his work as a scientist.
Also noting, of course, the distinction between theism and religion. Some religions make testable claims which put us back within the framework of science. Dawkins has, quite eloquently and successfully, shredded a number of these claims. Especially in regards to creationism.

e has also repeated sagans folly : "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which is all about subjectivity , which is the very antithesis of science. All claims need the same standard of evidence[...]

Within science; sure, to some extend. It's not really that black and white, but I'll grant the point for the sake of argument. But as there is no method within science to test the supernatural, claims of the supernatural are inherently unscientific. Claims of the supernatural must be evaluated in a different way and here's where the extraordinary evidence comes is.

I have no problem believing you if you claim that you own a car. I know that cars are a thing that exist. I have seen cars before, I have driven cars before, and I know of other people that own cars. Your claim does not go beyond what I can reasonably assume to be true based on the knowledge I already have.
It is an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence.

Were you instead to claim that you own an interstellar spaceship, I would need some pretty compelling evidence since I don't know that interstellar spaceships are a thing that exist. I have never seen an interstellar spaceship before, I have never flown an interstellar spaceship before, and I don't know of any other people that own interstellar spaceships. Your claim goes beyond what I can reasonably assume to be true based on the knowledge that I already have.
It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Your god is in sense an interstellar spaceship.

So he is clearly not a scientist.
He clearly is, though. And a rather accomplished one at that.

Worse - A lot of his pronouncements are on science he doesnt even understand (take quantum chemistry) - yet his followers hang on his every word. Like dawkins - they are more interested in trying to justify an apriori conclusion, rather than discover the truth.

Sounds like an apt description of every religious apologist and their cheerleaders I've ever come by. They must have that in common, then.

But I really am more interested on peoples views on whether he should have been denied a platform - I do not think it should be denied, however much I dislike his views and his abuse of position of authority.

I somewhat sympathize with the reasoning behind retracting the invitation. There seems to be a growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and that's problematic. Muslims are not part of a hivemind and their views, opinions, ideologies, and religious ideas can be as varied as those of Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. Not everyone possesses the ability to distinguish between so-called moderate Muslims who go about their life peacefully and aren't a threat to anyone, and Muslims who aren't. There's a very real chance that some will eventually get riled up to the point where they threaten, physically attack or otherwise mistreat perfectly innocent people because of anti-Muslim rhetoric. I don't believe that Dawkins would use anti-Muslim rhetoric, though. He's anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I should have separated the posts: the one regarding whether dawkins should be allowed a platform - and with reluctance I think he should - and otherwise my view on Dawkins as a scientist when he goes "off piste", and abuses science to fit his world view.

So I shall say nothing further on that - other than to say the example you give is some what facile comparing spaceships to cars which misses the point completely. So this is my last post on that aspect of the thread.

As an (ex) postgraduate professional physicist in areas involving quantum physics, I can say without fear of contradiction that a great deal of what you are obliged to believe in for conventional science is way past extraordinary, and for which there is no evidence at all, other than some of the equations derived from those assumptions seem to work.

A simple example.

Quantum phyiscs obliges me to believe - in simple terms - that particles do not exist till observed. It is not a question of indeterminacy in where they are, but they simply dont exist. Frustration with that concept led to Einsteins statement that he "refused to believe that the moon did not exist till he looked at it" in the context of the copenhagen interpretation. He lost the battle and was forced to concede Bohrs interpretation was correct and that the statement was true.

Far worse than that the fact of observation determining existence also means the universe is by that definition the world is only subjective. Yours different to mine.
So do you agree science world view is ridiculous, let alone extraordinary!
So Science obliges me to believe in many absurdities.

The philosophical failing is of course - to believe that science is more than a model,the failing is in believing science models underpin the real world rather than are just an observation model. Hawking has confirmed he believes the same in one of his books because it is the only logical consequence of his concept "model dependent reality"

So Sagans folly "extraordinary evidence" is ONLY used by those who try to defend their world view, raising the bar against things they don't like, and those who repeat suchs as Dawkins parrot fashion.. Like sagan. Like Dawkins. Who clearly do not have the support of the scientific method in making such a ridiculous statement. All evidence has to pass the same bar. Extraordinary is just a subjective word.

Dawkins doesnt "like" telepathy so uses all manner of logical fallacies to defend his dislike against the mountain of evidence, and has behaved shamefully (in the context of a scientist) in opposing it. He has classified it as "extraordinary", so no amount of evidence will ever pass his bar.
Yet there is far more evidence for telepathy than for much of what is presumed to be real science believes!

One step further.
In proper science abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and certainly not a fact. But you would not know that reading Dawkins.
Who states his belief in life as an evolved biochemical accident "as close to a fact as is true". He clearly doesnt even know what a hypothesis actually is then!
The phenomenon requires to be either repeated or repeatable so that the hypothesis as a minimum has to be testable experimentally. Abiogenesis does not qualify! It is a belief, nothing else.

The fact is there is a large amount of forensic evidence for (for example) eucharistic miracles, and specifically because of the white cells, Living matter spontaneously appearing. So in evidential terms as an origin of life, it is far superior.

As a scientist I go where the evidence leads. But accept what science is. A method and a model, and that is all.


I don't think he's ever claimed that his musings on theism is scientific. They belong in the realm of philosophy and logic. His work as an accomplished scientist does not lend credence to his comments on theism - and his comments on theism does not detract from his work as a scientist.
Also noting, of course, the distinction between theism and religion. Some religions make testable claims which put us back within the framework of science. Dawkins has, quite eloquently and successfully, shredded a number of these claims. Especially in regards to creationism.



Within science; sure, to some extend. It's not really that black and white, but I'll grant the point for the sake of argument. But as there is no method within science to test the supernatural, claims of the supernatural are inherently unscientific. Claims of the supernatural must be evaluated in a different way and here's where the extraordinary evidence comes is.

I have no problem believing you if you claim that you own a car. I know that cars are a thing that exist. I have seen cars before, I have driven cars before, and I know of other people that own cars. Your claim does not go beyond what I can reasonably assume to be true based on the knowledge I already have.
It is an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence.

Were you instead to claim that you own an interstellar spaceship, I would need some pretty compelling evidence since I don't know that interstellar spaceships are a thing that exist. I have never seen an interstellar spaceship before, I have never flown an interstellar spaceship before, and I don't know of any other people that own interstellar spaceships. Your claim goes beyond what I can reasonably assume to be true based on the knowledge that I already have.
It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Your god is in sense an interstellar spaceship.


He clearly is, though. And a rather accomplished one at that.



Sounds like an apt description of every religious apologist and their cheerleaders I've ever come by. They must have that in common, then.



I somewhat sympathize with the reasoning behind retracting the invitation. There seems to be a growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and that's problematic. Muslims are not part of a hivemind and their views, opinions, ideologies, and religious ideas can be as varied as those of Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. Not everyone possesses the ability to distinguish between so-called moderate Muslims who go about their life peacefully and aren't a threat to anyone, and Muslims who aren't. There's a very real chance that some will eventually get riled up to the point where they threaten, physically attack or otherwise mistreat perfectly innocent people because of anti-Muslim rhetoric. I don't believe that Dawkins would use anti-Muslim rhetoric, though. He's anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Breve

Active Member
Dec 21, 2016
72
53
Texas
✟20,911.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't care for Dawkins but he has every right to discuss ideas as a public figure. To be deplatformed because he criticised Islam is the absolutely wrong thing to do. Islam is an idea. It's not a person. Anyone should be allowed to discuss an idea and say what they like or dislike about it. In the same vein Christianity is an idea and thus anyone should be free to discuss the pros and cons as they see it. Some people will describe Islam as an idealogy but even that's still not a person. To avoid frank discussion of an idea under the guise of protecting people's feelings is not how a healthy society works and an impingement on free speech. It's also the bigotry of low expectations by treating a group of people as special and needing extra care because they can't deal with criticism. No healthy society should function in this way.
 
Upvote 0