Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive2

The Cult of Personality
It is almost as if Randian Objectivists are back to haunt us elsewhere.

Is it just me, or is there a cult of personality forming around Dawkins? The man set up an atheist summer camp so his admirers (adherents?) et al. can send their children there. Even as an antitheist, I am actually a little concerned about that.

This is RationalWiki, and letting him have a free pass about those kinds of things is about as irrational as it comes. There is also meaningful, scientific criticism of his argument from improbability that does not come from theists or their apologists. We're losing perspective.

Derelitto (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does fostering education count as building a cult of personality? If the kids at this summer camp are being taught that Richard Dawkins has all the answers, there's trouble, but if this camp, like most atheist camps I've heard of, mostly teaches them critical thinking skills, it's basically inoculating them against the very thing you're worried about. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 10:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See, here's the problem: what you call inoculation, I see as indoctrination. It's funny because nobody seems opposed to the thing on principle. The sole criterion is "agreement." Indoctrination A is bad, but indoctrination B is good because Dawkins agrees with it, so let's call B inoculation instead. I'm not concerned about the content, but the methodology. In terms of content, the only repercussion I am worried about, incidentally, is that the summer camps will start turning out children as dull as Dawkins, as Michael Deacon joked about in the Telegraph. The age range for the camp is around 8-17, which is interesting. If you explain to a child at 8 years old that unicorns don't exist (a fun activity at the camp), you're gutting the imagination, and at 17 you're preaching to the choir.


 * Let's face it: the kids coming out of these camps--whether explicitly run by him or not--will join Dawkins' cult of bland personality, the members of which one already sees peddling The God Delusion at university campuses as they assume you are an irrational idiot until you tell them you're an antitheist and that you're not buying it not necessarily because you're an irrational idiot but due to the fact that you have a PhD in sociology and can easily identify an incipient cult of personality when you see one.


 * Derelitto (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ugh... do you actually have any arguments or are you going to just wave around a couple of strawmen? And do you know what is indicated by "critical thinking"? It's not telling kids unicorns don't exist, but giving them the tools so that they can figure out that unicorns don't exist on their own. I've known atheists who will tell their kids Santa exists, so that they can learn that sometimes the things adults tell them aren't true in the concrete sense on their own. And knowing unicorns don't exist (as I did by about age 7), doesn't preclude enjoying stories about them as wonderful constructs of the imagination.


 * You are a troll. You are a concern troll, which is perhaps the worst kind of all. If you can point to something beyond "I'm an expert, and I say this is a personality cult!" then do so, and if you cannot point to any actual evidence that Dawkins is trying to set himself up as a figure of worship, then why are you holding to that position at all? Defend your position, and defend it with logic and evidence, or you have no right to besmirch the name of someone who is, after all, merely doing his job as a university professor; to promote the dissemination of logic, the advancement of critical thinking, and the sales of books.


 * (I should note here that I have been an atheist since the age of seven, that is, one year before anyone would be allowed into such a camp even if I were in an area where such camps were offered, and have never read any of Dawkins' books. I'm not really that much of a fan, either - I prefer PZ Myers, and if you think that atheism is all about pumping out bland sheep-like followers, you should read his blog for a month or so; it's really all about pumping out poll-crashing minions!) WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 16:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawkins didn't set up Camp Quest. His foundation donated money - a fairly small amount too - to help set up the UK one. So really, most of the tl;dr above is quite moot. If there's any personality cult forming around Richard Dawkins, he's certainly not the one fostering it personally; it's either the hardline atheist who can't stop fapping over The God Delusion or the religious apologists that don't like him being vocal who want to brand him as a fundamentalist that are causing it. 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

anti religion
I'm an agnostic who loved Dawkin's books about science such as Te selfish gene and the ancestors tale. I like him better when he is not relentlessly bashing religion. Why is this article concentrating on his anti-religious viewpoints instead of his books about evolution.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 204.246.66.76 / talk / contribs
 * Our mainpage lists our missions as:


 * 1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.   3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
 * As such, Dawkins' opinions on pseudoscience, cranks and fundamentalism are perhaps of more importance than his excellent contributions to evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, should you feel willing and able to flesh out some sections on his contributions to evolutionary theory while remaining within the mission objectives then I'm sure that nobody will object, as we quite like a bit of general science a well.--BobNot Jim 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * but not too much - remember that we're not an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

you do realize he is against affirmative action?
He attacked and compared it to apartheid in his book "The Ancestor's Tale" &mdash; Unsigned, by: 173.161.2.238 / talk / contribs
 * So write something cogent about it and put in the article. Believe it or not, we're not a pro-Dawkins site. Some people here actively dislike him, and I'm pretty ambivalent about him --never read him, not really on my radar. RaoulDuke 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Parody
If you are going to have parody, please try to make it a little more funny. It it not clear to me if this site is serious, humor, everything or what. Rather than intrude, I will just include a link to the corresponding (and brutal) ED entry and let it go at that.--Amorrow 01:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks for your valuable and thoughtful contribution. RaoulDuke 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)It is not entirely serious site, but overall its mission is. Second I agree with you that the section is unfunny and should be removed. However, I disagree with your statement ED is funny in any way and please don't link to it, it is fucking annoying when people show up and start linking to their favourite sites article of the subject. 01:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

theists' perspective

 * 1) Someone wrote it in one POV.
 * 2) Someone else shuffled it up to fit a new POV.
 * 3) We compromised on trying to express both POVs at once.
 * 4) All of the above is really really stupid.
 * 5) Mei removed it, and we were happy. --  = w =   23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pity, really, the original version was funny, in a delicately subtle way. Then it just got worse with every "improvement".  23:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I taste smoke and my head hurts. --  = w =  23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Vision becomes blurry --  = w =  00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Life dwindling --  = w =  00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But... but... Mei is useful! 03:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do people hate him so much?
For example, on Urbandictionary.com, we have several disparaging definitions on his name: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Richard+Dawkins

And the thing is, the general user-base of urban dictionary are the current new,hip teen era that tend to have a lot more people who criticize religion. They usually make fun of just about everything themselves. You should see the number they did on God and Christianity.

Which makes me raise the question, why exactly don't people like him? Am I just being really biased for him because he shares the same views as me on religion. I'm sure most of you would agree that generally he's a very polite man and isn't nearly as provocative as say, Christopher Hitchens (whom I also love).

So let's be objective here. Is he really that bad? I don't get why there's so much hate for him. -Rivius (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Dawkins hatred bemuses me because in essence, all he really did was write one book and do a few talks (which were really publicity for the book). As this started before the ABC, I don't think that played much of a part. Suddenly his previous billion books on evolution, biology and genetics, yet alone his role in developing the idea of memetics gets forgotten about. All due to one book. As I said, this bemuses me because I've read so much of his stuff and the vast, vast majority has sweet fuck all to do with religion. However, you have to think in the context of what religion is, what role it plays in society and how we "supposed" to view it. These are beliefs, or people call them "cherished beliefs". Because they invariably have no logical or reality-based supporting evidence, you have to take them on faith, and this is a massive leap that requires dedication and commitment from the believer. If you shatter one of these "cherished beliefs" you're essentially telling someone not just that they're wrong, but that they've wasted their lives on being wrong - and I don't need to dwell on the point that people don't like this. Therefore religion has to hide behind certain barriers, the social memes that say we must respect religious beliefs regardless (compared to political beliefs, where ridicule isn't just accepted but practically expected). Combine this all together and you've got a situation where anyone even slightly critical of religion is going to attract a lot of ire. You have these people who dare to write a book on the subject, or dare to speak out against the hegemony of religion (parallels can be drawn with feminism speaking out against the hegemony of male-dominance in society) and they get blasted for it, not because they actually go about it in a harsh, fallacious or abrasive way, but because they've gone after something wearing a memetic bullet-proof vest that says this subject shouldn't be discussed. 09:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But if the question is why specifically Dawkins when Hitchens is far more vitriolic and PZ Myers is much more of a publicity whore, I don't know. Dawkins is an established author already, but only really in pop science circles. I could make the conjecture that he's reviled in the US because he's British, and quite a calmly spoken Brit at that, so they can project villainous traits on him quite easily and faster than you can say Hollywood values xenophobia villain trope. He's also a bit more publicity whorish that a few of the others - being an established author he knows the tricks of course - such as with the "arrest the pope" thing (although it wasn't him that instigated that, he just leant some support and wrote an article on it). Because of this, Dawkins acts as a rallying point for the non-religious who get a little sick of religion and the special treatment it gets. For those incapable of thinking otherwise (not just religious believers) he therefore acts as a high-priest or leader, thus if people attack him, they feel like they're attacking a leader and making a killing blow to the belief itself. In reality that's nonsense, Dawkins doesn't represent anything really to most atheists, but people who think as collectivists (and religious believers who are most likely to be offended by Dawkins usually do) will see him as a leader and the best target for dealing with a threat.  09:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who loves Dawkins, and has also read many of his books (including that one that pissed everyone off, in fact, I'm going to try to read that one again "soon", as it's simply too much fun) I have had immense trouble with this one as well.  But this summation of Armondikov's seems quite accurate, really.  The only thing that still confuses me is when Atheists seem to dislike him.  I have a friend who criticizes his views constantly, seemingly on the basis that he should shut up and let people have their stupid religions if it makes them so damn happy.  I usually disagree with him, but he's also the one who stepped in when I was having a bad day and over-heard someone say they didn't believe in evolution.   I told them "You're wrong, and an idiot for it."  He threatened to hit me, I told him he should.  (As easy going as I seem here...  I am 6.5 feet tall, and about 300 lbs)  Other guy stepped in.   Anyway, I guess I forgot where I was going with that.   But I like Dawkins, despite if he was proven to be completely insane, and wrong in his convictions(well, some of them), it wouldn't likely change my views on the matter.  And it does seem reasonable that people who rely on an authority to derive their knowledge would have trouble with that.  Quaru (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, atheists that disagree with him aren't anything surprising. It's not exactly a cult of Dawkins so you'll find people who don't like his methodology or find him too direct. They fall into two categories; one group will actually still have the same idea that religious beliefs should be respected above all others, the other group tend to think that we just shouldn't bother addressing religion and atheists should just shut up about it since it's not a belief system, which is kind of what I think, but the context of religious hegemony alters things considerably. So in a way, atheists like that just find the direct approach distasteful more than anything, almost as if you're actively flaunting your atheism or talk about religion you're letting the side down, i.e., "why do you talk about God so much if you don't believe in him?". But as I said, that would be nice but you have to remember that religious belief gets so much undue respect and praise and prominence and influence that it's difficult to just put up with it, even if you do find it distasteful to go on and on about it. 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really get where he comes off as a prick though. I think the only thing he says that I can see coming off a bit badly is when he calls people with faith "deluded" and he also goes on to say that these people are suffering from a disease. Otherwise, he just seems to be stating his points, and I almost get the feeling that people don't like it only because it seems to be against religion (which seems to be a bit of a taboo to criticize). I just find it a bit unfair that people make him out to be obnoxious, when really, he isn't really forcing himself down anyone's throat. Infact, I think I remember him replying a few times to religious people with "If that's the sort of thing that convinces you, then you're welcome.". I think I just really want some more examples when it comes to him being a dick. I can get what people mean when they say he isn't particularly charismatic, but he always seemed very civil to me. Furthermore, what's wrong with trying to be a bit of a spokesman for atheism anyway? Is it really that wrong that we get a little debate and opposing viewpoints every now and again? -Rivius (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "6.5 feet" is mixed media. 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why Christians, especially in America, hate atheism so much is that they still can, while explicitly targeting Judaism or Islam is, even in (mainstream) right-wing circles, regarded as unacceptable. Atheism isn't really covered by political correctness, & Dawkins is an obvious spokesman to target. Urban Dictionary isn't a great example - it's edited by da youf, but basically the 4Chan types who are liable to be indiscrimately critical & sarcastic about everything. They're not great role models. 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dawkins uses the English language beautifully. Not so brilliant with it as Hitchens, but beautiful nonetheless. He is obviously cultured and generally well-educated. He also has a proper upper-class English accent - you know, the sort the villainous redcoat officer plays in Hollywood movies. (Ironically, the same accent as the upper-class accented English good guys in Hollywood movies.) He's also an atheist who is, while not abrasive in my view, condescending at times.
 * My belief is that this hatred of Dawkins is simply ad hominem writ large. His arguments are well-thought out (despite what theologians say), precise, clear, easy to understand, and logical. As can be seen with his uncut conversation with Alister McGrath, these attributes make him very difficult to beat in a reasoned conversation. Couple that with the accent, culture and, dare I say it, Britishness, then ad hom hatred is the only weapon you have left.
 * Other atheists who don't like him simply don't agree with his style or his methods (e.g. militant atheism), but don't hate him as far as I'm aware.
 * Interesting to compare a fellow vocal well-spoken cultured atheist Brit. Hitchens is much more abrasive, much more abusive of religion yet doesn't seem to attract the same hatred. It's probably because he's not a scientist - another label that can be posted on someone to denote instant distrust and hatred. He's also very funny which Dawkins isn't. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that Hitchens is primarily a journalist so people expect him to throw his opinions and weight around. It's interesting that Stephen Fry (who has appeared with Hitchens several times on the subject) also exhibits the "posh intellectual" attitude - but doesn't attract scorn (who could hate Stephen Fry though?) even though he's just as well reasoned and quite passionate about it. It could well be that Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost so he's breaking this unwritten NOMA-like rule that people have. It's the rule that says science shouldn't try to debunk beliefs or spirituality or things like that because that's not its place. Even if you're not well versed in NOMA or theology you will think it; seems to be a deeply ingrained meme that people obey. So it seems that Dawkins isn't reviled so much for breaking the taboo of criticising religion, but of breaking the greater taboo of criticising it with science. Going back to the original Urban Dictionary quotes that started this section, many were remarking how he apparently uses science to defeat the supernatural - something that people automatically assume can not be possible. 10:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes to all that.
 * I think it was Dawkins who said that religion or specifically the existence of God is an hypothesis that can be tested just like any other.
 * The same people who do things like test the power of prayer on the sick and so on are often the first to complain that science should keep its nose out of religion's business. Pffft...
 * Another word on Hitchens - he's vehemently anti-Islam so that probably counts for a lot with the US religious right. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and about Urban Dictionary. I wouldn't be surprised if those "definitions" were written, not by 4Chan types, but by some of the army of religious youth who spend their time on sites like that, YouTube, and numerous boards. You can see many of the phrases and sentences are C&P jobs. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm always baffled by hostility to Dawkins. I strongly suspect that many of the people who complain about him have never actually read what he says. He certainly gets misquoted a lot. The most recent example being "Dawkins says he will arrest the Pope". Another one you see from time to time is "Dawkins says that Gould didn't really believe in NOMA" - but I've never read Dawkins saying anything like that. On the other hand he certainly did disagree with Gould over it, but that's not the same thing.  We also get Dawkins reportedly categorically saying "God does not exist" in The God Delusion - something which is then claimed to be a position of faith on his part.  In fact he goes to great lengths to avoid any such a statement of faith and simply points out there is no evidence for God's existence.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But we have some mounting evidence that Dawkins haters aren't the most intelligent bunch... But Bob makes another decent general point, a lot of his detractors seem to argue against points he never made. He has never categorically said "does not exist", he was firmly behind "probably" in the ABC, and "probably" isn't a faith position because you take it on the balance of evidence. 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit break

 * Dawkins raises some good points in The God Delusion but still regularly falsifies facts and ignores data. I also see him as a bit of a shock artist and a drama-queen. Frankly, I think Dawkins is to atheists what Kanye West is to black people.

"I'm real happy for you God, and Imma let you finish but Darwin had one of the best books of all time, of all time."

Think he's got a bit of a "god delusion" himself. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And here we go again with these vague generalised insults. I think the problem is that many Christians don't like what Dawkins says but they can't really say where, exactly, he's wrong. Alternatively, many athiests don't really want to face up to the consequences of atheism - but they also can't say where he's wrong.
 * Consequently both groups find the ad hominem responses to be easier than the rational ones.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What consequences are you talking about? Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I'm denied the possibility of an afterlife? Criticising anyone who disagrees in Dawkins is like Conservapedia accusing people who say that Hitler was a Catholic of being liberal.
 * I like to call it the "shrill gambit." Someone saying something you can't refute? Instead just take issue with their delivery -- write them off as "shrill." E.g., Paul Krugman was "shrill" when he warned of the housing bubble before it burst. Similarly, Dawkins is "shrill" when he talks about the abuses of religion. Dawkins does come off as priggish at times, but I don't see him as a "liability to the cause." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - if people can't criticize the message they are left with criticizing the method of delivery.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, part of it is Urban Dictionary itself is more prone toward general hatred and negative descriptions. For instance, while most of the top definitions at UD for "atheism" are pretty reasonable, most of the top defs for "atheist" are pretty absurdly anti-atheist. So it's not like UD attacking a specific atheist is weird for the site's population. ThunderkatzHo! 20:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing about Dawkins: if I hadn't read "The Blind Watchmaker" all those years ago, I doubt that I'd have found RW so absorbing. 21:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * The first Dawkins book I read was "The Selfish Gene" - also many years ago. It certainly got me thinking.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Dawkins has a god delusion, more like a messiah complex. He'd think he was God's gift, if he actually believed in him.

His early stuff was good, but his ego seems to have gone off the rails a bit. Price of fame... or maybe his "public" school education.--Albannach (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some legitimate grievances
I've begun reading "The God Delusion" recently, and while I can't say that I despise him (that really takes some doing), I can say (so far) that I would certainly not invite him to my house for dinner. He does use the English language beautifully... in the same way that a martial artsist can beautifully crack your skull. Even when I agreed with what the man said, I was under the constant impression of being stealthily backhanded every few sentences. But those are matters of personal taste. Want some legitimate grievances? Here are some of them:
 * Everything so far: Atheism does NOT equal rationalism!
 * The preface: I read the preface, and it started well, talking about the lack of awareness that atheism is actually a valid position, etc. And then he brought up John Lenon's "Imagine"... and proceeds to list off various things that have been/are still done to people because of religious beliefs and THAT is my first problem with him. That is not a valid argument and should certainly be below someone of his experience. The fact that he put it in the very beginning of the book just rubbed me the wrong way.
 * Chapter 1 was okay, I suppose...
 * Chapter 2: He says of the Cristian God "It is unfair to attack such an easy target." I have nothing more to say on this matter.
 * Chapter 2, Polytheism: Thomas Jefferson, as so often, got it right when he said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." Okay, this may not be a legitimate grievance, but I do not agree with this. At all. It is the tactic of playground bullies, a group which I have no respect for.
 * Chapter 2, The Poverty of Agnosticism: Okay, this one really, really upset me. I imagine it might inspire in me the same feeling some atheists get from hearing that "atheism is a religion" or some such rubbish. In this section, Dawkins has the BRASS BALLS to divide agnostics into "Temporary Agnostics in Practice" which means "agnostics that just haven't been seen conclusive evidence one way or the other", and "Permanent Agnostics in Principle" which seems to translate into "agnostics that I don't agree with and therefore all believe in this one thing". It just rankles me.

But you don't want me to list every issue I have with the man, so I'll stop here.

I don't think he's evil. I can't even say he's necessarily wrong (about everything). But I do contend that he is a dick, if an intelligent one.

So there you go, you may not be bothered by any of this, but I am, and I explained it, so... that's all for now. - Gameboy (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. I should re-read it and specifically try it out with a more critical eye that's come with a few more years of thinking and experience. But regarding the first point, atheism is rationalism if you assume atheism is your "default" position (as Dawkins does because he's a supporter of the BHA "Don't Label Me" campaign and outright states it throughout TGD) and that there is no rational empirical evidence to believe a specific religion over another - therefore rationalism compels you to stay in this "default" atheistic state until proven otherwise, and so far that hasn't really happened has it? Anyway, I do think it's a mistake to actively conflate the two directly (as in, call them synonyms), but given a more nuanced reason behind it might clear it up. Dawkins might even say that more succinctly in TGD at some later point, I can't recall directly. ADK ...I'll putrefy your beagle! 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I know I'm late to the party, but I don't understand at all. Easy one first - what's wrong with separating out those who are agnostic-ignorant of an issue, and those who have decided that the issue is unanswerable? That seems like a fair, accurate, and useful distinction. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second, the whole "ridicule" thing. I think it hinges on your understanding of the word "ridicule", and you and I (and Dawkins) have a different understanding. If a person believes some factual claim without scientific reasons, then you can't argue against it with science. What is left? It's an argument over which axioms are "correct". It's an argument of persuasion. I would argue that most people are intuitively scientific, and the best approach in such cases is to point out the intuitive absurdity of believing factual claims without scientific reasons. I think "ridicule" is an approach word to describe that tactic. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third, I sometimes call myself a militant atheist, insofaras I believe the world would probably be a better place if we rid ourselves of most of the extant popular religions, and one valid tactic to reach that end is to talk about it and sometimes say that theists are wrong. I believe the world would be a better place precisely because the existence of various harms done by religion, as listed by Dawkins. Why does it bother you? If you disagree and have belief in belief, then that's a polite disagreement. Why does this warrant not inviting him to your house for dinner? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender politics
Just a short point about that blog post - I removed it because it adds a strong bias to the article, without making it more informative. We don't do the other participants in this debate the courtesy of reproducing their views in full either. Röstigraben (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and maybe the whole elevatorgate thing would be better suited to an article of its own - Dawkins was just one of the people who chimed in, and his role was only notable because of his prior prominence. Röstigraben (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bias or not, the full quote was longer than the rest of the section; at least some of it had to go. 06:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about an article of it's own. Frankly the entire thing is overblown. Both Watson and Dawkins seem over it and the only people who are still bringing it up have some sort of bizarre agenda to push. ADK ...I'll defenestrate your flightdeck! 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give it an article of its own - it is a bit gossipy - but perhaps we should use the name "Elevatorgate" in the article so it shows up in searches. I would add it, but I put it in originally and it got removed so maybe others will disagree.-- 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with just adding the suffix "gate" to anything because it usually indicates some sort of PR line has been crossed. But generally that's probably what it's going to be known as. Shame as the actual part involving the elevator was minimal and, frankly, boring. ADK ...I'll recollect your ad! 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could kiss you for denouncing all the "gates" out there. The article is, or should be, about his life, his points of views, and his arguments.  I really personally didn't find this that big of an issue to mark out in our article.  And if we do, one line in passing is plenty.  Some people make stupid comments, especially mistimed or ill thought out ones - that should not be a focus of their life or work.  Unless they are sarah palin or michelle B.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  23:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the answer is to have a general article about gender issues in the sceptical movement, and have this episode as a small part of that, rather than of the Dawkins article? Because the most interesting point about "Elevatorgate" isn't what Dawkins does or doesn't think, but that at least some women appear to find the sceptical movement somewhat uncongenial.-- 09:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the Gender Politics section three times, and I still have no clue what it says.

"fixed a proofreading error"
I think there must be a proofreading error in one sentence, making much of the rest of this section indecipherable. Here is the quote from the article as it currently reads: "However, a week later at a Center for Inquiry conference attended by one of her critics, while on stage Watson mocked her and accused her of "parroting misogynistic thought." - Watson mocked herself? This makes no sense. As I understand the incident being described, Dawkins mocked Watson, and that's what sparked the larger conversation. I am going to make the change to the article itself, but I wanted some record of why I was making the change to show up on the Talk page - so here it is.172.220.33.5 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (The section title was provided by me) Nope, your "correction" is wrong - it was Watson's talk that mentioned McGraw, the "critic" referenced in the previous sentences. And you are right that the write-up is horrid.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried a new edit that I hope this time is both understandable and factually correct. :-) 172.220.33.5 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Rating: Silver
Unless anybody reads through this and finds reason otherwise, I have given this article a "silver" rating, as I feel it meets the critera set forth for a silver article. 15:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

South Park
Episodes "Go God Go" and "Go God Go XII"...anyone want to bring this up, since we've already talked about how they ripped into Scientology? Or was the episode just too ad hominem to talk about? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's massively relevant to Dawkins himself. They wanted to rip into militant atheism and picked Dawkins as a suitable figurehead to play with - although it was funny as fuck. Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins fish
What is the Latin/common name of the fish named after RD? (Could be worse - as with the local councillor who had a sluge boat named after him). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw this on RC and thought it was going to be about a Jesus fish with Richard Dawkins on it. Anyway, brain fart aside, it's apparently a whole genus (Dawkinsia). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins stating religion is child abuse
Do we have a link to this? the quote provided does not say we should not teach our kids religion, nor that it is a form of child abuse. it says OTHERS should not label kids as a particular religion. Godot L'important c'est d'aimer 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See the page for TGD. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe edit war on main page
Seriously guys. Keep that elevator-gate nonsense out of this. By that, I mean ... seriously. Don't caricature sides. Don't create purposefully inflammatory edits, aka don't bait people. The entire thing was stupid and blown out of proportions. Don't continue it here. (This is not an indictment of both parties. Nor am I taking side. Just... /sigh) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite
This editor has removed a full quote claiming it "misrepresents the point". How can a lengthy quote misrepresent a point? What is Dawkins point that I misrepresent? Of course, this editor "Hipocrite" is simply lying. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you the guy who's been trying to slip in the Lewontin Fallacy stuff all over the place? If so, go eat a bag of cocks, okay? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious that you "rational" people have censor Dawkins. Please rename to "PCwiki". 175.193.212.64 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DRINK Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll need a chaser for that one. VOX  HUMANA  13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What an earth is that supposed to mean, you assholes. This website is an embarrassment. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you are but what am I? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi groupthink. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've come to talk with you again? I don't think engaging with Mr Mikemikev is in anyone's interest. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But you're an established liar, so why should anyone listen to you? 175.193.212.64 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate Nutty's comment, let me add another quote from The Ancestor's Tale:


 * Dawkins' quote about taxonomic significance really applies to much smaller groups than "black", "white", "yellow" or brown as the genetic diversity in Africa is as great (or perhaps greater) as the rest of the world. Attempting to insert Dawkin's race quote is stealth racism, as the underlying motive is obviously to reinforce the idea of there being differences in ability between RACES. The problem is that Dawkins is a scientist and his nuances get misused as a racial-wedge for political capital. Dawkins would be appalled to be represented as saying that there fundamental differences between humans based on their skin-colour or hair type.  Генгис silverbrain.png 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the point applies to Black and East Asian etc. which you would know if you had read the book. And of course there are behavior differences between races, but that it irrelevant to representing Dawkins accurately. You are committing the moralistic fallacy. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a well-read copy of Dawkins' book on my desk and don't find the point about Blacks and East Asians; perhaps you are thinking of The Bell Curve? If you had actually travelled and seen a bit of the world then the mere notion of "Black" as some block classification is laughable. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 15:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem. If you had travelled you would know there is a major discontinuity between Burma and Bangladesh. But who cares what I have done? Does that change the truth value? The point is Dawkins has a view on race, and you are trying to override that with your personal opinion. And I know you are wrong, but who cares. You are arguing against Dawkins, and censoring his words from his own bio. Shame on you. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My groupthink comment is directed toward rubbish like "I THOUGHT THIS WAS RATIONALWIKI!" My understanding is that the Lewontin Fallacy criticism is a legitimate position, albeit one that doesn't justify the kind of racism some urge. To be clear, I think this guy's edit is suspicious, but sure, Dawkins has a position on "race" and this is part of his articulation of it - there's a lot more of his response to Lewontin. There's a lot more to the current take on Lewontin in general. The use of a single quote without context doesn't come close to explaining it or giving any meaningful insight into the broader discussion. One of our prominent references to Lewontin's position accepts it unquestioningly. This impulse isn't surprising considering how rampant racism is in the US. I've seen white supremacists use this quote over and over to press people's base nature into swinging the other direction into being hoodwinked into believing there's some genetic justification for racism sufficient to support their pre-existing irrational and hateful biases. But it's not so simple. In any event, the broader point is clear enough - group genetic markers do have scientific significance, but they're purely statistical, do not correlate to the non-existent racial group characteristics bigots urge support discrimination (intelligence, physical strength, "craftiness" or any other contrived negative attributes, etc.), and, most importantly, don't justify suppositions about any particular individual. So, a major discontinuity between Burma and Bangladesh? Is it that Burma isn't Burma anymore? Or is it something that nobody needs to travel to see - that people and cultures look different from place to place? Yeah. It is. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear about something: editors here are being irrational (to the point in many cases of simply lying). Calling your site "rational" doesn't automatically make your regulars rational.
 * You commit the morallistic fallacy: race classification leads to investigation of behavior differences therefore it is invalid. Irrational.
 * "Now to the question of race. What if I tell you Suzy is Chinese, how much is your prior uncertainty reduced? You now are pretty certain that her hair is straight and black (or was black), that her eyes have an epicanthic fold, and one or two other things about her. If I tell you Colin is ‘black’ this does not, as we have seen, tell you he is black. Nevertheless, it is clearly not uninformative. The high inter-observer correlation suggests that there is a constellation of characteristics that most people recognise, such that the statement ‘Colin is black’ really does reduce prior uncertainty about Colin. It works the other way around to some extent. If I tell you Carl is an Olympic sprinting champion, your prior uncertainty about his ‘race’ is, as a matter of statistical fact, reduced. Indeed, you can have a fairly confident bet that he is ‘black’." 175.193.212.64 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowing someone's race pretty questionably "reduces prior uncertainty", and even then only as to phenotypic characteristics that have social significance only to racists. People in lots of ethnics groups have single eyelids - from Scandinavia to Africa to Central Asia to East Asia. People in lots of ethnics groups have very tightly curled hair. Some African folks have straight hair and green eyes. So what? Unless you're using the statistical prevalence of trait or genetic marker x to understand something meaningful like migratory routes of early through modern humans, what's the point? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) Dawkins identification of race is solely on taxonomic grounds. Having long straight black hair says nothing about how someone will behave or how clever they are and trying to put those words into Dawkins' mouth isn't going to stand here. You're the one (BoN) being irrational because the construct of race as you apply it is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about the abilities, character or behaviour of any individual. While my loss of hair might be indicative of an increased risk of heart disease it is unrelated to how I might perform and interact in society. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our friend gives himself away with If I tell you Carl is an Olympic sprinting champion, your prior uncertainty about his ‘race’ is, as a matter of statistical fact, reduced. Indeed, you can have a fairly confident bet that he is ‘black’ - here he directly equates "race" with "black" - i.e. skin colour is his primary race marker. He is using "Race" in a very different way. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that is a quote from The Ancestor's Tale. (See I have read it.) <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 16:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you were lying when you said Dawkins wasn't talking about black classification?
 * Whether the classification informs for genetic behavior differences is unsettled science (see for example James J. Lee 2010) and is besides the point. The classification is informative for some things and therefore biologically valid. This is Dawkins opinion, not mine. Yes, there are anomalies. That's why Dawkins talks in probabilistic terms. Taxonomic validity is defined by probabilistic informativity. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, who gives a fuck what Dawkins thinks? He's not the final arbiter of what counts as "knowledge," even though a few people here might think so. Show me multiple uses of the idea in the standard peer-reviewed scientific/academic literature and I might take you seriously. Right now, you're just quote-mining one guy who i know only for his work for a popular audience. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No I am not quote mining and I am accurately representing his views. Please stop lying. Dawkins views are of course highly relevant for an article on Dawkins. If editors want to censor those views because they conflict with their own (dubious) opinions there is little I can do about that. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawkins views might be relevant to an article on Dawkins, I'll concede that, but I won't take it too seriously because you've tried to shoehorn that quote into other articles that have nothing to do with Dawkins. And since you understand there's nothing you can do about our desire to censor the views in question, you can just leave now. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 18:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pathetic. I can only hope other editors disagree with your shameless bias. I know Dawkins would. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BoN's quote mining misrepresents Dawkins. I'd suggest that he reread The Grasshopper's Tale because what Dawkins is saying is not that there is a substantive difference between different 'races' but that we have evolved to perceive some of difference. Many groups do like to discriminate against outsiders, and this applies equally to class or religion as much as race, where being slightly different is seen as undesirable. The Grasshopper's Tale itself refers to different 'races' of grasshoppers which are distinguished solely by their song and do not interbreed despite being genetically identical. As an evolutionary scientist Dawkins is querying why this might be; but he is most certainly not promoting the idea that our distinctions have any real merit. As I showed above, if Dawkins has a view on the validity of categorising humans by race, it is that for societal purposes it is totally irrelevant. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 18:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Grasshopper's Tale" can be read in full here. It's pretty clear that Dawkins is not talking about behavioral differences. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the text I added to the article:
 * Dawkins supports the biological validity of the race concept, writing "We can happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edward’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."
 * So it was I that represented Dawkins view that it is not socially relevant, contrary to the dishonest claim of GK. Dawkins is explicitly agnostic on behavioral differences. This has no relevance to the point. These differences are not merely "perceived" (how could they be if they were not there), but are of genetic and taxonomic significance. Dawkins thinks race is a valid classification, that is all that is being said. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's telling you bring up behavioral differences when nobody mentioned it. You oppose the biologically valid race concept for social and political reasons. That's not science. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No you toe-rag, Dawkins makes no comment in The Ancestor's Tale about behavioural differences in humans so he cannot be called agnostic on the issue. The point that Dawkins makes is that in general the perceived differences are purely cosmetic, it is not that they have significance. Using the wrong turn of phrase is often enough to discriminate on a class or religious basis; any claimed difference is purely cultural not intrinsic. Likewise, some groups of humans often discriminate against others over petty visual differences such as colour of hair, shape of nose, or eyelid fold; like the grasshopper many have have developed individual predilections for certain features, but that does not mean that those features are related to personal characteristics, mental abilities or behaviour as you are bogusly asserting. The taxonomic differences which Dawkins thinks are useful are those which can reveal as susceptibility to certain diseases or which might illuminate the movement of humans in the past when there was much less interaction between social groups by mapping the genetic code. Like it or not, all "white" men are descended from people with pigmented skins, and there is also a good chance are that you are also a descendant of Genghis Khan. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 20:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not assert that there was an established connection to behavior differences or edit the article to claim that, so you are lying (again). You find it hard to accept that Dawkins accepts the validity of race so now have to knock down a strawman connecting "behavioral differences" which is irrelevant to the point and which neither I nor Dawkins claimed. Are "behavioral differences" a necessary part of biological taxonomy? Pathetic. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, we are all descended from apes and fish too. Is this what you do when you cannot concede a point you have lost? Babble irrelevance? 175.193.212.64 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's true that Dawkins has become an agnostic, then? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the quote is fine with a bit of explanation that he's responding to Lewontin and without any claim that he "supports the biological validity of race," as that statement on its own is out of context enough to lend itself to the creepy racist interpretation that you wish. Someone just do this the right way and stop responding to this guy. This conversation is part groupthink, all sizzle, and no steak. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how explicitly stating that race is of genetic and taxonomic significance could be interpreted as anything other than support for its biological validity. The problem here is that Dawkins' views on this matter conflict with the diktats of the modern PC liberal establishment, which is what this website unthinkingly reflects. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Modern PC liberal establishment" And that's why nobody takes you seriously. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone on the FB page accused me of trying to be PC when it comes to gender issues. My response: "What's PC got to do with it? I don't care about that." EVDebs (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Question
"In July 2011, Rebecca Watson, the founder of Skepchick, [20] mentioned in a video blog how a man accosted her late at night after a conference. He followed her into an elevator and invited her to his hotel room for coffee (a euphemism for, well, more than just coffee). This made Watson uncomfortable and she suggested "guys, don't do that.""

Is there any guy on here who hasn't asked a girl out? Any guy on here who hasn't been rejected at least once? Clawclaw (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not me, on account of my personality and washboard abs. Tielec01 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If that was all he was doing, ClawClaw, it probably wouldn't have been worth a mention. However, at 4AM in an enclosed space, that's kind of creepy and not respectful of someone's personal boundaries.


 * Kind of a simple point there. Don't miss it again. EVDebs (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The origins behind "grabbing a coffee" is probably an interesting one. But come on, "Hey, wanna fuck?" is not the equivalent of asking a girl out. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, right? I mean, if a socially inept dipshit like me can figure out that what that guy did was uncool, most people trying to dodge the context have absolutely no excuse whatsoever. EVDebs (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's embarrassing that it's coming from the skeptical community, for that matter. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)even "asking her out" in a confined area with no escape is seroiusly bad mojo. Men have a hard time with "no".  Story after story is written about how **some** men get very aggressive, even angry, when you say no.  Name calling, angry voices are the least of it.  No woman wants to ever say no in a bus or elevator on the fear taht she will get the "oh, fine, cunt.  am i not good enough for you, you bitch".  trust me, men do that.  somewhat often.  women learn to make their rejections as gentle as possible.  as "non rejections" as possible.  I never say "no", i say "oh, i have a husband, and we're happy, but thanks'.  seriously.  and it was like late at night, which is also not a great time to be hitting on strange women.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  07:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have often wondered if it would be good for the lulz to ask the person next to me on a long haul flight out on a date like 10 minutes into the trip; then get all awkward when they say no. Godot, when is a great time to be hitting on strange women. On a side note, hadn't they been chatting for several hours at a bar together? Tielec01 (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they had. but she had left alone.  he followed.  she had not made any indications of going "up with her".  When is a good time to hit on someone?  When it is a safe environment for both parties.  When you are not there for professional reasons.  When it is a social event, not one where she is supposedly being valued for her ideas. Women are rarely accepted as "idea generators".  much of what watson has written about this, talks about the feeling that many scientists have when they go to conventions - they are in a meat market, and they are the meat.  It's demeaning.  I guess it has to do with understanding that women feel the OBJECT of men's attention where men are not objectified in the same way, so don't get tired, frustrated or scared by being hit on. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  08:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just the other day I read a story about large groups of apocolyptic athiests gang raping large numbers of women in the third world, beating them, stoning them, etc. The athiests seemed to be proud of large numbers of people from their belief system supporting Hitler because he validated their rampant anti-semitism. There are large numbers of athiests moving into europe who believe they should live under a different set of laws, and that certain crimes, like abuse or in some cases murder, should not apply to them. Oh, wait, that was somebody else... Burkean (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Curiously, we have an article on the attitude you display. Needless to say, it's a fallacy.Octo8 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought asking a woman if she wanted to have sex was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM rape, genital mutilation, apocolyptic violence, brutality; as opposed to just "not as bad as". My mistake... Burkean (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point: One has nothing to do with the other. So why bring this even up here?Octo8 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, but it's not any less rational than claiming sexism for someone asking about coffee in the middle of the night, or pointing out the ridiculous things muslims expect the people of England to put up with, when they came there. Oh, and when someone thinks somebody trying to forceably segregate the sexes is wrong, it's not islamophobia, whatever that might be construed to encompass. Burkean (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly agree with all of that and everything. I think it is pretty weird to do that, but the whole idea that it's just a guy thing kinda rubs me the wrong way. Sure, most of the time its guys and they really need to calm that shit down and maybe be a little smoother with the pickup lines, but to say 'guys don't do that' is kinda dishonest imo. I mean maybe I'm just getting pissy over word choice but whatever. User:Unsigned 2:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Muslim Nobel prize controversy
Is anyone planning to add anything about the whole Muslim Nobel prize thing? I think it probably deserved a bit under criticisms, since it's made a lot of people within the atheist community criticize him quite heavily, and is quite possible to interpret as plain racism (though Dawkins denies that), but since I'm a new user, I don't want to blunder into adding something possibly controversial.

See for instance:


 * 
 * 
 * 

And the related "Who the hell do these Muslims think they are" tweet and general anti-Muslim stuff that skirts dangerously close to the rhetoric of the extreme right:


 * 

(Edit: Reformatted and expanded a little)

Joakim Ziegler (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, and if christians tried to segregate the genders at a debate, I'm sure that anyone who said "who the hell do these christians think they are" would probably be a bigot. You're a moron. Burkean (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like you've got a handle on this. I recommend adding it yourself, using those links as citations.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  08:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I was hoping to get out of the hard work. But I'll see about that, then. Since it's a bit of a controversial topic, I'll probably want to do a bit more research on the back and forth. Thanks for the welcome, by the way. - Joakim Ziegler (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Endorsing Geert Wilders? That's pretty off the deep end. Either that or the guy just doesn't know how to operate Twitter. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>sshole 16:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Geert Wilders supports gay marriage. So your definition of fascist is to say the least expansive. Whereas many if not most of the muslims calling him a fascist do not and say some quite interesting things about homosexuals. Considering that many new immigrants believe the law doesn't apply to them, that the host country should adapt to them or face consequences, I'd say it's fairly rational to say that those who refuse to accept the law should not be allowed to be citizens in the country. See what Wilders critics believe and see what he believes and then we'll decide who is fascist. Burkean (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've created a first version of a subsection on this. I discovered even more examples as I researched a bit, enough to convince me that Dawkins has tipped over into full-fledged Islamophobia. I think I've supported that assertion quite well with sources, but comments would be welcome. Joakim Ziegler (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Dawkings really more critical of Islam than Christianity?--Coffee (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems that way, and his rhetoric on Islam is also dangerously close to that of racist and islamophobic nutcases. I've been a Dawkins fan for a couple of decades (I'm quickly becoming a non-fan), and though he's certainly been quite snarky, I can't remember him using this kind of generalizing and dehumanizing rhetoric about, say, Christians. Joakim Ziegler (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So, saying that muslims shouldn't be allowed to segregate the genders during a debate taking place at an English University is a comment which is dangerously close to the extreme right. I think you forgot to take your meds. Burkean (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. The 'extreme far right Nazi racist bigot etc.' is anybody that simply disagrees with the garbage from the anti normal White male clowns on this absurd website. 175.119.187.235 (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He's actually got an odd sort of fondness for C of E Christianity which comes out occasionally, largely due to his upbringing. 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other recent controversy which might be worth mentioning is his comments about "mild paedophilia". 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not Sure Where to Put This
But Richard Dawkins was recently quoted as saying that sexual abuse isn't always harmful (link)

I've been interneting long enough to know not to take Salom seriously. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Naked Mongoose / talk / contribs 09:04, 23 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Apparently he sucks at writing about polyamory, too
Comments on something Dawkins wrote about polyamory against monogamy about jealosy and cheating in 2007: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2014/09/06/about-that-green-eyed-monster-article-dawkins-wrote/ --ZooGuard (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Atheist don't chop off heads?
I'm sorry but that just reminded me of something called "The French Revolution." there are so many sources that show mass killings and persecution of any religious group by atheists at this time, but this is always thrown back in the closest and locked up.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When did he say that? It sounds just like Dawkins but I can't find the quote. You do have to remember that religious people are the ones chopping people's heads off today though. Christopher (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "There is no atheist religion. (...) Oh yes, I was forgetting. All those atheists beheading people, setting fire to them, cutting off their hands, cutting off their clitorises. If you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means" Technically he is mocking while trying to say atheists don't do stuff like that, during the time of The French Revolution religion was banned and for 3 years anyone of any type of faith was sent to a guillotine.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no logical reason to expect atheists to act in any particular moral or immoral way. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The French revolution was a long time ago, the religious people alive at that period wouldn't have been great people either. Christopher (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst it sounds exactly the sort of thing Richard Dawkins would say I still don't see a source. Christopher (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Rimuru I see we're forgetting that the Jacobins . Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Christopher read the article you will find it. I agree that certain groups were not good but what followed was just as bad. Those that persecuted the Huguenots were killed in turn, but even after they killed the aristocrats and the clergy they started killing many innocent people. I would state that this was shown that it would happen but that should be on the topic of the French Revolution and not on Richard Dawkins. I just wanted to show this in response.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Rimuru Tempest / talk / contribs
 * Anyone who claims all atheists are great people is a moron. That being said, how many murders committed by atheists in the 21st century that can be blamed on their being atheism have their been? Christopher (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused by whatever point Rimuru is trying to make here. Plenty of bad (and good) people have been atheists. So?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think (s)he's criticizing Dawkins' supposed attitude that all atheists are prefect in every way. Christopher (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's kind of odd, as they have given no source for Dawkins saying it, so if he did say it we don't know the context. Anyway as far as I am aware no atheists are currently beheading people. And if they were doing it - so what? Atheism isn't a religion so it's about as relevant as "Bald men cutting off heads".
 * (If it were "secular humanists" then it would be different. What with them having a moral philosophy and all.)
 * So it's still very confusing.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's sort of a counter-argument to how religion has been accused of propagating violence and it's trying to make a point that atheism also has blood on its hands (there's also the "godless Communism" thing...). 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)