Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive1

On the telly

Just finished watching the second part of Enemies of Reason on Channel 4. Another good bashing of the mumbo-jumbo of "alternative" medicine. Genghis Khant 15:07, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I am eagerly awaiting its releas on the intertubespipes. tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:09, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

doc should see it

Yeah, watched it on repeat. He puts a whole lot on "trials?" & placebo. He's got a lot more patience with these nutters than I would have; I don't know how he managed to keep his cool. (good editing?). If it ever gets over the pond it should be compulsory watching for woo mongers. Keep ^{Your hands to yourself} 19:57, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, i missed the whole Enemies thing...is it online? User:PalMD

Yes, part 1 and part 2. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:24, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Richard the Philosopher

Now, it may just be me, but under normal circumstances, I would expect calling someone a philosopher would require that person to actually display some skill at and knowledge of philosophy. As far as I can tell, Dawkins has never received any training in philosophy, has never published anything substantial on philosophy, and, to take an example of his ability to present a philosophical argument, his "discussion" of Aquinas in chapter 3 of The God Delusion would make even a first-year philosophy student weep like a little child.

For a fun exercise, try comparing Dawkins with one of the real eminent atheist philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, J. L. Mackie or Jean-Paul Sartre. Or don't, because there's really no comparison between them. Dawkins is good at shouting at things, but that falls under polemics, not philosophy. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:37, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins does have his troubles (he's not really a people person) but that dosen't stop him being a philosopher. At least under this definition:

philosopher - a specialist in philosophy

philosophy - the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

I don't think that anyone could deny his rational investigation. I think his main trouble is that he regards those who don't see his pov as rather stupid but he's still a philosopher regardless ofyour interpretation of the word. SJG^sjg 14:58, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I can't say I was impressed with the God Delusion. The reasoning was often poor. I remain a non-believer despite his poor analysis. Still, he does get the word out.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 15:20, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I would certainly deny his "investigation", since according to the same dictionary, that means "To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically." Staying with God Delusion, Dawkins does no such thing regarding philosophy - he gives no detailed presentations of the subject matter, he presents no structured arguments, he does not engage with any of the major Christian philosophers (Kierkegaard, Tillich, Schweitzer, Ricoeur, Berdayev, and so on and so forth), and overall, his reasoning completely fails to live up to what one would expect from a work of philosophy. Again, this is not philosophy, it is polemics. Good polemics, in a certain way, but still polemics. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:23, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Agggh! you introduced a word that affects me much as liberal affects A Schlafley viz. 'Christian'. When faced with a philosophy founded on irrational faith there can be no rational answer. That's probably why he pays them the zero respect. However you're bloody good yourself @ proving your point & I haven't the education/knowledge in what is (to me) an esoteric field so I yield the point. SJG^sjg 15:35, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Dawkins is not really a philosopher. He is a writer on science for the popular market (and has some scientific credentials? that he doesn't use any more?) human^{be in} 15:51, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I believe he's a zoologist or a related field by training. I think he studied under a Nobel Prize winner, even, so his scientific credentials are probably impeccable. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:41, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Hmmmm... interesting. But I think there are two obvious defences of Dawkins and his book The God Delusion here. One is in the definition of philosophy - as a scientist he is, of course, a natural philosopher - and he does use rationalism, pragmatism and empiricism in his work. So, while he might not be a philosopher in the vein of Christian philosophers listed above (how could he?), he certainly is a philosopher in the more robust earlier use of the word. Second, the book is not intended to be a philosophical discussion. While it does go into some detail about the likelihood of the existence of God, (a philosophical question if ever there was one), he doesn't use philosophy to attack the damage he claims religion does to human society. Which is, it seems to me, the primary purpose of the book. Ajkgordon 03:18, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Qualifications

I've put so much in qualifications because of the debate at CP. If it's overkill then we can take it out.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 15:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

No, it's quite lovely. I'll send a link over to the Dawkins Forum162.82.215.199 15:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, be nice if the RD crowd wanted to contribute.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 17:30, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

God Delusion

I added a subsection. Perhaps someone like The Great Dane could flush it out.162.82.215.199 16:16, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Typos rule!!! haha human 17:54, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

What's so bad about typos? If I stopped to think, Id never get anything done, and you would lose an opportunity to copy-edit. Yeah, I'll sign in, dammit.162.82.215.199 18:17, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Nothing bad about them, as I said, they rule. Especially the one I was commenting on. human 19:04, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Glad to, but I see you already made a good start. I'll see what I can add once I find some free time. Mmmm... free time... --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:13, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

User your free time wisely.75.62.26.188 11:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Image

I know it's shopped and all, but is that image of RD "strangling" a creationist the kind of thing that we want on this page?--Bayes^update 02:02, 14 November 2007 (EST)

No, at least, not at the top. A better caption and putting it lower might help. Like "What creationists make us feel like doing"? human 14:22, 14 November 2007 (EST)

That's a lot better. I like the caption very much. Can we get a real pic of him for up top? Steal it from WP maybe? human 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Professorship

[Moved from WIGO talk page] Well TK has forced me to finally drop this particular bit, but I think I'm done anyway - I'm tired of pestering Oxford (who by now must think I'm a stalker), and like someone said above, it's obvious that Andy isn't going to change his mind. Not even if the Vice Chancellor of Oxford University himself confirmed the facts over a private lunch with the Chief Justice. Though I hope someone will call out Andy on his contradiction in quoting authoritatively the first part of that FOI response from Oxford (about the Simonyi professorship not being filled) whilst he wilfully ignores the second part (about a professorship being conferred on Dawkins in 1996). Calling him out won't change anything of course, it would just make things, you know, *neater*. Weirdly, and in spite of himself, Andy has actually forced us to unearth some interesting errors in Dawkins' CV, and some of my early assertions were indeed wrong. Clearly Dawkins doesn't hold the statutory Charles Simonyi Professorship - instead he holds the Readership, and a Professorial title with almost exactly the same name. My own theory - and this is purely conjecture based on my own experience of academic politics - is that the vagaries around Dawkins' title are simply a prime example of a university fudge. My guess is that Simonyi endowed the chair on condition that Dawkins received it first. But Oxford couldn't guarantee 100% that a formal election would grant the chair to Dawkins and not some other academic. So instead they created the chair, gifted Dawkins the Readership to ensure the money went where it was intended, and then he went through a more straightforward (though peer reviewed) process of gaining a professorial title via the Distinctions Committee - just like the majority of professors at Oxford. The Distinctions Committee could then name that professorship in such a way that way everyone was happy: Dawkins gets his professorship; Simonyi gets to fund his man and see Dawkins carry out the responsibilities of the role; and Oxford gets the endowment. I'd also guess that even though the formal title is 'Simonyi Reader and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science', Oxford were happy for Dawkins and the Simonyi Institute to refer to him as the Simonyi Professor. But perhaps that's just my atheist liberal deceit coming through.

It's been emotional. OurMike 18:19, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, I put this on CP's talk page for Dawkins - it seems to me that Dawkins started the 'job' before he was officially conferred the title of 'Professor', and his CV refers to when he started the 'job' rather than when he got the title. Of course, I could be wrong about that. Zmidponk 15:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)

You people disgust me! Leave the poor man alone, all he has left is his wiki and his lifetime supply of olanzapine! SSchultz 18:53, 20 November 2007 (EST)

He doesn't look fat enough to be on olanzapine, sarge.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 07:03, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Curiously, what medications do you think Andy should be on for his mental illnesses? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 09:36, 21 November 2007 (EST)

It's weird, but do we really think Andy is serious about what he's says on that page? He's so obviously wrong that he's just making himself look silly. It obviously can't be deliberate - but it sure looks that way.--Bob^{bing up} 12:52, 21 November 2007 (EST)

He's like the small child who's madde a statement and won't back down - he's stamping his feet & holding his breath with his eyes closed & fingers in ears - unfortunately there's no-one to send him to his room. Susan^{... miaow ...} 13:01, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Well, he does seem to think that he has unearthed some serious overlooked dirt on RD, and like any conspiracy nut he won't let go of his bone now. He's got his two "quotes" (RD's resume and Oxford's statement), that aren't worded exactly the same, ergo LIBERAL DECEIT!!!1111!!1oneone! He's the boy who cried "goat" while putting his finger in the dike... human 14:09, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Andy put his finger in a dyke? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:13, 21 November 2007 (EST)

He thought it was a goat. human 15:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

The whole sordid talk page on CP is quite bizarre. Talk about belief without evidence - Aschlafly simply has faith that Dawkins in not a real professor therefore he mustn't be. Any tiny nugget of data that apparently reinforces his faith - such as the minor discrepancy on Dawkins' CV, I imagine more to do with practicality rather than deception - and that is proof-positive that Dawkins is a fraud. Like sedimentary rock proving that Noah's flood is real. I've largely given up because it's quite obvious that Aschlafly won't back down. Even if, as demanded, Dawkins does send him a copy of his appointment letter from OU, (yeah right), it will be a copy and not the original, which of course is more than likely to be a fraud because Dawkins is a liberal atheist. Stands to reason, dunnit? Ajkgordon 10:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I, for one, cannot believe that Assfly won't recognize Dawkins as a professorship without producing his letter of appointment to the post. Does he hold those does he hold anyone else to such high standards? Ridiculous. He's painted himself into a corner by making this "exposé" of Dawkins his latest cause. Having put so much into it he can't back down now, so he just has to keep the idea going, despite proof that he's wrong. Sad, really. DickTurpis 11:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Even if he were sent a copy of his letter of appointment - do you think that he would accept it? I rather think not. He'd simply claim that it was a forgery. (While on the subject, he could use the same reasoning to claim that any other professor at Oxford is not a professor on the basis that nobody has presented him personally with a certified copy of their letter of their various appointments.) But the Dawkins letter of appointment thing is just a smokescreen - he asks for something that he knows it is not in the power of his critics to obtain, claims that it is the one vital piece of evidence that would convince him, and then says that he must be right because it has not been provided. The man is quite sly almost deceitful.--Bob^{bing up} 11:50, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I've asked him on a couple of occasions if other sources have "exposed" this non-professorship. To which he replies that I'm over-reliant on hearsay. Pffft. Ajkgordon 11:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I still can't work out if Andy believes what he's saying. Or indeed whether he believes *anyone* believes what he's saying. It's endlessly fascinating though - seeing what mental knots he can tie himself into in order to once again deny the desperately obvious fact of Dawkins' professorship. Andy's world takes the negative of something as the default, so an Oxford University document that uses the word "professor" is assumed to mean "honorary, non-peer reviewed, non-stipended, facultyless professor, and probable museum curator: expired" - unless you can find proof against every one of those negatives. If Dawkins produced his letter of appointment Aschlafly would first ignore it, then deny it, and finally argue that it supported his case, on the grounds that it was addressed to 'Dr'. OurMike 12:41, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I keep wondering this. Is it really some great joke on his part to refuse to accept something so obvious? Is he just playing people along? It's hard to believe that anyone could be so seriously closed-minded. But each time I think that, I wonder if he would really publicly damage his credibility just to make a joke.--Bob^{bing up} 12:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Um, I don't think he has any credibility! Ajkgordon 16:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Just had to try one more time. Countdown to revert and ban:10...9...8... Zmidponk 15:13, 29 January 2008 (EST)

That edit comment's gotta be saved for posteriority : zmidponk to AS: (You are in contravention of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2 and 5. You are the owner of the site. Abide by the Commandments or change them.) Susan^Purrrrrrr 16:01, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, that was a comment! A perfect combination of common sense and irony. I bow to Zmidponk. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 16:06, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you. I try. ;) Zmidponk 20:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I have an image of AS going slowly red -> purple at the sheer cheek of someone daring to impugn his rectumitude. As he stares at the screen before him. (no response yet!) Susan^Purrrrrrr 16:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Good old arse kisser Mexmax.!!! Susan^Purrrrrrr 17:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Good old Mexmax (again) (you can just see his feet sticking out of Andy's rectum now, he's kissed so much. Susan^Purrrrrrr 18:23, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, come on, you know better than that. Andy doesn't have a rectum, as crap is a purely liberal thing. Zmidponk 20:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Well, not banned yet (much to my surprise), though the page is reverted 'pending outcome of discussion'. Of course, this is really just a continuation of the one that really started in October or thereabouts, and Assfly has basically pretended isn't happening, or accused the people arguing against him of lying. Maybe he thinks if he does this long enough, it'll go away? Zmidponk 20:44, 29 January 2008 (EST)

YAY!!! I finally got banned, despite not editing the article before giving them a full week to actually present something, anything, to back the claim of Professor Dawkins not being a 'real professor', and them presenting absolutely nothing, except a comment by Assfly asking me to get Professor Dawkins to 'correct his CV'. Zmidponk 17:22, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Dawkins's

Bob - hate to nitpick, but according to the Chicago Manual of Style, it should be Dawkins's:

7.18Proper nouns, letters, and numbers

The general rule covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers.

Kansas’s legislature

Chicago’s lakefront

Burns’s poems

Marx’s theories

Berlioz’s works

Strauss’s Vienna

Dickens’s novels

PFoster 14:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Been there, done that, got the T shirt. Bob & I had a looooong discussion many moons ago & agreed (I think) to differ. SusanG 14:06, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

With proper names ending in "s" both are possible. This one says apostrophe only. WP uses " Dawkins' "--Bob^{bing up} 14:31, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Our earlier debate was about plural abbreviations. MP's or MPs. ;.) --Bob^{bing up} 14:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Examples of failed 's: Keith Richards's. Just sounds so wrong. I vote for sticking with s' - except in cases where it sounds right to use s's ;) human 14:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

"Ad homs."

What, ad homs are undesired now? This could have serious consequences for several of our articles. :uh-oh: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

A bit of a prick

Anyone have any graceful suggestions on how to incorporate my subjective belief that both Dawkins and Hitchens are really kind of dicks into their articles? Or should I leave it be?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:29, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

How about changing the quotes section to "Quotes by Dawkins" and "Quotes about Dawkins". Then you could file your feelings under the latter, for example:

"Dawkins is a bit of a dick" Tom Moore, 2008

Bondurant 07:42, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

That may be difficult. No doubt some users would agree with you. Others, such as I, would not. Still ... perhaps a section "mixed responses" or something of that nature would allow a diversity of opinion? Or you could start a debate page?--Bob^{bing up} 07:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll just leave it as is, I suppose. I'm not sure if it would make an interesting debate... the single sentence "It seems like Dawkins is a bit of a prick sometimes" isn't really the most intriguing of topics.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

We are so prone to criticize people for talking/preaching about things outside of their field of expertise (from omniscient Andy to creationist astronomers lecturing about biology). Should the same be applied to famed theologist Dawkins? ;-) Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

No, because, as Dawkins himself has been kind enough to inform us, theology is not even a real academic field. So obviously anyone can speak with authority on it. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:06, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, there is that book parody thing someone wrote in there. ħuman 21:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Haha, and I finally caught one of the subtly funny things about that part... ħuman 21:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

While I agree with Tom Moore's sentiments, I'm not sure a section devoted to that kind of thing would fit very well in the article. Ideally (hah!) we should reach a consensus on the veracity and/or prickliness of Dawkins' views, and write the article consistently from that point of view. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 22:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh. Well, maybe we can do that. Is there anyone who doesn't think Dawkins is a bit of a prick? I'm an atheist and a rationalist, and I love science, but I'll be damned if the man just doesn't act like a douche sometimes. It's not about his views, really, it's about his attitude. People's beliefs in religion are the same as their beliefs about anything; we shouldn't respect the truth of those beliefs, but we should respect their right to have those beliefs without being dildos about it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 22:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd hate to put words in their mouths, but at a guess, I'd say that Susan and Bob would be likely to disagree with that characterisation. A few others might as well, like Proxima Centauri and Eira. Shall we invite them over here and have a full-scale battle debate about it, maybe? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 22:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a plan, and seems to have begun already below.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:00, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Contrary to above supposition (Chaos!), I regard Dawkins as quite a lot of a prick.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

That's why I hate putting words in peoples' mouths :( Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:29, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(Hope that's not a fellatio reference,Chaos!)

While it's ok for me, a person of no influence, to antagonise people with my anti-religion rants, Dawkins should realise that tirades of invective are not doing anything but preach to the choir. If he wishes to persuade anyone of the rightness of his views, he should demonstrate a little empathy.   ^Contribs_Talk 00:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC) (Yes, please assume that is the case until otherwise informed :P)

But actually, I'm not sure I'd go that far myself. Dawkins' tirades are usually (up until God Delusion, to the best of my knowledge) made in the context of the conflict between creationism and evolutionism -- where a bit of antagonising and/or invective is sorely deserved. PZ Myers, on the other hand, seems to have no sense of scale. But let's not get started on that again... :) Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if I agree with you there SusanG on two counts. Firstly I don't really think Dawkins does engage in "tirades of invective" against people who are religious. He does talk about the inconsistencies and some of the negative consequences associated with religion, but I just don't see this insulting that you and Tom et al seems to see. Some of what he does is preach to the choir, but this is fine too. In my opinion we need atheists to become more aware of their thoughts and to become more active and open about their beliefs. I think its all good.

Secondly, even were I to grant that he is a bit rude; so what. It's about time we had a prominent speaker who doesn't mince words. In fact I would say that Christopher Hitchens does an even better job of this. Atheists need some spokespeople who are prepared to respond to theists the way that theists respond to us. There is a place for the calm, rational, "soft" analysis of people like Dennett but there is also a place for someone to tell it like it is.--Damo^Hi 00:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It's probably mostly personal, I've seen him many times on television & he just annoys me - he's so charisma lacking. I agree with every word he says, it's just ...   ^Contribs_Talk 01:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Damo on this. Anyway, Dawkins himself acknowledges that he's not a very good politician. I was listening to a podcast the other day and he told a story about him talking to one of people on the pro-evolution side of the Dover trail. Apparently after talking to the man for a while he told Dawkins, "It's a good job you weren't a witness at Dover - we'd have lost." Dawkins replied saying that he was fully aware of that - and for that reason he would have refused to testify at the trial if asked. (Basically they would have asked him, "Is the theory of evolution synonymous with athiesm?", and he would have said "yes".)--Bob^{bing up} 11:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not a prick

For the record, not that I am a big contributor here anymore, but I like Dawkins and I wouldn't use the word prick to describe him at all. He does sometimes go on and on about the same point (ie parents indoctrinating their children as child abuse) but in general I like his attempt at consciousness raising about religion's exalted status within society.Damo^Hi 22:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I like his attempt too, and his intentions are good. I approve all his motives. I just think he doesn't have to be such a dick about it. I don't know if you've read The God Delusion, but amidst many excellent points (and some rather lousy ones) he constantly throws in entirely unnecessary and cruel insults.

I think a good comparison is Sagan. Sagan, running ahead of the modern atheist movement, nonetheless did a huge amount to enlighten the world with his The Demon-Haunted World (among others). It addressed numerous of the same point, although it was not exactly on the same topic (absolute atheism vs. superstition) but Sagan declined to attack the individual holders of beliefs or mock them as stupid. To mock a belief as stupid is tantamount to mocking the holder of the belief as stupid, which is a dick move. Religion has numerous inconsistencies no matter where you go, and little logical basis: there's no need to be a prick about it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 22:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Interesting, I have read the God Delusion and I don't remember thinking he was insulting people, just pointing out the inconsistencies in religious arguments. I also think that it is about time the gloves came off when talking about some religious tendencies, so even if he does insult a few people this is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean for example I fail to see a good way to say that televangelists are crooks, or that people threatening to bomb abortion clinics are good citizens.

Do you have the same opinion of Sam Harris? I have just finished The end of faith and it seems he pulls even fewer punches than Dawkins.--Damo^Hi 23:17, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, my copy of Delusion is on another continent, so I can't pull examples. Which kind of sucks to support my assertion.

Don't worry; I made those two examples up, I don't have a copy of the god delusion on me but I vaguely remember him making points like those.--Damo^Hi 23:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think Harris is as bad; I enjoyed Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. He seems not to attack, but rather to persuade.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

As I mentioned above, I have no problem with Dawkins. I understand that some people do. I doubt that I will be able to persuade them otherwise.--Bob^{bing up} 04:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

And, like a hundred years ago or so, was Bertie Russell. Very nice. Very into the whole debunking of teh silly, he was. But he did it nicely (IMHO). ħuman 04:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Since when it is a RW mission to decide who is or isn't a prick? Maybe this article needs a criticism section to highlight some of the problems with his arguments or methods & especially what criticisms have been made of his work, but as for whether he is considered a prick, that really doesn't belong in the article so trying to find a consensus on it is a bit of a waste of time. weaseLOId~ 09:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It wouldn't be rational wiki without a good, honest criticism section. Not a wikipedia style "everything bad anyone has ever said" kind of criticism, but there are certainly some accusations made against Dawkins that could be worth mentioning. The article could do with a bit of a tidy up too; the Conservapedia on Dawkins bit could be set out better and the part about Turkey could be merged with the rest of the article for example. This is the kind of page that could do with being done properly. Armondikov 11:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Theist's first impression

"Blah, blah, blah, all religious people are morons. Blah, blah" . . . Do we really need this in the article? I think we can do better. weaseLOId~ 10:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm not as impressed with that bit although it's nice in a lighthearted kind of way. Armondikov 15:10, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I've deleted it at least once, but one of our more theistic brethren put it back in. I couldn't be bothered getting into an argument over it, but I don't think it ads very much.--Bob^{bing up} 15:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Gone. If we want to add snarky versions of people who dismiss Dawkins, we can add it in either a fun-space article or under the newer criticism section. Armondikov 15:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

While I'm certainly not one to object if the material can be improved, is there perhaps a little bit of a double standard here? Whereas our article on, say Andrew Schlafly, virtually overflows with snarky material of highly varying quality, even small, unassuming bits of snark seem strangely unwanted on this article. Perhaps I missed a memo that this article is exempt from Snarky Point of View? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I liked that part: it was funnier than most of our snark. Nonetheless (as I said before, somewhere...) I think we should come up with a more consistent POV for this article. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:30, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I liked that part too. It wasn't derisive as many many our articles. Now, I really don't want to pass for AKjeldsen's fanboy, but he is right once again (this doesn't apply to the song contest). Editor at CP^Sig(h)! 15:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think either snark or criticism is necessarily inappropriate in this article; I just think that that section was particularly stupid, & doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article which talks about Dawkins' accomplishments, controversy, etc. I don't think we're going to agree on a single POV re Dawkins, but the article should include some criticism, as it already does, as well as support. Some humour may be appropriate, but reducing Dawkins' arguments to "blah, blah, blah, all religious people are morons" is inane & asinine in the extreme, & kindof debases the article. As I said above, I think we can do better. weaseLOId~ 15:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, if the mob would like to speak otherwise, there's nothing stopping a rollback :P. I just thought it wasn't the best way of doing that kind of thing and kind of agree with Weaseloid on it. Armondikov 15:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

SPOV works best in the absence of internal controversy. If an article or opinion is likely to induce debate within the site I don't think a reliance on snark should be used. Nothing wrong with a few snarky statements here or there, but it should not be the "point." Andrew Schlafly is an interesting example, we had to spin off a whole new article to address the issue of actually presenting something worth reading to the more "general" population. Our Schlafly article is a pressure release valve for the internal community of RW->CP. In the face of community division, careful construction of phrasing and the use of sources and an attempt to arrive at consensus are all things wikipedia has taught us that are worth looking into. tmtoulouse 15:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

A valid point about the importance of internal controversy. However, the problem is that on Wikipedia, consensus usually centers around things like NPOV, No Original Research and Reliable Sources Only. Here, on the other hand, these policies are not really appropriate because of our more "ideological" or "activist" stand, if one can call it that. As such, it might be worthwhile to consider what to do when there is no consensus, because unfortunately, I highly doubt that a consensus will be possible. In this case, the result seems to be that one particular interpretation is establishing itself as dominant. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:56, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I strongly support its inclusion, on the basis of the hidden funny in "stares in disbelief" line, please do not make it be gone. ħuman 19:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah.Having grasped the hidden ambiguity I now think it may indeed represent all shades or RW opinion.--Bob^{bing up} 05:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Unindent We're leaving it in, but I linked the Courtier's Reply part of it and Genghis added a disclaimer. I think in general if there is an argument, leave it in but put a disclaimer. Is there a suitable template for such situations? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Disclaimer

There is now a disclaimer at a certain section of this article that states "This in no way reflects the views of all RationalWikians". Is there any part of this article that does reflect the views of all "RationalWikians"? Dark Matter Glaucopis 12:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

There is probably no part of the wiki that reflects the view of all RationalWikians, so perhaps that disclaimer belongs everywhere. However, that section has been the target for discussion (see above), serial deletion & reversion. weaseLOId~ 12:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Therefore there is no God

We say under criticism: "Theists also criticise Dawkins' lack of logic in some of his arguments, with several of his simplified point-by-point arguments ending with "therefore there is no God" without sufficient supporting premises." I certainly can never remember reading these words in The God Delusion. I doubt he ever explicitly says this. He says god is wildly, incredibly improbable - but I never recall the words "therefore there is no God". But I could be wrong so I've left it in for now.--Bob^{bing up} 15:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed.^{— Unsigned, by: Ajkgordon / talk / contribs}

I think it was in his "key points" section with bullet points. Though I can't remember specifically from the book what they were, all I remember is an internet based refutal and I can't quite trust that they quoted it properly, it at least stripped away the text around it. ArmondikoV^moral 10:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I added "allegedly" to the sentence, pending confirmation of his having ever actually said that in a logical argument. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 11:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I haven't re-read it all, but Chapter 4 of The God Delusion is titled 'Why there almost certainly is no God'. In fact on the scale of 1-7 from complete belief to utter disbelief in God, Dawkins puts himself at 6 leaning towards 7. He never actually says there is no God, just as Bob says above that God is wildly improbable. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:52, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I have edited it to include this point.--Bob^{bing up} 14:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Link description

PC added an EL with this description: "According to Dawkins he stopped to confront the interviewers." Can this be clarified as to what it is talking about? ħuman 17:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Please? ħuman 19:04, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I've cut it here while we await clarification or expansion.--Bob^{bing up} 05:24, 10 December 2008 (EST)

• According to Dawkins he stopped to confront the interviewers.

Warning: Default sort key "Dawkins, Richard" overrides earlier default sort key "Richard Dawkins".

There's a defaultsort in Template:Evolution and it conflicts with the one here. -- Nx / talk 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I it because it is "includeonly"ed? Surely it should be "noincluded"? What purpose does it even serve? ħuman 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, Pages are categorized including their namespace name, so for example a page in CP space would be categorized as "Conservapedia:Something stupid they say about evolution". Defaultsort:Pagename in Template evolution removes the namespace name from this. The defaultsort definition should be removed from the template and put into individual articles where needed. -- Nx / talk 07:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that's why it was in the template, yeah, bad idea. ħuman 18:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia's bizarre attack on Dawkins

Is it time to remove this section now?--Bob^{bing up} 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)--Bob^{bing up} 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How about downgrading it, like putting it in the criticism of dawkins section? Maybe with a === header, maybe not even with one? ħuman 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Downgraded, and slightly revised. I removed the cquotes too as they were too big imho -- Nx / talk 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cut the whole thing to the section below. Their article no longer has this as it's main point so I'm not sure it should be in the article at all. Secondly who cares about CP's opinion?--Bob^{bing up} 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it matters enough in this case, in that Dawkins actually wrote about it on his blog? ħuman 22:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia's bizarre attack

"Not a professor, huh? How 'bout I 'intelligently redesign' your trachea?"

Conservapedia's article on Richard Dawkins contains a bizarre unsupported ad hominem attack suggesting that he is not a "real" professor (see here). His comprehensive response can be found here.

Essentially they make two claims:

1. that Dawkins says that he is a Professor but that the university describes his position is a "post"

and

2. that Dawkins' job does not fit the definition given by the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

In the spirit of investigation, RW editors have contacted both Oxford University and Merriam-Webster in an effort to find the truth. Oxford University has replied saying "Dr. Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996." Merriam-Webster has replied saying "Since Dr. Dawkins holds two PhDs (in addition to numerous honorary degrees) and teaches at Oxford University, it is appropriate to use the title "Professor" for him."

This RW article was copied to the CP article debate. Subsequently "The Powers that Be" first attempted to dismiss the abovementioned emails as fake and then claimed that the people who wrote them must have lacked the authority to write them.^{[citation needed]}

Atheist Saint

I'm an atheist, but I always find it fascinating how so many atheists find it necessary to immortalise their own champions in this vulgar manner. How bloody boring. Not an ounce of critical reason in this article. MarcusCicero 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawkward

That feeling when Dawkins unwittingly endorses an image containing a QR code of the Fourteen Words...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I no longer fully respect any leading figures in the atheist movement. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Never trust leaders of any movement. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins is now the Trump of atheism. Typhoon (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump has a personality disorder: megalomania. Don't be an idiot.Shinola (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Still a little confused about why people think a person with degrees in evolutionary biology qualifies them to discuss philosophy of religion. Dawkins is no more equipped to discuss the philosophy behind atheism than he's qualified to discuss aeronautical engineering.Petey Plane (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but am surprised nobody here has accused you of engaging in the rhetorical tactic worked up by that other biologist who sees himself as an authority on the philosophy of religion. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Courtier's Reply" is bunk and little more than a non-sequitur. The argument isn't about the style or quality of the invisible cloths. The argument is about whether the close are indeed invisible or not (or whether an omnipotent being can exist, not the nature of the being), and yes, that does necessitate some understanding of philosophy, theology and logic, topics not typically studied by biologist.Petey Plane (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Added Dawkins and Myers to the Ultracrepidarianism page.Petey Plane (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it's not like most people are even aware those QR box thingies are meant to mean anything. 194.78.87.50 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's much worse when he retweets bullshit while fully aware of the contents. This was just in the category of "amusing cringe". I hope that the trolls make it a competition to see what crap they can sneak into his retweets, though. --ZooGuard (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Still a little confused.." Your confusion is due to the prevalent University Degree Fallacy, so common among those who find themselves grasping at straws to support their own peculiar views. People with real University training at a very high level are justified in presenting their thoughts on foundation areas in their own fields of studies and may be supposed to be competent to do so in related fields. This is because they are generally educated, and also explains why you are confused. There is no department of philosophy of atheistic studies in any University.Shinola (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ranting about "radical feminists" on Twitter

An edit war broke out over Ranting about "radical feminists" on Twitter. I shortened it and tightened the wording. I hope that compromise is acceptable. If it isn't let's discuss what to do here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Take out the inane, vague, pointless speculation and rhetorical questioning that makes for a useless footnote. Cut it down to one sentence. Don't live-blog every dispute that breaks out over a tweet. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In Which Richard Dawkins Disappoints Me By Adam Lee Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Dawkins has a problem with feminists, at least not the old-fashioned kind who believe in actual gender-equality. He often attacks religious misogyny. I think he just has a problem witha so-called feminists who say you're oppressing them if you compliment them and who complain about men who point out that not all men are sexist whilst turning a blind eye to Islamic misogyny. I always try to draw a distinction between feminists and femiNazis. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fucking Limbaugh...--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, another MRA with an inaccurate idea of what feminists actually do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I AM a feminist. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The article was written by Adam Lee. The very Adam Lee who is "disappointed" in Richard Dawkins for years. The very Adam Lee who thinks that starting a hashtag for fun with the "best of humankind" and kicking it off with favourites like Shakespeare, Schubert, Einstein and Darwin makes one a white supremacist (keep in mind that a hashtag is about that everyone can throw in their own ideas). That Adam Lee. He's a complete imbecile. He does not admire Dawkins and manages to lie about it on the first sentence. [correction. He did not lie. The article is three years old, maybe it was different then]. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Was Dawkins over simplifying things when he complained that western feminists don't take up an execution of a woman by the Taliban? What can western feminists do that would influence the Taliban? Western feminists can influence events like Rosetta shirtgate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A t-shirt with naked women on it sent everyone in a frenzy? My goodness, are they in Teheran, Riyad, Raqqa or Mea Shearim??--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 14:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What's Mea Shearim? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Mea Shearim is one the Ultra-Orthdox sectors in Jerusalem with bullshit like that hanging at the entrances and bullshit like that happening there. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Can't let the sinful bodies of women be uncovered! After all, god would not have created them if he had wanted them to flaunt all their naughty bits (faces, hair and stuff) all openly... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a voting feminist, I'm not going to miss the chance to once more advocate for my worldview; feminist Julie Bindel on what she refers to as "toxic feminism" behind the shirt shaming. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a voting anarchist I'm not going tyo miss the chance to say your link is dead.(Drink!)Jackinthebox (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The link lives.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The Last Part of the Islamophobia section

While this man has said plenty of things that make him an Islamophobe I fail to see how the incident in the last part of this section (the part of the sex-segregation during a University debate) qualifies as Islamophobic. Alsto003 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

You don't see how "who the hell do these Muslims think they are?", " cowardly capitulation to Muslims?" or "some Muslim or other" could be construed as Islamophobic? Consider for a moment if you replaced "Muslims" with "Jews" - would you find nothing problematic about these phrases then? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Dawkins totally echoed douchebag xenophobes in his complaints about the issue, and he really is an Islamophobe (and probably a Christophobe(sp?) while we're at it). However, he was right to criticize the sexism, and our reportage of this matter should condemn both the hatefulness of Dawkins and the sexism of those UCL douches. Rand0 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll grant that his rhetoric was mildly islamophobic, for the first reason you pointed out. And as a Jew were he criticizing Jews for the issue on which he is criticizing Muslims (or more appropriately conservative Muslims) I would say that I would be mildly offended, not because he was critical of sex segregation but rather because of the way he was critical. I am sure that neither of us believes that segregating the sexes during this debate was an appropriate idea. Therefore I feel that the article should specify that the reason why his comments is considered Islamopobic is because he made a broad generalization characterizing Muslims as the "other". Alsto003 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

The article already describes the debate segregation as a stupid decision. Dawkins' words speak for themselves and, as the article shows, are part of a pattern of hostile & insensitive comments about Muslims. I don't see the need to single out his reaction here as being any less awful than in other incidents. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't simply stupid; it was also sexist. His Islamophobia is staying in the paragraph and so is these other folks' sexism. Rand0 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is opposition to Islam considered bad? Is this a pro-atheism wiki or a pro-Islam Wiki?

Opposition to Islam in itself isn't considered wrong, but some critiques of Islam seem to cross or blur the lines between xenophobia and valid critiques of the religion. Criticisms of religion should be well supported and shouldn't cross the line into denigrating its followers. From what I have seen, the people who seem best at arguing against Muslim theology without crossing that line are ex-Muslim atheists. Heina Dadabhoy (Heinous Dealings) of FreeThoughtBlogs and Kaveh Mousavi (On the Margin of Error) of Patheos are two that I have in mind. Arachne1988 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Jews are a race as well as a religion. You can be a Jew by race and be an atheist or a Christian even (if yo're suicidal) a Muslim. You could also not be a Jew by race but still practice Judaism in which case you're still asking for your head to get cut off if the true Muslims have their way. Islam is not a race although liberals think it is because most Muslims are dark skinned and therefore in the mind of the racist left, disadvantaged and deserving of special rights because they've been bullied by the nasty, imperialist West who try to impose values such as respect for human rights, women and gays upon them when they are a culture who are different from our own and are therefore entitled to rape or stone to death anyone whom they disagree with. The very word "Islamophobia" is an oxymoron and a classic example of Orwelelian newspeak in real life. A phobia by definition is an irrational fear or suspicion. Being afraid of spiders in a country where they are not deadly is a phobia. Being afraid of spiders in a country where they are deadly is a rational fear. Being afraid or suspicious of men who believe they have the right to marry as many women as they want and then consumate the marriage regardless of age and beat them four times a day for disobeying them or not walking around wearing a tent or so much as looking at another man and then stone them to death if they get raped despite how many times said men may have done so or rip the faces of homosexuals as they do in Palestine or execute them as they do in Iran is not an irrational fear; it's common sense. But we don't get a squeak about this from feminists and yet Richard Dawkins is regarded as a vile misogynist because a member of his organisation once flirted with a woman in an elevator and despite manifold warcrimes from that band of desert dwelling, cowardly, bomb-throwing illiterates colloquially known as the Palestinians despite the fact that they quite rightly don't have their own country and never will if they keep behaving the way they are, Israel are cast as the bad guys. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that is an oversimplification to call the more violent Muslims the true Muslims-both the violent and peaceful Muslims are true Muslims. It is not a monolithic bloc. The term islamophobic is more akin to xenophobia than to run of the mill phobias. Xenophobia is a term used in social science to indicate a loathing or hatred of foreigners. It is an extreme form of "us" vs "them" thinking. Accurate criticisms of other cultures does not fall into this category, but extreme caricatures and unsupported claims do.

The reason why I like to hear what ex-Muslim atheists say on the matter is that they criticize it accurately and know that overgeneralizing is unjustified to do to Islam just as it is to do to Christianity. Terrorism does not seem to be the issue that most often comes up when you hear them speak. It tends to be more about human rights violations on other Muslims and deconverted Muslims, which are rampant where Sharia law is a present. The fact about terrorism is that it is biased by cultural view. Osama bin Laden regarded Americans as terrorists, and his argument was based on our use of military force. As my social problems professor put it, "One nation's heroes, another nation's terrorists." In reality, everyone involved sucks pretty badly.

In regards to the re-establishment of Israel-I think it was a very thoughtless thing to do to the Jews. The Palestinians were living there first and then the idea to give Jews Israel just had to be implemented. We couldn't offer them uninhabited land-like west Texas. Muslims and Jews did not fight very much before that-the situation is first and foremost about land and is exacerbated by religious differences and then evangelical Christians throw their bit about the end times on top of it. Religion plays a part, but it was not the starting point for the conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict always reminds me of "This Land is Mine"-had to post the link.Arachne1988 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So if Dawkins says anything bad about Islam, that's somehow a legitimate criticism of Richard Dawkins? I don't think it should be so surprising that somebody who doesn't like religion in general also doesn't like Islam specifically. Perhaps you should stop being so sensitive and accept that Islam doesn't deserve any special protection from scrutiny. And saying that Richard doesn't like Islam isn't a legitimate criticism of Richard unless you see Islam as a good thing. It's not like he singles out Islam. He just doesn't like religion in general. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.25.53.154 / talk / contribs 16:44, 25 July 2015}

Please sign your statements. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To the rationalist, Islam is just another set of junk beliefs. When people use junk beliefs to advance a social agenda, as is done with Islam, it is appropriate for rationalist critics to point that out. The dislike of cultures apart from their possible agendas is suggestive of xenophobia when those alien cultures are actually compatible with the affected native culture. Islamophobia is a political designation, invented [or eventually became applied through usage] to advance the cause of Islam in non-Islamic societies. People who are actually xenophobic are not generally motivated by intellectual arguments. The accusation of Islamophobia is commonly a method used by Islamists and their sympathizers to enable the spread of Islam into the west. Shinola (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia was invented to help spread Islam in the west? Really? Also, don't insert your comments between two years old posts. Typhoon (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. "Islamophobia" is almost always used by apologists for Islam to deflect criticisms of the project of creating culturally Islamic states. It has no scientific nor philosophical merit as a technical term. It is conflated with anti-Muslimism which would be the fear and or distrust of Muslims. Its use is almost always rhetorical. I do apologize for improper insertion of comments into old discussions. I shall try to move any such insertions to discussion ends. Again, bad etiquette is not my intention.Shinola (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad conspiracy theory that incorrectly assumes that Muslims are a monolithic block that is out to get us all. Ironically, that makes it an example of Islamophobia ("or anti-Muslimis" as you called it, since there isn't any difference between these two terms). Incidentally, what's your opinion about Political Correctness? Isn't replacing Islamophobia with "anti-Muslimism" Political Correctness? These two terms are interchangeable, yet one makes you go into rants. Typhoon (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no conspiracy. Islamophobia , as it is most often applied, is a term that does not describe simple fear of muslims but rather fear, distrust, or simply dislike of Islamists (advocates for the imposition of Islamic culture on non-Islamic societies.) Ironically, your use of the term Islamophobia makes you sound like an Islamist. Good luck with that.Shinola (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The use of the term Islamophobia is much like that of pornography. It offends the sensibilities of certain delicate persons. If I say welcome Muslims, but don't bring Islam into my country, then you may call me Islamophobic, and I will agree. What I don't agree is that it is a bad thing. I am a person with a culture. Fuck off if you don't like it.Jackinthebox (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the snide little remark on Dawkins' supposed Islamophobia, particularly "Notice how he doesn't say all Catholics to condemn the IRA" I would point out that Pope (he's kind of a big deal in Catholicism) has condemned the IRA. 93.94.245.32 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and rape

Below is a quote from joint statement from Dawkins and Ophelia Benson

Disagreement is inevitable, but bullying and harassment are not. If we want secularism and atheism to gain respect, we have to be able to disagree with each other without trying to destroy each other.

In other words we have to be able to manage disagreement ethically, like reasonable adults, as opposed to brawling like enraged children who need a nap. It should go without saying, but this means no death threats, rape threats, attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut; no photoshopping people into demeaning images, no vulgar epithets.

Richard adds: I’m told that some people think I tacitly endorse such things even if I don’t indulge in them. Needless to say, I’m horrified by that suggestion. Any person who tries to intimidate members of our community with threats or harassment is in no way my ally and is only weakening the atheist movement by silencing its voices and driving away support.

From Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins

How does this square with his retweeted video?

• Sceptics drop atheist Richard Dawkins for retweeting video mocking feminists and Islamists

In a series of eloquent and angry Tweets, she [Lindy West] made clear to Dawkins how and why he was misusing his huge platform and contributing to an atmosphere of hate online. Dawkins, alternately indignant and defensive, ultimately took down the offending Tweet, but not before making other Tweets that were nearly as bad. Dawkins can’t even do the right thing without being a dick about it.

From Richard Dawkins, Lindy West, and the Cartoon Video of Great Hatefulness

Then it ends with the man asking, “So do you mind if I rape you now?” The woman replies, “Don’t be silly; it’s not rape when a Muslim does it!” This is what Richard Dawkins apparently finds entertaining.

From Stop pouting, Richard Dawkins: Sharing a rape “joke” targeting an activist is a “de-platforming” offense

Does anyone else suspect Double standards?

The comment below from Reverend Black Percy was before I added the second and third quotes" Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously this type of well-weighed statement trumps a random retweet. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Dawkins does extreme material like rape jokes rarely but some of his opponents comb his writings for those rare examples. That may be true, certainly there aren't many cases cited. Still I watched that supposed joke and I feel one example is one too many. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cartoon was highly offensive and extremely very funny in a douche-bag sort of way. Great fun. No doubt the prigs got on to RD pretty quick.Jackinthebox (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Another Reddit link

Posted here b/c I think it summarizes that Aneris / "IrrationalWiki" crowd view on how RW treats antifeminist atheists:

I'm sure they have some semi-decent articles, but I'm sure Conservapedia does too. Irrational Wiki's problem is the same as Conservapedia's problem is, namely that Wikipedia won't allow the people behind them to push some specific agenda, and neither of them are in any way objective. In case of Conservapedia, it's religion and politics, often with both combined, and with Irrational Wiki it's, amongst other things, feminism.

See Irrational Wiki's article on Richard Dawkins, a renowned and widely respected scientist, for example. Feminists hate him because he tends to make fun of all things illogical and irrational, including feminists. Irrational Wiki go to great lengths to appear legitimate, but they let it slip sometimes. Already in the opening they slip the first time:

Dawkins comes from a privileged background. He was born in Nairobi, Kenya, to a white settler family

(Emphasis mine)

While I'm sure that Dawkins has a privileged background in the sense that he's born into a rich family, this is not what these people mean. As you'll see in the next sentence, they're angry because he's white (and implicitly, a man). As a counterexample, see Irrational Wiki's article on Anita Sarkeesian, who is also rich and white. Nowhere does she get described as privileged, nor does her skin colour get brought up.

There's a section of Richard Dawkins' page titled Dumb criticisms of Dawkins in an effort to legitimise the next section, which is called Legitimate criticisms of Dawkins.

Dawkins has made fun of feminists before, which is why feminists hate him so much. In particular, one feminist once complained about being asked out for coffee and how this was the end of the world and proved that men are all evil. Dawkins made fun of this by comparing the hardship of being asked out for coffee to the hardship experienced by a woman in a conservative Muslim country, which Irrational Wiki describes this way:

If you found the above abhorrent, it's not particularly new. The 2011 conference incident known as "Elevatorgate" showed that even us "enlightened" atheists can be easily prone to logical fallacies.

Then the next section is called Ranting about "radical feminists" on Twitter.

I mean, I could go on, but you should explore this on your own if you really do care.

Edit: I just checked the article you described as being amazing. It contains the following:

Feminists are slackers

Sweeping one's own side of the street doesn't appeal to Harris and he has been known to adopt the not as bad as argument, [...]

Amazing article indeed. /s

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A pro-feminist viewpoint is not the problem. The problem is taking specific sides, and then reporting in an extremely one-sided manner. Compare Dawkins/Harris/HirsiAli with PZMyers/RichardCarrier/RebeccaWatson, for example. The other thing is the postmodern problem, and uncritically believing SJW narratives. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the postmodern problem", per se? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you need help, mate? I don't know the state of mind you were in when you wrote that but it sounds genuinely like off hinged ranting attempting to cover a bunch of subjects you personally disagree with just because they upset your world view. Maybe if you separated it into chunks addressing each point (such as 1. Gender and Sex are the same, 2. PZ Myers is Stalin, 3. Evolutionary Psychology is Awesome, 4. SJWs are dyed hair Pol Pots! 5. I THOUGHT THIS WAS RATIONAL WIKI!!!) it'd be a bit more readable. There's no cabal, by the way. Hollow (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I “personally disagree” with cheering on a child rapist (self-confessed!). You are in good company though, since the RationalWiki officially endorses and retweets the self-admitted paedo (and former fascist, alleged ex-edgelord) Nyberg. And hair colour? Sex and gender are the same? Pol pots (sic)!? Also, when someone makes the assertion that Henry Kissinger is a lizardman, and rebut: No, he most certainly isn't — that doesn't translate to “Kissinger is awesome”. This distortion is known as Myers' Law, the tendency that a his followers can neither receive nor transmit information without corrupting that information. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed (Clock Boy)

"Don’t call him “clock boy” since he never made a clock. Hoax Boy, having hoaxed his way into the White House, now wants $15M in addition!"

Dawkins, introducing his wacky theory of how one dastardly kid fooled millions of adult people

Hasn't it already been rather well established that the kid just took a clock out of its casing and popped it into another one? Also, using the argument that Mohamed couldn't have possibly lied about building the clock, or that his dad can't have set it up because millions of adults believed it is terribly weak form. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As an avid reader of Dawkins who isn't blind to his problems either for that matter: I'd say the way Dawkins decided to approach the clock issue is an open-and-shut case of him putting his foot in his mouth. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Censored?

Why are we leaving out Dawkins' view of race? Is this a science website or a Communist website? Boris Grigor (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh do get over yourself, drama queen... ScepticWombat (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As for why I, and I suspect the other editors too, removed this addition, it's because it smells of quote mining and character assassination more than science. Doubly so since those who keep adding it back are single purpose accounts who do nothing around these parts, but trying to reinstate it. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop lying. You removed it because you're a lying Communist pseudoscientist. Boris Grigor (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that you again mikemikev? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Mild pedophilia section

Left it in, since he seems to have openly acknowledged these views. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is itsnobody used as a source?

That blog is written by a complete whaco who believes that atheists are subhuman, among other things. 2.216.243.206 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"Canard"? What "canard"?

Under the heading Legitimate criticisms of Dawkins: Islamophobia, someone wrote "[Dawkins] stated that 'All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge,' and when called out on it, the defense was the old 'Islam is not a race, so this isn't racist' canard..." So, Dawkins' words are being dismissed as a "canard" . . . why? Dawkins is correct that Islam isn't a "race", so simply declaring his explanation to be a canard and thus invalid, doesn't cut it. It's as nonsensical as claiming that criticism of nurses is "sexist" because traditionally, more women than men were nurses. Call it "sophistry" if you want, but don't call it a "canard" if you can't back it up. Ockham (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be right. For all his flaws, I've always seen Dawkins be consistent that Islam =/= race. We ought to change that portion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What...the...fuck.

Okay, I have a few questions about the "Islamophobia" section.

1. Why the hell does RW, a sceptic-oriented site, have in the "Richard Dawkins" article a section condemning him for being unfair to Islam? Even if the points are legitimate how does it serve the purpose of this site to argue that an atheist has been unfairly harsh on religion? I doubt that other articles have sections like "to be fair, many scientists believe in the Christian God" or "most Christians opposed to homosexuality aren't motivated by hate but by sincere conviction so they shouldn't be demonised". So why does this article have a section defending religion from unfair atheist characterisations, and only Islam not Christianity? The only reason I can fathom is that some people here are just automatically taking the opposite side to conservative Christians on every issue even if it's incoherent (and thus ironically motivated by anti-Christian bigotry).

2. I said "even if the points are legitimate" but how the hell are they legitimate? I don't think there's a single reasonable point in this section. Just a few examples:

"Notice how he doesn't say all Catholics to condemn the IRA, or all Jews to condemn Israel's actions in the Middle East"

Because supporting the IRA isn't part of Catholic doctrine, nor is supporting the 21st century State of Israel part of Jewish doctrine. Death penalty for apostasy is, however, regarded by many as Islamic doctrine.

"the defense was the old "Islam is not a race, so this isn't racist""

Yes, how dare Dawkins point out an analytic truth that embarrasses stupid people who don't understand the meanings of words.

"He's generally called Islam "an unmitigated evil," which is in line with his opinion on religion in general"

So what's the problem? That he's not holding Islam to a more lenient standard?

"Christianity used to be the most dangerous religion. Now Islam is."

How can anyone deny that this is true? How many Christian countries punish apostasy with death? 0. How many Christian countries punish homosexuality with death? 0. Meanwhile there are dozens of Islamic countries in both categories.

"Referring to himself as a "cultural Christian" doesn't help."

One would think (and be sadly mistaken) that people on this site would be smart enough to know that Dawkins' personal characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his arguments.

Do I need to go on? This entire section needs to be axed. Moreover, its very existence in the first place points to a broader problem on RW that perhaps needs to be looked into. Cornucopia (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: "He has hotly contested the issue as to whether Islam was comforting towards individuals, rhetorically answering by saying: "Tell that to a woman, dressed in a binbag, [sic] her testimony worth half a man's and needing 4 male witnesses to prove rape"."

Is RW seriously suggesting that Dawkins is wrong to condemn these practices? I'm getting more disturbed by the minute. Cornucopia (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Since there's been no reply, I will remove the section. Cornucopia (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You think "Islam is the most dangerous religion"?

The statement "For years we've been calling attention to the deafening silence from moderate Muslims, their reluctance to condemn 9/11, suicide bombings and other atrocities. For years we have challenged moderate Muslims to disown the death penalty for apostasy, and officially sanctioned Islamic mistreatment of women. With a few honourabe [sic] exceptions like Yasmin Alibhai Brown, our appeals have met with lamentably little response." is horrible and should be condemned as it heavily implies that they support these violent attacks. Are you defending that statement only because of doctrine technicalities? Calling "Islam as an unmitigated evil" while referring himself as "a cultured Christian" don't go very well together and it does seem like he's singling out Islam for reasons. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake.

First, how convenient that this talk page thread goes three days without a response but it takes you all of 43 minutes to revert my edit to the article. I am so sick of people like you, both here and on wikipedia, who feel entitled to ignore a talk page argument for an edit and then still revert the edit. As far as I'm concerned if you can't be bothered to respond on the talk page you have no right to revert.

Second, you didn't address a single point I made. Did you even read it? Yes I think Islam is the most dangerous religion, do I need to repeat myself: "How many Christian countries punish apostasy with death? 0. How many Christian countries punish homosexuality with death? 0. Meanwhile there are dozens of Islamic countries in both categories." Can you name any other religion in the mordern world that punishes apostasy with death?

Also, "does seem like he's singling out Islam for reasons"? Are you seriously saying Dawkins is too soft on Christianity and other religions? Have you read anything he's written? Cornucopia (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, excuuuuse me, princess. I've been out for a few days. I couldn't have caught that myself. Your attitude isn't helping here. At least I actually took some time to respond, and this is what I get, a tirade?

You point out countries ruled by fundamentalist Islam. And? Doesn't make Islam in of itself more dangerous than Christianity, who also house extremists who are also very dangerous people (note Planned Parenthood killings, treatment of transgendered people, Christian terrorists existing, other low-lifes that identify with Christianity). By characterizing Islam as "the most dangerous religion", you're doing its mostly-peaceful decent human beings who follow that religion a disservice. Just as how Christians ignore the worse parts of their religion and focus on the "love and tolerance" part, so do Muslims. Of course, you can criticize Islam, but you have to make it clear what you're talking about or else people may accuse you of Islamophobia. But characterizing Islam as "more dangerous" sounds like a hasty generalization of Islam, akin to a stereotype.

And I still don't understand how Dawkin's attack on moderate(!) Muslims for implying they support 9/11 (by "reluctance to condemn 9/11 and other atrocities") is anything else short of unnecessarily vicious. I'd get highly offended by that statement and I'm not even Muslim.

Not saying he is "too soft on Christianity and other religions", how did I imply it? With the "cultural Christian" comment? Anyhow, all I'm saying is that he apparently singled out Islam and is even harsher on it. Don't take me for an idiot. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you really did just happen to stumble on this article right after I edited it then my apologies. But you must understand that I've had far too much experience of people ignoring talk page discussions for days or weeks and then reverting article edits within minutes to believe it's a coincidence. It's impossible to describe how frustrating and infuriating it is.

There being Christians who want to do violent things to those they disagree with means nothing if they have little or no power. If two people both want to kill you but one is armed with a machine gun and the other with a pillow, the equal murderous intent does not change the fact that the first is much more dangerous than the second. There are no Christian fundamentalists ruling countries with an iron fist like there are Islamic fundamentalists, and that makes Islam more dangerous.

The article itself quotes Dawkins saying that he's only talking about a small minority of the world's Muslims. He's saying that the minority of Muslim fundamentalists are a greater threat currently to peace and security than the minority of Christian fundamentalists. Again, how can anyone deny that?

"And I still don't understand how Dawkin's attack on moderate(!) Muslims for implying they support 9/11 (by "reluctance to condemn 9/11 and other atrocities") is anything else short of unnecessarily vicious. I'd get highly offended by that statement and I'm not even Muslim." Dawkins is an aggressive atheist, and makes a point of the dangers of ALL forms of religious belief not just extreme forms. To claim he's unfair to Islam the burden of proof is on you to show that he has said moderate Christians are not required to condemn Christian extremism.

Also, as I said above this wiki has plenty of articles that sweepingly characterise Christianity. To have a comdemnation of similar sweeping characterisations of Islam makes this look less like an atheist or rationalist wiki and more like a left-wing wiki that sides with Muslims over Christians because supposedly Muslims are an "oppressed group", despite ruling dozens of countries with an iron fist and despite the fact that the typical treatment of Christians in some Muslim countries is inconceivably worse than even the worst treatment of Muslims in most Christian countries.

Finally, even if you're right about that one statement of Dawkins the rest of the section needs to be axed as I pointed out above. Cornucopia (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "I've had far too much experience of people ignoring talk page discussions for days or weeks and then reverting article edits within minutes to believe it's a coincidence." you sure? Hipocrite (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, mostly on wikipedia but also at least once here as an IP and on other wikis as well. I don't edit wikis very often but when I do I usually try to make a logical argument on the talk page. Frequently I wait and wait and there's no response or just a vague response that doesn't address any of the points I made. Then I make the edit and, surprise, it gets reverted straight away. It's unbelievably infuriating. Cornucopia (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but my advice for you is to calm the hell down. Try not to contribute to a "raising of the pitch" in any discussion you even hope will end up anywhere constructive. Just saying. And for the record — people are generally "slow" to reply around these parts. And that's perfectly fine. It's not a form of persecution if people are, I assure you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"He's saying that the minority of Muslim fundamentalists are a greater threat currently to peace and security than the minority of Christian fundamentalists. Again, how can anyone deny that?"

I see the nuance now. I mean, I get it, but I then start thinking about the reality that Christian terrorists still exist (the Quebec shooting; general hate crimes), it's just that the Muslim extremists are more organized and publicized. But then, there's the rest of that paragraph which isn't... eh...

"Also, as I said above this wiki has plenty of articles that sweepingly characterise Christianity. To have a comdemnation of similar sweeping characterisations of Islam makes this look less like an atheist or rationalist wiki and more like a left-wing wiki that sides with Muslims over Christians because supposedly Muslims are an "oppressed group", despite ruling dozens of countries with an iron fist and despite the fact that the typical treatment of Christians in some Muslim countries is inconceivably worse than even the worst treatment of Muslims in most Christian countries."

I suppose so though Muslims are treated as a distrusted minority in the U.S., and this wiki is U.S. centric. While it does matter that Christians are oppressed in other regimes and possibly treated worse, Muslims here are the minority group and are treated as such with suspicion, which also is bad. Maybe a good analogy would be the fear of Japanese people during World War II even though Japan treated China more harshly than U.S. treating Japanese citizens and Japan attacked pretty much every country next to it. Did you see Islam#Critics_and_criticism? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My response is below. Cornucopia (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

While I wouldn't support "axing" from the article

...broadly speaking, I would like to consider something along the lines of the following rambling rant (which ended up about 10 times as long as I was going for originally).

As always, these are just my own thoughts, off the top of my head, and regardless of how my words are interpreted, my intention was to rally for a calm and moderate approach to the issues.

And if my words seem confusing at times, that's just because they are.

Now then;

First of all, to state the obvious — theocracy in the form of islamism is a real thing which exists in the world today, and it is a threat to the very idea of an open democratic society. Nobody is questioning that.

Note, however, that Islamism =/= "Islam", or "Islamisation", or what have you. Islamism denotes the political realization of theocracy under sharia law. In this sense, the relationship between "Islamism" and "Islam" is not unlike that of Dominionism and Christianity.

In the shortest of terms, Islamism does suck major ***** fairly unequivocally. But it's important to grasp the acute difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a necessary, though not sufficient, precondition for Islamism. Just like the way Christianity is a necessary, though not sufficient, precondition for Dominionism.

Roughly bunching up Dominionists with Christians generally would be deeply misleading in terms of what Christians are really about. The same goes for Islamists and muslims, respectively.

But even having successfully untangled Islam from Islamism — as such, with the wicked nature of Islamism freshly in mind — the thing one cannot afford to miss here is that Islamophobia is not the "opposite" of Islamism, nor is it "the struggle against Islamism".

Islamophobia is driven by the dynamic duo of fearfulness and hatred, and as such, Islamophobia is an absolute social toxin. Islamophobia is a kind of injustice, and it can never be a vechicle towards less injustice for anyone.

Remember that Islamophobia is just as much "the enemy" (though I hate that terminology) of humanist values and secular democratic society as Islamism is. It's not valid reasoning to present either one as a "fair reaction" to the other.

Islamism is not acceptable to sell as some kind of "warranted reaction" against growing Islamophobia. It isn't.

Islamophobia is not acceptable to sell as some kind of "warranted reaction" against growing Islamism. It isn't, either.

The goal of both movements is the dismantling of the Enlightenment ideal of an open, secular, inclusive, democratic society, the cultivation of fear and friction between groups in society, and (typically) the implementation of — broadly speaking — some manner of religiously conservative (and sometimes overtly ethnonationalist) societal order, be it under the Qur'an or the Bible.

So, as such... Islamophobia is itself not an "inherently false charge", in any sense whatsoever. Islamophobia is certainly not a "myth". But it's not a fool-proof label to apply either — and it can certainly be misused, often out of an honest misunderstanding, but in some instances purely as a rhetorical ploy (e.g., to paint antitheism as being "hateful" somehow).

And — for the record — it's certainly the case that particular New Atheists have made certain statements in certain contexts which blur the lines between a humanist-centered resistance to dogma (and against racism), and a supposed "clash of civilizations".

The latter view being the preferred view of bigots in the Christian and Muslim world alike (read: Islamists and Islamophobes, respectively), and the former view being the preferred view of the vast majority of moderate people who are infinitely more interested in being decent human beings than in being "radical" for any particular cause, regardless of their parents' religion.

As such, Islamophobia is not the ally of any morally serious person. Islamophobia is, in short, just hate. This is one of the many ways in which Islamophobia is fundamentally different from reasoned Atheist opposition to monotheism, Islam included. And make no mistake — the Qur'an is as jam-packed with bullshit as the Bible is, and regardless, Allah doesn't exist. Tough break.

With that out of the way — regarding article content here on RW. While it's something we'll need to consider on a case-by-case basis (as with all things, really), some of our articles on prominent atheists/skeptics could do with some editorial oversight from people who aren't perpetually high on their own angst.

But it's a tightrope to walk, in many ways... I certainly don't support whitewashing, just as I don't support utter character assassination pushed for by fuming zealots (it's not cognitive bias we mean when we say that RW endorses bias).

However, of people like Dawkins — where there's worthy criticism, there's worthy criticism. There seems to me no intellectually honest way around that fact.

The question — to me — becomes what constitutes a plausible overall tone of an article on a person, rather than discussing (somewhat unsavorily) the supposed "omittance" of particular criticisms or not. And the Dawkins article is one which could perhaps benefit from some healthy discussion on that topic.

Because, again, there are cases where a relative lightening of our editorial level of butthurtedness seems perfectly warranted — desireable by our very own mob, even. And for all the hate we're doing our best to expose, we should certainly take care not to befall to witchhunting ourselves... Again — it's a tightrope to walk, allright.

My bottom line is really that: anything which helps to undermine splitting — chiefly via admitting to the "good" done even by "bad" people, and the "bad" done even by "good" people — is of help not just to the mission, but likewise to the pursuit of atleast minimally conceited outlooks on the world at large.

And we could certainly do more to honor "the good", and to balance it against "the bad". If cherry picking "the bad" is the name of the game, then — in a lifetime of actions and statements both public and private, some done in emotion, some done while under pressure, some done intoxicated, some done out of ignorance — then precisely everyone will meet the proverbial "nazi quota".

Calling people on their particular BS is fundamental — but just don't be too quick to sort them away over it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend Black Percy

Most of what you said sounds reasonable. I actually don't particularly care what position RW takes on religion: anything from "lets treat all religious people even the most extreme fundamentalists with love and respect even if we disagree with them" to "all religious belief of any kind is evil and stupid and should be mocked and condemned" or anything in between is fine. All that I demand is consistency: if group x is condemned and group y is just as bad then y better be condemned as well. And if group y is many magnitudes worse than group x then y better be condemned much more than x.

RW is filled with snide attacks, mockery and outright contempt towards Christians and Christianity, sometimes qualified as "conservative Christianity" whatever that actually means. I'm not a Christian but I recognise a) that Christians should not be subject to unfair treatment or restrictions on their religious freedom and b) that Christianity has played an enormous role in western civilisation and in the development of many of the philosophical and political ideas that have allowed us to reject its hold over us. Condemning Christians while failing to condemn Muslims for the same or worse things would be bad enough for reason (a), but in light of (b) it's particularly destructive and hypocritical.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think if I've seen much on RW defending Christianity from sweeping generalisations. Compare Islam and Christianity on the respective issues of state religion and gay marriage. Moderate Muslims may respect the religious freedom of other religions but they're still likely (with the exception of the most liberal) to support some level of state favouritism towards Islam in their countries. Such favouritism doesn't necessarily violate anyone's basic rights but it does arguably unfairly privilege one kind of religious practice over another and denigrate religious minorities. Moderate Christians may respect the sexual freedom of gays but they're still likely (with the exception of the most liberal) to support keeping legal marriage between a man and a woman. Such marriage laws don't necessarily violate anyone's basic rights but do arguably unfairly privilege one kind of relationship over another and denigrate sexual orientation minorities.

Now, what does it say about RW that it consistently condemns Christians for the very moderate position of opposing gay marriage and then defends moderate Muslims from condemnation, even though they are, on some issues, just as bad. If you compare Muslims on the issue of homosexuality, however, they're much much worse, with an inordinately higher proportion of the world's Muslims supporting legal punishment for homosexuality than Christians. IF you're going to condemn Christians for simply opposing gay marriage you'd better absolutely brutalise Muslims for supporting imprisonment or death for homosexuals. Otherwise you're just demonstrating profound anti-Christian bigotry.

Also, you've said Islamophobia is destructive and the enemy of humanist values but you haven't provided a definition of it. Given the widespread misuse of the term and the fact that it can be defined very differently by different people it's important to be very clear about what you're talking about in this context. And finally, you say Islamophobia involves "the dismantling of the Enlightenment ideal of an open, secular, inclusive, democratic society" but where has Dawkins ever advocated any policies that would amount to that? Cornucopia (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario

"I see the nuance now. I mean, I get it, but I then start thinking about the reality that Christian terrorists still exist (the Quebec shooting; general hate crimes), it's just that the Muslim extremists are more organized and publicized"

And as I said, being better armed (or organised) makes one more dangerous than another group of similarly murderous intent.

"I suppose so though Muslims are treated as a distrusted minority in the U.S., and this wiki is U.S. centric. While it does matter that Christians are oppressed in other regimes and possibly treated worse, Muslims here are the minority group and are treated as such with suspicion, which also is bad. Maybe a good analogy would be the fear of Japanese people during World War II even though Japan treated China more harshly than U.S. treating Japanese citizens and Japan attacked pretty much every country next to it. "

This wiki might be U.S centric by accident, because of systematic bias among editors. But is there any policy that says it's supposed to be?

And even if it is meant to be U.S centric, the U.S is a global superpower with the power to affect and alter Muslim regimes through economic sanctions, military force and other methods. The treatment of people in other parts of the world is thus a concern for the U.S. Cornucopia (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this wiki is very U.S centric. I think the wiki really should cover a wider view.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 05:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)