Richard Dawkins: in defence of scientific truth

[Anonymous]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/richard-dawkins-in-defence-of-scientific-truth/

Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins makes the case that anti science beliefs are being promulgated not by religious believers but instead irreligious institutions.

[Anonymous]

He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

[Anonymous]

Most atheists are embarrassed when they hear about Dawkins. He is unnecessarily incendiary which is not conducive to communication and education.

[Anonymous]

Dawkins forgets his biology.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/klinefelter-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20353949

[Anonymous]

Right wing rag misrepresents what Fausto-Sterling claimed.

https://www.annefaustosterling.com/fields-of-inquiry/gender/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20I%20assert%20that,anatomical%20characteristics%20of%20both%20sexes.

[Anonymous]

Unsurprisingly, the Maori part is also a misrepresentation, complaining about Maori schools teaching their own past science and naturalism, and complaining about children being taught about mistakes and misuse of European science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

+1 it’s ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

+1 it’s ridiculous

Like Niel DeGrasse tyson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

You misrepresent transgenderism. Intentionally or ignorantly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s right. Any so-called “scientist” who thinks there are more than two sexes has no ground to criticize any claims advanced by religion.

+1 it’s ridiculous

Like Niel DeGrasse tyson?

Astrophysicist vs. biologist? I think I know who’s out of their swim lane here.

[Anonymous]

From the article:

It was in 2015 that Dawkins first signalled that he was shuffling out-of-step with many of the other left-leaning thought leaders of the New Atheists. He asked on X, ‘Is a trans woman a woman?’ Then he posted: ‘Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.’

He’s right about this, it’s just semantics, a change in word definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most atheists are embarrassed when they hear about Dawkins. He is unnecessarily incendiary which is not conducive to communication and education.

I DAF what he says. It’s not like he’s a spokesperson for atheists or anything. Just some random, old dude who happens to be a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most atheists are embarrassed when they hear about Dawkins. He is unnecessarily incendiary which is not conducive to communication and education.

I DAF what he says. It’s not like he’s a spokesperson for atheists or anything. Just some random, old dude who happens to be a bigot.

Not sure what makes Dawkins a bigot. Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous]

We need Hitchens back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins forgets his biology.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/klinefelter-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20353949

Do you really believe that Dawkins, one of the world's greatest biologists, isn't aware of Klinefelter syndrome? ( As the article says, it is a genetic condition affecting males.)

Dawkins tweeted today in support of JK Rowling's definition of a woman:

"I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others."