Richard Dawkins: in defence of scientific truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

He said that, sure, but it was the implied endorsement of Christianity (not his imminent conversion!) that drove them bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

The discussions are still available for the most part. Go read them and see who comes across as rational and science-based and who comes across as fundamentalist evangelicals, though I suspect you are unable to honest on that matter.

In any event, it is always remarkable to me how adherents of the new gender ideology neo-religion quickly run to vicious ageism (and sexism and racism) when their religious beliefs are challenged by scientific fact. You are no different. You are a religious fundamentalist just like extremist religious fundamentalists around the world. And you are angry the rationalists of the world see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, here's what Dawkins said to The Times magazine, as condensed by the Religion News Service:

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

His reasons for defending the behavior seem to focus on three points. First, that "hysteria" over a fear of pedophilia is overblown by society; second, that instilling a child with fundamentalist religious beliefs is actually a worse way to abuse a child; and third, that he personally overcame childhood sexual abuse, meaning it must not be that big of a deal for anyone else who was subjected to similar behavior.



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

Pretty sad he was the victim of a pedophile.

He was a victim of a child molestor. Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, here's what Dawkins said to The Times magazine, as condensed by the Religion News Service:

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

His reasons for defending the behavior seem to focus on three points. First, that "hysteria" over a fear of pedophilia is overblown by society; second, that instilling a child with fundamentalist religious beliefs is actually a worse way to abuse a child; and third, that he personally overcame childhood sexual abuse, meaning it must not be that big of a deal for anyone else who was subjected to similar behavior.



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

Pretty sad he was the victim of a pedophile.

He was a victim of a child molestor. Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

A pedophile molests children.

The two males being discussed by the forum- Dawkins and Russell Brand- were both abused by pedophiles. Dawkins by a teacher at his school and Brand by a tutor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

bullsh*t. He's a respected evolutionary biologist. Thes ate just his opiniions based on facts and science. He's about all we have left since Hitchens passed. God bless you Richard Dawkins. Keep fighting the good fight.

If he’s that respected then you trust ALL of his opinions based on facts and science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

Women = adult human female.

Women are not a social construct.

What a misogynistic thing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

Women = adult human female.

Women are not a social construct.

What a misogynistic thing to say.

Women are not a social construct, well said.

I can’t believe women have come this far to be attacked so egregiously and characterized so casually. It’s repulsive. REPULSIVE. REPULSIVE.

[Anonymous]

Women are losing their rights every day because of this, it’s so disgusting. And white men are leading the charge to do this! I fear for our daughters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

The discussions are still available for the most part. Go read them and see who comes across as rational and science-based and who comes across as fundamentalist evangelicals, though I suspect you are unable to honest on that matter.

In any event, it is always remarkable to me how adherents of the new gender ideology neo-religion quickly run to vicious ageism (and sexism and racism) when their religious beliefs are challenged by scientific fact. You are no different. You are a religious fundamentalist just like extremist religious fundamentalists around the world. And you are angry the rationalists of the world see it.

There are no supernatural forces involved so this comparison doesn’t make sense.

Do people vigorously want to defend the rights of vulnerable people from attacks by the POS Republicans? Hells yeah.

Same holds true for women’s rights. Racial inequality. The attacks on our school systems. Etc.

I guess if you can only view the world through a religious lens then you have to fabricate some way of explaining everything to yourself using the concepts you already know.

And you are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic. Or even know about these atheist communities. Probably filled with bots and believers.

[Anonymous]

“The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic. Or even know about these atheist communities. Probably filled with bots and believers.”

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

The discussions are still available for the most part. Go read them and see who comes across as rational and science-based and who comes across as fundamentalist evangelicals, though I suspect you are unable to honest on that matter.

In any event, it is always remarkable to me how adherents of the new gender ideology neo-religion quickly run to vicious ageism (and sexism and racism) when their religious beliefs are challenged by scientific fact. You are no different. You are a religious fundamentalist just like extremist religious fundamentalists around the world. And you are angry the rationalists of the world see it.

There are no supernatural forces involved so this comparison doesn’t make sense.

Do people vigorously want to defend the rights of vulnerable people from attacks by the POS Republicans? Hells yeah.

Same holds true for women’s rights. Racial inequality. The attacks on our school systems. Etc.

I guess if you can only view the world through a religious lens then you have to fabricate some way of explaining everything to yourself using the concepts you already know.

And you are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic. Or even know about these atheist communities. Probably filled with bots and believers.

If you believe sex is immutable, do you oppose males in female sports? In female prisons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No supernatural forces required to acknowledge gender fluidity.

Believing that you can transmute your born sex is as religious a belief as the transubstantiation of Christ. Dawkins is an experienced evolutionary biologist who had already offended many fervently religious and terminally online atheists by speaking openly about the material reality of human sexual dimorphism. Since they were already annoyed at Dawkins for speaking biological facts that clashed with their evangelical religious gender fanaticism, this comment about Christianity was just additional fuel for the fire.

I don’t get the sense Dawkins cares much about their opinions on any subject, though that probably makes them furious.

You are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic.

Then why are atheists freaking out about the distant mumblings of a nobody?

They aren't.

You must not do social media. Or you must not do this thread... wait....

No, I live in the real world. Real life people aren't freaking out about it. He's just some random guy with zero connection to just about everyone.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers.

The absolute fury directed towards him in the online atheist communities seems to indicate otherwise, and I say that as an atheist.

I don’t like the guy, but the unhinged way some online atheist communities react to statements from him that anyone rational can see are neutral and fact-based is quite something to see.

I just don't think you're reading him right. He's saying the west (with it's Chiristian influence) is far preferable to Islam

I am speaking about the astonishing online temper tantrums that were held in some atheist communities when Dawkins correctly noted that females produce macrogametes and males produce microgametes.

Females? Or women? One is a biological definition appropriate for specific, genuine scientific discourse. The other is a social construct. Transphobes love to trot out scientific terms when they want to degrade the lived social experience of transgender individuals and restrict their rights. I suspect what you call "astonishing temper tantrums" were people speaking up for the civil rights of transgender individuals.

But, you know, bigots are gonna bigot. Luckily younger generations are much more capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and aren't as threatened by the idea of transgenderism as many older folks.

The discussions are still available for the most part. Go read them and see who comes across as rational and science-based and who comes across as fundamentalist evangelicals, though I suspect you are unable to honest on that matter.

In any event, it is always remarkable to me how adherents of the new gender ideology neo-religion quickly run to vicious ageism (and sexism and racism) when their religious beliefs are challenged by scientific fact. You are no different. You are a religious fundamentalist just like extremist religious fundamentalists around the world. And you are angry the rationalists of the world see it.

There are no supernatural forces involved so this comparison doesn’t make sense.

Do people vigorously want to defend the rights of vulnerable people from attacks by the POS Republicans? Hells yeah.

Same holds true for women’s rights. Racial inequality. The attacks on our school systems. Etc.

I guess if you can only view the world through a religious lens then you have to fabricate some way of explaining everything to yourself using the concepts you already know.

And you are conflating gender with sex. Sex is immutable - XX/XY and sex-specific gonads never change. Beyond that, it’s superficial.

The only people on DCUM who care what this old white dude from the UK says are the believers. You need an authority to tell you about beliefs, even for beliefs that aren’t your own.

The vast majority of atheists have no idea who he is or let alone care what he says on any random topic. Or even know about these atheist communities. Probably filled with bots and believers.

If you believe sex is immutable, do you oppose males in female sports? In female prisons?

I believe guidelines should be defined by athletic leagues (eg, IOC) and prison administrators. NOT the far right “Christian” politicians trying to force themselves into everyone’s pants.