Richard Dawkins: in defence of scientific truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“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.

Facts.

[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:

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.

In other words you know that it’s wrong to have males in women’s sports and women’s prisons, but your friends would shame you for stating that out loud, so screw the high school girls and women prisoners who have to deal with this because you can’t be seen agreeing with people you don’t like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not sure how anyone could take issue with what he wrote here. This is not incendiary. It’s just reality.

[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:

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.

In other words you know that it’s wrong to have males in women’s sports and women’s prisons, but your friends would shame you for stating that out loud, so screw the high school girls and women prisoners who have to deal with this because you can’t be seen agreeing with people you don’t like.

No, not "in other words". That isn't what I said in any way or what I believe at all.

I guess it's easier for you to fabricate strawmen instead of actually engaging with other posters. So dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Those aren’t straw men. They are really happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those aren’t straw men. They are really happening.

The comment was FALSE. That isn't what I said in any way or what I believe at all.

[Anonymous]

I cannot imagine spending as much time caring about what Richard Dawkins thinks as so many people on DCUM do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot imagine spending as much time caring about what Richard Dawkins thinks as so many people on DCUM do.

Well stop imagining it then. Who cares what you imagine ?

[Anonymous]

Dawkins is great. Bart Ehrman is probably a bit better, because he comes at it as an academic theologian rather than an evolutionary biologist. Dawkins is a treasure though.