• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Richard Dawkins "no platformed" at

And herein lies the problem, and the hypocritical stupidity that you, Dawkins and others don't even seem to recognize you engage in all the time: you think that a Muslim holding irrational religious views disqualifies him from conveying the news, but say fuck all about any Jew, Christian or Hindu holding comparably irrational views. Just like you harp on and fucking on about all the "regressive" views Muslims hold but give everyone else a pass for the same behavior.

It makes you a dishonest axe grinder at best, and a bigoted asshole at worst. I'm not sure you're smart enough to recognize this, but Dawkins ought to.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you mean free speech from the point of view of a learned Scientist. I'm not an Atheist myself by the way.

He's an evolutionary biologist. His pronouncements on issues like religion and terrorism don't hold any special weight or authority. Quite the opposite at this point given the amount of stupid shit he's tweeted.

Excellent qualification to provide views and insights into human emotions, reactions and behaviours as they have developed through time, plus is view (which I agree with) that all life here came from a common ancestor. He doesn't accept a prime eternal source (God, etc) in that he sees no evidence based on his viewpoint formed from his subject .


It's not clear what authority you mean since he does speak about his own subject and his views carry authority.

Meanwhile it is not clear what your refer to when you mention the Tweets, and what they would be replying to.
 
And herein lies the problem, and the hypocritical stupidity that you, Dawkins and others don't even seem to recognize you engage in all the time: you think that a Muslim holding irrational religious views disqualifies him from conveying the news, but say fuck all about any Jew, Christian or Hindu holding comparably irrational views. Just like you harp on and fucking on about all the "regressive" views Muslims hold but give everyone else a pass for the same behavior.

Can you show actual inconsistency with Dawkins, where he knew some Jew, Xian, or Hindu was a literalist and he extolled their ability to convey news or should we just take your word for it?

The link you provided earlier seems to call Dawkins to task for criticizing Islam when he doesn't do the same for Catholicism and the IRA (a nascent group for about thirty years) - the problem being that he does point out the Catholic religion's involvement in misery and suffering in Africa (which is happening to this day). Have you read his writings other than the tweets you've mentioned, for example the part about the Tamarin study in The God Delusion?
 
When it comes to understanding how religion works with people and also understanding his own limitations to knowledge, Daniel Dennett is so much better than Dawkins.
 
Whether Dawkins is right or wrong on these things is not the issue. The iissue is that some people want him shut down because they don't like what he said.

That's a separate issue, yes. A private institution has the right to disinvite him. The irony though is that by doing so he gets more publicity than would have come from the interview.

I think that is probably why the radio station disinvited Dawkins. It's all bullshit.
 
you think that a Muslim holding irrational religious views disqualifies him from conveying the news, but say fuck all about any Jew, Christian or Hindu holding comparably irrational views.

Fundamentalist Christians who believe demons are controlling the world, or hard core Catholics who believe a cracker is human flesh are also probably not reliable on conveying reality. Christians who torment their kids with stories of hellfire, Mormons and others who abuse young girls, rabbis who do circumcision unsafely and barbarically are all just as deserving of our disrespect.

Your declaration that I only stand against Islamic religion and damage is a mistaken mind reading attempt. It is pure straw. You seem to need that straw to prop up your demand that we tiptoe around Islam and keep the spell alive. Religious belief and action is the root problem. Islam is just a special case today.

These days it is moreso Islam than any other religion that responds to criticism and ridicule with violence and hatred. So the spell cast by Islam needs especially to be broken. The taboo of criticizing all religion needs to end but Islam makes itself the poster child for this.

Book of Mormon and South Park ridiculing Judaism, Jesus, Scientology, and Hindus is good, but we need more ridicule of Islam and less fear of offending Muslims. Je suis Charlie.

Just like you harp on and fucking on about all the "regressive" views Muslims hold but give everyone else a pass for the same behavior.

Only in your imagination.

It makes you a dishonest axe grinder at best, and a bigoted asshole at worst. I'm not sure you're smart enough to recognize this, but Dawkins ought to.

It isn't dishonest nor bigotry to criticize, mock, or ridicule Islam.

If there is bigotry here, it is the mindless defence of this religion over all others because people associate it with third world brown people. That's why we often hear criticism of Islam branded as "racist", when of course Islam isn't a race, but a group of bad ideas and flawed ideology.
 
Last edited:
And herein lies the problem, and the hypocritical stupidity that you, Dawkins and others don't even seem to recognize you engage in all the time: you think that a Muslim holding irrational religious views disqualifies him from conveying the news, but say fuck all about any Jew, Christian or Hindu holding comparably irrational views. Just like you harp on and fucking on about all the "regressive" views Muslims hold but give everyone else a pass for the same behavior.

Can you show actual inconsistency with Dawkins, where he knew some Jew, Xian, or Hindu was a literalist and he extolled their ability to convey news or should we just take your word for it?

The link you provided earlier seems to call Dawkins to task for criticizing Islam when he doesn't do the same for Catholicism and the IRA (a nascent group for about thirty years) - the problem being that he does point out the Catholic religion's involvement in misery and suffering in Africa (which is happening to this day). Have you read his writings other than the tweets you've mentioned, for example the part about the Tamarin study in The God Delusion?

I have actually seen Dawkins (also Harris) do exactly that, speaking about Christian and Hindu religious nuts and making pretty much identical remarks as what he has said about this Muslim who believes Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. It just gets less attention because nobody cancels speeches or threatens violence over it.
 
Excellent qualification to provide views and insights into human emotions, reactions and behaviours as they have developed through time, plus is view (which I agree with) that all life here came from a common ancestor.

Not particularly relevant to complex social and political issues like those Dawkins comments on.
 
Excellent qualification to provide views and insights into human emotions, reactions and behaviours as they have developed through time, plus is view (which I agree with) that all life here came from a common ancestor.

Not particularly relevant to complex social and political issues like those Dawkins comments on.

It is because he does not see this as created in 6 days and where all species were created at the same time. Since you didn't specifically mention what he said that was worthy of a refusal of platform, then it's not possible to comment.
 
Can you show actual inconsistency with Dawkins, where he knew some Jew, Xian, or Hindu was a literalist and he extolled their ability to convey news or should we just take your word for it? The link you provided earlier seems to call Dawkins to task for criticizing Islam when he doesn't do the same for Catholicism and the IRA (a nascent group for about thirty years) - the problem being that he does point out the Catholic religion's involvement in misery and suffering in Africa (which is happening to this day).

Yeah, and he also floated the idea that we might want to consider supporting Christian missionaries in Africa because Islam is such an "unmitigated evil." The guy is a fucking wingnut who loves to single out Islam; you don't have to take my word for anything. There's shitloads of sources out there documenting his dumb ass tweets. Here's another:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.

Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.

Are you a woman bored with life in UK? Start a new life in our Caliphate as a SLAVE. If you change your mind, you can have a free beheading

You think he'd ever have the balls to speak this way about Jews? Please.

I already told you he A) repeats the wingnut lie that moderate Muslims don't condemn terrorism B) likens Islam to Nazism (see above) and C) praises the work of outspoken Dutch bigot Geert Wilders. So exactly why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt? As I said, there's plenty more out there demonstrating what a twat he is on this particular issue (and others). If you don't want to recognize it for what it is, that's on you.
 
Fundamentalist Christians who believe demons are controlling the world, or hard core Catholics who believe a cracker is human flesh are also probably not reliable on conveying reality. Christians who torment their kids with stories of hellfire, Mormons and others who abuse young girls, rabbis who do circumcision unsafely and barbarically are all just as deserving of our disrespect.

And yet you, Dawkins and Harris love to hurl your vitriol at one particular religious group which is comparably much less powerful in the West. I wonder why?

Your declaration that I only stand against Islamic religion and damage is a mistaken mind reading attempt. It is pure straw. You seem to need that straw to prop up your demand that we tiptoe around Islam and keep the spell alive. Religious belief and action is the root problem. Islam is just a special case today.

These days it is moreso Islam than any other religion that responds to criticism and ridicule with violence and hatred. So the spell cast by Islam needs especially to be broken. The taboo of criticizing all religion needs to end but Islam makes itself the poster child for this.

Book of Mormon and South Park ridiculing Judaism, Jesus, Scientology, and Hindus is good, but we need more ridicule of Islam and less fear of offending Muslims. Je suis Charlie.

We've all heard this tired, self-righteous spiel before, mate. I don't give a shit about you criticizing religion; my problem is with your sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people you know fuck all about. Something you and your fellow faux liberals love to try to pass off as some grand defense of Western values rather than the bankrupt ignorance it really is.

Only in your imagination.

Unfortunately for you, the forum is itself a record, and your history of hypocritical, stupid statements re: Islam are all available for everyone to see. We'll get to that in a second.

It isn't dishonest nor bigotry to criticize, mock, or ridicule Islam.

If there is bigotry here, it is the mindless defence of this religion over all others because people associate it with third world brown people. That's why we often hear criticism of Islam branded as "racist", when of course Islam isn't a race, but a group of bad ideas and flawed ideology.

I don't think you're a racist, just a disingenuous axe grinding dipshit who tries to slap some lipstick on his garden variety bigotry, and then play the victim when he's called out on it.

As I said, the forum is a record; there's years worth of posts of you saying stupid, dishonest things and then backpedaling like a chickenshit. This exchange is a good illustration - you know, when you likened Muslims to white supremacists, said the good ones aren't "true Muslims," that they can't put their religion aside and integrate the way Christians do, blah blah blah.

But the best part? I linked to polling data shooting your argument in the balls, which you ignored at first, and when pressed said was all a lie because Muslim respondents were biding their time until they become a majority and can force sharia law down our throats.

You post fucking ridiculous shit like that and expect to be taken seriously? Sheesh - no wonder you've been hiding behind the ignore function for so long. I'm sure you'll be back there soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Can you show actual inconsistency with Dawkins, where he knew some Jew, Xian, or Hindu was a literalist and he extolled their ability to convey news or should we just take your word for it? The link you provided earlier seems to call Dawkins to task for criticizing Islam when he doesn't do the same for Catholicism and the IRA (a nascent group for about thirty years) - the problem being that he does point out the Catholic religion's involvement in misery and suffering in Africa (which is happening to this day).

Yeah, and he also floated the idea that we might want to consider supporting Christian missionaries in Africa because Islam is such an "unmitigated evil." The guy is a fucking wingnut who loves to single out Islam; you don't have to take my word for anything. There's shitloads of sources out there documenting his dumb ass tweets. Here's another:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.

Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.

Are you a woman bored with life in UK? Start a new life in our Caliphate as a SLAVE. If you change your mind, you can have a free beheading

You think he'd ever have the balls to speak this way about Jews? Please.

I already told you he A) repeats the wingnut lie that moderate Muslims don't condemn terrorism B) likens Islam to Nazism (see above) and C) praises the work of outspoken Dutch bigot Geert Wilders. So exactly why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt? As I said, there's plenty more out there demonstrating what a twat he is on this particular issue (and others). If you don't want to recognize it for what it is, that's on you.

Is that it? If he is wrong, then let his opponents prove it by way of debate.
What’s wrong about the free beheading joke? Let Christians show how beneficial its missionaries have been and I believe they have been in many instances.

Do you want him to tell some Jewish jokes as well?

Muslim reformists are also denied a platform to express their views, but as you correctly say they do condemn terrorism. CAIR and the MSA could spend less time in censoring free speech and a little more to condemning the treatment of minorities and women in Jihadist societies.
 
Dude, seriously, you have so much free time you have to respond to every god damned post on this board?

I don't want Dawkins to tell any jokes. I want him to stick to what he's qualified to talk about and shut his yap about issues like these.

And what the fuck is it with you and CAIR? Who said anything about them?
 
Can you show actual inconsistency with Dawkins, where he knew some Jew, Xian, or Hindu was a literalist and he extolled their ability to convey news or should we just take your word for it? The link you provided earlier seems to call Dawkins to task for criticizing Islam when he doesn't do the same for Catholicism and the IRA (a nascent group for about thirty years) - the problem being that he does point out the Catholic religion's involvement in misery and suffering in Africa (which is happening to this day).

Yeah, and he also floated the idea that we might want to consider supporting Christian missionaries in Africa because Islam is such an "unmitigated evil." The guy is a fucking wingnut who loves to single out Islam; you don't have to take my word for anything. There's shitloads of sources out there documenting his dumb ass tweets. Here's another:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.

Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.

Are you a woman bored with life in UK? Start a new life in our Caliphate as a SLAVE. If you change your mind, you can have a free beheading

You think he'd ever have the balls to speak this way about Jews? Please.

I already told you he A) repeats the wingnut lie that moderate Muslims don't condemn terrorism B) likens Islam to Nazism (see above) and C) praises the work of outspoken Dutch bigot Geert Wilders. So exactly why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt? As I said, there's plenty more out there demonstrating what a twat he is on this particular issue (and others). If you don't want to recognize it for what it is, that's on you.

The point I was replying to was whether he holds hypocritical views on these subjects, not to vouch for every statement he's made as the absolute truth. And your examples seem to be very motivated thinking - in floating his idea for supporting Xian missionaries, we can be glad he finished the subject line. Ditto the point about comparing Islam to Nazism. I'm sure he's not a fan of either, but you'd have to convince me that everything I know about analogies is incorrect to convince me he's likening the ideologies in any material sense.

Regarding Judaism, as I mentioned he points out the irrationality of their book as well as the abhorrent direction it takes children in. And certainly he has no problem hosting content that's critical of Orthodox Judaism on his website.

The problem with personal incredulity is that it's personal. That's on you.
 
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
Well, if Trinity College has more than 3.5 Nobel laureates then Dawkins is not wrong on that one.
 
The point I was replying to was whether he holds hypocritical views on these subjects, not to vouch for every statement he's made as the absolute truth. And your examples seem to be very motivated thinking - in floating his idea for supporting Xian missionaries, we can be glad he finished the subject line.

Ah, OK. So if I post a thread titled

Should we send all black people back to Africa? No, but...

I'm off the hook because I added a "no, but," right?

You are making excuses for Dawkins, as many atheists do, because you don't want to own up to the fact that he's been short-circuiting ever since he got a Twitter account.

Ditto the point about comparing Islam to Nazism. I'm sure he's not a fan of either, but you'd have to convince me that everything I know about analogies is incorrect to convince me he's likening the ideologies in any material sense.

Consistent pattern of demonizing Muslims, making Islam out to be some cosmological force of evil, and praising the work of anti-Muslim bigots suggests otherwise. And when you start playing with something as volatile as comparisons to Nazis you'd fucking better be a lot more careful about it than Dawkins is.

The problem with personal incredulity is that it's personal. That's on you.

I'm not the one bending over backwards to interpret his idiotic statements as meaning something other than the obvious, pal.
 
Well, if Trinity College has more than 3.5 Nobel laureates then Dawkins is not wrong on that one.

Donno where you're pulling your numbers out of - there have been 12 Muslim Nobel laureates, or 1.4% of all recipients.

Disproportionately low, certainly. But blacks are similarly underrepresented - only 15 black recipients, or 1.7 percent.

So you all expect me to believe that if someone other than Dawkins (i.e. not a high-profile atheist) had a twitter feed full of rants against black people, and who flirts with white supremacist propaganda, posted this "fact" with similar vindictiveness, you'd all be making excuses for them the way you're making excuses for Dawkins? Accuse me of taking the quotes out of context, yada yada yada? The fuck do you guys think you're kidding here?
 
Well, if Trinity College has more than 3.5 Nobel laureates then Dawkins is not wrong on that one.

Donno where you're pulling your numbers out of - there have been 12 Muslim Nobel laureates, or 1.4% of all recipients.
I am pulling them from the same source. Muslim countries have 1 Nobel in physics and 2 recent ones in chemistry, plus 1 in economics which I assign weight factor 0.5 cause it's not really a science. Peace prizes are not sciences. So we have 3.5 Nobels.
 
While private, KPFA is a supposedly liberal/progressive radio station owned by a non-profit foundation. As such, it is really sad but unsurprising that they block opinions not in line with their increasingly narrow doctrines.

However, that goes contrary to the actual meaning of "liberalism" and even contrary to their own mission statement.
KPFA said:
To promote cultural diversity and pluralistic community expression
To contribute to a lasting understanding between individuals of all nations, races, creeds and colors
To promote freedom of the press and serve as a forum for various viewpoints
To maintain an independent funding base

What hypocrites!

Nobody is a hypocrite because they don't want to listen to people with ignorant ideas.
 
I am pulling them from the same source. Muslim countries have 1 Nobel in physics and 2 recent ones in chemistry, plus 1 in economics which I assign weight factor 0.5 cause it's not really a science. Peace prizes are not sciences. So we have 3.5 Nobels.

What are you on about? Dawkins didn't specify anything about the sciences. And my point stands that similar dumb remarks could be made about blacks, but would instantly be seized upon as racist rather than excused as Dawkins' behavior is.
 
I'm not the one bending over backwards to interpret his idiotic statements as meaning something other than the obvious, pal.

This is demonstrably wrong - you seem to be breaking your back taking some inarticulate statements and recasting them to suit your argument when the logic does not follow. The point he was making is that scholarship of the source book is not required to have an opinion of the followers actions. If I said 'Jesus you magnificent bastard, I read your goddamn book!' I'm not commenting on an inherent ability Xians have to conduct tank warfare in Northern Africa.

He has a consistent pattern of calling out all sorts of religious nonsense, and you seem to be ignoring that with your singular focus on his criticisms of Islam. He's a hothead, to be sure, but he seems to be fairly consistent in that. My 'bending over backwards' has been plain English readings of his statements, and providing examples where you needed them.

Too - I'm a devout Orange Catholic: It is easy to love a friend, hard to love an enemy.
 
Back
Top Bottom