[xavoy]

I'm not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. I don't believe in God. I find it slightly unnerving that there's still religious fundamentalists out there that flatly refuse to accept scientific evidence of evolution and more, and yet...

I can't stand Richard Dawkins.

I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe.

Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking.

[jarin]

It may be insensitive to be so blunt about it, but I think the longer you're an atheist the harder it gets to keep a "live and let live" attitude.

I liken it to having a friend who truly, sincerely believes in Santa Claus. At first, you might just laugh it off as a harmless quirk. But as time goes on, and every day you're hearing about Santa Claus this and he won't stop going off about whether or not he's on the Naughty or Nice list this year, you might start to tactfully point out some of the flaws in his belief.

How fast would Santa need to go to cover the entire world in one night? Why has there never been a photograph of Santa? What about people who don't celebrate Christmas?

Your friend laughs, and explains that you need to have more faith in Santa Claus, and that if you don't watch out you're going to be on the Naughty List. And now every time you go out for a drink your friend is telling people about Santa Claus, and he's posting Santa-related links on your Facebook wall. How long can you put up with that before you just snap?

[stephen_g]

You could liken it to that, but you're using a logical fallacy (it's both a straw man and a reductio ad ridiculum).

[jarin]

On second thought, I would dispute calling it a reductio ad ridiculum. We obviously share the opinion that serious belief in Santa Claus as an adult is ridiculous, but in reality belief in Santa Claus and belief in God share equal amounts of supporting evidence.

[jarin]

Haha yes, you're totally correct. It was intended more as an illustrative analogy than a formal point of debate, but I take your point.

[adriand]

> I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe.

It's easy to have this perspective if religious fundamentalism has not had a major impact on your life. However, if your parents were religious fundamentalists, you would likely view things in a different light (or, more likely, you'd be just as religious as them).

Mine are, and I enjoyed a childhood characterized by a morbid fear of eternal damnation, church twice weekly, private Christian school to ensure that I did not come into contact with peers from less- or non-religious households, and a total abhorrence of modern science and particularly evolution. However, my parents are intelligent people - it was not their fault they were both born into religious households - and they instilled in me a great love of reading, which backfired for them because, as a science/computer geek, I eventually started in on science books and started to question everything.

For me it was like a great window of truth opened on the world and suddenly, everything made sense - and was also so much better than I had been taught. Of course, that caused no end of problems within my family, in part because I passed along my newfound knowledge to my younger siblings. Dawkins would have been proud of me as a young adolescent.

Most of my friends from those days never read what I read, and they carry on in the same fundamentalist, "the earth is 6,000 years old and homosexuality is evil" fantasy land. And of course, they indoctrinate their children just as thoroughly as they were indoctrinated. Religion excels at that.

Meanwhile, my parents, who I love dearly, are still convinced they are both heading for an eternity burning in hell because they have yet to experience the born-again moment that Protestant Christians pine for. The problem, I think, is that they are too honest with themselves. They really just need that single powerful religious moment (aka hallucination) that they would get if they fasted for three days and prayed continually in a closet, but they haven't had it. So these dear, sweet, kind and incredibly honest and ethical people are still plagued by the morbid fear I managed to cast off as an adolescent.

Just because people are "good" doesn't mean that the religious beliefs that have taken over their lives are not damaging to the lives of others and particularly children. I would take Dawkins' earnest, educated, rational and well-meaning brand of urgent atheism over fundamentalist religion any day.

[PakG1]

> Meanwhile, my parents, who I love dearly, are still convinced they are both heading for an eternity burning in hell because they have yet to experience the born-again moment that Protestant Christians pine for. The problem, I think, is that they are too honest with themselves. They really just need that single powerful religious moment (aka hallucination) that they would get if they fasted for three days and prayed continually in a closet, but they haven't had it.

As a Christian myself, it's sad to hear there are people who don't seem to understand what they purportedly believe. I'd love to sit down with people like your parents to discuss things, as my own knowledge of scripture is fairly advanced (and I would dare to say sound, despite knowing that many in this thread would see it as a crock of BS). But I do fear that type of discussion can be difficult. I've spoken with so-called fundamentalists in the past, and I find their knowledge mostly based on whims and hearsay, rather than actual scripture. Therefore, it becomes tiring if they are not willing to have a 2-way conversation.

It is ironic, because the word "fundamentalist" would indicate to me an adherence to basic fundamentals. In that case, I would call myself a devout fundamentalist, but the word unfortunately does not have that meaning in our society. I wonder why these people are called fundamentalists, and not simply extremists or something else that makes more sense.

[xavoy]

Earnest, educated, rational. Yes, these words might describe Dawkins, but well-meaning?

I agree that indoctrination into a fundamentalist religion probably doesn't give a child the best chance at a happy, well balanced life. I think it is important that science continues to be made available, and people like Dawkins make it not only available, but easily digestible and understandable.

But seriously, running around the world, telling people they are "idiots" and to "f*ck off" if they don't see the world the way he does? Doesn't sound very well-meaning to me.

[icebraining]

>But seriously, running around the world, telling people they are "idiots" and to "fck off" if they don't see the world the way he does?*

Can you please point out when did he called people idiots and told them to fuck off?

[cormullion]

This may be a reference to a televised discussion between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins. The internet has managed to lose the full meaning (and the quotation marks) of what Dawkins actually said. He was quoting the editor of New Scientist (I think) who said something like "If you don't think science is interesting, you can fuck off".

[jamesbritt]

I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others ...

If only.

When Dawkins et al get their own worldwide television networks and suitably sized fund-raising and political infrastructure then I'll entertain the idea that atheist advocates are anywhere near like that of the fundamentalists.

[robertk]

I agree. Here's why that will never happen (and I'm sure you know this):

Only the mistaken need proclaim their philosophy with grandiloquence. It is painful for atheists to proselytize with the only effective mechanism--propaganda--as it is a cognitive dissonance. The psychological truth is that the young mind is highly pliable and choice of religion is an axiom--unlike a formal system, the human mind has no need for internal logical consistency. For some large percentage of people, the only effective method is propaganda and indoctrination--an unfortunate irony.

[Xurinos]

As a Christian... I wish everyone would agree not to call it "fundamentalism". There is nothing fundamental about the views of this subset of Christians. The term is pure marketing, wild enough for good TV and, thus, wild enough to acquire impressionable followers, and the beliefs are not fundamental.

I see the stance against evolution as just a form of We vs They, a political tool more than religious, unnecessary for Christianity at large, and damaging to the religion in the long run if it persists. I have seen it create stupidity in otherwise fairly intelligent individuals because they want to be seen as part of the group, not ostracized from their equally-susceptible peers. For similar reasons, I have had friends reject the religion entirely, as they do not want to be a part of this insanity. As for me, it is another nail in the coffin of my interest in the organization aspects.

[5hoom]

This is pretty much my take on Richard Dawkins.

I remember when "The God Delusion" was a hot topic hearing groups of otherwise intelligent people hi-fiving each other over how smart they were because they were atheists, & how COMPLETELY WRONG religion of any kind is.

Maybe I just got all my anti-religious rage out of my system early in my life, but observing people carry on like the very fundamentalists they claim to despise (but it's ok, cuz we're secular!) is very disappointing.

[Xetrill]

Being a religious fundamentalist and good person who does not interfere with others, well those don't go together, at all. If you honestly think that is possible, you should seriously rethink your stance.

Whether you tolerate them or not is meaningless, they cannot tolerate you, because of what you don't believe in.

You might wanna learn to recognize an enemy when you see one.

Edit 1: Relevant to my point (Sam Harris) http://www.youtube.com/user/Xetrill?feature=mhee#p/c/F25A63E... Edit 2: To the Rebecca Watson point (TheAmazingAtheist): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU

[abless]

If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means.

It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.

[xavoy]

According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy.

My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science.

This video posted by Hacker News member 'robertk' gives you a good idea of Dawkins general attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[lyudmil]

It is not just as bad. It is not worse.

As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, but you're letting that distract you from the fact that what he's saying is true, which ought to be the only thing that matters.

In a way, I think this is a major way you and people who share your attitude towards Richard Dawkins miss what is perhaps the most poignant part of his message. His crassness is actually a rebellion against the passivity and political correctness that he feels constrains non-believers socially and politically. The crux of his message is a call to arms to those people, encouraging them to deny religion the automatic respect it has enjoyed for centuries. To say that he isn't meek enough in delivering this message is undercutting it's core.

[xavoy]

He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.

My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have some respect. If his message is to automatically _deny_ respect to others simply because of a belief they hold, then he's more like a religious fundamentalist than I thought.

[lyudmil]

Yes, I understood your position to be that from your previous comment. I'll repeat that I think you're missing the point.

The offensive part about religious fundamentalism isn't stubbornness or denial of respect. These are corollaries to dogmatic thinking, but not its defining features. Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist. Lack of respect for differences of opinion is indeed a shared trait between Richard Dawkins' views and those of fundamentalists, but that's a rather trivial similarity. At their core, they are philosophical and moral opposites.

Consider as an analogy what would happen if I had a difference of opinion with my doctor about what my illness is that was completely counter to the best information available through examinations and tests. My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.

[xavoy]

The specifics of their views are irrelevant, at their core they are identical. They both believe they know best, and they both believe that it is in everyones best interest that they push their view onto others. The fact that Dawkins is 'right' or that a religious fundamentalist's view is dogmatic is irrelevant to my point. (and to clarify again, Dawkins is in my mind, absolutely right)

The doctor analogy is interesting, because my health has been _seriously_ compromised by western medicine. They gave me advice that was based on 'the best information available through examinations and tests' and I'll forever pay the consequences. If they had respected others opinions then I would have never suffered the way I have.

I'm not saying science will tomorrow find evidence of a creator god that made the world in six days, not at all. I'm just saying that we don't always know what is best for others, and should never presume to do so. For some people, living a religious life is the best possible outcome. They have a moral and ethical system they can look towards when they aren't sure how to proceed. They have hope when everything else is falling apart, etc etc.

To you and I, and indeed to Dawkins the idea that some bearded guy in the clouds created the world and the universe, will help you through life and grant you seven virgins when you die is delusional and utterly disproved by science. But if this world view is helping someone respect others and live a happy and fulfilled life, then why does it matter what he or she believes? And more to the point, who does Dawkins think he is going around telling people like this that they are idiots?

Make the information available. Tell people about it, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about your ideas. Just don't be a dick about it.

[PakG1]

> Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist.

Alas, when humans enter the picture, it can get difficult. Human nature can be inherently very dogmatic, just due to political reasons alone.

> My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.

Have you had no experience or seen no experience of your friends where the doctor was wrong? Humans make mistakes, but they should be aware of that possibility. Doctors who consider their patients idiots are not sympathetic to listen to their patients' claims.

My dad's friend once went skiing and broke a leg. The doctor said there was nothing wrong because the x-ray showed no fractures. The guy was in pain. My dad convinced the doctor and technician to do more x-rays at different angles. They found the fracture. Had the doctor simply thought my dad's friend was playing games because the data said everything was OK, he would have been venturing on malpractice. There are many stories like this where malpractice actually was the result. People who think that understanding the data better gives them the right to consider others idiots run the risk of being the biggest idiots of all.

On the topic of medicine, perhaps the best known story of scientific dogma was the medical community's understanding of ulcers and how to treat them. Science can be dogmatic too, but it's not the fault of science, it's the fault of people who can be dogmatic by nature.

[abless]

"I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs."

(I originally thought Dawkins once said that; if he did, he seemed to have quoted Johann Hari [1])

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/334644

[sgentle]

Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal.

It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhaust this "fundamentalism" idea. What does fundamentalism mean? Does it mean strongly believing in something? Does it mean accepting that thing as true? Am I a fundamentalist gravitarian because I tell everyone who asks that gravity is true?

Any definition of fundamentalism as "strong belief that something is true" is so common as to be useless. But that's not quite what's happening here. You might characterise a fundamentalist belief in God as one that would brook no counter-argument. A stronger definition than before: "belief that something is true that accepts no evidence to the contrary". Does Dawkins believe that? Let's ask him:

"I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. [...] My belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming."

This is from his book The God Delusion, which I infer that you haven't read. I don't blame you - I put it off until last year because I had heard that Dawkins was uppity and confrontational. I can't speak to who benefits by that impression, but it is fiction. The book is, if utterly uncompromising, extremely polite and calm in tone. Dawkins treats religion with neither kid gloves nor boxing gloves. His intent isn't to injure, it's to challenge.

It frustrates me so much that people repeat mistaken ideas like "Dawkins is a fundamentalist" even while he seems to take such great pains to make his points clear. People who are not familiar with his work or his opinions accuse him for things he's never said. To gleefully point out that a biologist and someone who mutilates female genitals for a living are both "fundamentalists" is not clever. It's a deceptive attempt to make unequal things equal by putting them in the same category.

You echo that idea in your earlier allusion that people should be left to believe what they believe. Can I label anything as a belief and therefore make it equally valid? Is a 'belief' that man was created by ejaculating into a river equally valid to a 'belief' that the total momentum within a closed system will remain constant?

We can do better, and you owe it to yourself to do better. I know disagreement isn't in vogue, and it might not win you friends at parties, but it's the intellectually honest thing to do.

Please, read Dawkins' work. Disagree with him if you like, but at least don't do it out of ignorance. Feel free to start with "Fundamentalism and the Subversion of Science", the entire chapter of The God Delusion dedicated to your "fundamentalists are equal" argument.

[ellyagg]

Good point. I'm an atheist, but it always makes my blood boil when atheists apply false moral equivalence between the effects of different religions, as if all religions have equally bad consequences.

[pjscott]

In case anybody was wondering, Richard Dawkins explicitly says that there are huge differences in harm between various religions and the members within those religions, and that if all religious people were the friendly, liberal kind, he probably wouldn't have bothered writing a book about it.

[xavoy]

I _never_ stated that Dawkins and someone who circumcises unwilling females should be compared. I never said all fundamentalists are equal. I used the word fundamentalist liberally, as I have explained elsewhere.

The comparison was made because both religious evangelists and Dawkins both believe they know what is best for someone else and would like to force that upon them.

And yes, you should be allowed to hold you own beliefs, no matter how wacky they might be, and still be respected. And you do. They mightn't be as wild or deep rooted as the world being created in six days, but you still have them. You might find that many of your beliefs aren't based on reality, or scientifically provable.

[ugh]

Why should I respect people’s believes? What’s the reasoning behind that? Shouldn’t I be free to not respect what other people think?

Also: Where are you getting the idea that Dawkins would like to force something on people? I would like a quote for that. Does Dawkins really demand, say, laws?

[xavoy]

I never said you should respect people's personal beliefs. I said you should respect people, irrespective of their beliefs, out of common decency. Simply for being another human being.

And Dawkins carries on like a child when people won't accept his version of events (once again, a version that I believe). Watch any one of his hundreds of interviews or YouTube videos. Specifically, if you like, linked twice on this thread, where he quotes someone else to enable him to tell those who don't believe him to 'f##k off'. Or the innumerable where he calls people idiots for not agreeing with him.

[ugh]

You make no sense. Dawkins respects people and is polite. If you had read his books or watched his talks you would know that.

You also seem quite unfamiliar with this concept called humor and jokes.

[logjam]

I've listened to Richard Dawkins debate live several times. In no instance have I ever heard him being anything other than perfectly gracious, even when being repeatedly personally attacked, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism of him - which amounts to calling him names.

[chunkyslink]

I agree!

The man is one of the most important thinkers of our time. He is gracious and intelligent. His arguments cut with such logic that they often offend. When people have their belief systems ripped from under them there is bound to be high emotions but Dawkins handles all this brilliantly.

I think an excellent ambassador for Science.

[5hoom]

Why don't you ask Rebecca Watson (co-host of The Skeptics Guide To The Universe) what she thinks of him?

There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator.

She used her podcast & blog to describe the incident, hinting that maybe hitting on an un-escorted female in the middle of the night while the two of you are stuck in an elevator together is a good way to make said female feel vulnerable & uncomfortable.

Well, Dawkins wen't on to have a foaming at the mouth tirade about how she was carrying on like a hypothetical hysterical muslim woman who was all offended by being offered a coffee and that she should just toughen up.

He was rightly slammed by many for this, but the guy sounds like a dick to me.

[edit: in response to reply] I understand his message. I also think he was "foaming at the mouth" and a "dick". I am an atheist. I am also not so besotted by the cult of personality that I can't see past Dawkins contributions & still think he's a dick.

[edit edit: after some thought] On reflection calling Richard Dawkins a "dick" is not the right thing to do. Replace "a dick" with "an insensitive man".

[jemfinch]

There was an incident at a recent skeptics conference where Watson was accosted & hit on by an attendee in the small hours of the morning while riding an elevator.

No, there was an instance where a man asked Watson to his room for coffee, and when she turned him down, he accepted it. No one accosted anyone at any point in that exchange, and that's precisely the point Dawkins and others were making.

[davros]

He was rightly slammed by many for this, but the guy sounds like a dick to me.

Irrelevant, and a logical falacy to boot: if Dawkins is wrong on one thing does not show he is wrong on other things.

[dolphenstein]

That was a case of misinterpreting each other and then raising the level of misinterpretation with each subsequent comment.

[ugh]

He was wrong about that. Humans tend to be wrong from time to time and say stupid things. That’s just how it is. He certainly, however, wasn’t foaming at the mouth or being a dick.

I don’t always like what Dawkins has to say (which, I should add, is perfectly normal – I do feel that way about most people) but I don’t think you can call him arrogant in general. Most of the time he is very polite in what he says.

[microarchitect]

the guy sounds like a dick to me.

As I said below, I think he probably is a sexist, but I wouldn't go so far as calling him a dick. As someone who only recently became a feminist, I think it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that Watson was over-reacting. This is probably what Dawkins thought - which of course makes him a sexist, and unaware of his privileges, but all this, IMHO, still isn't enough to make him a dick.

[5hoom]

You have a fair point, name calling isn't particularly endearing in intelligent conversation.

I suppose the strong language is a response to my feeling that Dawkins did abuse his position in that incident.

I also feel that he is an unnecessarily divisive personality due to the hard line he takes (look at the controversy his name being mentioned on HN has caused amongst a group who I would imagine are sympathetic to his message).

[niete]

His position? He left a comment on a blog....

[emp_]

You can't defy the abundant flaws in religion unless you are a perfect human being.

[logjam]

I see. The parent characterized Dawkins as "arrogant" and "pig headed", and now you've characterized him as "foaming at the mouth", on a "tirade" and a "dick". You've also misstated his argument.

We get it. Many hate his message and because they can't argue coherently against that message, they mostly just call him names.

[DarkShikari]

What about people who agree with his message, but still think he's a dick? Are they not allowed to exist?

Dawkins is an intelligent atheist skeptic, but he's also an incredibly sexist, insensitive ass whom many believe is consistently hurting the cause he claims to promote. You're allowed to think the latter even if you largely agree with his opinions as an atheist skeptic.

[niete]

Richard Dawkins has done more for women that the femiskeptics have ever done. May I quote Abbie Smith:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Shaftgate, many noticed that Dawkins quit speaking on the issue.

Many put up guesses as to why this happened, and I think the 'why?' is now clear. Dawkins has shown with his actions time, time, time and again, that he is supportive of everyone in science and skepticism. When it became clear that words, discussion, reasoning were useless against what he was up against, he stopped using words, discussion, and reasoning, and kept doing what he do, which is, to 'do':

>The dawkins foundation is going to pay for childcare so moms can attend future cons. Feminist cred reestablished, well played

More twetters:

>Childcare at future TAM to be sponsored by Dawkins Foundation

AWESOME!

ERV translation:

>You all keep throwing your bordello parties and pajama parties and getting drunk all the time and acting like overall jackasses in the name of 'supporting women in skepticism'. Im going to actually support everyone, including women, by providing childcare at future TAMs. flipseveryoneoff

The non-response this move has gotten, the stunned silence from the True Feminists mirrors that of the duped Evangelicals before. Stricken dumb by being too dumb to understand what just happened. Its hysterical.

I wish I could take an ounce of credit for any of this-- providing childcare at meetings is something I have been talking up and down since the Texas Freethought Convention last year. Camp Quest provided 'day camp' for the kids of attendees. That was such a weight off of so many parents, especially single parents, including single moms, shoulders. Furthermore, having low-stress, kid-friendly activities has helped the OKC Atheists grow exponentially-- picnics, trips to zoos and museums, meet-ups at a pizza place instead of a bar, etc. Weve gotten so big we actually had to make a break-off 'secular parenting' group (though all are still welcome if they are doing something cool and you want to tag along).

You want more members?

Have more low-intimidation, social meet-ups. Not every skeptic group has to meet in a pub. Not every meeting needs to be a lecture. Yes, karaoke nights at a bar are my favorite, but something as small as a few 'kid friendly' events, or day-care for day-long events goes a fuckovalong way to generating a warm, welcoming group.

Anyway, I rant all over the place about this, including to Dawkins very recently, but I cant take any credit. Apparently this move has been in the works for a long time, with Camp Quest. Apparently before Twatson fell down and threw a temper tantrum and demanded everyone kiss her invisible boo-boo.

She made her move. A rash decision.

Dawkins made his. Carefully planned for some time.

Check-mate.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in...

[DarkShikari]

Richard Dawkins has done more for women that the femiskeptics have ever done.

"Doing things for women" has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. That's like claiming that someone isn't racist because they've "done things for black people", and shows a total lack of understanding of what sexism (or any sort of discrimination) even is.

Just like racism isn't only about black people, feminism isn't only about women, and "doing things for women" does not exonerate you from being sexist any more than having a black friend, or giving money to a historically black school, makes it completely okay to be racist.

[microarchitect]

I see.

I'm not sure you do. I think Dawkins is essentially right about how religion is evil, and I think he's done a great deal for the atheist "movement". At the same, he came off looking like a sexist in the Rebecca Watson fiasco.

The point is, I think his message is correct and important, and yet I think he's probably a sexist. These two are orthogonal attributes.

[JanezStupar]

I have an extremely bad feeling.

Lets suppose that religion is the root of all evil. So the atheist movement goes and in time erases religion from the world. Then what?

I don't think ideas exist in a vacuum. I think that for some types of ideas and ideals they can only be replaced by an idea of the same type.

And I do sense some (disturbing) religious elements in the atheist movement. Single mindedness would be the worst in my opinion.

[niete]

Why would anyone want to hear what Rebecca Watson thinks about anything? She has a herd of rabid dogs on her heels but nothing else worthwhile, as exemplified by the elevator fiasco. Sure, if you looked at ten seconds of her video and nothing else it was pretty reasonable, but context matters and there was a lot of it that the femiskeptics like to ignore.

[niete]

Well, feminists get upset that he does not drink their cool aid, but over all a pretty cool guy.

[niete]

> Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking.

Hardly. Dawkins can be very blunt, be he is hardly a fundamentalist. How do you think he should act?

[xavoy]

With compassion and respect.

He is an evolutionary biologist, so he should make what he knows about evolutionary biology available. Tell people about it, write books, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about his ideas. But show some respect.

At the end of the day, no matter how loopy or wacky a persons beliefs are, they deserve respect. There is just no need to go around calling people "idiots" or telling them to "fk off" if they don't want to take on his world view.

[burgerbrain]

Respect is earned. If we were to all accept your premise that respect is a right, then it would hold no real meaning.