Strange I can't find a single link here for references. Guess I'll just assume the research is 100% spot on. This is the internet after all. With this logic I guess I can make the leap to assume that since she's posting on TH-cam she agrees with every right wing loon that posts here. Think for yourself. I'm pretty sure Sagan would agree.
"Intellectual capacity is no guarentee against using deliberate deception for profit and attention." -me Actually, that's how most intellectuals get around and advance their careers in the philosophy-selling business ventures that they misleadingly label as "science", "progressive thought" or "social justice", depending on what they're selling or promoting and what their main target market is (those into science or those into social justice, the market for liberalism and so-called "progressive" thought). "The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure-so they say." _-Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!-2000)_ "Some propagandists play on _pride._ Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our _fear_ of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that." _-The Manipulation of Information (Awake!-2000)_ ‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective. The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’-John 7:32, 45-49, _The Living Bible._ They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As _Discover_ magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”-October 1980. *THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS* “When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”-Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10. “It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”-“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky. “Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”-“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin. “The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”-“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington. “No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”-“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey. “It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”-“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson. “There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”-“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.
@@dynad00d15 this is a poe's law level of comment. I want to think your statement of two followed by listing three is meant to show you're joking, but if someone seriously considers Winston Churchill a hero I don't know what to expect of them so...
One of them happens to be a war hero that conquered fascism. He is far from being perfect (his policies on India were horrific and brought shame greatly on his legacy) but his philosophy and wisdom, in general, helped me through very hard times. He is a hero of mine, not because of his political views and policies, but because he was a wise man when it comes to hardship and mental toughness. Oh and one more thing : The drone program established by Obama have a success rate lower than 20% and killed thousands of innocent lives. Should i pick him as a hero like millions of american does?
Atheists were united against the religious right. The right is now a lot more secular. The right care more about whiteness than religiosity. Sadly, a lot of atheists do to.
I feel like most atheists who were invested in the atheist movement - particularly those who became celebrities (even minor celebrities) within the movement - did _not_ outgrow Dawkins, unfortunately. Less sure about those of us on the sidelines who had less to lose by fighting against the rightward trend of the movement.
this is also what pulled me out of that anti-SJW anti-feminism rabbit hole, as soon as these figures started befriending and promoting the same low lifes like Dinesh D'souza, these same people they used to destroy in debates...time for me to hit the eject button
@Renee Speece "Abrahamic" religions share the same opinions on women and lgbt people, especially among people who describe themselves as more religious. That's the hypocrisy in their Muslim fear mongering based on "polls". You get the same attitudes about women and LGBT people the more Christian people are...
This is sad. One of the things that helped me start to think skeptically was Richard Dawkins many beautiful explanations of evolution. While I was still a conservative christian, he got me to understand a subject that had been explained poorly and straw manned my entire life. Now he's being ridiculous and it's time to let go. No one man or woman has all the answers and this is proof.
@@thomasneal9291 100% agree, however it is human nature to put heroes on a pedestal. Heroes that we sometimes imbue as "the ones with all the answers". I know I did this because I was a confused theist.
“No president (of the US) has ever been attacked this way.” *Camera cuts to jfk and lincoln turning to each other before they burst out laughing. *nixon tries to join in on laughter and both jfk and lincoln begin to give him a stern look till nixon shuts up.
* 10's of 1000's of assassinated & incarcerated native American activists, Afro-American activists, environmental activists, & American NSA/military whistleblowers eyes roll * * To the tune of John Lennon's _"Imagine"_ the camera slowly zooms out to show the world rolling on the floor with laughter *
This fully exposes them whereas before they could say they're against Muslims bc they're true atheists against ALL religion...suddenly far right Evangelicals are ok...
@@laalki80 it shows up when you google it like deleted tweets usually do www.google.com/search?ei=KGySXZDtKJa6-gTv9aLYBQ&q=richard+dawkins+twitter+pretentious+postmodern&oq=richard+dawkins+twitter+pretentious+postmodern&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8975.10063..10174...0.0..1.223.953.6j0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.8lovsd2mnCo&ved=0ahUKEwiQof7Wt_nkAhUWnZ4KHe-6CFsQ4dUDCAs&uact=5
@@icemeoutlikeelsa Anyway, which do you think is more plausible: Dawkins quoting some dodgy dickheads just because he agrees on a quote and deleting it after realising his mistake or him siding with evangelicals? Seems so dishonest this.
@Dom Trussardi Another one who judge the valor of someone by the size or existence of a penis? That's so sexist, superficial and ridiculous. I'm tired fo those stupid expressions like You got balls or the tiny penises ones.
I just don't understand how you can consider yourself a rational, reasonable person & say you're against social justice. Really? You're against ppl being treated fairly? You don't like religion bc it's awful for ppl but you're against any movement that would help ppl. What a bizarre illogical viewpoint.
Not really; it is just "I do not want to change, or evaluate the decisions in my past." Being able to point it out in others, as the 'skeptic community' did to Christians, does not mean that they are capable of grappling with it themselves.
I've heard Boghossian and Lindsay talk about this, and I think where they're coming from is not that they are against social justice, but rather they want to critique aspects of social justice movements that they see as religious in their adherence and application. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do see something to their point. I am however surprised they agreed to do a conference like this.
I have to ask a memory of myself from 12 years ago, but I feel that, I _did_ want people to be treated fairly. Except my view of "fair" didn't take systemic issues into account. But that's a good point about the hypocrisy of denying systemic issues when it comes to race or gender, but being aware of it when it comes to religion. The atheist movement was a social justice movement in some sense, as much as some of its proponents would hate to admit it.
What do you not understand? If people irrationally consider themself to be rational, the can think all kinds of stupid stuff. And we have to admit, that people are not "either rational or not" - but both, depending on the specific topic. Remember the famous Dunning-Kruger effect? It's not "stupid people think they are clever" but "people tend to overestimate their knowledge of a topic, the less they actually know about it". As nobody knows everything, every person can have the DK-effect on some topics, even though they have a lot of knowledge of other topics.
I was going to throw out a quote like, "Neutrality in the face of evil is complicity", but seems like these folks aren't even bothering with the pretense of neutrality anymore.
@Richard Head Yuuuuhp. That's helpful. I think I'm done here. Yahweh is a cancerous myth. If he's real may he strike me down right now. Oh. Nope. Still here. Women are every bit as human as men. Get the fuck over it.
@@christopherhamilton3621 I don't remember the context as it was a year ago, just the same; I don't see skepticism as a prerequisite to determining the difference. Perhaps phleabag thinks anything it disagrees with requires contempt.
Scepticism in a person is best judged not by their professed love of scepticism but by how they apply scepticism to their reasoning. Dawkins and a whole lot of his youtube proteges threw the principles of sceptical thought out the window the moment they felt threatened. It's interesting that social justice and feminism triggered that threat response far more than blind religious faith or supernatural thinking did.
Indeed. Well said. The far right think tanks were brilliant strategists. Much like the Nazis were in terms of developing propaganda that galvanized people into fascist authoritarian thinking.
For what it’s worth: how you were treated is what pushed me away from the “skeptic” sphere (ie. Dawkins, thunderf00t, etc). I know many others tell the same story: they didn’t realize how sexist those people were until one of our own was being harassed.
This is a phenomenon that Dawkins himself notably satirized in his 2002 TED lecture about militant atheism, noting that science seeks to avoid depending on endorsements by personalities (as religions do) to verify accepted truth, rather to depend on data from reproducible experiments. (Not that it's always easy. Not everyone has access to a 27km particle loop with which to test their hypotheses). But yes, rationality cannot depend on heroes to affirm what is right (or for that matter, villains to affirm what is wrong. One can be a total dick and still do good science.) I didn't know about Dawkins stroke in 2016. Long before that I felt the need to distance myself from him for irrational and intolerant positions. But I really liked his 2002 TED lecture. *Edit:* Formatting
Glad I got off that Dawkins train many years ago. The whole new-atheist movement is so tragic. Where can you go for an atheist community that isn't Islamophobic and full of incels?
If you're comfortable in your non-belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo, you probably don't need an atheist community. I recommend finding some other cause to get invested in.
Always Falling Short Depends what you mean by community.... There's a "community" on Facebook revolving around certain podcasters, such as the CogDis, and PIaT crew, which due to them collaborating has a huge overlap - and it seems to have some overlap with the Opening Arguments podcast as well
That's the thing, though- he was a good scientist. Specifically a good biologist. Anything outside of that he's not much better off than any other layman (and he's absolute shite at philosophy). A valuable warning for any skeptic- stay in your lane of expertise.
Don't feel bad. Sagan is still a man of nearly impeccable decency. Plus, he's dead. Dead people can't surprise you as easily. May he rest in peace. Sagan is a titan of the 20th century skeptical/scientific movement.
It's really obvious to me that "SJW" just means "attractive young woman who won't go out with me." Every diatribe I've seen against SJWs was nothing more than a diatribe against educated young women.
It's the entitlement of thinking you are by default right. While the are right on a greate deal of things related to the sciences that they study, in the fields they are layman it's painfully obvious that they don't know how to go back to being a student again.
Boghossian is pronounced like "ber-goze-shun". I know because I heard him say it in his audiobook _A Manual for Creating Atheists_ before I learned that he's the kind of terrible person who would coin "regressive leftists" to defend his conservatism.
I love following your videos because you have shown that there is self criticism and a willingness to call out unfairness within the (as I call it) "skeptic community". It inspires me to try harder at my own self criticism before judging others unfairly (or even fairly?). Anyway, it's so helpful to see the common humanity in those with whom we may have real disagreements, and your videos often do that for me. Thank you for your work.
@ I'm sorry, but no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm meant what I said in all sincerity and seriousness.I admit to not being especially articulate, so perhaps I need to clarify my original entry. What I was trying to say was that it is good to that there is a diversity of opinion within the atheist/skeptic community (and how could it be otherwise?), that others within this community see the same troubling issues with Dawkins and Harris that I see. My hope is that those who are atheist/skeptic can recognize that there is also a diversity of opinion within the faith community, and that there is much we can agree on and can work together on as regards making the world a better place.I would argue that working together is the only way forward. Not all people of faith agree with the religious right, and it's heartening to see not all atheists agree with Dawkins and his ilk. I suspect that you disagree with my agreeing with Ms. Watson, and that saddens me. But I can live with disagreement and not reject out of hand what objections you may have with me. Being challenged does not have to be a bad thing.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
@@br.martindallyosb1147 *" it is good to that there is a diversity of opinion within the atheist/skeptic community (and how could it be otherwise?),"* I COMPLETELY agree, but that's also Why I was wondering whether you were being sarcastic or not... Because its diversity of opinion that is the kind of diversity that folks like Miss Watson here are trying to stamp out....Do I really need to bring up the whole "Atheism+" debacle that Watson here was supportive of? A forum where they banned and censored any kind of wrong think that went against the social justice orthodoxy, and how they wished (and in some cases succeeded) in spreading that mentality to other platforms? By legitimate or underhanded means. *".I would argue that working together is the only way forward."* Again, I COMPLETELY agree. But again unfortunately this the opposite of what Watson types are pushing for. Rather than work with those they disagree with it's smear, attack, degrade, censor and try to ruin. There to me seems a large disconnect between what you're praising her for and what she actually does. When it comes to the two "sides" of this kind of thing I'd probably be slightly more on the side of dawkins. Because from where i'm sitting the social justice types of atheists seem to be acting, ironically in a VERY religious way. From Behaviours, to ideas, to logic, to in group vs out group attitudes, to ways of dealing with criticism, it's quite scarily a mirroring what they supposedly oppose as atheists.
@ I apologize for not responding sooner; it's laundry day, and since I do the community's laundry, I've been busy. I also wanted to think about the various issues you raised in order to reply with the respect they deserve. My first observation is that both of us are perhaps outsiders looking in from the margins into this particular forum (me from a faith perspective, you from the perspective of someone who generally disagrees with the positions taken here). This can be a valuable place to be, for those on the margins may see things those inside might miss. (It's like looking at the picture rather than being in the picture). For those like you who may have legitimate criticism of those on the inside, to be truly effective in offering criticism, one must strive to do so without unnecessarily putting others on the defensive (I say this as much as a reminder to myself as to you, by the way). Self-righteous indignation almost always feels great at first, but isn't usually all that effective. It usually stops those who may hear what you have to say from paying attention. Secondly, I hesitate to comment on the issue of what you see as this forum's hypocrisy, as I'm rather new here. However, do keep in mind that hypocrisy is quite an easy thing to get sucked into, no matter what side you're on, and pointing out hypocrisy can be a useful service, if done with grace and sensitivity (an art that is profoundly difficult to do, I can assure you). And FINALLY, I am humbled that you made the effort to dialogue with me, a person of faith in an atheistic forum, even though anything I've written may not be of value to you. That actually means a lot to me, and says a lot about your own goodwill. Peace!
Because the bible, like every other religious text is nothing more than a false fasade of justice over a fortress of hierarchical authoritarian opression through the same psychological mechanics as abusive relationships.
Fantastic video! Glad to see you speak out against this recent Dawkins nonsense. Absolutely maddening seeing the good little skeptics defending Dawkins about this.
Richard Dawkins did some interesting sciene writing in the 1980s and he's been coasting off it ever since. I used to think it was a waste of a great mind but I'm coming around to thinking that he's actually just a useless person.
Dawkins was a great catalyst for many to drop their religious beliefs, but apparently his utility in the community has sadly declined into the ranting of a delusional madman. 😞
Even the tag is wrong. How can you call yourself part of a dark web when you have millions of viewers and the biggest platforms out there? Also, Bari Weiss is dumb.
Dawkins is the reason why i dont identify myself to the atheist movement. His smugness and obsession toward the religious groups and individuals is borderline creepy and insane...
Some people think that criticizing white supremacy and systemic racism is criticizing them for being white and calling them racist. These people are pathetic and have an unjustified persecution complex.
I feel I cannot share this video, as you have sorted your books by colour.... joking; concise analysis, and great points: no heroes! Or in the words of the Classics: "Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna' be fooled again!”
I just discovered that it was you that was in a video that Richard Dawkins commented on so long ago. Musing on the irony because I loved RD and hated feminism; it’s now the other way round.
Having seen Richard in a recent interview, I could see that the guy hasn’t advanced his ideas or grown in the last decade. His brain is atrophying by his own choice
Peer review may have its problems, but what else is there? I think what Peter Boghossian is doing with the fake articles is dangerous. It seems to me that it will give credence to folks like antivaccers who dispute credible science. If it does strengthen the process that’s fine, but it could add weight to the folks who refuse to believe any science at all.
it's definitely done much more of the latter than the former, and everybody with half a brain warned them it would beforehand. but, being so sure of yourself you're more than willing to fuck yourself and everyone around over has never stopped an authoritarian mind before.
@Eric Beller Absolutely, it proved that if you pay for it, some journals will publish it - even if you just write the same sentence again and again... I don't know it thats a special "ideology", but the power of money comes to mind...
The TH-cam notification said "Richard Dawkins loves Evan..." And I honestly thought you were going to say Evanescence. I believed that could be a thing you would make a video about.
Honestly, I always thought Dawkins was overrated. Outside of the topic of evolution, he never offered anything groundbreaking. All of his ventures into the realm of skeptic philosophy were either wrong or said better by those who came before him. His stuff that was original wasn't good and what was good wasn't original.
Upon reflection, I saw the panel discussion where you politely asked the guys "hands off". I didn't think it was a big deal to call it out. But then it turned into a big curfuffle.
Maybe an obvious thing to say, but I say It's fine for sceptics to have heroes. When a person is consistently bang-on and you see good in them, they can become a hero to you. But Heroes are never perfect and not infallible and whether we define people as such can change, as with other opinions,
I have always said Dawkins is an evangelical, and that evangelical atheism is strange. Like building a life vigorously spreading the word of "Don't touch that, it's hot". Richard Dawkins's only real belief is how amazing great Richard Dawkins is.
Peer review is “borked.” ?? I am not familiar with the term. Is peer review problematic in some ways, sure. But, it is a necessary evil. Also, their fake study was published in a predatory pay-to-publish journal-so it showed nothing.
Fun fact, I used to think Dawkins was my hero, until I found out that he was creepy, and that instead of apologizing, he'd start throwing shit at religious minorities. I doubt I would be a Muslim today if Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris hadn't put bigotry over reason. I've always known my Muslim brethren were my brothers and sisters, despite any disagreements... But these three bastards put in a lot of work to prove that Muslims are good people subjected to terrible treatment, and yet so many persevere in glory, like Ilhan Omar.
I always like your videos - informative, topical, and definitely interesting. Like you, I've been compelled, sometimes reluctantly, to disengage from many prominent figures as I simply couldn't ignore their darker sides. Cosby, Shermer, Spacey...
Honestly, I don't think he even thought to check out the organizers before he promoted the conference. It's all about the particular speakers, defenders of classic academia from post-modernism. New Atheism is (was?) a distinctly modern movement, rejecting pre-modern religion as well as post-modern social science. I'd recommend checking out "The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement" by Stephen LeDrew.
Watching Dawkins' slow decline has been so horribly disappointing. Back in the days of New Atheism he was something of a hero of mine, as I'm sure is the case for many people, but as it became clear how dried-up his brain has become and how little he sticks to his own principles it's really difficult to not really dislike him these days.
Nearly every time when people say something along the lines of "In all of US history [thing] has never happened to such a degree as today" or something similar, they really need to brush up on their history. I literally heard someone say that we need to be less divisive, like when Abraham Lincoln was president. Yeah, the Civil War was a time where we rationally debated over issues.
I'm so sad that Stephen Jay Gould died so young, for many reasons, a big one being that he was in direct conflict with Dawkins in the bio sciences. Folks who have seen Dawkins et al. moving along this trajectory for awhile might be interested in revisiting some of that discussion from back then. Back in the early years of the Internet and TH-cam, back when TH-cam atheism was all about shitting on right-wing evangelicals and other Acceptable Targets for a left-leaning still-edgy-atheist type like me at the time, I occasionally expressed my affinity for SJG's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria" and was howled at for being "soft on religion." So, it's kind of funny that it's come around to this. I guess I'm lucky to have become an atheist in the age of Asimov, Sagan and Gould instead of Dawkins, Harris and (post-9/11) Hitchens. I got a much more thoughtful and humanistic version.
For the life of me I can't understand why the big name skeptics (and a lot of the guys on TH-cam, just the guys) seem to go right wing. The right wing claims to be religious yet these guys will ally with them because it's against feminism, equality, diversity, and equal rights. It's like all of their beliefs go out the window because they'd rather stand with the religious right to go against a crowd of people they hate for no reason. It's pretty gross to support guys that are anti-abortion just because one hates feminists or something. Then again, Dawkins was always pretty gross.
4:35 I got one of your videos in my recommended, about 5 hours of clicking on your videos ago, and I've only just now realized where I recognized you/your voice from... That's a damn blast from the past and I'm glad to see you're still doing shit.
There's a line in Brecht's "Galileo" about the people complaining of having their hero recant .... " Pity the people who need heros." Great thought but can we consider it, now we know just what Brecht was like? OK... just learned how to look it up !!..."Unhappy the land that is in need of heroes"....... still pleased with myself. It was close on 35 years ago I saw the play ( this is the only bit that stuck.)
This just exposes once again that ultimately a lot of these "evangelical atheist" types are more interested in the aesthetic of rational intellectualism than actual critical thought. Since social justice now occupies a large portion of the public discourse - and is strongly associated with emotion and irrationality, whether that has basis in fact or not - these guys have thrown themselves fully into the opposition to maintain that aesthetic, even if it aligns them with those evangelical Christians they formerly railed against for their emotionally-charged lack of rationality.
I think it´s OK to have heros. And I think it's a good thing for us to try to be each other's heros. But i don't believe in automatic heroes, to assume that a person is good in all important aspects of life just because they are wellspoken and have the same worldview as yourself. I dont have a problem listen to reactionary people when they say interesting things, i'm not sensitive. But they are not my heros.
As someone who was once a smarty-pants little asshole atheist who believed guys like Dawkins and Hutchins were heroic truth-tellers, I’m very glad that work like yours exists that helps expose the hypocrisy and bullshit behind the New Atheists and the skeptic community.
Am I in an alternate universe? Did I just jump out of a black hole? Dawkins, Hitch, Harris, put themselves on the line fighting, debating , publishing against fairy tales and bogeymen during the last decade. Now there is some weird alliance going on? And, wait a minute, Dineesh Desouza?? That prick?
This is bizarre... For me as a skeptic, ALL religions should be open to being challenged (and mocked where necessary). I'd never side with the religious to promote something that went against my morals. I don't understand how one can be against social justice or equality? It's not logical.
Honestly I knew about his islamophobia and was like this is bad but he has done a lot of good and isn't racism. But then there was him recommending a book by a white supremacist i think some weeks ago and now I discover this though it's from 2 years ago. Maybe it's because I'm not from a English speaking country and he's not famous here but i had no idea Dawkins was the retrograde, dare i say anti sjw type, until right now. I can't express how disappointed i am.
This is a good take on how to talk about broken clocks the two times a day they're right, and definitely gave me something to consider. And yeah, maybe it is noon, but that's not a good reason to point at the clock flashing "12:00"... it says that anyway.
abraham lincoln who was both attacked insofar as war was waged against the US because of him, and attacked personally cuz he was killed by a confederate sympathizer would also disagree with that, lmao.
Isn’t the most post-modern thing about this being an atheist categorizing himself in the same camp as evangelical Christians against an “enemy” that is basically a hyper-category for them?
This is why I stay clear of the atheist movement. I don't need people with egos the size of Texas dictating to me what is and isn't acceptable as an atheist.
Dawkins went from biology into theology by accident by taking it on. Theology and politics overlap heavily - you get into desired outcomes and it's very easy to lose track + a stroke : Game over. Sad. Blackmore is a much better proponent of his legacy at this point.
I've long thought that there are probably at least two separate worldviews that often include atheism, and they're at least as different as some atheists are from some Christians.
Rebecca pointed out the Aero & Shermer mags psych charlatan and challenged my favourite heroes, Dick Dawkey et al. I love it because it reminds me that I, too, can fall for the fallacy of authority. I still love my heroes and will be like an x'tian and develop some apologetics for their errors. Thanks for your contribution.
There’s a quote from Richard Dawkins in the intro to the Nightwish song “Shudder Before The Beautiful” in which he suggests everyone alive be thankful because “the vast majority of people have never been born.” Now, from my perspective, the only people who TRULY don’t matter are people who have never existed. I love Nightwish and the song, in fact, but I don’t understand the Dawkins stuff at all.
"Intellectual capacity is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
-Carl Sagan
@@Columbocops I would
@@Columbocops I wouldn't say saying you wouldn't say is saying much at all.
Even smart people are stupid. Stupid doesn't discriminate.
Strange I can't find a single link here for references. Guess I'll just assume the research is 100% spot on. This is the internet after all. With this logic I guess I can make the leap to assume that since she's posting on TH-cam she agrees with every right wing loon that posts here. Think for yourself. I'm pretty sure Sagan would agree.
"Intellectual capacity is no guarentee against using deliberate deception for profit and attention."
-me
Actually, that's how most intellectuals get around and advance their careers in the philosophy-selling business ventures that they misleadingly label as "science", "progressive thought" or "social justice", depending on what they're selling or promoting and what their main target market is (those into science or those into social justice, the market for liberalism and so-called "progressive" thought).
"The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure-so they say."
_-Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!-2000)_
"Some propagandists play on _pride._ Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our _fear_ of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that."
_-The Manipulation of Information (Awake!-2000)_
‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.
The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’-John 7:32, 45-49, _The Living Bible._
They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As _Discover_ magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”-October 1980.
*THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS*
“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”-Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.
“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”-“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.
“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”-“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.
“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”-“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.
“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”-“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.
“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”-“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.
“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”-“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.
"True skeptics can't have heroes." Yep, I'm starting to figure that out...
I have three: Winston Churchill, George Carlin and Christopher Hitchins.. I'm still looking for one that is still alive...
@@dynad00d15 one of them was a genocidal maniac wtf...pick heroes not fucking hated by millions for killing innocent people.
@@dynad00d15 this is a poe's law level of comment. I want to think your statement of two followed by listing three is meant to show you're joking, but if someone seriously considers Winston Churchill a hero I don't know what to expect of them so...
One of them happens to be a war hero that conquered fascism. He is far from being perfect (his policies on India were horrific and brought shame greatly on his legacy) but his philosophy and wisdom, in general, helped me through very hard times.
He is a hero of mine, not because of his political views and policies, but because he was a wise man when it comes to hardship and mental toughness.
Oh and one more thing : The drone program established by Obama have a success rate lower than 20% and killed thousands of innocent lives. Should i pick him as a hero like millions of american does?
@@Mewobiba lol i just forgot to change tp three when i thought of Hitchins.
Most atheists were smart enough to outgrow Dawkins and Harris so they had to go elsewhere for a new paying audience
that does seem to be what happened.
Atheists were united against the religious right. The right is now a lot more secular. The right care more about whiteness than religiosity. Sadly, a lot of atheists do to.
I definitely did
I feel like most atheists who were invested in the atheist movement - particularly those who became celebrities (even minor celebrities) within the movement - did _not_ outgrow Dawkins, unfortunately. Less sure about those of us on the sidelines who had less to lose by fighting against the rightward trend of the movement.
I hope so man
this is also what pulled me out of that anti-SJW anti-feminism rabbit hole, as soon as these figures started befriending and promoting the same low lifes like Dinesh D'souza, these same people they used to destroy in debates...time for me to hit the eject button
trololololo tralalalalala...
@Renee Speece "Abrahamic" religions share the same opinions on women and lgbt people, especially among people who describe themselves as more religious. That's the hypocrisy in their Muslim fear mongering based on "polls". You get the same attitudes about women and LGBT people the more Christian people are...
@Renee Speece nice one troll now gtfo
@Renee Speece can't tell if you're being sarcastic or an asshole.
Renee Speece cutting off their heads is the right thing to do when they get raped?
This is sad. One of the things that helped me start to think skeptically was Richard Dawkins many beautiful explanations of evolution. While I was still a conservative christian, he got me to understand a subject that had been explained poorly and straw manned my entire life. Now he's being ridiculous and it's time to let go. No one man or woman has all the answers and this is proof.
Is there a difference between having all the answers, and having an answer for everything?
there is?
damn.
;)
@@thomasneal9291 100% agree, however it is human nature to put heroes on a pedestal. Heroes that we sometimes imbue as "the ones with all the answers". I know I did this because I was a confused theist.
out growing these assholes is fine. speaks good about yourself.
“No president (of the US) has ever been attacked this way.”
*Camera cuts to jfk and lincoln turning to each other before they burst out laughing.
*nixon tries to join in on laughter and both jfk and lincoln begin to give him a stern look till nixon shuts up.
*Seinfeld bass riff*
* 10's of 1000's of assassinated & incarcerated native American activists, Afro-American activists, environmental activists, & American NSA/military whistleblowers eyes roll *
* To the tune of John Lennon's _"Imagine"_ the camera slowly zooms out to show the world rolling on the floor with laughter *
"This is so surprising" says anyone who hasn't been paying attention for the last 15 years or so.
This fully exposes them whereas before they could say they're against Muslims bc they're true atheists against ALL religion...suddenly far right Evangelicals are ok...
Did you check the sources? Because I can't find the tweet or anything like it.
The tweet has been deleted some time since yesterday.
@@laalki80 it shows up when you google it like deleted tweets usually do www.google.com/search?ei=KGySXZDtKJa6-gTv9aLYBQ&q=richard+dawkins+twitter+pretentious+postmodern&oq=richard+dawkins+twitter+pretentious+postmodern&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8975.10063..10174...0.0..1.223.953.6j0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.8lovsd2mnCo&ved=0ahUKEwiQof7Wt_nkAhUWnZ4KHe-6CFsQ4dUDCAs&uact=5
@@icemeoutlikeelsa Still doesn't show to me.
@@icemeoutlikeelsa Anyway, which do you think is more plausible: Dawkins quoting some dodgy dickheads just because he agrees on a quote and deleting it after realising his mistake or him siding with evangelicals? Seems so dishonest this.
These IDW dudes *really* don't understand women, feminism, LBGT+/intersectionality issues, annnnd social philosophy from the 20th onward really.
Of course my wonderful wife already commented here. 😘
@Dom Trussardi more than rando #1 online.
@Dom Trussardi You telling me to know my place? *chuckles*
remember how Dawkins tried to coin the term "Brights"?
now he's part of the "Dork", er I mean "Dark" Web?
irony, or coincidence?
@Dom Trussardi Another one who judge the valor of someone by the size or existence of a penis? That's so sexist, superficial and ridiculous. I'm tired fo those stupid expressions like You got balls or the tiny penises ones.
I just don't understand how you can consider yourself a rational, reasonable person & say you're against social justice. Really? You're against ppl being treated fairly? You don't like religion bc it's awful for ppl but you're against any movement that would help ppl. What a bizarre illogical viewpoint.
Not really; it is just "I do not want to change, or evaluate the decisions in my past." Being able to point it out in others, as the 'skeptic community' did to Christians, does not mean that they are capable of grappling with it themselves.
I've heard Boghossian and Lindsay talk about this, and I think where they're coming from is not that they are against social justice, but rather they want to critique aspects of social justice movements that they see as religious in their adherence and application. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do see something to their point. I am however surprised they agreed to do a conference like this.
It boils down to how annoying some SJWs are. These folks love to conflate strident youngsters on campuses with the entire social justice movement.
I have to ask a memory of myself from 12 years ago, but I feel that, I _did_ want people to be treated fairly. Except my view of "fair" didn't take systemic issues into account.
But that's a good point about the hypocrisy of denying systemic issues when it comes to race or gender, but being aware of it when it comes to religion. The atheist movement was a social justice movement in some sense, as much as some of its proponents would hate to admit it.
What do you not understand? If people irrationally consider themself to be rational, the can think all kinds of stupid stuff.
And we have to admit, that people are not "either rational or not" - but both, depending on the specific topic. Remember the famous Dunning-Kruger effect? It's not "stupid people think they are clever" but "people tend to overestimate their knowledge of a topic, the less they actually know about it". As nobody knows everything, every person can have the DK-effect on some topics, even though they have a lot of knowledge of other topics.
I was going to throw out a quote like, "Neutrality in the face of evil is complicity", but seems like these folks aren't even bothering with the pretense of neutrality anymore.
@Richard Head Yuuuuhp. That's helpful. I think I'm done here. Yahweh is a cancerous myth. If he's real may he strike me down right now. Oh. Nope. Still here. Women are every bit as human as men. Get the fuck over it.
I feel that I'm at the stage where I've stopped feeling disappointed in Dawkins and just settled into a general sense of contempt.
How is contempt different from superiority? I ask myself this question too, but I am too perfect to admit my error.
@@VaughanMcCueIf you’re truly skeptical, you could probably figure that question out yourself. 😢
@@christopherhamilton3621
I don't remember the context as it was a year ago, just the same; I don't see skepticism as a prerequisite to determining the difference. Perhaps phleabag thinks anything it disagrees with requires contempt.
Scepticism in a person is best judged not by their professed love of scepticism but by how they apply scepticism to their reasoning. Dawkins and a whole lot of his youtube proteges threw the principles of sceptical thought out the window the moment they felt threatened. It's interesting that social justice and feminism triggered that threat response far more than blind religious faith or supernatural thinking did.
Indeed. Well said. The far right think tanks were brilliant strategists. Much like the Nazis were in terms of developing propaganda that galvanized people into fascist authoritarian thinking.
For what it’s worth: how you were treated is what pushed me away from the “skeptic” sphere (ie. Dawkins, thunderf00t, etc). I know many others tell the same story: they didn’t realize how sexist those people were until one of our own was being harassed.
...you're referring to her being offered coffee in an elevator, right?
Place your bets folks. How long before Dawkins does a PragerU video?
Oo I'm in. By june 1, 2020.
@@Michael-kp4bd Well, I think that's been and gone. By the end of the decade, maybe?
This is a phenomenon that Dawkins himself notably satirized in his 2002 TED lecture about militant atheism, noting that science seeks to avoid depending on endorsements by personalities (as religions do) to verify accepted truth, rather to depend on data from reproducible experiments. (Not that it's always easy. Not everyone has access to a 27km particle loop with which to test their hypotheses). But yes, rationality cannot depend on heroes to affirm what is right (or for that matter, villains to affirm what is wrong. One can be a total dick and still do good science.)
I didn't know about Dawkins stroke in 2016. Long before that I felt the need to distance myself from him for irrational and intolerant positions. But I really liked his 2002 TED lecture.
*Edit:* Formatting
Glad I got off that Dawkins train many years ago. The whole new-atheist movement is so tragic. Where can you go for an atheist community that isn't Islamophobic and full of incels?
start one yourself. everything always starts with one person.
The sane ones are just living their lives as non-theists and not seeking community for it
If you're comfortable in your non-belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo, you probably don't need an atheist community. I recommend finding some other cause to get invested in.
@oktopustrainer Great comment! 😎👍
Always Falling Short
Depends what you mean by community....
There's a "community" on Facebook revolving around certain podcasters, such as the CogDis, and PIaT crew, which due to them collaborating has a huge overlap - and it seems to have some overlap with the Opening Arguments podcast as well
I don't know what happened to Dawkins? Seriously he was a good scientist but something just snapped and he turned into a cranky, racist old man
Someone trod on his fragile masculinity.
That's the thing, though- he was a good scientist. Specifically a good biologist. Anything outside of that he's not much better off than any other layman (and he's absolute shite at philosophy). A valuable warning for any skeptic- stay in your lane of expertise.
I think he was always like this. He just hid it better before.
Racist? WTF are you even talking about? Credible citations or you're #AxeGrinding.
@@PhoenixProdLLC Oh, shut up. #SeaLioning
A long-form video on the topic of how the so-called New Atheists turned to the right and never came back would be super interesting.
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one really good video like that. If I can remember who made it, I'll post the link.
"Witchcraft, Gender and Marxism" by Philosophy Tube touches on it, although, obviously it''s mostly about other stuff
ContraPoints did a great take on this, have a look in her playlist, Feminism did not destroy atheism.
likely Hbomberguy has done one.
@ you are wildly wrong.
Rebecca Watson is really doing the lords work out here. Someone give this woman a news show. Maybe we could give her Bill Maher's?
I guess I'm going to have to find a new user name.
Prolly not a bad idea mate yeah. :(
Don't feel bad. Sagan is still a man of nearly impeccable decency. Plus, he's dead. Dead people can't surprise you as easily. May he rest in peace. Sagan is a titan of the 20th century skeptical/scientific movement.
It's really obvious to me that "SJW" just means "attractive young woman who won't go out with me." Every diatribe I've seen against SJWs was nothing more than a diatribe against educated young women.
Pretty much lol. But of course they were just fat and ugly anyway, totally not my shitty personality.
It's the entitlement of thinking you are by default right. While the are right on a greate deal of things related to the sciences that they study, in the fields they are layman it's painfully obvious that they don't know how to go back to being a student again.
"Pretend to be pinnacles of rationalism" - yup, spot on!
A bunch of reactionary circle-jerkers is however a more fitting describtion....
@Richard Head Dafuq is a fig?
Boghossian is pronounced like "ber-goze-shun". I know because I heard him say it in his audiobook _A Manual for Creating Atheists_ before I learned that he's the kind of terrible person who would coin "regressive leftists" to defend his conservatism.
I love following your videos because you have shown that there is self criticism and a willingness to call out unfairness within the (as I call it) "skeptic community". It inspires me to try harder at my own self criticism before judging others unfairly (or even fairly?). Anyway, it's so helpful to see the common humanity in those with whom we may have real disagreements, and your videos often do that for me. Thank you for your work.
@ I'm sorry, but no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm meant what I said in all sincerity and seriousness.I admit to not being especially articulate, so perhaps I need to clarify my original entry. What I was trying to say was that it is good to that there is a diversity of opinion within the atheist/skeptic community (and how could it be otherwise?), that others within this community see the same troubling issues with Dawkins and Harris that I see. My hope is that those who are atheist/skeptic can recognize that there is also a diversity of opinion within the faith community, and that there is much we can agree on and can work together on as regards making the world a better place.I would argue that working together is the only way forward. Not all people of faith agree with the religious right, and it's heartening to see not all atheists agree with Dawkins and his ilk. I suspect that you disagree with my agreeing with Ms. Watson, and that saddens me. But I can live with disagreement and not reject out of hand what objections you may have with me. Being challenged does not have to be a bad thing.
@@br.martindallyosb1147 *" it is good to that there is a diversity of opinion within the atheist/skeptic community (and how could it be otherwise?),"* I COMPLETELY agree, but that's also Why I was wondering whether you were being sarcastic or not... Because its diversity of opinion that is the kind of diversity that folks like Miss Watson here are trying to stamp out....Do I really need to bring up the whole "Atheism+" debacle that Watson here was supportive of? A forum where they banned and censored any kind of wrong think that went against the social justice orthodoxy, and how they wished (and in some cases succeeded) in spreading that mentality to other platforms? By legitimate or underhanded means.
*".I would argue that working together is the only way forward."* Again, I COMPLETELY agree. But again unfortunately this the opposite of what Watson types are pushing for. Rather than work with those they disagree with it's smear, attack, degrade, censor and try to ruin.
There to me seems a large disconnect between what you're praising her for and what she actually does.
When it comes to the two "sides" of this kind of thing I'd probably be slightly more on the side of dawkins. Because from where i'm sitting the social justice types of atheists seem to be acting, ironically in a VERY religious way. From Behaviours, to ideas, to logic, to in group vs out group attitudes, to ways of dealing with criticism, it's quite scarily a mirroring what they supposedly oppose as atheists.
@ I apologize for not responding sooner; it's laundry day, and since I do the community's laundry, I've been busy. I also wanted to think about the various issues you raised in order to reply with the respect they deserve. My first observation is that both of us are perhaps outsiders looking in from the margins into this particular forum (me from a faith perspective, you from the perspective of someone who generally disagrees with the positions taken here). This can be a valuable place to be, for those on the margins may see things those inside might miss. (It's like looking at the picture rather than being in the picture). For those like you who may have legitimate criticism of those on the inside, to be truly effective in offering criticism, one must strive to do so without unnecessarily putting others on the defensive (I say this as much as a reminder to myself as to you, by the way). Self-righteous indignation almost always feels great at first, but isn't usually all that effective. It usually stops those who may hear what you have to say from paying attention. Secondly, I hesitate to comment on the issue of what you see as this forum's hypocrisy, as I'm rather new here. However, do keep in mind that hypocrisy is quite an easy thing to get sucked into, no matter what side you're on, and pointing out hypocrisy can be a useful service, if done with grace and sensitivity (an art that is profoundly difficult to do, I can assure you). And FINALLY, I am humbled that you made the effort to dialogue with me, a person of faith in an atheistic forum, even though anything I've written may not be of value to you. That actually means a lot to me, and says a lot about your own goodwill. Peace!
How can a Christian not be a "SJW"? The Bible definitely depicts Jesus ( *The Christ* ) as someone who fights for social justice.
Because the bible, like every other religious text is nothing more than a false fasade of justice over a fortress of hierarchical authoritarian opression through the same psychological mechanics as abusive relationships.
@@SonsOfLorgar is that something you've wanted to get off your chest for a while?
Fantastic video! Glad to see you speak out against this recent Dawkins nonsense. Absolutely maddening seeing the good little skeptics defending Dawkins about this.
How about us bad ones who defend parts and condemn other aspects?
This has been my problem with the atheist and skeptic movements from the beginning.
Somebody must have made Dawkins feel guilty once for his own actions and so now he will deflect forever. Him and Maher.
Richard Dawkins did some interesting sciene writing in the 1980s and he's been coasting off it ever since. I used to think it was a waste of a great mind but I'm coming around to thinking that he's actually just a useless person.
Dawkins was a great catalyst for many to drop their religious beliefs, but apparently his utility in the community has sadly declined into the ranting of a delusional madman. 😞
The IDW idiocy in action.
Even the tag is wrong. How can you call yourself part of a dark web when you have millions of viewers and the biggest platforms out there?
Also, Bari Weiss is dumb.
Intellectual dark ages more like it.
Damn, I actually became atheist in no small part thanks to Dawkins' books.
Sigh* disheartening to see where all the atheist ended up ugh.
Dang I love Rebecca's commentary.
@Richard Head Come on now, Dick. Be nice.
JFK might have something to say about that indeed. As would Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley.
Dawkins is the reason why i dont identify myself to the atheist movement. His smugness and obsession toward the religious groups and individuals is borderline creepy and insane...
I've never understood the hatred of social justice and I never will.
Some people think that criticizing white supremacy and systemic racism is criticizing them for being white and calling them racist. These people are pathetic and have an unjustified persecution complex.
Rebecca Watson is the best atheist.
"True skeptics can't have heroes".
i second that!
@@casey3413 Good point. If I ever think she's wrong or unwise, I'll say so. Citing sources where appropriate ;)
@@MethCrystal666There ya go👍
She's my hero. 😉
I feel I cannot share this video, as you have sorted your books by colour....
joking; concise analysis, and great points: no heroes!
Or in the words of the Classics:
"Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna' be fooled again!”
RIP New Atheism, 2006-2016
I’ve watched your videos for a while now, and never noticed the rainbow arrangement of the books in the bookshelf. I love it!
I just discovered that it was you that was in a video that Richard Dawkins commented on so long ago. Musing on the irony because I loved RD and hated feminism; it’s now the other way round.
Richard Head Not sure what you are trying to say, but imma assume by your Charles Manson pic that you’re not worth it
Richard Head 🖕🏽yup, you’re a fucking Nazi.
Richard Head LMAO #ForceFeminizeAllNazis
@@vv0sans693 he honestly sounds more like an incel to me...
(Not that there is much difference and plenty of overlap though...)
Thank you, I was banned from several atheist groups for criticizing him.
He deserves crique....
Having seen Richard in a recent interview, I could see that the guy hasn’t advanced his ideas or grown in the last decade. His brain is atrophying by his own choice
He reached his peak and from there had nowhere to go but down
You use it or lose it.
Kudos to Rebecca for smelling the stench earlier than most of us.
All of my skeptics heroes are dead, reducing the odds of them writing something embarrassing.
Peer review may have its problems, but what else is there? I think what Peter Boghossian is doing with the fake articles is dangerous. It seems to me that it will give credence to folks like antivaccers who dispute credible science. If it does strengthen the process that’s fine, but it could add weight to the folks who refuse to believe any science at all.
it's definitely done much more of the latter than the former, and everybody with half a brain warned them it would beforehand.
but, being so sure of yourself you're more than willing to fuck yourself and everyone around over has never stopped an authoritarian mind before.
Eric Beller
So, that's why they chose pay-for-play journals?
@Eric Beller
Absolutely, it proved that if you pay for it, some journals will publish it - even if you just write the same sentence again and again...
I don't know it thats a special "ideology", but the power of money comes to mind...
Maaaaann, I used to be such a fan of his in college 😞
@Richard Head You live up to your namesake.
Well said, as usual.
@Richard Head Yes! I fucking knew I would find you here.
The TH-cam notification said "Richard Dawkins loves Evan..." And I honestly thought you were going to say Evanescence. I believed that could be a thing you would make a video about.
Honestly, I always thought Dawkins was overrated. Outside of the topic of evolution, he never offered anything groundbreaking. All of his ventures into the realm of skeptic philosophy were either wrong or said better by those who came before him. His stuff that was original wasn't good and what was good wasn't original.
Upon reflection, I saw the panel discussion where you politely asked the guys "hands off". I didn't think it was a big deal to call it out. But then it turned into a big curfuffle.
Maybe an obvious thing to say, but I say It's fine for sceptics to have heroes. When a person is consistently bang-on and you see good in them, they can become a hero to you. But Heroes are never perfect and not infallible and whether we define people as such can change, as with other opinions,
I'm glad you do what you do, been listening for years. Guess I should patreon, lol.
I love her also.
I have always said Dawkins is an evangelical, and that evangelical atheism is strange. Like building a life vigorously spreading the word of "Don't touch that, it's hot". Richard Dawkins's only real belief is how amazing great Richard Dawkins is.
Peer review is “borked.” ?? I am not familiar with the term. Is peer review problematic in some ways, sure. But, it is a necessary evil. Also, their fake study was published in a predatory pay-to-publish journal-so it showed nothing.
I think she was just referring to the fact that the peer review process can be exploited. It's a common theme on this channel.
Fun fact, I used to think Dawkins was my hero, until I found out that he was creepy, and that instead of apologizing, he'd start throwing shit at religious minorities.
I doubt I would be a Muslim today if Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris hadn't put bigotry over reason. I've always known my Muslim brethren were my brothers and sisters, despite any disagreements... But these three bastards put in a lot of work to prove that Muslims are good people subjected to terrible treatment, and yet so many persevere in glory, like Ilhan Omar.
I always like your videos - informative, topical, and definitely interesting. Like you, I've been compelled, sometimes reluctantly, to disengage from many prominent figures as I simply couldn't ignore their darker sides. Cosby, Shermer, Spacey...
shockingly enough , 'die already old man' is applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof
Honestly, I don't think he even thought to check out the organizers before he promoted the conference. It's all about the particular speakers, defenders of classic academia from post-modernism. New Atheism is (was?) a distinctly modern movement, rejecting pre-modern religion as well as post-modern social science. I'd recommend checking out "The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement" by Stephen LeDrew.
Watching Dawkins' slow decline has been so horribly disappointing. Back in the days of New Atheism he was something of a hero of mine, as I'm sure is the case for many people, but as it became clear how dried-up his brain has become and how little he sticks to his own principles it's really difficult to not really dislike him these days.
I hadn't heard about them publishing hoax evopsych articles. I honestly haven't laughed that hard in a long long time. Oh man, too delicious.
Nearly every time when people say something along the lines of "In all of US history [thing] has never happened to such a degree as today" or something similar, they really need to brush up on their history. I literally heard someone say that we need to be less divisive, like when Abraham Lincoln was president. Yeah, the Civil War was a time where we rationally debated over issues.
I'm so sad that Stephen Jay Gould died so young, for many reasons, a big one being that he was in direct conflict with Dawkins in the bio sciences. Folks who have seen Dawkins et al. moving along this trajectory for awhile might be interested in revisiting some of that discussion from back then.
Back in the early years of the Internet and TH-cam, back when TH-cam atheism was all about shitting on right-wing evangelicals and other Acceptable Targets for a left-leaning still-edgy-atheist type like me at the time, I occasionally expressed my affinity for SJG's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria" and was howled at for being "soft on religion." So, it's kind of funny that it's come around to this.
I guess I'm lucky to have become an atheist in the age of Asimov, Sagan and Gould instead of Dawkins, Harris and (post-9/11) Hitchens. I got a much more thoughtful and humanistic version.
Well said!
@@christopherhamilton3621 thanks!
For the life of me I can't understand why the big name skeptics (and a lot of the guys on TH-cam, just the guys) seem to go right wing. The right wing claims to be religious yet these guys will ally with them because it's against feminism, equality, diversity, and equal rights. It's like all of their beliefs go out the window because they'd rather stand with the religious right to go against a crowd of people they hate for no reason.
It's pretty gross to support guys that are anti-abortion just because one hates feminists or something. Then again, Dawkins was always pretty gross.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” What a poisonous philosophy.
Thank you for all that you do, Rebecca!
4:35 I got one of your videos in my recommended, about 5 hours of clicking on your videos ago, and I've only just now realized where I recognized you/your voice from... That's a damn blast from the past and I'm glad to see you're still doing shit.
There's a line in Brecht's "Galileo" about the people complaining of having their hero recant .... " Pity the people who need heros."
Great thought but can we consider it, now we know just what Brecht was like?
OK... just learned how to look it up !!..."Unhappy the land that is in need of heroes"....... still pleased with myself. It was close on 35 years ago I saw the play ( this is the only bit that stuck.)
The only people that hide behind religion like this are people that did something very wrong..
This just exposes once again that ultimately a lot of these "evangelical atheist" types are more interested in the aesthetic of rational intellectualism than actual critical thought. Since social justice now occupies a large portion of the public discourse - and is strongly associated with emotion and irrationality, whether that has basis in fact or not - these guys have thrown themselves fully into the opposition to maintain that aesthetic, even if it aligns them with those evangelical Christians they formerly railed against for their emotionally-charged lack of rationality.
In the words of the message we always find better words to express:
"I may have said that, but it certainly doesn't apply to me."
I don't believe Richard Dawkins exists. You can't prove he exists.
I think it´s OK to have heros. And I think it's a good thing for us to try to be each other's heros. But i don't believe in automatic heroes, to assume that a person is good in all important aspects of life just because they are wellspoken and have the same worldview as yourself. I dont have a problem listen to reactionary people when they say interesting things, i'm not sensitive. But they are not my heros.
What is it about social justic that freaks these freaks out?
Ah, another Squawk from the Dawk!
As someone who was once a smarty-pants little asshole atheist who believed guys like Dawkins and Hutchins were heroic truth-tellers, I’m very glad that work like yours exists that helps expose the hypocrisy and bullshit behind the New Atheists and the skeptic community.
Disappointing, I used to like him back in the day, I knew he was gone but I didn't know just how far.
Lol. I love the irony of them getting hoaxed.
Dawkins: Menaced By Nonsense
As Chomsky put it - Their religion is the State Religion. They promote imperialism and will defend the state at any cost.
OMG! Why are you the best skeptic ever!?
Am I in an alternate universe? Did I just jump out of a black hole? Dawkins, Hitch, Harris, put themselves on the line fighting, debating , publishing against fairy tales and bogeymen during the last decade. Now there is some weird alliance going on? And, wait a minute, Dineesh Desouza?? That prick?
This is bizarre... For me as a skeptic, ALL religions should be open to being challenged (and mocked where necessary). I'd never side with the religious to promote something that went against my morals. I don't understand how one can be against social justice or equality? It's not logical.
Honestly I knew about his islamophobia and was like this is bad but he has done a lot of good and isn't racism. But then there was him recommending a book by a white supremacist i think some weeks ago and now I discover this though it's from 2 years ago. Maybe it's because I'm not from a English speaking country and he's not famous here but i had no idea Dawkins was the retrograde, dare i say anti sjw type, until right now. I can't express how disappointed i am.
This is a good take on how to talk about broken clocks the two times a day they're right, and definitely gave me something to consider. And yeah, maybe it is noon, but that's not a good reason to point at the clock flashing "12:00"... it says that anyway.
abraham lincoln who was both attacked insofar as war was waged against the US because of him, and attacked personally cuz he was killed by a confederate sympathizer would also disagree with that, lmao.
Isn’t the most post-modern thing about this being an atheist categorizing himself in the same camp as evangelical Christians against an “enemy” that is basically a hyper-category for them?
>supporting Dominionism to own the libs
Dawkins is truest a big brain boi.
This is why I stay clear of the atheist movement. I don't need people with egos the size of Texas dictating to me what is and isn't acceptable as an atheist.
Dawkins went from biology into theology by accident by taking it on. Theology and politics overlap heavily - you get into desired outcomes and it's very easy to lose track + a stroke : Game over. Sad. Blackmore is a much better proponent of his legacy at this point.
Dawkins was pretty good when he talked about the evolution of seagulls. Beyond that, the crazy was pretty obvious.
I've long thought that there are probably at least two separate worldviews that often include atheism, and they're at least as different as some atheists are from some Christians.
So is Dawkins going to pray for Trump now? Weird.
Rebecca pointed out the Aero & Shermer mags psych charlatan and challenged my favourite heroes, Dick Dawkey et al. I love it because it reminds me that I, too, can fall for the fallacy of authority. I still love my heroes and will be like an x'tian and develop some apologetics for their errors.
Thanks for your contribution.
* shocked pikachu *
Yeah... I kind of found that the sparkle wore off Dawkins when he started suggesting we call ourselves "Brights" 🤢
There’s a quote from Richard Dawkins in the intro to the Nightwish song “Shudder Before The Beautiful” in which he suggests everyone alive be thankful because “the vast majority of people have never been born.” Now, from my perspective, the only people who TRULY don’t matter are people who have never existed.
I love Nightwish and the song, in fact, but I don’t understand the Dawkins stuff at all.
And this is why him and all others that used to be so great have fallen