Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Exi5tentialist]

And it's not as if Dawkins holds back in regard to making his outrage of the christian religion known either

Well that's not right either. Dawkins has a hierarchy of religions that he despises. He reserves his most vitriolic and irrational descriptions for Islam. Then comes Catholicism which he also despises but not as much, he says, as Islam. Then he soft-pedals on the Church of England in general and even fawns over the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he describes as a really, really nice man.

In other words, the way he explicitly ranks the world's religions is identical to any old-fashioned, reactionary, english protestant imperialist of the 19th century. I'd have thought a 21st century atheist would be more keen to move us away from all that.

[Hermit]

Dawkins has a hierarchy of religions that he despises. He reserves his most vitriolic and irrational descriptions for Islam. Then comes Catholicism which he also despises but not as much, he says, as Islam. Then he soft-pedals on the Church of England in general and even fawns over the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he describes as a really, really nice man.

Irrational? WTF? Also, if you think Islam is no worse than Catholicism, and neither is worse than Anglicanism, I'll just leave you with your delusion. As for Christianity in general, you can't get much more condemnatory and vitriolic than this snippet of Dawkins' writings: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

[Exi5tentialist]

Dawkins has a hierarchy of religions that he despises. He reserves his most vitriolic and irrational descriptions for Islam. Then comes Catholicism which he also despises but not as much, he says, as Islam. Then he soft-pedals on the Church of England in general and even fawns over the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he describes as a really, really nice man.

Irrational? WTF? Also, if you think Islam is no worse than Catholicism, and neither is worse than Anglicanism, I'll just leave you with your delusion. As for Christianity in general, you can't get much more condemnatory and vitriolic than this snippet of Dawkins' writings: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Yeah what about the hierarchy I described though? Dawkins sees gradations of niceness in Christianity that he can't or won't see in islam.

And calm down, I'm just stating an opinion - that's not threatening to you is it?

[Exi5tentialist]

Ta.

Richard Dawkins claims Muslim schools are having a "pernicious" influence on children who are having their minds "stuffed with alien rubbish" such as claims the world is only 6,000 years old

Well, the paper seems to know what he meant by that term.

That's irrelevant, the fun is attacking RD on specious grounds. Don't you know nuffin?

It's the British way. We attack our successful relentosuly. Hoping to bring them back down to earth. We willingly hand out two red hot bricks to any who think they can outpace all but the slowest. The exact opposite of you Americans...we really do have it in for the successful here.

What tripe.

Besides which Dawkins isn't successful. He's a dismal failure, as an atheist.

[HomerJay]

It is better to say 'creationism is wrong' than to call it 'alien rubbish' and with regards calling burkas 'bin-liners' isn't it better to confront the honour culture that makes burkas necessary in the first place?

There actually is a place for both: expressions denoting outrage and techniques of ridicule in addition to saying 'x is wrong' and confronting y. The combination of all those approaches - and I challenge you to argue that Dawkins ignores your preferred method - is more effective than any one in isolation.

.

Thanks, Seraph!

In the UK you are dealing with vulnerable communities...and a hostile larger population. Hope you and Richard Dawkins know what you're up to?

This is so-called soft racism, that there are certain views we treat differently because they are perceived as not being as robust or established as others.

Politically of course, muslim intellectuals are in fact at the forefront of the fight against secularism and they are keen to take the credit for it (cf Modood and others).

If they are attacking secularism aggressively then the gloves are off and they take what is due to them.

Don't win, don't cry.

[Bella Fortuna]

How can one be a failure as an atheist? Is he not non-believing enough? Has he been caught secretly praying?

[Jason]

'Atheist' has come to take on many different connotations - due largely to militant and gnu atheists.

These connotations are something I don't care to have attached to me - they speak of an infantile, simple and bigoted mind. This is why I don't call myself an atheist even though I meet the single criteria of the denotation of the word.

I suspect one could be a 'failure' as an atheist by serving to entrench or further these connotations.

[Bella Fortuna]

Not sure I understand about connotations - an atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." There are many different people with varying personalities and degrees of fervency about their lack of belief, just as there are in any religion you might name. That's the person rather than the subject of disbelief itself, isn't it?

[Jason]

Well that's the denotation of word.

If I used an example, say 'drug dealer', then the denotation would be a person who sells drugs.

The connotations could be many and varied however. It could be your friendly neighbourhood pharmacist, or it could be some seedy looking fellow selling little glass vials and ziplock bags of illegal substances who'd crack your knuckles with a ballpeen hammer if you couldn't pay for the stuff you 'needed' last time. That's just two. I could cite endless examples.

Linguistics are closely tied to politics and propaganda. :S

[Exi5tentialist]

Not sure I understand about connotations - an atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." There are many different people with varying personalities and degrees of fervency about their lack of belief, just as there are in any religion you might name. That's the person rather than the subject of disbelief itself, isn't it?

Dictionary definitions are a bad place to support an argument. To answer your confusion your now need to look up the definition of denies, disbelieves and existence. 'Disbelieves' will probably be the tricky one. How do you prove that someone who says they disbelieve really disbelieves? And who decides - is it enough just to say the person stating their disbelief is the one we should ...er... believe? If so, where does the dictionary say that?

[DaveDodo007]

Knowing the ambiguity, Dawkins could just have said "alien to science".

Let's face it, Dawkins isn't stupid. Islamophobia has become a substitute for racism in our politically correct times, and Dawkins will squeeze every gram of advantage out of such an ambiguity in order to raise his profile.

So, you don't think he has a point?

There is, of course, a meaning of the word 'alien' other than just 'foreign'. That is 'not of the planet' - i.e. non-human. Given the way that he likes to describe women wearing a niqab as 'bin liners', again dehumanising them to the status of rubbish, I think his latest outburst is entirely consistent with his broadly western-supremacist politics. I'm not surprised you think he has a point.

Ho for fuck sake, are you serious? Women stoned to death for being raped, force to be prisoners in their own homes, can't drive, can't vote, force to wear a tent with a pillar box hole to see but Dawkins is dehumanising them for making a joke. You really are a fucking nutjob Exi5tentialist. The oppression of an entire gender base on a fucking dusty old book full of bullshit, talking rocks and flying horses my arse.

[Bella Fortuna]

Not sure I understand about connotations - an atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." There are many different people with varying personalities and degrees of fervency about their lack of belief, just as there are in any religion you might name. That's the person rather than the subject of disbelief itself, isn't it?

Dictionary definitions are a bad place to support an argument. To answer your confusion your now need to look up the definition of denies, disbelieves and existence. 'Disbelieves' will probably be the tricky one. How do you prove that someone who says they disbelieve really disbelieves? And who decides - is it enough just to say the person stating their disbelief is the one we should ...er... believe? If so, where does the dictionary say that?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

[Exi5tentialist]

Not sure I understand about connotations - an atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." There are many different people with varying personalities and degrees of fervency about their lack of belief, just as there are in any religion you might name. That's the person rather than the subject of disbelief itself, isn't it?

Dictionary definitions are a bad place to support an argument. To answer your confusion your now need to look up the definition of denies, disbelieves and existence. 'Disbelieves' will probably be the tricky one. How do you prove that someone who says they disbelieve really disbelieves? And who decides - is it enough just to say the person stating their disbelief is the one we should ...er... believe? If so, where does the dictionary say that?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? I mean every word, and it is true.

[Atheist-Lite]

The koran doesn't ask for women to wear the bin liner. The honour culture, which is the true forcing dynamic for womens limited rights in much of the second world, exists beyond Islam...and it is this which should be addressed. Otherwise you are attacking a symptom not the disease.

[JimC]

Being right isn't enough - the truth must be expressed wisely, intelligently and with foresight. There is a larger picture here. Population dynamics, ghettoisation and social attitudes. Without tact there is a real risk of inflaming a situation, unleashing forces that can not be readily or easily put back in their boxes. Any damn fool can start a war(of words and worse).

Dawkins was clearly and unambiguously talking about religious fundamentalism when referring to creationist teachings in muslim faith schools as "alien rubbish". He was also clearly and unambiguously referring to the oppression of women in islamic societies when he described to the burka as 'the full bin-liner thing'. If you require more "tact" than that, it becomes indistinguishable from accomodationism. That did not work under Neville Chamberlain, and it is just as likely to fail in this instance. Dawkins is focused full-time on fighting institutionalised, organised, primitive, superstitious forces that try to overturn secularism, humanism and a scientific approach to knowledge in favour of theocracy. I think it's a bit much to expect him to focus directly on racism, poverty, capitalism and crime as well.

I agree 100% with Dawkin's attack on fundamentalist crap being spouted at Islamic (and other) faith schools, and I agree that such criticism must be expressed robustly. I just think his choice of the word "alien" was unwise, and played into the hands of the Imams, who can claim that Dawkins is aiding and abetting racist attitudes.