Announcement about RDF Part 3.

[Skinny Puppy]

My thoughts on the whole fiasco.

You’ve asked us to take time to understand the events, that’s fair enough. You’ve asked us to wait and see what unfolds and nor act like a pack, that too is understandable.

That’s fine and good judgment.

However, Richard hasn’t done that. He accepted his bum-boy’s sequence of events as true and has turned viciously against 85,000 people without substantiating his facts before he opened his big fat mouth.

He preached his dogmatic bullshit against the Christians for doing what he himself is now doing, making statements without full knowledge of the facts.
Yes you ask us to show restraint. Where is Richard’s restraint?

Why didn’t he investigate this matter, reserve his judgment until he knew what had actually transpired?
Why did he think we’d all turned against him without any logical reason?
Why did he viciously lash out at us?
Why, as a rational thinker and leading member of the atheist community, did he automatically side with Josh?
Why did he dismiss his hard working mods with nary a thought that they worked hard for him and had feelings too?
Why did he cherry pick?
Why has he has gone against everything he’d preached for years. He condemns the likes of Ray Comfort for putting out disinformation, yet follows in Ray’s very footsteps?

I could go on…

He has now shown that he is a man of little or no integrity as a human being. He has done a huge disservice to the very community that once was his strongest supportors.

He has written us off as malcontents and his site will be better off without us.

Yet, he gladly encouraged us, accepted our money for his foundation, was pleased when we bought his propaganda bullshit and supported him.

Fuck him! He deserves the same respect that I give to Christian fundamentalists that twist facts to suit their agenda.

He has played into the hands of the religious fanatics better than they could have ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.

When he learns what the word ‘truth’ means, I may respect him again, until then he can go fuck himself and take his foundation right into the camp of the religious fanatics. They’d love to have him.

He’s done severe and serious damage to the atheist community. He’s shown that his agenda is what is best for him, not what’s best for atheism.

The best I can say is the bastard can go to hell.

1 – He’s either too stupid to know what’s going on, if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be a leader in the atheist community.
2 – He’s lying and employing the same tricks that the Christians use to bamboozle their deluded and mindless followers.
3 – On his site he’s posted virile bullshit to make himself look like the injured party. He assumes that everyone is stupid and will believe his dogmatic bullshit without question.
4 –He seriously underestimated his loyal followers. He thinks we’re dispensable, sorry Richard; we don’t need you now or ever. We’ll survive because what we believe to be true doesn’t come from you; it comes from facts and having an open mind.

He and josh can live in their little world of make believe, what I’m waiting for is a video of Richard using a banana as an example of the disproof of god.

[fredbear]

hey styrer! welcome! i saw your firm defence of the forum's positon on the front pages and we owe you mate.
doesn't stop you being an irascible sod though you'll fit in nicely!! quine and a couple of others have also shown their support over at rationalskepticism so maybe the front pagers are being slowly swayed. i rather like the restorative powers of this little net drama.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

My thoughts on the whole fiasco.

You’ve asked us to take time to understand the events, that’s fair enough. You’ve asked us to wait and see what unfolds and nor act like a pack, that too is understandable.

That’s fine and good judgment.

However, Richard hasn’t done that. He accepted his bum-boy’s sequence of events as true and has turned viciously against 85,000 people without substantiating his facts before he opened his big fat mouth.

He preached his dogmatic bullshit against the Christians for doing what he himself is now doing, making statements without full knowledge of the facts.
Yes you ask us to show restraint. Where is Richard’s restraint?

Why didn’t he investigate this matter, reserve his judgment until he knew what had actually transpired?
Why did he think we’d all turned against him without any logical reason?
Why did he viciously lash out at us?
Why, as a rational thinker and leading member of the atheist community, did he automatically side with Josh?
Why did he dismiss his hard working mods with nary a thought that they worked hard for him and had feelings too?
Why did he cherry pick?
Why has he has gone against everything he’d preached for years. He condemns the likes of Ray Comfort for putting out disinformation, yet follows in Ray’s very footsteps?

I could go on…

He has now shown that he is a man of little or no integrity as a human being. He has done a huge disservice to the very community that once was his strongest supportors.

He has written us off as malcontents and his site will be better off without us.

Yet, he gladly encouraged us, accepted our money for his foundation, was pleased when we bought his propaganda bullshit and supported him.

Fuck him! He deserves the same respect that I give to Christian fundamentalists that twist facts to suit their agenda.

He has played into the hands of the religious fanatics better than they could have ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.

When he learns what the word ‘truth’ means, I may respect him again, until then he can go fuck himself and take his foundation right into the camp of the religious fanatics. They’d love to have him.

He’s done severe and serious damage to the atheist community. He’s shown that his agenda is what is best for him, not what’s best for atheism.

The best I can say is the bastard can go to hell.

1 – He’s either too stupid to know what’s going on, if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be a leader in the atheist community.
2 – He’s lying and employing the same tricks that the Christians use to bamboozle their deluded and mindless followers.
3 – On his site he’s posted virile bullshit to make himself look like the injured party. He assumes that everyone is stupid and will believe his dogmatic bullshit without question.
4 –He seriously underestimated his loyal followers. He thinks we’re dispensable, sorry Richard; we don’t need you now or ever. We’ll survive because what we believe to be true doesn’t come from you; it comes from facts and having an open mind.

He and josh can live in their little world of make believe, what I’m waiting for is a video of Richard using a banana as an example of the disproof of god.

You don't know what is. There must be thousands of emails to go through in sorting this out. And isn't Richard still on a book tour? Look, maybe you're 100% right. But for now, give him time. Wait for him to get home. Wait for him to catch his breath. You don't know if he's had a chance to look at the other side yet.

Julie

[Styrer]

At least you're big enough to admit your mistake .

(fool, you'll never live it down now)

Not big, just embarrassed. I'm a pissant with a vocaubalry.

Sean Tyrer

[hackenslash]

Your loyalty does you credit, Julie, but Dawkins has read his messages. That those messages contain testimony concerning what went on, and that the evidence is in the logs, or rather isn't in the logs, is evidence he can see for himself. He has chosen to take one person's word for it and discount all else. Either that, or as I say, there is some censorshihp going on. I am fairly sure, though, that he read them himself. He was certainly logged in when I posted my PM to him, and it was read immediately. I'm also pretty certain that he would not sanction somebody else signing in with his account, which is against the forum rules. Unless, of course, he thinks himself immune from those rules.

The evidence is before us, and the most parsimonious explanation is that he's simply chosen to take Josh's word for what went on with no further investigation which, at best demostrates credulity of the sort that is usually the remit of those he has such disdain for.

[Styrer]

My thoughts on the whole fiasco.

You’ve asked us to take time to understand the events, that’s fair enough. You’ve asked us to wait and see what unfolds and nor act like a pack, that too is understandable.

That’s fine and good judgment.

However, Richard hasn’t done that. He accepted his bum-boy’s sequence of events as true and has turned viciously against 85,000 people without substantiating his facts before he opened his big fat mouth.

He preached his dogmatic bullshit against the Christians for doing what he himself is now doing, making statements without full knowledge of the facts.
Yes you ask us to show restraint. Where is Richard’s restraint?

Why didn’t he investigate this matter, reserve his judgment until he knew what had actually transpired?
Why did he think we’d all turned against him without any logical reason?
Why did he viciously lash out at us?
Why, as a rational thinker and leading member of the atheist community, did he automatically side with Josh?
Why did he dismiss his hard working mods with nary a thought that they worked hard for him and had feelings too?
Why did he cherry pick?
Why has he has gone against everything he’d preached for years. He condemns the likes of Ray Comfort for putting out disinformation, yet follows in Ray’s very footsteps?

I could go on…

He has now shown that he is a man of little or no integrity as a human being. He has done a huge disservice to the very community that once was his strongest supportors.

He has written us off as malcontents and his site will be better off without us.

Yet, he gladly encouraged us, accepted our money for his foundation, was pleased when we bought his propaganda bullshit and supported him.

Fuck him! He deserves the same respect that I give to Christian fundamentalists that twist facts to suit their agenda.

He has played into the hands of the religious fanatics better than they could have ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.

When he learns what the word ‘truth’ means, I may respect him again, until then he can go fuck himself and take his foundation right into the camp of the religious fanatics. They’d love to have him.

He’s done severe and serious damage to the atheist community. He’s shown that his agenda is what is best for him, not what’s best for atheism.

The best I can say is the bastard can go to hell.

1 – He’s either too stupid to know what’s going on, if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be a leader in the atheist community.
2 – He’s lying and employing the same tricks that the Christians use to bamboozle their deluded and mindless followers.
3 – On his site he’s posted virile bullshit to make himself look like the injured party. He assumes that everyone is stupid and will believe his dogmatic bullshit without question.
4 –He seriously underestimated his loyal followers. He thinks we’re dispensable, sorry Richard; we don’t need you now or ever. We’ll survive because what we believe to be true doesn’t come from you; it comes from facts and having an open mind.

He and josh can live in their little world of make believe, what I’m waiting for is a video of Richard using a banana as an example of the disproof of god.

You don't know what is. There must be thousands of emails to go through in sorting this out. And isn't Richard still on a book tour? Look, maybe you're 100% right. But for now, give him time. Wait for him to get home. Wait for him to catch his breath. You don't know if he's had a chance to look at the other side yet.

Julie

Julie (if I may call you this)

Thank you for your wonderful video. It would have been nice to see your face, and I hope you'll give us a glimpse of the head, one day, which contains all your kindness. No joke.

You say that you're not a fan of Richard Dawkins. May I say that I think he is a fan of yours? I noted on the front pages that you two had some kind of connection, and I must say that it made Dawkins seem less of the ivory tower elitist idiot that he now seems intent on being. Thanks for softening the Dawk there.

Nice one, Julie. Kudos.

Sean Tyrer

[Barry Cade]

I felt rather less aggrieved than many other people at the ‘coup’ carried out by professor Dawkins and his cronies and, quite frankly, I can’t get terribly worked-up over the implosion of RD Net. I suspect I feel this way partly because I invested relatively little time and effort in the site (1000 posts in just over 3 years). But, in any case, I already regarded Richard Dawkins as a flawed individual, whose reputation has recently become unjustifiably inflated; his fit of pique is therefore not all that surprising. I have read several of Dawkins’s books, and although I would rate him as a reasonably accomplished populariser of science, he has recently shown none of the élan or clarity of other writers such as Jeff Coyne or Frank Wilczek. Where The Blind Watchmaker succeeds in making complex ideas accessible and interesting, TGSOE is a big disappointment; a lacklustre, occasionally smug and poorly paced trudge through the evidence for natural selection, which is eclipsed by Coyne’s far sparkier (and more succinct) Why Evolution is True, or Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish. I have no idea if Dawkins is an impressive public speaker in the flesh, but when given a platform on TV, he is distinctly unimpressive. When directly confronted by religiously motivated opponents of evolution, he doesn’t seem able to muster much more than spluttering indignation and exhortations to go and look at the fossil evidence.

Dawkins’s recent elevation to the status of international atheism tsar (yes, tsar, not star) has only exposed and magnified his intellectual and personal shortcomings. His patrician contempt for those who don’t buy into his world-view has been displayed again and again, and his limited ability to comprehend the material roots of religious sentiments renders him completely unable to engage effectively with those who, for various reasons, seek comfort in faith. There are many examples of Dawkins’s snobbish demeanour, but one that typifies his attitude is this footnote from TGSOE:

‘Well educated’ reminds me of Peter Medawar’s wickedly astute observation that ‘the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought’. Isn’t that priceless?

Priceless, indeed! And what a self-satisfied declaration of intellectual superiority, from someone who is meant to be dedicated to education and enlightenment.

The very first post I contributed to RD Net was a criticism of Dawkins’s dismal grasp of political realities. He is so blinded by his obsession with religion that he cannot see the deep material causes of social conflicts. His observations in The God Delusion on the Northern Irish conflict, for instance, are laughable and would be laughed out of an A-level politics class, yet he feels secure enough in his ivory tower to hand this drivel down for public consumption.

Richard Dawkins never deserved the ridiculous hero worship he received from his admirers on RD Net, and he has now betrayed their illusions. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but Dawkins wrote the prescription for it years ago. Looking on the bright side, maybe some of those disappointed ex-Dawks will feel more comfortable engaging in debate on a forum that isn’t so intimately connected with an individual and his ‘mission’.

[hackenslash]

I don't think there were as many 'Dawks' as you might think. Sure, many of us gathered on his forum, but a good deal of that was simply that that was where the fundies came. Then making friends, etc. My experience was that very few of the regulars actually vaunted him to that degree.

I agree about NI, by the way. The history of that goes a lot deeper than simple sectarianism, and most of the commentators who think it did ignore many hundreds of years history.

[JimC]

I don't think there were as many 'Dawks' as you might think. Sure, many of us gathered on his forum, but a good deal of that was simply that that was where the fundies came. Then making friends, etc. My experience was that very few of the regulars actually vaunted him to that degree.

I agree about NI, by the way. The history of that goes a lot deeper than simple sectarianism, and most of the commentators who think it did ignore many hundreds of years history.

Actually, as an ancient member, may I correct you on the term "Dawks". It was invented (possibly by MCJ) as a lighthearted term for members who loved the forum atmosphere without being into the sciencey stuff... Nothing to do with an RD fan club, at least in its inception...

[Skylarking]

I don't think there were as many 'Dawks' as you might think. Sure, many of us gathered on his forum, but a good deal of that was simply that that was where the fundies came. Then making friends, etc. My experience was that very few of the regulars actually vaunted him to that degree.

I was a little bit of a blind Dawk when I first joint the Oasis[sic] but was never such like I have noticed, over the years, like many newbies from the USA were.

But near the end of our days there, I found such hero worship revolting, and was vehemently against all forms of irrational idolising. I think that this is one facet that distinguished the regulars from the newbies -if not post count.


Anyway, I'm glad you're here Hack. The place wouldn't be the same without you.


EDIT: in regards to Jim's latest comments, I am not referring to the original usage of the term, but the more current, albeit characterised, morph.

[Ilovelucy]

I have to say that my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual has diminished in the past few years. Don't get me wrong, his scientific advocacy is second to none, but he has not done himself any favours as he has become a critic of religion and a social and cultural commentator. Since then I have engaged with the work of thinkers such as Joseph Campbell, Slavoj Zizek and others, people that have a far better understanding of human culture, atheists and agnostics with far more empathetic and nuanced understandings or religion, mythology and society.

However, I still held quite an affection for his tenacity and pugnaciousness. I sort of found it endearing when he got grumpy about stuff or grasped the wrong end of the stick. In a way, his reaction to this, showing him to have little regard for a hard working team of volunteers, has been helpful. I feel that I have finally left the cult of Dawkinsians by shedding the affectionate attachment I still had for him, despite the slow diminishing of my intellectual awe. As the dust settles I see one silly don who I couldn't give a stuff for and a horde of colleagues and online friends who I still hold in high esteem.

[Styrer]

I felt rather less aggrieved than many other people at the ‘coup’ carried out by professor Dawkins and his cronies and, quite frankly, I can’t get terribly worked-up over the implosion of RD Net. I suspect I feel this way partly because I invested relatively little time and effort in the site (1000 posts in just over 3 years). But, in any case, I already regarded Richard Dawkins as a flawed individual, whose reputation has recently become unjustifiably inflated; his fit of pique is therefore not all that surprising. I have read several of Dawkins’s books, and although I would rate him as a reasonably accomplished populariser of science, he has recently shown none of the élan or clarity of other writers such as Jeff Coyne or Frank Wilczek. Where The Blind Watchmaker succeeds in making complex ideas accessible and interesting, TGSOE is a big disappointment; a lacklustre, occasionally smug and poorly paced trudge through the evidence for natural selection, which is eclipsed by Coyne’s far sparkier (and more succinct) Why Evolution is True, or Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish. I have no idea if Dawkins is an impressive public speaker in the flesh, but when given a platform on TV, he is distinctly unimpressive. When directly confronted by religiously motivated opponents of evolution, he doesn’t seem able to muster much more than spluttering indignation and exhortations to go and look at the fossil evidence.

Dawkins’s recent elevation to the status of international atheism tsar (yes, tsar, not star) has only exposed and magnified his intellectual and personal shortcomings. His patrician contempt for those who don’t buy into his world-view has been displayed again and again, and his limited ability to comprehend the material roots of religious sentiments renders him completely unable to engage effectively with those who, for various reasons, seek comfort in faith. There are many examples of Dawkins’s snobbish demeanour, but one that typifies his attitude is this footnote from TGSOE:

‘Well educated’ reminds me of Peter Medawar’s wickedly astute observation that ‘the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought’. Isn’t that priceless?

Priceless, indeed! And what a self-satisfied declaration of intellectual superiority, from someone who is meant to be dedicated to education and enlightenment.

The very first post I contributed to RD Net was a criticism of Dawkins’s dismal grasp of political realities. He is so blinded by his obsession with religion that he cannot see the deep material causes of social conflicts. His observations in The God Delusion on the Northern Irish conflict, for instance, are laughable and would be laughed out of an A-level politics class, yet he feels secure enough in his ivory tower to hand this drivel down for public consumption.

Richard Dawkins never deserved the ridiculous hero worship he received from his admirers on RD Net, and he has now betrayed their illusions. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but Dawkins wrote the prescription for it years ago. Looking on the bright side, maybe some of those disappointed ex-Dawks will feel more comfortable engaging in debate on a forum that isn’t so intimately connected with an individual and his ‘mission’.

Barry

Your post is interesting. It makes several criticisms of Dawkins and his books, and grants more authority to other texts you cite than any authority you allow Dawkins. Thing is, you don't provide any detail at all. First of all, your providing detail would allow us to determine if you are a serious reviewer, and secondly, if you know your salt. As it stands, your piece illuminates neither the proposed science of Dawkins nor his scientific failings. You come across as a non-scientist who has no scientific credentials whatsover but who simply wants to have a bash at Dawkins. If I'm wrong about this, please do be more generous in granting us your specific scientific objections to Dawkins' scientific stances. Your data will be warmly received here.

Unfortunately, without any of the above information, your post comes across as utterly dismissive of Dawkins, especially when you offer such comments, again without any substantiation, as 'personal shortcomings' to bolster your flailingly empty position.

Please make your next post more precise and detailed, if you can.

Sean Tyrer

[cursuswalker]

One can still change ones avatar and location on the forum.

A last chance to make a statement as to your feelings about all this.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

My thoughts on the whole fiasco.

You’ve asked us to take time to understand the events, that’s fair enough. You’ve asked us to wait and see what unfolds and nor act like a pack, that too is understandable.

That’s fine and good judgment.

However, Richard hasn’t done that. He accepted his bum-boy’s sequence of events as true and has turned viciously against 85,000 people without substantiating his facts before he opened his big fat mouth.

He preached his dogmatic bullshit against the Christians for doing what he himself is now doing, making statements without full knowledge of the facts.
Yes you ask us to show restraint. Where is Richard’s restraint?

Why didn’t he investigate this matter, reserve his judgment until he knew what had actually transpired?
Why did he think we’d all turned against him without any logical reason?
Why did he viciously lash out at us?
Why, as a rational thinker and leading member of the atheist community, did he automatically side with Josh?
Why did he dismiss his hard working mods with nary a thought that they worked hard for him and had feelings too?
Why did he cherry pick?
Why has he has gone against everything he’d preached for years. He condemns the likes of Ray Comfort for putting out disinformation, yet follows in Ray’s very footsteps?

I could go on…

He has now shown that he is a man of little or no integrity as a human being. He has done a huge disservice to the very community that once was his strongest supportors.

He has written us off as malcontents and his site will be better off without us.

Yet, he gladly encouraged us, accepted our money for his foundation, was pleased when we bought his propaganda bullshit and supported him.

Fuck him! He deserves the same respect that I give to Christian fundamentalists that twist facts to suit their agenda.

He has played into the hands of the religious fanatics better than they could have ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.

When he learns what the word ‘truth’ means, I may respect him again, until then he can go fuck himself and take his foundation right into the camp of the religious fanatics. They’d love to have him.

He’s done severe and serious damage to the atheist community. He’s shown that his agenda is what is best for him, not what’s best for atheism.

The best I can say is the bastard can go to hell.

1 – He’s either too stupid to know what’s going on, if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be a leader in the atheist community.
2 – He’s lying and employing the same tricks that the Christians use to bamboozle their deluded and mindless followers.
3 – On his site he’s posted virile bullshit to make himself look like the injured party. He assumes that everyone is stupid and will believe his dogmatic bullshit without question.
4 –He seriously underestimated his loyal followers. He thinks we’re dispensable, sorry Richard; we don’t need you now or ever. We’ll survive because what we believe to be true doesn’t come from you; it comes from facts and having an open mind.

He and josh can live in their little world of make believe, what I’m waiting for is a video of Richard using a banana as an example of the disproof of god.

You don't know what is. There must be thousands of emails to go through in sorting this out. And isn't Richard still on a book tour? Look, maybe you're 100% right. But for now, give him time. Wait for him to get home. Wait for him to catch his breath. You don't know if he's had a chance to look at the other side yet.

Julie

Julie (if I may call you this)

Thank you for your wonderful video. It would have been nice to see your face, and I hope you'll give us a glimpse of the head, one day, which contains all your kindness. No joke.

You say that you're not a fan of Richard Dawkins. May I say that I think he is a fan of yours? I noted on the front pages that you two had some kind of connection, and I must say that it made Dawkins seem less of the ivory tower elitist idiot that he now seems intent on being. Thanks for softening the Dawk there.

Nice one, Julie. Kudos.

Sean Tyrer

Okay 3 things:

1. Just because Richard has been online doesn't mean that he's necessarily read the messages, especially if there are tons of them. Even if he has, it may be that he and the other staff are still trying to sort this out.

2. Yes, I am a fan of Richard Dawkins. I just meant in the video that my fandom is not making me blindly side with him. I even said that you guys could be 100% right. Moreover... and I'll say it for the googolplexth time... I simply DON'T KNOW.

3. Dawkins is a fan of mine? And that we have some kind of connection? I suspect you're confusing me with someone else. I don't know him any better than anybody else who's met him briefly and exchanged a total of 2 PMs with him. I am curious to know where you are getting this interpretation from.

Julie

[Styrer]

I have to say that my respect for Dawkins as an intellectual has diminished in the past few years. Don't get me wrong, his scientific advocacy is second to none, but he has not done himself any favours as he has become a critic of religion and a social and cultural commentator. Since then I have engaged with the work of thinkers such as Joseph Campbell, Slavoj Zizek and others, people that have a far better understanding of human culture, atheists and agnostics with far more empathetic and nuanced understandings or religion, mythology and society.

However, I still held quite an affection for his tenacity and pugnaciousness. I sort of found it endearing when he got grumpy about stuff or grasped the wrong end of the stick. In a way, his reaction to this, showing him to have little regard for a hard working team of volunteers, has been helpful. I feel that I have finally left the cult of Dawkinsians by shedding the affectionate attachment I still had for him, despite the slow diminishing of my intellectual awe. As the dust settles I see one silly don who I couldn't give a stuff for and a horde of colleagues and online friends who I still hold in high esteem.

I'm sorry, mate, but I don't understand your phrase 'cult of Dawkinsians'. What on earth do you think the man is? You cite such others as Campbell and Zizek, and who is to say that, once similarly immersed in their tomes as you were in Dawkins', you won't be talking of the 'cult of Campbell'?

I think you need to see Dawkins in a proper context. As your commentary on him stands now, it is very unfair.

Sean Tyrer