Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, September 10, 2011
Books When Richard Dawkins Sucks
Posted by Charles Mudede on Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:40 AM
Though I'm an atheist to the max, I find this kind of thing to be very disagreeable...
5
Honestly, I don't understand why religious people (specifically the christians) have such a huge problem with him. He's tame compared to most preachers.
7
What did you find objectionable about it? I mean, I know he can be a jerk -- see "elevatorgate" -- but this was pretty funny.
9
The best hate letter to Dawkins I've read was this:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagle…
Dawkins is a joke.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagle…
Dawkins is a joke.
10
I imagine for what are obvious reasons that Mr. Mudede has developed a sophisticated opinion and a refined taste when it comes to hate mail. Of course, I have to imagine this, because Mr. Mudede also has a taste for not explaining or sometimes even contextualizing his remarks.
I think an interesting point of comparison might be that while both Mr. Mudede and Mr. Dawkins receive a large amount of hate mail, the degree to which it profits each is different.
I think an interesting point of comparison might be that while both Mr. Mudede and Mr. Dawkins receive a large amount of hate mail, the degree to which it profits each is different.
11
@9 The problem with that review is that Terry Eagleton starts out pointing out how one should not speak of what they are unqualified to speak about. He then goes and completely mischaracterizes Dawkins writing.
Immediately he says that Dawkins and other atheists "don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding" about religion. This is flat out not true and any open minded reading of The God Delusion or other books by the new atheists would show that is not true.
He goes on to wonder "Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?"
Well if he was not so quick to criticise Dawkins he would find that Dawkins has written about all three of them and those specific ideas. Fail troll is fail.
Immediately he says that Dawkins and other atheists "don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding" about religion. This is flat out not true and any open minded reading of The God Delusion or other books by the new atheists would show that is not true.
He goes on to wonder "Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?"
Well if he was not so quick to criticise Dawkins he would find that Dawkins has written about all three of them and those specific ideas. Fail troll is fail.
12
One may have reasonable and even laudable reasons for one's religious beliefs, and one's right to one's beliefs is unquestioned. Nevertheless, none of that constitutes a shred of proof of the existence of the supernatural forces to which one has atached one's ego.
I think people too often confuse the former with the latter.
I think people too often confuse the former with the latter.
13
I'm not sure why Mudede finds this disagreeable. I'm an atheist. I feel pretty neutral about it. It's not hilarious but why not share this?
14
He's also quite sexist, for someone who uses that as an argument against religion:
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privile…
He reminds me a bit of Stephen Fry, in that most of his popularity has something to do with him being very British.
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privile…
He reminds me a bit of Stephen Fry, in that most of his popularity has something to do with him being very British.
15
The bible was written for primitive people, by primitive people. Science and law have rewritten our understanding of ourselves and the universe. The bible has lost it's relevance as anything more than myth and superstition. And the people who go on and on about god are the very people who's actions contradict what they claim they believe. Dawkins is anything but a hypocrite. Religion is for hypocrites.
16
What is it you find distasteful Charles - the e-mails sent to Dawkins, or Dawkins reading them aloud fireside?
17
Not what I'd pick for some evening fireside reading, but if he wants to laugh at silly trolls who have nothing better to do than write hate mail, why is it so disagreeable?
20
I think Charles is just jealous because he knows when he says the words "fucking retard" they don't sound nearly as cool as when Dawkins does.
21
What is clear to me is Dawkins is exposing the hypocracy of these "people of faith". These are not the emails of true people of faith; they are emails of true people of hatred. This is victriolic shit they're tossing around. What do you suppose Jesus would do with Dawkin's email adress? I'm betting the words "fuck" and "I hope you burn in hell" would not be in any of the emails.
I suspect the grammar would have been better as well.
I suspect the grammar would have been better as well.
22
@11 Where does he talk about them? Found this on Dawkins site:
"If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-…
"If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-…
24
Dawkins sucks for having a little fun with his hate emails? I thought it was friggen hilarious, especially "I hope you get hit by a church van". He gets inundated with vitriol and threats from believers for not believing in their "loving god". Reading some of it aloud seems like a really mild reaction.
25
@23 Meh, religious leaders tend to be dicks to everyone on the opposite side. Atheism isn't a religion, but people like Dawkins are religious leaders as they are leading based on religious similarities. However from my personal experience, he's very tame compared to religious leaders I have known personally.
26
I dunno know--I might take to making smarmy videos if I received as much hate mail as he does.
Dawkins is a genius, excellent writer and wonderful philosopher. He is also a world-class asshat and ivory tower prick (viz http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/20…) . I love him both in spite of and because of his personality.
Dawkins is a genius, excellent writer and wonderful philosopher. He is also a world-class asshat and ivory tower prick (viz http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/20…) . I love him both in spite of and because of his personality.
27
If he spent most of his time doing this, he'd be a douche. But this is a diversion -- he spends most of his time writing books and researching. I think he's entitled to have a laugh at some of the horrible and ridiculous things people have written to him.
"Your destiny's all fucked up!"
"Your destiny's all fucked up!"
28
The sexism that guy has displayed has ensured that I will never respect him or be interested in anything he has to say!
29
Penn Jillette had an interesting take on this kind of thing and he's a guy who used to trade hate-mail stories with Richard Dawkins. He stopped making fun of the sicko fringe because the main quality in the letters isn't being religious but being deranged. That makes it a whole lot less funny and a whole lot more damaging to the religious who are good and decent people (or, if you prefer, good and decent except for a religious delusion).
That said, it's both hard to ignore people wishing you dead and mockery is a pretty decent mental defense.
That said, it's both hard to ignore people wishing you dead and mockery is a pretty decent mental defense.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS