Thread: Purgatory: Death of Dawkins forum? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000756
Posted by Simon (# 1) on
:
Peter Harrison, an ex-moderator of the forum at www.richarddawkins.net, has posted an account on his blog of how the online community has apparently been destroyed by insensitive and heavy-handed management. Peter describes the forum as "arguably the best atheist forum on the internet", so the loss of the community is significant, and of course it has generated a huge amount of angst in members of the community. Read Peter's detailed account here...
http://tr.im/PJ6x
The account is followed by a large number of comments from members of the community.
Meanwhile, Richard Dawkins has responded to the crisis (which apparently happened while he was away on tour in Australia and New Zealand) with a remarkable post on the forum, headed "Outrage", in which he reacts to the strongly worded protests he has received from forum members, and puts all the blame on them.
He says, "What this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode."
Read his post (which has been locked) here...
http://tr.im/PJ8x
Experience suggests that Richard Dawkins will have received rational and respectful communication from forum members as well as vitriol, so it's interesting (and maybe characteristic) that he has chosen to respond only to the most colourful protests.
I'm interested to know what the thoughts are of us here, as arguably one of the best Christian forums on the internet. While I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins himself, I do hope the forum there can survive, for the sake of rational debate and the enjoyment of community. I'm sure there are things we can learn too about how we run this community and nurture its life.
[ 21. June 2010, 17:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
I'm shocked!
I didn't think that those rational, clear minded, right thinking atheists could sink to such levels. I thought that it was just us religious people who were bigoted, abusive and hate filled.
Oh well, it just goes to show, it must be human nature that causes such behaivour.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
It's obvious what their problem was. If I want to call Simon a "suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s ...." I can go to Hell and do so.
RD doesn't believe in Hell.
Posted by Petros (# 2820) on
:
The problem, as I see it, is that every Atheist believes they follow the One True Atheism. Anyone who disagrees must therefore be anathema. If only they could reconcile their differences and come together as one ... ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
I've only been on the forum a few times, but I hardly found it to be a 'clear thinking oasis'. It did however make me very grateful for the atheists who post on here. Adds to the much needed variety.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
We could invite them all over here. As I doubt they would return the gesture if SoF went belly up for whatever reason, this would fulfil the guidelines of Romans 12.20 exactly and give us all a warm rosy glow.
But, I do feel for those who apparently found RDworld a sanctuary from religious oppression and I do hope they find a new home. For anyone who has grown up in an oppressive religious atmosphere, discovering that you don't have to be religious must be like being Born Again. Hopefully they will now take the next step on the journey, which is to learn that you can be a rational atheist away from the influence of Dawkinistas.
There's sermon material a-plenty here...
Posted by Simon (# 1) on
:
There's an update on Peter Harrison's blog here...
http://tr.im/PJRv
The theory is that Richard Dawkins was duped by the forum management and that his bad-tempered post was written by them for him.
Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on
:
I'm definitely feeling some schadenfreude right now. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
the plot thickens ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Petros (# 2820) on
:
If Peter Harrison's views represent the true picture, it does seem that there was a failure of their management to acknowledge that the forum was a community, not just a soap-box or talking shop. The Ship has a strong sense of community too, as can be seen from the protests that happen every time a shipmate is planked. However the Captain & his team do seem well aware of the existence and importance of the community to this forum.
Of course, like us, RD's posters are guests on his web space. If the Captain scuppers us tomorrow, we have no real grounds for complaint and the same is true for RD and his site. It doesn't mean that we would be happy though especially if he locked Hell so we couldn't call him (in Christian love) a "suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s ...."
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Lawks! These atheists have quite a spicy line in vitriol, don't they? It's the rhino I feel sorry for ....
Seriously, I think it's a shame when any forum like this stops working. There are few enough places on the web where you can go and get some reasonable, well-mannered debate. (Dawkins's forum has obviously stopped being one of those, if it ever was.)
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Petros:
If the Captain scuppers us tomorrow, we have no real grounds for complaint and the same is true for RD and his site. It doesn't mean that we would be happy though especially if he locked Hell so we couldn't call him (in Christian love) a "suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s ...."
Sadly, our own 'suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s...' has NEVER been called to Hell. A true dishonour about which he feels some angst.
[ 25. February 2010, 12:04: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Simon:
quote:
The theory is that Richard Dawkins was duped by the forum management and that his bad-tempered post was written by them for him.
The Cossacks work for the Czar. The Cossacks always work for the Czar.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
This only confirms my high regard for Richard Dawkins and I sympathise with the position he finds now himself in. When I joined the richarddawkins.net forums and looked around a bit, I couldn't square the tone and much of the content with either the impression I got of him personally from interviews and articles or the "oasis of reason" tag on the site.
Peter Harrison's blogs seem to accurately reflect a certain dismissive pseudo-rational arrogance that typified far too much of the forum content for my taste. I'm very pleased to see Richard Dawkins taking the steps he is, and look forward to exploring the new discussion facilities on his site when they're introduced.
[ 25. February 2010, 11:43: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I'm shocked!
I didn't think that those rational, clear minded, right thinking atheists could sink to such levels. I thought that it was just us religious people who were bigoted, abusive and hate filled.
Oh well, it just goes to show, it must be human nature that causes such behaivour.
You might even say that "sin" has hand in it.
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
What exactly are you softening us up for Simon?
Just kidding. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Anyway, it's all about how you communicate non-negotiable decisions isn't it? RD and his paid website staff have every right to make whatever changes to the site they wish (something Harrison acknowledges in the follow-up blog post) - but I think the way it was handled leaves a little to be desired.
In particular I think it was a mistake to try to stop them swapping contact info and contacting Dawkins. In fact they should have facilitated it. I would have:
- started a swap-your-website/email-address here thread, or possibly allow it in sigs but not both and certainly make sure there's not a proliferation of threads
- started a discuss-this-change thread (making it clear that offensive language was off limits)
- made it clear that the second of these threads would be forwarded to Dawkins and asked people not to contact him directly.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
I don't know Dawkins' forum at all but I can make a comment about why I think SOF works: the separate boards. I think that the existence of "Hell" is particularly helpful and is a stroke of genius.
In my previous experience on discussion boards what tends to happen is that 90% of the posters want conversation, friendship, fellowship, or a forum in which to think. Then you get a small minority (which really might even be less than 10%) who either want to a) attract attention to themselves by being obnoxious or b) who are inflexible in their thinking and on a mission to convert everyone else to their Correct Mindset.
Why I think that "Hell" is genius is that the 10% can go there and rant and rave with absolutely no holds barred like a two-year old throwing a temper tantrum until s/he gets tired. What tends to happen on other boards is that members of 90% start saying "stop behaving that way", then people start arguing over who is saying what to whom and the whole community disintegrates.
I also think that places like Heaven and All Saints are helpful too. The attention-seekers on other boards often like to inflict pain on the "All Saints" seeking solace because it gets the former attention. And there is usually very little room for play at all in most other forums (not something I'm personally looking for online but I think that many people appreciate and enjoy it).
My thoughts.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It seems quite clear that the owners of richarddawkins.net had a very clear vision of what they wanted the site to be - namely a promotional tool for Dawkins himself - and felt that the forum was not (or no longer) promoting that. The comment about the new setup being about "quality not quantity" shows that quite clearly.
It's not about atheists being unable to exist in community, it's about small-minded site owners wanting the whole damn thing to be about them and their pre-approved subjects. It could happen in any walk of life - even my cricket club's first forum disintegrated because the admin decided he didn't like what was being posted and shut it down.
The local equivalent would be if Simon and AM decided that the SoF boards weren't really helping the cause of Christian Unrest (hey, remember that stuff!) and therefore decided to start again without pointless (to them) threads about movies, hobbies, get-togethers and games.
That said, it was a total communications fuckup. Which just shows how small-minded and arrogant Dawkins and his fellow site owners really are. For someone who claims to be all about "free thinking", he's remarkably quick to stifle any thinking that he doesn't approve of...
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Simon:
quote:
The theory is that Richard Dawkins was duped by the forum management and that his bad-tempered post was written by them for him.
The Cossacks work for the Czar. The Cossacks always work for the Czar.
Indeed. It’s Dawkins' site so he can do what he likes. It’s Dawkins' site so he’s ultimately responsible for what happens on it.
As for the post, I’d be amazed if someone dared post anything under Dawkins name without his prior knowledge and approval. Even if he didn’t write it himself. His reaction kind of reminds me of Stephen Fry’s after a few fellow Twitters described his twits as “dull” and “boring” – Is Outrage. None of the insults that Dawkins seems so shocked about would cause an eyebrow twitch in Hell. He’s probably more shocked about being spoken to just like anyone else would be on the Internet. Poor love. Don’t they know who he is? He’s probably booked counselling and everything. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Marvin’s theory seems spot on – that the site was always intended as a promotional tool for Dawkins and His Big Ideas that are Both Right and Clever. And that the changes are designed to bring it back into line with that original vision. It could have been done better as Wilson shows. It’s a shame it wasn’t. But these things happen. Sadly. Been there. Done that. Have several t-shirts.
Tubbs
[ 25. February 2010, 14:22: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
quote:
Originally posted by Petros:
If the Captain scuppers us tomorrow, we have no real grounds for complaint and the same is true for RD and his site. It doesn't mean that we would be happy though especially if he locked Hell so we couldn't call him (in Christian love) a "suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s ...."
Sadly, our own 'suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s...' has NEVER been called to Hell. A true dishonour about which he feels some angst.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I think we all believed he'd delegated that function to Erin.
(Being called to Hell, I mean. Not taking the role of "supperating rat's rectum inside a dead skunk that's been shoved up a week-old dead rhino's..." For one thing, it would never fit under her avatar as a title. )
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on
:
Being creative, what message would now be apposite on the side of those red buses?
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Being creative, what message would now be apposite on the side of those red buses?
Given that the forum moderators were given the boot:
quote:
There are probably no mods - so relax and enjoy this site
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't know Dawkins' forum at all but I can make a comment about why I think SOF works: the separate boards. I think that the existence of "Hell" is particularly helpful and is a stroke of genius.
We could have fun devising suggested names for separate boards on Dawkinsnet. For community discussion: Non-Existence, Non-Existence and Non-Existence ... Hmm, more thought may be needed.
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on
:
What is their equivalent of 'ITTWACW'?
ITTWARARW?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Being creative, what message would now be apposite on the side of those red buses?
"There's probably no God - but we'll do our damndest to act like one whenever we have enough power"
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
See, thats the problem when you topple something big, it always leaves a huge gap in the market for folk to come along and fill with something worse
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Being creative, what message would now be apposite on the side of those red buses?
There's probably no RDnet. Now go and enjoy real life.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
It seems quite clear that the owners of richarddawkins.net had a very clear vision of what they wanted the site to be - namely a promotional tool for Dawkins himself - and felt that the forum was not (or no longer) promoting that. The comment about the new setup being about "quality not quantity" shows that quite clearly.
Indeed. The name 'richarddawkins.net' was a bit of a clue. As was the bit about it being part of the Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science (Prop. Richard Dawkins) as, indeed, is the fact that it is cited in The God Delusion (written by Richard Dawkins) as being an extension of said book by said author. [schadenfreude] You would think that keen sighted exponents of evidence and rationality might spot a trend at that point [/schadenfreude].
There's not actually anything wrong with that. Dawkins is hardly the only author with his own online sandpit. And, FWIW, as an Anglican I'm not entirely minded to throw stones at a community in the throes of a messy and protracted bust up. I guess the moral is twofold. If you mess volunteers about they tend to cut up rough - a point familiar to any clergyperson who has had a run in with the flower ladies - and if someone else is picking up the tab for something don't expect them to put changes to a free and fair popular vote. There's probably something to be said as well (among my many weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to the Pope) about how people invest a great deal emotionally in membership of online communities whilst being strangely incurious about who pulls the strings (the local, if inexact analogue, being the fall-out from Cosmogate).
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
And there was me thinking this was a thread about a forum discussing Dawkins' death.
Which would be a real shame, as he still needs someone to get alongside him and lovingly lead him to Christ.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Oh, and that bus message.
We stand by the God bit. Unfortunately there's still human nature so we're probably all fucked.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
OTOH, the website managers are perfectly entitled to do what they like and refocus the debate, but, the treatment of the forum community* particularly the moderators is unpleasant. Especially: Please do not attempt to ... “relocate” groups of users to a separate forum. They managers of RichardDawkins.net have decided that they want editorially managed discussion (at least as regards topics), fine. But, as a community exists, it would seem fair to say to them, 'if you want to continue with the community fora, do it yourselves' and allowing the old mods to note that they have created such a board would be nice.
Carys
*which apparently isn't acknowledged -- maybe community isn't a rational thing!
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Petros:
The Ship has a strong sense of community too, as can be seen from the protests that happen every time a shipmate is planked.
I've never come across this Dawkins site before but reading Peter Harrison's post, it does sound as if they developed a community very much like this one (posters becoming RL friends, even marrying etc.) so, if there is any value in such things*, it's a shame that it has been devastated and demolished by the actions of Their PTB. If his account is accurate, it sounds like the [paid] top Admin person was more driven by the need to make a profit than consider the needs/wishes of the community - and maybe in doing so he HAS been fulfilling his job-description albeit in the process, killing the golden-egg laying goose, the lifeblood of BB debate that was driving traffic to the site.
I do not believe that SoF is built around the same sort of Personality Cult as the Dawkins site - Simon, although he would stand as a mirror-image of RD as ultimate owner of the site, is conspicuous by his absence most of the time; we do not start any discussions with the words *Simon says .... what do the rest of you think?*.
*Personally, I believe there IS value in online communities and even our dear (or not so dear) departees are still part of the collective memory and contribute to the sense of identity.
Simon comments: *I'm sure there are things we can learn too about how we run this community and nurture its life.*
IF we are some sort of *family* (and, who, on a CWS would deny that, for all our differences, pace certain Ecclesaborinigals, we are/should be, notwithstanding that some of us fit into the Mad Auntie/Uncle in the Attic category), I would like to see some sort of *Forgiveness/Absolution* corner - maybe an AS thread - for those of us who have fucked up royally to the extend of expulsion etc. - could not some way back be provided - it's only the extremely fundie churches of my aquaintance that Shun/Ban someone Forever Amen.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
I would like to see some sort of *Forgiveness/Absolution* corner
Is that a proposal you would make in the Styx?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
I spent a day or two poking around the Dawkins forum once years back and Oh Sweet Lord was it depressing. 90% of the posters seemed to be angst-ridden American teens from fundy backgrounds who had (bless their hearts) just discovered atheism and were smug, naive and annoying in just the same way as every teenager who has just found The Truth is smug, naive and annoying (originality is not militant neo-atheism's strong point). Fun though it was to reconnect with my 15 year old only-atheist-in-a-convent-school self, I can't say it was a deeply stimulating experience. OK, maybe I got it on a bad day, but maaaaan was it a bad day. The forum's no loss to anyone, least of all smarter atheists, who probably have better things to do with lives anyway. *shrug*
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
PS quote:
And there was me thinking this was a thread about a forum discussing Dawkins' death.
The best argument for universalism is how much NOT being damned will piss off Richard Dawkins.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
There's a bit of me that thinks there but for the grace of god goes us...
Having said that you/we have some advantages, not least that you asked what we can learn [yuck that reads as very patronising, still].
[ 25. February 2010, 19:25: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Maybe it just shows the difficulty of building community around being against something rather than for something?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
There's a bit of me that thinks there but for the grace of god goes us...
Having said that you/we have some advantages, not least that you asked what we can learn [yuck that reads as very patronising, still].
I was intrigued by the Forum Users Agreement, particularly by the paras on moderation and right to access. Personally, I'd hate to moderate on that basis.
I think the site might have benefited from a Hell-type safety valve. Clearly it did have some kind of Styx equivalent but, reading Peter Harrison, there has been a fair amount of censoring by the paid admin staff of critical comments re the change decisions. I wasn't impressed by Richard Dawkins' post.
I'm not sure if I'm reading between the lines too much, but it rather looks as though the forum had become too big to handle technically - which was compounding the challenges the moderators were experiencing. I'm not very impressed with the way those volunteers were treated. Maybe we should offer them chocolate for their pains? I feel some sympathy for them.
[ 25. February 2010, 19:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems quite clear that the owners of richarddawkins.net had a very clear vision of what they wanted the site to be - namely a promotional tool for Dawkins himself - and felt that the forum was not (or no longer) promoting that. The comment about the new setup being about "quality not quantity" shows that quite clearly.
But how did they let it get away from them? Insufficient or ineffective hosting/moderating. They have only themselves to blame.
Which is the other thing that makes SOF great, Seeker963. Hell is awesome but it wouldn't do any good without the hosts reading every post and reminding people when they get hellish on other boards, and if necessary sending threads there when they get irretrievably hellish.
The other board I spend as much time on as I do here, suffers badly from lack of both. Many threads become a slanging match between two obnoxious posters, even though other people would gladly go back to talking about the OP. It really shows the genius of the SOF system.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
I would like to see some sort of *Forgiveness/Absolution* corner
Is that a proposal you would make in the Styx?
I would start such a thread, yes,
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
How about this? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
And there was me thinking this was a thread about a forum discussing Dawkins' death.
I had the same thought, and was prepared to wade in and do battle with the Schenk decision firmly in hand.
Having read everything, and having been a member of various bulletin boards across the breadth and depth of this World Wide Web since 1993, this kind of bulletin board implosion is something I've seen before. And my previous observations of such implosions have been in fandoms, that is, groups of people attracted to a book or television show/movie. The board admin, whether an employee of some outside group or a volunteer, is by default a BNF and that kind of thing can sometimes go to one's head.
Only one other board I frequent has a Hell-type spleen vent. A couple others could probably use it.
Posted by Mr Tambourine Man (# 15361) on
:
On the third day the Richard Dawkins Forum rose again...
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
...my previous observations of such implosions have been in fandoms, ...
You've put your finger on it there. Dawkins.net is a fan site.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That's intriguing, Spiffy. Hadn't thought of that, but I think you have a point.
From Dawkins' locked post.
quote:
Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.
A bit preachy really. Plus a certain aroma of moral superiority, fastidiousness and anal-retentive control. I think he may live to regret that bit of retaliatory intemperance. Odd that some of the ex-moderators seek to defend him on the grounds that he has been misled by the "bad guys". What he has written, he has written.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What he has written, he has written.
Assuming, as I suppose one must, that he wrote it...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Basic life rule. If it goes out under your name, you are responsible for it - whether you had help with the drafting or not. And if you're daft enough to give anyone the freedom (implied or otherwise) to write whatever they like in your name, more fool you.
You can take it that I don't think much of modern deniability stratagems.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
Having read through as much of the background material as I could manage last night, I'm not sure there is anything to learn from this other than save your stuff on your machine if you don't want it to disappear when the site you've posted it on implodes.
Some features that might be relevant seem to be
1) The complete lack of communication between those with admin powers and the mod team
2) An assumption by the mods and site users that Dawkin and his paid staff were essentially benevolent towards them, which has been shown to be wrong
3) A disjunct between the aims of the site from the POV of those paying for it and the aims of the site as assumed by the community
I don't think any Christian site can sit back on its laurels and think this is something that would only happen to an atheist site.
The whole thing seems to have been exacerbated by a series of software/bandwidth problems which has prompted an assessment by those paid to run it about the technological way ahead, in the course of which is has been decided that providing bigger and better forum software and bandwidth is not part of the way ahead.
Dawkin's reaction seems to show that he has no understanding of how the Interwebs work at all. I don't think the same could be said of Simon somehow.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62, commenting on Dawkins' locked post:
A bit preachy really.
Dawkins "a bit preachy"? Surely not.
Let's give all those disgruntled atheists a board here. We could call it "Pie-in-the-sky" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
...
Let's give all those disgruntled atheists a board here. We could call it "Pie-in-the-sky"
Very catholic of you there, QLib.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was intrigued by the Forum Users Agreement, particularly by the paras on moderation and right to access. Personally, I'd hate to moderate on that basis.
The forum users' agreement is fascinating, for one thing it states clearly that
quote:
RD.net provides a large, close-knit community where people can share their joys and their troubles.
- which kind of knocks on the head any idea that the community grew up without any encouragement on the part of the management.
It also states
quote:
Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender, as this creates an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views.
- but clearly (from what I saw whenever I dipped into it) disparaging people's religious views and identity was fine and even encouraged.
Whatever could be improved in SoF, I haven't picked up the kind of inherent bias against a certain class of people which was demonstrated on the Dawkins forums - and apparently enshrined in the forum rules.
[ 26. February 2010, 07:36: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Being creative, what message would now be apposite on the side of those red buses?
There's probably no God - and now there's one fewer idols.
[ 26. February 2010, 08:10: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
I think they need God as moderator. He's a dab hand.
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on
:
My (brief) experience on the Dawkins forum was of being attacked for being a Christian, being told I was irrational, and being laughed at pretty much every time I tried to engage in debate. I spent a few months trying, because I have a background in science and find the discussions interesting, but in the end the community seemed mainly to be small-minded and obsessive, so I got bored and stopped posting.
What I found particularly difficult was the assumption among many members that 'religious people are stupid', which went pretty much unchallenged, even when believers were making valid points. Admittedly, that was in the early days, and it may have improved with time, but it was frustrating to be in a 'Clear-thinking Oasis' and find so much clear thinking stifled and rejected out of hand for not being the right kind of clear thinking.
In terms of debate, I don't think the Dawkins forum is a huge loss, but I do feel for the people who felt part of the community there and who may have felt it was the only place they could be themselves without being judged. I hope they find a new place.
I think one of the lessons for the Ship is that every member is part of the community and must be valued; communication is a very important part of that. People don't tend to mind change so much if they are kept informed.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
It does strike me as quite funny that Dawkins has chosen to defend his employee by reproducing all the comments that have been suppressed by the admins:
quote:
Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”
With friends like that ....
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 26. February 2010, 09:56: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
It does strike me as quite funny that Dawkins has chosen to defend his employee by reproducing all the comments that have been suppressed by the admins:
quote:
Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”
With friends like that ....
Dawkins seems to start a lot of his statements and articles in this way... in an 'Imagine you've been walking inncently through life and then someone comes and punches you in the face' kind of style. I find it very negative.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
He might as well start the sentence, "Imagine that you're Jesus..." and finish it by saying, "...that's what it's like to be me or one of my disciples."
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
quote:
WhyNotSmile Posted 26 February, 2010 10:37
My (brief) experience on the Dawkins forum was of being attacked for being a Christian, being told I was irrational, and being laughed at pretty much every time I tried to engage in debate. I spent a few months trying, because I have a background in science and find the discussions interesting, but in the end the community seemed mainly to be small-minded and obsessive, so I got bored and stopped posting.
I cannot comment on Dawkins' Forum, but my experience on other similar forums has been exactly the same. I've been forced to conclude that these militant 'new atheists' are a re-skinning of the Pharisees for our day. They seem to hate the messiah and his followers with an absolute venom, accompanying mockery and vitriolic words. I find a good proportion of atheist contributions to be full of self-righteousness and pride. The forums tend to attract a lot of flame-baiters and people with a bit too much time on their hands. A lot of the debates follow really poor logic and arguments tend to be dogma-proving based.
I doubt the internet is a place where rational discussion can actually take place. Too much anonymity means people just go stupid, on both sides.
Much better to make the effort to go and meet people face to face and discuss over a pint. Far 'scarier', but much more productive.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender, as this creates an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views.
- but clearly (from what I saw whenever I dipped into it) disparaging people's religious views and identity was fine and even encouraged.
I'm surprised that they could be so naive as to think that ethnicity and religious identity were clearly distinct and separable.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
When Steve Baldwin was on Celebrity Big Brother and ramming the Bible down people's throats on a regular basis, there was a spate of very dismissive posts about not just him but religious faith generally by self identified 'Dawkins Believing Atheists' (well that's not quite the phrase they used, but RDs name was cited as a great and enlightened champion of rational thought) on the Digital Spy forums.
Over several days these posters - the ones who identified as Dawkins followers - showed themselves to have absolutely no ability to engage in dialogue or rational argument. Some other self identified atheist posters disassociated themselves from the Dawkins approach and a lot of posters identified themselves as Christians and took issue with them as well.
Maybe something similar was happening on RD.net - since the last thing he seems to be keen to promote is mutual understanding and tolerance that could have been a trigger for deciding to refocus the forums on the sort of threads that supporthis world view.
[X-posted with Erroneous Monk]
[ 26. February 2010, 10:48: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
I think dawkins should take a loooooong sabbatical and go and enjoy what he's REALLY good at, Biology. Perhaps, with hind-sight, he shouldn't have ventured out of the lab in the first place.
Hat-off to the guy. He must've had put up with a hellish amount of putrid stick from all angles that would have driven most over the edge.
If I were him I'd be wanting to walk off into the sunset and let the rabid, foul-mouthed geeks fight it out amongst themselves (life's too short).
I hope he finds some peace.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway John:
I doubt the internet is a place where rational discussion can actually take place. Too much anonymity means people just go stupid, on both sides.
I see where you're coming from, but I find that a too negative view. It depends on luck, I believe. A Liverpool forum I go on tends to have real critical and open debate, unlike others which are full of all manner of slaggings off. That arguments sometimes happen on this Liverpool forum mirrors what real discussions are about sometimes.
Here I find the discussion to be good too. There's the occasional person who are stuck in talking and not listening, but I daresay that's also a mirror of what discussion in real life is like.
In any case, forums are a relatively new method of communication and it'll take time for people to adjust. There's the danger that younger people will be stuck in ghettos of mutual agreement and fuck the rest (or even older people too), but places like here and the Liverpool fans' forum I go on show the way.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Over several days these posters - the ones who identified as Dawkins followers - showed themselves to have absolutely no ability to engage in dialogue or rational argument. Some other self identified atheist posters disassociated themselves from the Dawkins approach and a lot of posters identified themselves as Christians and took issue with them as well.
In my experience, atheists who most closely associate themselves with Dawkins are often more likely to be of the close-minded and intolerant strain of atheist, whereas the more thoughtful atheists I know tend not to make a cult figure of him so much, and often find him a bit too strident, even if they agree with his basic arguments.
I don't think the problem is specific to Dawkins or atheists, but with personality cults. If you've not thought through your own beliefs in as much depth, then you're more likely to latch onto a perceived champion of your worldview, and be scornfully dismissive of other points of view.
It's sad to see any online community come crashing down like this. But if the fallout from this helps dispel some of the personality cult that has grown up around Dawkins, so much the better.
Anyway, it's not like Christians are ever guilty of personality cults now, is it?
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
I hope I've been quite careful to separate out the group I'm talking about - those who seem to self identify as Dawkins 'followers' - from atheists generally. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's interesting that it does seem like a personality cult.
Perhaps, to answer Simon's question about things to learn, he should be wary of changing the name of this site to SimonJenkins.net any time soon.
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
quote:
Rosa Winkel
Posted 26 February, 2010 12:03
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway John:
I doubt the internet is a place where rational discussion can actually take place. Too much anonymity means people just go stupid, on both sides.
I see where you're coming from, but I find that a too negative view. It depends on luck, I believe. A Liverpool forum I go on tends to have real critical and open debate, unlike others which are full of all manner of slaggings off. That arguments sometimes happen on this Liverpool forum mirrors what real discussions are about sometimes.
Hear what you're saying Rosa. As a stowaway on board not used to the quality of life on SOF. I'm impressed by the general respect around the place.
Anonymity on the web does encourage the socially inept/down-right wicked to contribute far beyond their means. With the filter of the sheer human effort of getting off one's butt, going out into the cold, wet winter air to a meeting with someone and showing them a certain level of respect (with the risk of a bloody nose if you don't) means effort in = quality out sppose.
Jus thinkin out loud.
The web's a bit of fun/v. poor cousin of real life I think.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
There is what appears to be a first rate analysis of this here , by an interested and sympathetic party.
Even more interesting is his analysis of the problems besetting atheist boards here .
In the first case it does seem that Dawkins and his closest disciples have not been happy with allowing the site to evolve as it's users wanted, but rather wanted it to remain very much in its creator's image. I think that would be the main difference between there and here. And of course Simon, bless him, and lovely chap as I'm sure he is just doesn't have the same cultish following as The Big D. Long may it continue.
But in the second, I don't think there's a single issue that he highlights about atheist boards that couldn't apply to absolutely any other, religious one's especially. And Dr Who sites of course. In fact the traits he regards as problematic are probably more associated with the religious than the atheist. Which just goes to show...
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
Hello everyone.
My name is Matt Hone and I was a member of the RichardDawkins.net forum. I feel particularly aggrieved at the amount of misinformation that has emerged in the press this week, from papers such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. All are reporting Richard Dawkins' opinion that the forum was somehow closed due to incivility and abuse. That couldn't be further from the truth.
The webmaster, Josh Timonen, closed down the forum because his behaviour towards the staff had been revealed to us all. He then went on a banning spree, not just banning but deleting thousands of posts and user accounts. One moderator, Mazille, the one responsible for our science-writing award, had all of his contributions eradicated from history. This was purely Stalinesque in nature and undeserving of a foundation that is supposed to represent science and reason.
I note that Peter Harrison's blogs have been linked here. Might I also recommend the personal account of Jerome (an Anglican, who was a popular member at RD.net), who's blog is jerome23.wordpress.com
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
I've just posted a comment on the Telegraph blog to point that out. I don't know if they'll publish it. And other people have done that elsewhere I think.
Almost all the journalists who've commented seem to have misunderstood RD's post to be referring to himself, but I think I would have done as well if I hadn't been pointed to the background reading here. However you would have thought they might have spent a few minutes looking to see if they could find the other side of the story before posting.
Also I think without background info it would be easy to assume that the comments he's posted were the cause of the closure rather than the fallout.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Hello everyone.
My name is Matt Hone and I was a member of the RichardDawkins.net forum. I feel particularly aggrieved at the amount of misinformation that has emerged in the press this week, from papers such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. All are reporting Richard Dawkins' opinion that the forum was somehow closed due to incivility and abuse. That couldn't be further from the truth.
The webmaster, Josh Timonen, closed down the forum because his behaviour towards the staff had been revealed to us all. He then went on a banning spree, not just banning but deleting thousands of posts and user accounts. One moderator, Mazille, the one responsible for our science-writing award, had all of his contributions eradicated from history. This was purely Stalinesque in nature and undeserving of a foundation that is supposed to represent science and reason.
I note that Peter Harrison's blogs have been linked here. Might I also recommend the personal account of Jerome (an Anglican, who was a popular member at RD.net), who's blog is jerome23.wordpress.com
Welcome!
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Welcome to the ship Matt H. Although we may joke and scoff here about what has happened, I still think there is a genuine sadness and sympathy at the collapse of a community. Perhaps something may arise out of it to rebuild that community.
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
Thank you.
I'm not too sad about it; the refugees from RD.net have moved to a new site called Rational Skepticism. Anyone is welcome, by the way. As I mentioned before, we have one Christian among us rabid atheists; Jerome, who incidentally won the science-writing award on RD.net before the moderator who ran it was deleted.
I first heard about this place a couple of years ago while talking to two of my friends. They are both Anglicans (one a convert from Catholicism) and said they liked this site. I always meant to join but never got round to it. Now I have the perfect excuse.
[ 26. February 2010, 12:53: Message edited by: Matt H ]
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Welcome Matt. I like the fact that 'rabid atheists' or other atheists come here, as I find it fruitful to convene with them.
Hope you like it here.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Even more interesting is his analysis of the problems besetting atheist boards here .
That post is basically listing the atheist dead horses! Though the Libertarian one is a bit wider as it's a culture clash.
I'm amused to that pond wars are a problem for atheists too!
Carys
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
Apart from Schadenfreude, what is really interesting to me is something quite relevant to SoF. Namely, it is in my opinion the case that bulletin boards and like forums relying heavily on user participation cease to belong to their nominal owners in direct proportion to their actual success. Of course, legally this is not true. Though I think that points to a flaw of our societies and their laws, which privilege the individual and his property above nearly all other concerns. But be that as it may, I think ethically it is sound to say that massive investments of time and energy, even if freely given, establish moral rights of some kind. And where something basically only comes into existence because of such investments, these moral rights establish a kind of ownership by contribution.
This is the rationale of the constant "not fair" chorus we hear now from the smashed RDF community. While lip service is being paid to the legal realities (RD and those acting in his name can by law fuck around with the RDF as they please), most concerned agree that RD ought not have done so. That is an important lesson for all those praising the present dictatorship by ownership of the SoF forums. Dictatorships are never good for communities, even if they are benevolent. The problem is not that Simon (and Erin) are evil and about to wreck the place now, but rather merely that they could destroy this place any time they please, even though morally in my opinion they have long ago lost the right to do so.
I think that with the ever increasing importance of user participation, eventually society will protect by law the digital commonwealths that people are de facto establishing by their efforts all over the net. I find it exciting that the power of the internet does not so much point to some sort of worldwide mega-democracy, but rather to the re-establishment of largely self-governed mid-size communities of interest - now digital rather than geographic or trade-related. In many ways we are heading for the digital middle ages, in my opinion.
[ 26. February 2010, 13:09: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Welcome, Matt H. It seems that loads of folks are blogging - except Josh Timonen, so far as I can see. Doesn't seem to be tweeting much, either. Looks like "head down".
It's a sad story, this. Cyber-communities do develop lives of their own and folks value them. I liked the jerome23 link you provided and here it is at the click of a mouse.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think that with the ever increasing importance of user participation, eventually society will protect by law the digital commonwealths that people are de facto establishing by their efforts all over the net. I find it exciting that the power of the internet does not so much point to some sort of worldwide mega-democracy, but rather to the re-establishment of largely self-governed mid-size communities of interest - now digital rather than geographic or trade-related. In many ways we are heading for the digital middle ages, in my opinion.
Actually, as a lawyer, I have found the various disagreements on this Board very interesting. They do have a constitutional law kind of flavour to some of them, and I think it quite probable that the kinds of disputes that have arisen may one day give rise to legal arguments. I wish I were more of a sociologist, or socio-legal practitioner, as I feel I lack the right tools to really explore the issues thrown up.
Even as a property lawyer, however, I wonder if some sort of constructive trust principles might be brought to bear - people who invest both time and money in somone else's website making a claim for an equitable interest? Proprietary estoppel?
Interesting ...
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
One thing I've taken from this is that Richard Dawkins likes nothing more than to look down on people. He's an elitist, and he judges everyone by the actions of a few. In the case of RD.net he just arbitrarily decided the whole forum was for gossip and other social things and so he wanted to give it a clear out. He ignored the thousands of discussions relating to science and reason, which should be the aims of the RDF.
Richard Dawkins has demonstrated monstrous self-satisfied ignorance in his 'Outrage' post, where he just took Josh's word on faith. Here was a supposed man of science who couldn't be bothered to investigate further. Much easier to dismiss us all as anonymous savage hoodlums.
People kept trying to tell me that Richard Dawkins is a typical Oxford don who's just part of a completely different culture. I always tried to defend him. Now I'll know better.
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
Hi Matt. No one mentioned rabid atheist, but if that's how y read it, apologies for any offence you might have felt there.
My comment was about the foul-mouthed, rabid tirade that ensued towards the guy as it all fell apart and that he should let them get on with it. It's hard to tell exactly where those voices came from.
It's about taking to extremes all the time isn't it. Unfortunately Dawkin's took an extreme view of things and tended to flame bait.... e.g. 'religious education is a form of child abuse.' etc, etc.
He played with fire (people's emotions and deeply held beliefs) and sadly for him, got burnt when people started to throw bombs at each other during the argument he started.
Proof - you should indulge your intelligence in stirring up strife. He'd have made a tenacious doctor somewhere in the developing world. perhaps got a breakthrough on Aids.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Hello everyone...
My name is Matt Hone and I was a member of the RichardDawkins.net forum...
I note that Peter Harrison's blogs have been linked here. Might I also recommend the personal account of Jerome (an Anglican, who was a popular member at RD.net), who's blog is jerome23.wordpress.com
And he is cj.23, our latest member!
[ 26. February 2010, 13:33: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
When I said 'rabid atheists' I was joking, I wasn't referring to anything.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
That's how I understood it too, hence my quoting of it.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
Interesting. It's now going around that it was Christians who posted abusive comments against Dawkins: Blog post about the Richard Dawkins forum closure. It now seems that atheists even have the same persecution complexes as Christians!
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
Every newspaper is now repeating the error that the RD.net forum was closed due to abuse. Expect to see this in the print media tomorrow. Journalists have obviously taken one look at Richard's 'Outrage' post and decided no further investigation was required.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Perhaps, to answer Simon's question about things to learn, he should be wary of changing the name of this site to SimonJenkins.net any time soon.
Then we'd be subjected to endless threads called 'Thousand best Posts', 'Thousand best Posters', 'Thousand best Hell calls', 'Thousand best Shipmeets', 'Thousand best Big Tops', 'Thousand best Lion-taming Acts' etc. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Alternatively, you could always visit simonjenkins.com where you can stare at the blank screen until the men in white coats come to take you away.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
One thing I've taken from this is that Richard Dawkins likes nothing more than to look down on people. He's an elitist, and he judges everyone by the actions of a few.
Welcome aboard, Matt H!
I think we religious types knew already that Dawkins likes looking down on people. His wilful ignorance of every kind of religion other that nut-job fundamentalism illustrates that clearly enough. I guess some of us have been wondering for a while how long it would be till he started looking down on other atheists too.
I still think it's sad that any forum dedicated to reasonable discussion should end like this. And I agree with those who say that part of the genius of SOF is that the various boards each have their own character. I think our own stormiest moments come when Hell spills over into other areas - usually the Styx. But I think the Ship is also a rather remarkable community. A lot of posters here seem to know each other in real life, and I think that adds both a personal note and a degree of stability to what goes on here.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I'm trying to figure out what happened to the Dawkins Forum in terms of natural selection. Any suggestions?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
People kept trying to tell me that Richard Dawkins is a typical Oxford don who's just part of a completely different culture.
Thats a little harsh on Oxford dons. Some of them are quite charming
Seriously, the reaction to this is really fascinating and shows how much at least some neo-atheists have invested emotionally in Dawkins. My guess is that many neo-atheists from ex-fundy backgrounds haven't lost their need for an infallible authority figure....Dawkins has just replaced whatever shiny-suited pastor they were brought up to idolise. And they feel confused and betrayed in just the same way that some fundies feel confused and betrayed when one of their luminaries gets caught with his pants down.
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on
:
Yerevan, I think you are right. I have been thinking of the quote by, I think, G K Chesterton, that "when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
Something along those lines.
[ 26. February 2010, 17:06: Message edited by: Thyme ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
I definitely need to add a raised eyebrow smilie.
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do. We've fucked up once or twice here, as well as had decisions that were made and implemented in a matter of days, so I totally understand the "shut up and deal" thought process. But the more you try to control it, the worse it gets. So you, as the one in charge, suck it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:
Yerevan, I think you are right. I have been thinking of the quote by, I think, G K Chesterton, that "when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
Something along those lines.
This quote is another example of a saying which gets attached to a famous person without any real basis.
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
You mean like half of the Epistles?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
You mean like half of the Epistles?
Someone that sceptical could only be an atheist or an Episcopalian. I see you're the former
[ 26. February 2010, 18:04: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
You mean like half of the Epistles?
At least!
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
I definitely need to add a raised eyebrow smilie.
Oh Erin Goddess, please do!
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on
:
Here’s something he (G K Chesterton) did say;
"When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven't got any." - ILN 11-7-08
http://chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:
Here’s something he (G K Chesterton) did say;
"When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven't got any." - ILN 11-7-08
http://chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm
You might also have quoted "believe the tale not the teller." which is usually attributed to D.H.Lawrence
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
I'm a Bible-believing Episcopalian. How's that for a mystery?
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Not sure that you're a mystery, just an endangered species!
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A bunch of offensive dismissers gets offensively dismissed by their idol of offensive dismissiveness. Sweet.
I definitely need to add a raised eyebrow smilie.
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do. We've fucked up once or twice here, as well as had decisions that were made and implemented in a matter of days, so I totally understand the "shut up and deal" thought process. But the more you try to control it, the worse it gets. So you, as the one in charge, suck it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.
You're absolutely right. It's like a pressure cooker - if you don't let it blow off steam, it explodes in your face and destroys the kitchen. You do a good job here of letting us steam away like crazy till we've all cooled down.
Maybe he thought they were all so rational they didn't need to get upset?
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was intrigued by the Forum Users Agreement[....]
Thanks for that link.
I read it; well, tried to read it; well, ended up skimming...
Very early on, my first thought was "Oh my, somebody had the legal team write this up; I wonder how much it cost?".
Quickly followed by the smug satisfaction of having been a shipmate as well as a moderator/host under the wonderfully succinct Ten Commandments here. Along with Hell, the Ten Commandments are another outstanding feature of the Ship. They aren't wordy or legalistic, they cut to the point, they're short. They don't provide a bunch of verbiage for the wannabe junior lawyers to argue with; they force people to discuss what exactly they mean by "don't be a jerk".
My favorite (and it should be in every Points of Order for every organization from the merest Daisy Girl Scouts troop to the Supreme Court of the USA and everywhere in between) is "don't easily offend; don't be easily offended".
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
Well, that is the thing about atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism; we lack belief in a god. That's all it is. It doesn't instantly make someone more rational.
In the case of Richard Dawkins, you have a man who is very rational about science (regardless of your opinion of him personally, scientifically he is quite brilliant) but is prone to the same personal failings as anyone else. So when Josh Timonen tells him something is true, he believes it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Well, that is the thing about atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism; we lack belief in a god. That's all it is. It doesn't instantly make someone more rational.
Sing this from the rooftops. You'd certainly never learn it from Richard Dawkins. I'd long suspected the "Brights" weren't necessarily so. Nice to learn that, like theists, atheists can be self-deluding and at the same time self-congratulatory too.
God forgive me: I keep stomping on the Schadenfreude but it keeps rising up through the cracks.
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
I think the 'Brights' thing was hideous and a lot of other atheists (like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) agreed. I think that is why Richard abandoned it and replaced it with the much better 'Out Campaign'.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Well, that is the thing about atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism; we lack belief in a god.
Not true. You have a belief in the lack of a God. Your position is a faith position as much as anyone else's.
[ 26. February 2010, 18:56: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
Call me Numpty: Just like you have faith in not believing astrology or not collecting stamps, correct?
[ 26. February 2010, 18:58: Message edited by: Matt H ]
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
This is where we'll have a long discussion about whether there is such a thing as agnosticism and how it might differ from atheism, where some atheists will assert that anyone who does not accept their definition of atheism is behind the times and an idiot; but, in fact, that argument always struck me as more of a cheap marketing stunt to claim increased numbers.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Well, that is the thing about atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism; we lack belief in a god.
Not true. You have a belief in the lack of a God. Your position is a faith position as much as anyone else's.
Bless him, he's only been here 5 minutes and he's already being told what he believes! Welcome to the ship Matt.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Call me Numpty: Just like you have faith in not believing astrology or not collecting stamps, correct?
How is collecting stamps a faith position? Do atheists think stamps don't exist?
Posted by Orianna02 (# 14858) on
:
As a religious studies student who is neither a Christian nor an Atheist, I have read this thread and the whole online crash & burn of the RD forum with interest and some sympathy. I have experienced the demise of an online community and I appreciate how that can affect even those who have a full off-line life. I have also experienced how vitriolic forums can be, whether believers or non-believers.
For what it's worth, I think that those who haven't had personal experience of a good online community probably can't appreciate the richness and depth that community can offer. It's not just gossip and chat; to perceive it as such is to seriously misunderstand and underestimate the possibilites and advantages of the technology. That Richard Dawkins seems to have done so is surprising and (possibly, for his adherents) disappointing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And to what I have to imagine is a not inconsiderable number of them, it's got to hurt like hell. I want to say "God bless 'em" but that's just not on. How about: I hope they find solace.
Posted by Orianna02 (# 14858) on
:
Or maybe: this too shall pass.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Call me Numpty: Just like you have faith in not believing astrology or not collecting stamps, correct?
Neat riposte.
I suspect a common value is that purity of beliefs is no guarantee of decent behaviour? Which, if one thinks of it, is a perfect antidote to crowing about the failings of others. Which I'm glad to see you have not done.
Anyway, I'm pretty much with Erin on this. Owners of sites and their senior administrators have the right to take arbitrary action if they so wish - but if they retain some desire to allow a cyber-community to continue, they are wise to allow sounding off. Stifling sounding off hints at carelessness, ignorance, arrogance, a certain amount of panic. From what I've read, there also seems to be a certain amount of self-protection and misrepresentation going on as well.
But there's a danger in those fairly obvious conclusions. Carelessness, ignorance, arrogance, panic, self-protection and misrepresentation are common faults, regardless of purity of beliefs. The human capacity for self-deception is very great. "Holier than thou" is best avoided.
Do you know the six stages of a project, BTW?
Wild enthusiasm
Confusion
Disillusionment
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Promotion of the nonparticipants
Some of those rang bells here.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Call me Numpty: Just like you have faith in not believing astrology or not collecting stamps, correct?
Good response Matt (and welcome to the Ship). Stamps are empirically verifiable so perhaps not entirely relevant.
Yes - I suppose a person may have faith that Astrology doesn't work or isn't true. Although, and this is where Numpty's argument is weakest, I'm not sure you can have faith in a negative concept.
It would be better for Numpty to argue that Atheism is declaring a certainty where there is only probability, whereas a belief in God is either choosing the possibility of existence over the lack of it; or that faith is an expression of belief that moves outside of the rationalitistic discursive field, a kierkegaardian leap of faith.
Either way, I do feel sorry for those whose community was disrupted by this - even if the responses I often saw there were really quite harsh and not very rational.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Some features that might be relevant seem to be
1) The complete lack of communication between those with admin powers and the mod team
2) An assumption by the mods and site users that Dawkin and his paid staff were essentially benevolent towards them, which has been shown to be wrong
3) A disjunct between the aims of the site from the POV of those paying for it and the aims of the site as assumed by the community
I don't think any Christian site can sit back on its laurels and think this is something that would only happen to an atheist site.
Too true. I have been on the internet since 1993 (unmoderated Usenet) and have seen many groups collapse. Has nothing to do with religion or lack thereof, but human nature. As a data point, the worst behavior I've personally gotten (to the extent of run me off the board) has been mostly from loudly-proclaiming Christians (with a loud pagan assist).
I really appreciate the fact that the Ship is moderated, but with a light (and patient) hand.
quote:
Dawkin's reaction seems to show that he has no understanding of how the Interwebs work at all. I don't think the same could be said of Simon somehow.
Agreed about Simon, but Dawkins is enough of a drama queen that I tend to think more along Tubbs' lines about RD himself. How dare they, etc. etc.
Charlotte
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
To quote Dawkins in his post:
'How can anyone feel that strongly about something so small?'
There, in a nutshell, is the trademark, dismissive ignorance of the man.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Well, that is the thing about atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism; we lack belief in a god.
Not true. You have a belief in the lack of a God. Your position is a faith position as much as anyone else's.
This exchange is something of an old chestnut. And both positions seem to me confused.
Compare: invertebrates are the opposite of vertebrates: they lack an internal skeleton. Does a dragonfly really lack an internal skeleton? It's not as if it's not getting by perfectly well without it. Couldn't we equally well say that non-arthropods are the opposite of arthropods: they lack an external skeleton? Dividing the world into invertebrates and vertebrates treats the arthropods' external skeleton as something uninteresting and primitive.
I think Matt H is wrong: Belief in God isn't something that you bolt onto an already existing atheist position. I suppose it can be in some shallow forms of theism. Saying therefore that atheists 'lack' something that theists have is wrong in so many ways.
I really don't think the division between atheism and theism cuts our intellectual options at the joints. A classical theist and a rationalist atheist have more in common with each other than they do with, say, a believer in the Norse gods or a post-Nietzchean postmodernist.
Call Me Numpty's claim is a non sequitur, except in so far as it shares the same basic assumption - that atheists and theists are alike except in taking some position on the existence of something called 'God'. The other problem with Call Me Numpty is that he's using faith to mean 'belief above and beyond proof', which is not what 'faith' means in classical Christian theology. You can trust i.e. have faith in God or God's promises. You can I suppose have faith that Richard Dawkins' arguments in The God Delusion are sound without having read The God Delusion. But having faith in 'no God' is not a possibility. Trusting in nothing is not trusting at all.
The idea distorts belief. We don't share a common rational reading of the facts and then choose a belief system by making some arational jump. Most of us are confronted with a number of intellectual options, some atheist, some theist, some hard to categorise. According to our interpretation of the world, some one more or less option appears more or less convincing. And so, if we don't remain agnostic, we say this is the most convincing option - it's convincing enough for me not to withhold assent - and we go with it.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
Incidentally, the 'stamps' may be a neat riposte - though I don't personally see what's neat about it - but it isn't original.
One of the things that RD.net seems to have done best was propagating dismissive anti-faith memes like 'sky fairy' and one-line rebuttals to serve as anti-dialogue devices.
[ 26. February 2010, 21:39: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I think that, perhaps, Dafyd, you are taking Matt H's argument out of context. As I read it, he was only pointing out that atheism (like theism) does not per se connote rationality.
I'm sure everyone would agree that being rational is in general a Good Thing. But whatever I call myself (even "rationalist") is in no way going to bestow rationality on my arguments.
Oh, you noticed...
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Incidentally, the 'stamps' may be a neat riposte - though I don't personally see what's neat about it - but it isn't original.
One of the things that RD.net seems to have done best was propagating dismissive anti-faith memes like 'sky fairy' and one-line rebuttals to serve as anti-dialogue devices.
I wasn't trying to be original. I was responding to the tired old argument that somehow, being an atheist is a faith position. There is a quote going around the internet that is usually attributed to Don Hischburg, and it goes something like this:
"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour."
Pithy, but accurate. One does not need faith to dismiss the Christian god any more than one needs faith to dismiss the claims of Scientology or any other faith-based system.
But yes, this is a distraction from the point I intended to make, which is that atheists are prone to irrationality just as much as theists are. I only wish Richard Dawkins could admit his own failings over this issue.
[ 26. February 2010, 22:17: Message edited by: Matt H ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
Incidentally, the 'stamps' may be a neat riposte - though I don't personally see what's neat about it - but it isn't original.
I laughed
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orianna02:
Or maybe: this too shall pass.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The other board I spend as much time on as I do here
MT, when do you sleep?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Matt H
Thought about this overnight. What distinction do you draw between irrational and immoral? In this case, from the POV of the site owner and administrators, there may be distinctly rational motives behind the desire to change the means of discussion on the website. But the impressive evidence of misrepresentation of what has happened - and the equally impressive evidence of cover up - suggest to me that there have been immoral actions here. One could argue, I suppose, that these actions are in pursuit of a rational end. The moral dimension comes in to play in consideration of the means used.
So I think that to assign merely irrationality to those responsible may be a bit of a gloss on what has happened.
[ 27. February 2010, 08:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do.
Thus it is perfectly fine for the lord of the domain to burn down one of his villages and salt its fields, as long as he gives the villagers ample opportunity to wail about it?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
In the case of Richard Dawkins, you have a man who is very rational about science (regardless of your opinion of him personally, scientifically he is quite brilliant) but is prone to the same personal failings as anyone else.
I don't see much objective evidence that he's a great scientist. He may be a decent popularizer of science (if I recall correctly, that's what his chair is about). But science itself? I've looked at his list of publications here, and I have used Scopus to look for more publications and their citations. He does have some Nature publications and the like, but they are - well - mostly not what I would call proper science. Articles like "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?" Nature 421 (6921), pp. 314, in 2003 are really more social editorials. And that is not just my opinion, it is shown by getting only one (scientific) citation in Scopus. Actually, all his publications since 2005 together got precisely one citation in Scopus. In the last decade, he got 77 citations for 22 publications in Scopus. However, they citations are almost entirely for two publications: 37 citations for a paper in Parasitology 1990 (journal has JCR impact factor 2.071 and is ranked 10th of 26 journals in ISI category "Parasitology"), and 27 citations for a paper in Biology and Philosophy (IF 1.063, rank 5th of 41 in "History & Philosophy of Science"). His "Hail Mary" publication appears to have been "Arms races between and within species" in 1979 in Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci (IF 4.248, rank 8th of 72 in "Biology") with 404 citations so far. But really, that's about it, there's no remotely similar success anywhere in Scopus. For comparison, in the last decade Scopus lists 88 citations for me, the most cited paper being in Phys Rev E (IF 2.508, rank 6th of 46 in "Physics, Mathematical"), and I have recently published in PLoS Comput Biol (IF 5.895, rank 1st of 29 in "Mathematical & Computational Biology").
I'm a lowly tenure track somewhere in the Netherlands, he has a chair in Oxford. His first publication in Scopus is from 1969, mine from 1996. As far as real scientific output is concerned, we are fairly comparable over the last decade (and frankly, I think I'm much better, if one forgets about the editorials...). This very much should not be the case if he was a great scientist at that stage of his career. (Furthermore, my research is rather mathematical, his biological: he should be killing me in citations on that difference alone, since biologists cite like mad, maths types reluctantly.) Practically every senior scientist I know or have worked with would blow Richard Dawkins out of the water, like, totally. Karl Friston, for example, has had 309 publications in the last decade alone, and frankly I can't be bothered doing the sums for all his citations. Just two give some examples: "Voxel-based morphometry - The methods" in 2000 has 1677 citations, published in NeuroImage (IF 5.694, rank 1st of 12 in "Neuroimaging", 3rd of 29 in "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging"). He also has 6 proper publications in Science (IF 28.103, rank 2nd of 24 in "Multidisciplinary Science") with a total of 943 citations, of which one "Dissociable Roles of Ventral and Dorsal Striatum in Instrumental Conditioning " from 2004 has 302 citations already. He also has 5 proper publications in Nature (IF 31.434, rank 1st of 24 in "Multidisciplinary Science"), with a total of 900 citations. Karl, whom I had the pleasure to meet several times, is a great scientist.
Now, citations are not everything (as I keep reminding everyone judging my own academic performance ). But certainly every great scientist at such a late stage in his or her career leaves a trace in citations that just cannot be overlooked. Richard Dawkins' record is very overlook-able and he simply is not a great scientist by any objective standard. Frankly, for somebody so senior in such a prominent academic position, he sucks strawberry milkshakes... I would be rather unsurprised if the "hard edge" he cultivates, which keeps him very much in the public spotlight and allows him to publish one forgettable (and - among scientists - forgotten) editorial after the other, had a lot to do with evaluation committees looking at his record of achievements and asking "Well, Dick, and what have you done lately for science? Like, in the last 20 years?" Richard Dawkins is a brilliant loudmouth, proper science happens elsewhere.
[ 27. February 2010, 09:00: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do.
Thus it is perfectly fine for the lord of the domain to burn down one of his villages and salt its fields, as long as he gives the villagers ample opportunity to wail about it?
Heck, IngoB, what part of "non sequitur" are you having difficulty in understanding? If you want to argue about the rights and restrictions which do, or should, apply to owners of websites, why ruin your case by this particular piece of hyperbole?
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
The biggest mistake if you're talking about damage limitation was to delete user accounts in response to criticism of the proposed moves and then to post selective quotes from people reacting to this on other boards as if they were the reason for the proposed changes rather than the result.
I am assuming even a mediocre scientist would check his sources before going public with such inflammatory stuff, so my assumption is that Dawkins knows full well that he is smearing people in order to make himself look better and what he has posted is not a fair reflection of facts. It seems some people would rather think he has posted what he's been told to post without checking it out.
I'm not sure how this makes him look better but it may make him look less uncaring. But should anyone expect the author of The Selfish Gene to be caring?
[ 27. February 2010, 09:28: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Heck, IngoB, what part of "non sequitur" are you having difficulty in understanding? If you want to argue about the rights and restrictions which do, or should, apply to owners of websites, why ruin your case by this particular piece of hyperbole?
It's a perfectly straight analogy. According to its members (the villagers) the RD forums (the village) have been destroyed beyond repair by RD and his helpers (the lord). Erin apparently sees no problem in this, other than that there wasn't enough opportunity to bitch (to wail).
Of course, destroying someone's physical community and livelihood is objectively much worse than destroying their digital community and intellectual playground. But I think a central mistake here is precisely the attitude that all this forum stuff really amounts to very little. Most of us are not fighting for naked survival, hence other things can and do become important in our lives. Does it sound to you as if RDF members are collectively shrugging their shoulders? I think the pain is very real indeed, even if the community was virtual.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I thought the reason atheism was a faith position, is essentially because the idea there is a God is not a scientific hypothesis and is therefore neither provable nor disprovable.
In the same way that you can not prove something is beautiful, or Paris is better than England, or there has never been a child born with a full head of green hair.
Agnosticism - we don't know - is rational. Or even; if the existence or non-existence of God allows us to predict nothing, in terms of what will or won't happen dependent on our choices or any other variable, it doesn't matter.
[ 27. February 2010, 09:36: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Wow, IngoB. Equating village burning and poisoning tenants' fields with arbitrary changes to (or withdrawal of) posting privileges on a website is not hyperbole?
I accept that these actions have caused some pain and loss to folks who have become attached to a cyber-community, and rather more than that to the dismissed moderators. But there really isn't much equivalence in your analogy AFAICS. OK, if you want to sustain that line. But I'm surprised you do.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Wow, IngoB. Equating village burning and poisoning tenants' fields with arbitrary changes to (or withdrawal of) posting privileges on a website is not hyperbole?
When did hyperbole get banned? Did anyone tell Jesus?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
"I think your hyperbole is really silly, but will fight to the death your right to post as much silliness as you want to".
[Provided it doesn't violate the 10Cs of course.]
I think that's current policy ...
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I thought the reason atheism was a faith position, is essentially because the idea there is a God is not a scientific hypothesis and is therefore neither provable nor disprovable.
In the same way that you can not prove something is beautiful, or Paris is better than England, or there has never been a child born with a full head of green hair.
Agnosticism - we don't know - is rational. Or even; if the existence or non-existence of God allows us to predict nothing, in terms of what will or won't happen dependent on our choices or any other variable, it doesn't matter.
But you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Is it a faith position to not believe in them?
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
If you drop the 'straw man' arguments you will probably get more sense out of people on these forums.
No-one here has said they believe in fairies. It isn't a site to discuss believing in fairies. If you want to start a thread to discuss your non-belief in fairies you are at liberty to do so, and it will sink or swim by natural selection. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
It may be your belief that believing in God is exactly the same as fairies, but it is not my empirical experience. So trying to further the dialogue on that basis is doomed to failure, because we aren't discussing the same thing. I'm being asked to discuss my beliefs whereas you are only prepared to discuss your beliefs about my beliefs.
Did you go through a process of 'coming out' as an atheist or becoming an atheist? From that perspective perhaps we could reach some mutual understanding since I have analogous experiences of becoming a Christian from a position of atheism.
However, your view that believing in God and believing in fairies are analogous us just that - your view.
[ 27. February 2010, 12:17: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Yes!
Actually if what I read about in Social Anthropology of Religion is anything but made up stories, then I am afraid I view much of the western take on religion as viewed through a strongly accepted filter. That is we discount things/experiences that don't fit with our rational approach to the world. When that filter is lowered, e.g. to participate in folk healing rituals of other cultures, then people get experiences that are not amenable to western rational interpretation.
Jengie
Posted by Matt H (# 15501) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
If you drop the 'straw man' arguments you will probably get more sense out of people on these forums.
No-one here has said they believe in fairies. It isn't a site to discuss believing in fairies. If you want to start a thread to discuss your non-belief in fairies you are at liberty to do so, and it will sink or swim by natural selection.
It may be your belief that believing in God is exactly the same as fairies, but it is not my empiricial experience. So trying to further the dialogue on that basis is doomed to failure.
Did you go through a process of 'coming out' as an atheist or becoming an atheist? From that perspective perhaps we could reach some mutual understanding since I have analogous experiences of becoming a Christian from a position of atheism.
However, your view that believing in God and believing in fairies are analogous us just that - your view.
You don't understand what I am saying. I am not straw-manning anyone, in fact I haven't told anyone what they do or don't believe. It is certain members of the forum who are insisting they know what I believe better than myself.
Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not believing in fairies is a religion. Do you understand my point now or are you going to insist I'm talking about something else?
And it seems my original point has been lost on you, which is that all it takes to be an atheist is to not believe in god; it doesn't require rationality.
If anyone is strawmanning it is you for claiming that I think believing in god and believing in fairies are the same thing. Shame on you for not actually reading my posts.
[ 27. February 2010, 12:20: Message edited by: Matt H ]
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
I do understand what you're saying. I don't agree with what you're saying.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
But you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Is it a faith position to not believe in them?
I really don't think it is fair to get into this discussion.
But I don't think 'fairies' and 'God' are in the same catagory. I do not think God can be said to exist or not to exist, God is not an item. God may be a linguistic construct, or God may be the ultimate reality. I am not sure either could be proved, so I get on with being 'in God'.
I do not think Love can be said to exist or not to exist, Love is not an item. Love may be a a linguistic construct, or Love may be the ultimate reality. I am not sure either could be proved, so I get on with being 'in Love'.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I thought the reason atheism was a faith position, is essentially because the idea there is a God is not a scientific hypothesis and is therefore neither provable nor disprovable.
In the same way that you can not prove something is beautiful, or Paris is better than England, or there has never been a child born with a full head of green hair.
Agnosticism - we don't know - is rational. Or even; if the existence or non-existence of God allows us to predict nothing, in terms of what will or won't happen dependent on our choices or any other variable, it doesn't matter.
But you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Is it a faith position to not believe in them?
It depends how you define fairies I suppose - in so far as they were originally nature spirits in an animist religion/belief system I suppose it is. But that is not what most people mean by fairies. If you made a specific prediction, if you light a candle and repeat three times "appear to me" a fairy will appear visible to the natural world, then that would be a testable prediction. At that point it becomes investigable.
Popper pointed out you can never prove anything scientifically, just disprove it, without testable predictions that is not possible. And then you are talking about something that is not a scientific proposition. (He argued you build scientific theories by building up verismilitude, ie by failing to disprove many predications of said theory.)
Many areas of life are not scientfic - and many domains of human experience are not totally open to scientific investigation. This does not mean you can not have knowledge about them, simply that it is not scientific knowledge, nor does it mean that everything that is not scientific automatically falls within the domain of religion.
For example, imagine you love someone, I assume you do - there are many facets of that situation that can not be scientifically investigated. It doesn't mean it is not important, or that it is a religon.
Athieism is described as a faith position in my argument, because it is a belief about deity and the metaphysics thereof. If you strongly prefer, one could call it a philosophical position - but it is not a scientific conclusion (because there is no testable hypothesis) and it is not a conclusion of formal logic. You could make a more specific logical argument - saying for example, if God answered all prayers and someone prays for the restoration of their amputated limb - then I know there is no God because that didn't happen. This is what Dawkins tries to do, he specifies a belief about the nature of God - then disproves the consequence he thinks flows from this belief.
The problem arises because frequently he specifies beliefs about God that very few people actually hold. Then refuses to accept they can both identify themselves as theists and/or Christians, and not hold the belief he specifies. Religion falls down when it claims to be scientific - eg intelligent design or fights with Gallilao - because it isn't. Most importantly, [b]it doesn't need to be[b], there is more than one way of knowing about the world, more than one way of understanding what is meant by truth.
[ 27. February 2010, 12:38: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I thought the reason atheism was a faith position, is essentially because the idea there is a God is not a scientific hypothesis and is therefore neither provable nor disprovable.
I think you're using the word 'faith' in a different way from Matt H. There are problems with the way that Matt H is using the word. But I think it's closer to what Christians mean by 'faith' when not arguing with atheists.
As I said above, faith is trust in God. You can't trust in not-God.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I said above, faith is trust in God. You can't trust in not-God.
Dawkins has stated that eliminating religion will affect the world for the better.
I don't think he has demonstrated any proof for that position; so to me it's a belief.
Of course he uses all sorts of rhetorical tricks to prop up his assertion, like disassociating himself from anything bad done by atheists because they did not do it 'in the name of atheism', while holding everyone with a faith responsible for anything bad ever done by anyone with a faith; but that isn't proof.
As Matt's posts demonstrate, you can't say anything about atheism without getting into first principles about what it is, which in effect prevent anyone who holds that position from accepting any critique of anyone because they are an atheist at all.
It's still OK to critique people because they are, say, Christians, because that is a faith position and atheism isn't.
[ 27. February 2010, 13:20: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
But you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Is it a faith position to not believe in them?
I really don't think it is fair to get into this discussion.
(Puts Host Hat On)
I agree, Edward - at least so far as this thread is concerned. It sprung up as an interesting tangent to the main purpose of this thread, but seems to me to have gained enough momentum to justify a separate thread.
I'll create a separate new topic, with the intention of leaving this free to focus on the Dawkins Forum changes, consequences, lessons etc.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
(Takes Host Hat Off)
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
Whoops - crossposted with host post.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt H:
Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not believing in fairies is a religion. Do you understand my point now or are you going to insist I'm talking about something else?
I think that there is a definite disanalogy between not believing in God and not having hair.
I'll start with the fairies. Why don't I believe in fairies? Well, for one thing, I'm pretty much a materialist. (I believe in the real existence of things like the real existence of mathematical objects and God that don't have a material basis - but that's because they don't have any basis. Neither God nor the set {rational numbers} are made of anything.) If fairies are made of matter - I don't see how they could hide themselves in a country with the population density of the United Kingdom. Nor could they exercise many of the abilities attributed to fairies in stories. On the other hand, if fairies are not made of matter that contradicts my commitment to materialism.
In short, the difference between me and a believer in fairies isn't just that they have an extra belief that I don't have. I have beliefs that the believer in fairies doesn't have and can't have.
The comparison of atheism to baldness falls down for that reason. You cannot produce a coherent belief system either by taking an atheist belief system and adding God, nor by taking a theist belief system and taking away God.
I don't think that qualifies atheism as a faith though.
quote:
And it seems my original point has been lost on you, which is that all it takes to be an atheist is to not believe in god; it doesn't require rationality.
Noted.
But I think you made your original point in a way that attracted this tangent. I suppose that the reason I want to respond to your point is that in the way you phrased it it is:
a) a mischaracterisation of belief in God (it's not atheism with extra bits added);
b) a way of shifting scrutiny to religion while leaving humanism or postmodernism or Randian objectivism or whatever the atheist does believe unscrutinised.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK, the new thread is open here. I appreciate some of you are in mid-chat but I'm sure you'll see the point of the traffic direction (as I see Dafyd has done)
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do.
Thus it is perfectly fine for the lord of the domain to burn down one of his villages and salt its fields, as long as he gives the villagers ample opportunity to wail about it?
Yes, for all values where biggest = only. For those of us who understand those words have two different meanings, not so much.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
...
Let's give all those disgruntled atheists a board here. We could call it "Pie-in-the-sky"
Very catholic of you there, QLib.
Coming for the East End of London, maybe a Pie Shop would be more the thing. With mash, of course.
Board sub-title, Richard's bitter twitters...
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Yes, for all values where biggest = only. For those of us who understand those words have two different meanings, not so much.
OK, so the following is the version you fully support then?
"The biggest problem was not that the lord of the domain burned down one of his villages and salted its fields, but rather that he did not give the villagers ample opportunity to bewail that."
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
No, because shutting everything down and deleting posts and members like he did were the acts of burning the village and salting the earth, which I already said was the biggest problem. Prior to that, the more apt analogy (and just wtf is up with you and analogies, anyway? Can't you ever just discuss something straight up?) would be to say that they decided to change the neighborhood from a squatters' land to a gated community. Not one I agree with, but one well within their rights.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Erin: quote:
(and just wtf is up with you and analogies, anyway? Can't you ever just discuss something straight up?)
Analogies are helpfully fuzzy and come preloaded with spin.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Is there not a major falling out / re-structure/re-trenching going on at St Pixel's - it is clearly not just an atheist problem. But I do think the vent thing is hugely important.
If dissenting opinions are not permitted, or people are expected to suppress even justified negative emotions (eg anger), then it either eventually explodes in a flame war or creeping passive aggression.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erin: quote:
(and just wtf is up with you and analogies, anyway? Can't you ever just discuss something straight up?)
Analogies are helpfully fuzzy and come preloaded with spin.
A bullseye!
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
The new ex-RD website mentioned earlier in this thread has it's own thread talking about the SoF response.
Here.
Some interesting perspectives on SoF in general, and this thread in particular. I've linked to it so we can discuss them discussing us discussing them.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
ITTWAAW: 'I Thought This Was An Anglican Website'
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I agree with Moth - the RD forum needed an atheist version of Hell.
I have never been there (yet!) but having a place to vent and let off steam is a good idea.
I don't think it does to assume it could never happen here 'tho.
If someone owns/writes the software on any forum, they can always pull the plug.
That's not to say they ever would - but there is no harm in succession planning imo.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
"Brilliant to see a theist as a mod on an atheist forum - now imagine an atheist as a mod on a theist forum"
Should we tell them about RooK? Oh wait he's an agnostic. I think.
PS: if they call me an Anglican, should I get indignant, or just let it go? Should they be making such unwarranted assumptions? I mean, aren't they evidence-based reasoning machines?
[ 28. February 2010, 21:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
The new ex-RD website mentioned earlier in this thread has it's own thread talking about the SoF response.
Here.
Ummh. The most interesting thing about that thread is that (up until to the very last post) everyone assumes that the Ship is an Anglican board.
ITTWAAWS? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Wildrow12 (# 15286) on
:
So....wait:
We are in a thread, discussing a thread, about a thread, about another forum going down, whose denizens felt insulted about our thread and thus decided to make a thread about...us?
Huh.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
Why does that sound like a Dr. Who episode?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Curses.
I made the same joke as everyone else but just 10 minutes too late. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Is this an example of 'group think'?
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
There is now an apology by Richard Dawkins.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Go in peace. Your sins are forgiven.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It looks like RD is prepared to shoulder some of Josh Timonen's personal responsibility for some pretty wilful actions. Which is pretty noble, I guess, but I'm not sure it's all that wise.
I think Josh Timonen needs to take a few steps to mend some of the fences he tore down - i.e. follow RD's lead. Hope he does.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
There's a very good article on the main magazine of the Ship at the moment, dealing with the wider picture of why the Dawkins forum (and similar sites) run into difficulty. I'd recommend a read if you haven't already.
I seem to remember something similar happening with the REjesus site which Bruce had to close down. With the best will in the world, Internet forums don't always go the way their owners would like them to. Just as well we have a resident alligator to eat anyone who threatens the future.
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
PS: if they call me an Anglican, should I get indignant, or just let it go? Should they be making such unwarranted assumptions? I mean, aren't they evidence-based reasoning machines?
Is Outrage
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
There's a very good article on the main magazine of the Ship at the moment, dealing with the wider picture of why the Dawkins forum (and similar sites) run into difficulty. I'd recommend a read if you haven't already.
I seem to remember something similar happening with the REjesus site which Bruce had to close down. With the best will in the world, Internet forums don't always go the way their owners would like them to. Just as well we have a resident alligator to eat anyone who threatens the future.
I think this is the one. Mark makes some really interesting points.
Tubbs
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
No, because shutting everything down and deleting posts and members like he did were the acts of burning the village and salting the earth, which I already said was the biggest problem.
You "alread said that"? Where? I'm glad that you say so now. But prior to that post, I can find only two posts by you on the thread: first and second. The first one states "The biggest mistake I see here? Josh Timonen did not let people bitch about the decision. That's just what you do." Thus not letting people bitch is the main problem, rather than actually smashing RDF. And the second one says "Yes, for all values where biggest = only." Thus it merely admits that there are other problems as well, but does not correct your first post concerning what is the biggest problem. Did I miss something?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
just wtf is up with you and analogies, anyway? Can't you ever just discuss something straight up?
I can and do. Perhaps you are not reading enough of my posts. However, analogies can be powerful arguing tools, as can be seen in your reaction to this one.
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
God is good.
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
There is now an apology by Richard Dawkins.
Interesting: the moderation of the new site apparently extends only to pre-approval of threads (but not comments).
Is this that different from the way we do it? Of course, anyone can post a thread, but if it's inappropriate for the board it will be moved or closed. I think our system's better (of course ) because of the instant gratification factor of starting something and seeing it appear immediately, but it now looks like the forum's been re-factored rather than being transformed into a police state or something.
I do think it's interesting that, in all of this, there seems to have been an inability (or lack of desire) to learn from the successes or failures of other forums that have confronted these problems before. I suppose the admission that they have things to learn about human nature might be too galling to admit? They seem to be falling back on the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, but I think "blame the Internet" is a bit like "shoot the messenger" here. It's just a bunch of tubes...
- Chris.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Did I miss something?
So much more than you will ever comprehend.
1. I do not agree with their initial decision to turn their forums into blog-type discussions, with the initial submissions requiring approval. If that were proposed here I'd fight it to the bitter end. However, it is within their rights to do so and I do not believe that it heralded the end of the world.
2. Instead of announcing it and letting people blow off steam about it, they announced it, got some flak and promptly shut everything down to prevent them from having their say. That is the part that I would consider "burning down the village and salting the earth", NOT the initial decision by Richard, Josh, et. al.
In my opinion, 2 is a far greater sin than 1.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Did I miss something?
So much more than you will ever comprehend.
1. I do not agree with their initial decision to turn their forums into blog-type discussions, with the initial submissions requiring approval. If that were proposed here I'd fight it to the bitter end. However, it is within their rights to do so and I do not believe that it heralded the end of the world.
2. Instead of announcing it and letting people blow off steam about it, they announced it, got some flak and promptly shut everything down to prevent them from having their say. That is the part that I would consider "burning down the village and salting the earth", NOT the initial decision by Richard, Josh, et. al.
In my opinion, 2 is a far greater sin than 1.
I agree, but an atheist wouldn't understand the concept of sin. Has a utilitarian approach got the better of them (or merely the arbitrary way in which it was applied?)
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
dawkins seems shocked that his 'stirring up strife in people's minds and between communities has come home to roost.
Just a couple of his choice moments of tolerance and understanding...'religious education is a form of child abuse'. Catholicism and Anglicanism are 'a virus'.
Goebells would approve.
Why can't people see through him?
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
There is now an apology by Richard Dawkins.
Interesting: the moderation of the new site apparently extends only to pre-approval of threads (but not comments).
Is this that different from the way we do it? Of course, anyone can post a thread, but if it's inappropriate for the board it will be moved or closed. I think our system's better (of course ) because of the instant gratification factor of starting something and seeing it appear immediately, but it now looks like the forum's been re-factored rather than being transformed into a police state or something.
- Chris.
But when a thread on here is closed or moved, it's generally still available, and the hosts usually give a reason for moving/closing it. On the RD site, they seem to be saying that they only want to discuss Approved Topics - it remains to be seen how wide a net that is, but it's kind of coming from the opposite direction than many forums (fora?) online.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
I suspect RD wants the forum to discuss only serious matters, such as befit a rationalist board. He doesn't want chit-chat about personal matters, or games, or other light-hearted pursuits.
From my fairly extensive reading on using bulletin boards in education (I have been researching it lately) he is probably wrong in thinking this will work well. University students, at any rate, have been shown to be rather resistant to discussing serious matters online with people they do not know. This, I suspect, is why successful forums become a community. Until people can in some way relate to those they discuss with, they are unlikely to have discussions of real depth. The fluffy bunny stuff (and the wit in Hell) are actually essential in forming a serious discussion board.
This is not really surprising. Human beings are social animals, and we tend towards creating societies.
Posted by Stowaway John (# 15469) on
:
quote:
I suspect RD wants the forum to discuss only serious matters, such as befit a rationalist board. He doesn't want chit-chat about personal matters, or games, or other light-hearted pursuits.
Well I would question that as a motive Moth because I don't find Dawkins to be that rational. Are phrases from his own lips like 'Religious education is a form of child abuse' and catholicism and anglicanism are 'a virus' the language of serious debate or the words of a propagandist?
My guess is that he wants a clear out of the 'geek' / 'too much time on their hands' element from his website. Is it me or does this have echoes of a kind of night of the long knives? The guy has lost credibility in intellectual circles due to the thug/bully element he's attracted.
People should analyse HIS rhetoric a little more closely. He's a man with a hatred of God, religion and religious types. He wants to see the annihilation of religion so there can be another experiment with a secular utopia. Presumably with him as one of the big players.
Let's call it 'the Dawkins Delusion'.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
That is the part that I would consider "burning down the village and salting the earth", NOT the initial decision by Richard, Josh, et. al.
Well, concerning the practical procedure as things now have developed, I agree. For I guess that if RD et al. had explained and ameliorated their measures in the manner of RD's recent apology (link above) from the start, then the villagers themselves would not have considered their lord's action as "burning down the village and salting the earth". But rather as a modernization attempt with perhaps some questionable aesthetics and unintended negative consequences. In that sense indeed the procedure followed has now become the "biggest problem", pragmatically speaking.
But there is a more principle point here. This conflict (likely) got resolved in a kind of "owner vs. union" manner. Namely, RD et al. became aware that if too many pissed off RDF members would stop "working" (creating web content) for them in future, then it would seriously hurt their own "bottom line" (publicity for RD). So they changed tune and to some extent what they were doing. However, this is still focusing just on RD and what he does with what he owns. The members of RDF are only important as far as their reaction threatens the goals of RD.
But I think forums, by their participatory structure, invite members to think that what is important is them, not the legal owner. I think this is the reason why members put so much effort and time into them for free. So when the legal owner toys around with the forums, he is basically destroying the very illusion that made the success of the forums possible in the first place. I think what is wrong about all this is not that the members let themselves be fooled, but rather that legally they are operating under an illusion. I think the members are right in their feelings here, and the law is wrong (at least to some debatable extent). Basically, if someone fosters a community of people for his own purposes, then at some stage that community gathers some rights of its own, quite apart from those purposes.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway John:
quote:
I suspect RD wants the forum to discuss only serious matters, such as befit a rationalist board. He doesn't want chit-chat about personal matters, or games, or other light-hearted pursuits.
Well I would question that as a motive Moth because I don't find Dawkins to be that rational. Are phrases from his own lips like 'Religious education is a form of child abuse' and catholicism and anglicanism are 'a virus' the language of serious debate or the words of a propagandist?
My guess is that he wants a clear out of the 'geek' / 'too much time on their hands' element from his website. Is it me or does this have echoes of a kind of night of the long knives? The guy has lost credibility in intellectual circles due to the thug/bully element he's attracted.
People should analyse HIS rhetoric a little more closely. He's a man with a hatred of God, religion and religious types. He wants to see the annihilation of religion so there can be another experiment with a secular utopia. Presumably with him as one of the big players.
Let's call it 'the Dawkins Delusion'.
What a tragedy for RD that he failed to get a cabinet position in Erich Honneker's government. He would have been a real ornament to the most successful atheist state.
Terry Eagleton considers Dawkins has no basic understanding of the nature of religion or God. I am dubious if Dawkins really appreciates the nature of Darwinian evolution (particulalry when applied to societal structures).
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I think forums, by their participatory structure, invite members to think that what is important is them, not the legal owner. I think this is the reason why members put so much effort and time into them for free. So when the legal owner toys around with the forums, he is basically destroying the very illusion that made the success of the forums possible in the first place. I think what is wrong about all this is not that the members let themselves be fooled, but rather that legally they are operating under an illusion. I think the members are right in their feelings here, and the law is wrong (at least to some debatable extent). Basically, if someone fosters a community of people for his own purposes, then at some stage that community gathers some rights of its own, quite apart from those purposes.
I agree to some extent, however, I contest the assumption that an individual or foundation must maintain a forum it has decided it no longer wants. If Simon were to wake up tomorrow and say, "you know what? Fuck this shit" he would be under no obligation -- legally, ethically or morally -- to continue to host this forum. The community is welcome to carry on, they just get to do it on their own dime from that point forward. Neither Simon nor Dawkins is under any obligation to fund something they don't see any value in.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway John:
dawkins seems shocked that his 'stirring up strife in people's minds and between communities has come home to roost.
Just a couple of his choice moments of tolerance and understanding...'religious education is a form of child abuse'. Catholicism and Anglicanism are 'a virus'.
Goebells would approve.
Why can't people see through him?
I think that a good number -- if not nearly all - of these "brights" either agree with him or feverishly want him to be right on just those questions. Which places one at a disadvantage for sniffing out shysters.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
And what would robin do then, poor thing?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
... As for the post, I’d be amazed if someone dared post anything under Dawkins name without his prior knowledge and approval....
Tubbs
Does anybody else not see the reference to pseudopigraphy in all this and the Pauline writings?
If its rational for somebody in and around 90AD to take Paul's name when writing 2 Thessalonians, how come its not rational for somebody to do this for Dawkins? It seems our sense of ownership of our own voice is a lot less nuanced then it used to be.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
... As for the post, I’d be amazed if someone dared post anything under Dawkins name without his prior knowledge and approval....
Tubbs
Does anybody else not see the reference to pseudopigraphy in all this and the Pauline writings?
If its rational for somebody in and around 90AD to take Paul's name when writing 2 Thessalonians, how come its not rational for somebody to do this for Dawkins? It seems our sense of ownership of our own voice is a lot less nuanced then it used to be.
Because Dawkins is alive and could sue the socks off you?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Less nuanced? Or more concrete? Frankly when it comes to someone speaking in my name, f*** nuance.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
But, its interesting how many of us on here, including myself, who believe some of the Pauline letters are pseudopigraphical get somewhat perturbed about people taking our own voices over.
That's a strange intellectual juxtaposition.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
Surely the whole sorry mess is because Dawkins has 'people' to do all sorts of things without having to trouble himself about them?
Why would he bother to write his own post to the forumistas any more than he would bother to read the forums or post there?
I found a touching thank you letter to RD posted on one thread by a newbie followed by a series of posts from other people explaining (in what felt like hushed tones) that the poster must understand that RD would never actually read his post as he didn't venture onto the forums.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
At least one of them believes in resurrection.
He says -
"But never mind, we ex-RDF'ers will rise again"
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, its interesting how many of us on here, including myself, who believe some of the Pauline letters are pseudopigraphical get somewhat perturbed about people taking our own voices over.
That's a strange intellectual juxtaposition.
You mean I should feel the same on Paul's behalf that I feel on mine? Why?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If Simon were to wake up tomorrow and say, "you know what? Fuck this shit" he would be under no obligation -- legally, ethically or morally -- to continue to host this forum. The community is welcome to carry on, they just get to do it on their own dime from that point forward.
Well, I basically agree. However, I think sufficient prior warning would be due, so that in fact the community has a fair chance to organize itself in order to take over. And then there would have to be enough cooperation from the original owner to actually make it possible in a practical sense (handing over passwords or whatever).
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, its interesting how many of us on here, including myself, who believe some of the Pauline letters are pseudopigraphical get somewhat perturbed about people taking our own voices over.
That's a strange intellectual juxtaposition.
You mean I should feel the same on Paul's behalf that I feel on mine? Why?
Oh, I don't know...intellectual purity.
I see your point about self though.
But, as for our thoughts on others, those who mock Dawkins for maybe having people write stuff for him may want to ask if there isn't something a tad hypocritical about this point.
We accept that biblical pieces that enlighten and indicate Christianity may not be written by the suppossed writer but that for somebody in modern times to do the same thing is intellectual hypocrisy?
That's a bit different, don't ya think?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
That depends. If people are writing for Dawkins with his permission, it's one situation. He might be lazy. He might not trust himself not to piss people off again because of his anger. If they are writing in his name without his permission, there might be fat flying in Dawkins Headquarters, but it might be kept in-house.
If people wrote in Paul's name while he was alive, he might have been pissed off, or he might have been okay with it if, as I have been informed, that that sort of thing happened in those days and he approved of the writer, no big deal. It might have been short hand for (School of) Paul. If he were dead, maybe all bets were off and people expected followers to keep his POV alive under his moniker. Those days are not these days.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I think sufficient prior warning would be due, so that in fact the community has a fair chance to organize itself in order to take over. And then there would have to be enough cooperation from the original owner to actually make it possible in a practical sense (handing over passwords or whatever).
Which is why I think shutting everything down because he got his delicate baby feelings hurt was the bigger problem. They gave 30 days' notice -- not exceptionally generous, but at least some notice. He should have manned the hell up, taken what was coming, and let the community use the forum as a staging area for their next move. It cracks me the hell up that Dawkins took offense to someone calling Josh a suppurating whatever -- here, that would have earned a shitload of ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Less nuanced? Or more concrete? Frankly when it comes to someone speaking in my name, f*** nuance.
Og, even if Paul didn't write all the letters and some were written on his behalf and using his name, I'd assume that this was done with Paul's knowledge and permission. Paul appeared to have quite a temper. Someone putting his name on something he didn't approve of would be likely to feel the full force of it.
Tubbs
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It cracks me the hell up that Dawkins took offense to someone calling Josh a suppurating whatever -- here, that would have earned a shitload of .
I can even think of one or two for whom earning that level of vituperation would have been the equivalent of winning an Oscar.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think if that insult were spoken in a Hell thread here, it would be nominated for a Simmie. It was well-crafted and well-delivered.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he is an evangelical.
His holier-than-thou preachiness makes one think immediately that the other side must have a point. (That was certainly the attitude of a hardened set of philosophy student agnostics I encountered).
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
I am just trying to get my head around the concept of bells-n-smells atheism.
Posted by Matt Wardman 2000 (# 15515) on
:
This has been a fascinating thread.
From the very top
>The Cossacks always work for the Czar.
... but the Praetorian Guard sometimes killed the Emperor :-).
My take on where this came from is that the underlying cause may be RD spreading himself too thinly to have time to devote to manage the diverse set of initiatives he has created, and that has perhaps not put in place an organisation/secretariat capable of doing that on his behalf.
There may be some stuff in there about thinkers, authors and academics not usually being good managers.
I think that the “overstretch” theory is supported by the slightly hurried nature and lack of attention to certain details of the Non-Believers Giving Aid launch, where they didn’t have the UK tax setup properly supported until several days after they launched.
He wanted to create a movement, which he did, and that developed its own character. And perhaps it may “just growed” beyond his wildest dreams.
Matt
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
I am just trying to get my head around the concept of bells-n-smells atheism.
I think he has to be a low-church atheist. Low-church Christians are the only ones he acknowledges to exist, to where if you're not one of them, or at least on board with them, he denies you're a Christian at all (apparently because the mindless arguments he has only work against them).
Unless, perversely, you're the ABC.
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
quote:
posted by Matt Wardman 2000 [snip] Non-Believers Giving Aid launch, where they didn’t have the UK tax setup properly supported until several days after they launched. [snip]
Matt [/QB]
Wow, what a weird site. Where did RD get the idea that you have to be religious to be good from? There are dozens of secular charities out there sending aid to Haiti.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
quote:
posted by Matt Wardman 2000 [snip] Non-Believers Giving Aid launch, where they didn’t have the UK tax setup properly supported until several days after they launched. [snip]
Matt
Wow, what a weird site. Where did RD get the idea that you have to be religious to be good from? There are dozens of secular charities out there sending aid to Haiti. [/QB]
Probably it's because widespread charity is one of theism's better qualities, and he wanted it to be abundantly clear that we don't have the corner on that market. That, and he might truly feel that aspect of his own secularist movement needed some bumping up to make it a positive whole with a specifically assigned part for social conscience.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, a number of Shipmates get an honourable mention here (scroll down) and WhyNotSmile gets an invite.
Gurdur's blog is a bit of a find, I reckon.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Low-church Christians are the only ones he acknowledges to exist, to where if you're not one of them, or at least on board with them, he denies you're a Christian at all (apparently because the mindless arguments he has only work against them).
Unless, perversely, you're the ABC.
Fantastic. From this we can assume that you and I either: - Don't exist
- Are the Archbishop of Canturbury
Rational logic is a wonderful thing
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
RD did once say inb a Sunday colour supplement that although he was opposed to religion he approved of the vicar umpiring the village cricket match. He also has a sneaking regard for the Book of Common Prayer.
So he's there in all the essentials.
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, a number of Shipmates get an honourable mention here (scroll down) and WhyNotSmile gets an invite.
Gurdur's blog is a bit of a find, I reckon.
Aw. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I never get invited to things.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Rational logic is a wonderful thing
Indeed it is. You should try it.
Conclude that he doesn't think we're "real" Christians.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
RD did once say inb a Sunday colour supplement that although he was opposed to religion he approved of the vicar umpiring the village cricket match. He also has a sneaking regard for the Book of Common Prayer.
So he's there in all the essentials.
I have heard him admit to showing up at, and liking, the parish church's carol service. I think he tried to explain it off as folk culture.
Charlotte
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
RD did once say inb a Sunday colour supplement that although he was opposed to religion he approved of the vicar umpiring the village cricket match. He also has a sneaking regard for the Book of Common Prayer.
Dear God! he could be a C of E vicar!
Posted by Matt Wardman 2000 (# 15515) on
:
>Dear God! he could be a C of E vicar!
I think there may be something in that. RD is reported as personable and solicitous 1 on 1, but is clearly more than a little polemical in public, with the full range of rhetorical tricks and sharp elbows.
I'm reminded of certain prominent "Protestant!!!" spokesclergy from the North-East, but with a greater amount of polemic.
And one thing that has surprised me in researching this affair is the number of times he says something, then apologises or calls it "mischevious" and backpedals slightly having already done the damage, even in the national press.
Example: consider RD's "'A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation - it's a Monty Python sketch.'"
A couple of days later he said this in the New Scientist:
"Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society's Education Director to a Monty Python sketch".
And there are a *lot* of these occurrences in public and in website conversation, which is also public - but I'm not sure RD really gets the Net. I think it's a pattern.
I'd prescribe a Secretary with teeth and a big stick.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
RD did once say inb a Sunday colour supplement that although he was opposed to religion he approved of the vicar umpiring the village cricket match. He also has a sneaking regard for the Book of Common Prayer.
Dear God! he could be a C of E vicar!
Sounds more like John Major, or quite a few members of the Prayer Book Society.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Rational logic is a wonderful thing
Indeed it is. You should try it.
Conclude that he doesn't think we're "real" Christians.
OK. So he is suggesting that we are "complex"*, or possibly "irrational" Christians. I can live with that.
After all, art is too non-rational for RD to suggest we are "surreal".
3F
*Quarternions are an obviously heretical back water as they lead no where.
Posted by epepke (# 15525) on
:
Greetings. I was pointed to this forum and thread by a very nice fellow named jerome. I could not easily find an introductions thread, and I'd be obliged if someone could point me to one. If there is none, I'll just jump right in.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Hi epepke and welcome
Thanks for joining. If you haven't already done so, it will probably be worth your while to look at the FAQs and the 10 Commandments. The latter link also gives you a link to the guidelines for the separate boards.
Hope you enjoy your time here. This thread is a bit "played out" pro tem, but please feel free to post on it anything from your own perspective or experience. Personally, I've enjoyed reading jerome's stuff (there are links earlier in the thread).
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by epepke:
Greetings. I was pointed to this forum and thread by a very nice fellow named jerome. I could not easily find an introductions thread, and I'd be obliged if someone could point me to one. If there is none, I'll just jump right in.
Welcome! There's a thread for introducing yourself here but it's by no means compulsory.
You should go to the Purgatory board and read the "10 commandments", but as long as you get those, it's quite permitted to dive into the fray.
ETA cross post with big host person.....
[ 10. March 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
Posted by epepke (# 15525) on
:
Thank you for the welcome.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0