Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 1

8/3/2019 Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dawkins-faith-head-thread-page-1 1/16

Go to RichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | Disclaimer |Search the Forum

Andrew Brown whinges some more about DawkinsForum rulesPost a reply

85 posts • Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4Report this post (./report.php?f=14&p=1953972)

Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=14&p=1953972)

Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1953972)by Layla Nasreddin » Fri May 01, 2009 2:35 pm

RichardDawkins.net Forum• View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ... http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80

of 16 5/5/2009 2



This is another eye-rolling post from Andrew Brown at Comment is Free at the Guardian

online about one of his favourite topics, Richard Dawkins and why he's a (insert negative

description here).

It's eye-opening in one way though. You might think, when posting here, that you're talking

to like-minded friends and acquaintances, but as this makes clear, there are a LOT of other

people reading your posts, especially on the front page, and you have no idea what their

views are, or if they're sympathetic or out to quote-mine in order to make Dawkins and/or

the people here and/or atheists in general look as badly as possible. (So I try to keep that

in mind when posting!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/apr/30/religion-atheism-

dawkins-contempt

Dawkins raises the tone

Richard Dawkins, "speaking among friends", shows just why he has so many enemies

There has been a long-running battle among the American scientific community about the

degree to which atheism should be identified with science teaching. On the one side are

those bodies, like the National Centre for Science Education, whose chief concern is to get

evolution taught in schools, and who will happily enlist mainstream Christians in their

cause. On the other side are the hard-line new atheists, who think that science must sweep

away religion and the sooner the better: if believers object, so much the worse for them.

No prizes for guessing which side Richard Dawkins is on.

In a recent post on his own blog's comment section, he mused on this problem:

I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is

what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven't really

considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be

swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be

the butt of contempt.

You might say that two can play at that game. Suppose the religious start treating us with

naked contempt, how would we like it? I think the answer is that there is a real asymmetry

here. We have so much more to be contemptuous about! And we are so much better at it.

We have scathingly witty spokesmen of the calibre of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Who have the faith-heads got, by comparison? Ann Coulter is about as good as it gets. We

can't lose!

If you can bear to listen to him, take, as an example of a typical faith-head trying to be

contemptuous, David Bentley Hart, whose radio interview happened to be posted here at

the same time as Jerry's article.

Listen to the stumbling, droning inarticulacy, the abysmal lack of anything approaching wit

or intelligence. Imagine this yammering fumblewit coming up against Christopher Hitchens,

or Dan Dennett, or PZ Myers – doesn't it make your mouth water?

...


of 16 5/5/2009 2



TopReport this post (./report.php?f=14&p=1954454)


Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1954454)by Janus » Fri May 01, 2009 6:23 pm

Well, for one thing, Dawkins obviously wasn't talking about agnostics, but about Christians

who haven't given that much thought to their beliefs.

As for showing our contempt for self-deception, I'm all for it. It's the only coherent attitude

to have. I'd like to ask Andrew Brown, how do *you* react when someone you're talking to

mentions that he believes that Elvis Presley is still alive, or that Japanese people are

actually aliens disguised with their superior technology, or that diseases are caused by

demons? If you have any respect for truth, you'll snicker, or laugh, or exclaim, "You believe

WHAT?!"

That's all that Dawkins is saying: Show the same contempt for the delusion of theism that

we show for all other delusions.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1954540)by Tucking_Fypo! » Fri May 01, 2009 7:16 pm

The hypocrisy of some people is unbelievable! Christians have been hard headed and trying

to fight against Atheism for many years but no one calls them militant and out of line but

the minute us Atheists say enough is enough and decide to fight back it is us who're put in

the firing line of criticism over being too heavy handed.

The gloves truely are off and i'm glad people are starting to take notice.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1956422)by Layla Nasreddin » Sat May 02, 2009 1:54 pm


of 16 5/5/2009 2



Here's another perspective on the same comment by Dawkins, by Massimo Piglucci, a

biologist, philosopher, and fellow atheist. I admit I found it more difficult to dismiss -- he

definitely has a point about the distinction between methodological and philosophical

naturalism, and I like the idea of studying psychology and sociology to look at why people

believe what they do and why they change their minds, and I also think more study of

philosophy in this area could also be rewarding. Still...when he says "Dawkins & co. should

simply get out of the way and let them do their work", what, exactly, does that mean?

"Shut up?" I think all voices are necessary and different methods will work better with

different people.

Is Richard Dawkins really that naive? (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/04

/is-richard-dawkins-really-that-naive.html) (from Massimo Piglucci's blog, Rationally

Speaking, many links in original)

Richard Dawkins doesn’t usually strike me as being naive, but one has to wonder when

Dawkins abandons himself to the following sort of writing about his favorite topic these

days, the incompatibility between science and religion, on his web site:

“If they’ve [the creationists] been told that there’s an incompatibility between religion and

evolution, well, let’s convince them of evolution, and we’re there! Because after all, we’ve

got the evidence. ... I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that

ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up

and head-patting that Jerry [Coyne] is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to

go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really

hurt. ...You might say that two can play at that game. Suppose the religious start treating

us with naked contempt, how would we like it? I think the answer is that there is a real

asymmetry here. We have so much more to be contemptuous about! And we are so much

better at it. We have scathingly witty spokesmen of the calibre of Christopher Hitchens and

Sam Harris. Who have the faith-heads got, by comparison? Ann Coulter is about as good asit gets. We can’t lose!”

Oh, really? There is so much wrong with these few sentences that a whole book could be

written about them, but since I am no Stephen Gould (who was famous for being able to

magically turn a short essay into a book length manuscript, provided the right economic

incentives), a blog post will have to do. First, though, some background. Dawkins is

commenting on a recent essay by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who in turn was

criticizing Eugenie Scott and her National Center for Science Education. While both Dawkins

and Coyne profess admiration and respect for Scott and her organization (and so do I, for

the record), they are upset by what they see as an “accommodationist” stance on thequestion of science and religion.

Scott — who is an atheist — has repeatedly said that one cannot claim that science requires

atheism because atheism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. She leverages the

standard distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism: if you are a

scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes

that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn’t commit you to the

stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn’t

anything outside of nature and its laws). Years ago, when I first met Genie Scott, I had a


of 16 5/5/2009 2





Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1956785)by Szymanowski » Sat May 02, 2009 4:42 pm

Piglucci wrote:And really, look at Dawkins’ prescription here. According to him we should

be even more “contemptuous” than the religious fanatics are; we should “really hurt” with

our “sharp barbs”; we “can’t lose” because truth is clearly on our side. One almost gets

the feeling that if Dawkins had the resources of the Inquisition at his disposal he might just

use them in the name of scientific Truth

Piglucci fails - surprisingly for a "philosopher" - to distinguish between between verbal and

physical "hurt", or contempt and totalitarianism.

But the main problems are (1) the oft-repeated straw-man argument against philosophical

naturalism, purporting to be a criticism of 'new atheism', (2) conflatingnaturalism/supernaturalism with atheism/theism, and (3) claiming that "the supernatural

might exist" justifies "religion is compatible with science"...



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1956991)by Layla Nasreddin » Sat May 02, 2009 6:26 pm


of 16 5/5/2009 2



Szymanowski wrote:

Piglucci wrote:And really, look at Dawkins’ prescription here. According to him we should

be even more “contemptuous” than the religious fanatics are; we should “really hurt” with

our “sharp barbs”; we “can’t lose” because truth is clearly on our side. One almost gets

the feeling that if Dawkins had the resources of the Inquisition at his disposal he might just

use them in the name of scientific Truth

Piglucci fails - surprisingly for a "philosopher" - to distinguish between between verbal and

physical "hurt", or contempt and totalitarianism.

I'm continuously impressed with how many critiques of Dawkins and the other quote-

unquote 'New Atheists' are quick to attribute suggestions of a tendency to totalitarianism or

authoritarianism -- 'Dawkins wants to take children away from religious parents', 'Dawkins

would, if given the chance, use coercive powers to destroy religion', 'atheists secretly want

to persecute Christians/Muslims/whatever and will if given a chance', etc. Dawkins has

mentioned on several occasions that he wouldn't want to do that at all, he just wants to

'raise consciousness' and persuade people rather than compelling them by force. I wonder

why this is?

I also wonder if, in the larger context of the NCSE, several of the 'accommodationists' are

worried about the political/legal consequences in America of claiming that science and

religion are not compatible. Per the Supreme Court and the First Amendment, public school

teachers cannot pronounce on religious matters, whether positive or negative (of course

this is not infrequently breached in practice). I noticed a story on the front page

(http://richarddawkins.net/article,3808,Judge-SoCal-teacher-violated-First-Amendment,AP-

in-SFGate) about a judge ruling that a public school science teacher had violated the First

Amendment by stating that creationism was 'superstitious nonsense.' I believe that this isbecause the judge sees creationism as a religious belief, and so public school teachers are

not allowed to pronounce on such matters inside the classroom. Now let's take Coyne's

position that science is not compatible with religion -- this would, in fact bring up a whole

host of First Amendment issues in public schools if a teacher were to talk about this. I

suspect that even if the teacher did something as simple as point the students to, say,

Coyne's blog where he explicates his reasons, that would also be held unconstitutional,

because public schools are simply not allowed to discuss the truth or falsity of religious

beliefs -- that's what separation of church and state means in this context. They cannot be

seen as endorsing either the notions that 'religion is true' or 'religion is false'; they must be

studiously neutral. If it becomes generally accepted that science 'disproves' religion, this

could set up a minefield. Better to ignore the question entirely or go for the 'lots of scientists are or have been religious, so there are no real issues between science and

religion'.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1957161)by Szymanowski » Sat May 02, 2009 7:35 pm


of 16 5/5/2009 2



Layla Nasreddin wrote:I'm continuously impressed with how many critiques of Dawkins and

the other quote-unquote 'New Atheists' are quick to attribute suggestions of a tendency to

totalitarianism or authoritarianism -- 'Dawkins wants to take children away from religious

parents', 'Dawkins would, if given the chance, use coercive powers to destroy religion',

'atheists secretly want to persecute Christians/Muslims/whatever and will if given a

chance', etc. Dawkins has mentioned on several occasions that he wouldn't want to do that

at all, he just wants to 'raise consciousness' and persuade people rather than compelling

them by force. I wonder why this is?

IMO it's not very special - it's a common knee-jerk response:

"Smoking leads to an increased risk of lung cancer"

"Fascist! You can't take away my right to smoke!"



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958303)by Richard Dawkins » Sun May 03, 2009 6:37 am

Continuing the 'gloves off' theme, does anybody agree with me that the word 'religionist' --

which is presumably intended to have negative connotations as it is only ever used by

atheists -- is weak and ineffective? I never use it, but we clearly need a noun that covers

followers of religion generally. We can't use 'Christian' because that excludes Jews, Muslims

etc. I have from time to time used 'faith-head', and I think that if lots of people adopted it

it would turn out to be a good consciousness-raiser. Isn't it rather an accurate word,

penetrating straight to the heart of the addiction? And, by the way, the faith-heads really

hate it, so it seems to be hitting home. It's a pity about the hyphen, but the hh in

'faithhead' looks awkward, and 'faithead' doesn't work either (except that it looks a bit like

'fathead').

What do you think? Is 'faith-head' a good meme, worthy of spreading? Or can you think of a

better noun to replace 'religionist'?

Richard



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958319)by Spinozasgalt » Sun May 03, 2009 6:48 am

"Godlambs" perhaps ?



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958338)


of 16 5/5/2009 2



by -TheCodeCrack- » Sun May 03, 2009 7:04 am

I like faith-head. It's accurate, and no one should like to be called a faith-head. I say we

spread it.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958522)by Ian Edmond » Sun May 03, 2009 9:06 am

Richard Dawkins wrote:And, by the way, the faith-heads really hate it, so it seems to be

hitting home.

That's precisely why I'm not keen on it. If the faithful decided on a common term for us,

and settled on "fools" (after "The fool hath said..."), we'd be rightfully indignant. I think it's

a mistake to go into battle with a term designed to denigrate your opponents. That's the

first step on the path to dehumanising the opposition, and only serves to obscure the issues.

Concentrate on the issues, not the personalities. And the moral high ground is a good place

to occupy.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958570)by besleybean » Sun May 03, 2009 9:28 am

I see what you mean and agree with you. The difference being ' faith' wouldn't have a

negative connotation for the religious, whereas ' fool' would be negative to most people.




besleybean wrote:The difference being ' faith' wouldn't have a negative connotation for the

religious

"Faith" itself doesn't have those connotations, but as Richard correctly identifies,

"Faith-head" is pretty disparaging and tends to piss the religious off. I've engaged in

discussions on other forums where I've defended Richard against the usual accusations of

arrogance and aggressiveness, almost completely successfully (considering that actual

evidence to support those accusations is largely non-existent), but I've had to concede a

fraction of a point when this specific term has been mentioned.




of 16 5/5/2009 2




Ok. Well maybe it's back to the, we can't help their being offended type of thing. It would

be up to those to argue why they object to the term. I wouldn't mind being called an

evidence or reason head, but maybe I'm being facetious. I do think in general, it is up to

individuals to title themselves and to explain why. People are, of course, free to reject all

labels. It is sometimes clearer to explain what you belive and why, labels can bemisconstrued.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958644)by seals » Sun May 03, 2009 10:07 am

Theist, but I don't know if that covers all religions. Nonatheist? I agree the word shouldn't

be derogatory, which I think faithhead does have a tendency to sound, with its association

to other words such as pothead, airhead, deadhead, dickhead, bonehead etc. Not all wordsending in -head are derogatory but this word will be used in situations where any excuse to

take offence is likely to be sought.





of 16 5/5/2009 2



besleybean wrote:I wouldn't mind being called an evidence or reason head, but maybe I'm

being facetious.

The general form "x-head" can have different connotations, though, depending on "x".

"Reason-head" is either perfectly OK, or simply ridiculous if intended as a put-down.

On the one hand, I know heavy metal fans who see "metal-head" as a positive identifier. On

the other, "dope-head" or "crack-head" have negative connotations, and as Richard has said

here (http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3574,Jerry-Coynes-Seeing-and-Believing-

with-responses,Jerry-Coyne-Lawrence-Krauss-Daniel-Dennett-Sam-Harris-Steven-

Pinker,page2#333753) , these are the inspiration for "faith-head". This is why it makes me

uncomfortable. If I want to engage in a debate about a serious issue, I don't want to do it

by starting off by insulting my opponents personally - that just turns it into a childish

squabble, and may also have the effect of dissuading people who would be otherwise

sympathetic from supporting me (no-one likes a bully).

Disparage people's views, by all means, if the views are worth disparaging. Disparage their

institutions, disparage the effects of their beliefs on society. But start off by insulting them,

and you undermine your own position.

I frequently get into discussions with people who claim that Richard says, for example, that

all religious people are stupid. When I ask for any actual evidence for this, none is

forthcoming - it's just an impression they have. I'm then able to show them how this is a

false impression, and that that is not what Richard has said. Calling faith delusional is not

calling all religious people idiots. But start inserting the term "faith-head" into every

interview and discussion, and this is rapidly going to become a harder position to defend.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958693)by Richard Dawkins » Sun May 03, 2009 10:29 am


0 of 16 5/5/2009 2



Well, I entirely see the point about derogatory words turning people off. That was exactly

why I was so hesitant about proposing a 'gloves-off' policy. I realised that the gloves-off

policy carried that calculated risk. But it was a calculated risk. If you go along with the

gloves-off policy, then you implicitly go along with a certain amount of insult to the faith-

heads. I even used the phrase 'naked contempt' in my 'gloves-off' post. Maybe that was

going too far, which again was why my proposal was made in a tentative manner.

I actually don't think 'faith-head' is so very insulting: not a real Styrer-style profanity, and

nothing like the sort of vitriol that the faith-heads regularly dish out to us. I would call

'faith-head' needling rather than vicious, and miles from vitriolic. It needles, because it

carries the implication that religion is a drug. If any of you have read my 'Gerin Oil' article,

surely you wouldn't call that vicious or vitriolic. It is sardonic, rather, and I think the same

is true of 'faith-head'.

I am still very much open to argument here, but I think some people are exaggerating the

level of insult that 'faith-head' conveys. I think it has a subtlety that disarms the insult.

Richard



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958753)by seals » Sun May 03, 2009 11:07 am

Maybe it would be ok if "faithhead" is used within a likeminded group, but when the word is

used by someone outside who they know doesn't place any value on faith, then it suddenly

becomes needling or derogatory? Even the faithheads like to claim their faith is based on

evidence. However whether this level of "insult" is significant, or whether it's possible to

avoid it completely, I don't know. Even the word "atheist" apparently has connotations

beyond its literal meaning. Sometimes a word can be used with impunity by those it refers

to and no-one else.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958772)by Durro » Sun May 03, 2009 11:23 am


1 of 16 5/5/2009 2



How about "supernaturalists" ?

It isn't grossly offensive, but serves to remind that the basis of belief is in things that aren't

clearly demonstratable with reality based evidence. I kind of like it's association with other

"out there" beliefs such as Astrology, assorted mystical woo and the various whacko cults.

By grouping theists in with people who believe in werewolves, vampires and tarot cards, it

helps to lessen the legitimacy of religious beliefs which, in all reality, are equally vacuous

and intellectually dishonest.

We seem to have to culturally respect people who believe in drinking the blood and eating

the flesh of a man-god who was born of a perpetual virgin and died for the weekend before

he raised himself to be with himself as an indivisible holy trinity, and yet it's socially OK to

mock astrologers, palm readers and crystal ball gazers who hold similar irrational beliefs

(and are regularly exposed as charlatans).

Durro

Last edited by Durro (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=18388) on Sun May 03,2009 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.TopReport this post (./report.php?f=14&p=1958775)


Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958775)by Paula Kirby » Sun May 03, 2009 11:23 am


2 of 16 5/5/2009 2



Ian Edmond wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:And, by the way, the faith-heads really hate it, so it seems to be

hitting home.

That's precisely why I'm not keen on it. If the faithful decided on a common term for us,

and settled on "fools" (after "The fool hath said..."), we'd be rightfully indignant. I think it's

a mistake to go into battle with a term designed to denigrate your opponents. That's the

first step on the path to dehumanising the opposition, and only serves to obscure the issues.

Concentrate on the issues, not the personalities. And the moral high ground is a good place

to occupy.

I couldn't agree with you more, Ian.

We have science on our side, we have logic, we have rationality, we have proper

arguments, we have ethics, we have history, we have plain common sense, we have the

whole of the universe - we have so many arguments for atheism, we don't need to resort to

name-calling.

I do approve, absolutely, of a gloves-off policy, but that doesn't have to mean being rude to

the other side! Let’s absolutely go for it and be utterly tireless in exposing their beliefs as

both false and morally repugnant, let’s not let them get away with any nonsense, let’s

expose their tricks and their lies and their distortions. Yes - absolutely - let's point out that

they’re being ridiculous, but let’s do it through the force of our arguments, not through the

use of childish taunts.

There are some people we will never reach with our arguments, it is true. But there are

many more who we MIGHT persuade, but not if we've started out by calling them names -

why should they even listen to us after we've done that? I'm not talking about the people

who feel insulted the moment we challenge their beliefs. I'm talking about people who

wouldn't feel insulted by that (which is the important bit), but would, quite reasonably, feel

insulted by, well, insults!

And there's a further point too, which is that, in the UK at least, religion doesn't hold its

power in our society because so many people believe it - they don't. It holds its power

because so many people believe that it is benign and moral and a force for good and

therefore should have a voice in the running of the country. We are never going to reach

THOSE people by using terms of abuse about the religious, because we would just be

reinforcing their suspicion that if we lose religion we lose a civilising influence.

I don't often find myself in disagreement with Richard, but on this point I'm afraid I do. I

don't accept the argument that "it's not really offensive", either, or that "needling" the

opposition is ok. This is a serious campaign, with really serious implications for the way our

societies are run. Let's stick with the arguments and let's concentrate on persuading people

we're right and winning them over to our point of view, rather than gratuitously

antagonising them.

Top


3 of 16 5/5/2009 2



Report this post (./report.php?f=14&p=1958789)


Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958789)by Topsy » Sun May 03, 2009 11:31 am

I completely agree with Paula (and she expressed it far better than I could have).



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958792)by Durro » Sun May 03, 2009 11:33 am

I with the earlier sentiments about "faithhead" being somewhat equivocal with "pothead",

"crackhead" and "airhead", etc.

The suffix "-head" seems to be generally associated with a derogatory term these days. One

of the favourable qualities of Richard Dawkins is that he is so darn reasonable and logical,and lets his simple, eloquent, compelling arguments speak for themselves. By resorting to

terms that may be perceived as arrogant or insulting, he may diminish his credibility as a

voice of reason in my opinion - particularly when he is being cast as an agent of evil or

some other such nonsense by the theist community.

I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choose a term that

is respectful while still clearly inferring the irrationality of religion and possibly grouping it

with other irrational belief systems, hence the suggestion of "supernaturalist".

Durro



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958802)by ficklefiend » Sun May 03, 2009 11:39 am


4 of 16 5/5/2009 2



Richard Dawkins wrote:Continuing the 'gloves off' theme, does anybody agree with me that

the word 'religionist' -- which is presumably intended to have negative connotations as it is

only ever used by atheists -- is weak and ineffective? I never use it, but we clearly need a

noun that covers followers of religion generally. We can't use 'Christian' because that

excludes Jews, Muslims etc. I have from time to time used 'faith-head', and I think that if

lots of people adopted it it would turn out to be a good consciousness-raiser. Isn't it rather

an accurate word, penetrating straight to the heart of the addiction? And, by the way, the

faith-heads really hate it, so it seems to be hitting home. It's a pity about the hyphen, but

the hh in 'faithhead' looks awkward, and 'faithead' doesn't work either (except that it looks

a bit like 'fathead').

What do you think? Is 'faith-head' a good meme, worthy of spreading? Or can you think of a

better noun to replace 'religionist'?

Richard

It works because they go on (and on and on) about faith and how great it is and you are

spinning that around and throwing it back at them.

But the wonderful thing about the religious is that you can annoy them just by the simple

act of lumping them all in together. Even the simple "theist" has that little grate of rubbing

a Christian up against a Muslim. They make it too easy.



Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958804)by Janus » Sun May 03, 2009 11:40 am

I don't see "faith-head" as a particularly insulting word. We see faith as a bad thing, but

religious people don't.

And I do agree with Richard that this sort of thing is necessary if we're going to make any

progress. Where would the campaign for gay rights be right now if someone hadn't started

using the word 'homophobe'?

The 'head' part of faith-head sounds vaguely insulting, but so does the 'phobe' part of

homophobe. It' supposed to be vaguely insulting. Believing something on faith is a bad thing,

just as opposing gay rights is a bad thing. Both words, faith-head and homophobic, express

this moral condemnation while being somewhat descriptive.

This kind of tactic might not be appealing to some of the more, uh, high-minded and

sophisticated posters here, but sophistication is a very poor way of furthering a cause down

here in the real world.




5 of 16 5/5/2009 2




I don't know. Does it come down to how much abuse we personally have had to suffer at

the hands of theists? I confess I've so far been quite fortunate, people have at least tended

to be polite.

Generally, I feel people should be allowed to describe themselves and then to justify that

title. Individuals are of course able to reject labels altogether. Sometimes it's clearer justto say what you believe and why, certain keywords can be misconstrued.

This is partly why I have no trucks with the endless and convoluted: did Jesus exist? type

threads. When debating with a Christian, I may mention that some people don't believe a

single definable Jesus exsited. But I am prepared to judge the teachings accredited to the

man and also the beliefs and practices of his followers.

Basically I am happy to start where others are and take the discussion from there.

Top

Next Display posts from previous: Sort by

Post a reply

85 posts • Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4Return to Richard Dawkins

Jump to:

Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], mattwardman and 10 guests

Go to R ichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | DisclaimerPowered by phpBB © richarddawkins.net 2006 - 2007Time : 0.143s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off


Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	matt-wardman
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 1

Documents