Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind

[cbayer]

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind

Increasingly, Richard Dawkins' public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance in a maturing community.
BY MARTIN ROBBINS PUBLISHED 09 AUGUST 2013 12:02



In the olden days, at the turn of the century, it was hard to come by vaguely-racist bigotry in our day-to-day lives. Back then you had to go and visit your grandparents a few times a year, and sit there quietly while they talked about the coloured folk in the corner shop and how you couldn’t walk to Sainsbury’s to buy your Daily Mail without being robbed by a gang of Asians. Then somebody built Twitter, and then Richard Dawkins joined.

@RichardDawkins is the increasingly erratic comedy creation of a bored Oxford Professor called Richard Dawkins. One of the best science writers of the last few decades, Dawkins has succeeding in crafting an online character that ironically parodies the more militant tendencies in capital-A Atheism, serving as a useful reminder for all of us to be more nuanced and tolerant.

Or at least that’s the kind interpretation. The alternative is that one of Britain’s leading intellectuals really has degenerated to the point where he believes that the following is an intelligent argument:

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 8, 2013

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people have found this offensive. It contains no meaningful criticism of religion, nor can it reasonably imply any – there are many reasons why the residents of North Africa or the Middle East win less Nobel prizes than Cambridge scholars, just as there are many reasons why more men than women win Nobel prizes. And ‘designated religion’ is a long way down that list. Besides, on what planet are Nobel Prizes the best metric for achievement or progress?

more at link

[Warpy]

1. Ho-hum, another silly article by someone who wants to organize non believers into a church

combined with a hit piece on the believers' main bogeyman, Dawkins, featuring (surprise, surprise) quotes out of context.

Spare me.

[cbayer]

3. Martin Robbins want to organize non-believers into a church?

Where do you get that from?

BTW, he wrote about the Islamophobic problem, and specifically about Dawkins, 3 months ago.

Dawkins is becoming increasingly irrelevant as younger and less dogmatic atheists are coming into leadership positions. I think that's a good thing for organized atheism.

And there is no context with Twitter. Dawkins is smart enough to know that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. There is no 'leadership', nor 'leadership positions'

14.1 million people in England and Wales (a quarter of the total) said 'no religion' on the census in 2011. Practically none of us are members of any atheist organisation (British Humanist Association: 28,000 members, or about 1 in 500).

However, the 'irrelevance' of Dawkins needs some evidence: 4 of the 6 top spots in amazon.co.uk's bestsellers in the Agnosticism & Atheism category are versions of 'The God Delusion': http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Books-Agnosticism-Atheism/zgbs/books/277527 . Given that it's 7 years old, it seems his writing on atheism is still relevant.

[cbayer]

22. Of course there are leaders and leadership positions.

There are numerous organizations with elected or selected leaders. And there are those that are called on to speak publicly when issues regarding atheism are discussed.

While most self-identified atheists may not hold membership in any of these organizations, many others do, just like those who consider themselves theists but belong to no organized religion. That doesn't mean there aren't any leaders.

I would argue that the mere fact that Dawkin's books are on the bestseller list makes him a de facto leader. And clearly he remains relevant to more than a few people. Some people have adopted his writings in a completely dogmatic fashion, using his phrases and arguments verbatim. You can see that right here.

The question, however, is whether he is helping or harming the causes that organized and activist atheists are embracing. I think he harms it at this point, as does this writer.

[trotsky]

10. It's laughable what a formula it's become.

But there's a willing audience ready to lap this stuff up and heap more bashing on the evil, horrible "New Atheists," since they haven't been able to counter anything the "New Atheists" have actually said.

[Th1onein]

35. What you said. +1000

[immoderate]

2. Dawkins is, "desperately grasping for attention and relevance in a maturing community?"

You mean the rest of atheists "are leaving him behind?" And theists are "passing him by?" And this because of the Nobel remark?

Nonsense.

--imm

[cbayer]

4. It's bigger than the Nobel remark, as the writer points out in the article.

[immoderate]

7. No he doesn't. No other statement of Dawkins is cited.

And the other atheists cited, agree with him, rather than "leaving him behind." It's really hard to pretend that Muslims, and Christians for that matter, have not worked at suppressing science, and continue to do so.

--imm

[cbayer]

9. I guess if you can find a way to support this, it must work for you.

It was boneheaded and not the first time his Islamophobia has been uncovered.

IMHO, Dawkins is becoming a liability to what is becoming a progressive movement with good goals. The fact that younger atheists are talking about that will strengthen, not threaten, the movement as a whole.

[immoderate]

13. Religions suppress science. I think you know this.

I have some friends who are former Muslims. They don't think it is Islamophobic to point out the suppression of science, which is real.

--imm

[cbayer]

14. Some do, some don't.

And he wasn't talking about religion, per se, he was talking about people who have a specific religious faith.

Do you think Dawkins is islamophobic? Do you think this author's criticisms of him are not valid?

[immoderate]

18. Dawkins thinks that Islam is driven by superstition.

But so are most religions. That's realism, not phobia.

His observations about Nobel prizes was a fact. What other comment by him is even mentioned? It's a hit piece.

--imm

[trotsky]

21. Seems to be a new standard apologist tactic.

Instead of attempting to answer criticism about a religion, accuse the person making the criticism of having (insert religion here)-phobia.

[cbayer]

25. If it's a hit piece, it's a hit piece by a fellow atheist.

And he's not alone.

You are apparently in one camp, and I am in the other.

Dawkins is a self-proclaimed anti-theist. Some activist atheists are beginning to push back against that and want what they see as a growing movement to move away from hostility towards religious people. I agree with them.

[trotsky]

27. "You are apparently in one camp, and I am in the other."

Why do you insist on dividing people into teams, cbayer?

[immoderate]

29. Any growing social movement will find reasons to splinter after a bunch of years. They all do.

Robbins is making a name for himself by claiming that septuagenarian Dawkins' days are numbered. How astute.

Dawkins may come across as more "militant" than some other atheists, but I doubt that the actions they would undertake would vary very much. Dawkins would not suppress anyone's rights. Robbins is taking a shot at a strawman.

--imm

[okasha]

30. Are you sure about Dawkins' being unwilling to suppress anyone's rights?

This is the guy who says that raising a child in any given religion is child abuse. Child abuse is a crime. Of course, I've never seen anyone who made this assertion follow it to its logical conclusion. Here's a chance to be the first not to duck: If raising a child in religion is child abuse, and child abuse is a crime, should raising a child in religion be treated as a crime, subject to arrest and punishment?

[immoderate]

32. Simple. Not everything abusive is criminal.

For some things, jail is not the best answer.

I am quite sure I have never encountered an atheist who would criminalize belief. Even Dawkins.

--imm

[okasha]

34. Let's be clear.

You're saying child abuse is not criminal?

[immoderate]

38. Sounds like you're all primed for a round of word games. So let's see how clear I can get.

Here is a dictionary entry for abuse. Are all the things described here criminal activities?

a·buse (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es

1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.

n. (-bys)

1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.

Are you realizing that your approach is not very productive? What you are doing is called equivocating. It's not really enlightening.

--imm

[okasha]

65. Nope, I'm not the one who's equivocating.

You ducked. Have a nice day.

[immoderate]

68. You assert that a commission of "abuse," even a definition, is criminal. That requires equivocation.

Thanks for the kind wishes.

--imm

[trotsky]

33. Are you sure you are quoting Dawkins accurately?

I don't think you are.

Additionally, as you might recall, you yourself agreed that telling children that hell is real and they will be tortured there is child abuse. Would you then take those children away, and charge their parents with a crime?

Here's your chance not to duck!

On edit: Here's your post, for reference.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=59459
"I agree with Starboard Tack that telling child s/he'll burn in hell for any reason is abuse."

[okasha]

66. I don't know about the state where you live,

but in Texas verbal/psychological abuse is covered under the same law that prohibits beating a child. I think that's an appropriate approach to the problem.

I believe that if a child is frightened or threatened with eternal torture in hell, that's abuse. Such cases should be investigated and sent to family court just as other allegations of abuse are and penalties assessed likewise depending on severity of trauma to the child, from mandatory counseling to termination of parental rights to criminal charges and jail time.

[Lordquinton]

69. Great, so you agree with Dawkins

Glad we settled that.

[cbayer]

41. Agree, and there is some splintering going on.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I see more and more groups forming that are not at all anti-theist and want to work with or alongside religious organizations to achieve shared objectives. Those groups appear to be mostly younger people.

Dawkins anti-theist position is one that is only held by a sub-group of atheists and it leaves him wide open for charges of bigotry. Apparently some people don't want to be associated with that.

It's not a strawman at all, imo.

[immoderate]

43. Dawkins may believe that theism is detrimental to human development.

That could be a testable claim. As far as I can tell, it's readily demonstrated. Nevertheless charges of bigotry would depend on an extreme interpretation of the word, that would be independent of how Dawkins might treat people.

I'll aver that thinking that some people are wrong about some things is not the same as bigotry.

--imm

[cbayer]

44. Well, you may think that, but I don't think you'll find any data to back that up.

And then you would have to weigh that against the benefits of religion.

It is a very difficult thing to study due to the huge degree of variation, definitions and experiences.

Anyway, whether it can be validly done and replicated is an open question, but Dawkins hasn't done it.

Agree that thinking some people are wrong about something does not equal bigotry. Being prejudiced against groups of people based on preconceived and generalized assumptions could be.

Being an anti-theist is not disagreement. It is blatantly being against people because of what they believe, even if those beliefs don't harm or impinge on anyone. And that might be bigotry.

[trotsky]

79. No data?

Imagine a religion that emphasizes rote memorization of a holy book for boys, and NOTHING for girls.

What kind of educational/scientific/societal progress do you think such a religious society will experience? Compared to a society that educates its children regardless of sex?

I'm against beliefs that deny a substantive education to children. Does that make me an evil anti-theist?

[Lordquinton]

37. He's responding in kind to the people he's set up against

Tell me the theists he is regularly seen debating with aren't even more anti-atheist than he is anti theist. He is very polite, soft spoken highly educated man, and regularly goes toe to toe with people who shout him down and hail death threats, and he's the asshole, how does that work?

[cbayer]

42. Really? What anti-atheists would they be?

Who has shouted him down or hailed death threats at him in a debate?

The debates I have seen have been with other polite, soft spoken, highly educated men.

Anti-atheism clearly exists and should be countered and challenged. The same goes for anti-theism, imo. Just because "they did it first" doesn't give his anti-theism more credibility. If anything, it gives it less.

[Lordquinton]

54. There is a big difference between the two

One targets the idea, the other targets the person. shouting him down you have the fox news types, In debate he typically chooses formats where he is safe from most of that stuff, the death threats usually come later, in emails and hecklers, it's not hard to find, there is even a video of him reading hate mail.

Anti-Atheists generally want Atheists to convert at any cost, or just die. In some countries it is a capitol offence to be an atheist. Just like the whole Militant Atheist canard, Militant theists fly planes into buildings, militant Atheists make really mean forum posts.

[cbayer]

55. Sorry, but anyone who puts themselves out there and says that most of the world

is delusional and treats people with ridicule and contempt should anticipate some hate mail. I am not surprised that he made a video of it. It just feeds his gravy train.

Are you really trying to make the point that because anti-atheism is bad, it's ok to be an anti-theist? Hate and bigotry are hate and bigotry. If one is bad, the other is bad, even though their may be a difference in how bad they are.

[Lordquinton]

70. And if you can't counter the message, you counter the messanger

He's against the religious ideas that he feels harm the world, and tries to bring attention to that, this thread is an example of how people attack him directly for his beliefs.

He is critical of all religions, but when he makes a statement about one, he is suddenly being bigoted against that one religion, and not a critic against them all. This tweet is backed up by a whole piece written, which you would have found if you were actually interested in context.

There is also the fact that Atheists are the minority in this regard, they have to put up with tons of crap and name calling and death threats, which if they reflect even a fraction they get crucified (figuratively, though appropriately) by the majority.

No, anti-Theism isn't bad, the idea has no protection, it's not something protected, and he's not saying "Let's kill all theists" (unlike the other side, which would be quite happy killing all atheists)

You are creating a false equivalency between the two, which is dishonest.

[cbayer]

73. You keep defending him, if that works for you. It's becoming clearer that you have

much more in common with him than it may have appeared.

I pretty much disagree with everything you have said here, but I think your position is immovable.

[Lordquinton]

76. Again, can't actually counter the message with substance

so you go after the messengers. Did you read his explanation of what he said, and why he said it? Or are you just interested in trashing him at every turn?

[trotsky]

80. History clearly indicates the latter.

Dawkins is a convenient boogeyman for those wishing to dismiss all atheists who are critical of certain religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

82. There is no context with twitter.

He can write tomes about what he meant to say and how it was all taken out of context. He's smart enough to know how twitter works and dumb enough to use it to make a statement that may or may not have been what he really meant to say.


Yes, I am interesting in challenging him at every turn. I don't like anti-atheists in general and I don't like him in particular. I think his message is destructive, divisive, promotes the rights of the privileged and hurts those most in need. He's picked an easy target to attack and attracted angry apostles to go out and spread the word for him, bringing fame and fortune. I do think he is bigoted towards christians and muslims and I'm not thrilled about his attitude towards women either. Honestly, he looks a lot like a fundamentalist preacher to me, and I don't like them either.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Dawkins is a loudmouth, but it's fascinating that...

he gets nailed for this statement.

As usual, if you can't argue with logic, call him a bigot.

It's my understanding that the Four Great Doctors of Islam decided a while back that all questions were answered and there is to be no more exploring of the religion, or anything else. This may have had something to do with the Sunni/Shia split, but I don't know for sure.

About the same time, St. Francis, or one of the other Catholic hotshots at the time, started the ball rolling on how it is possible to question the Church on certain matters and the Church had no business messing with some other matters.

This directly led to the disappearance of the great Arabian and Persian learning and science centers as Islam turned into itself, and the expansion of learning and exploration in the West.

So, yeah, Arabs, who had managed to pretty much take over and civilize Spain, did accomplish a lot back then, but haven't done much lately.

But blaming modern Islam for the lack of scientific leadership smacks of religious bigotry in these times, even if true.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. " Besides, on what planet are Nobel Prizes the best metric for achievement or progress? "

Actually on this planet it is a pretty good metric. On other planets, not so much.

[cbayer]

8. Using that reasoning, then women have inferior records

of achievement and progress.

And black people.

And Africans.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Yes and when we ask why we have some good answers.

Institutional racism and sexism. Was that your point?

[okasha]

15. Very good, Warren Stupidity!

Now, if you want a gold star by your name, can you carry it a bit further?

Let's try "institutionalized Islamophobia," which is exactly what Dawkins is expressing here, and what his apologists are attempting to excuse.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Lets try Islamic culture crippled development.

This fact was actually recognized by the secular Turkish and pan Arab nationalist movements that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and made considerable progress in modernizing their nations until approximately the Iranian revolution. The resurgence of Islamic theocracy has of course been an unmitigated disaster.

[okasha]

26. Let's try European colonialism

crippled development. That's what the secular Turkish and pan-Arab nationalists were actually fighting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Arabs and other people of color were what Kipling called "Lesser breeds without the law," in case you need to be reminded of just how nasty it was.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. No really it didn't.

Carving up the ottoman empire happened after WWI. How would you explain the prior 400 years of stagnation? The Turkish nationalists were not fighting european colonialists as turkey wasn't colonized. The pan arab nationalists were fighting the Ottomans before WWI and the British and French after, and then they were desperately trying to move their nations into the modern world from WWII until the collapse of the soviet union and the resurgence of Islamic theocracy. That effort has almost completely stopped, and many of the middle eastern nations have regressed, although the secular half of the "arab spring" represents its re-emergence as a political force.

The point is that Islamic culture and in particular its tendency toward stifling repressive theocracy has crippled progress in the region for centuries. Christian theocracy did the same for Europe until the enlightenment blew it up. Theocracy in general is a negative force in human society. Arab nationalists understood this and would have agreed with Dawkins.

[cbayer]

16. And what about institutionalized religious bigotry?

[trotsky]

20. In which institution does one find the religious bigotry you are attempting to identify?

The Nobel selection committee?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Institutionalized religious bigotry stopped Islamic countries developing their universities?

They had a head start - the oldest 3 in the world are in Islamic countries. A thousand years ago, they were cutting-edge. But the widely separated countries those are in have just not advanced knowledge, or created an atmosphere for advancing knowledge, in the way many other countries have.

[rurallib]

11. christianity left Christ behind about 2000 years ago

it happens.

[rug]

17. Straight from the ethnocentic comfort of British academia.

Here's a small antidote.

The northern hemisphere underpinnings of the Nobel Prize will go the way of the British Empire.

[CBGLuthier]

28. I guess he would like to be like Peter, considered a founder of something.

Instead he is just a Dick who makes the rest of us look bad. Not a fan.

[immoderate]

31. Peter founded a superstition. Dawkins made actual scientific discoveries.

As for making people look bad, speak for yourself.

--imm

[cbayer]

40. He didn't make any actual scientific discoveries about god.

He just formulated a philosophy, which is really just his opinion, and made a career out of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. What? There are zero scientific discoveries "about gods".

[cbayer]

46. Exactly.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Nor did he formulate a philosophy.

So what was your point?

[cbayer]

48. Oh, but he did.

He formulated a philosophy that god is a delusion.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. No. Atheism predates Dawkins by quite a few years.

Apparently you haven't read the book. No surprise there. Still I find it odd that an alleged non-theist like yourself is so determined to attack another non-theist, and so uninformed about the object of your attacks and the subject of atheism. The God Delusion does not claim to be a new formulation of atheist philosophy. Quite the opposite, it goes over the standard arguments for and against the existence of gods, most of which are centuries old, and breaks no new philosophical ground with its assertions that scientific explanations of the origin of the universe are superior to theological explanations, or that morality does not require religion.

[cbayer]

50. He's an anti-theist.

I don't like anti-theism in general, and I don't like Dawkins in particular.

I don't like anti-atheism either.

Being prejudiced against a group based on their personal beliefs or lack of beliefs, when those do not infringe on the rights of others is bigotry, imo.

He didn't invent atheism, but he promoted an attack on theists.

It is not me that is uninformed, apparently.

Did you say "new philosophical ground"? Didn't you just say he hadn't developed a philosophy?

Which is it?

He will always have a following of anti-theists. That is clear.

But other atheists who don't share that position are becoming more vocal in their rejection of his hostile stance towards believers.

And I am glad to see that.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. I'd respond if there was something there to respond to.

All atheists believe that a belief in god is delusional. It is implied by atheism. Dawkins did not "formulate" this. All he did, and does, is state the obvious implications of atheism. If there are no gods, those who believe in gods are delusional. As you claim to not believe in gods, you too must logically agree that those who do are deluded.

[cbayer]

57. Bull. Not all atheists believe that and you don't speak for all atheists.

The only thing atheists have in common is that they do not believe in a god or gods.

Only a small, but distinct, group believe that everyone that doesn't see it the same way as them suffers from a mental illness.

It's not implied by anything, but it has been widely promoted by a few prominent atheists, who, imo, have created hostility where there was no need for it.

I have never claimed to believe or not believe in gods. I don't know if there are any gods and I don't care if there are any gods.

And I don't think that either those that believe (based on no factual evidence) and those that don't believe (based on no factual evidence) suffer from mental illness based on that alone.

Your assumptions about what most atheists believe are wrong and not based on any evidence whatsoever. Most atheists also place themselves in the agnostic category and do not label those who see the world different as mentally ill.

But you do.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. A delusional belief is not necessarily a mental illness.

But yes if you are actually an atheist, which it is clear that you are not, then as you do not believe gods exist the logical implication of that is that belief in gods is delusional. You might call yourself an atheist without actually being one, or you might not have thought through the implications of your atheism to reach the obvious inference about belief in gods, but that changes nothing.

People have lots of delusional beliefs with being mentally ill. It is fairly ordinary and normal.

[cbayer]

59. Yes, Warren, it is. It is by definition a fixed belief that is firmly held

despite evidence to the contrary. There is no other way to define it.

Again you are wrong. It would be like me saying this:

"Since I believe that god exists and you don't, you are delusional because I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong".

Nonsense.

I don't give a crap whether you think I am an atheist or not. You seem intent on labeling me or not allowing me to have the label you cherish or something. The fact is, I don't care.

People do not have delusional beliefs without being mental ill. It is by definition not ordinary or normal. Can you think of examples where you find it ordinary and normal?

[Warren Stupidity]

63. So a person who believes that Friday 13

Is unlucky is mentally ill?

How about people who believe that the world was created by a supernatural being 6000 years ago? Mentally ill?

My spouse is convinced that if she watches the Red Sox or the celtics on tv they will lose. Lock her up?

We accept that people, normal people, have delusions. It is commonplace. To most atheists, except you of course, belief in supernatural beings is delusional, commonplace ordinary delusional thinking.

[cbayer]

64. The Friday the 13th thing is a superstition for most that believe it.

Now if they spent all their money building some kind of aluminum structure that they treated with microwaves and containing crates of bananas to ward off evil, that might be a delusion. It could be pretty easily shown that none of those things could reliably reduce the incidence of bad events, and the results could be replicated.

While some people who believe in creationism may be mentally ill, most are not. They reject the science that challenges that notion, and while that makes no sense, religious beliefs that are held by groups of people are not generally considered psychiatric symptoms by anyone in the field.

Delusions are symptoms and not characteristics found in the general population. You can personally define them as something else, but you would not be technically correct.

Who is this "we" you speak of? And when were you granted the privilege of speaking for what is commonplace among most atheists? I am surrounded by all kinds of atheists who don't believe that religious people are delusional.

[okasha]

67. What you're calling "delusional"

most folk simply call "being mistaken." There's a huge gap between the two.

[LTX]

62. No, the "logical implication" is not

that belief in gods is delusional. Indeed, such a statement is in and of itself a syllogistic fallacy (not to mention an evidential disregard for the evolutionary persistence of belief).

[Lordquinton]

71. "when those [beliefs]do not infringe on the rights of others"

Here is the flaw in your argument. Religious belief often, and by god's word (read the bible some time) directly infringe on the rights of others. We are finally at a point in time where you are far less likely to be killed because you declare you don't believe in god. Less likely, because there are places where you can be killed, and in a lot of the world you will be severely hindered by declaring such.

[cbayer]

74. There are also places where you could be killed for being a christian

or a muslim or a wiccan or any other number of things. Religious intolerance, whether it be towards believers or non-believers is objectionable.

[Lordquinton]

75. Does that invalidate anything else I've said?

I think it merely reinforces it. Religions also imfringe on the rights of others in many regards, do I really have to go through the list?

[cbayer]

81. No, it doesn't invalidate what you have said at all.

I just wanted to make the point that religious persecution is not unique to non-believers and is a problem where ever it is found.

And I do think it is more politically or tribally driven than religiously driven in many cultures.

BTW, you don't have to do anything.

[dimbear]

36. If you're curious, what really sunk their efforts was infighting, tribalism,

and political assassinations. A historical era we ought to give more attention, due to the fact it doesn't seem to be quite over.

[LynnTTT]

52. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes

Some are belligerent, some quiet, some lecture, some don't. Like Chistians, w are all different.

[madrchsod]

53. yes we are.....

[cbayer]

56. Completely agree. Welcome to the Religion Group.

[bravenak]

77. Such truth.

We are all so very different.

[LTX]

60. This controversy was exacerbated

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

by Dawkins' use of Twitter, a juvenile medium designed to facilitate the lobbing of simplistic verbal hand-grenades. Why any academic makes use of this medium is beyond me.

[cbayer]

61. And then claims that it was taken out of context, as if there were any actual context when

it comes to twitter.

[eilen]

78. Actually there may be a context

if there is a link after the message that links to an article. I don't subscribe to his tweets so did not see it.

[cbayer]

83. I didn't know that (not a tweeter), but I didn't see any links it what has been reposted.

[goldent]

72. I thought the main purpose of twitter was to send message like

"Went for protein boost in my Jamba Juice today"