Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Dawkins has always intensely rubbed me the wrong way — long before the “Claudia” incident, and long before his transphobia came oozing out.

Dawkins has always intensely rubbed me the wrong way — long before the “Claudia” incident, and long before his transphobia came oozing out.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
50 Posts 35 Posters 56 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • inthehands@hachyderm.ioI inthehands@hachyderm.io

    I find the whole theism vs atheism fight somewhere between uninteresting and aggressively uninteresting, and Dawkins has always been like nails on a chalkboard for me. I care less about what people •say• they believe than I do about how people actually •inhabit• this world, how they treat it and themselves and each other. I’m quite comfortable with both theism and atheism, but arrogant certitude really gets my hackles up. There’s just too much we don’t and can’t know for us to let our human heads get that big.

    3/3

    pmb00cs@mastodon.onlineP This user is from outside of this forum
    pmb00cs@mastodon.onlineP This user is from outside of this forum
    pmb00cs@mastodon.online
    wrote last edited by
    #41

    @inthehands in fairness to Dawkins, on the theism vs atheism debate, I do owe it to him for my own personal position on the topic. I used to be militantly atheist, until I saw what a dick head Dawkins was as a militant atheist, and decided I didn't want to be a dick head.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
      tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
      tubemeister@mstdn.social
      wrote last edited by
      #42

      @AvonVilla Oh there are certainly more problems than fit in a 500 char post. 😉

      I filed him away years ago as not necessarily wrong as such but a tedious arsehole about it. And basically a bit of a red flag if people like the guy.

      Guess I'll have to revisit the former part. 😉

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • naich@fosstodon.orgN naich@fosstodon.org

        @ASprinkleofSage @inthehands

        It's his writing style, and his way of making a point. The actual article is here - https://unherd.com/2026/05/is-ai-the-next-phase-of-evolution/ I haven't read it because fuck paywalls, but the extracts I have seen seem to be asking the difference between talking to a concious person or a "zombie" person in the form of AI. It's not an original idea.

        asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
        asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
        asprinkleofsage@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #43

        @Naich @inthehands his entire point seems to be "the turing test is infallible" and "it said nice things about my book and answered some common questions about consciousness in a way that many other writers also have so it must be conscious" so unless he's playing a deep and seriously ironic devil's advocate (which really jars with his personality) then he's not making a particularly strong point

        asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA naich@fosstodon.orgN 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA asprinkleofsage@mastodon.social

          @Naich @inthehands his entire point seems to be "the turing test is infallible" and "it said nice things about my book and answered some common questions about consciousness in a way that many other writers also have so it must be conscious" so unless he's playing a deep and seriously ironic devil's advocate (which really jars with his personality) then he's not making a particularly strong point

          asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
          asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
          asprinkleofsage@mastodon.social
          wrote last edited by
          #44

          @Naich @inthehands fyi there is an unpaywalled version https://archive.is/6RdK9

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • frog_reborn@mstdn.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
            frog_reborn@mstdn.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
            frog_reborn@mstdn.social
            wrote last edited by
            #45

            @AvonVilla @Tubemeister @inthehands

            Yeah, I wasn't really trying to make a claim about popularity - some of these "sub"branches might very well be mainstream - but was talking more concept-wise. The broadest and often commonly shared claims of theists are kinda hard to even find an empirical frame/evidence/non-evidence for, while many of the more specific claims like the things you mentioned can of course be disproven fairly easily.

            tubemeister@mstdn.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • asprinkleofsage@mastodon.socialA asprinkleofsage@mastodon.social

              @Naich @inthehands his entire point seems to be "the turing test is infallible" and "it said nice things about my book and answered some common questions about consciousness in a way that many other writers also have so it must be conscious" so unless he's playing a deep and seriously ironic devil's advocate (which really jars with his personality) then he's not making a particularly strong point

              naich@fosstodon.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
              naich@fosstodon.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
              naich@fosstodon.org
              wrote last edited by
              #46

              @ASprinkleofSage @inthehands
              Totally. It's a point that has been made in a far better way than his writing. I think "The God Delusion" was when he stopped being insightful, and just started churning out rubbish.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • frog_reborn@mstdn.socialF frog_reborn@mstdn.social

                @AvonVilla @Tubemeister @inthehands

                Yeah, I wasn't really trying to make a claim about popularity - some of these "sub"branches might very well be mainstream - but was talking more concept-wise. The broadest and often commonly shared claims of theists are kinda hard to even find an empirical frame/evidence/non-evidence for, while many of the more specific claims like the things you mentioned can of course be disproven fairly easily.

                tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                tubemeister@mstdn.social
                wrote last edited by
                #47

                @frog_reborn @AvonVilla The thing is, it's not up to me to find evidence or to disprove it. I'm not the one claiming it's real.

                (Ofcourse, "evidence" is fairly explicitly not the point of the game here, which is where this chafes with nonbelievers.)

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • inthehands@hachyderm.ioI inthehands@hachyderm.io

                  RE: https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/116525367498270786

                  Dawkins has always intensely rubbed me the wrong way — long before the “Claudia” incident, and long before his transphobia came oozing out. I’ve always said of him that he rejected the dogma of right-wing fundamentalist religion but never its broken patterns of thought. I stand by that doubly now.

                  1/3

                  nicelymanifest@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  nicelymanifest@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  nicelymanifest@mastodon.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #48

                  @inthehands Dawkins very bright fellow but allows emotions such as a sense of arrogant self-importance to blindsight himself.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • tubemeister@mstdn.socialT tubemeister@mstdn.social

                    @AvonVilla @inthehands You can never be 100% certain without proof.

                    Luckily for the average atheist the standard isn't that high. I don't _have_ to prove a negative, in fact it's impossible.

                    We've been banging on about this in very specific ways for millennia and so far I'm not seeing any evidence, thus comfortably consider the hypothesis not proven. 😉

                    The thing with him is that he was loudly and agressively certain, and a dick about it, which made him the annoying kind of religious person.

                    wesgeorge@mstdn.socialW This user is from outside of this forum
                    wesgeorge@mstdn.socialW This user is from outside of this forum
                    wesgeorge@mstdn.social
                    wrote last edited by
                    #49

                    @AvonVilla @inthehands I've identified for years as a militant agnostic: I don't know for sure, and you don't either.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • inthehands@hachyderm.ioI inthehands@hachyderm.io

                      RE: https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/116525367498270786

                      Dawkins has always intensely rubbed me the wrong way — long before the “Claudia” incident, and long before his transphobia came oozing out. I’ve always said of him that he rejected the dogma of right-wing fundamentalist religion but never its broken patterns of thought. I stand by that doubly now.

                      1/3

                      cyberwitch@goingdark.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                      cyberwitch@goingdark.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                      cyberwitch@goingdark.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #50

                      @inthehands Dawkins and his fanboys have given atheism its reputation of snobbery and white boys stroking their big brains. While my stance is that religion has done more harm than good, atheists should recognize its psychological role and how people from time immemorial needed it as a stabilizing factor in their lives, and most still do, internally or for cohesion with their community. What atheists should be focusing on is divorcing dogma from power. Not being debate bros.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      0
                      • R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups