RD.net to be re-revamped!

[hadespussercats]

A derail has been moved here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 86&t=42293

Let's move away from the personal attacks, all.

[Red Celt]

A derail has been moved here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 86&t=42293

Let's move away from the personal attacks, all.

Unless they're against RD... in which case... as you were.

[Jason]

Always the clever one.

[DaveDodo007]

Okay, all is clear now. Certain individuals hold Dawkins on a pedestal, from which not even the most scrupulous substantive evidence of wrongdoing, grotesque stupidity and wilfull naïveté will ever cause him to fall.

Fine. Glad we got that out in the open - although I do wish it had come out sooner, so that I'd have known that I was wasting my time with such specific individuals right from the start - and so that they wouldn't have wasted their own time, given that we've established that all of their conclusions are foregone and set.

All I'll add is that it's a pity that Dawkins didn't radically alter your thinking when it comes to reason, critical thinking and rationalism. He has strong opinions about the importance of challenging authority, and ridiculing even the highest and mightiest, when they deserve to be ridiculed. About the importance of truth and honesty, even when it is uncomfortable and challenges the most respected people and cultural norms.

Although, I'm sure he'll forgive you this peccadillo since his own attitude to critical thinking is clearly more of a "do as I say, not as I do" type thing. And he's probably quite happy to believe, as you do, that his achievements exempt him from the very values he's supposed to have devoted his life to.

I think you are being a little unfair here, we will defend Richard Dawkins because he has been wrongly characterised in the past. Too rude, too strident just because his views didn't follow the norm. Kneejerk attacks will be met with kneejerk defence that is the way of things, so what if there is some emotional attachment we are human being after all. You are attacking most atheists favourite unrelated grandpa, as I have said in the past you either die a hero or live long enough for your human flaws to be exposed. Most of the 'atheist community' is left wing and the fact that Richard Dawkins is a bad business man makes him more endearing not less. Nobody here has forgotten reason, critical thinking and rationalism, for that check out P Z's blog. What will you achieve if you sully Richards reputation, is Josh going to step up to the plate, not bloody likey because he is a nobody. If you insist in continuing this endeavour I will support you as the truth will out but to be honest am a bit meh about it all.

[hadespussercats]

A derail has been moved here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 86&t=42293

Let's move away from the personal attacks, all.

Unless they're against RD... in which case... as you were.

He's not a forum member.

[JimC]

PZ Myers has a BSc in Zoology and a PhD in Neuroscience - and has been a professor/researcher all of his career. And when he writes on science, he does so well, and eloquently.

I don't agree with some of his political views. I said as much…

Fair point - in the same way, my admiration of RD as scientist is not diminished by any of the kerfuffle about the website or his general naivety...

No offence JimC you gin loving whore you but this is bullshit. What ever happens about this Dawkins' trouser snake stuff. The Selfish Gene was the inspiration for me to study biology and even after the shitstorm at RDF towers and the fact I have no time for leaders atheist or otherwise. Richard Dawkins will always have a special place in my heart whether he likes it or not. P Z Myers on the other hand can go and fuck himself bigtime. I don't give a fuck about someones qualifications if they show themselves to be a dishonest lowlife scum sucking maggot. P Z has done this in spades and i have less respect for him than Fred Phleps(sp) because he should know better.

I think you just went out of your way to give offence.

Exactly!

I have never sold myself for sex!

Which was foolish, since I am so fucking sexy I'd be a multi-millionaire by now if I had relaxed my principles...

[Calilasseia]

I's still like to see something resembling an explanation, as opposed to crass insults, as to why we shouldn't be concerned about the fact that RD is apparently behaving in a manner that seems almost calculated to undo all the good work he's done.

Now what he does with his dick might be a non-issue from the standpoint of the cosmic scheme of things, but unfortunately, some of the well financed and politically well-connected enemies he's taking on have neurotic obsessions about such things, and frequently use actual or imagined accounts of sexual 'malfeasance' as a means of demonising those who happen not to genuflect before mythological fantasies. Which is one of the reasons why I've made the statements I have here, because I recognise this elementary fact. Given the large body of evidence to the effect that these enemies are capable of lying through their teeth when it comes to verifiable scientific fact, does anyone seriously think they won't pull out all the stops in this vein when using any evidence of weakness on RD's part to launch vicious ad hominem attacks as a smokescreen to try and hide the inadequacy and utter failure of their ideological masturbation fantasies?

[Jason]

We should not be concerned because he's just another person, but primarily because atheism is not a religion. There are no tenets you have to follow to be an atheist. It is not an aggressive expansionist ideology.

[rainbow]

Which was foolish, since I am so fucking sexy I'd be a multi-millionaire by now if I had relaxed my principles...

Maybe, but when it comes down to bangs for your bucks, you come out on top.

[Calilasseia]

We should not be concerned because he's just another person, but primarily because atheism is not a religion. There are no tenets you have to follow to be an atheist. It is not an aggressive expansionist ideology.

Correction. There are no blind assertions treated as fact to adhere to in order to be an atheist in the rigorous sense, but I would contend that in order to be so, one has to adhere to the rules of proper discourse, central of which is the maxim "do not treat blind assertions as fact". But of course, there's a world of difference between the rules of proper discourse, and the dogmas of religion.

As for not being concerned about how a public figure challenges supernaturalist failings, I disagree. If we're going to have any public figures do this, I would ask that we demand at least some elementary level of competence with respect to this. As a corollary, I would suggest that the proper way forward is to decouple RD from management roles altogether, so that he's free to concentrate on the critiques, and ensure that he's provided with competent managers to free him thus. I suspect he probably finds the day to day minutiae of management pretty tedious, and he wouldn't be the only academic to do so.

[Jason]

I'm sure the papacy developed following similar logic. I oppose the whole idea of leadership and public figures as supported by atheists. It implicitly assumes the group of 'atheists' in its premise. I'm an atheist and what I share with another atheist may be nothing more than treating no blind assertions as fact. The public (atheists included) and media may make a person of note a figurative leader, or simply a public figure, but his 'failings' should be of no more concern than the 'failings' of any other public figure you're interested in.

Now I realize I've undercut my own position just now by making a subjunctive argument..

[JimC]

We should not be concerned because he's just another person, but primarily because atheism is not a religion. There are no tenets you have to follow to be an atheist. It is not an aggressive expansionist ideology.

Correction. There are no blind assertions treated as fact to adhere to in order to be an atheist in the rigorous sense, but I would contend that in order to be so, one has to adhere to the rules of proper discourse, central of which is the maxim "do not treat blind assertions as fact". But of course, there's a world of difference between the rules of proper discourse, and the dogmas of religion.

As for not being concerned about how a public figure challenges supernaturalist failings, I disagree. If we're going to have any public figures do this, I would ask that we demand at least some elementary level of competence with respect to this. As a corollary, I would suggest that the proper way forward is to decouple RD from management roles altogether, so that he's free to concentrate on the critiques, and ensure that he's provided with competent managers to free him thus. I suspect he probably finds the day to day minutiae of management pretty tedious, and he wouldn't be the only academic to do so.

I'm sure the papacy developed following similar logic. I oppose the whole idea of leadership and public figures as supported by atheists. It implicitly assumes the group of 'atheists' in its premise. I'm an atheist and what I share with another atheist may be nothing more than treating no blind assertions as fact. The public (atheists included) and media may make a person of note a figurative leader, or simply a public figure, but his 'failings' should be of no more concern than the 'failings' of any other public figure you're interested in.

Now I realize I've undercut my own position just now by making a subjunctive argument..

I never wanted RD or any of the others as a "leader". The media went in that direction, and maybe RD and the others were a little swayed in that direction, which is only human nature.

RD, Harris et al were simply good communicators who reached a mass audience...

[lordpasternack]

Cali - I've said and will reiterate - I don't care about the sex per se. I would like someone to address the issues I've raised regarding his empty promises about RDFRS, apparent financial mismanagement - and his Executive Director's documented misconduct. I'd like someone to address the issues I've raised regarding the lawsuit against Timonen.

These are the issues calculated to undo his esteem EVERYWHERE - not just amongst the Daily Mail readership.

[Calilasseia]

Trouble is LP, the one person who can do this seems to have no interest in so doing. Greek tragedy in the making?

[lordpasternack]

Trouble is LP, the one person who can do this seems to have no interest in so doing. Greek tragedy in the making?

Oh yes - and Richard's apparent grotesque stupidity and complacenc, and incapability of addressing said issues. Those are pretty well calculated to send him flying off his pedestal.