For Reason and Science?

[lordpasternack]

I think part of the trouble for Richard is that he can't pigeonhole me at all. I don't fit into the archtype that his harsh critics are supposed to fit into...

Perhaps you just fit into the 'sceptic' pigeonhole?

But sceptics are not supposed to apply their scepticism to Richard Dawkins and/or his charity. Though, if they must, they are supposed to accept whatever evidence-free piffle, defensiveness and general incompetence they receive in response. And if they do notice glaring problems, they're supposed to just say no more about it. Do you have no manners, boy?

Whatever are you going to suggest next? That an organisation purportedly devoted to critical thinking and evidence-based understanding should start fucking acting like it?!

[Svartalf]

Heather, I want to have your babies.

[Calilasseia]

That'll be a biologically interesting phenomenon ...

Of course, I understand LP's point, and have done right from the start. Namely, someone with RD's public visibility should exert some effort toward living up to his own statements. If he wants to promote evidence based thinking, he should exercise some diligence applying this personally. I'm alongside LP on this, and have been from the start. I'm simply aware of the manner in which this could turn into a shitfest now that the blue touch paper has been lit, and that said shitfest could result in much collateral damage. If I could have devised a way of containing this, so that only the guilty parties are stung by the consequences of their actions, I'd have passed this on to LP long ago, and said "go for it". Needless to say, at times like this, the desire to acquire genuine omniscience is pretty strong.

[lordpasternack]

Again - one of my motives for holding Dawkins to account, as the person with whom the buck stops in RDF - is what seems to be his tacit assumption that decent atheists everywhere should and would do everything in their power to shelter him from the consequences of his actions and his dire negligence.

He deserves to be disabused of his narcissistic complacency. The rest of the non-religious community can gird their loins, and Dawkins can enjoy a much needed head-on collision with reality.

[lordpasternack]

Not to mention of course that Cornwell's ability to use Dawkins as a human shield, which makes people in the atheist community unwilling to challenge or report her behaviour, is only going to be breached by a willingness to take shots at Dawkins, too. Shots that he rightly deserves for his part in it all.

It all breaks down at the point where you have to say that if Dawkins genuinely gave a shit about maintaining the reputation and standards of his charity - he would have got up off his backside and taken on real responsibility, months ago. He hasn't. Fire at will.

[Calilasseia]

Of course, one good aspect of all this, is that when the creationists eventually wake up to all of this, we'll be able to point out that it was one of those godless amoral atheists that uncovered all of this, while they were gazing at their navels masturbating to Genesis.

[Brian Peacock]

No, no. They don't do that. You know what happened to Onan don't you?

[JimC]

No, no. They don't do that. You know what happened to Onan don't you?

They go on an' on an' on about it...

[Brian Peacock]

Shut up and drink your gin.

[lordpasternack]

Of course, one good aspect of all this, is that when the creationists eventually wake up to all of this, we'll be able to point out that it was one of those godless amoral atheists that uncovered all of this, while they were gazing at their navels masturbating to Genesis.

Yeah - Dawkins can always use this as a perfect exemplar of how atheists are better on the whole than religious people. He could say:

"Hey - I set up a charity "for reason and science", with one explicit goal of funding my mistress(es), tax-free. I then proceeded to manage that charity like a negligent, incompetent narcissist - more interested in my ego and public image, than actually making sure the charity was being run well. Not surprisingly - a series of fuck-ups, dramas, lawsuits and resignations have come and gone like frequent bouts of gastroenteritis - and now people are asking me to account for donations that I simply can't account for, because I haven't a clue what's going on....

And all I have to say is - Christ knows I would probably have got away with all that and more, if I were dealing with religious people rather than atheists. It is surely a great testament to my fellow atheists that they won't just stand there and take my shit, just because I'm Richard Dawkins. We're still more moral than you - even if I personally am a bit of a wanker sometimes."

[Calilasseia]

Of course, one good aspect of all this, is that when the creationists eventually wake up to all of this, we'll be able to point out that it was one of those godless amoral atheists that uncovered all of this, while they were gazing at their navels masturbating to Genesis.

Yeah - Dawkins can always use this as a perfect exemplar of how atheists are better on the whole than religious people. He could say:

"Hey - I set up a charity "for reason and science", with one explicit goal of funding my mistress(es), tax-free. I then proceeded to manage that charity like a negligent, incompetent narcissist - more interested in my ego and public image, than actually making sure the charity was being run well. A series of fuck-ups, dramas, lawsuits and resignations followed - and now people are asking me to account for donations that I simply can't account for....

And all I have to say is - Christ knows I would probably have got away with all that and more, if I were dealing with religious people rather than atheists. It is surely a great testament to my fellow atheists that they won't just stand there and take my shit, just because I'm Richard Dawkins. We're still more moral than you - even if I personally am a bit of a wanker sometimes."

[lordpasternack]

I just edited it to make it better-er.

[Hermit]

Well done, except for one thing: Could it possibly be that Dawkins set up the foundation with sincerely held honest intentions, and then succumbed to the temptation of dipping his fingers in the bikkie jar? It wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.

[lordpasternack]

Hermit - he very consciously set up the charity ostensibly to "kill two birds with one stone" - to fund his mistress tax-free, using public donations to lessen the brunt of the cost on his own pocket - while also honestly endeavouring to promote critical thinking and scientific understanding. This was the official plan - no two ways about it. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Dawkins has succeeded measurably in fulfilling one of those goals.

[Hermit]

[Dawkins] very consciously set up the charity ostensibly to "kill two birds with one stone" - to fund his mistress tax-free, using public donations to lessen the brunt of the cost on his own pocket - while also honestly endeavouring to promote critical thinking and scientific understanding. This was the official plan - no two ways about it. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Straight from the horse's mouth? Care to share? If you already have furnished evidence that he set up RDF right from the outset in order to plunder it, I missed it. Please indulge me by detailing it again.