For Reason and Science?

[Robert_S]

What better tribute is there than that?

LP, keeping the flame alive!

I didn't mean it like that. It's just that he's faded away as far as I, a casual observer of the atheist movement, can see.

[pErvinalia]

This thread still going?? Have we taken down Dawkins yet?

[Robert_S]

This thread still going?? Have we taken down Dawkins yet?

I don't think LP wants to take anyone down. Well, maybe just a notch or two.

Thing about her, she won't let friendship stop her calling people on their bullshit. I still remember that time she Snoped a thing I shared on FB.

[lordpasternack]

I'm certainly not "friendly" with Dawkins anymore - but I won't be being gratuitously vicious.

He's very likely to lose his tax exempt status in the US, and possibly the UK, too. And I would like to have that, and the reasons behind it, publicised.

People deserve to know, and Richard deserves a very firm kick up the arse, and a strong wake-up call and reunion with reality.

And before anyone chimes in by saying that even that sentiment on its own sounds vicious - bear in mind that numerous people over the past 7 years have tried to get through to Richard, to no avail. It's at least as difficult as trying to reason with a strongly religious person.

In his constant mockery of other people's bad reasoning and poor intelligence, he's like one of those closet-case preachers who constantly berate homosexuality, and end up being caught with rentboys. That really is what it's like. I have a hard time even wrapping my brain around the stupidity and foolishness in some of the things he's said and done - which he would mock intensely if it were someone else, but excuses and dismisses when it's himself.

He is a very proud, clever idiot - and despite his rhetoric, he cannot take criticism. You're free to try, though...

[Calilasseia]

Probably a manifestation of the fact that he's moved in elite circles for much of his life, and as a result, has become insulated from the hard knocks lesser mortals have to endure. A process which in turn has a nasty habit of instilling a particularly insidious brand of complacency and unwarranted self-assurance. The mere fact that he thought he could get away with setting up a 'charitable' organisation as a means of funding his shag banditry with other people's money, alone points to the fact that he's ended up with the same malaise as Franz von Papen.

[Brian Peacock]

"Shag banditry." !

[piscator]

Reminds me of Zappa for some reason...

[lordpasternack]

I think there is something to be said about him spending much of his childhood between a boys' boarding school, and the English countryside - followed by adulthood in Oxford academia.

It's probably not an environment that instils basic common sense and social savvy. It's probably an environment that instils the value of maintaining a front of respectability, even if you are a disrespectable sod behind closed doors.

He was probably shagging his students, and arranging special academic favours for his chosen "mistresses" back in his days as a respectable professor, too. Wouldn't even be surprised if he had an lovechild or two, for whom he quietly pays the child support and hasn't mentioned to Lalla. All while strenuously maintaining the image of the respectable and diligent English academic.

I've actually mused that I might well open a can of worms, alla Rolf Harris, if and when this goes to press. Because I don't think that his current habits only began to emerge in his sixties. He will have done things that would have had him fired from Oxford, if word had got out. He will probably have used his status to dismiss "rumours" at the time - and he's probably outright smeared people other than myself, as being headcases spreading "ridiculous lies".

Promiscuity doesn't bother me - but hypocrisy, dishonesty, inauthenticity and pretension do. He is not a terrible person - but I think it would be better for everyone to know him a bit more, warts and all - and have a little more healthy skepticism for him. And it would be better if Dawkins had some of his pretensions dismantled, and felt compelled to maintain a more honest and authentic persona.

[Brian Peacock]

Don't forget he was also at Berkeley for a year either side of The Summer Of Love (the first one, not the Happy Mondays one), and it was all pot, poontang, penicillin and the pill at that time.

[DaveDodo007]

Dawkins the hippie, far out man.

[pErvinalia]

Where can I get some of this penicillin shit, man?

[lordpasternack]

Don't forget he was also at Berkeley for a year either side of The Summer Of Love (the first one, not the Happy Mondays one), and it was all pot, poontang, penicillin and the pill at that time.

He also ate peanut butter and jam sandwiches with a knife and fork - so you have to wonder just how in touch he was with the local culture at the time, to have taken advantage of the situation.

[Brian Peacock]

Don't forget he was also at Berkeley for a year either side of The Summer Of Love (the first one, not the Happy Mondays one), and it was all pot, poontang, penicillin and the pill at that time.

He also ate peanut butter and jam sandwiches with a knife and fork - so you have to wonder just how in touch he was with the local culture at the time, to have taken advantage of the situation.

That's just a cover, the filthy wee beastie!

[Calilasseia]

I think there is something to be said about him spending much of his childhood between a boys' boarding school, and the English countryside - followed by adulthood in Oxford academia.

Which is, of course, also the classic path for the grooming of future Prime Ministers. And we've all seen how well that worked out in many cases, haven't we? Cameron being the latest product of that particular assembly line (he's number 26), 13 of them emanating from Christ Church College alone. Dawkins is an alumnus of Balliol College, itself producer of three Prime Ministers, which is informative, given the quip by Asquith about Balliol alumni possessing "the tranquil consciousness of an effortless superiority".

Quite simply, his background has "Establishment" written all over it. While he may hold political views divergent from the grandees at the Carlton Club, he shares many of their essential attributes as a result of sharing their background.

It's probably not an environment that instils basic common sense and social savvy.

Check out the current crop of Bullingdon Boys in the Tory Party. That tells you all you need to know about the sort of numpties this background has a habit of churning out.

It's probably an environment that instils the value of maintaining a front of respectability, even if you are a disrespectable sod behind closed doors.

I am so tempted to go looking for pictures of George Osborne in a gimp suit at this point.

He was probably shagging his students, and arranging special academic favours for his chosen "mistresses" back in his days as a respectable professor, too. Wouldn't even be surprised if he had an lovechild or two, for whom he quietly pays the child support and hasn't mentioned to Lalla. All while strenuously maintaining the image of the respectable and diligent English academic.

Wouldn't surprise me if there weren't veiled references to this in at least one episode of Inspector Morse.

I've actually mused that I might well open a can of worms, alla Rolf Harris, if and when this goes to press. Because I don't think that his current habits only began to emerge in his sixties. He will have done things that would have had him fired from Oxford, if word had got out. He will probably have used his status to dismiss "rumours" at the time - and he's probably outright smeared people other than myself, as being headcases spreading "ridiculous lies".

Of course, the people involved will all have been of adult age, so it won't be anything like the sort of scandal attached to Rolf Harris. It's not as if he was touching up 13 year old girls or chasing underage rent boys. The worst opprobrium he'll attract will be the sort that was earned by Cecil Parkinson, who ended up fathering a 'love child' with his mistress during his tenure as Tory Party chairman, and frankly, I don't think anyone cares about those sort of antics, other than Daily Mail readers, it's diddling with underage girls that gets people hot under the collar these days.

Promiscuity doesn't bother me - but hypocrisy, dishonesty, inauthenticity and pretension do. He is not a terrible person - but I think it would be better for everyone to know him a bit more, warts and all - and have a little more healthy skepticism for him.

His handling of the Richard Dawkins Forum was more than enough to destroy his reputation in the eyes of many, including myself. I'm tempted to think that he regards a lot of people like myself in the same way that Tory politicians do, and consigns people like me to the "unwashed pleb" category. Not that I'd expect anything else from someone steeped in Oxford snobbery, even if he wasn't a fully paid up member of the Bullingdon Club.

And it would be better if Dawkins had some of his pretensions dismantled, and felt compelled to maintain a more honest and authentic persona.

Well in the case of comments about standards of discourse and the proper treatment of issues, that I don't have a problem with. If anything, I'm of the view that he doesn't apply these forcefully enough. The trouble is, he's totally oblivious to what I've repeatedly referred to as the 'political dimension' - namely, that he has ruthless enemies, who have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to play dirty in the culture wars, and for whom the matters we've been discussing here should, if his enemies were competent, constitute gold plated ammunition for them. Either his enemies are even more incompetent than I thought, or else they're keeping their mouths shut because they have far worse skeletons in their closets awaiting discovery, the moment this becomes a public issue, and people start asking if his enemies have something to hide as well. If the dimming of Dawkins' light results in follow-up revelations that Ken Ham and Rick Santorum are running their own personal catemite dungeons using the funds of the faithful, it'll be worth it.

[Brian Peacock]

Are we saying Dawkins needs to check his privilege?