The Student Room Group

Richard Dawkins event cancelled over his 'abusive speech against Islam'

Scroll to see replies

Original post by artful_lounger
He's the typical breed of educated upper middle class white heterosexual "atheist" bigot who thinks that his viewpoint is inherently fundamental.
His point of view is reasoned and evidenced.

Why is his upbringing, race and sexual orientation relevant? Your personal attacks would suggest that you can't fault his points.
An event by one of the most influential minds of our time cancelled because he...hurt someone's feelings? Like Christopher Hitchens said "If someone tells me I've hurt their feelings, I say, "I'm still waiting to hear what your point is." If you watch Dawkin's interview on Head to Head, you'll notice how he gives the benefit of the doubt to most religious individuals and proclaims that the ideology is to blame, not most individual adherents. Therefore, it's plainly clear that his issue, along with most of his criticism, is directed towards the ideology of Islam, not towards its adherents themselves.

Islam isn't, never was, and never will be above criticism and satire. It's an ideology, just like any other, and can and should be criticized, mocked, satirized and insulted to our heart's content. The mark of a great ideology is that it can hold its value even when faced with criticism and satire. Islam simply can't do that. Whenever it's faced with criticism, it doesn't respond intellectually or humanely. The results are invariably violence, riots, censorship and unrest. If an ideology, along with its adherents, cannot withstand any criticism without engaging in violence and demanding censorship, then that is a sign of the primitive, simple, tyrannical nature of that ideology. The Western world is predicated, in part, on free contest of ideas. Therefore, there can be no special exceptions or exemptions for any one set of ideas.
Original post by r3035
obviously they are against individual Muslims if they are against Islam.

Not all followers of any religion accept all of it.

Islam and Christianity contain much that is immoral. How many Christians support the stoning of unruly children? If I speak-out against that, do I automatically hate all Christians?
Original post by Withengar
An event by one of the most influential minds of our time cancelled because he...hurt someone's feelings? Like Christopher Hitchens said "If someone tells me I've hurt their feelings, I say, "I'm still waiting to hear what your point is." If you watch Dawkin's interview on Head to Head, you'll notice how he gives the benefit of the doubt to most religious individuals and proclaims that the ideology is to blame, not most individual adherents. Therefore, it's plainly clear that his issue, along with most of his criticism, is directed towards the ideology of Islam, not towards its adherents themselves.

Islam isn't, never was, and never will be above criticism and satire. It's an ideology, just like any other, and can and should be criticized, mocked, satirized and insulted to our heart's content. The mark of a great ideology is that it can hold its value even when faced with criticism and satire. Islam simply can't do that. Whenever it's faced with criticism, it doesn't respond intellectually or humanely. The results are invariably violence, riots, censorship and unrest. If an ideology, along with its adherents, cannot withstand any criticism without engaging in violence and demanding censorship, then that is a sign of the primitive, simple, tyrannical nature of that ideology. The Western world is predicated, in part, on free contest of ideas. Therefore, there can be no special exceptions or exemptions for any one set of ideas.


Well put.
Original post by r3035
terrible argument

obviously they are against individual Muslims if they are against Islam.

You can't have it both ways

If you are against the Nazi belief system, you also oppose the individuals who believe in it


Absolute nonsense. People and ideologies are two very different things and is therefore perfectly possible to hate and criticise one without hating and criticising the other.
Original post by r3035
terrible argument

obviously they are against individual Muslims if they are against Islam.

You can't have it both ways

If you are against the Nazi belief system, you also oppose the individuals who believe in it


Whether or not people take offense to me saying that I think Islam is a homophobic, misogynistic and totalitarian ideology is their problem, not mine. I haven't attacked any Muslims with that statement.
Original post by artful_lounger
Is he still relevant?

After the whole "WE'RE ALL AFRICANS I DON'T SEE COLOUR" debacle, is anything he says really surprising? He says and does stuff to provoke reaction and hence publicity. He's the typical breed of educated upper middle class white heterosexual "atheist" bigot who thinks that his viewpoint is inherently fundamental.

Regardless of your views on religion generally, or his scientific achievements, he's a *****y person who shouldn't be given a larger platform because of it.


How is he a *****y person? Have you actually read or seen anything he has done? Most of his points are reasonable and put across in a well mannered way.If you cannot refute them then it just shows the poor quality of your own arguments.I don't see how he's a bigot either? If you are going to criticise stuff like homophobia,or mysogynistic thinking then you should do it consistently and not give it a free pass when it comes from religion.
Original post by Robby2312
How is he a *****y person? Have you actually read or seen anything he has done? Most of his points are reasonable and put across in a well mannered way.If you cannot refute them then it just shows the poor quality of your own arguments.I don't see how he's a bigot either? If you are going to criticise stuff like homophobia,or mysogynistic thinking then you should do it consistently and not give it a free pass when it comes from religion.


Because it criticises his "perfect" religion.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RogerOxon
Hopefully more. He is a great mind.


I quite like Sam Harris to be fair, he is very smart and articulate.
Original post by Iridocyclitis


This is the important paragraph:

"In a report about the cancellation, KPFA said it had been contacted by activists who had described Dawkins as “a very well-known Islamophobe” who had vilified Muslims. The radio station cited tweets from Dawkins including one that read: “I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today” and pointed to a recent Telegraph article in which Dawkins was quoted as saying that “if you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam”.
The station did not include the Telegraph quote in its entirety, in which Dawkins continues: “It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.” "

It seems that KPFA failed to disclose the whole Dawkins quote.

Dawkins openly criticises the ideology of Islam, Islamism in particular. I don't see anything wrong with this, at all.

Shame that he has had his event cancelled.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Meany Pie
I think the most important quote in that article is this;



Sums up what really happened.


Indeed. They succumbed to external pressure.
Original post by RogerOxon
His point of view is reasoned and evidenced.

Why is his upbringing, race and sexual orientation relevant? Your personal attacks would suggest that you can't fault his points.


Because, since apparently you share the exact same background which makes you completely incapable of appreciating this, his experiences are not universal nor are the fundamental to the nature of being human. His continued criticism of anyone that doesn't subscribe to his specific worldview belies this fact.

Also in response to other commentary, as a gay man I abhor all forms of organised religion more or less on principle - since the guiding principle is usually "kill gay people" under the general auspices of "anything that doesn't fit our exact conception of how people should think and act are bad (and maybe should die? we don't know)". However as "not an idiot" I'm also pretty wary of demagoguery and blind dogma being disguised as "reasoned argument" and frankly most of the well known "atheists" are just as dogmatic as any religious zealot.

I would hope that you have achieved a satisfactory level of reading comprehension to see the link between the former comments on him and the latter comments on religion, although I despair more every day this isn't the case...
Original post by EternalLight
He had a stroke or something I think? He probably only has 5 years left anyway.


Sounds like you'll be free of his "Islamophobic hate-preaching" soon...

Spoiler

Original post by artful_lounger


Regardless of your views on religion generally, or his scientific achievements, he's a *****y person who shouldn't be given a larger platform because of it.


:lol:

Right... :rolleyes:
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Absolute nonsense. People and ideologies are two very different things and is therefore perfectly possible to hate and criticise one without hating and criticising the other.


Exactly.
Original post by r3035
terrible argument

obviously they are against individual Muslims if they are against Islam.

You can't have it both ways

If you are against the Nazi belief system, you also oppose the individuals who believe in it


I still fail to understand this argument. You can be opposed to an ideology yet not dislike them as an individual. Unless you let your emotions override your rationality, that is. Then again, many people do. I dislike Islam, yet I would never think ill of its adherents. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
Original post by artful_lounger
Because, since apparently you share the exact same background which makes you completely incapable of appreciating this,
Why don't you stick to the points that he's made?

However as "not an idiot" I'm also pretty wary of demagoguery and blind dogma being disguised as "reasoned argument" and frankly most of the well known "atheists" are just as dogmatic as any religious zealot.

If that were the case, then you'd be able to show the flaws in the reasoned points. You seem steadfast on avoiding that.
Original post by RogerOxon
Why don't you stick to the points that he's made?


If that were the case, then you'd be able to show the flaws in the reasoned points. You seem steadfast on avoiding that.


Literally did just that before you quoted only the two lines which support your argument and ignored the rest of the comment.

Anyway I'm not going to entertain your sealioning any more, since your comment has been refuted and just because you lack the capacity to understand that doesn't change the fact it has.
Richard Dawkins makes me wish I believed in God.
Original post by artful_lounger
Literally did just that before you quoted only the two lines which support your argument and ignored the rest of the comment.

No, you didn't.

Anyway I'm not going to entertain your sealioning any more, since your comment has been refuted and just because you lack the capacity to understand that doesn't change the fact it has.

Fine. Your insults strongly suggest that you can't make any reasoned and evidenced points anyway.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you