Are they all just grifters?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Are they all just grifters?

This topic contains 29 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 3 days, 17 hours ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38265

    No, I don’t consider them to be grifters. At least not “The 4 Horsemen”. When they spoke on their academic subjects and on the topic of atheism, they were the “New Atheists”. They brought it to the foreground as a viable option to consider and made it popular to the point where many people noticed “it is not just me”. It gave an accessible space to talk about atheism and removed the stigma that atheism had acquired from the religious as a term of derision.

    Dawkins’ legacy is assured. The Selfish Gene was groundbreaking. I have attended a few of his lectures over the years, including here in Dublin with Krauss. I have spoken with him a few times including the World Atheist Convention in 2011 where we both ended up debating Muslim apologists about evolution on the street outside the venue. I met Aron Ra there too but he is not on the grifter list. I have also had conversations with Dan Dennett and he is certainly no grifter :-). I never had the chance to met Hitchens but as he said himself, you can always met him in his books. I am all for their confrontational style but only when dealing with atheism vs religion and religious apologists. “You feel offended with what I think?” –  “So fuuuuucking what!”

    If only these guys would stop being so ultracrepidarian and not “pontificate” on topics they have little experience of. But that won’t stop me giving them credit for their contributions to the “evolution” of society and for freeing so many from the “mind forged manacle” of religion, as Hitchens called indoctrination.  I have bought “The God Delusion” over 20 times and still don’t own a copy. But there are a lot more than 20 more atheists in the world now because of that 🙂

    If you are ever in a bookshop and see that book in the religion section, I was recently in that store.

    #38266

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Reg…If you are ever in a bookshop and see that book in the religion section, I was recently in that store.

    Reg that flew right over my head as though i were an ultracrepidarianistic land bird being eyed by circling vultures. Not really but i have no clue what you mean.

    #38267

    I would not be laying any money on finding Jakelafort browsing books in the “religion” section 🙂 The odds of winning the lotto are better. But when I am browsing bookshops I tend to move a few atheist books to those shelves. Somewhere between “How I found Jesus” and “Learning to communicate with your Angel”. You never know……

    I was waiting all year to use that word. I can be so sesquipedalian at times 🙂

    #38268

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Somehow the Religion part of the equation escaped my awareness. That is a really cool thing to do and i don’t think you will be offended if i adopt that move. I bet some theists ascribe the placement to the devil. I have written some shit in hotel/motel bibles but that is fairly common i suspect.

    #38269

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I am much too forward to talk down religion with believers. I gave up on person-to-person discussions of belief or ‘lack of’ a long time ago. When someone brings religion into a conversation (almost a daily happening when I used to get out more) I simply change the subject. If they persist I tell them…”I am not interested in any of that” and they get the hint.

    I suppose if someone is sincere in learning about how I came to be godless and was considering changing teams I would help them. But more often it is a smug xtian attempt to piss off an atheist.

    #38285

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen and Fellow Unbelievers,

    My first thought on this is that none of the people Phil Torres writes about identifies as part of a “New Atheist” movement, though Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett did gladly claim the label “The Four Horsemen.”   Giving people labels with which they don’t identify themselves shows that Phil Torres has at least partially shot his wad on credibility.

    Two, disagreeing with a viewpoint does not make the one you disagree with a “grifter,” “Far Right,” or any other ad hominem.  I share tbe Atheism of all of these people without necessarily agreeing with them on anything else without tarring them with any brush.

    I, in fact, strongly disagreed with Hitchens on Iraq and with all of The Four Horsemen on human volition, though I think Hitchens was a smart fellow who would have changed his mind on Iraq had he lived to see that the invasion created a power vacuum which turned Iraq into a playground for Al-Qaeda, the Ayatollahs of Iran, and ISIS.

    Three, as for these #MeToo/#TimesUp allegations, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  Evidence or it might as well have never happened and either have investigations, arrests, indictments, and trials or GTFO.

    Four, defending Western Civilization does not equal “dog-whistling” for White Supremacy.  (And if someone calls something a “dog-whistle,” they obviously must have heard something.)  Goodness knows, Ex-Muslim Secularist Ibn Warraq never heard this “dog-whistle” and the CRT/Wokeists could bear to learn something from him:

     

     

    #38286

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Encogitationer is hallucinating. Get the point.

    #38287

    Davis
    Moderator

    It’s okay Jake. When someone keeps recycling the same tired nonsense, at some point you just got to start ignoring it.

    #38288

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Davis,

    Get the point. He is hallucinating. Those are lines from the movie, Karate Kid.

    And yeah i feel a lot of Enco’s ideas are nonsense and taken on faith instead of analysis. However he no doubt feels similarly about my ideas. I share a dislike for Phil Torres at least based on that one article but for different reasons.

    #38289

    Davis
    Moderator

    As I’ve said before the article does enter into hyperbole…but it is not an unreasonable piece over all and many of the critiques against them are reasonable. It is painful to see heroes in a bad light.

    As for Enco I’ve seen these tropes a thousand times. Response: You don’t save western civilisation by supporting policies like racial profiling which run counter to the values you are trying to save, especially when those advocating for this also hold misogynist and or racist and or homophobic views which run counter to the general ideals of equality in Western civilisation worth saving. Not believing rape/harassment victims and thinking that a trip to the police station will have an even small chance of charges being filed is both typical of rape-culture enabling and a naive view of how rape justice works (or actually doesn’t work). While they don’t identify as New Atheists they all have a similar rhetorical style that sets them apart from other vocal atheists. Arguing over labels is a distraction.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  Davis.
    #38290

    Ivy
    Participant

    Many of the most prominent New Atheists turned out to be nothing more than self-aggrandizing, dogmatic, irascible, censorious, morally compromised people who, at every opportunity, have propped up the powerful over the powerless, the privileged over the marginalized.

    I most definitely agree with this statement. They may not (and probably don’t) realize they’ve come across this way. In fact it’s really possible that they are oblivious to it…but it’s one of the things that really turned me off to it and made me look elsewhere…I have never quite been able to articulate my feelings on the issue but this just about sums it up right here!!

    #38292

    jakelafort
    Participant

    My eyebrows, what’s left of em, were raised immediately upon skimming that article by Torres. He starts by praising the noted atheists and then reduces his praise to the point of damnation. In essence they’re not smarter than little kids. Says he, Not that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens were saying anything particularly novel — the inconsistencies and contradictions of religious dogma are apparent even to small children. Of course that is bullshit but that is not my point. This guy probably is lying about the vaunted status of the atheists in question. He has an axe to grind. And he is in bad faith. I have specific knowledge of some of the allegations and he is just plain mischaracterizing at least in some instances. Furthermore he is conflating personality with ideas. Somebody can be a complete fucking asshole as a human but be spot on as to ideas.

    #38296

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Goodness knows, Ex-Muslim Secularist Ibn Warraq never heard this “dog-whistle” and the CRT/Wokeists could bear to learn something from him:

    I skipped a half minute here or there several times and finished the 9-1/2 minute video in about 2 minutes! I’m pretty sure I already agree with everything said in that video, so I didn’t really learn much more than I already knew.

    Still, White Supremacy (among a few other humanitarian deficiencies) is part of our American and European heritage, and some of that legacy still exists, and was re-awakened by the Donald McNasty movement/uprising. Fortunately, we’ve progressed muchly and can serve as a good example to the theocratic (including Muslim) world in many (but not all) respects, as long as we can persevere and recover from this recent white nationalist Christian outbreak.

    And in spite of character flaws in our most infamous atheists. The thing is, with all the recent socio-political communication breakdowns with each other, with little success at clear and fact-base discourse, we have a lot of work ahead of us.

    I always knew Silverman was a dick. But as for the other guys… I’ll be looking at the claims made in that article later when I have more time and tolerance for disappointments. There are a lot of links here. Lumping and presenting all of them together like that can only make the most strident PO Faith happy.

    He has an axe to grind.

    That’s the feeling I got.

    #38353

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator
    Ok, done moving posts to new topic Using the term People of Color (POV). Please continue the POV topic there.

    Without seeing any objection from Unseen, I’m respectfully moving posts on POC to its own topic Use of the term People of Color (POC) This might take several minutes, so please don’t post about POV here or there until I’ve finished. Thanks!

    #38362

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Davis,

    As for Enco I’ve seen these tropes a thousand times. Response: You don’t save western civilisation by supporting policies like racial profiling which run counter to the values you are trying to save, especially when those advocating for this also hold misogynist and or racist and or homophobic views which run counter to the general ideals of equality in Western civilisation worth saving.

    And where did I say I supported any of those things?

    Not believing rape/harassment victims and thinking that a trip to the police station will have an even small chance of charges being filed is both typical of rape-culture enabling and a naive view of how rape justice works (or actually doesn’t work).

    Going where evidence leads and not going on mere say-so is how any problem ever gets addressed, including crimes such as rape, sexual assault, and harassment.

    While armed citizens have done their share to help prevent these crimes, not even the most well-armed citizen can be everywhere nor does the most well-armed citizen keep a CSI lab in his Ford F-150 or his bunker.  For that we need to defer to law enforcement.

    While some crime labs of major cities have backlogs of rape kits that need testing and that is an inexcusable travesty, it is light-years ahead of CHAZ/CHOP in Portland, Oregon and Occupiers in cities throughout the 2010s who all handled accusations of rape and sexual assaults as “internal matters.”

    And CSI labs are light-years ahead of how Catholic, Protestant, and other religious bodies handle problems of rape and sexual assault.

    Yes, law enforcement and the courts need vast improvement, but they are ultimately the only game in town for addressing crime.  Wokeism, SJWism, and Misandrist Radical Feminism have been absolutely no help in this regard.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.