This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← More rubbish about "shrill" atheists - this time in The Daily Mail

More rubbish about "shrill" atheists - this time in The Daily Mail - Comments

Capt. Bloodeye's Avatar Comment 1 by Capt. Bloodeye

Nonsense. Fuck religion.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:13:14 UTC | #913148

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 2 by potteryshard

Better shrill than being a shill.

This is analogous to the old lawyers joke: If you have the law on your side, but not the facts, pound the law. If you have the facts on your side but not the law, pound the facts. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

Religion has neither law nor facts on it's side, and accusations of 'shrill' atheists is nothing but table-pounding theatrics. It means they recognize they have no case.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:13:44 UTC | #913149

MilitantNonStampCollector's Avatar Comment 3 by MilitantNonStampCollector

From the link:

The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no "evidence" for God


Incessant charge? Is this twit for real?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:20:23 UTC | #913150

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 4 by Schrodinger's Cat

From the Mail article.....

"Just before he died, Christopher Hitchens expressed some generous sympathy for the Christian worldview"

Next they'll be claiming Hitchens had a deathbed conversion to Catholicism. I've no idea what this alleged 'generous sympathy' was.............probably refraining from telling some priest wanting to give the last rites to 'f*** off'.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:20:31 UTC | #913151

GPWC's Avatar Comment 5 by GPWC

The Mail's article by the Rev George Pitcher is very poor as you would expect. What you may not expect are the comments below his article - they are well worth a read.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:23:02 UTC | #913153

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 6 by drumdaddy

Speaking of shrill, the rhetoric is being ramped up by Republicans, FAUX News, and their ilk regarding their claimed "War on Religion" by Obama. They keep repeating the phrase or tweaking it, as with the "War on Catholicism" purportedly indicated by the new health plan's provisions for contraception. They are the loud, shrill false victims calling the flock to arms against the threat. I don't think that it is an exaggeration to guess that the "War on Religion" phrase is uttered one hundred times per day on FAUX News. This while secularism is under withering attacks from Republican henchmen in every state house in the country as they introduce legislative bills by the dozens meant to infuse religion into government. Led by the Karl Rove school of logical fallacy, the Republicans invariably accuse opponents of their very own vices, and they put great reliance on coded language and the widespread dissemination thereof. For instance, when praising theocrat politicians they laud their 'social conservatism', which is the media's new word for 'religion'. The right-wing media is starting the battle without us, getting out in front, and hoping for a big retaliation in an election year, one with which to stir their crusaders. I wonder if we should give them their foil. Subterfuge might be preferable.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:41:09 UTC | #913159

victimlesscrime's Avatar Comment 7 by victimlesscrime

This is why we can't give them an inch - because they will surely take a mile.

I'll read that New Statesman interview again, but Hitchens' "generous sympathy" wasn't immediately apparent to me...

I'll also read de Botton's "Religion for Atheists" as soon as my partner's finished with it, but I'm dreading it - because of my first sentence. Why is nobody talking about it here?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:47:40 UTC | #913163

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 8 by Neodarwinian

" There's something divine in the air. Agnostics and atheists are beginning to nod respectfully in the direction of the Almighty, while still, of course, maintaining that He's not there "

What?!?!?

Daily Mail!! Makes me glad I am not subjected to this paper's nonsense daily!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:48:11 UTC | #913164

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 9 by Alan4discussion

It's what I refer to as the theist mirror effect!

With a head in the nice shiny woo-bucket looking at their own reflection, they scream shrill at other people who are rationally explaining the wooists state of ignorance of the real material world!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:49:06 UTC | #913165

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 10 by Tyler Durden

Just before he died, Christopher Hitchens expressed some generous sympathy for the Christian worldview.

Just before he died, Christopher Hitchens expressed some more antipathy for the Christian worldview.

There, fixed it. No charge.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:52:30 UTC | #913168

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 11 by strangebrew

Ahh...this is some of that there 'fistikated feelology'

The type that 'Catweazle called for in order to take on those pesky atheists, a while back!

They are however hampered by the unfortunate fact that they only got vague 'basking in a presence of the question mark' sort of 'feelology' So plan B is attack the shrillness that all atheists apparently have by tradition. Distract the brain dead by claiming that somehow all atheists follow shrill orators and that in itself proves the theologian somehow mysteriously is correct.

Note...staying well away from the meat of the supposed 'shrill atheists' argument. Best to not engage with the trickier aspects of the Jeebus-R-Uz rhetoric...cos lies and dishonesty are difficult to keep under wraps indefinitely when analytical debate is shone upon their grubby little claims. Cos that is 'not wot fistikated feelology' is all about after all.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:59:27 UTC | #913171

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 12 by AtheistEgbert

I think I've figured out why atheists are so offensive to the religious (and some fellow atheists) and it is because most atheists don't give a fuck about the sacred. When we talk to each other, all sacredness goes out of the window, and we'll talk in a matter of fact down to earth fashion, which is simply blasphemous to any religious onlooker.

Religious people--including some kinds of religious inspired atheists--still retain the sacred in their thinking. This means that certain areas are taboo and subject to special privilege and respect. This explains rather nicely the irrationality of accommodationism and the absurdities of the left in promoting cultural relativism, where cultures and minorities are made 'sacred' from criticism.

Something rather interesting to note: beware of those who hold science as sacred!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:04:34 UTC | #913172

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 13 by rod-the-farmer

"Shrill atheist"

Sounds like a t-shirt to me.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:14:39 UTC | #913176

Bernard Hurley's Avatar Comment 14 by Bernard Hurley

Sung to the Pingu tune:

Shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill Shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill Shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill Shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill Shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill Shrill, shrill, shrill, shrill!!!!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:16:52 UTC | #913178

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 15 by aroundtown

I have found the religiously persuaded to be adamantly aggressive towards any discussion that does not bow to their delusion. The old saying of fighting fire with fire seems perfectly useful to me in confronting these people. If they get aggressive then by all means we should tell them what they can do with their bullshit delusional thinking and then move on to the next brush fire. I love it that the reason rally is just around the corner and that is really going to piss them off and how lovely is that?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:18:05 UTC | #913179

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 16 by susanlatimer

The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.

What IS he on about?

Oh, and another lovely photograph of Richard Dawkins. The professor is obviously a sour, grumpy, arrogant, shrill, strident adherent to the cult of scientism who just wants to knock all the wonder and joy out of life and ruin things for the rest of us.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:19:44 UTC | #913180

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 17 by Vorlund

Religions persecuted? only by eachother otherwise don't make me laugh. Shrill? Strident? What is a bit of prunes and custard to the self righteous cheek turners compared to the rack, the spanish boot, strapado, breaking on the wheel and burning alive?

Oh dear, it seems I have become.............................shrill and strident.

No evidence for god is all the reason needed to reject the idea it is no more narrow and meaningless than rejecting phlogiston or poseidon on the basis of no evidence.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:21:06 UTC | #913182

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 18 by Sean_W

Yeah, when I hear Richard talk about australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, homo sapiens sapiens I'm thinking: this guy don't know wonder like I do!

If only Richard could acknowledge the human condition. What are all these atheists missing?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:30:03 UTC | #913184

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 19 by ZenDruid

This shrill rational materialist would dig it if that shrill snuff-porn storyteller would shuddup and siddown.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:33:27 UTC | #913185

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 20 by Premiseless

It comes to something when any challenge to protect the unending abuse of human rights is demoted due it presenting itself with skillful persistence! Go easy on the exploiters, for they function with a respectfully evolved tongue of ill logic. An exploitative etiquette that belittles rational thought wherever it sees a potential. It festers in the nooks, crannies and doubts of an ill informed mind.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:35:24 UTC | #913186

Chica1's Avatar Comment 21 by Chica1

I laughed out loud when I read this line:

"The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no "evidence" for God. And evidence, of course, is defined only within the strictures of his own empirical scientism."

He must have been thinking I'll throw in a couple of big words like 'incessant' and 'strictures' and it will sound like I know what I'm talking about!

I for one am proud to have a world view which is based on evidence, and if that makes me narrow minded so be it. I won't be the one wasting my time and money on such open minded pursuits as tarot card readings and church dues.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:36:15 UTC | #913187

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 22 by Tyler Durden

Comment 16 by susanlatimer :

The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.

What IS he on about?

When no evidence is forthcoming, resort to irrational, amorphous, vacuous metaphors. Theology 101.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:37:53 UTC | #913189

Tony d's Avatar Comment 23 by Tony d

I couldn't help noticing that the author of the article which is calling the good professor," shrill ".Looks like he might be a twit.Also he is dressed as a goofy comedy vicar. Anyway it is much easier to attack a person than a persons views.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:41:39 UTC | #913192

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 24 by susanlatimer

Comment 22 by Tyler Durden

When no evidence is forthcoming, resort to irrational, amorphous, vacuous metaphors. Theology 101.

It sounds a lot like Theology 201 and 301 as well.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:49:00 UTC | #913194

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 25 by Steve Zara

comment 16 by susanlatimer

The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalised by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.

What IS he on about?

This is a common tactic. If you want something to be the case and it isn't happening, pretend with all your might that it is.

If Dawkins was being marginalised they would not have written this article.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:49:50 UTC | #913195

achromat666's Avatar Comment 26 by achromat666

The religious zealots have adopted a very clever tactic, namely branding anyone who speaks out against religion as "strident", "shrill"or "angry" in attempt to plant the idea that atheists are persecuting them. The problem for them is that religion has had a free ride until recent years and any questioning of their superstitions is therefore seen as aggressive when in fact it is no more so than in any democratic debate. I for one do not intend to hold back because this is precisely what they want.

Quite accurate and not at all surprising. This is now a game of tactics for theists; attempting to maintain the position that makes them appear the most sympathetic and the least judgmental (don't snicker too loudly) to the world at large in a vain attempt to seem both reasonable and credible on matters they often know nothing about.

They lose credibility with every discovery that cast doubt and downright error on their beliefs and faith and refuse to relent even when they cannot give credible reason why we should accept their viewpoint. The idea of making the opponent appear either disreputable or sympathetic is a political tactic older than the religion using it.

Nothing new to see here folks, just more theistic madness.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:51:51 UTC | #913197

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 27 by Steve Zara

comment 21 by Chica1

I laughed out loud when I read this line:

"The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no "evidence" for God. And evidence, of course, is defined only within the strictures of his own empirical scientism."

As against what? I'd really love for someone to actually describe how God is to be found outside of empirical science.

Someone needs to call these people's bluff. Pretend that some kind of evidence for creation was found using science (say, a message in a DNA sequence), and what how quickly these people suddenly find themselves supporters of empirical science.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:59:08 UTC | #913199

mlgatheist's Avatar Comment 28 by mlgatheist

Blockquote The narrow and rather meaningless argument to which Dawkins confines himself is the incessant charge that there is no "evidence" for God

Is a math instructor being incessant when he/she continues to state that 2 + 2 = 4? Is a biology teacher being incessant when he/she states that colds and flus caused by viruses? Then why say that Professor Dawkins being accused of being incessant when he states the fact that there is no evidence for the existance of any god?

When any of us say there is no evidence for Vishnu or Thor does this person claim that we are being incessant?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:08:10 UTC | #913202

Nairb's Avatar Comment 29 by Nairb

I think there is a good reason why Richard and other atheists are considered "shrill".

Richard and many other atheists focus on the factual. They are trying to engage in a rational discussion. To persuade through evidence.

The perception however by the believer is more like a total stranger coldly explaining that your partner and family are cheating on you. It is perceived as totally negative ( about the person/God) and perceived as an opinion. It only leaves the listener emotional, angry and insulted and protective. They are no longer in a rational state of mind. From a practical strategic point of view this is why it might be advantageous as atheists to push the more positive side of atheism.

From atheism we are all immediately faced with the following conclusions 1) No (absolute) purpose to our lives 2). No after life (only our own life and only today) 3). No absolute morality 4) We only know things through our own testing

These conclusions immediately urge us to be reasonable, to live today, to appreciate life and love.

In the end these qualities may be more persuasive for many believers then even the most rational of arguments.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:41:37 UTC | #913213

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 30 by strangebrew

Comment 27 by Steve Zara

I'd really love for someone to actually describe how God is to be found outside of empirical science.

But Steve that is what their much vaunted 'fistikated feelology' is all about, in fact precisely that task and no other...it is to cover ecclesiastical arse by 'suggesting' through convoluted and arrogant lexicon that doG is indeed not to be found within the confines of a discipline that actually requires evidence...that is the line they must take...there is no other. They must avoid science...it is to...urrrm!...real!

They would prefer a shorter version of 'fistikated feelology' being...'You don't feel the question mark you obviously have not asked the right question' ...but they suffer from the confines of English idiom in that it ain't!

This vicar is obviously peddling the 'scientism' meme...which is the theists latest, bestest and brand new word that neatly encapsulates annoying and scary rationality in a package that can be herded and bandied in front of the brain dead so that it may be hissed at...booed ...poked with sharp sticks...and spat on!

'Scientism' is a dirty nasty little word of theist invention....bit like 'kinds' found in cretinist brain fart.

It is so funny that theist feels so moved to invent bogey-men in words. But their actual arguments for doG are so banal mediocre and fatuous they must try and undermine the earthly enemy by denigrating science and the scientific approach...of course when that falls flat they can always revert to character assassination and ferment rumours of atheist revolt....tis old tactics for an old scam.

But we see them lurking behind that particular tree...and they have never looked so nude & rude in their intellectual bankruptcy.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:42:02 UTC | #913214