Dawkins is still alive, so as a self-declared "progressive" he can still be judged by modern progressive standards. He hasn't kept up and as such can no longer be considered to be advancing their cause.
LOL they are a perfect example of what "GOOD WITHOUT A GOD" means.
Without a core moral code based on something beyond man, the atheist is capable of one or two generations of civil discourse and morality. After that he will discard the values of his parents, and society will fall to degeneracy and a collectivist religion based on ever shifting values that - despite having no basis in universal truth or logic - will be forced on the population by social pressure.
Do you think your notion of "how to be a good person" that you "discovered on your own" would be vastly different if you were raised in a primitive tribe in the Amazon, or do you think it'd roughly be the same as it is having been raised in modern Western society?
Presumably you eat meat, which means you support the killing of animals for your pleasure (since it is possible to subsist on a purely vegan diet). Does that make you a "good person" or a "bad person"? If in 50 years most of society doesn't eat meat, does the definition of "good person" and "bad person" change?
My point simply is that people including atheists do piggy-back quite a bit on the prevailing morality in which they are raised. Most atheists (myself included) do not sit down and derive their system of morals and values from first principles. And when that prevailing morality changes, they do too. When it was predominantly Christian they adopted largely Christian morals. What happens when it isn't predominantly Christian? Not looking good so far.
Dawkins being a "progressive" of his day used to fairly uncharitably attack and criticize low-status Christian conservatives both from the standpoint of their being Christian and being conservative. They resisted the movement of the progressive Zeitgeist. Now the Zeitgeist has moved on as Dawkins put it, and he has not chosen to move with it and as such has condemned himself:
Thomas Henry Huxley, by the standards of his times, was an enlightened and liberal progressive. But his times were not ours, and in 1871 he wrote the following:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.
It is a commonplace that good historians don’t judge statements from past times by the standards of their own… Had Huxley… been born and educated in our time, he would have been the first to cringe with us at his Victorian sentiments and unctuous tone. I quote them only to illustrate how the Zeitgeist moves on.
Were he dead he probably would have received the benefit of the doubt as he gave Huxley: "of course such a dedicated progressive, were he alive, would believe the things we dedicated progressives believe today". But since he isn't, he can freely be judged according to the standards of modern progressives: "a dedicated progressive ought to see things as we do now, and if you don't you are no dedicated progressive". Too bad, so sad.
He's been on the right side of many issues, including Islam.
People are complicated.
I have great Strange New Respect for Glenn Greenwald, because of his fearless fight against censorship and totalitarian control, even though I used to despise him for what I still think was his inexcusable response to Charlie Hebdo.
For me at least Greenwald is a bit of a special case, because living in Brazil (and I believe being a Brazilian citizen) he doesn't participate in Western politics and therefore is a more "purist" commentator on them.
My view of him would be quite different if he said all of what he says but then tweeted out "but I'm still 'Ridin' with Biden' because we gotta get the Orange Man out of office" like others who I have no respect for.
No but there exist a lot of "intellectuals" who effectively support a populist position but then vote for the exact opposite for what amounts to disagreements over style. That tells me they more highly regard style than substance, and I have no respect for people like that.
See also: all the purportedly anti-war leftists who dutifully voted for Biden who then acted shocked, shocked! when he ordered that missile strike and started talking about restarting the Forever Wars.
I am not sure it's just differences in style. Biden wanted to raise taxes on the rich and corporations, for example. And many other things.
Trump was a good first step in populism, but there's a long way to go. I think a Josh Hawley could win many people on the left over, that is, if he isn't smeared to death before 2024.
Separately, but simultaneously, we can also enjoy the irony of his being a leftist yet still being caught up in the blender of Cultural Revolution insanity.
It is all exactly as predicted in Red Symphony - in particular as in the third quoted paragraph below when the bourgeois realizes that the Revolution will also consume HIM!
Again he writes, “we shall create and multiply free Masonic lodges… absorb into them all who may become or who are prominent in public activity, for in these lodges we shall find our principle intelligence office and means of influence…. The most secret political plots will be known to us and will fall under our guiding hands…We know the final goal…whereas the goyim have knowledge of nothing…” (Protocol 15) In his interrogation, Rakovsky says that millions flock to Freemasonry to gain an advantage. “The rulers of all the Allied nations were Freemasons, with very few exceptions.”
However, the real aim is “create all the required prerequisites for the triumph of the Communist revolution; this is the obvious aim of Freemasonry; it is clear that all this is done under various pretexts; but they always conceal themselves behind their well known treble slogan [Liberty, Equality, Fraternity]. You understand?” (254) Masons should recall the lesson of the French Revolution. Although “they played a colossal revolutionary role; it consumed the majority of Masons…” Since the revolution requires the extermination of the bourgeoisie as a class, [so all wealth will be held by the Illuminati in the guise of the State] it follows that Freemasons must be liquidated.
When this secret is revealed, Rakovsky imagines “the expression of stupidity on the face of some Freemason when he realizes that he must die at the hands of the revolutionaries. How he screams and wants that one should value his services to the revolution! It is a sight at which one can die…but of laughter!” (254)
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Discuss.
What's funny is that he isn't even saying that he is denying that transwomen are women, he's merely pointing out that taking that position will have you vilified, which is obviously true.
I find this whole thing funny because he was such a darling to my lefty professors back in undergrad.
One of my lefty acquaintances loved the guy but then abandoned him due to Elevatorgate. Which I always thought funny because he was one of those "there are no sacred cows" people back in the day.
Hell I liked him back in the day myself, but eventually I moved out of my "angry atheist" phase and moved on from him. Now I see all these "New Atheists" doing the exact same thing they were doing 15 years ago it's just kinda sad.
"Did you know the Bible has contradictions?"
"Yes, you've mentioned that the past 20 years or so. Now do Progressivism"
I wonder if Dawkins is stuck in the "fedora wearing atheist" phase while the rest of his contemporaries moved onto intersectional IdPol, and now his old friends have turned on him for not believing in the current incarnation of the SJW faith.
Dawkins is an old man stuck in his ways. Happens to all of us eventually. Though that doesn't mean it's not funny when someone who made a career of mocking other old men for being stuck in their ways is himself mocked for being stuck in his ways now that he's an old man.
Dawkins is still alive, so as a self-declared "progressive" he can still be judged by modern progressive standards. He hasn't kept up and as such can no longer be considered to be advancing their cause.
During the Spanish Civil War they dug up mummified nuns, put them against a wall and gave them firing squads.
So no, time not a well-understood concept.
Seriously? Any reading you can recommend on that? I thought the cadaver synod was my "most ridiculous history" story, that may top it though.
I'd like to read about that as well. Also, it's funny how 1984 this timeline is. Little O'Brien's running around everywhere.
There's only an eternal present in which the Party is always right, Winston.
LOL they are a perfect example of what "GOOD WITHOUT A GOD" means.
Without a core moral code based on something beyond man, the atheist is capable of one or two generations of civil discourse and morality. After that he will discard the values of his parents, and society will fall to degeneracy and a collectivist religion based on ever shifting values that - despite having no basis in universal truth or logic - will be forced on the population by social pressure.
Do you think your notion of "how to be a good person" that you "discovered on your own" would be vastly different if you were raised in a primitive tribe in the Amazon, or do you think it'd roughly be the same as it is having been raised in modern Western society?
Why does "being a good person" change over time?
Presumably you eat meat, which means you support the killing of animals for your pleasure (since it is possible to subsist on a purely vegan diet). Does that make you a "good person" or a "bad person"? If in 50 years most of society doesn't eat meat, does the definition of "good person" and "bad person" change?
My point simply is that people including atheists do piggy-back quite a bit on the prevailing morality in which they are raised. Most atheists (myself included) do not sit down and derive their system of morals and values from first principles. And when that prevailing morality changes, they do too. When it was predominantly Christian they adopted largely Christian morals. What happens when it isn't predominantly Christian? Not looking good so far.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12: Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This is clearly an opinion.
What specifically makes this schadenfreude?
Dawkins being a "progressive" of his day used to fairly uncharitably attack and criticize low-status Christian conservatives both from the standpoint of their being Christian and being conservative. They resisted the movement of the progressive Zeitgeist. Now the Zeitgeist has moved on as Dawkins put it, and he has not chosen to move with it and as such has condemned himself:
Were he dead he probably would have received the benefit of the doubt as he gave Huxley: "of course such a dedicated progressive, were he alive, would believe the things we dedicated progressives believe today". But since he isn't, he can freely be judged according to the standards of modern progressives: "a dedicated progressive ought to see things as we do now, and if you don't you are no dedicated progressive". Too bad, so sad.
Moldbug wrote a monograph about this subject back in 2007, if you can stand his somewhat long-winded and meandering writing style.
He was on the right side of Elevatorgate so he'll always have my respect.
He's been on the right side of many issues, including Islam.
People are complicated.
I have great Strange New Respect for Glenn Greenwald, because of his fearless fight against censorship and totalitarian control, even though I used to despise him for what I still think was his inexcusable response to Charlie Hebdo.
For me at least Greenwald is a bit of a special case, because living in Brazil (and I believe being a Brazilian citizen) he doesn't participate in Western politics and therefore is a more "purist" commentator on them.
My view of him would be quite different if he said all of what he says but then tweeted out "but I'm still 'Ridin' with Biden' because we gotta get the Orange Man out of office" like others who I have no respect for.
But why? Surely being a good guy is not dependent on supporting Trump.
No but there exist a lot of "intellectuals" who effectively support a populist position but then vote for the exact opposite for what amounts to disagreements over style. That tells me they more highly regard style than substance, and I have no respect for people like that.
See also: all the purportedly anti-war leftists who dutifully voted for Biden who then acted shocked, shocked! when he ordered that missile strike and started talking about restarting the Forever Wars.
I am not sure it's just differences in style. Biden wanted to raise taxes on the rich and corporations, for example. And many other things.
Trump was a good first step in populism, but there's a long way to go. I think a Josh Hawley could win many people on the left over, that is, if he isn't smeared to death before 2024.
We enjoy his discomfort. Thus schadenfreude.
Separately, but simultaneously, we can also enjoy the irony of his being a leftist yet still being caught up in the blender of Cultural Revolution insanity.
It is all exactly as predicted in Red Symphony - in particular as in the third quoted paragraph below when the bourgeois realizes that the Revolution will also consume HIM!
http://www.rexdeus.com/wp/secret-societies/freemasons-must-die-red-symphony/
So this is the tweet that got him cancelled:
What's funny is that he isn't even saying that he is denying that transwomen are women, he's merely pointing out that taking that position will have you vilified, which is obviously true.
I find this whole thing funny because he was such a darling to my lefty professors back in undergrad.
One of my lefty acquaintances loved the guy but then abandoned him due to Elevatorgate. Which I always thought funny because he was one of those "there are no sacred cows" people back in the day.
Hell I liked him back in the day myself, but eventually I moved out of my "angry atheist" phase and moved on from him. Now I see all these "New Atheists" doing the exact same thing they were doing 15 years ago it's just kinda sad.
"Did you know the Bible has contradictions?"
"Yes, you've mentioned that the past 20 years or so. Now do Progressivism"
I wonder if Dawkins is stuck in the "fedora wearing atheist" phase while the rest of his contemporaries moved onto intersectional IdPol, and now his old friends have turned on him for not believing in the current incarnation of the SJW faith.
Dawkins is an old man stuck in his ways. Happens to all of us eventually. Though that doesn't mean it's not funny when someone who made a career of mocking other old men for being stuck in their ways is himself mocked for being stuck in his ways now that he's an old man.
Ditto. Throughout the late 90s and the mid 00s, I was all aboard the "evangelical atheist" train (which meant being an insufferable, arrogant cock).
Don't use their terms, dude. Just say transvestite.
Tranny or he-she is also acceptable.
I haven't heard that one in ages! Thanks for the reminder.
Humanists Against Heresy.
humanism was cucked at the same time as atheism, but nobody noticed.
possibly. i admit i never paid attention to it until i knew it was cucked.