Dawkins is written out of humanist studies.

[JasperL]

That's tragic that it went down that way. However, no, "my family does not talk to me" =/= "my family has mobilized a successful campaign to deny me access to broader society". One of these is refusing to interact with another yourself. The other is the attempt to keep that other from being able to interact with third parties.

Tragic and common, actually. And there's a reason gay people move out of little towns, to bigger cities, and it's not because the 'cancelling' is only by their families, but also their friends, employers, churches, and every part of life in that place. The biggest difference is it's your tribe doing the cancelling, and it's fine, because it's your tribe.(shrug)

I'm old enough to remember when being gay disqualified you, cancelled you, from all kinds of jobs, including one you've held before. In fact, one could have served perhaps 19 years with distinction, and not be accused of any wrongdoing except being gay, and gotten booted months before earning a pension! Surprised your memory is that short.

you are imposing an assumption of a single mode of behavior that does not match human experience or activity. My friend's fiance who later decided that, instead of being a lesbian, she was a man - was she lying beforehand, or after?

She doesn't claim to BE a man. She's not claiming that her birth certificate has 'male' listed on it. She identifies as a man. Glad I could help, but maybe if you read a little about the issue you wouldn't be so confused.

Maybe I honestly believe Donald Trump is my father (shrug) the human mind is capable of twisting itself in some pretty messed up knots. :-/

You don't believe that, and claiming it is a lie. Trans people don't claim to be born the gender they adopt. DIFFERENCE!!

You are determined to miss the point.

I have no problem being courteous or respectful. But I do not define those things as enabling. It wouldn't be kind of me to respond to a paranoid schizophrenic by playing into his fears that They Were Watching Him All The Time.

But certainly one should be courteous and respectful to those who you meet in life, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the OP, that is a point lost on people who want to demand courtesy and respect for some, but not for others.

Let's see here - you condemn trans people as essentially deluded liars on the same level as a paranoid schizophrenic. How are you showing them any respect? Your position is inherently disrespectful. So was Hawkins'. If someone calls you mentally ill and says it's a mistake to play into, "enable" your obvious delusions of a God, I'm sure your church community would treat that with a lot of respect. Right? That your views are not just wrong, but evidence of a severe mental illness and all that means throughout society.

He was inviting discussion. He is probably surprised because, when he did that to Christians, the left cheered him and Christians felt obliged to respond with their arguments.... now that he's done it to the Woke crowd, sadly, some on the Left are trying to cancel him, and feel no obligation to respond by engaging (as you put it) respectfully and with courtesy.

No he wasn't inviting discussion. Or if he was he sure couldn't expect to get it by his opening premise.

Example: We condemn George Wallace as a race baiting bigot and white supremacist, but nearly half the voters in the U.S. adores Donald Trump. Discuss!

I mean, I don't know about you, but if I'm "inviting discussion" about Donald Trump and my opening premise is to compare him to one of the famous white supremacists of his era, I doubt if I'll get a good reception, especially from Trump fans. After all I'm just inviting discussion. Why would anyone be offended at my opening premise? Mystery!

 

[cpwill]

Tragic and common, actually. And there's a reason gay people move out of little towns, to bigger cities, and it's not because the 'cancelling' is only by their families, but also their friends, employers, churches, and every part of life in that place. The biggest difference is it's your tribe doing the cancelling, and it's fine, because it's your tribe.(shrug)

I'm old enough to remember when being gay disqualified you, cancelled you, from all kinds of jobs, including one you've held before. In fact, one could have served perhaps 19 years with distinction, and not be accused of any wrongdoing except being gay, and gotten booted months before earning a pension! Surprised your memory is that short.

I came of age and joined in the DADT era.

But, of course, you are attempting to (falsely) conflate actions with thought.

She doesn't claim to BE a man. She's not claiming that her birth certificate has 'male' listed on it. She identifies as a man. Glad I could help, but maybe if you read a little about the issue you wouldn't be so confused.

You are incorrect - she does, indeed, now claim to be a man.

Assuming that All Members Of [X] Group think and act in Way That Is Most Convenient To Your Argument can get us in trouble

You don't believe that, and claiming it is a lie.

And what if I did? Or anything else about myself that was physically not true?

Trans people don't claim to be born the gender they adopt. DIFFERENCE!!

Sadly untrue. Plenty of trans people claim this and present as it.

Let's see here - you condemn trans people as essentially deluded liars on the same level as a paranoid schizophrenic.

Neither of them are liars though both of them suffer from some level of delusion. Liars know that what they are saying is false.

How are you showing them any respect? Your position is inherently disrespectful.

On the contrary - we do not respect, love, or care for people by encouraging them in self-harm or self-delusion

So was Hawkins'. If someone calls you mentally ill and says it's a mistake to play into, "enable" your obvious delusions of a God, I'm sure your church community would treat that with a lot of respect. Right? That your views are not just wrong, but evidence of a severe mental illness and all that means throughout society.

We actually get variations of that accusation all the time, and equipping young Christians to answer it respectfully and matter-of-factly is part of raising them well.

No he wasn't inviting discussion.

He certainly appears to have been so. Unfortunately, he was doing so in an area where one side is all too often not interested in discussion, but in denying the legitimacy of anyone believing differently than themselves

Or if he was he sure couldn't expect to get it by his opening premise.

Example: We condemn George Wallace as a race baiting bigot and white supremacist, but nearly half the voters in the U.S. adores Donald Trump. Discuss!

That's easily done. You can either talk about how people can be loved in spite of their flaws, or discuss the differences between Wallace and Trump, or discuss the salience (or lack thereof) of racial issues with some voter blocs.

Why do you think it's impossible to discuss potentially emotional topics using reason?

 

[AmNat]

Well, Revolutionary France was certainly hardly Liberal, so yeah, they got their heads cut off - which is rightly seen as a failing in that movement, and not something we should replicate even in a less violent form

Revolutionary America did replicate it, in a less violent form. Being a dissident is less physically dangerous today than it was then (though that's probably just a reflection of modern liberals being less virile than their forbears).

In the U.S., our First Amendment has been a good bit more protective of dissent, and you have major movements that have gone from niche small groups to majorities.

And have these movements, on average, moved us closer to or farther away from sanity than when the 1A was passed?

 

[cpwill]

Revolutionary America did replicate it, in a less violent form. Being a dissident is less physically dangerous today than it was then (though that's probably just a reflection of modern liberals being less virile than their forbears).

And have these movements, on average, moved us closer to or farther away from sanity than when the 1A was passed?

Well, I would say that getting rid of slavery was, all in all, a good thing Dittos for the idea of having a standing professional army, rather than depending strictly on the militia.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Atheism isn't a movement. There's no dogma, rules, central tenets, holy books, club meetings or leaders.

It's so hard for you cult members to see human beings as individuals and that's a lot of the problem.

I even see Rachel Dolezal as a human being, just not as a black human being.

 

[JasperL]

I came of age and joined in the DADT era.

But, of course, you are attempting to (falsely) conflate actions with thought.

You'll have to explain to me how explicitly banning gays from lots of jobs including the biggest employer in the U.S. is NOT to "deny them access to broader society" or "keep that other from being able to interact with third parties."

It appears your position is cancelling someone for being gay, living as a gay person, is TOTALLY fine, but not for 'being' a bigot, only hating someone different than you. Is that really your position? That cancel culture is only bad when it's only "thought" and not actions like, I don't know, cancelling someone for loving a member of the same sex and then living with that person and being intimate with someone you love?

That sounds awfully..... convenient... It's almost like you shoe-horned the evangelical and broader societal position on homosexuality into an 'acceptable' shoe, then defined the problem in a way that excuses them cancelling others who don't live in a manner approved of by them! Sure, they can "be" gay or trans, just not live as an LGBT person, with whom they love. How ****ing compassionate and tolerant! BRAVO!!!

You are incorrect - she does, indeed, now claim to be a man.

I can't address your alleged acquaintance or what you say she claims.

Assuming that All Members Of [X] Group think and act in Way That Is Most Convenient To Your Argument can get us in trouble

I'm pointing out that identify as a transsexual is NOT to claim to BE a gender different than one was born. It's definitional. They acknowledge the gender they were born and claim to identify, and want to live as, a different gender. That's just a fact you refuse to even acknowledge.

And what if I did? Or anything else about myself that was physically not true?

Sadly untrue. Plenty of trans people claim this and present as it.

Neither of them are liars though both of them suffer from some level of delusion. Liars know that what they are saying is false.
On the contrary - we do not respect, love, or care for people by encouraging them in self-harm or self-delusion

OK, so you don't respect them and don't believe they deserve any respect. Again, that's a position. Dawkins took that same position with his opening gambit then is all shocked that people noticed.

We actually get variations of that accusation all the time, and equipping young Christians to answer it respectfully and matter-of-factly is part of raising them well.

No you don't. Believing in God isn't treated as a diagnosable mental illness anywhere in society. You're not a victim. I hate to think what you guys would do if you were subjected to the same level of intolerance as the gay or trans community.

He certainly appears to have been so. Unfortunately, he was doing so in an area where one side is all too often not interested in discussion, but in denying the legitimacy of anyone believing differently than themselves

And that's different than you denying the 'legitimacy' of transsexuality how exactly? You explicitly deny the legitimacy of the trans community and those who support them.

That's easily done. You can either talk about how people can be loved in spite of their flaws, or discuss the differences between Wallace and Trump, or discuss the salience (or lack thereof) of racial issues with some voter blocs.

Why do you think it's impossible to discuss potentially emotional topics using reason?

I didn't say it was "impossible." More stupid straw men. If you'd care to address my actual point, that would be nice.

"I mean, I don't know about you, but if I'm "inviting discussion" about Donald Trump and my opening premise is to compare him to one of the famous white supremacists of his era, I doubt if I'll get a good reception, especially from Trump fans.

 

[AmNat]

Well, I would say that getting rid of slavery was, all in all, a good thing Dittos for the idea of having a standing professional army, rather than depending strictly on the militia.

Were the people who disagreed with these changes "reasoned and dialogued" with, or were they cancelled?

 

[cpwill]

Were the people who disagreed with these changes "reasoned and dialogued" with, or were they cancelled?

Depends on the change. Folks who were against gay marriage were more likely to face non-liberal responses than those who favored standing armies. People who opposed WWI found themselves in the hands of a movement that rejected limitations placed on the state in the realm of punishing thought - early 20th century progressives. People who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq much less so.

 

[AmNat]

Depends on the change. Folks who were against gay marriage were more likely to face non-liberal responses than those who favored standing armies. People who opposed WWI found themselves in the hands of a movement that rejected limitations placed on the state in the realm of punishing thought - early 20th century progressives. People who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq much less so.

Virtually every major change enacted by the left has featured "non-liberal responses" toward those who opposed them. This was true during the Revolution, the Civil War, both World Wars, as well during every major social change they've imposed. In all such cases, "reason and dialogue" was the rule so long as the left did not yet have the power to impose a given agenda. Once they had the power those who disagreed became dangerous subversives who had to be repressed.

This is a feature of liberalism, not a bug. It has always been a weapon for advancing left-wing ideas (even as their substantive content has changed drastically), not a neutral system for facilitating debate.

 

[cpwill]

Virtually every major change enacted by the left has featured "non-liberal responses" toward those who opposed them. This was true during the Revolution, the Civil War, both World Wars, as well during every major social change they've imposed. In all such cases, "reason and dialogue" was the rule so long as the left did not yet have the power to impose a given agenda. Once they had the power those who disagreed became dangerous subversives who had to be repressed.

This is a feature of liberalism, not a bug. It has always been a weapon for advancing left-wing ideas (even as their substantive content has changed drastically), not a neutral system for facilitating debate.

Nah. Both the modern left and right contain elements eager to destroy liberty. Tolerance for freedom of thought remains invaluable.

 

[AmNat]

Nah. Both the modern left and right contain elements eager to destroy liberty.

Of course. Any value system capable of ordering society must be willing to defend itself using force. The problem with the left is substantive, i.e. that their ideas are wrong and their values bad.

Tolerance for freedom of thought remains invaluable.

Is it the highest good?

 

[cpwill]

Of course. Any value system capable of ordering society must be willing to defend itself using force. The problem with the left is substantive, i.e. that their ideas are wrong and their values bad.

Nah. At the end of the day you don't need force to destroy ideas - you only need it to stop actions or destroy actors who threaten the lives and liberties of others.

Is it the highest good?

Wrong question. Is it the Least Awful state that can be achieved? Is it in line with God-given individual liberty?

 

[Schism]

Atheism isn't a movement. There's no dogma, rules, central tenets, holy books, club meetings or leaders.

And yet atheists find each other and flock together, nod along with leaders speaking on the stage, and now apparently *checks notes* excommunicates heretics.

Sounds like a church to me.

 

[AmNat]

Nah. At the end of the day you don't need force to destroy ideas - you only need it to stop actions or destroy actors who threaten the lives and liberties of others.

Has any actual society adhered to this view in practice?

Wrong question. Is it the Least Awful state that can be achieved? Is it in line with God-given individual liberty?

A world in which the media were not allowed to e.g. promote pederasty would certainly be less awful than what we have now.

 

[bomberfox]

Both these are examples where someone wants to be something they physically are not, and claims to be something they physically are not - and (the human mind is malleable) may be successful in lying to themselves, especially if reinforced by others.

But only in one case* do we have people who encourage these folks that clearly physical reality is wrong, and their preferences or perceptions are correct.


*at current. the Woke Borders are always expanding; it is certainly plausible that in the future we will be expected to consider Dolezal a Brave Pioneer, and organize online mobs to try to destroy the lives of those evil bigots who called her a liar at the time.


Dawkins likes to challenge others and provoke a response. I suppose the difference in his earlier life is that Christians felt obliged to intellectually defend their position, whereas Trans-Advocates simply seek to deny the legitimacy of anyone disagreeing with them.

Trans people arent lying to themselves. Lol woke borders. You guys are really showing yourselves to be clowns. Maybe you should toss this strawman as nobody calls themselves the woke brigade.

 

[bomberfox]

Nah. At the end of the day you don't need force to destroy ideas - you only need it to stop actions or destroy actors who threaten the lives and liberties of others.


Wrong question. Is it the Least Awful state that can be achieved? Is it in line with God-given individual liberty?

Transphobes threaten the lives and liberties of trans people on the regular.

 

[bomberfox]

I came of age and joined in the DADT era.

But, of course, you are attempting to (falsely) conflate actions with thought.



You are incorrect - she does, indeed, now claim to be a man.

Assuming that All Members Of [X] Group think and act in Way That Is Most Convenient To Your Argument can get us in trouble



And what if I did? Or anything else about myself that was physically not true?




Sadly untrue. Plenty of trans people claim this and present as it.



Neither of them are liars though both of them suffer from some level of delusion. Liars know that what they are saying is false.




On the contrary - we do not respect, love, or care for people by encouraging them in self-harm or self-delusion




We actually get variations of that accusation all the time, and equipping young Christians to answer it respectfully and matter-of-factly is part of raising them well.



He certainly appears to have been so. Unfortunately, he was doing so in an area where one side is all too often not interested in discussion, but in denying the legitimacy of anyone believing differently than themselves



That's easily done. You can either talk about how people can be loved in spite of their flaws, or discuss the differences between Wallace and Trump, or discuss the salience (or lack thereof) of racial issues with some voter blocs.

Why do you think it's impossible to discuss potentially emotional topics using reason?

Being trans isnt self harm, calling them delusional and liars leads them to commit suicide by an alarming amount. They arent committing suicide because they are trans, they do it because being trans and coming out often means you lose everything just like that as well as healthcare coverage. Medical practitioners disagree with this stupidly simplistic understanding of sex and gender.

 

[cpwill]

Has any actual society adhered to this view in practice?

Perfectly throughout its entire history? Nope.

Of course, no human thing is ever perfect, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the better is foolish and destructive (as more than a few human societies have learned to their great sorrow).

A world in which the media were not allowed to e.g. promote pederasty would certainly be less awful than what we have now.

Except that to give the government the power to force people to not advocate pederasty would be to give it the power to also force people to not advocate laws against pederasty. To give the government power to tramp down heresy is to give it the power to tramp down on true doctrine, as well.

It goes back to the same problem that we found we had with Enlightened Despotism - humans aren't capable of providing or securing a reliable supply of Enlightened Despots, only Despots.

 

[cpwill]

Being trans isnt self harm, calling them delusional and liars leads them to commit suicide by an alarming amount.

I've not called them liars - I say that their minds give them a perception which conflicts from reality, meaning they are generally suffering from delusion (which will show up stronger in some than others). Liars say things they know are false. The man who proudly (and honestly) declares himself to be Genghis Khan Reborn And Galactic Emperor To Boot isn't a liar - he is deluded. A man who believes he is being hunted by the Illuminati because They Know He's On To Them isn't a liar, he's suffering from paranoid delusion. Someone who believes they are three people, a tree, a black female human, or a cell phone when they are physically not any of those things is not a liar, but trapped by a failure in their mind to conform perception to physical reality.

 

[bomberfox]

I've not called them liars - I say that their minds give them a perception which conflicts from reality, meaning they are generally suffering from delusion (which will show up stronger in some than others). Liars say things they know are false. The man who proudly (and honestly) declares himself to be Genghis Khan Reborn And Galactic Emperor To Boot isn't a liar - he is deluded. A man who believes he is being hunted by the Illuminati because They Know He's On To Them isn't a liar, he's suffering from paranoid delusion. Someone who believes they are a monkey, a tree, a black male human, or a cell phone when they are physically not any of those things is not a liar, but similarly trapped by a failure in their mind to conform perception to physical reality.

You are actually calling them liars by ignoring their experiences and the scientific research on the subject. This is the attack helicopter argument that grew stale in 2017. Its actually you that is failing to conform to physical reality . Presuppositional apologists do this sort of thing all the time, they call you a liar then try to backpedal when you show them how bad faith their arguments are.

lets toss the tired scary all powerful woke brigade cliche.

 

[cpwill]

You are actually calling them liars by ignoring their experiences

No. "Lived Experience" is not something that can Trump actual physical reality.

and the scientific research on the subject. This is the attack helicopter argument that grew stale in 2017. Its actually you that is failing to conform to physical reality . Presuppositional apologists do this sort of thing all the time, they call you a liar then try to backpedal when you show them how bad faith their arguments are.

Quote me anywhere calling people who are one gender and believe themselves to be another Liars.

I'll wait.

 

[bomberfox]

I've not called them liars - I say that their minds give them a perception which conflicts from reality, meaning they are generally suffering from delusion (which will show up stronger in some than others). Liars say things they know are false. The man who proudly (and honestly) declares himself to be Genghis Khan Reborn And Galactic Emperor To Boot isn't a liar - he is deluded. A man who believes he is being hunted by the Illuminati because They Know He's On To Them isn't a liar, he's suffering from paranoid delusion. Someone who believes they are three people, a tree, a black female human, or a cell phone when they are physically not any of those things is not a liar, but trapped by a failure in their mind to conform perception to physical reality.

Keep in mind we are talking about research that is as old as the 1930s at the very least.

 

[bomberfox]

No. "Lived Experience" is not something that can Trump actual physical reality.


Quote me anywhere calling people who are one gender and believe themselves to be another Liars.

I'll wait.

You call them liars without saying the word. Its implied and its actually you that is scientifically wrong . Decades of research since the 30s attest to this.

 

[cpwill]

You call them liars without saying the word.

Oh. So you magically know this through your incredible ESP powers that allow you to read minds over the internet. Okedoke.

Cite me calling them liars. I'll wait.

 

[bomberfox]

Oh. So you magically know this through your incredible ESP powers that allow you to read minds over the internet. Okedoke.

Ummmmm to the effect and implying do not require ESP anymore than establishing intent