Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins stripped of 1996 Humanist of the Year Award...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    We actually agree on something here.

    This is the same age that you'll find kids claiming to be a unicorn and the like
    I thought we also agreed in some respects on what we both find humorous.

    I am concerned that there is a serious risk that children and young teens are being influenced/affected by social media and peer pressure on this issue and that it may [for many] constitute little more than a fashion fad.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    I am not entirely sure that physicians going along with the wishes of pubescent or prepubescent children who want to undergo hormone therapy because they consider themselves to be the wrong gender is necessarily beneficial.
    We actually agree on something here.

    This is the same age that you'll find kids claiming to be a unicorn and the like

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

    It's as much a differing opinion as "people choose to be gay", but worse in that it opposes treatment recommended by medical professionals, so I suppose it's also quite like "vaccines cause autism". Either way, it's not really something up to debate.
    I am not entirely sure that physicians going along with the wishes of pubescent or prepubescent children who want to undergo hormone therapy because they consider themselves to be the wrong gender is necessarily beneficial.

    The simple fact is that a trans man is not a woman. That person [at least at the present level of medical science] cannot menstruate or carry a child. I also agree that there should be some places and spaces where only those born as women should have access.

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Because as everyone knows anyone older than you are is unmitigatedly, irreversibly evil.
    Societies become more liberal over time. Some learn and grow with society. Others were progressive for their time and have no need to grow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    We may have to disagree on this but I find the recent attitude among many towards J K Rowling, Germaine Greer, Suzanne Moore, and now [apparently] Richard Dawkins quite reprehensible. There appears to be a vocal percentage [?minority?] among the progressive and/or Left that will countenance no dissent on trans-gender politics.

    The expression of a differing opinion concerning such complex issues should be able to expressed without the individual being accused of "hate" speech or transphobia.
    It's as much a differing opinion as "people choose to be gay", but worse in that it opposes treatment recommended by medical professionals, so I suppose it's also quite like "vaccines cause autism". Either way, it's not really something up to debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    It's a long time coming. Ever since elevatorgate (and earlier to those paying attention) he's shown himself to be a product of his time in all ways but his religion.
    Because as everyone knows anyone older than you are is unmitigatedly, irreversibly evil.

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    Racheal Dolezal identifying as Black---

    Apparently....Arabs are considered "White" in the U.S. ? (... in 1943 all Arabs and North African were considered "White" by the Federal government)
    This meant that during Jim Crow era ( until 1965?) ---a few African-American muslims (musicians) could pass for "White" and go into white spaces dressed as Arab....I can't find the link---but if anyone is interested will look for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

    A bunch of people castigating someone for forsaking science in favor of personal prejudice isn't fascism or a cult, it's the normal course of cultural development. Fascism would be codifying that prejudice for the sake of harming those whom one is prejudiced against. A cult would be believing in common falsehoods easily proven wrong by the most basic study.
    We may have to disagree on this but I find the recent attitude among many towards J K Rowling, Germaine Greer, Suzanne Moore, and now [apparently] Richard Dawkins quite reprehensible. There appears to be a vocal percentage [?minority?] among the progressive and/or Left that will countenance no dissent on trans-gender politics.

    The expression of a differing opinion concerning such complex issues should be able to expressed without the individual being accused of "hate" speech or transphobia.

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    People have a right to identify as they choose.

    Other people have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to accept your self-designation.
    Suppose we presume that an identity is an inherent right---therefore a nation-state has limits on this right. Gender-identification is just one of many types of identification---naming customs are also identification.
    Should persons have the right to retain/change their designated names upon marriage, adoption, changes in nationality/religion.........etc? (or should govt create rules/laws on the matter?)
    What of changes in cultural identities (Australian of African heritage, Asian American, Christian-European...etc...) or gender-identities (...Bisexual, Asexual, Homosexual, Heterosexual, trans...etc...)
    Are there identity categories that should not be a choice? or all identity categories can be a personal choice as an inherent right?
    if it is an inherent right---should there be rules/obligation regarding such a right---if so, any ideas?
    What role, if any, should a state play in the right to identity?
    Can/should ... a gender-identity neutral system /society exist?

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    It's a long time coming. Ever since elevatorgate (and earlier to those paying attention) he's shown himself to be a product of his time in all ways but his religion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    This appears to be another example of what is increasingly becoming progressive fascism. Disagree with us [whoever "us" happens to be] at your peril over issues surrounding the trans community. Such attitudes manifest the traits of a religious cult.
    A bunch of people castigating someone for forsaking science in favor of personal prejudice isn't fascism or a cult, it's the normal course of cultural development. Fascism would be codifying that prejudice for the sake of harming those whom one is prejudiced against. A cult would be believing in common falsehoods easily proven wrong by the most basic study.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    We hate people who hate.
    Or we hate people who don't hate the same stuff WE hate!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Has that ever worked?
    Nope. Because "forgiveness" is not in the cancel culture's vocabulary.

    If I were him, I would go on tiktok or twitter, and publicly destroy his "Humanitarian Award" and show them what he thinks of their wokenated removal of it. Maybe piss on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post



    I also was saddened to see him try to back off his comments and apologize to these woke bullies.
    Has that ever worked?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    ...for questioning transgenderism.

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...-trans-tweets/

    Suddenly Richard Dawkins is going to be "so 2005".
    Ironically they proved his tweet true.

    dawkins.jpg

    They vilified him for it.

    I hate to agree with Dawkins on anything because he is such a prig, but his tweet was spot on.

    I also was saddened to see him try to back off his comments and apologize to these woke bullies.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
39 responses
207 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
305 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X