At it again

lily, I very much doubt if Dawkins thinks the rude remarks that are directed at him "validate his opinions" as you suggest. I wonder why you do suggest it? Does he say so anywhere? I suspect he rather thinks that they don't validate anything. His actual response to being called a dick and a piece of shit is this:
"Oh dear, you’ve got me there. Devastating arguments, no come-back."

That's sarcasm, though, isn't it, Bags? With the slightest suggestion that those who disagree with him are mindless yobs?

Not sure possible to have a debate or an argument on Twitter.

My point is feetlebaum that you cannot generalise about Muslim countries - they are very diverse. I have met many female Pakistani graduates .Also Iraqi, Iranian and Egyptian. It is a bit like making a sweeping statement about all christian countries based on, say, Ireland, such as. "Women aren't able to have abortions in Christian countries"

There are not many people who are awarded Nobel prizes, there are a disproportionate number from the Western world. Perhaps that also reflects the panels that make the decisions. I do not know much about the process nor place a lot of value on the prizes and perhaps I should. I cannot disagree with facts about who has been awarded a Nobel Prize but are there many other religions represented in significant numbers other than 'christians' & 'jews' It might be interesting to know how many of the recent of the Nobel Laureates consider themselves religious/ of faith at all and does it matter??

I am more interested in what prompts anyone with such a high profile (as Dawkins) to make provocative remarks. What was he hoping would happen? He is surely not playing faux naive?

Religious fundamentalists, of any flavour, tend to be repressive towards women and have closed and narrow communities. I think Dawkins is being disingenuous when he says his comments cannot be seen as racist because Islam is not a race.. well neither is Judaism but who would suggest that those who denigrate Jews are not racist? I feel his comment is fuelling Islamaphobia. There is a definite movement to undermine Islamic history and the positive historical impact it has had in maths/science etc. It is easier to de-humanise a group of people if you deny their positive contribution. It is what the Nazis did .

Nanaej - I found your post interesting, and agree with your comments

Can you think of a better response to such things, lily? If that's all they say, and it appears to be, then they do rather give the impression of being mindless yobs, though until you used that phrase I hadn't thought of it quite like that.

RD seems happy to engage with people who disagree with him but who use proper argument. In fact, he seems to thrive on it.

nanaej I also found your comment very interesting. MiceElf made another interesting point, that important discoveries have been made at different times, in different places often when cultures come together and people are open to new ideas. I'm not really interested in Dawkin's motives, I just note his crass opinions. Being respected in your academic discipline doesn't make you an expert in every field of human endeavour!

One of my daughter's students was a muslim girl. She was doing a biochemistry degree covered from head to foot right down to the black gloves, which made the practical lab work fairly difficult. I don't know what happened when she went home but it didn't seem likely that she would be allowed to go much further with a scientific career.

Owen Jones has another article in the Independent. Quite a lot of the comments remark that Dawkins only speaks for Dawkins, which is true so Jones is wrong to blether on about "not letting" Dawkins speak 'in his name'. He doesn't, Jonesy; he doesn't; he speaks for himself and people listen (or don't really listen but get cross anyway). Other comments berate Jones for entirely missing the point about freedom of speech (which still holds even if one doesn't like how something is said). I'm with those commenters. This does not make me or any of them racist. Dawkins isn't a racist either. He does more to try and improve things for oppressed muslims than the whole of gransnet membership put together.

Here's a comment on the article form someone who says he is an ex-muslim. He seems to be saying it's Islam that's racist. It is. And it's Islam RD meant as anyone who spent two seconds thinking about his silly tweet would realise.

"I have read your article and I am glad you are taking a coexisting kind of path. I have been a Muslim for more than 20 yrs. I am, now, 25 yo. Now, I am an atheist. The issue is not Moslims. The issue is Islam itself. I have read the Quran. In fact, I have memorized big parts of the Quran. Yes, Islam is a racist religion. Yes, it promotes hatred and conflict. And yes, it seeks domination over the world so that the "word of God" prevails. Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end the silence of most Muslims gave legitimacy and consent to jihadist , irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.The conflict comes when you know are live with good muslims like my mother, for instance. If an individual Muslim is peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice. An average Muslim is morally superior to their own religion. So, Imagine now that there are "moderate" Nazis who are peaceful and call for co-existence yet they believe in the "superior race" idea, would not that make them inconsistent? what if their passive support to the idea encourages other enthusiastic followers to commit horrible crimes, would not that make them partners in the crime? I love my mother, but i know that her silence and negativity is harming me personally. You may not know how harassed atheists are in the middle east."

Lilygran your last sentence 'Being respected in your academic discipline doesn't make you an expert in every field of human endeavour' is just so true.

I find Dawkins' religious arguments naïve in the extreme.

Anyway, I think he is motivated by anger/rebellion more than anything else.

Bags - thank you for that article. I have been told that most muslim men do not approve of the way their women are treated, but are afraid to speak out because they fear the extremists. We can only hope that some day they will get the courage to protect their daughters, wives and sisters from this evil doctrine. But how often do those in power over others give up such power voluntarily?

I think Dawkins speaks a lot of sense, but unfortunately he seems to spend more time explaining himself lately, in order to unravel the mess his provocative statements have triggered, as the media seize opportunities to distort his words to suit their agenda. I hope he'll he more cautious now he has seen his words used in such inflammatory ways.

Richard Dawkins answers the criticisms:

www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/8/9/calm-reflections-after-a-storm-in-a-teacup

Matthew Norman comes up with an entertaining take on the Dawky meltdown
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10233530/Come-in-Agent-Dawkins-your-job-is-done.html

Well done, Matthew Norman!

Very funny, Matthew Norman. I enjoyed reading that. It doesn't make what he has to say of any value, other than to reflect that Dawkins did ask for it.

Hit the nail on the head there, Matthew Norman.

feetlebum bags posted that link yesterday.

Sorry feetlebaum was careless typing then

A good article .

A brilliant assessment of that man. Just what he does not seem to understand is that his style of militant atheism is just the sort of doctrinaire and oppressive belief system he rails against when he condemns religion and belittles anyone who does believe.

I could go along with his atheist point of view but his militant extremism frightens me. 600yrs ago he would probably have been burning all religious believers at the stake, or what ever the extermination procedure of the time was. Does anyone want to live in that kind of society?

I am an atheist and I believe that individuals should be able to express opinions openly. (not though to inflame or incite hatred/violence)

What I find irritating is when high profile provocative soundbites / statements are made out of any proper context just to throw a pebble in a pond..or in this case an already rippling pond! I find it a bit 'celebrity'

I think he's got problems

Nellie - 600 years ago, HE would have been burnt at the stake for NOT believing