Richard Dawkins announced as 2012 recipient for ‘Services to Humanism’ - Polidicks

[quote]Professor Richard Dawkins, Vice President and Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association, has today been announced as the recipient of the prestigious Services to Humanism award, which will be presented at the gala dinner at the British Humanist Association Annual Conference in Cardiff on Saturday 9 June. The award is in recognition of his tireless campaigning on issues supported by the BHA, which includes his sponsorship of the 2008 Atheist Bus Campaign which raised over £100,000 in its first four days, the 2009 Please don't label me billboard campaign which aimed to address the labelling children as if they innately belong to a particular religion, the 2010 Protest the Pope march and rally which saw over 10,000 people take to the streets to oppose the honour of a state visit being given to the Pope, and the 2011 Teach evolution, not creationism campaign which aims to ensure the Government makes it clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools. Best-selling author Philip Pullman CBE, whose works include the multiple award-winning His Dark Materials trilogy, was the 2011 recipient of the BHA Services to Humanism award. BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said, ‘Richard Dawkins is known for his brilliant and accessible writing on science and evolution and for his consistent and courageous defence of truth, science, and scientific method against superstition and unreason. His clear and rational arguments have been the catalyst for many people embracing humanist beliefs and values, and supporting the campaigns of the BHA. Richard’s has been one of the strongest voices in public debate on issues from ‘faith’ schools and their ability to discriminate, to freedom of speech. We are delighted to have Richard as a guest at this year’s conference and to be able to recognise the important contribution he has made globally.’ [/quote] [url]http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1018[/url]

Services to Humanism being... attacking religion?

[QUOTE=CheeserCrice;36287230]Services to Humanism being... attacking religion?[/QUOTE] Do you know what humanism is?

Good on him, but Dawkins really annoys the fuck out of me.

[QUOTE=CheeserCrice;36287230]Services to Humanism being... attacking religion?[/QUOTE] Sure. The man should get a dozen medals for that alone, considering his initial "coming out" as an atheist scientist was prior to 'mainstream' atheism and during a time in which the scientific community was actively avoiding contradicting religion in any way, shape or form for fear of a repeat of the Scopes trials. Prior to Dawkins and similar modern atheistic authors (Hitchens and such,) it was even more dangerous to question religion, particularly in America. There wasn't even an ounce of acceptance prior to the kinds of campaigns Dawkins has spearheaded, and while there's still a ridiculous amount of violence directed toward atheists today, there's much less of it now than when I was a child. Dawkins helped lead the way in a movement that encouraged atheists, secularists and humanists to openly express their thoughts and ideas without fear. Prior to that movement, atheists were isolated and alone, and most had to pretend to be religious out of pure fear of becoming a pariah. Today, you can actually call yourself an atheist and find people who think the same way.

[QUOTE=CheeserCrice;36287230]Services to Humanism being... attacking religion?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism[/url] "[B]Humanism[/B] is an approach in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study"]study[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy"]philosophy[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view"]world view[/URL], or practice that focuses on human [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values"]values[/URL] and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters." Dawkins has done a lot of Humanism.

i saw him do a speech last year in birmingham, his work is pretty outstanding.

dawkins is brilliant and all but holy fuck he can be incredibly condescending and annoying the whole rebecca watson scandal doesn't help his image a whole lot either

[QUOTE=Sanius;36287671]dawkins is brilliant and all but holy fuck he can be incredibly condescending and annoying[/QUOTE] Have you ever read a Dawkins book? Or heard him speak? He's like a fucking baby doe in the woods. He's easily among the most soft-spoken individuals in academia. Even when people confront him directly, he only attacks the idea and [I]never[/I] the individual who holds it. He treats everyone as capable of understanding what he's saying and never "dumbs down" his works for perceived inferiority of an audience. You can call Dawkins a lot of things, but he isn't condescending.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36287671]dawkins is brilliant and all but holy fuck he can be incredibly condescending and annoying the whole rebecca watson scandal doesn't help his image a whole lot either[/QUOTE] He has all right to be condescending though.

yes I've heard him speak which is why I think he's annoying he's an antitheist, not an atheist. antitheists are assholes [QUOTE=Beaverlake;36287697]He has all right to be condescending though.[/QUOTE] nobody has the right to be condenscending. you say that as if it's a good quality. it's not

[QUOTE=Sanius;36287699]yes I've heard him speak which is why I think he's annoying he's an antitheist, not an atheist. antitheists are assholes[/QUOTE] That's pretty condescending. But it's cool how you've found a way to feel superior to both theists and atheists. Really, that's great.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36287623][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism[/url] "[B]Humanism[/B] is an approach in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study"]study[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy"]philosophy[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view"]world view[/URL], or practice that focuses on human [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values"]values[/URL] and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters." Dawkins has done a lot of Humanism.[/QUOTE] wouldn't a better humanist be more agnostic or even apatheistic in terms of religion, though? I mean, if it focuses on core human values and concerns, you'd expect religion to be an irrelevant question when there's more pressing matters to attend to. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] but yeah good on him anyways

Also please learn how english works. Theism is the belief in god(s). The prefix "a-" indicates that it is the antithesis to the word, with "anti-" being the literal shorthand for antithesis. Atheism, by fucking definition, is the antithesis to theism ("anti-theism"). It is the direct contrast and opposition to theism. e.g. Moral/Amoral Disestablishmentarianism/Antidisestablishmentarianism Play semantics more.

[QUOTE=BenJammin';36287602]Good on him, but Dawkins really annoys the fuck out of me.[/QUOTE] Yep so annoying how he popularizes some science-stuff by filming himself roleplaying in nature, babbling so much that the grass around him dries off.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36287782]Yep so annoying how he popularizes some science-stuff by filming himself roleplaying in some nature setting, babbling so much that the grass around him dries off.[/QUOTE] well I myself find little wrong with his viewpoints and I think he's an intelligent and rational individual, I just think that he's overly agressive towards non-atheistic people. pretty much my only complaint is "he could be a lot nicer"

[QUOTE=Lankist;36287774]Also please learn how english works. Theism is the belief in god(s). The prefix "a-" indicates that it is the antithesis to the word, with "anti-" being the literal shorthand for antithesis. Atheism, by fucking definition, is the antithesis to theism ("anti-theism"). It is the direct contrast and opposition to theism. e.g. Moral/Amoral Disestablishmentarianism/Antidisestablishmentarianism Play semantics more.[/QUOTE] Antitheist refers to someone who actively tries to argue against and diminish theism. Militant atheist could be another term, but I personally hate militant atheism because it draws a comparison between it and militant theism(which people blow themselves and other people up over).

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36287782]Yep so annoying how he popularizes some science-stuff by filming himself roleplaying in nature, babbling so much that the grass around him dries off.[/QUOTE] uh no

[QUOTE=Cone;36287754]wouldn't a better humanist be more agnostic or even apatheistic in terms of religion, though? I mean, if it focuses on core human values and concerns, you'd expect religion to be an irrelevant question when there's more pressing matters to attend to. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] but yeah good on him anyways[/QUOTE] Depends on the branch of Humanism. Like any ideology or philosophy, it changes based on the people who make it up.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36287671]dawkins is brilliant and all but holy fuck he can be incredibly condescending and annoying the whole rebecca watson scandal doesn't help his image a whole lot either[/QUOTE] who?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36287774]Also please learn how english works. Theism is the belief in god(s). The prefix "a-" indicates that it is the antithesis to the word, with "anti-" being the literal shorthand for antithesis. Atheism, by fucking definition, is the antithesis to theism ("anti-theism"). It is the direct contrast and opposition to theism. e.g. Moral/Amoral Disestablishmentarianism/Antidisestablishmentarianism Play semantics more.[/QUOTE] Actually it means "not" good try though Regardless, language evolves, and we could debate the exact definition of atheism for pages but it won't matter since there is no consensus and among major dictionaries you can find at least 3 different definitions.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36287726]That's pretty condescending. But it's cool how you've found a way to feel superior to both theists and atheists. Really, that's great.[/QUOTE] I am an athiest

[QUOTE=Cone;36287821]well I myself find little wrong with his viewpoints and I think he's an intelligent and rational individual, I just think that he's overly agressive towards non-atheistic people. pretty much my only complaint is "he could be a lot nicer"[/QUOTE] The entire point of Dawkins' schtick is that criticizing religion is not mean. We live in free societies in which we can question governments, leaders, militaries, corporations, neighbors and families. We can criticize anything and everything. But the [I]moment[/I] you even so much as question, let alone deny, a religion, suddenly you're being "rude." Religion is not sacrosanct. And considering how much influence it has over global politics, it [I]needs[/I] to be questioned and criticized as vehemently as we question and criticize governments and leaders. The entire point is that it [I]isn't[/I] rude to say God isn't real and Jesus didn't rise from the dead. If those beliefs are so core to your character that questioning them is akin to insulting you, then I recommend you develop an actual personality. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;36287866]I am an athiest[/QUOTE] Who feels the need to qualify that you are better than the "anti-theistic" atheists, right? How is that not condescending? You're bombing around calling people assholes because they've got it all wrong and you've got it right. How the fuck are you any different? You are putting yourself above others. That is the fucking [I]definition[/I] of condescension. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36287832]Antitheist refers to someone who actively tries to argue against and diminish theism. Militant atheist could be another term, but I personally hate militant atheism because it draws a comparison between it and militant theism(which people blow themselves and other people up over).[/QUOTE] So, in other words, an atheist who gives a shit.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;36287854]Actually it means "not" good try though[/QUOTE] You do realize "not" and "antithesis" are synonyms, right. Saying "That is [I]not[/I] theistic" and saying "that is the [I]antithesis[/I] to theism" are the same thing.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36287848]Depends on the branch of Humanism. Like any ideology or philosophy, it changes based on the people who make it up.[/QUOTE] perhaps, but I believe it's a fallacy that someone who claims to be entirely focused on pressing issues facing humanity is devoting time to something that any rational person can see is ultimately pointless. I mean, you're not going to make people who think they hear God's voice any less schizophrenic by logically pointing out the flaws in the craziness, and it's more or less the same deal with anyone who's willing to pick up a gun for their religion. you'd be infinitely better off if you studied hard, got to a powerful position, and improved people's lives from that point. going in circular and most likely fruitless arguments with religious people isn't going to make the world a better place, or at least not to any scale worth mentioning.

[QUOTE=Cone;36287957]perhaps, but I believe it's a fallacy that someone who claims to be entirely focused on pressing issues facing humanity is devoting time to something that any rational person can see is ultimately pointless. I mean, you're not going to make people who think they hear God's voice any less schizophrenic by logically pointing out the flaws in the craziness, and it's more or less the same deal with anyone who's willing to pick up a gun for their religion. you'd be infinitely better off if you studied hard, got to a powerful position, and improved people's lives from that point. going in circular and most likely fruitless arguments with religious people isn't going to make the world a better place, or at least not to any scale worth mentioning.[/QUOTE] The point is we shouldn't be giving them license. Live-and-let-live gives them license. It allows them to operate within their crazy bullshit, and gives them the ability to affect other people with their bullshit. Question the fuck out of them and they can't act on their stupid crazy bullshit.

[QUOTE=Cone;36287957]perhaps, but I believe it's a fallacy that someone who claims to be entirely focused on pressing issues facing humanity is devoting time to something that any rational person can see is ultimately pointless. I mean, you're not going to make people who think they hear God's voice any less schizophrenic by logically pointing out the flaws in the craziness, and it's more or less the same deal with anyone who's willing to pick up a gun for their religion. you'd be infinitely better off if you studied hard, got to a powerful position, and improved people's lives from that point. going in circular and most likely fruitless arguments with religious people isn't going to make the world a better place, or at least not to any scale worth mentioning.[/QUOTE] You can try and help make it more acceptable for atheists to "come out". You can show atheists that there are people who think the same and people who can provide a sense of community. Not all atheistic activism is focused on "converting" the religious.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36287956]You do realize "not" and "antithesis" are synonyms, right. Saying "That is [I]not[/I] theistic" and saying "that is the [I]antithesis[/I] to theism" are the same thing.[/QUOTE] yeah with a binary base word like theist it would be the opposite, but if there are more options it's not. antithesis is not the same as not. but either way, a- is not the same as anti- as anti means against, as in opposed, and a- is not at all shorthand for anti nor is it derived from it in any way.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;36287849]who?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson#Elevator_incident[/url] [quote]In June 2011, Watson described an experience at a skeptical conference, concerning an approach by a man in an elevator, who invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation late at night. In a video blog, among other things, she stated that incident made her feel sexualized and uncomfortable and advised, "Guys, don't do that". Her statement sparked a controversy among the skeptic community. Her critics said she was over-reacting to a trivial incident, most notably Richard Dawkins, who wrote a satirical letter to an imaginary Muslim woman, sarcastically contrasting her plight to Watson's complaint. This in turn caused him to be criticized by those supporting her on the issue, including several figures in the community. Watson announced that she would not buy or endorse Dawkins's books and lectures in the future.[/quote] The letter in question: [quote]Dear Muslima Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . . And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. Richard[/quote]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36287977]Question the fuck out of them and they can't act on their stupid crazy bullshit.[/QUOTE] well, again, how many people are you actually going to convert like that? you'll probably get a fair few if you're well-known like Dawkins is, but those numbers can be replaced fairly easily. it just seems like all that time spent arguing religion could have been better used.