Being an Atheist Is Bad. Being an Obnoxious Atheist Is Worse.

Posted on | July 29, 2014 | 76 Comments

Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) is inarguably obnoxious:

Prominent atheist and professional provocateur Richard Dawkins has sparked a fierce debate on Twitter after he classified certain types of rape and paedophilia as “worse” and milder than others.
“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think,” Dawkins tweeted on Tuesday morning.
He had earlier tweeted: “X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.”
He followed it up with: “Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.”

Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) July 29, 2014

Am I the only one who notices that Dawkins was not merely demonstrating a logical principle, but that both of his examples were attempts to diminish the wrongness of sexual crimes? That is to say, if he had merely wished to demonstrate the principle, he could have said, “Armed robbery is bad. Murder is worse,” etc. But he didn’t do that, did he? No, it is specifically in the area of sex offenses that The Great Darwinian insists that we must learn to see gradations of moral relativity.

If you don't find @RichardDawkins creepy, you need to go away and learn how to think.

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) July 29, 2014

He insists that we mere mortals have misunderstood his genius.

Category: Science, Sex

Comments

76 Responses to “Being an Atheist Is Bad. Being an Obnoxious Atheist Is Worse.”

Angry Harry
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:15 pm

“That is to say, if he had merely wished to demonstrate the principle, he could have said, “Armed robbery is bad. Murder is worse,” etc. But he didn’t do that,”

No, he didn’t do that. Why? Because he was talking about sexual crimes – and making a valid point.
Anon Y. Mous
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:15 pm

I wonder if you would even mention it if his two examples were:
– Joy rides are bad; car jacking is worse.
– Burglary is bad; armed robbery is worse.

Would you then jump to the conclusion that he was trying to normalize thievery?

Like all criminal activity, whether we are talking about thievery, murder, or sex offenses, there are gradations in the seriousness of the offense. That’s why the criminal codes are full of methods by which the crime is measured. Hitting someone over the head with a brick and then taking their money is treated differently under the law than picking someone’s pocket. As it should be.
Bob Belvedere
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:35 pm

The Moral Relativity that Dawkins displays is no surprise, as he is – by being an Atheist – Immoral.

Atheists are Immoral because their ‘morality’ is individual [ie: not shared by the community]. It is based on the whims of the individual holding to it.

Therefore, it is subject to change. Therefore, Atheism does not allow for a belief that Absolute Truths can exist. Truth is in the eye of the beholder to the Relativist.

Such an approach to Life leads, inevitably, to basement of the Lubyanka or to the gas chamber.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:36 pm

Do you remember when Dawkins mixed it up with Skeptic Chick Rebecca Watkins when she got hit on in the elevator at her nerd convention (it was not even a fun convention like ComicCon) and then called the guy who asked her for coffee a creep? I almost feel sorry for Dawkins, almost.
Anon Y. Mous
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:38 pm

Nonsense. By your argument, a Christian living in Saudi Arabia is immoral, as he would not share the values of the community. You seem to have a strong affinity for collectivism.
concern00
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

It seems the ‘mild pedophilia’ he was subjected to as a child has had a far greater impact on him than he realizes!
Dianna Deeley
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:49 pm

I think he may have wanted to demonstrate the power of emotional revulsion and moral repugnance? Because they can overwhelm one’s ability to make distinctions. Maybe. Or it was Dawkins being irritating. He’s good at it.
Being an Atheist Is Bad. Being an Obnoxious Atheist Is Worse. | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

[…] Being an Atheist Is Bad. Being an Obnoxious Atheist Is Worse.. […]
G Joubert
July 29th, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

Maybe he also has an agenda about which he isn’t laying all his cards on the table.
Mike G.
July 29th, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

Dawkins is an atheist…I always thought he was an actor and game show host. /sarc
Mike G.
July 29th, 2014 @ 8:04 pm

That’s a poor argument because Dawkins is proselytizing whereas a Christian wouldn’t normally do that in Saudi Arabia if he was smart.
Anon Y. Mous
July 29th, 2014 @ 8:15 pm

So a quiet Christian in Saudi Arabia would be moral, but one who attempted to spread the Word would be immoral? Poor argument, indeed.
Azsteve53
July 29th, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

Dawkins never thinks logically. Dawkins is a megalomaniac narcissist in the extreme.

Whatever Dawkins says, the opposite is true. Only the very angry God hating anti Christian bigots and militant atheists hold Dawkins in any kind of regard.
Mike G.
July 29th, 2014 @ 8:38 pm

No they wouldn’t be immoral…they would just be lacking in common sense.
Pelosi Schmelosi
July 29th, 2014 @ 8:54 pm

“Learn how to think”
Doubtful in a union-led, Progressive-infested education system.
Oh right – Common Core gonna learn me how to think.
Got it!
Bob Belvedere
July 29th, 2014 @ 9:02 pm

READING FAIL
Marco
July 29th, 2014 @ 9:08 pm

There’s a great deal of obsession with other people’s sex lives, and attitudes about second this blog. It’s kinda creepy, not to mention a cheap smear tactic.
Marco
July 29th, 2014 @ 9:09 pm

*about sex
Anon Y. Mous
July 29th, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

Atheists are Immoral because their ‘morality’ is individual [ie: not shared by the community].

Which part?
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 29th, 2014 @ 9:31 pm

Are you angry Harry over a mild case of pedophilia in your youth? Is that why you are a pederast now?

You seem like Harry Reid.
Nate
July 29th, 2014 @ 9:40 pm

Kind of reminds me of something that profound philosopher, Whoopi Goldberg, once said (and I’m paraphrasing here): ‘There’s rape, and then there’s rape-rape’.
ZZMike
July 29th, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

It’s a sad state of affairs indeed, when philosophers take to twitter.

It is true, however, that there are degrees of crime.. For one thing, that’s why there’s “first degree”, “second degree” and so on

For another, you can’t make a coherent argument in 140 characters – unless it’s a tautology.

More than that, I doubt anyone realizes the unremitting sarcasm in my voice as I type this.
RS
July 29th, 2014 @ 10:41 pm

The question is not whether the atheist is capable of behaving morally. Obviously, the answer is “yes,” just as a theist is capable of behaving immorally. The real question is where that morality originates. Is it merely a set of common behavioral conventions, i.e. a “social contract,” or is it something transcendent, i.e. absolute and independent of social convention? For the atheist, it is the former; for the theist, it is the latter. Inevitably, this leads to the question which I’ve never known an atheist to be able to answer coherently: What happens when the social conventions break down? When there is no longer a common consensus? Would you rather confront the theist with a morality based upon transcendent absolutes or an atheist whose morality is determined by social agreement which no longer exists?
cmdr358
July 29th, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

“If you don’t find @RichardDawkins creepy, you need to go away and learn how to think.”

I’m definitely staying!
Dianna Deeley
July 29th, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

Still not making sense. Try a re-write. You can edit comments on this blog.
Sonya Blade
July 29th, 2014 @ 10:58 pm

Wearing the name “atheist” automatically makes one creepy..tweeting and exposing one’s tiny pea brain confirms it. 😉
cmdr358
July 29th, 2014 @ 10:59 pm

Why did those points need to be made?

Here, let me answer that so that you don’t fry anymore brain cells than you already have.

He’s trying to remain relevant by deliberately tweeting about things that he knows are going to make a splash.

Reminds me of Shiela Jackson Lee or Rachael Maddow…zero value but gets tongues a waggin’
cmdr358
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:16 pm

“…shared by the community.”

I don’t think that Mr.Belvedere was speaking about a community on terms of Berkeley, Brooklyn or Buraydah.

I thought him to be speaking of a community as a homogeneous group of people sharing the same values that they see as beneficial to them all.

That’s just my interpretation though.
He might have had in mind a Catholic living in Saudi Arabia instead.
[end sarc]
cmdr358
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

Couldn’t stay away either huh?
Nan
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

No. Saudi Arabia is itself immoral as it forces all religions but Islam underground.
Anon Y. Mous
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

So it’s not about geography, but merely a collection of people with a shared morality. Like Christians. But not atheists because they are different and immoral. QED.

Got it.
Nan
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:21 pm

Jealous that yours hasn’t been featured yet?
Anon Y. Mous
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

I also think that theocracies are immoral. But, the argument I responded to was a different one than you are making.
cmdr358
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

I don’t think the editing is going to be of use to this chap.
He probably tries but just can’t make sense.
Nan
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:31 pm

Legally there’s no difference between date rape and stranger rape; it’s still non-consensual sex by force.
Bob Belvedere
July 29th, 2014 @ 11:37 pm

You got it, Cmdr.
DeadMessenger
July 30th, 2014 @ 1:39 am

A Christian living in Saudi Arabia share morals beliefs with the Christian community worldwide; indeed, throughout history, because a Christian’s moral beliefs are defined by God.

Bob’s argument stands. And it is the truth.
DeadMessenger
July 30th, 2014 @ 1:44 am

Atheists do not collectively share a single moral code. They employ relativism to evaluate any moral and truth claims on an individual basis. This is no moral code at all, and justice does not spring from this foundation.
DeadMessenger
July 30th, 2014 @ 1:47 am

The takeaway here is, never go on a date with Richard Dawkins.
Anon Y. Mous
July 30th, 2014 @ 3:02 am

Theists also do not share a single moral code. There are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. That’s before you get into the various sects within all the various religions. If there can be a variety of codes among the theists, I don’t see any reason there can’t be variety among atheists.
K-Bob
July 30th, 2014 @ 5:31 am

His flawed reason is clearly an attempt to elevate indecent behavior to the range of acceptable outcomes. Obviously the correct logical formulation should be:

A is bad, so 1) don’t fucking do it, and 2) If you do, you should be punished.

B is clearly worse, so 1) Don’t fucking do it, and 2) You should be severely punished if you do.
K-Bob
July 30th, 2014 @ 5:37 am

Also, circumstances and how well you know someone could augur to make either case far more horrific to the victim than the other. Thus they are both potentially worst case crimes.
Geoff Boulton
July 30th, 2014 @ 7:29 am

If religious ‘morality’ is the foundation of justice then how come so few of the 10 Commandments have made it into the justice system? Simply defining something as wrong has nothing to do with justice. You can say it’s wrong, for example, to work on a Sunday but does that include emergency services? If one of god’s tornadoes hits on a Sunday should the brave firemen, paramedics, doctors, etc. have to wait until Monday morning to help people? Clearly not, and that is why the justice system allows for mitigating circumstances and gives judges the right to sentence offenders according to the circumstances of the crime. Put another way, the justice system “employs relativism to evaluate any moral and truth claims on an individual basis” which is exactly what you would yourself expect if you were ever, either rightly or wrongly, accused of committing an illegal act.
RS
July 30th, 2014 @ 7:46 am

You obviously don’t understand the Ten Commandments. They are devoted to Man’s relationship with God (1 – 4); Man’s relationship with Family (5 & 7); and Man’s relationship with his fellow Man, i.e. “Civil” injunctions (6, 8 – 10). In only the latter, does “justice” come into play because it deals with interpersonal relationships. All of those have made it into criminal codes. Indeed, my state parses “Thou shalt not steal” into 120 pages of statutes.
Quartermaster
July 30th, 2014 @ 7:55 am

You can edit only if you register with Disqus.
Quartermaster
July 30th, 2014 @ 7:56 am

Being irritating is the one thing Dawkins is any good at.
Quartermaster
July 30th, 2014 @ 8:01 am

When the social conventions break down the atheist becomes someone like Stalin or Mao. The Atheist is a parasite on others when it comes to moral standards, or he simply invents his own. Atheists by their very nature tend to be nihilistic.
Geoff Boulton
July 30th, 2014 @ 8:05 am

Coveting is on the statutes? How about all the other ‘rules’ and ‘abominations’ in the bible? Haughty eyes? Rivalries? Women wearing men’s clothes? Sex with animals (legal in how many states?) Scoffing at people? Having sex with your neighbour’s wife? I could go on. And of course there are all the things which aren’t ‘banned’ in the bible but which are on the statutes. The lord apparently didn’t think it was worth mentioning that sex with kids or rape are bad? All that is in any case an aside. The point is that the justice system employs relativism to determine judgements on an individual basis, in contradiction to the original assertion, to which I was replying, that such a methodology does not give you justice.
ameryx
July 30th, 2014 @ 8:10 am

Dawkins is making distinctions without a difference. The classification of misdeeds is how Pharisees comfort themselves.

What is needed is to think theologically. “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.”

In this analysis, the syllogism looks more like:
A is sin.
B is sin.
The wages of sin is death.
NeoWayland
July 30th, 2014 @ 8:14 am

There have been many terrible things done in the name of an absolute, “transcendent” morality. Many by Christians. Many by Christians to Christians. And many by Christians to Christians in the last century alone.

A label doesn’t define morality. In the words of Mark Twain, “Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often.

I’d rather know what someone has done than what they call themselves.