The Richard Dawkins Foundation is not gender critical... **Title Edited by MNHQ**

No no, not offended just unwilling to give TRAs unnecessary ammunition!

MagnificentDelurker If you mean Hitler/Stalin then I'd remind everyone about "Gott Mitt uns". Hitler was a staunch catholic (at least to begin with). Stalin was a dictator who wanted people to only worship him so religion was a rival. It's not as though these people did things specifically because they were not religious.

But yes people can be evil without religion. It's often said that bad people can do bad things, but religion enable good people to do bad things too. You just have to tell them god wants it and that trumps their personal morality.

Not all believers. Nowadays the vast majority of Christians do the same things I do. It used to be much worse though. (and certain other religions have some catching up to do)

LastTrain

People forget most mass murder in 20 th century was in the name of rationalism and science and secular ideologies. I am not sure who is ahead. Generally when it serves the powers to be to murder, the right excuse will manifest itself, be it the religious cause or social Darwinism or the sacred nation-state.

Pratchet I like 'violently agreeing' :)

smithsinarazz Atheists say slightly mean things about religion, but then again religion used to murder unbelievers (and still does in many places) so I think we're still ahead on points.

Well, in a way, I'm quite glad. Dawkins caused me no end of stress some time ago. I'm an Anglican chorister. I don't believe in God, but I believe people should be allowed to believe what they like, and I value community organisations. So far, so politician-lite-acceptable. Dawkins started bouncing around saying Down With Those Religious Believer Scum and - yeah, other people started criticising or mocking me, and it was horrible.
So I'm quite pleased to see that he's as prone to magical thinking as anyone else.

OP, I'd consider editing the title maybe? I'd imagine many gender critical feminists are pro-trans, in that we don't hate trans people and believe they deserve rights etc. Only that we protest where their rights encroach on womens' and all that that entails. I just worry that your title might be taken the wrong way, as evidence of transphobia, which isn't what this is about at all.

Yes, you can't disprove 'something out there' but you can disprove 'omniscience omnipotence + all good God'. Yes we are violently agreeing.

Pratchet Agreed. it's only tricky when someone says "well I always thought there was something out there that cared for us" and you have nowhere to start with that.

Talk of Dawkins always bring to mind this quote:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

You can prove the non existence of a god with, say, the specific qualities of the Christian god.

Most people are pro-trans.

It's the anti-women thing that's the problem.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of belief and Dawkins has said before that you can't prove the non-existence of a god.

Still, I don't agree with all his views and I wouldn't assume he'd be on the right side in this.

Interesting, beee

Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist,

he is not well respected ( or liked) by many in the academic scientific circles. This from a close scientist friend.

I have been around men in STEM subjects better part of my life. Unfortunately many confuse being clever in a technical subject with having God like omniscience in everything else. They literally call the leaders of subjects Gods as a way of praise. I could not stand it.

One of my professors even confessed to me that being good at his subjects asserts his masculinity as real men are good at what he does.

There are loads of men in biology and genetics, predictably in high ranking positions. I do wonder what they think.

He seems to have had no problem in making atheism into a belief, so I expect he has no problem with gender identities, especially if they are malecentric ones. There must be some sensible men around in science - I wonder if it because so many of them stuck to maths, physics, chemistry and further maths and applied maths and pooh-poohed the biology

Sorry for half finished sentences ugh.

no shortage of atheists that are not simple minded

And are confident enough not to sneer

Prachet

I completely agree with you. Dawkins brand atheism is another form of power play. He gets rid of god but not God’s point of view. He claims that for himself and his ilk. I am just done with I have developed an allergy to serious men with serious ideas.

By the way to clarify there is no shortage of atheists that are not simple minded.

My mum refers to certain people as "a stupid clever person".

It strikes me that Dawkins might fall into that category.

I always think it's hilarious when so called sceptics make a special allowance for gendered souls.

I don’t have a religion, personally, but I think the level of certainty people like Dawkins display in their atheism is a kind of faith in itself. Their sneering at religion is incredibly hypocritical.