That is incorrect, do your research man. Richard Dawkins was a famous best-selling author long before he started talking about atheism and religion.


The biiiiig difference is that these 'transphobic nutters' are not trying to dismantle the basis of scientific thinking.
Creatonists seek to re-form science so that it agrees with their religion.

As long as the scientific data supports their religious doctrine it might be accepted, if it the data disagrees with the religious beliefs the discovery will be scrapped or hidden away.

In other words, Creatonists and other religious fundamentalists view Science simply as a propaganda tool.
They would only cure illnesses and social harms if it benefited their religious agenda.

The more fundamental point would seem to be, do we need a revolution? Or will we also achieve the ends via moderation?

Basically - if the approach you expressed applied only to dialogue between humans - then fine. But so many activists of all sorts assume their priorities should be humanity's priorities. And frustration builds when change isn't fast enough... and...

We are a very very impatient civilization... hence a lot of shit that's been happening in the past decades.

Never that guy!

He basically just wrote, that how you name something does depend on how you define the term and this is how language works and quite reasonable. He also implies that his definition is based on chromosomes. I guess he would call those extremely rare cases of XX people being externally and internally equipped as men "technical women", but you'd have to ask him yourself. I think it's hilarious, that about 99% of those modern transgender trend people are trying to use rare cases as arguments they themselves are usually not.

Calling him a hate filled buzzword like "transphobic" is just showing, that you are immensely intolerant and have no idea about or ignore the proper definition of "phobia". What's your definition of "phobia"?

People have different definitions and if you make the term only dependend on what someone thinks he is, you'd probably be [x]phobic for not acknowledging people as rabbits, chairs, black holes or whatever they think they are for some reason which seems to be perfectly reasonable to them but maybe not to you.

At least he is saying how he defines the term even if one does not have to aggree with it. I never see clear definitions from the people calling him names because of this apart from "I think it is this way and therefore you'll have to adopt my opinion or you're a very bad man, I hate you and I'll shame you in public".
When I was studying philosophy ages ago, the first thing we always did prior to any discussion was setting definitions in order to be able to have a proper discussion at all.

I'm just waiting for people to build pillories for people like him again and go back to the old ways.
Threads like this are the virtual equivalent of pillories already,
while I'd rather prefer people to be free to speak their minds, even or especcially if I don't aggree with them.

Most likely even before as you can see by looking at certain modern cults which don't even have gods.

Utter nonsense, Western science has its very roots in philosophy.
In fact early scientific thinking was indistinguishable from philosophical thinking, they were one and the same.

Some of the world's most influential philosophers were in fact also scientists:
Descartes was a mathematician.
Avicenna was a mathematician, astronomer and many other things.
Plato was a mathematician.
Aristotle was a scientist.
Hume was an economist.
Wittgenstein was a linguist and mathematician.
Frege was a mathematician.
Leibniz was a mathematician.
J.S.Mill was an economist.
Hobbes was a scientist.
Adam Smith was an economist.
Francis Bacon was a scientist.
Bertrand Russell was a mathematician.
Pascal was a physicist and mathematician.
Thoreau was a biologist or ecologist.

and many others...

I'd say humanity is in dire need of change, big change. The way I see it, the model established with the Industrial Revolution has run it's course. Either we find a new model that is literally sustainable from an environmental standpoint or we'll all die while holding on to our old ways of life. This necessary change I speak of demands economic sacrifice and, if ever implemented, would in fact change the global power balance.

Isis and all the problems in the so-called Middle East are also directly related to this. As Marx predicted, the last phase of Capitalism, once natural resources start to dry up (as they already have), is barbarism. As long as profit driven corporations are allowed to dictate the foreign policies of the largest world economies, we should all expect more wars and more terrorism.

That being said, Dawkins's "crusade" against religion is inconsequential at best, but his provocative arguments shouldn't be seen as detrimental to the debate. On the contrary, his approach has proven to be quite effective in expanding the reach of his ideas and other activists should take notice of that.

Your religion is love itself then.

My uncle is a christian and he is one of the best people I ever met. Most Christian I met are actually decent people. But the same cannot be said to people who identify as a christian but does not actually practice Christianity teachings.

Even the basic 10 commandments is not observed.

But then again, the 10 commandments is hard to follow for today modern man.

The problem with that supposed definition is that it denies trans women their identity, and denying someone's identity is one of the worst things you can do that doesn't involve physical violence. (See: Leelah Alcorn.) A chromosomal definition is inadequate, as it fails to account for transgender and intersex people.

Also, I think it's better to say that rationality and scientific thinking were likely under attack since they (rationality and scientific thinking) first appeared.

As an atheist, I would argue that some of the 10 commandments *shouldn't* be followed.

Looking at the list in the table at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
and the C column numbering (used by Catholics), there are some that have no place in a secular society that promises freedom of religion:
1. This one basically disallows worship of other gods. In particular, it basically goes against the modern notion of religious freedom (and, in particular, against the 1st Amendment of the US constitution).
2. Related to 1. (Not all Christians separate it out.)
3. Fails to mention which day, and not even every Christian agrees on the day. Also, there isn't a good reason for shutting down secular activity one day of the week and there are plenty of good reasons to allow it (what if it's that day and you are out of food?).
4. Parents should only be honored and respected if they are good parents. Abusive parents do not deserve such honor and respect.

That's a really long shot. Nobody is denying anyones identity just by disagreeing.
People that can't stand it (and see their "identity" at stake) if others disagree with them are in dire need of rational psychological help and shouldn't be supported in their intolerance.
You could call that "Heresyphobia" if you want and this term does actually exist.

This is just an opinion and you should never forget that.
Everyone has opinions, but not everyone thinks they are the absolute truth and cannot be questioned.
The moment someone spreads hatred only because his opinion clashes a bit with the opinion of someone else, one should be alarmed by the bells of fanatism and radicalism. Growing up also means to be able to peacefully agree to disagree and not losing courtesy because of it.

If I had the money for such a test and would be such an XX case (which is still possible, since I don't know my chromosome set myself), I'd probably stop calling myself a dude and wouldn't call myself a woman either, but say something like "well, depends on how you define it" if someone asked me, which doesn't happen anyway. Chances are extremely low for this though.
In the end absolutely nothing would change for me since it's just a word and shouldn't influence my lifestyle anyway and I would accept whatever people would like to call me, because there are enough real problems and one does not have to create new ones by being an intolerant prick.

Richard Dawkins: “How dare you force your dopey unsubstantiated superstitions on innocent children too young to resist? How DARE you?”

Richard Dawkins: “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.”

Richard Dawkins: “To hell with their culture.”

The more I research this dude, the more he sounds like a old drunken wingnut.

Richard Dawkins is a fanboy of Geert Wilders, and his recommending of a nasty-ass racists tweeter also caught my attention. He followed it up by claiming that racism has to be about hatred towards a certain race, which is an argument typically used by racist to give their own hatred a free pass. (By that definition, Goebbels propaganda barely qualifies as racist, since it was less about race theory and more about Jewish culture and religion.)

Richard Dawkins: “we shouldn’t reject our deep cultural roots in Christianity.”

I was initially pleased to see him approach religion positively. But on second thought, this sounds plenty reactionary. And taken together with his Muslim-bashing, I kinda get the feeling that he is teaming up with Christianity here, against Islam.

That man's thoughts and opinions are wrong. We should kill him before they hurt someone.

Admiral Ackbar!

I see you resort to hyperbole. Is my identity being denied if someone calls me an asshole? I guess we all suffer from loss of identity.

The way I see it, he deftly avoided the question.
He spoke truth. In terms of chromosomes, that is the truth. If you cannot accept that, the problem is with you.
He also indicated he would respect their wishes and refer to that individual as "she".

He was most respectful, your attitude and the attitude of the author of the link you posted were not. What gives you and them the right to disrespect Mr. Hawkins over his comment? He didn't say anything which was incorrect or disrespectful, yet here you go calling him names like "transphobic". You should learn what that word actually means. It does not mean "anyone who disagrees with the transgender party line".