So I can't sleep, and I thought I'd compile a list of skeptics who I either no longer have any respect for, or have so little respect for it makes no real difference. I'll add the reasons / explanation for each person as best I can.
This is a personal list; I expect most people to disagree with some of the people on it, and several people to disagree with all of the people on it. Feel free to complain (I won't add you to the list
).
Richard Dawkins
I'll start off with possibly the most well known atheist in the world. I used to respect Dawkins a lot; he was one of the people who got me to be more open about my atheism, to start a blog, to even start these forums. I used to hold his book "The God Delusion" in high regard, and indeed I got a copy signed when I met him a few years ago.
That book is ironically one of the reasons I've lost most respect for him. If you read it as your first book on atheism, or even on philosophy, you think it's brilliant. If however, you start to read other books on atheism, or delve into philosophical thinking even more, you realise that "The God Delusion" is a pile of crap. It tries to make several philosophical points, as well as commenting on various theological ones as well. The problem is, Dawkins has no training in philosophy, and certainly no training in theology either...and it shows...really badly.
The other reason I lost a lot of respect for him was over his handling of the "Richard Dawkins Forums", which were at one point in history, one of the largest internet atheist communities. Long story short, the admin team were crap, a load of things broke and weren't fixed, and then instead of pulling his act together and saving the community (of thousands I might add), he decided to shut down the forums completely.[1] That said, we gained a fair few members that way, so it wasn't a complete loss.
Rebecca Watson
Also known as "The Skepchick", Rebecca Watson is a blogger on skepticism among other things. She also does a few podcasts apparently, although I've never listened to them. In the last year, she's managed to solidify her position among quite a few fellow skeptics as a radical feminist bent on alienating anyone who has the audacity to disagree with her. Her offenses are:
1) Elevatorgate - Ms Watson was in an elevator in a hotel in Dublin at 4am, with a man who had apparently been at the hotel bar with her and all the other skeptics who had attended some skeptical conference. The man said he liked her views, and asked whether she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She politely refused, the man went to his hotel room alone (as any gentleman would), and that should have been that.
Except that Ms Watson made a video blog a few days later saying the man had made her feel "uncomfortable" and asked men "not to do that"...because apparently asking people for coffee is creepy now...who knew? Anyways, the internet asploded, Dawkins made some funny sarcastic comment about overreacting, and the skeptic community was split into three groups: those who think Watson is a hero (sorry, heroine) for standing up for the rights of women not to get hit on in elevators, those who think Watson is a feminazi who wants men to be seen and not heard (and also not seen), and the rest of us, myself included, who were watching from the sidelines saying "WTF, it's just coffee."
2) Reddit "misogynists" - I love Reddit; it's one of the funniest sites I've ever been on; a place where memes are born, and where hardly anything is taken seriously. On the atheism subreddit, one girl announced that she'd received a copy of some Carl Sagan book. She posted a picture of herself holding the book, and the internet community noted that she was cute. They also noted she was 15 years old, yet this didn't discourage some members from making overly sexual comments (often quite descriptive) about her, what they wanted to do to her, etc...you get the picture.
Ms Watson decided that this was misogyny, because apparently she's never actually read what that word meant. Neither does Ms Watson understand that reddit is a bastion of free speech online, and that often people will use their free speech to support a dark kind of humour rarely found on television. Reddit is not a place for children, nor is it a place only for adults. Reddit is a place for people who understand that they will get insulted, made fun of, and experience both the best and worst of people. If you don't like that, don't use the site.
3) The very recent (as of 3rd January 2012) "Rileygate" / "Radfordgate" - Noted skeptic Ben Radford wrote a blog post for a friend about a viral video that was going around, in which a 4 year old girl (Riley) rants about the fact that girls' toys are pink, and boys' toys are a whole range of colours. Ben skeptically analyses why this is so; what society does to enforce these ideas, and how the media shapes our views. All in all, it was a good piece of writing; he argued his points well, and after all, this is about a 4 year old's rant in a toy store...nobody can really take things much further can they?
Enter Rebecca Watson, with a scathing blog post in response, filled with quote mines, strawmen, and general verbal abuse. Not only that, but in trying to defend what she thinks Riley is saying, she inadvertently (or maybe purposefully, I don't know) puts her own spin on things, going as far as to say that Riley (a 4 year old remember) is a feminist who understands that "girls who don’t dress up or wear make-up are called dykes or unfuckable prudes. Boys who wear skirts are called fags or treated for mental instability." Right...
Of course, Ben Radford responded to Rebecca, and immediately gets attacked by a rabid bunch of "skepchick" fans, who call him sexist, a misogynist (people still don't know what that word means apparently), and ignorant, among other things. Whether we'll see a response from Rebecca is unknown, but one thing is for sure; Rebecca Watson is not a skeptic. She is an ego-maniacal sexist who will attack the character of anyone who she disagrees with, or who has the audacity to disagree with her.
Thunderf00t
Thunderf00t (real name Phil Mason) is a scientist and atheist YouTuber, probably most famous for his "Why do people laugh at creationists?" series of videos, as well as his debates with Ray Comfort, and to a lesser degree, his road trips around the USA. He likes to present himself as a defender of free speech, and for the most part that is true. However, he is also a big hypocrite in a number of ways. For one, when he first started making videos, he didn't appear in them; he would simply do a voiceover. He later decided to "come out" and explained that the reason he'd hidden away before was that people tended to attack his appearance rather than his points. Fair enough, he doesn't think that attacking someone as a person is good form in a debate. The problem is that Thunderf00t is known for doing just that, calling political vlogger Lee Doren "Sir Stares-a-lot" repeatedly, and going as far as to suggest that fellow YouTube atheist Coughlan616 was mentally disturbed.
Not only that, but Thunderf00t repeatedly mentioned the fact that Coughlan616's previous account (Coughlan666) was permanently banned from YouTube. This would be a perfectly valid criticism for Thunderf00t to make, if it didn't so happen that the Coughlan666 channel was taken down due to various people filing false DMCAs at it. False DMCA's are of course one of Thunderf00t's pet peeves in his campaign to keep free speech on YouTube.
Finally, Thunderf00t is an islamophobe, who has in the past claimed that a muslim YouTuber was threatening to kill him, despite this clearly not being the case. In addition, he has come under fire for not responding to his critics, or for dealing with strawmen versions of their points.
This is a personal list; I expect most people to disagree with some of the people on it, and several people to disagree with all of the people on it. Feel free to complain (I won't add you to the list
).Richard Dawkins
I'll start off with possibly the most well known atheist in the world. I used to respect Dawkins a lot; he was one of the people who got me to be more open about my atheism, to start a blog, to even start these forums. I used to hold his book "The God Delusion" in high regard, and indeed I got a copy signed when I met him a few years ago.
That book is ironically one of the reasons I've lost most respect for him. If you read it as your first book on atheism, or even on philosophy, you think it's brilliant. If however, you start to read other books on atheism, or delve into philosophical thinking even more, you realise that "The God Delusion" is a pile of crap. It tries to make several philosophical points, as well as commenting on various theological ones as well. The problem is, Dawkins has no training in philosophy, and certainly no training in theology either...and it shows...really badly.
The other reason I lost a lot of respect for him was over his handling of the "Richard Dawkins Forums", which were at one point in history, one of the largest internet atheist communities. Long story short, the admin team were crap, a load of things broke and weren't fixed, and then instead of pulling his act together and saving the community (of thousands I might add), he decided to shut down the forums completely.[1] That said, we gained a fair few members that way, so it wasn't a complete loss.
Rebecca Watson
Also known as "The Skepchick", Rebecca Watson is a blogger on skepticism among other things. She also does a few podcasts apparently, although I've never listened to them. In the last year, she's managed to solidify her position among quite a few fellow skeptics as a radical feminist bent on alienating anyone who has the audacity to disagree with her. Her offenses are:
1) Elevatorgate - Ms Watson was in an elevator in a hotel in Dublin at 4am, with a man who had apparently been at the hotel bar with her and all the other skeptics who had attended some skeptical conference. The man said he liked her views, and asked whether she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She politely refused, the man went to his hotel room alone (as any gentleman would), and that should have been that.
Except that Ms Watson made a video blog a few days later saying the man had made her feel "uncomfortable" and asked men "not to do that"...because apparently asking people for coffee is creepy now...who knew? Anyways, the internet asploded, Dawkins made some funny sarcastic comment about overreacting, and the skeptic community was split into three groups: those who think Watson is a hero (sorry, heroine) for standing up for the rights of women not to get hit on in elevators, those who think Watson is a feminazi who wants men to be seen and not heard (and also not seen), and the rest of us, myself included, who were watching from the sidelines saying "WTF, it's just coffee."
2) Reddit "misogynists" - I love Reddit; it's one of the funniest sites I've ever been on; a place where memes are born, and where hardly anything is taken seriously. On the atheism subreddit, one girl announced that she'd received a copy of some Carl Sagan book. She posted a picture of herself holding the book, and the internet community noted that she was cute. They also noted she was 15 years old, yet this didn't discourage some members from making overly sexual comments (often quite descriptive) about her, what they wanted to do to her, etc...you get the picture.
Ms Watson decided that this was misogyny, because apparently she's never actually read what that word meant. Neither does Ms Watson understand that reddit is a bastion of free speech online, and that often people will use their free speech to support a dark kind of humour rarely found on television. Reddit is not a place for children, nor is it a place only for adults. Reddit is a place for people who understand that they will get insulted, made fun of, and experience both the best and worst of people. If you don't like that, don't use the site.
3) The very recent (as of 3rd January 2012) "Rileygate" / "Radfordgate" - Noted skeptic Ben Radford wrote a blog post for a friend about a viral video that was going around, in which a 4 year old girl (Riley) rants about the fact that girls' toys are pink, and boys' toys are a whole range of colours. Ben skeptically analyses why this is so; what society does to enforce these ideas, and how the media shapes our views. All in all, it was a good piece of writing; he argued his points well, and after all, this is about a 4 year old's rant in a toy store...nobody can really take things much further can they?
Enter Rebecca Watson, with a scathing blog post in response, filled with quote mines, strawmen, and general verbal abuse. Not only that, but in trying to defend what she thinks Riley is saying, she inadvertently (or maybe purposefully, I don't know) puts her own spin on things, going as far as to say that Riley (a 4 year old remember) is a feminist who understands that "girls who don’t dress up or wear make-up are called dykes or unfuckable prudes. Boys who wear skirts are called fags or treated for mental instability." Right...
Of course, Ben Radford responded to Rebecca, and immediately gets attacked by a rabid bunch of "skepchick" fans, who call him sexist, a misogynist (people still don't know what that word means apparently), and ignorant, among other things. Whether we'll see a response from Rebecca is unknown, but one thing is for sure; Rebecca Watson is not a skeptic. She is an ego-maniacal sexist who will attack the character of anyone who she disagrees with, or who has the audacity to disagree with her.
Thunderf00t
Thunderf00t (real name Phil Mason) is a scientist and atheist YouTuber, probably most famous for his "Why do people laugh at creationists?" series of videos, as well as his debates with Ray Comfort, and to a lesser degree, his road trips around the USA. He likes to present himself as a defender of free speech, and for the most part that is true. However, he is also a big hypocrite in a number of ways. For one, when he first started making videos, he didn't appear in them; he would simply do a voiceover. He later decided to "come out" and explained that the reason he'd hidden away before was that people tended to attack his appearance rather than his points. Fair enough, he doesn't think that attacking someone as a person is good form in a debate. The problem is that Thunderf00t is known for doing just that, calling political vlogger Lee Doren "Sir Stares-a-lot" repeatedly, and going as far as to suggest that fellow YouTube atheist Coughlan616 was mentally disturbed.
Not only that, but Thunderf00t repeatedly mentioned the fact that Coughlan616's previous account (Coughlan666) was permanently banned from YouTube. This would be a perfectly valid criticism for Thunderf00t to make, if it didn't so happen that the Coughlan666 channel was taken down due to various people filing false DMCAs at it. False DMCA's are of course one of Thunderf00t's pet peeves in his campaign to keep free speech on YouTube.
Finally, Thunderf00t is an islamophobe, who has in the past claimed that a muslim YouTuber was threatening to kill him, despite this clearly not being the case. In addition, he has come under fire for not responding to his critics, or for dealing with strawmen versions of their points.
