Has Dawkins shot atheism in the foot?

I'm trying to find detailed info on the net to link to but for now, I can highly recommend The Dawkins Delusion to give insight into the background of Dawkins' tirade.

I think he lost support for a couple of reasons. One was perceived misogyny (see below) along with his friend Krauss, and another followed this and similar articles about the "cult of Dawkins". I remember posting this a couple of years back on the Skeptiko forum along with the page from the Dawkins website which advertised the prices for these dinners with the cult leader. Not surprisingly, that Dawkins Foundation page has since been taken down.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2014/08/the...d-dawkins/

 ... the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.


...

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.

At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.

The accusations of sexism and misogyny followed, especially (but not only) from female atheists and female skeptics. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...s-bad-name

He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job. Blogger and author Greta Christina told me, “I can’t tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I’ve talked with who’ve told me, ‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’” 

It’s not just women who are outraged by Dawkins these days: author and blogger PZ Myers told me, “At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”

This article quotes prominent atheist and skeptic, Rebecca Watson:

She urges readers to protest Dawkins's work, declaring that "this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experience as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library," she writes. "I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same.

Most of his atheist colleagues didn't think so!

Really? Not that I have any involvement in the New Atheists, but the people I know who read his book (I haven't), some of whom aren't atheists, said it was good. And it was my impression that most people in the skeptical community liked it.

I know there are some rifts in the group, though. I remember Dawkins and PZ Meyers were split over Rebecca Watson and the Elevatorgate fiasco. And I get the feeling that lines have been drawn over that and the role of feminism, etc.

Linda

I think he lost support for a couple of reasons. One was perceived misogyny (see below) along with his friend Krauss

Not that I like Dawkins but AFAIK people's issue with him was just his words? Krauss OTOH:

The Krauss Debacle: More Allegations Surface

Sexual Harassment seems to be an issue with the skeptical movement? ->

Leading atheist, accused of sexual misconduct, speaks out

Richard Carrier Ironically Sues A Woman To Silence Her

Neil deGrasse Tyson Responds to Allegations of Sexual Misconduct Amid Investigation

Not that I like Dawkins but AFAIK people's issue with him was just his words? Krauss OTOH:

I was trying to add some detail to the claim made by Brian that Dawkins' fellow atheists have been critical. Yes, critical of his public statements but I wasn't aware of anyone accusing Dawkins of actual sexual misconduct. I'm also wary of posting those links about the Krauss accusations so long as they remain accusations, because of their possible criminal nature. I'm not aware of any convictions as yet. Nevertheless the hypocrisy in that community is evident, as described by this Patheos blogger.

For all that we in the secular community like to excoriate the churches for covering up for predators, I have to question if we’re that much better. When serious allegations of sexual assault were made against Michael Shermer, several high-profile atheist individuals and groups circled the wagons around him and tried to build a wall of silence – either dismissing the accusations as unimportant, outright refusing to mention them, or trying to dissuade others from doing so. To this day, Shermer hasn’t faced any personal or career consequences that I’m aware of.

Now I wonder if we’re seeing the same thing all over again with regard to Lawrence Krauss.

There’s a group of people calling themselves Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, whose original mission was to inject an appropriately balanced and skeptical viewpoint into articles on supernatural and paranormal topics. That’s a mission I’d be all in favor of. However, as Hayley Stevens points out, they’ve apparently adopted a new purpose: making sure the allegations against Krauss are kept off his biography page on Wikipedia.

I think I might have posted that link in another thread because I remember taking issue with the words "appropriately balanced" in the last paragraph.

Not that I like Dawkins but AFAIK people's issue with him was just his words? Krauss OTOH:

The Krauss Debacle: More Allegations Surface

Sexual Harassment seems to be an issue with the skeptical movement? ->

I think it’s related to their arrogance. 
They are held up as something special, which may lead to possible tempting situations. Sports stars are in a similar position.

I was trying to add some detail to the claim made by Brian that Dawkins' fellow atheists have been critical. Yes, critical of his public statements but I wasn't aware of anyone accusing Dawkins of actual sexual misconduct. I'm also wary of posting those links about the Krauss accusations so long as they remain accusations, because of their possible criminal nature.

Yeah, not saying these accusations are false or true, anymore than the rape accusations against Shermer years back. 

Like the Catholic Church (though there's more convictions and confessions there) this seems to be a systemic problem. [Parallels are clearly there if Guerilla Skeptics are involved in a Wikipedia cover up to shield Krauss.]

Most of it thoroughly deserved, if I recall.

To be clear I was talking specifically about his book.

The book was for a time when there was clearly a market for resistance against fundamentalist religions. Some of the criticisms on here appear to be from folk who haven't read it. The general tone is polite, respectful and deliberately inclusive. There are significant portions of the book given over to some of the positive cultural aspects of religion and the sacred texts. If someone has a passage in mind that crosses some line, perhaps we could discuss it.

I prefer Chris Hitchens. He lines up his cross hairs perfectly, and is funnier.

To be clear I was talking specifically about his book.

The book was for a time when there was clearly a market for resistance against fundamentalist religions. Some of the criticisms on here appear to be from folk who haven't read it. The general tone is polite, respectful and deliberately inclusive. There are significant portions of the book given over to some of the positive cultural aspects of religion and the sacred texts. If someone has a passage in mind that crosses some line, perhaps we could discuss it.

I prefer Chris Hitchens. He lines up his cross hairs perfectly, and is funnier.

I don’t recall getting the impression it was particularly polite, respectful and/or inclusive. I do recall thinking it was a bit of a rant in places and somewhat simplistic in others but by and large I agreed with most of the points he made in it about religious belief.

It struck me as more of a book against organised religion imo  than a book about atheism. It’s a while since I’ve read it tho I have to admit.

I've come to think of New Atheism, by destroying itself largely due to internal pressures/egos, as ultimately benefiting parapsychology.


Even the crack in religious hardlining seems to have lead to our current state of pervasive New Age beliefs in the populace.

I've come to think of New Atheism, by destroying itself largely due to internal pressures/egos, as ultimately benefiting parapsychology.


Even the crack in religious hardlining seems to have lead to our current state of pervasive New Age beliefs in the populace.

Yes. As the cultural dominance of organised religion is deconstructed, folk are bound to cling on to other narratives to rescue "meaning" and "purpose".