Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[Looncall]

How about tolerance?

Why should one tolerate lies, or people who lie to their children, or people who try to oppress others on the basis of lies, or people who try to negatively influence public policy on the basis of lies?

If the religious kept their whackiness to themselves, I would be all for toleration, but they don't. There are limits, of course, such as when parents refuse life-saving treatment to their children because of their religious notions.

I don't think that religious belief should be given the same status as evidence and reason when it comes to public matters, That is what this plea for toleration amounts to as far as I can see.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are other examples he could have chosen that would have better fit your description. The fact that he did not, IMO, is telling.

If he used some weird fringe belief that gets mocked even by theists as his example, though, it wouldn't have spoken to his point that religious beliefs get special treatment.

Take his example of the Eucharist and transubstantiation... i.e. that a piece of bread can turn into the body of a god, but still be indistinguishable from a regular piece of bread in any measurable way.

Did you ever see the Simpsons episode with the Esquilax (a mythical creature that's a horse with the head of a rabbit and the body of a rabbit... IOW, something that is completely indistinguishable from a regular rabbit)? Take the idea of transubstantiation out of a religious context and it becomes an easy joke and a sure sign of hucksterism.

I think the examples he gave in the quote in your OP were spot on.

 

[Student of X]

Why should one tolerate lies, or people who lie to their children, or people who try to oppress others on the basis of lies, or people who try to negatively influence public policy on the basis of lies?

Because mythology isn't a 'lie' and it isn't a 'fact' either. The black & white thinking of so many atheists is deeply flawed.

Trying to pass off myth as 'lie' is a lie. Why should I tolerate people who lie about the nature of myth? Incoming mockery!

 

[Kathryn]

Of course you have. And I'm an astronaut.

-Nato

Nato, I see you're taking his instructions quite literally.

I am not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I've read a lot of Richard Dawkins' writings. You've obviously made up your mind based on very few facts and an immediate dismissal based on your own prejudices.

Interesting. If this is an example of the sort of reasoning that reading Dawkins' books produces, sorry, but frankly I'm not impressed.

However, I'm going to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt. I believe that your attitude is your own responsibility - not his.

 

[Erebus]

Ridicule is fine if it's done properly. George Carlin, David Mitchell and Bill Maher have all ridiculed religious beliefs well and they manage to get their point across even if you don't agree with them. Religious beliefs should not be held as sacrosanct in my opinion and they should be open to ridicule.

However, if you're going to ridicule a individual's beliefs (as opposed to ridiculing a particular concept as comedians tend to do) then in my mind two rules apply if you're to avoid coming across as a prat. Firstly they should deserve it and secondly you should be good at ridicule.
With the first rule I'm essentially talking about those people who genuinely do try to force their beliefs down your throat. There's no point in going off into a tirade merely because somebody tells you they're religious, all you'll manage to do is make yourself look like a petulant child. As far as I'm concerned you give as good as you get, somebody asking you if you'd consider accepting Jesus warrants a much gentler response than somebody who pickets funerals.
The second rule should be self explanatory really, but it's something a lot of people fall down on. the invisible man in the sky skit was funny when George Carlin did it, but now it's getting old. Same goes for pink unicorns, polka-dot fairies etc etc (In fact I recommend anybody who uses the fairy analogy as an insult educate themselves on the pre-Tinkerbell fairy tales). Try to be witty, try to be original and if you can't manage either then ridicule just isn't for you.

By the way, these rules apply to theists ridiculing atheists too. Agnostics and Pantheist aren't covered in this edition, but will be included in my upcoming book How not to look like a prat: The forgotten chapters.

 

[Kathryn]

Ridicule is fine if it's done properly. George Carlin, David Mitchell and Bill Maher have all ridiculed religious beliefs well and they manage to get their point across even if you don't agree with them. Religious beliefs should not be held as sacrosanct in my opinion and they should be open to ridicule.

However, if you're going to ridicule a individual's beliefs (as opposed to ridiculing a particular concept as comedians tend to do) then in my mind two rules apply if you're to avoid coming across as a prat. Firstly they should deserve it and secondly you should be good at ridicule.
With the first rule I'm essentially talking about those people who genuinely do try to force their beliefs down your throat. There's no point in going off into a tirade merely because somebody tells you they're religious, all you'll manage to do is make yourself look like a petulant child. As far as I'm concerned you give as good as you get, somebody asking you if you'd consider accepting Jesus warrants a much gentler response than somebody who pickets funerals.
The second rule should be self explanatory really, but it's something a lot of people fall down on. the invisible man in the sky skit was funny when George Carlin did it, but now it's getting old. Same goes for pink unicorns, polka-dot fairies etc etc (In fact I recommend anybody who uses the fairy analogy as an insult educate themselves on the pre-Tinkerbell fairy tales). Try to be witty, try to be original and if you can't manage either then ridicule just isn't for you.

By the way, these rules apply to theists ridiculing atheists too. Agnostics and Pantheist aren't covered in this edition, but will be included in my upcoming book How not to look like a prat: The forgotten chapters.

:clap

Just say No to being a prat!

 

[Looncall]

Because mythology isn't a 'lie' and it isn't a 'fact' either. The black & white thinking of so many atheists is deeply flawed.

Trying to pass off myth as 'lie' is a lie. Why should I tolerate people who lie about the nature of myth? Incoming mockery!

If it is not a fact, it has no place in public discourse. If a myth expresses some truth, why not express that truth directly?

in any case, the religious do not act as if they think their notions are not facts. If Noah's flood is not a fact, but a myth, why are children taught that it happened in Sunday schools? I very much doubt that any preacher says anything like "This is a very fine story, but it never happened." about any of the bible stories.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ridicule is fine if it's done properly. George Carlin, David Mitchell and Bill Maher have all ridiculed religious beliefs well and they manage to get their point across even if you don't agree with them. Religious beliefs should not be held as sacrosanct in my opinion and they should be open to ridicule.

However, if you're going to ridicule a individual's beliefs (as opposed to ridiculing a particular concept as comedians tend to do) then in my mind two rules apply if you're to avoid coming across as a prat. Firstly they should deserve it and secondly you should be good at ridicule.
With the first rule I'm essentially talking about those people who genuinely do try to force their beliefs down your throat. There's no point in going off into a tirade merely because somebody tells you they're religious, all you'll manage to do is make yourself look like a petulant child. As far as I'm concerned you give as good as you get, somebody asking you if you'd consider accepting Jesus warrants a much gentler response than somebody who pickets funerals.
The second rule should be self explanatory really, but it's something a lot of people fall down on. the invisible man in the sky skit was funny when George Carlin did it, but now it's getting old. Same goes for pink unicorns, polka-dot fairies etc etc (In fact I recommend anybody who uses the fairy analogy as an insult educate themselves on the pre-Tinkerbell fairy tales). Try to be witty, try to be original and if you can't manage either then ridicule just isn't for you.

By the way, these rules apply to theists ridiculing atheists too. Agnostics and Pantheist aren't covered in this edition, but will be included in my upcoming book How not to look like a prat: The forgotten chapters.

Basically, this.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Nato, I see you're taking his instructions quite literally.

I am not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I've read a lot of Richard Dawkins' writings. You've obviously made up your mind based on very few facts and an immediate dismissal based on your own prejudices.

No, I'm just used to people dismissing Dawkins because of things they see in youtube videos or in articles attacking him. Very few people who claim knowledge of Dawkins' actual writings can even describe the thesis behind Unweaving the Rainbow or The Blind Watchmaker.

That's why I originally said to you, in a post I considered quite civil, that reading his books might give you a better idea of what he's about than watching him grandstanding on a youtube video. If hearing someone say that Dawkins said something mean gives you what you consider "the unvarnished truth" about the man, then I'd say I have every right to assume that your familiarity with what Dawkins has actually written is extremely limited.

Besides, I can't stand the man's speaking voice.

-Nato

 

[cablescavenger]

Taken from Dawkins' speech at the Reason Rally: (Emphasis mine)
What does everyone (theist and atheist) think about his statement? Should you mock someone in public for no other reason then you think one of their beliefs doesn't make sense?

You have missed his point by cutting short the statement.

He has not proposed mocking for mockings sake in order to belittle a belief as you are suggesting.

He goes on to say:

Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off the list. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged, and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

and in that context you have to respect what he is saying because he is proposing we challenge our assumptions and question our reasoning and substantiate our claims.

If one can attack that which contradicts their religion, then their credentials for refuting the evidence, and the validity of their counter claims must also be substantiated.

Would this world really become a better place if everyone followed Dawkins' advice?
And where would it end? Why should it just be contained to religious beliefs? What about political, cultural, philosophical, or anything you disagree on?

In short 'Yes, challenging assumptions is good.'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because mythology isn't a 'lie' and it isn't a 'fact' either. The black & white thinking of so many atheists is deeply flawed.

Trying to pass off myth as 'lie' is a lie. Why should I tolerate people who lie about the nature of myth? Incoming mockery!

I think you misunderstand the situation. I think the thing that Dawkins et al. have trouble with here is the tendency of some religious people to portray myth as fact. If you're really against this, then you should be on Dawkins' side, IMO.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Nato, I see you're taking his instructions quite literally.

I am not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I've read a lot of Richard Dawkins' writings. You've obviously made up your mind based on very few facts and an immediate dismissal based on your own prejudices.

Interesting. If this is an example of the sort of reasoning that reading Dawkins' books produces, sorry, but frankly I'm not impressed.

However, I'm going to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt. I believe that your attitude is your own responsibility - not his.

To be honest, I've enjoyed his writings on evolutionary biology a lot more than I did The God Delusion. Not because I think TGD was bad, but because his command of the English language and his skills as an educator when dealing with his special field of science is really an example to follow. His ability to explain complex issues in a clear and understandable manner rivals that of Carl Sagan, and that is praise I would not give lightly.
Being an educator myself I find him to be one of my foremost rolemodels and I have borrowed many of his analogies when explaining science to my pupils.

 

[Student of X]

If it is not a fact, it has no place in public discourse. If a myth expresses some truth, why not express that truth directly?

in any case, the religious do not act as if they think their notions are not facts. If Noah's flood is not a fact, but a myth, why are children taught that it happened in Sunday schools? I very much doubt that any preacher says anything like "This is a very fine story, but it never happened." about any of the bible stories.

This sort of black & white lie vs fact binary opposition thinking is why atheists need to put down their evolutionary biology books for a while and pick up their comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparative mysticism books.

 

[Kathryn]

No, I'm just used to people dismissing Dawkins because of things they see in youtube videos or in articles attacking him. Very few people who claim knowledge of Dawkins' actual writings can even describe the thesis behind Unweaving the Rainbow or The Blind Watchmaker.

That's why I originally said to you, in a post I considered quite civil, that reading his books might give you a better idea of what he's about than watching him grandstanding on a youtube video. If hearing someone say that Dawkins said something mean gives you what you consider "the unvarnished truth" about the man, then I'd say I have every right to assume that your familiarity with what Dawkins has actually written is extremely limited.

Besides, I can't stand the man's speaking voice.

-Nato

Actually, this is what you said:

You might try reading one of his books to find out the truth about Dawkins, instead of relying on reading quotes on the Internet. I personally think Unweaving the Rainbow is a great, positive summation of the naturalist worldview.

-Nato

Now - I wasn't born yesterday. I know a snide remark when I see one. Then when I asked you why you relied on judgmental assumptions when you have absolutely NO facts to back up your assertions about me (which I find ironic, considering the topic at hand), and I told you that I have in fact read many of Dawkins' writings, you came back with "Right, and I'm an astronaut."

What you just did was judge me based on what you believe regarding MY beliefs, and then you called me a liar.

Cheap shots in both instances.

I have been responding to the OP's question about Dawkins' blatant instructions to ridicule and mock people who hold religious beliefs. I don't have to read an entire book by Dawkins in order to understand his very clear message:

Atheist Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

And frankly, when I watch something like this, and read articles and interviews by Dawkins, I don't have the stomach to read an entire book of his. If he is the spokesperson for atheism, I'm unimpressed.

Thankfully, I've known other atheists, several of them in the context of friendship, who aren't as arrogant and strident as Dawkins.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This sort of black & white lie vs fact binary opposition thinking is why atheists need to put down their evolutionary biology books for a while and pick up their comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparative mysticism books.

My, what a broad brush you have.

Don't you think that it's a bit hypocritical of you to demand that atheists take the time to learn the nuances of theist views when you seem bound and determined to portray them as cartoon characters without nuance of their own?

 

[gnomon]

This is such a sad display though certainly a telling measure of character.

 

[Student of X]

My, what a broad brush you have.

Don't you think that it's a bit hypocritical of you to demand that atheists take the time to learn the nuances of theist views when you seem bound and determined to portray them as cartoon characters without nuance of their own?

They need to take the time to learn the true nature of myth and religion, or risk my mockery! Evolutionary biology isn't going to teach one the true nature of myth and religion. Neither is geology. Neither is history, or astrophysics, or neurology, or any of the other sciences that atheists seem to think sheds light on the nature of religion. I think they are foolish for relying on such fields while ignoring the proper ones, such as comparative mythology and esoterica.

So rather than trying to turn atheists on to the comparative fields so that they can do some independent learning and rise above their childish black & white thinking, maybe I should just mock them.

 

[Storm]

My, what a broad brush you have.

Don't you think that it's a bit hypocritical of you to demand that atheists take the time to learn the nuances of theist views when you seem bound and determined to portray them as cartoon characters without nuance of their own?

I think most of the people in this thread are guilty of stereotyping. Forgive me, but it strikes me biased that you don't call out your fellow unbelievers as well.

 

[Looncall]

This sort of black & white lie vs fact binary opposition thinking is why atheists need to put down their evolutionary biology books for a while and pick up their comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparative mysticism books.

Really? So you think that propositions are not either accurate (true) or inaccurate ( false)?

I do see that false stories can be used to convey ideas. That does not make them true.

I do not see why I should expend my precious time studying the many ways in which ancient errors get propagated into the modern world. The books you recommend might be useful input for psychologists or historians. Not otherwise.

 

[gnomon]

I am extremely pleased by Daniel Fincke's article, which says exactly what I SHOULD have said and, to my regret, didn't make sufficiently clear in my Reason Rally speech. The best way to summarise it would be to modify the quotation from Johann Hari. Johann said, "I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs". From now on, my version will be, "I respect you too much to accept that you really believe anything so ridiculous as you claim. Please either defend those beliefs and explain why they are not ridiculous, or else declare that you do not hold them and publicly disown the church to which you claim loyalty."


Politicians who curry favour with voters by claiming religious affiliation should learn the downside of such self-serving claims. They should be made to defend, in public, the ridiculous beliefs of the religion to which they pretend loyalty.

And I agree.

And done.

That a bunch of mocking forum members who wouldn't stop short of mocking or ridiculing others are upset about two words taken from an entire speech and decide that is enough to determine the character of another...........

What can I say. I mean, I know I'm a jerk.