Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[Riverwolf]

Sorry, but Dawkins has a better understanding of religions than most here combined. He writes books on the subject and does a lot of research as a result.

Oh, please. Having a large library of books does not indicate expertise on a subject. Nothing I've seen from him indicates anything less than a limited understanding of religion.

Even if he is doing lots of research, all it seems to me is that he is, in a sense, digging in the wrong place.

Besides, he's a biologist. THAT's where his expertise lies, and those are the only books of his I'm going to read. (I hear he does a very good job at explaining how evolution works.) Being an expert in one thing does not mean being an expert in another.

I see you have a blog.

I do. ^_^ But I hardly ever update it, and most of it is just recording random insights.

 

[Falvlun]

Veritas liberabit vos

Do you really think mocking and ridicule will stop liars or the ignorant or do you think it only makes you feel better?

It won't stop the ignorant and liars, but it may dissuade those who listen to them from taking them seriously.

 

[Road Warrior]

It won't stop the ignorant and liars, but it may dissuade those who listen to them from taking them seriously.

Agreed, it won't stop the ignorant and liars, here or elsewhere. What will? When has legislation against stupidity ever been effective?

As for dissuasion, anyone who listens to the ignorant and liars are certainly not very educated nor truthful themselves. The fact so many jump on me for speaking against this tactic preferred by Dawkins says volumes all by itself. I believe your mockery and ridicule campaign is doomed to failure and will create more problems than it will solve. Don't take my word for it. Try it and see.

 

[Falvlun]

Agreed, it won't stop the ignorant and liars, here or elsewhere. What will? When has legislation against stupidity ever been effective?

As for dissuasion, anyone who listens to the ignorant and liars are certainly not very educated nor truthful themselves.

That is a rather unfair characterization. Most of these people are simply young. Or they have not been exposed to other ways of thinking. This is an entire culture we are talking about, not some nutcase standing on a street corner.

Sometimes it takes a joke to make you see something you've heard about from childhood in a new, less blinder-like light.

The fact so many jump on me for speaking against this tactic preferred by Dawkins says volumes all by itself. I believe your mockery and ridicule campaign is doomed to failure and will create more problems than it will solve. Don't take my word for it. Try it and see.

Satire has long been used as a method for disagreeing in a witty, intelligent, and humorous manner. It should not be the only tool in the toolbox, but I don't see why we should toss it out when it has been an effective and amusing one for the past hundreds of years.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, as a side note, if they're going to do this, they need to do so knowledgeably. So I don't want to see any of those nonsensical billboards showing a picture of the earth along with the text "They said it was flat", because they never said it was flat; people have known the world is round at least since Aristotle.

 

[Road Warrior]

Sometimes it takes a joke to make you see something you've heard about from childhood in a new, less blinder-like light.

Mocking and ridicule are not "a joke" nor satire....at least not as Dawkins intended it and usually not in general. Look at the personal attacks on this thread and tell me that you honestly believe they are intended to make someone "see the light" as opposed to simply bullying them into shutting up.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Great advice, which is why I don't. If you disagree, please post the evidence.

I'm simply agreeing that if one does not feel the need or want to mock another then they shouldn't. I see no reason why one should be precluded from doing so.

OTOH, it's interesting that you advocate I shouldn't mock nor ridicule yet you support Dawkins in doing so. Why the hypocrisy?

I agree with freedom of speech and he should be able to mock whomever he wants. Also I support many of Dawkins' points but nowhere did I submit in this thread that I agree with him or everything he does hands down. So I don't see the hypocrisy you're charging me with.

 

[waitasec]

Great advice, which is why I don't. If you disagree, please post the evidence.

OTOH, it's interesting that you advocate I shouldn't mock nor ridicule yet you support Dawkins in doing so. Why the hypocrisy?

that isn't hypocrisy friend.
that is supporting free speech.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm sorry you have no faith in science. Let me put it another way. I come from a military background and any good military leader knows only a fool attacks their allies when they are already heavily outnumbered.

I wasn't claiming to be a good military leader. If you consider us allies in this struggle against "people with a religious agenda", then you should consider your own advice.

I have no desire to see my government come even more under the thumb of people with a religious agenda as we've seen happen since the 1980 election. People such as yourself, Richard Dawkins and anyone else who think creating even greater divides between people attending the self-named "Reason Rally" and the majority of Americans is helping are, IMO, dead wrong. It's antagonistic and does nothing to promote secular government.

Secular government came into being because people who were religious saw a need for it, not because atheists promoted the idea. People of faith saw a need for it, because they realized that even religious people can lose when government promotes religion. There is no guarantee that the religion government promotes is the one that you, as an individual, want promoted.

 

[Road Warrior]

I wasn't claiming to be a good military leader. If you consider us allies in this struggle against "people with a religious agenda", then you should consider your own advice.

I am. Why do you think I have taken so much time here to explain my position?

In a democracy, at least the US version of it, which do you think our Senators and Representatives are more likely to listen to: a 1000 voters with a 1000 different opinions or 200 voters with a single, focused opinion? If you guessed the latter, you are correct and this is why a relative minority of religious hard-liners have been able to achieve so much in Washington. They have a focused agenda. People like Dawkins are busy slamming anyone whose beliefs differ from his own. As the religious hard-liners show, this works if you have the numbers, but at 2%, he does not. Instead of creating allies, he's too busy creating enemies, sound bites and selling books.

Fine. His choice, but I disagree with his tactics and think it works against what should be a common goal for both his followers and the two-thirds of the US who don't take the Bible literally.

 

[cablescavenger]

No, but you can't have it both ways. If you speak as a scientist and want to be respected as a scientist or speak from athority, then you must act like a professional.

If you want to speak as an average joe with an opinion, then you have to qualify that it is just your opinion. Doctors don't wear their white coat on the golf course when they cuss after making a bad shot just as they don't wear golf attire and cuss when they are seeing patients.

The bottom line is, opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one and most of them stink.

As far as mocking is concerned, everyone has a right to behave badly in real life if they choose to. The thing is, others usually act badly in return. What is the good of that? Does it change anything? Dawkins thinks people like me are full of crap, I get that. He has every right to his opinion.

What I believe is going to happen is many Atheists are going to start pushing others real hard. When this happens, others may push back. Someone will get hurt and things will get out of hand.

Perhaps we should have a religious war in this country and the last person standing can have things their way.

Or, we could just respect differences of opinion and enjoy spirited debate with a degree of mutual civility.

I don't have a problem with how others think until they start telling me how I should think. Now we have a big problem. Just imagine if I was to drag Dawkins into church and beat the crap out of him until he got himself "saved".

Does anyone think that would fly?

Everyone has an opinion on religion, it is a man given right.

 

[Apex]

Has anyone here actually said that people should not be allowed to speak their mind about religion, or hold an opinion on it?

 

[Road Warrior]

Yes. They've advised to mock and ridicule people with the obvious goal of getting them to shut up about it. It's a bully tactic. Right Wing Bible Thumpers do the same thing. It's wrong no matter who does it. Let them talk, but we are not required to listen.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Has anyone here actually said that people should not be allowed to speak their mind about religion, or hold an opinion on it?

Yes....

But I believe we *should* be able to speak our minds...even ridicule or mocking is speaking ones mind. To suggest otherwise is just...well ridiculous....

 

[Road Warrior]

I completely agree that people should be able to speak their minds. Mocking or ridiculing them into silence isn't allowing that freedom, is it?

Primarily, there is a difference in saying shouldn't should be prevented from mocking and ridiculing others and stating that it is a very poor tactic of persuasion.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Yes. They've advised to mock and ridicule people with the obvious goal of getting them to shut up about it.

I completely agree that people should be able to speak their minds. Mocking or ridiculing them into silence isn't allowing that freedom, is it?

Actually, the obvious goal is to mock and ridicule so that they start thinking rationally rather than just believing in nonsense. And, if they were speaking their minds, the premise would be that they were in fact thinking and not just regurgitating nonsense.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually, the obvious goal is to mock and ridicule so that they start thinking rationally rather than just believing in nonsense. And, if they were speaking their minds, the premise would be that they were in fact thinking and not just regurgitating nonsense.

I agree...

 

[Road Warrior]

Obviously I disagree that the goal of mocking is to teach those perceived to be ignorant. Obviously it is more about building oneself up by tearing others down instead of teaching. If teaching were the actual goal, then there are better techniques available. Each to their own.

 

[adambaum]

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?

No, never. Mocking people won't advance your argument and besides why would you try to influence what others believe? If someone is happy being a Catholic and believes that the rituals of the Church are Holy, then leave them alone. As long as they're not in your face about it. If someone comes out and starts saying my religion is superior and the truth, then you can definitely debate them, but again, why would mockery be appropriate?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Obviously I disagree that the goal of mocking is to teach those perceived to be ignorant. Obviously it is more about building oneself up by tearing others down instead of teaching. If teaching were the actual goal, then there are better techniques available. Each to their own.

This has been explained to you before. Mocking and ridicule are usually last resorts to having attempted to teach or explain or show facts to the contrary. And, they are also used when the other party has presented an argument with no evidence or rationale whatsoever.

For example, when YOU mocked and ridiculed Hitchens, you presented no evidence or you distorted or misrepresented the evidence, which was pointed out to you.

Were you therefore tearing him down so you could build up yourself? Or, was there some other reason?