Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quotes, please. Something worse than these, if you don't mind:

How are any of those are insults or name-calling?

BTW - with regard to the drug comment: that "esoteric"/"exoteric" stuff was an extension of something that Student of X and I had debated in another thread. He was the one who originally brought up that idea about drugs, not me.

Hopefully I'm getting his position right (it's been a while since we had it, so I might not be perfect on the details), but in broad strokes: he argued that "esoteric knowledge" obtained through mystical experiences was a superior form of knowledge to "exoteric knowledge" obtained through evidence of the natural world. He also argued that these mystical experiences could be obtained through use of entheogens. My argument in response was that drugs aren't a source of knowledge (except for knowledge of hallucinations, maybe).


But getting back to your question, here you go:

You and the Fred Phelps gang have a lot in common.

Ahhhh, my stalker is back! Woot! Where have you been hiding ATM?

What I take away from this situation is that atheists, at least the ones posting on this thread, are as unreasonable as the most ardent, uncompromising theist. There is no chance of mutual respect from them. They will lie about you, twist your words, bully you and they strongly believe "the ends justify the means". They are not to be trusted as honorable people.

Hard core theists and atheists have closed their minds to persuasion.

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

So... just to sum up, you've called participants in this thread:

- like Fred Phelps (edit: or like the WBC, I suppose)
- stalkers
- dishonourable people
- closed-minded
- ignorant
- liars
- stupid

... and that's just in a sampling from the last few days. There's plenty more if I go back further. Your insults and hypocritical tactics have been a frequent occurrence in this thread.

Again: physician, heal thyself.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Because science gives us the answers of how things word in the natural world. It doesn't resort to the supernatural. Science will show you the answers on how the world works, the bible says God did it.

Also I didn't say evidence, I said positive evidence, which is absent for the existence of a deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm talking about the picture. You know, the one you have so much heartburn over.

The picture came from the article, too.

Again: did you even bother to read it? Your conduct suggests otherwise.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I wasn't making any comment on the mockery portion of this thread. I was responding to Waitasec's suggestion that the term "credibility" does not apply to opinion.

My bad. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So... just to sum up, you've called participants in this thread:

- like Fred Phelps (edit: or like the WBC, I suppose)
- stalkers
- dishonourable people
- closed-minded
- ignorant
- liars
- stupid

... and that's just in a sampling from the last few days. There's plenty more if I go back further. Your insults and hypocritical tactics have been a frequent occurrence in this thread.

Again: physician, heal thyself.

Don't forget how I'm a shamefully bad Buddhist. But tbh, I kinda take that as a compliment.

 

[waitasec]

How would you go about making an opinion credible?


(For the record, I didn't outline any way of making an opinion credible...)

i suppose by supporting it with evidence and in some cases with logic and reason

 

[waitasec]

Both evidences are posited--I don't think that's what distinguishes them. And both are interpretations. Why do you lend credibility to science and disparage the book?

i would think it's because science agrees with this definition

1. capable of being believed
2. trustworthy or reliable the latest claim is the only one to involve a credible witness

the definition of credible...
credible - definition of credible by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i would think it's because science agrees with this definition

1. capable of being believed
2. trustworthy or reliable the latest claim is the only one to involve a credible witness

the definition of credible...
credible - definition of credible by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Heh... by definition #1, every opinion is necessarily credible.

 

[waitasec]

Heh... by definition #1, every opinion is necessarily credible.

by what criteria is it capable?

 

[Road Warrior]

So... just to sum up, you've called participants in this thread

Awesome how you've taken everything out of context to back your accusation. Truly. It supports everything I believe about you.

Unfortunately, as my previous post listing actual quotes of your posts show, your accusation against me is false.

This coming from, AFAICT, the only person in this thread who's resorted to insults and name-calling against the people who disagree with him.

Physician, heal thyself.

Have a nice day, Penguin. You've only supported my beliefs about you, not dissuaded me.

 

[Road Warrior]

The picture came from the article, too.

Again: did you even bother to read it? Your conduct suggests otherwise.

Yes, I did. So what? Oh, wait. You just wanted to slip in another insult. Riiiight. Okey Dokey.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't "do" Fox news either but I've been relating Dawkins to being a High Priest of Atheism for a few years now. They must have got it from me.

Or maybe you read it or heard it somewhere and it's now in your subconscious..

BTW, Dawkins must agree. From his own website: All hail Dawkins, high priest of rationality 22 August 2010

I find this to be an unsubstantiated accusation. Nowhere do we get the sense Dawkins "agrees" with this characterization. Maybe the article was listed to insight "mockery" and "ridicule".....seems to be that way looking at the responses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Awesome how you've taken everything out of context to back your accusation. Truly. It supports everything I believe about you.

I haven't taken anything out of context, and in any case, every quote I gave came with a little link so that anyone can quickly go back and see the whole post as well as the part of the thread that led up to it.

Unfortunately, as my previous post listing actual quotes of your posts show, your accusation against me is false.

You mean the post that you didn't explain despite my request for an explanation of how any of them were insults?

Have a nice day, Penguin. You've only supported my beliefs about you, not dissuaded me.

Likewise.

 

[Road Warrior]

Since I've been warned, I'll just shut the heck up on this thread, but that won't stop me from using my First Amendment rights and sharing my opinions elsewhere. Enjoy your victory.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes. It is the parallel that you were drawing that I am addressing here. And, only that.

I thought I was pretty clear, but I will try again. I was not asking you to agree or disagee with RW about his position. Whether or not you do so is not my point.

I understand that you were making a connection between RW's choice of words and Fox News

He has since stated he does not do Faux "news". We have to accept his word on it. I can accept that since all we have to go on is that.

I maintain that (a High Priest of New Atheism) I think it was used as a form of mockery or ridicule something he seems to be championing against. I wasn't really focusing on that in my response though. I personally wasn't trying to discredit him. I think he did a fine job all on his own.

The words "but I see where it came from" implies that it came from Fox News. You posted an article from Fox News.

I speculated that it did come from there. Maybe RW heard it, read it somewhere out there and and decided to regurgitate it here....

It struck me as odd that you said you "don't do faux news" and then posted an article from Fox. I wondered if you may have gone to Fox looking for a connection.

I had never heard the term before and happen to be randomly searching and came across it and notice he used the term.

I said, "well, what will I find if I google it?" I googled: Richard Dawkins High Priest.

I can't remember if I put Dawkins' name in my search. But it doesn't matter since the slogan and it's many forms didn't even originate from him. It seems to go back further than him and coming from religious bloggers.

I was asking you to clarify your intentions behind posting that comment, because it appeared to me that you were doing something. I was asking you if you were doing it. It seemed like a cheap shop and likely inaccurate as well.

I simply thought there may have been a connection in his statement and that it was not original to him and that it was something that he picked up..but you can take it however you like......It did seem like it pointed out the irony in his comments against mocking and ridiculing people.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Ahhhh, my stalker is back! Woot! Where have you been hiding ATM?

Well, regardless of your false accusations, stalking and trolling, I'm confident most of the gentle readers on this forum can figure out what is what regarding Dawkins and the use of mocking and ridicule as a leadership tool.

Wow, name calling, dishonesty and fallacies all rolled into one. And, you're raging about others mocking and ridiculing. Unbelievable.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Inciting riot, libel, slander, starting fights, etc is not "freedom of speech".

It's one thing to say "I'm an atheist" or "I support secular government". It's another to say "You're a ******* idiot for believing in God, loser! We should shoot anyone who believes in religion. At least lock them up!"

That's a quote from whom? Dawkins? Hitchens? Or, are you just fabricating quotes to support your so-called argument?

 

[BobbyisStrange]

That's a quote from whom? Dawkins? Hitchens? Or, are you just fabricating quotes to support your so-called argument?

Hitchens and Dawkins have never promoted such nonsense

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since I've been warned, I'll just shut the heck up on this thread, but that won't stop me from using my First Amendment rights and sharing my opinions elsewhere. Enjoy your victory.

I've noticed a trend: when your position is challenged, you feign offense and leave until the spotlight shifts away from the fact that you're not backing up your claims.

It's easier than defending your position, I guess.

I won't be surprised at all if you come back. When you do, feel free to give that explanation I asked for.

 

[Willamena]

i would think it's because science agrees with this definition

1. capable of being believed
2. trustworthy or reliable the latest claim is the only one to involve a credible witness

the definition of credible...
credible - definition of credible by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Heh... by definition #1, every opinion is necessarily credible.

by what criteria is it capable?

By the criteria of not holding the book to be science?

Nothing can stand as credible when you hold it to be something it's not.