Looks like he died happy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins
- Thread starter Apex
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't know about you, but I really do have a hookah. A fully operational one.
Oh that's right, you know that - we used it last night.
Some events from last night are a bit fuzzy to me...
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I actually enjoyed Dawkins' rejoinder to the criticism at the end more than Dr. Tyson's criticism. He graciously "accepted the rebuke" and came back with a hilarious example of why the criticism wasn't so much a critique of his style as of the way in which people generally behave in public debates. I really like Tyson, but he can also come off as combative, depending on the mood of the listener. You really have to put comments like those that Dawkins makes in their proper context. Tyson admitted that his reaction was more visceral than thoughtful.
I think that MysticSang'ha gave a superb summary of the context in which the quote mine from the OP was made. Dawkins is not literally advocating that people go out and mock people just for being Christians.
Last edited:
A Troubled Man
Active Member
So, Dawkins encourages us to mock irrational beliefs, yet he never encourages people to hate others, while he sits for hours on end reading hate mail and death threats sent to him from those who embrace irrational beliefs.
Curious behavior, indeed.
Curious behavior, indeed.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I doubt that there are many people who never encourage people to hate others. Dawkins is not perfect, but he is not as imperfect as those who hate him would have us believe.
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Certainly there are those who hate him. Those who do so are wrong to do so, IMHO.
OTOH, anyone who advocates mocking and ridicule as a course of action is doing so from an emotional base, not a reasonable or logical one. Therefore, I fail to see the difference between one person who advocates doing such things from another regardless of their belief system.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
The difference is when ridicule and mockery are substituted for evidence in any given argument no matter who uses it, then it becomes a fallacy.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Dawkins explains why he suggests ridicule in [youtube]ae-12hCwJYM[/youtube]
this short video.
this short video.
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Dawkins fails as a scientist when he devolves into rhetoric and emotional appeal.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Thanks for the link, cablescavenger, although I don't think that many people here will sit through the entire 23 minutes. Dawkins gave a spirited defense of the use of ridicule and sarcasm as rhetorical techniques against what he regards as ridiculous beliefs. In fact, those who promote religion have long used such techniques against atheists and people of other faiths. Are they wrong to do this? Not necessarily, as long as they respect the people whose beliefs they disrespect. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of whether one can separate respect for people from respect for their beliefs. In the context of public debate, I think that it is necessary to do so.
You are mistaken if you think that Dawkins can only stand up and make public comments on science or that he has no right to express his beliefs passionately. He has as much right as any religious or political proselytizer to express his beliefs passionately and to attack the beliefs of others that he disagrees with. He engages in public polemics, and he does so unapologetically. Even scientific debate can be highly polemical, and that alone is not a reason to condemn it. I think that we should give Dawkins exactly the same leeway that we almost instinctively give to people who stand up and proselytize religion or politics. It is part of normal public discourse. But you must make a distinction between attacking a person and attacking their beliefs. I do think that Dawkins makes that distinction. Many of his critics also make that distinction when it comes to people of other religious faiths, but not when it comes to atheists.
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Where did I say he had no right to his beliefs? He is free to express himself as passionately as he likes. My only complaint is when he tries to wrap his passion in science like a Creationist preacher. Just because he is a scientist doesn't mean everything he says is scientific. As you just admitted, he expresses his beliefs passionately.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
My criticism of your comment was that there is nothing wrong with him expressing his beliefs passionately in these public lectures. He is not giving them in the context of making a scientific claim. He is giving them in the context of political and religious debate. He is well qualified to discuss science in that context, because science has been under attack from religious and political perspectives. He is no more "trying to wrap his passion in science like a Creationist preacher" than anyone else who engages in public debates on religious and political topics. You are not treating him fairly when you insist that he engage in public debates about religion and politics as if they were purely about science. He quite clearly thinks of atheism as a social movement in these contexts, and I think that he is right about that. Atheists have the same right as anyone else to promote their beliefs about religion. If you are going to go after him, then you should also go after everyone else who speaks passionately in defense of their politics or religion.
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Agreed that atheists, be they prominent ones like Dawkins or just plain Joes, have "the same right as anyone else to promote their beliefs about religion." Where do you get the idea that I do not support that idea? Simply because I disagree with a High Priest of New Atheism?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
No it doesn't. It doesn't make him any less of a scientist because he speaks his mind. There are a few videos out there of Ken Miller giving his opinion in the public yet he is still a prominent biologist.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
How about when he delves into bowling or fishing, does he fail as a scientist there, too?
Does everything Dawkins say must come from the point of a scientist?
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Of course not...in general. It's only when he speaks his mind in an illogical manner that I begin to wonder. Like his Belief Scale and self-declaration that he is a 6.9. Okay, fine, but where is the scientific reasoning? There is none, hence why he hedges his belief a bit by not going all the way with 7.0.
waitasec
Veteran Member
waitasec
Veteran Member
and of course your manner is the logical one...
there are different applications for all sorts of situations....
when it's time to get mad....get mad without apology
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
and of course your manner is the logical one...
there are different applications for all sorts of situations....
when it's time to get mad....get mad without apology
Insult noted. Is there a logical time to get mad?
waitasec
Veteran Member
emotions are not logical... atheists cannot be unemotional
Last edited: