Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[Storm]

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.

They would obviously be quite useful to expanding your own understanding of the human condition, namely the fact (accurate) that our thinking is not this binary.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I have in fact read many of Dawkins' writings

I don't have to read an entire book by Dawkins in order to understand his very clear message

I don't have the stomach to read an entire book of his.

You need to calm down. All I did was recommend that you read one of Dawkins' books, the very fine Unweaving the Rainbow, to understand where he's coming from. If you admit you've never read a whole book by Dawkins, why are you so upset that I pointed out your obvious unfamiliarity with his work?

To be honest, I've enjoyed his writings on evolutionary biology a lot more than I did The God Delusion.

Me too. God Delusion was pretty two-dimensional compared to his books discussing natural history, which are real mental workouts. If his detractors had actually read his books, they might actually find he's an engaging writer.

-Nato

 

[Kathryn]

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.

I don't base my opinions on Dawkins on just this one speech (which was, by the way, quite a bit more than two words). I base it on the many interviews and articles by the man that I've perused. I don't care for his approach.

Nor do I care for the approach of many other public figures - of all sorts of various beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

And I don't ridicule and mock others - it's against my faith. I try to follow the guidance of Jesus Christ, who instructs us to "Love God and love our neighbor as ourselves," and "Do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

Of course, sometimes I am less than perfect, but arrogance and snide comments are not my modus operandum.

 

[Kathryn]

You need to calm down. All I did was recommend that you read one of Dawkins' books, the very fine Unweaving the Rainbow, to understand where he's coming from. If you admit you've never read a whole book by Dawkins, why are you so upset that I pointed out your obvious unfamiliarity with his work?


Me too. God Delusion was pretty two-dimensional compared to his books discussing natural history, which are real mental workouts. If his detractors had actually read his books, they might actually find he's an engaging writer.

-Nato

I don't need to calm down. I AM calm. I don't get riled up very easily.

I just called you out for your sarcasm and your implication that I am a liar. Now you're trying to backtrack and act like you weren't being sarcastic and judgmental, but that's obviously not the case.

And I'm not unfamiliar with Dawkins' work. He has articles, interviews, book excerpts, etc all over the place and I've read and watched many, many, many of them. I don't have to read an entire book by the man to have a pretty clear idea of his communication style (which is indicative of personality traits and character), which is, after all, what the OP is about and what I'm discussing.

 

[Storm]

This whole thread in a nutshell:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Do you mean other people in the thread, or Dawkins?

In the case of people in the thread, I'm not sure it's my job to say "I object" whenever anyone says something I don't like. However, I am sure that I haven't said anything as inherently contradictory as Student of X's use of a blanket stereotype to complain about the use of stereotypes.

As for Dawkins, I'm not going to call him out because I generally agree with him.

 

[Student of X]

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.

Since I have expended time on those fields I know that they are essential to understanding religion, so I know first-hand that your glib assessment is wrong. Therefore, I mock you.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?

 

[Sunstone]

Therefore, I mock you.

I mock you mocking him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

When the questions before us are ones like "what role should religion play in shaping public policy?" or "should creationism be taught in publc schools?" The issue of whether the religious ideas in question are factual is entirely relevant.

IMO, all laws should have a rational basis. When religious people ask for things like civil marriage rules to be based on their religious teachings or special tax status for their church, it's fair game and entitely appropriate to explore whether their beliefs have a rational basis.

 

[Student of X]

When the questions before us are ones like "what role should religion play in shaping public policy?" or "should creationism be taught in publc schools?" The issue of whether the religious ideas in question are factual is entirely relevant.

IMO, all laws should have a rational basis. When religious people ask for things like civil marriage rules to be based on their religious teachings or special tax status for their church, it's fair game and entitely appropriate to explore whether their beliefs have a rational basis.

So have the "myth is factually true" crowd meet the "myth is a dirty lie" crowd in the middle. The comparative fields show the way.

Or I will mock you.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I don't have to read an entire book by the man to have a pretty clear idea of his communication style (which is indicative of personality traits and character), which is, after all, what the OP is about and what I'm discussing.

No, but you shouldn't throw a tantrum if someone points out that it's clear you haven't read an actual book by big bad Dawkins either.

I'm done with this now.

-Nato

 

[Kathryn]

No, but you shouldn't throw a tantrum if someone points out that it's clear you haven't read an actual book by big bad Dawkins either.

I'm done with this now.

-Nato

Nate, there's a big difference between refuting a post on a debate thread, and "throwing a tantrum." I don't throw tantrums, but I will call someone out, especially when they imply that I'm a liar.

Does one have to read an entire book by Rush Limbaugh to form a pretty educated opinion on the man's personality?







I thought not.

 

[Apex]

Or I will mock you.

Your mother was a hamster!

 

[Sunstone]

Your mother was a hamster!

If that's not withering, then I don't know what is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So have the "myth is factually true" crowd meet the "myth is a dirty lie" crowd in the middle. The comparative fields show the way.

Or I will mock you.

I don't give a fig about your myths. What I'm saying is that if you're going to create an imposition on other people, like demanding special treatment for yourself or restrictions on the rigts of others, then I'm going to demand that you give good, demonstrable, factually based reasons why we should do what you want.

I will examine whatever you put forward on a factual basis. If you say "but that's my myth! You're not supposed to look at my myth as fact!" then my response will be "then put your myth away and don't try to impose it on others."

 

[Looncall]

They would obviously be quite useful to expanding your own understanding of the human condition, namely the fact (accurate) that our thinking is not this binary.

I agree, though I think there are more useful ways to study that condition.

Rather than just accept our sometimes imperfect thinking, I would rather struggle against those imperfections.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

How long will the mockers delight in their mockery?

Plenty long, I'd say. Plenty long.

-Nato

 

[YmirGF]

While I understand that there is a lot in religion that is worthy of mockery, I also understand that there is an emotional element that is not so wise to mock. If you really want to win peoples hearts and minds, mockery is probably not the best way to get them in a chatty mood. It is more likely to get them reaching for their concealed weapon of choice.

The weird thing about this comment by Dawkins is that I have seen him in conversation with several religious figures and he is ALWAYS very, very respectful. I'd like to see the full speech, rather than just one line, perhaps, taken out of context.

 

[Kathryn]

While I understand that there is a lot in religion that is worthy of mockery, I also understand that there is an emotional element that is not so wise to mock. If you really want to win peoples hearts and minds, mockery is probably not the best way to get them in a chatty mood. It is more likely to get them reaching for their concealed weapon of choice.

Or they will simply quit listening to whatever it is you're trying to say.

I prefer to find common ground and build mutual respect for each other on that ground - people generally have better listening skills when we're not actively insulting them.

Of course, this is common sense and pretty much Communication Skills 101 but unfortunately common sense isn't that common after all...

 

[Storm]

I agree, though I think there are more useful ways to study that condition.

Rather than just accept our sometimes imperfect thinking, I would rather struggle against those imperfections.

I'm sorry, I don't consider the capacity for nuance, abstraction, and symbolic thinking to be among our many flaws.