Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[Me Myself]

Huh?

You've been called out for your own tactics time and again, you claim being trolled (which is against the rules at RF, so report those posts), you claim being personally attacked (which is against the rules at RF, so report those posts), you claim getting ridiculed and victimized and heaven knows what else by all these terrible horrible atheists that you yourself have made blanket statements about, and now you're playing hypothetical games of how atheists shouldn't be fit to volunteer for charitable organizations?

C'mon, RW. You're better than that. If you really are being abused as much as you're bellyaching about, report the posts and allow the diverse staff of theists and non-theists to handle it. And then chill out, man. :cigar:

I hope he didn't meant that o.o.

I thought he meant that you shouldn't generalize and treat bad atheists the way Dawkins suggests to treat bad religious people as he deems everyone of them mockable and all.

That's just what I got though, Maybe I was being naive?

 

[waitasec]

There are definitely some members whose opinions I believe to be more credible -- rather consistently. There are also other members whose opinions I find less credible -- consistently, as well.

IMO credibility involves -- open-minded, reasonableness, honesty, fair tactics, willingness to allow others to disagree with dignity, etc.

I regularly read posts that I disagree with, yet still find the opposing opinion credible.

It someone takes a position that they must annhialate opposition by any means -- I figure they are not confident that an honest search for the truth will reveal workable solutions. I, therefore, may doubt their honesty -- and credibility.

but what do you suppose makes an opinion credible?

edit:
an agreeable opinion (open-minded, reasonableness, honesty, fair tactics, willingness to allow others to disagree with dignity, etc. ) does not make an opinion credible.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

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

Yes, we exercise the first amendment, our rights as Americans.

 

[Road Warrior]

Yes, but in an extremely hateful manner. Not exactly the ideal of Americanism, to attack people with whom you disagree.

 

[Willamena]

but what do you suppose makes an opinion credible?

A willingness to read what was written?

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Yes, but in an extremely hateful manner. Not exactly the ideal of Americanism, to attack people with whom you disagree.

I remember someone mocking Christopher Hitchens the other day, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black here. And who are you to tell an American how or why or what way they can express their freedoms...last time I checked they were freedoms, not freedoms the way road warrior thinks they should expressed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's on his website and has been there for almost 2 years. Are you telling me he doesn't know it's there? If he does know it's there and didn't like or approve of it, don't you think it would be gone by now?

Stop playing these straw man games. I didn't say that Dawkins didn't know that the article is on his site; I'm saying that the mere fact it's there doesn't mean he endorses what the article says.

And frankly, if you had bothered to actually read the article, this would have been obvious to you.

From his writings, speeches and many appearances I've watched, it is clear to me he loves to roll around in his notoriety. At least it helps him sell more books.

And this equates to him being a "priest" how, exactly?

 

[waitasec]

Yes, but in an extremely hateful manner. Not exactly the ideal of Americanism, to attack people with whom you disagree.

are you talking about resorting to violence?

i love this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs

what is relevant starts at 3:20

 

[Willamena]

an agreeable opinion (open-minded, reasonableness, honesty, fair tactics, willingness to allow others to disagree with dignity, etc. ) does not make an opinion credible.

It does. Credibility is our capacity to believe a thing, and agreeable or not, if an opinion is honest, open-minded and fair, we lend it that credibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but in an extremely hateful manner. Not exactly the ideal of Americanism, to attack people with whom you disagree.

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.

 

[Road Warrior]

Stop playing these straw man games. I didn't say that Dawkins didn't know that the article is on his site; I'm saying that the mere fact it's there doesn't mean he endorses what the article says.

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

 

[Road Warrior]

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.

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

My, what a broad brush you have.

As long as you're more interested in grandstanding and puffery than, oh, giving reasoned arguments supported by evidence, you're not going to bring me over to your way of thinking.

You can hop on one leg if you want.

Or maybe it's because I don't take the drugs that you do.

 

[waitasec]

It does. Credibility is our capacity to believe a thing, and agreeable or not, if an opinion is honest, open-minded and fair, we lend it that credibility.

imo, that is a flawed way of making an opinion credible...

it's akin to a politician showing up to some rally he's not interested in only to get votes for being so agreeable...it's meaningless.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There are definitely some members whose opinions I believe to be more credible -- rather consistently. There are also other members whose opinions I find less credible -- consistently, as well.

IMO credibility involves -- open-minded, reasonableness, honesty, fair tactics, willingness to allow others to disagree with dignity, etc.

I regularly read posts that I disagree with, yet still find the opposing opinion credible.

It someone takes a position that they must annhialate opposition by any means -- I figure they are not confident that an honest search for the truth will reveal workable solutions. I, therefore, may doubt their honesty -- and credibility.

That's fine.

Mockery isn't used to annihilate opposing positions, btw.

It lightens the mood with laughter and wit while calling out an idea that is unrealistic, or repressive, or oppressive, or archaic.

A parent at a PTO meeting demands her children receives education that does not conflict with the Dragonriders of Pern. She holds her position with quiet dignity, but maintains that Bible followers and monotheists are destroying the school system and future generations of humans. After hours of serious debate about how Dragonriders of Pern is not a science book and should only belong in literature class, somebody cracks a joke about her position that ends the discussion and allows the meeting to move on to more relevent topics.

The woman feels hurt by the group.

She took hours away from the group to argue her wildly unrealistic world view.

Serious discussion and attempting to give her pov attention took valuable time. She is clearly delusional.

Mockery, in spite of her feeling bad as a result, moved the discussion to more realistic action items.

I think the focus is so much on trying to equate compassion with patronizing every single worldview, including Zeus believers, people who cry "Armageddon", "Planet X", or the moon-landing hoax, or people who think women should not be given the right to vote. I don't take these positions seriously.

They make me giggle.

And I'm being told I'm a big huge meanie head for it. That makes me giggle too. Life is too short, ya know.

 

[4consideration]

That's fine.

Mockery isn't used to annihilate opposing positions, btw.

It lightens the mood with laughter and wit while calling out an idea that is unrealistic, or repressive, or oppressive, or archaic.

A parent at a PTO meeting demands her children receives education that does not conflict with the Dragonriders of Pern. She holds her position with quiet dignity, but maintains that Bible followers and monotheists are destroying the school system and future generations of humans. After hours of serious debate about how Dragonriders of Pern is not a science book and should only belong in literature class, somebody cracks a joke about her position that ends the discussion and allows the meeting to move on to more relevent topics.

The woman feels hurt by the group.

She took hours away from the group to argue her wildly unrealistic world view.

Serious discussion and attempting to give her pov attention took valuable time. She is clearly delusional.

Mockery, in spite of her feeling bad as a result, moved the discussion to more realistic action items.

I think the focus is so much on trying to equate compassion with patronizing every single worldview, including Zeus believers, people who cry "Armageddon", "Planet X", or the moon-landing hoax, or people who think women should not be given the right to vote. I don't take these positions seriously.

They make me giggle.

And I'm being told I'm a big huge meanie head for it. That makes me giggle too. Life is too short, ya know.

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.

 

[Willamena]

imo, that is a flawed way of making an opinion credible...

it's akin to a politician showing up to some rally he's not interested in only to get votes for being so agreeable...it's meaningless.

How would you go about making an opinion credible?


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

 

[BobbyisStrange]

How would you go about making an opinion credible?


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

I believe the earth is approximately 4.5 billions years old. This is credible because science can help support this claim.


I believe the earth is approximately 10 thousand years old. This claim has no creditable evidence except someone's cheap interpretation of A holy book.

 

[Willamena]

I believe the earth is approximately 4.5 billions years old. This is credible because science can help support this claim.


I believe the earth is approximately 10 thousand years old. This claim has no creditable evidence except someone's cheap interpretation of A holy book.

According to waitasec, the first isn't an opinion but evidence.

Now, I find it interesting that the distinction you make between a credible and incredible fact is your opinion.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

According to waitasec, the first isn't an opinion but evidence.

Now, I find it interesting that the distinction you make between a credible and incredible fact is your opinion.

Well when you follow positive evidence you'll make a creditable opinion.

 

[Willamena]

Well when you follow positive evidence you'll make a creditable opinion.

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?