I often wish Dawkins was more of a dick. There is no nice way to deal with some of these people and some of these insulting arguments. Dennet, Dawkins, Harris & Hitchens address this issue here in the first few minutes.
1 Like
I agree. When did making a joke about a set become an agenda against that set? I am an atheist, he is poking fun at me, it is funny!
If by “address”, you mean whine about it in non-substantive way. Look, if you take on the thesis that religion is damaging in a unique way and that there is exists a solution in the form of non-belief, you’ve already lost me. But, it’s an argument, it’s a thesis, and it’s certainly a starting point for discussion. It’s not intrinsically a way to be an asshole. Some people won’t like it, so what? You might see evangelism of the idea that “being religious is bad for society” as activism. Fine. There are issues there, but basically, whatever floats your boat. That’s not what I’m talking about.
He defintively lost me at Dear Muslimah, just as Harris lost me at, “Let’s consider nuking the Middle East as a thought experiment.” Don’t pretend that concrete arguments about their essentially conservative values are somehow about ethereal perceptions based on them arguing something people don’t like. It is possible to be passionate, and an asshole.
2 Likes
Who does that? The straw man population is growing rapidly. If you are saying that believing lies can be helpful, that may be true …until it isn’t helpful. When religion affects the nonreligious’ rights the nonreligious need to assert themselves.
Believing anything is a problem. Even those who believe that they are nonreligious have already bought into their own propaganda.
You’re welcome to your nihilism. I’ll have no part of it.
Neither will I.
You might either misunderstand nihilism, or my comments. What I propose is only a complete lack of certainty. Things seem to obviously exist, but there is little rational basis for me to assume that I know what they truly are. Instead of taking the easy way out and deciding whether or not I really know, I merely evaluate how it seems at the time, with awareness that my comprehension is necessarily incomplete, and that my available observations/evidence change over time.
No one should need to explain to you that beliefs can and often do change. Your mealy mouthed explanation is unnecessary and sophomoric.
Sure, but what I was explaining (if perhaps poorly) is that belief - changing or otherwise - functions differently than not believing in the first place. I was only trying to clarify this as being distinct from the nihilism you associated my earlier remark with. Belief only affects your personal narrative - if you need one.
1 Like
Hey kid, I hear your mother calling. Go home.
1 Like
Some things don’t require explanation.
Do you want more dickishness and insult towards people who believe something different? Earlier you said:
If Christians aren’t allowed to joke about or insult atheists or Jews, then surely atheists aren’t allowed to joke about or insult Christians.
I get that everybody would prefer to be allowed to insult others without being subjected to insults, but that’s a double standard. Either everybody gets to be a dick towards others, or nobody does. Personally I’d prefer less dickishness from everybody; we’re nasty enough to each other as it is. It’s be nice to tone it down a bit.
2 Likes
Then please consider my mealworm mouthed explanation
Awww… there go all your mealworms! What are you going to do now, Holmes?
1 Like
What I mean to say is that I believe when Dawkins trespasses on a taboo with his reason many people call him “dickish” so he and others of his ilk often tone down their rhetoric in a futile attempt to placate those who would take offense. I’m for truth and reason whether or not it is perceived as “dickish”. The more the better.
1 Like
If Dawkins wants to reason, then he should do more science instead of confronting people about nonsense. I love confrontation, but not all confrontation is useful or elucidating. IMO Dawkins has been enjoying his celebrity as being a sort of cheerleader for pop science, not having done much since “The Extended Phenotype” but trolley people.
Often times reason and science requires confronting people about nonsense. Also, the two are not mutually exclusive. He can “do science” and post on twitter.
I agree, but I think that the career Dawkins has made of doing this has been unproductive. Better to teach by example and show people who might be willing to do better science how, instead of fussing over the most stodgy camps of humanity. But if I was lucky enough to marry Romana, I would probably be content to be less productive also.
You’re the first person I’ve ever heard say Dawkin’s career has been unproductive. I wonder if you have accomplished as much. He’s 74 years old by the way and still has had an active career long after many would have retired.
There’s a lot of money in misogyny these days.
I didn’t say that his career has been unproductive. I meant that him having made his career into one of soapboxing to unscientific people about their lack of scientific rigor has been largely a waste of time. Not that he hasn’t done anything worthwhile. Incidentally, the meat of his work is in this part. His awards and recognition largely miss the point, that one brilliant evolutionary biologist is worth a thousand media celebrities.
