Richard Dawkins says, Do not fear the big bad wolf

[Perspicuo]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

 

[Bullmoose Too]

I think he's barking up the wrong tree.

Feeding children obvious lies helps them in the long run. Many eventually figure out that if Santa Claus isn't real, then there's a chance Jesus isn't either.

Santa Claus is an invention, created by Satan, specifically designed to lead people away from Jesus.

 

[Unbeatable]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

I don't think it matters whether they are in fact idiotic, or tiresome, unless all you're interested in doing is whining impotently. If the goal of berating them is to vent your personal frustration, then great. Mission accomplished. My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think he's barking up the wrong tree.

Feeding children obvious lies helps them in the long run. Many eventually figure out that if Santa Claus isn't real, then there's a chance Jesus isn't either.

Santa Claus is an invention, created by Satan, specifically designed to lead people away from Jesus.

And to give them toys.

Thanks, Satan!

 

[Angry Floof]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

I don't think it matters whether they are in fact idiotic, or tiresome, unless all you're interested in doing is whining impotently. If the goal of berating them is to vent your personal frustration, then great. Mission accomplished. My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society.

Whether it's an individual's goal or not, that is exactly what we do by just having these conversations.

I recognized a long time ago that any argument I have over the internet about religion is not about the person I'm arguing with. I don't care to change their minds. In fact, arguing with them most likely entrenches them more deeply in their beliefs.

These arguments, for me, are about whoever else is witnessing the discussion. Witnesses are not nearly as emotionally vested in an argument as the person who is actively arguing and therefore have some distance with which to question their beliefs. These threads and discussions on other sites are publicly accessible, or at least accessible to an audience of more than just the arguers. And this is precisely how I came to question my beliefs.

Some people like to have these debates in private, but I don't bother. I care less about being right and "winning" something over another person than about challenging ideas publicly.

 

[Perspicuo]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

I don't think it matters whether they are in fact idiotic, or tiresome, unless all you're interested in doing is whining impotently. If the goal of berating them is to vent your personal frustration, then great. Mission accomplished. My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society.

But someone's got to say it, right? If nobody talks about the elephant in the room no one will know or will think it's just a quirk of theirs that they sense it.

So, no, boys and girls, you're not quirky. These people are barking mad, and let's all give thanks to Dawkins and other people who dare risk being insulted by the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Thanks to Dawkins, other people can do the urbane conciliatory thing, like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

 

[Unbeatable]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

I don't think it matters whether they are in fact idiotic, or tiresome, unless all you're interested in doing is whining impotently. If the goal of berating them is to vent your personal frustration, then great. Mission accomplished. My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society.

But someone's got to say it, right?

Nobody really has to do anything. It's all just a matter of which goals you're trying to achieve.

If nobody talks about the elephant in the room no one will know or will think it's just a quirk of theirs that they sense it.

Okay, so here you're identifying a goal(that is different from the one I'm focusing on)-- you want to identify like-minded people, and for them to know they're not alone. That's perfectly fine, and in that case, I agree that it makes sense for you to be expressing your contempt for the religious, in as dickish a manner as you see fit, since the only way for people who share your frame of mind to identify you as one of theirs is for you to express yourself sincerely.

My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society. The strategy that you adopt in order to tell closet atheists that they're not alone isn't the same as the strategy you adopt in order to ease people out of belief, or out of belief in belief.

 

[bilby]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

Indeed. However there is a big difference between thinking someone a fool, and telling him he is a fool. The latter is often counter-productive - assuming that your goal is to reduce the world's supply of tiresome fools.

Of course, if your goal is to vent your frustration, and you don't care about the person in question remaining tiresome and foolish, then berating him is perfectly in keeping with your objectives.

 

[Perspicuo]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

I don't think it matters whether they are in fact idiotic, or tiresome, unless all you're interested in doing is whining impotently. If the goal of berating them is to vent your personal frustration, then great. Mission accomplished. My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society.

But someone's got to say it, right?

Nobody really has to do anything. It's all just a matter of which goals you're trying to achieve.

If nobody talks about the elephant in the room no one will know or will think it's just a quirk of theirs that they sense it.

Okay, so here you're identifying a goal(that is different from the one I'm focusing on)-- you want to identify like-minded people, and for them to know they're not alone. That's perfectly fine, and in that case, I agree that it makes sense for you to be expressing your contempt for the religious, in as dickish a manner as you see fit, since the only way for people who share your frame of mind to identify you as one of theirs is for you to express yourself sincerely.

My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society. The strategy that you adopt in order to tell closet atheists that they're not alone isn't the same as the strategy you adopt in order to ease people out of belief, or out of belief in belief.

"Ease out of belief" doesn't seem to be the objective. To say things as they are in order to compel those who don't want to be stupid seems to be the objective, and it couldn't be farther from "easing". Perhaps the issue is that you have misconstrued the objective. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have intended to "attract more bees with honey". They are honest enough not to fiddle with the closet or with calling a spade a spade.

And BTW that isn't dickish. It's bold. Bolder even because for many just being bold is improper. These "many" are made up of both the prudes that have always been around being dicks themselves against minorities, and the skulkers who prefer to wait inside the closet until the hard part is over. No bashed minority is dickish. It is the coward in power with his boot on the skull of the designated leper who is the dick.

 

[Angry Floof]

But Dawkins is right about "to berate believers as nothing but tiresome fools". The part of their minds that is that is idiotic. When that idiotic part of their minds takes over the rest of their bodies, they become idiots themselves. It's pretty obvious and logical.

We know them, and they can be sweet and competent and all. I can think of my family and co-workers. But when they get religious they suddenly become barking mad. Sorry to say it. These people, my loved ones and my friends are just barking mad, when in religion mode. And it gets tiresome. There you are: tiresome fools!

I don't think it matters whether they are in fact idiotic, or tiresome, unless all you're interested in doing is whining impotently. If the goal of berating them is to vent your personal frustration, then great. Mission accomplished. My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society.

But someone's got to say it, right?

Nobody really has to do anything. It's all just a matter of which goals you're trying to achieve.

If nobody talks about the elephant in the room no one will know or will think it's just a quirk of theirs that they sense it.

Okay, so here you're identifying a goal(that is different from the one I'm focusing on)-- you want to identify like-minded people, and for them to know they're not alone. That's perfectly fine, and in that case, I agree that it makes sense for you to be expressing your contempt for the religious, in as dickish a manner as you see fit, since the only way for people who share your frame of mind to identify you as one of theirs is for you to express yourself sincerely.

My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society. The strategy that you adopt in order to tell closet atheists that they're not alone isn't the same as the strategy you adopt in order to ease people out of belief, or out of belief in belief.

"Ease out of belief" doesn't seem to be the objective. To say things as they are in order to compel those who don't want to be stupid seems to be the objective, and it couldn't be farther from "easing". Perhaps the issue is that you have misconstrued the objective. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have intended to "attract more bees with honey". They are honest enough not to fiddle with the closet or with calling a spade a spade.

And BTW that isn't dickish. It's bold. Bolder even because for many just being bold is improper. These "many" are made up of both the prudes that have always been around being dicks themselves against minorities, and the skulkers who prefer to wait inside the closet until the hard part is over. No bashed minority is dickish. It is the coward in power with his boot on the skull of the designated leper who is the dick.

Even if you're nice, if what you say is challenging taboo, you're going to be construed as a dick, when a more accurate term is probably gadfly.

 

[Unbeatable]

My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society. The strategy that you adopt in order to tell closet atheists that they're not alone isn't the same as the strategy you adopt in order to ease people out of belief, or out of belief in belief.

"Ease out of belief" doesn't seem to be the objective. To say things as they are in order to compel those who don't want to be stupid seems to be the objective, and it couldn't be farther from "easing". Perhaps the issue is that you have misconstrued the objective. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have intended to "attract more bees with honey". They are honest enough not to fiddle with the closet or with calling a spade a spade.

Right, they're honest. And I suppose you think that's a good thing. You think this is about education. I think it's about persuasion. But you've clarified that for you, the target audience is only those low-hanging fruit who actually want to be educated. And maybe that's also true of Dawkins' and Hitchens'. Okay, fair enough.

And BTW that isn't dickish. It's bold. Bolder even because for many just being bold is improper. These "many" are made up of both the prudes that have always been around being dicks themselves against minorities, and the skulkers who prefer to wait inside the closet until the hard part is over.

There are also those of us who think the whole crusade is futile and/or pointless.

No bashed minority is dickish. It is the coward in power with his boot on the skull of the designated leper who is the dick.

Dickishness isn't a function of which side of the conflict you're on.

 

[Underseer]

Remember when Dawkins was just some cool evolutionary scientist teaching about, well, evolution? I don't know when or why did he suddenly became the "atheist Oprah".

While I don't agree with him on this particular issue, I have no problem with him talking about something other than evolutionary biology given that we can now discuss atheism openly thanks in part to the noise he's been making. He helped make it acceptable to have these discussions, and so we were able to do things like get dictionaries to remove evil as a definition of atheism.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Remember when Dawkins was just some cool evolutionary scientist teaching about, well, evolution? I don't know when or why did he suddenly became the "atheist Oprah".

He explains why in The God Delusion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Remember when Dawkins was just some cool evolutionary scientist teaching about, well, evolution? I don't know when or why did he suddenly became the "atheist Oprah".

He explains why in The God Delusion.

That's his autobiography, right?

 

[aeebee50]

Politicians must really enjoy Mr. Dawkins.

 

[Angry Floof]

Politicians must really enjoy Mr. Dawkins.

I doubt that. Political thinking is almost as stagnant and unquestioning as religious thinking, and caters to religious institutions and status quo.

 

[Perspicuo]

My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society. The strategy that you adopt in order to tell closet atheists that they're not alone isn't the same as the strategy you adopt in order to ease people out of belief, or out of belief in belief.

"Ease out of belief" doesn't seem to be the objective. To say things as they are in order to compel those who don't want to be stupid seems to be the objective, and it couldn't be farther from "easing". Perhaps the issue is that you have misconstrued the objective. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have intended to "attract more bees with honey". They are honest enough not to fiddle with the closet or with calling a spade a spade.

Right, they're honest. And I suppose you think that's a good thing. You think this is about education. I think it's about persuasion. But you've clarified that for you, the target audience is only those low-hanging fruit who actually want to be educated. And maybe that's also true of Dawkins' and Hitchens'. Okay, fair enough.

And BTW that isn't dickish. It's bold. Bolder even because for many just being bold is improper. These "many" are made up of both the prudes that have always been around being dicks themselves against minorities, and the skulkers who prefer to wait inside the closet until the hard part is over.

There are also those of us who think the whole crusade is futile and/or pointless.

No bashed minority is dickish. It is the coward in power with his boot on the skull of the designated leper who is the dick.

Dickishness isn't a function of which side of the conflict you're on.

In a situation of verbal abuse, discrimination and injustice, being dickish has absolutely everything to do with what side you're on.

I am in favor of different strategies in attempting to change the world. Therefore, these strategies must coexist. Criticizing someone for not being militant enough (say, by calling them 'coy' or something similar) is as unfair as criticizing the other for being dickish. You have the right to sit on the sidelines. But when you criticize those who are putting their lives, livelihood and reputation at risk to save your back, as being "dickish", is closing ranks with oppressor. Someone who does that is becoming part of the systematic abuse, discrimination and injustice against the minority in question.

 

[braces_for_impact]

My disagreement is only with people who claim that their goal is to actually change people's minds, or change society. The strategy that you adopt in order to tell closet atheists that they're not alone isn't the same as the strategy you adopt in order to ease people out of belief, or out of belief in belief.

"Ease out of belief" doesn't seem to be the objective. To say things as they are in order to compel those who don't want to be stupid seems to be the objective, and it couldn't be farther from "easing". Perhaps the issue is that you have misconstrued the objective. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have intended to "attract more bees with honey". They are honest enough not to fiddle with the closet or with calling a spade a spade.

Right, they're honest. And I suppose you think that's a good thing. You think this is about education. I think it's about persuasion. But you've clarified that for you, the target audience is only those low-hanging fruit who actually want to be educated. And maybe that's also true of Dawkins' and Hitchens'. Okay, fair enough.

And BTW that isn't dickish. It's bold. Bolder even because for many just being bold is improper. These "many" are made up of both the prudes that have always been around being dicks themselves against minorities, and the skulkers who prefer to wait inside the closet until the hard part is over.

There are also those of us who think the whole crusade is futile and/or pointless.

No bashed minority is dickish. It is the coward in power with his boot on the skull of the designated leper who is the dick.

Dickishness isn't a function of which side of the conflict you're on.

In a situation of verbal abuse, discrimination and injustice, being dickish has absolutely everything to do with what side you're on.

I am in favor of different strategies in attempting to change the world. Therefore, these strategies must coexist. Criticizing someone for not being militant enough (say, by calling them 'coy' or something similar) is as unfair as criticizing the other for being dickish. You have the right to sit on the sidelines. But when you criticize those who are putting their lives, livelihood and reputation at risk to save your back, as being "dickish", is closing ranks with oppressor. Someone who does that is becoming part of the systematic abuse, discrimination and injustice against the minority in question.

Well said! Different people respond to different types of argument. Go to any atheist convention and ask those that used to be theist to raise their hand if online debates and conversations had anything to do with them now being atheist and watch how many hands go up. It's absolutely NOT futile. I myself was deconverted in part by a particularly arrogant and harsh chat room participant. He pissed me off so badly I threw myself into serious research so I could see the look on his face when I successfully debunked his arguments. Some of them I did debunk, but many of them I could not, because along with the rather dumb common atheist arguments he proposed he also pointed out GREAT resources on critical thinking. Once you accept those, faith falls like a house of cards. It's incredibly hard to argue with being reasonable. The thing is, most people won't change their minds in PUBLIC. They do so quietly, in private so as to save face.

 

[Unbeatable]

In a situation of verbal abuse, discrimination and injustice, being dickish has absolutely everything to do with what side you're on.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this. It's of no consequence. Hell, my usage of "dickish" that you're whining about was in the context of a statement where I condone dickishness. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I don't see its utility. Likewise, I understand that it's useful to team morale for you to push the rhetoric of your side being the side of justice and all that.

I am in favor of different strategies in attempting to change the world. Therefore, these strategies must coexist. Criticizing someone for not being militant enough (say, by calling them 'coy' or something similar) is as unfair as criticizing the other for being dickish. You have the right to sit on the sidelines. But when you criticize those who are putting their lives, livelihood and reputation at risk to save your back, as being "dickish", is closing ranks with oppressor. Someone who does that is becoming part of the systematic abuse, discrimination and injustice against the minority in question.

Your crusade to change the world is just one among many. Don't think I care any more about the actual results of yours than those of any other. Yours just happens to be a crusade that intersects with the forum I happen to be posting on at the moment. If my personal distaste for your manner of expression happens to aid your enemy in some minuscule way, that's your problem.

 

[Angry Floof]

So your crusade is more passive-aggressive than others. *shrug*