So we're either with you or against you? Have you ever considered persuasion?
Dawkins presents rational evidence-backed arguments for his positions in multiple mediums including books and speeches. If that doesn't persuade you, what will? Lies? Coercion? Deception?
So we're either with you or against you? Have you ever considered persuasion?
Dawkins presents rational evidence-backed arguments for his positions in multiple mediums including books and speeches. If that doesn't persuade you, what will? Lies? Coercion? Deception?
Not making out your opponent to be the sum of all that you hate would be a start.
Not making out your opponent to be the sum of all that you hate would be a start.
Are you saying we shouldn't hate stupidity or wrongness? Should hate lies? If you're going to hate something, shouldn't that be it?
Also, you didn't do what I asked and cited specific examples. Show me a real example of what you think Dawkins is doing wrong, and how you think he should do it otherwise.
Are you saying we shouldn't hate stupidity or wrongness?
Yes, we shouldn't. Not everyone is as brilliant as we are and lording your intellect and rightness over people generally turns them off. We look at the world and can reason out that there is likely no god, but not everyone is that smart. Most don't understand statistical probability and misinterpret coincidence for divine intervention.
@Apreche: You yourself are an excellent example of this kind of attitude, Dawkins seems fine. Why must you hate something that you seek to get rid of? If you try and change people too fast they react adversely. Instead of a "That's stupid, you're stupid" just try slowly but firmly questioning them. Atheism comes from questioning, not being told.
Yes, we shouldn't. Not everyone is as brilliant as we are and lording your intellect and rightness over people generally turns them off. We look at the world and can reason out that there is likely no god, but not everyone is that smart. Most don't understand statistical probability and misinterpret coincidence for divine intervention.
Show me an example of Dawkins lording his intellect and rightness over people. All he does is say true facts. He doesn't say things like "You are stupid. I am so much smarter than you. Aren't I great? Listen to me."
If the person on the receiving end is incapable of comprehending him when he says true facts, and misinterprets that as someone insulting them and lording their intellectual superiority over them, then all fault is on the side of the receiver.
If anything, he's not trying to teach people, to make them smarter, not to make them feel bad for not being smarter in the first place.
Still, show me the real world examples people. At least quote the man! So far you're all full of hot air.
You yourself are an excellent example of this kind of attitude, Dawkins seems fine. Why must you hate something that you seek to get rid of? If you try and change people too fast they react adversely. Instead of a "That's stupid, you're stupid" just try slowly but firmly questioning them. Atheism comes from questioning, not being told.
Problem is, really smart people are usually really dumb when it comes to people skills, that's why they always have amazing ideas and great projects but always fail to get VC. Not to say that it's always like that, but in most cases, its an average salesperson that pitches for the genius and proceeds to make a shitload of money just to play interpreter.
Problem is, really smart people are usually really dumb when it comes to people skills, that's why they always have amazing ideas and great projects but always fail to get VC. Not to say that it's always like that, but in most cases, its an average salesperson that pitches for the genius and proceeds to make a shitload of money just to play interpreter.
Give me an example of so-called "good people skills" that doesn't involve lying, deception, or coercion.
Problem is, really smart people are usually really dumb when it comes to people skills, that's why they always have amazing ideas and great projects but always fail to get VC. Not to say that it's always like that, but in most cases, its an average salesperson that pitches for the genius and proceeds to make a shitload of money just to play interpreter.
Give me an example of so-called "good people skills" that doesn't involve lying, deception, or coercion.
-Not being condescending is one. -Entering a conversation with no prejudice (such as "if you don't read books, then I don't have anything to talk to you about") -Dumb down concepts for "stupid" people to understand without making them feel stupid (most "expert" witnesses fail at this most of the time)
Give me an example of so-called "good people skills" that doesn't involve lying, deception, or coercion.
Give an example of any successful campaign to change peoples minds that didn't to some extent.
The atheist/skeptic/pro-science movement, which just pisses people off.
People love lies, and they hate the truth. Us truth bringers can't be blamed for that. There's nothing we can do about it other than to defy ourselves and become liars.
People love lies, and they hate the truth. Us truth bringers can't be blamed for that. There's nothing we can do about it other than to defy ourselves and become liars.
Technically speaking, isn't the advertisement more along the lines of Agnosticism than Atheism? If it were really an Atheist line, it would say "THERE'S NO GOD" vs "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD".
The point is, you don't have to. You can turn someone onto things like The Skeptic's Guide and they are in no way annoyed. The trick is to get them to agree with you voluntarily. Should you go out of your way to be reactionary?
People will deliberately deceive themselves to maintain a belief system but should you question them instead of telling them?
@Redshirt: That comes back to the problem that: If something has no demonstrative effect on the world, then whether or not it exists is arbitrary. If I said an invisible pink unicorn was standing over there, telling me to put a fish on your head, but I can't prove it exists or doesn't exist would it be because of the unicorn or my own decision?
Technically speaking, isn't the advertisement more along the lines of Agnosticism than Atheism? If it were really an Atheist line, it would say "THERE'S NO GOD" vs "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD".
No. An agnostic would say that there is an equal chance of there being a god and there not being a god. An atheist says there probably isn't a god while a theist says that there probably is a god.
Sail, you really don't have it right there. If someone is agnostic about there being a god, it just means they don't think it is possible to know if there is a god or not. It means they are without knowledge of a god, so must live life as though one doesn't exist. Theist means someone who believes there is a god. An atheist isn't someone who believe there probably isn't a god; it is someone who doesn't believe there is any god. Buddhists are atheists, and it is very possible to be a spiritualist and still be an atheist.
Ok, back to the "Dawkins is a bit of a dick" thing. For a start, I said sometimes the world needs a few dickish people, and I think Dawkins is doing a good job filling that position.
Scott, you asked for evidence. Watch the documentary "The Root of All Evil". In it he meets some big pastor guy (you I think turned out to be seeing a gay prostitute, but that hasn't much standing here). After seeing the church leader in action, doing the whole rock and roll pastor act, Dawkins opens the conversation with (something like) "Well, that was performance the likes of which Goebbels would have been proud."
Shall I break down why this is a dickish thing to say? I don't think I need to, I think in just about every walk of life it is considered bad form to open a conversation or interview by associating your interviewee with Fascism and Nazis and Hitler. It might have been true, were Goebbels dealing with a modern American audience he might have gone about things the same way. However, Haggard's own response, that he was trying to emulate a rock concert was a perfectly good answer, and probably the truth. Did Dawkins apologise for his gross conversation opener in light of this response? No, he just lets the Nazi identification of his opponent sit there stinking up the rest of the interview.
I just looked this up on wikipedia, and it turns out the conversation goes down hill from there, just as I remembered. Asking "You want to bet?" of someone is just terrible interviewing technique, no matter how deluded they are. You just don't act like this around people you've only just met.
Meanwhile, I've read a few books by Dawkins. The Ancestors Tale is one of the best popular science books I've ever read. However, the God Delusion, while factually accurate and founded on much logical reasoning, is full of dickishness. Again, for some people, this approach is needed. But it doesn't make Dawkins any less of a dick.
Look who's talking live and let live! Are you not the same Emily who can't live with someone if they don't follow your orders and do as you say? Are you sure you are the live and let live? That's not how I remember it.
Scott, everyone (including you) needs boundaries and can be annoyed by other people. In order to "live-and-let-live" people need to know their individual comfort level and set boundaries based on that (like you and being touched or having someone ask you what you are doing when you are on the computer). Live-and-let-live means that people love the way they want to and allow other people to live the way they want to. Obviously, in order to live the way she wanted to and to allow you to live the way you wanted to, she had to move out. You have your personal set of rules by which you like to live and so does she.
Scott, everyone (including you) needs boundaries and can be annoyed by other people. In order to "live-and-let-live" people need to know their individual comfort level and set boundaries based on that (like you and being touched or having someone ask you what you are doing when you are on the computer). Live-and-let-live means that people love the way they want to and allow other people to live the way they want to. Obviously, in order to live the way she wanted to and to allow you to live the way you wanted to, she had to move out. You have your personal set of rules by which you like to live and so does she.
The only thing I can't let live is someone who won't let me live.
Scott, everyone (including you) needs boundaries and can be annoyed by other people. In order to "live-and-let-live" people need to know their individual comfort level and set boundaries based on that (like you and being touched or having someone ask you what you are doing when you are on the computer). Live-and-let-live means that people love the way they want to and allow other people to live the way they want to. Obviously, in order to live the way she wanted to and to allow you to live the way you wanted to, she had to move out. You have your personal set of rules by which you like to live and so does she.
The only thing I can't let live is someone who won't let me live.
Or someone that expects civility, cleanliness, compassion and a hug.
Or someone that expects civility, cleanliness, compassion and a hug.
Tha'ts not exactly letting live.
Also, your needs are not every-one's needs. Thus, live and let live. She wants to be happy and she wants you to be happy. Two separate domiciles might be necessary for that to occur. Live and let live does not mean that everyone should live by the same set of rules/conditions for happiness - it means that you live as you like and let others live as they like. She likes living separately from you. Let her and stop claiming to live and let live, yet chastise her for her need to live a different lifestyle than you live.
Also, your needs are not every-one's needs. Thus, live and let live. She wants to be happy and she wants you to be happy. Two separate domiciles might be necessary for that to occur. Live and let live does not mean that everyone should live by the same set of rules/conditions for happiness - it means that you live as you like and let others live as they like. She likes living separately from you. Let her and stop claiming to live and let live, yet chastise her for her need to live a different lifestyle than you live.
Comments
Also, you didn't do what I asked and cited specific examples. Show me a real example of what you think Dawkins is doing wrong, and how you think he should do it otherwise.
If the person on the receiving end is incapable of comprehending him when he says true facts, and misinterprets that as someone insulting them and lording their intellectual superiority over them, then all fault is on the side of the receiver.
If anything, he's not trying to teach people, to make them smarter, not to make them feel bad for not being smarter in the first place.
Still, show me the real world examples people. At least quote the man! So far you're all full of hot air.
-Entering a conversation with no prejudice (such as "if you don't read books, then I don't have anything to talk to you about")
-Dumb down concepts for "stupid" people to understand without making them feel stupid (most "expert" witnesses fail at this most of the time)
People love lies, and they hate the truth. Us truth bringers can't be blamed for that. There's nothing we can do about it other than to defy ourselves and become liars.
People will deliberately deceive themselves to maintain a belief system but should you question them instead of telling them?
@Redshirt: That comes back to the problem that: If something has no demonstrative effect on the world, then whether or not it exists is arbitrary. If I said an invisible pink unicorn was standing over there, telling me to put a fish on your head, but I can't prove it exists or doesn't exist would it be because of the unicorn or my own decision?
Scott, you asked for evidence. Watch the documentary "The Root of All Evil". In it he meets some big pastor guy (you I think turned out to be seeing a gay prostitute, but that hasn't much standing here). After seeing the church leader in action, doing the whole rock and roll pastor act, Dawkins opens the conversation with (something like) "Well, that was performance the likes of which Goebbels would have been proud."
Shall I break down why this is a dickish thing to say? I don't think I need to, I think in just about every walk of life it is considered bad form to open a conversation or interview by associating your interviewee with Fascism and Nazis and Hitler. It might have been true, were Goebbels dealing with a modern American audience he might have gone about things the same way. However, Haggard's own response, that he was trying to emulate a rock concert was a perfectly good answer, and probably the truth. Did Dawkins apologise for his gross conversation opener in light of this response? No, he just lets the Nazi identification of his opponent sit there stinking up the rest of the interview.
I just looked this up on wikipedia, and it turns out the conversation goes down hill from there, just as I remembered. Asking "You want to bet?" of someone is just terrible interviewing technique, no matter how deluded they are. You just don't act like this around people you've only just met.
Meanwhile, I've read a few books by Dawkins. The Ancestors Tale is one of the best popular science books I've ever read. However, the God Delusion, while factually accurate and founded on much logical reasoning, is full of dickishness. Again, for some people, this approach is needed. But it doesn't make Dawkins any less of a dick.