How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupidity

[televator]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Good on you. It is hard, but what can you do? If someone I am close to decided to become a fundie, a Catholic, a Republican, or a libertarian, I'd be forced to do the same thing. It isn't quite like joining the KKK but it is damned close.

I have catholic, republican, and libertarian friends... I don't think it's worth "dumping" people out of hand, but you're free to do what you will.

 

[Welshidiot]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Good on you. It is hard, but what can you do? If someone I am close to decided to become a fundie, a Catholic, a Republican, or a libertarian, I'd be forced to do the same thing. It isn't quite like joining the KKK but it is damned close.

I have catholic, republican, and libertarian friends... I don't think it's worth "dumping" people out of hand, but you're free to do what you will.

Maybe,...just maybe,....(and I don't wish to speak for the guy, but....)......maybe.....Joe was being facetious.

Just sayin'.

 

[televator]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Oh... I see. Well it's possible that the intended Colbert style humor went over my head.

 

[Fireborne]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

With regards to the conversation in the opening post - I think this is another case of the downside of the internet. While the internet is a wonderful thing for the spread of knowledge and ideas, it is far too easy to read your own personal bias into a well reasoned piece of writing written by a balanced individual.

It is quite easy for an outsider to read that conversation and see that her accusations of you being angry with religion or her etc etc are complete rubbish - however it is also possible that had you been explaining these things to her face to face, or even via making a video or something - it would have been easier for her to see that you were just trying to help out another person, and not attacking her or her lack of knowledge.

Of course once someone has read personal bias or attacks into the arguments you are giving them, after that point they are much less likely to follow any links or redirections that you give them - from that point on their own bias gets in their way of seeing your points. In order to deal with these people, who may be quite moderate if dealt with in the right way, care must be taken to make sure they do not get offended, because as soon as they do then any hope you have of convincing them is gone. And that is oh so difficult when making these points in writing online. We saw that she read a personal attack in the first or second post, and from then on there wasn't much chance of bringing her back. Your regular person can be like that.

I know this because sadly I have been guilty of it - I have read peoples responses to my posts online, and seen it as an attack on me and then gone into full defence mode and learned nothing from what they've tried to tell me until I go back to it hours later and think ohhhhh crap.

It may be a better idea to just say from the start, if I were to discuss this in person or via video call etc with you, would you be prepared to listen/contribute with your ideas? If the answer is yes, go for it and see where it goes - if the answer is no you may as well give up on them then and there.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Maybe,...just maybe,....(and I don't wish to speak for the guy, but....)......maybe.....Joe was being facetious.

Just sayin'.

Nope, not remotely. In my mind, that sort of radical shift in position on fundamental issues of human experience would force me to have to seriously reconsider whether that was the same person I became friends with in the first place, and I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no."

 

[Welshidiot]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Maybe,...just maybe,....(and I don't wish to speak for the guy, but....)......maybe.....Joe was being facetious.

Just sayin'.

Nope, not remotely. In my mind, that sort of radical shift in position on fundamental issues of human experience would force me to have to seriously reconsider whether that was the same person I became friends with in the first place, and I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no."

Seriously now, you really think becoming a republican is close to joining the KKK?

 

[kenandkids]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Seriously now, you really think becoming a republican is close to joining the KKK?

KKK:
limit minority rights
limit female rights
limit reproductive rights
promote ID/creationism
vote republican


Republicans:
limit minority rights
limit female rights
limit reproductive rights
promote ID/creationism
vote republican
insist trickledown works even though it is shown to be an utter failure in every sense

 

[televator]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Well, my catholic friend invited me, an atheist, to his 4th of July gathering at his place. I doubt a KKK member would be so tolerant.

My dad's boss is a republican, and she paid my dad well and treated him fairly. Instead of ruthlessly firing him when he was getting ill and having back problems, she gave him proper time to recover. I doubt a KKK member would be so patient and sympathetic with a former illegal immigrant.

These people may be mislead, but they aren't evil.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Well, my catholic friend invited me, an atheist, to his 4th of July gathering at his place. I doubt a KKK member would be so tolerant.

My dad's boss is a republican, and she paid my dad well and treated him fairly. Instead of ruthlessly firing him when he was getting ill and having back problems, she gave him proper time to recover. I doubt a KKK member would be so patient and sympathetic with a former illegal immigrant.

These people may be mislead, but they aren't evil.

I have a cousin in the KKK. He goes to church, donates to charity, and works with a few minorities. He doesn't foam at the mouth or burn crosses and is quite a nice person according to ALL of his coworkers. No one would call him evil. Most of his fellow klan members are like him. Like his fellow republicans, he works hard to overturn most of the governments societal protections and like his fellow republicans he hates both sex ed and abortion. Like his fellow republicans he blames minorities for their own problems and thinks that the poor should be left to either starve or succeed.



edit: In other words, KKK members are nothing more than republicans that like to use the words nigger and spic.

 

[televator]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

I have a cousin in the KKK. He goes to church, donates to charity, and works with a few minorities. He doesn't foam at the mouth or burn crosses and is quite a nice person according to ALL of his coworkers. No one would call him evil. Most of his fellow klan members are like him. Like his fellow republicans, he works hard to overturn most of the governments societal protections and like his fellow republicans he hates both sex ed and abortion. Like his fellow republicans he blames minorities for their own problems and thinks that the poor should be left to either starve or succeed.



edit: In other words, KKK members are nothing more than republicans that like to use the words nigger and spic.

There's also self identified republicans who've voted democrat. There's self identified republicans who currently WANT higher taxes, and believe in policy that will actually be effective towards paying the national debt. Very recently in NY, gay marriage rights was opposed heavily by a democrat, but was passed anyway because three was enough republican support behind it too. Granted, these people are currently in the minority amongst their "friends" but it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are differing opinions on their side when you can barely get 2 "liberals" to agree about many things also.

Fuck! Ass! I can't believe you're making me defend republicans. :x

 

[kenandkids]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

There's also self identified republicans who've voted democrat. There's self identified republicans who currently WANT higher taxes, and believe in policy that will actually be effective towards paying the national debt. Very recently in NY, gay marriage rights was opposed heavily by a democrat, but was passed anyway because three was enough republican support behind it too. Granted, these people are currently in the minority amongst their "friends" but it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are differing opinions on their side when you can barely get 2 "liberals" to agree about many things also.

Fuck! Ass! I can't believe you're making me defend republicans. :x

I'm not a person that finds this argument appealing. It isn't my fault that there are RINOs or that otherwise sensible people occasionally join repugnant groups. 5% of any group is generally only barely in-line with the "thinking" of the group, yet guilt by association is a taint that they willingly accept. Yes, some teapublicans think sensibly, yet when it matters they will, more often than not, support the wrong side.

I'm incredibly thankful to the four repugs in New York, they did the right thing on this one issue. Yet, how are they voting on reproductive issues? War issues? Torture issues? Tax issues? Food stamps? Medical care? Debtors prisons? Unions? Education? Evolution?

 

[televator]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

I'm incredibly thankful to the four repugs in New York, they did the right thing on this one issue. Yet, how are they voting on reproductive issues? War issues? Torture issues? Tax issues? Food stamps? Medical care? Debtors prisons? Unions? Education? Evolution?

And I'm not persuaded by the argument that "all greedy, racist, homophobes are republican, therefore all republicans are greedy, racists, homophobes" type of arguments, because I don't even think the first premise gets off the ground and the conclusion is unsound.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

And I'm not persuaded by the argument that "all greedy, racist, homophobes are republican, therefore all republicans are greedy, racists, homophobes" type of arguments, because I don't even think the first premise gets off the ground and the conclusion is unsound.

It is not my point that "all greedy, racist, homophobes are republican, therefore all republicans are greedy, racists, homophobes." It IS my point that even those that aren't these things support the those who are or the positions of those who are. Yes, there are times and people that buck the overall trends, yet as I said, where are they on all of the numerous other issues?

 

[televator]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Yes, there are times and people that buck the overall trends, yet as I said, where are they on all of the numerous other issues?

Well, I certainly can't tell you, but I doubt you know where each and everyone stands either. I doubt it's very easy for a lot of people to see through rhetoric about the opposition being commies, or that they want to take freedom away. There's a good chance that many of them can't understand what the impact of their vote will be. All they know is that they can't let the commies win. Plus, there's a tinge of irony in people on this side using the ol' "guilt by association card."

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Please don't derail the train of discussion.

Anyway while number theory and game theory might be way off the top of most lay people, I thought the "germ theory" would be worth a short, given that it's the cornerstone of medical science and is also easily understood by anyone with some basic education. I got this idea after watching a video by cdk007:

​

Here's what I just posted on my Facebook (with sarcasm):

"Germ theory" is JUST a theory. How do we know for sure that germs can cause diseases? It has never been proven to be a fact, so why bother washing our hands before eating food?

I'm waiting to see what responses I will get (or even if she will bother to read and think about her own fallacious thinking).

Meanwhile about three days ago, I posted this link on Facebook:

Is Evolution "Just a Theory"? Hear from these three PhD holders.
Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory?
Links to the other 23 videos in this series: 1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs 3: http://www.youtube/...

and had this short conversation with her:

Me: Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.: http://ncse.com/about/speakers#scott
James L. Powell, Ph.D.: http://www.reed.edu/president/reed_presidents/powell.html
Kevin Padian, Ph.D.: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/museum/profiles/padian/padian_profile.html

Me: @Her please watch. hope you like this

Her: LOL Im sorry but I wont...let it go because I have.

Me: Don't want to watch even just a short 10 minutes video? Why so resistant? :S

Her: its not about being reistant, I dont like having other peoples opinion pushed on me..and thats what this new link is all about...Im seriously done with the conversation...I am agreeing to disagree with you

Me:I didn't say you have to change your mind. Just watch a 10 minute video, that's all. It's a very simple task. You can keep your mind completely unchanged after watching for all I care.

You asked to hear from people with qualifications, I just thought you would want to hear from people with qualifications. I guess you were not serious about what you asked, merely asking it for fun or for the sake of asking.

Anyway up to you. Never mind, my mistake to not know whatever I give you will always seem like "my opinion pushed on you". I'm sorry for making you feel that way but now I can't be bothered anymore.

It was nice talking to you, but we're truly done here.. Don't bother replying.

Her: quite simply I am done with the conversation...thats all Im saying

Those who said "Once you lose a person to be drowned in his or her own bias, you can never get her to look at whatever you present her," you're clearly right.

I know this because sadly I have been guilty of it - I have read peoples responses to my posts online, and seen it as an attack on me and then gone into full defence mode and learned nothing from what they've tried to tell me until I go back to it hours later and think ohhhhh crap.

I really wish she had gone back and read up her own responses, but it's been about a little over a week already, so I'm guessing she's drowned for good.

It may be a better idea to just say from the start, if I were to discuss this in person or via video call etc with you, would you be prepared to listen/contribute with your ideas? If the answer is yes, go for it and see where it goes - if the answer is no you may as well give up on them then and there.

Unfortunately I'm a lot better at writing than at speaking. I won't be able to show even half the amount of patience in a speech conversation that I can show when I'm writing. I guess I need to find opportunities to practice. (Btw, this person I had been talking to, lives somewhere in the United States. I'm in Asia, for the record.)

Dawkins did an interview with a woman from some creationist organisation in the US, she'd repeat the same bollocks seconds after he'd finished explaining how and why she was wrong. As many people have said, reason and logic isn't enough to make them question their beliefs. In fact, their religion encourages ignorance.

I think this is the interview where I saw Dawkins' extraordinary patience for stupidity.
[showmore=PS to Admin]I do not know what happened, or what you did, but ShowMore tags work now in Firefox 5.[/showmore]

 

[WarK]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Dawkins did an interview with a woman from some creationist organisation in the US, she'd repeat the same bollocks seconds after he'd finished explaining how and why she was wrong. As many people have said, reason and logic isn't enough to make them question their beliefs. In fact, their religion encourages ignorance.

I think this is the interview where I saw Dawkins' extraordinary patience for stupidity.

So perhaps we're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe he knows what he's getting himself into when interviewing such a person and he doesn't treat it as an opportunity to change someone's mind but to probe the endless landscape of wilful ignorance, and maybe just to expose it to the viewer?

I think someone has already mentioned it, but it's similar with people who argue with nephelimfree and the likes, it's not to change their mind, it's more to show the viewer how wrong and dishonest creationists are. Maybe once you have this goal it's easier to overlook the sheer stupidity and actually use it as a tool in achieving your goal.

 

[Fireborne]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Please don't derail the train of discussion.

It may be a better idea to just say from the start, if I were to discuss this in person or via video call etc with you, would you be prepared to listen/contribute with your ideas? If the answer is yes, go for it and see where it goes - if the answer is no you may as well give up on them then and there.

Unfortunately I'm a lot better at writing than at speaking. I won't be able to show even half the amount of patience in a speech conversation that I can show when I'm writing. I guess I need to find opportunities to practice. (Btw, this person I had been talking to, lives somewhere in the United States. I'm in Asia, for the record.)

This is why I suggested making a video as a face to face debate alternative. A video can be scripted beforehand to ensure what you are saying is clear, you can use graphical tools to aid the understanding of what is being said, and like text can be reread, a video can be rewatched to ensure understanding. Personally I think this is the best way, and is the cause of why youtube has been so successful for the voice of reason.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Personally I think this is the best way, and is the cause of why youtube has been so successful for the voice of reason.

But some people are like "Oh I will not watch any YouTube video because YouTube is not a credible source of information." I find this an another stupid reasoning, that they deny verifying the credibility of the video itself (like the one of three Ph.D. scientists that I tried to have her watch), and focus instead on the credibility of where it is hosted. In fact I just met another atheist* who apparently thinks the word theory is only used by creationists and not by scientists, and he refused the exact same video on grounds of YouTube's credibility. Would a video hosted in Vimeo increase its credibility? It almost seems these people think it would.

*In his words: "only creationist are calling evolution a theory. but there is enough evidence that proves that evolution is a fact and not a theory anymore. an unproven opinion can be reffered as a theory but not a proven fundament of modern science like the evolution."

Another thing about making a video of your own is that as soon as they know the video was made by you, they will refuse to watch it. Because after all, in their minds, you're trying to push your personal opinions on them. Video, text or face-to-face, it doesn't matter.

I think someone has already mentioned it, but it's similar with people who argue with nephelimfree and the likes, it's not to change their mind, it's more to show the viewer how wrong and dishonest creationists are. Maybe once you have this goal it's easier to overlook the sheer stupidity and actually use it as a tool in achieving your goal.

I like this reasoning, and I must focus more on exposing stupidity than implanting sense. It's in-line with: We can never change others, they have to change themselves. Thank you.

 

[Fireborne]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

Personally I think this is the best way, and is the cause of why youtube has been so successful for the voice of reason.

But some people are like "Oh I will not watch any YouTube video because YouTube is not a credible source of information." I find this an another stupid reasoning, that they deny verifying the credibility of the video itself (like the one of three Ph.D. scientists that I tried to have her watch), and focus instead on the credibility of where it is hosted. In fact I just met another atheist* who apparently thinks the word theory is only used by creationists and not by scientists, and he refused the exact same video on grounds of YouTube's credibility. Would a video hosted in Vimeo increase its credibility? It almost seems these people think it would.

In general, perhaps. But if it is someone you know, and talk to sometimes - even if its not that often - and it is a video that you, personally, are painstakingly making to try and explain your point of view to them - and you ask them to do the same thing for you in response - then why would the site where you post the video matter to them?

If it helps, offer to post the video on a site of their choice.

As for pushing your personal opinions - that was the point to my original post - it is much easier to read the pushing of opinion into a wall of text than it is into a well presented and informative video.

If they are not interested in even hearing your opinion then yes there is no point, but if we are to reach these people we need to make every reasonable offer we can before we write them off as unreachable.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

Re: How does Richard Dawkins have amazing patience for stupi

I like my fellow countryman Richard Dawkins but prefer Sam Harris.

Ted Haggard is creepy beyond belief.