Seriously, Dawkins?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?

If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.

It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.

Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.

I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".

The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.

I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.

And it's still douchebaggery regardless.

Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.

So, after thinking about this some, it seems like Dawkins is primarily concerned with making religion look bad rather than promoting humanism.

He basically calls a fellow atheist for being a crybaby for getting wigged out by some creepy dude and uses it as an opportunity to slam Islam, which seems to be his main point in his post.

Maybe he was hitting the Scotch too?

[Disco Pickle]

Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?

If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.

It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.

Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.

I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".

The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.

I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.

And it's still douchebaggery regardless.

Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.

So, after thinking about this some, it seems like Dawkins is primarily concerned with making religion look bad rather than promoting humanism.

He basically calls a fellow atheist for being a crybaby for getting wigged out by some creepy dude and uses it as an opportunity to slam Islam, which seems to be his main point in his post.

Maybe he was hitting the Scotch too?

That right there has always been my impression of Dawkins.  He's an anti-theist, not an atheist.  I occasionally have this argument with a professed atheist friend of mine who, once he begins to talk about the subject, sounds much more anti religion than atheist.

He hates the label, but that shit still sticks.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?

If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.

It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.

Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.

I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".

The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.

I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.

And it's still douchebaggery regardless.

Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.

So, after thinking about this some, it seems like Dawkins is primarily concerned with making religion look bad rather than promoting humanism.

He basically calls a fellow atheist for being a crybaby for getting wigged out by some creepy dude and uses it as an opportunity to slam Islam, which seems to be his main point in his post.

Maybe he was hitting the Scotch too?

That right there has always been my impression of Dawkins.  He's an anti-theist, not an atheist.  I occasionally have this argument with a professed atheist friend of mine who, once he begins to talk about the subject, sounds much more anti religion than atheist.

He hates the label, but that shit still sticks.

Yeah, there's a difference between not having any gods and religious intolerance. Seems like people miss the distinction sometimes.

[nurbldoff]

Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.

BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well if the atheist in question is offended by theists it goes to follow that they would be just as offended by agnostics since they say they dont know. The atheist is a believer of sorts even though i know atheists hate hearing that. At least dawkins type of atheist. Since you know as said previously atheist just means some one who doesnt have any gods.

[Kai]

Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.

BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?

IMO, it's not horrible, there's just no reason for it (from a Bayesian perspective).

[Triple Zero]

And Feynman,

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

Not true for a magic eightball.

There are definitely things for which taking them apart or figuring out how they work does subtract from their awesomeness, mysteriousness or excitingness.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, BTW. It's just that, it doesn't always "only adds". There's a deeper and more important reason why you take things apart to see how they work, not because it always only adds to the beauty of the thing.

[Cain]

Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.

BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?

IMO, it's not horrible, there's just no reason for it (from a Bayesian perspective).

Yeah, although I prefer identifying as agnostic in some ways, not least because it doesn't associate me with the assholery of Dawkins, Sam Harris etc (whose atheism seems curiously Islamic orientated, as shown ITT, and thus a political project, with political implications), it's philosophical hair-splitting and privileging the hypothesis, in the worst cases.

As for why some atheists find it horrible, it's for the same reasons Stalinists find Social Democrats so horrible.  They're very close to their viewpoint, but different enough that they are competing for the same larger pool of recruits.  What strengthens agnostic atheists weakens Atheist atheists and vice-versa.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.

BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?

IMO, it's not horrible, there's just no reason for it (from a Bayesian perspective).

Yeah, although I prefer identifying as agnostic in some ways, not least because it doesn't associate me with the assholery of Dawkins, Sam Harris etc (whose atheism seems curiously Islamic orientated, as shown ITT, and thus a political project, with political implications), it's philosophical hair-splitting and privileging the hypothesis, in the worst cases.

As for why some atheists find it horrible, it's for the same reasons Stalinists find Social Democrats so horrible.  They're very close to their viewpoint, but different enough that they are competing for the same larger pool of recruits.  What strengthens agnostic atheists weakens Atheist atheists and vice-versa.

Well, what's the goal here? To convert people or to take a stand against religious fundamentalism? If it's to convert people, that makes sense to a degree, but if it's to take on religious fundamentalism, sticking together, along with mainstream religious organizations, seems kinda key to me.

Otherwise it seems to me like atheists and agnostics really don't have much reason to give a crap what other people believe in.

And yeah, it does seem to be taking on a particularly anti-Muslim tone lately.

[Cain]

The goal is to convert people.

Also atheists (of the Harris/Dawkins school) seem to think, by and large, the existence of large numbers of religious people on their own constitutes a threat, while secular atheists and agnostics are more interested in seperating the role of Church and State etc...therefore there is a strategic disconnect, with the more hardline of the former unwilling to work with even secular theists because they percieve the situation in different terms.

[Triple Zero]

I can honestly say I have absolutely no idea whether space weasels exist or not. But I do have a few questions about how we're defining "space weasels".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The goal is to convert people.

Also atheists (of the Harris/Dawkins school) seem to think, by and large, the existence of large numbers of religious people on their own constitutes a threat, while secular atheists and agnostics are more interested in seperating the role of Church and State etc...therefore there is a strategic disconnect, with the more hardline of the former unwilling to work with even secular theists because they percieve the situation in different terms.

And they don't realize that not only do they have no chance of making the world atheist anytime soon, but that they are actually hindering their own efforts by looking like the intolerant douchebag club?  So much for rationality I guess....

[Thurnez Isa]

They can recruit other douchebags. There is a lot of them out there I tell you.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

They can recruit other douchebags. There is a lot of them out there I tell you.

Yeah, but most of them are trolling for Team Jesus.

[Cain]

Bump.  At long last, it makes sense...

Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and scientist, has admitted that he is a "secular Christian" because he hankers after the nostalgia and traditions of the church.