This is Why People Hate Atheists

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Seems an echo chamber in there...doubt I'll get a reply. But this:

[LMNO]

Excellent reply.

[Cain]

Urgh, Sam Harris.  Proof, as if any more was needed, that being an atheist does not exclude one from being a reactionary, genocidal lunatic.

[minuspace]

Mr.  Harris, we regret to inform you that a value system based on curiosity is NOT what you are looking for.  Really.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.

Speaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.

If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.

If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.

If, otoh, his motives are simply to exercise his contempt by provoking idiotic gravity doubters, while amusing the like-minded, thus inflating his e-peen to cosmic levels...then...well...he's a douche who should probably stop existing as soon as possible.

Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus, could rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.

The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.

Speaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.

If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.

If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.

Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus can rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.

The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

A thing of beauty and a joy forever.

[minuspace]

Dawkins backfire?

[hooplala]

Using science against a scientist is a stroke of genius.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Dawkins backfire?

Yep...funny thing about primates of very strong belief:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first.

What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.

[hooplala]

Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.

Hey, he's an asshole, but he's still a scientist.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.

Speaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.

If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.

If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.

If, otoh, his motives are simply to exercise his contempt by provoking idiotic gravity doubters, while amusing the like-minded, thus inflating his e-peen to cosmic levels...then...well...he's a douche who should probably stop existing as soon as possible.

Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus, could rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.

The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.

You, sir, are a genius.   

[minuspace]

Wait a minute, Dawkins, he's the atheist ambassador admitting discernible doubt about God's actual non-existence, right? Jeez, he's not even agnostic.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.

Hey, he's an asshole, but he's still a scientist.

He's both, but the context is key.

Japan once accidentally Drunken Ira Hayes as the Whiskey Drinking Indian instead of the Marine that went to war.

Now they all have to brave tentacle rape just to get to their jobs at the fish flavored toilet paper factory.

Don't wanna fuck up that context, now.