8 ms·

You word my position here too. 20's - a rabid Dawkins reading Athiest. 40's - I think Dawkins is an idiot and my favourite book is "Beelzebub's Tales to His G

You word my position here too. 20's - a rabid Dawkins reading Athiest. 40's - I think Dawkins is an idiot and my favourite book is "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson"

tasty_freeze 2y ago
You don't come off as being a nuanced thinker if those are your two positions on Dawkins. I can understand disagreeing with him, but calling him an idiot impugns you more than him.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Assuming your model of him is correct. How many videos of him "destroying" theists have you watched on TikTok? I've seen 100+, and agree that he's an idiot, amazingly so. Watch carefully the words he uses as he "proves" his "facts".
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Have you considered that TikTok may not be a full representation of the human being? It is one thing to say someone spews bullshit on tiktok, and another to claim them an idiot. Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy?
    - mistermann 2y ago
      A full representation is not necessary. If a Human has errors in any single sentence, they have errors in their corresponding model. These details are the essence of the very point of contention. > Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy? If one is claiming logical and epistemic superiority, as he literally and explicitly does, and arrogantly so (followed by roars of applause from the audience), I will judge him by those standards. I will also mock him, because he is sooooo dumb, while he chastises others for the same thing (which he is typically not wrong about, to be fair). Live by the sword, die by the sword.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Would you agree that this may make the error of judging them by their worst output, and not their best, or even average?
        mistermann 2y ago
        Oh yes, if I could bet money on it, I'd say it's even likely! However, I think this touches on an under realized phenomenon: the difference between what people say when they are "speaking their mind" in literature/studies (slow, deliberate, careful error checking, often including other people), versus the more real unfiltered version you get that comes out during real time speech (which emerges from cognition). In the atheism community in particular, there are some very strange beliefs about human beliefs. For example, a recurring claim I hear from atheists is that what object level atheists believe, in fact, is the formal definition of atheism: merely/only a lack of belief in God(s), but no negative belief. The silliness of this should be obvious, but I've had no luck getting any of them to realize (or even contemplate) this, not even one person. The irony is mind boggling. (The same phenomenon exists in science as well interestingly, which is part of why I claim it is a fact that it is an underpowered methodology/ideology for navigating reality, a false prophet if you will.) I propose that if he (and all other people) didn't actually hold these flawed beliefs in the first place, they wouldn't come out during real time speech... or if they did ~accidentally, they should be realized and corrected (which scientists in public venues tend to do, begrudgingly). All people suffer from this problem, and I think our culture buries it, for reasons I have no theory about (some sort of psychological game theory maybe?). Another way of putting it: if you only consume content from someone that is written offline, you are getting a misrepresentation of that person. I think this is a huge deal, yet another important part of reality that our culture behaves as if it is not there. We are like teenagers at best on an absolute scale imho.
        gjm11 2y ago
        I think both what you get in real time and what you get when someone has time to consider and check for errors and polish are "real". It's not that each person has a perfectly well-defined set of beliefs and ideas, and (1) you get to see them unfiltered in real time and only see a fake version when the person has time to polish, or (2) you get to see them accurately when the person has time to make sure they're getting it right, and only see a rough draft full of mistakes in real time. People are more complicated than that. Some people are good at getting things right in real time. Some people are good at getting things right when they're careful. I think it is a mistake to call someone stupid because they're bad at one of those things -- unless for some reason one of them matters more than the other (e.g., they're in a position where they have to make quick decisions all the time; or they are primarily a writer who can always think and check and polish before publishing). I'm not convinced that the definition-of-atheism thing has much to do with the real-time versus polished distinction. But: I think both atheists and theists sometimes cherry-pick definitions for tactical purposes. "Oh no, I can't possibly be expected to offer evidence that there are no gods, because being an atheist just means not positively believing in gods." "Of course so-and-so's evil actions don't reflect badly on Christianity -- if he were a real Christian he'd be acting better." "Why should I care what liberal Muslims say? The most authentic Muslims are obviously the ones who behead people while shouting Allahu akbar." Etc., etc., etc. But it's not silly to define "atheist" as "not positively believing in any gods"; that's a property that many people have, it's perfectly reasonable to have a name for it, and the only problem with using "atheist" for it is that most people use that word to mean something a bit different. And the trouble is that there aren't "enough" words; we've got "atheist" and "agnostic" and "deist" and "theist" but there are more gradations of belief than that. (Absolutely certain there are no gods. Of the opinion that on balance there are probably no gods. Of the opinion that whether there are gods is unknowable in principle. Of the opinion that it's knowable in principle but one doesn't in fact have enough evidence. Inclined to think that there's probably something godlike but we can't know anything much about it. Thoroughly convinced that there is something godlike, but that we can't know much about it. Somewhat convinced by arguments for a particular religion but still unsure. Firmly committed to a particular religion and confident that it's right. Etc.) Personally, I use "atheist" to mean "overall of the opinion that there are no gods, whether or not certain of this", "non-theist" to mean "not positively believing in any gods", "agnostic" to mean "substantially unsure whether there are gods, whether or not one thinks it's knowable in principle", "theist" to mean "overall of the opinion that there is at least one god, whether or not certain of this", and I qualify those terms in whatever ways might be necessary if I want to say that someone's certain there's no god or kinda-halfheartedly-Hindu or whatever. I am somewhat prepared to argue that all those choices are better than the alternatives. But if someone else only uses "atheist" and "theist" for people who feel completely certain about whether there are any gods, or uses "atheist" to mean "not positively believing in gods", or something, that's a defensible choice so long as they take the trouble to be clear about what they mean and refrain from cheating by equivocation.
  - tasty_freeze 2y ago
    I agree Dawkins shouldn't be talking about theology in general as he obviously hasn't studied it. He is fine to great in explaining the evolutionary evidence why young earth creationism is wrong, but is out of his depth when discussing the bigger picture. That doesn't make him an idiot.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Ok, what term do you believe should be applied to someone who professionally mocks people's intellectual shortcomings (real or imagined...this gets into another variation of the phenomenon), and in so doing demonstrates that he too suffers from the very same abstract problem, to the cheers of audiences who also suffer from the same problem (many of whom will then recommend his work, spreading this mind virus (both data & methodology) ever further)? Is the irony of this circle jerk of delusion not a bit thick?
- tanepiper 2y ago
  Well my position comes from some of the positions Dawkins has publicly stated, when he really didn't need to speak up in those circles. Maybe you find 'idiot' a strong word? The problem with someone like Dawkins is he is 'clever' - someone who doesn't understand that in his position it's better to not wield it like a weapon. This is why I prefer someone like Sean Carroll, who absolutely entertains some bonkers ideas, but never from a position of superiority or dismissal - but rather challenges it rationally.

You word my position here too. 20's - a rabid Dawkins reading Athiest. 40's - I think Dawkins is an idiot and my favourite book is "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson"

tasty_freeze 2y ago

You don't come off as being a nuanced thinker if those are your two positions on Dawkins. I can understand disagreeing with him, but calling him an idiot impugns you more than him.

mistermann 2y ago
Assuming your model of him is correct. How many videos of him "destroying" theists have you watched on TikTok? I've seen 100+, and agree that he's an idiot, amazingly so. Watch carefully the words he uses as he "proves" his "facts".
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Have you considered that TikTok may not be a full representation of the human being? It is one thing to say someone spews bullshit on tiktok, and another to claim them an idiot. Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy?
  - mistermann 2y ago
    A full representation is not necessary. If a Human has errors in any single sentence, they have errors in their corresponding model. These details are the essence of the very point of contention. > Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy? If one is claiming logical and epistemic superiority, as he literally and explicitly does, and arrogantly so (followed by roars of applause from the audience), I will judge him by those standards. I will also mock him, because he is sooooo dumb, while he chastises others for the same thing (which he is typically not wrong about, to be fair). Live by the sword, die by the sword.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Would you agree that this may make the error of judging them by their worst output, and not their best, or even average?
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Oh yes, if I could bet money on it, I'd say it's even likely! However, I think this touches on an under realized phenomenon: the difference between what people say when they are "speaking their mind" in literature/studies (slow, deliberate, careful error checking, often including other people), versus the more real unfiltered version you get that comes out during real time speech (which emerges from cognition). In the atheism community in particular, there are some very strange beliefs about human beliefs. For example, a recurring claim I hear from atheists is that what object level atheists believe, in fact, is the formal definition of atheism: merely/only a lack of belief in God(s), but no negative belief. The silliness of this should be obvious, but I've had no luck getting any of them to realize (or even contemplate) this, not even one person. The irony is mind boggling. (The same phenomenon exists in science as well interestingly, which is part of why I claim it is a fact that it is an underpowered methodology/ideology for navigating reality, a false prophet if you will.) I propose that if he (and all other people) didn't actually hold these flawed beliefs in the first place, they wouldn't come out during real time speech... or if they did ~accidentally, they should be realized and corrected (which scientists in public venues tend to do, begrudgingly). All people suffer from this problem, and I think our culture buries it, for reasons I have no theory about (some sort of psychological game theory maybe?). Another way of putting it: if you only consume content from someone that is written offline, you are getting a misrepresentation of that person. I think this is a huge deal, yet another important part of reality that our culture behaves as if it is not there. We are like teenagers at best on an absolute scale imho.
        gjm11 2y ago
        I think both what you get in real time and what you get when someone has time to consider and check for errors and polish are "real". It's not that each person has a perfectly well-defined set of beliefs and ideas, and (1) you get to see them unfiltered in real time and only see a fake version when the person has time to polish, or (2) you get to see them accurately when the person has time to make sure they're getting it right, and only see a rough draft full of mistakes in real time. People are more complicated than that. Some people are good at getting things right in real time. Some people are good at getting things right when they're careful. I think it is a mistake to call someone stupid because they're bad at one of those things -- unless for some reason one of them matters more than the other (e.g., they're in a position where they have to make quick decisions all the time; or they are primarily a writer who can always think and check and polish before publishing). I'm not convinced that the definition-of-atheism thing has much to do with the real-time versus polished distinction. But: I think both atheists and theists sometimes cherry-pick definitions for tactical purposes. "Oh no, I can't possibly be expected to offer evidence that there are no gods, because being an atheist just means not positively believing in gods." "Of course so-and-so's evil actions don't reflect badly on Christianity -- if he were a real Christian he'd be acting better." "Why should I care what liberal Muslims say? The most authentic Muslims are obviously the ones who behead people while shouting Allahu akbar." Etc., etc., etc. But it's not silly to define "atheist" as "not positively believing in any gods"; that's a property that many people have, it's perfectly reasonable to have a name for it, and the only problem with using "atheist" for it is that most people use that word to mean something a bit different. And the trouble is that there aren't "enough" words; we've got "atheist" and "agnostic" and "deist" and "theist" but there are more gradations of belief than that. (Absolutely certain there are no gods. Of the opinion that on balance there are probably no gods. Of the opinion that whether there are gods is unknowable in principle. Of the opinion that it's knowable in principle but one doesn't in fact have enough evidence. Inclined to think that there's probably something godlike but we can't know anything much about it. Thoroughly convinced that there is something godlike, but that we can't know much about it. Somewhat convinced by arguments for a particular religion but still unsure. Firmly committed to a particular religion and confident that it's right. Etc.) Personally, I use "atheist" to mean "overall of the opinion that there are no gods, whether or not certain of this", "non-theist" to mean "not positively believing in any gods", "agnostic" to mean "substantially unsure whether there are gods, whether or not one thinks it's knowable in principle", "theist" to mean "overall of the opinion that there is at least one god, whether or not certain of this", and I qualify those terms in whatever ways might be necessary if I want to say that someone's certain there's no god or kinda-halfheartedly-Hindu or whatever. I am somewhat prepared to argue that all those choices are better than the alternatives. But if someone else only uses "atheist" and "theist" for people who feel completely certain about whether there are any gods, or uses "atheist" to mean "not positively believing in gods", or something, that's a defensible choice so long as they take the trouble to be clear about what they mean and refrain from cheating by equivocation.
- tasty_freeze 2y ago
  I agree Dawkins shouldn't be talking about theology in general as he obviously hasn't studied it. He is fine to great in explaining the evolutionary evidence why young earth creationism is wrong, but is out of his depth when discussing the bigger picture. That doesn't make him an idiot.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Ok, what term do you believe should be applied to someone who professionally mocks people's intellectual shortcomings (real or imagined...this gets into another variation of the phenomenon), and in so doing demonstrates that he too suffers from the very same abstract problem, to the cheers of audiences who also suffer from the same problem (many of whom will then recommend his work, spreading this mind virus (both data & methodology) ever further)? Is the irony of this circle jerk of delusion not a bit thick?
tanepiper 2y ago
Well my position comes from some of the positions Dawkins has publicly stated, when he really didn't need to speak up in those circles. Maybe you find 'idiot' a strong word? The problem with someone like Dawkins is he is 'clever' - someone who doesn't understand that in his position it's better to not wield it like a weapon. This is why I prefer someone like Sean Carroll, who absolutely entertains some bonkers ideas, but never from a position of superiority or dismissal - but rather challenges it rationally.