The illogic of Atheism

Dawkins is justified because the criticizing author also behaves poorly (in your view)?

That is not my argument. My argument is that most people, including the author (and yourself, and the proponents participating in this thread, and the bulk of the proponents on this site, judging by behaviour) feel that ridicule is warranted when faced with someone saying something ridiculous . Clearly, some things deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.* I'm saying that Dawkins was only suggesting the same thing. You can hardly criticize him for a behaviour which you apparently regard as justifiable and reasonable.

If you look at the video leading up to the point where he said "mock and ridicule", he specifically told people to ask individuals what ideas they hold and when those ideas are ridiculous when compared to the facts (e.g. the earth is less than ten thousand years old) to mock and ridicule those individuals for holding factually ridiculous beliefs. Rather than painting religious people with a broad brush and attacking them based on incorrect and mean-spirited stereotyping, he specifically turns that around and refers only to those individuals who believe ridiculous things. What Dawkins is referencing is our culture's willingness to ridicule people when they say something ridiculous, but if the person uses religion as an excuse to say something ridiculous, our culture gives them a free pass. Dawkins is saying that they should be held accountable in the same way that we would hold anyone else accountable - they shouldn't be given a free pass.

However, to try and defend Dawkins as some model of "reasonable" (the first word you used) is just ridiculous.

I don't know if Dawkins is a model of reasonable or not. I just know that his tone in his science writing is reasonable, and the few times I've read or seen Dawkins outside of that, he hasn't been unreasonable. But I don't know if my sample is representative. I'm curious to see examples which show that my limited exposure is not representative. I'm not defending Dawkins, I'm pointing out that the example you gave me does not show Dawkins encouraging unprovoked attacks on religious people. It shows Dawkins encouraging ridicule when an individual believes ridiculous things, rather than giving them a free pass if they excuse those beliefs using religion.

Linda

*In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a fan of mockery and ridicule, so I'm in the minority and not in agreement with that statement. But I admit that I'm probably not a fan because it makes me uncomfortable to use it, not because it is ineffective. So, I will half-heartedly agree with it.

How about this Linda: Do you own research on Dawkins (or Krauss for that matter) if you are truly interested.  I don't believe for one second you are actually interested nor willing to make the effort.  I wouldn't take much which simply tells me you are being dishonest or are simply woefully uninformed on the atheist movement with which Dawkins was a part.

I've listened to a significant volume Dawkin's commentary and have concluded that while he may be (or have been) a good scientist, he has been a stereo typing, boor in his personal crusade against religion.

How about this Linda: Do you own research on Dawkins (or Krauss for that matter) if you are truly interested.  I don't believe for one second you are actually interested nor willing to make the effort.  I wouldn't take much which simply tells me you are being dishonest or are simply woefully uninformed on the atheist movement with which Dawkins was a part.

I've listened to a significant volume Dawkin's commentary and have concluded that while he may be (or have been) a good scientist, he has been a stereo typing, boor in his personal crusade against religion.

I don't have much interest in the atheist movement, to be honest, so I don't doubt that I am uninformed about that movement. 

What I am interested in is whether or not you can back up your claim that he is a stereotyping boor.

I have looked around on the internet to see if there is something out there from him which backs you up. I have been unable to do so. There is a lot out there where a third party takes a snippet of something he said and then presents it out of context so that the audience can be misled, like you did with your last reference and like Mathis did with the Hitchens quote. 

If Dawkins is a boor, so be it. It's no skin off my back. I just haven't seen it in what I've read/seen of him and I'm reserving judgement until directed to something which shows this. You are under no obligation to do so, I'm just unwilling to believe this based on your say so.

Linda

I have looked around on the internet to see if there is something out there from him which backs you up. I have been unable to do so.

I'm afraid you aren't a very good researcher or our ideas of what it means to crassly stereotype people are much different.

I'm afraid you aren't a very good researcher or our ideas of what it means to crassly stereotype people are much different.

You should know by now that you can't win this type of argument with her. She delights in spinning these things out, post after post, until the thread is dead. If you post a link to support your argument, she will argue against that and claim that it does not mean what you say it means or it doesn't count as evidence. The goal posts will be shifted off the field and down the street. It is a complete waste of time and she does it deliberately - precisely why she kept getting banned at Skeptiko and why people ignore her here. Eventually, everyone gets wise to her games.

That is not my argument. My argument is that most people, including the author (and yourself, and the proponents participating in this thread, and the bulk of the proponents on this site, judging by behaviour) feel that ridicule is warranted when faced with someone saying something ridiculous . Clearly, some things deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. I'm saying that Dawkins was only suggesting the same thing. You can hardly criticize him for a behaviour which you apparently regard as justifiable and reasonable.

I'm not sure that it's especially reasonable to say that much of what goes on here is mockery or ridicule. If you'v ever been to any other site where proponents are bashed consistently, this certainly pales in comparison - just as it pales in comparison to the sort of dismissiveness and ridicule Dawkins has consistently displayed. It's clear here that many proponents don't particularly enjoy discussions with you, so perhaps your perception is one of mockery and ridicule, but I hardly think it can be fairly equated with or rise to the level of the utter disdain that proponents are shown elsewhere, and that includes by Dawkins, PZ Myers, and the rest of the New Atheist ring leaders. 

I don't know if Dawkins is a model of reasonable or not.

Most anyone remotely familiar with him, who are themselves reasonable, would likely assure you that he certainly is not, unless we're looking to broadly enlarge the scope of what the word reasonable means.

I'm curious to see examples which show that my limited exposure is not representative.

 
Why don't you go look for yourself? It is not a particularly controversial statement to say that Dawkins is unreasonable, arrogant, dismissive, etc. Ample evidence exists. Go find it, or consider not criticizing those more familiar with him and his "work".

I don't have much interest in the atheist movement, to be honest, so I don't doubt that I am uninformed about that movement. 

What I am interested in is whether or not you can back up your claim that he is a stereotyping boor.

I have looked around on the internet to see if there is something out there from him which backs you up. I have been unable to do so. There is a lot out there where a third party takes a snippet of something he said and then presents it out of context so that the audience can be misled, like you did with your last reference and like Mathis did with the Hitchens quote. 

If you've been unable to do so, it's either because you're fabricating that you've done the research or have an incredibly selective memory. No source is good enough for you Linda. 

Of course you're welcome to think what you like. It would be a pity for anyone to waste any time trying to present such an obvious case to so obstinate a person. Again - this is not a controversial topic. We aren't discussing the merits of PSI research. 

I mean, what else are you looking for? You say "a third party" as if you expect that the only reliable option would be Dawkins himself coming out and saying he's an arrogant, dogmatic atheist who pays no heed to anyone who disagrees with him. What source is good enough?

You should know by now that you can't win this type of argument with her. She delights in spinning these things out, post after post, until the thread is dead. If you post a link to support your argument, she will argue against that and claim that it does not mean what you say it means or it doesn't count as evidence. The goal posts will be shifted off the field and down the street. It is a complete waste of time and she does it deliberately - precisely why she kept getting banned at Skeptiko and why people ignore her here. Eventually, everyone gets wise to her games.

Her behavior is enigmatic to me.  On multiple levels really.  First, I simply do not understand such blatant misdirection and dishonesty.  Second, and maybe more confounding, is why does she persist in trying to be a part of this community and dialogue?  Its quite clear she has no interest in questioning her sacred views on seemingly a myriad of topics.

I much prefer Malf's form of skepticism as it does keep the conversation "honest" while seemingly maintaining a two way street.

I wouldn't have thought the coverage last year of Dawkins's Islamophobic comments would be easy to miss.

I think it's always instructive to replace "Muslim" with "Jew" in such comments, and imagine how they'd look shifted back in time by 80 years.

I'm afraid you aren't a very good researcher or our ideas of what it means to crassly stereotype people are much different.

I think I'm a decent researcher. I just don't swallow what people say, but check the primary sources instead. Like I said, I find plenty of examples of people saying that they find Dawkins arrogant, etc. However, when I follow up on their references (for those who provide references) and look at the context in which something or other was said, it's not like they've made it out to be. The article you referenced was a good example, since the author implied that Dawkins encouraged people to mock and ridicule religion. Yet if you watch the video, that isn't the group which Dawkins refers to.

I think to stereotype means to hold a fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. I don't think asking an individual what their beliefs are (Dawkins' suggestion) is stereotyping. I don't think recognizing that something is so factually incorrect that it is ridiculous is stereotyping, either.

Linda