It's about half an hour long so I'll summarise: the point of Sceptic movement, or rationalist movement, is to convince people to think rationally about things. Being rude and obnoxious, or insulting people and calling them retards, or idiots, or suggesting they were abused by their parents, doesn't help convince people. Conclusion: be polite, don't be a dick.
Well, I think it all depends. If you ask Flyer75, I think he'll be rather positive about the talks I had with him. More recently ICDESIGN complimented Percy, Dr. adequate and me for being civil. Ask Bolder-dash, or archaeologist, and I think their view will be rather different.
You see, if someone comes on here screaming and being all haughty like and insulting people left and right (like archie, essentially calling people dishonest and stupid), while also giving not a single sign of intending to learn anything, I will be a "dick" to them, after first trying a "neutral" post. Though I'd like to think that my being a dick is not so much directly insulting them and saying things like "you were fucked by your daddy", it's a more subtle way, and usually done a bit more humurously (though, of course, it might not be perceived as such). Or at least, I like to think it is. For if there's no purpose to talking to them, I can ate least have a little fun.
I will admit I went all out against Davidmabus, but he's insane anyway, so that matters little.
I haven't listened to the video yet, but I agree with your summary.
I only somewhat agree with Huntard. I think responding in kind or worse rarely turns on any light bulbs of comprehension, but experience tells us that most who fit the Archaeologist mold never come around. When Archaeologist leaves us it will likely be with more unsupported declarations and a stream of invective castigating all and sundry. He will depart our midst unchanged by anything that transpired here. Since the Archaeologist syndrome is easily recognized fairly early on, there seems little point in wasting one's time with patient and well thought out responses and explanations.
But there's a serious downside to the Huntard approach. Lurkers reading the middle of discussions that have devolved into acrimonious exchanges will be unable to tell who's the reasonable person and who's the dick. They'll conclude that EvC Forum is a wild place of emotional irrationality to be avoided.
Hence we encourage politeness in all exchanges, with the exception of the unmoderated Free For All forum.
I basically agree with what Huntard says. The most preferable approach is reasonableness, and civil debate. that's what this site aims for and it's a good policy. The recent conversation with ICDESIGN does indeed stand out as a good example of an exchange that was getting heated, but, with a little prodding form Percy and a few comparatively temperate messages, it's calmed right down. That's great. This is the kind of conversation that I prefer on this forum, because it's the kind that is most likely to result in mutual understanding. It's also the best way to change someone's mind.
On the other hand, how likely is it that die-hard creationists will respond to this approach? I won't name any EvC members, but I think you know the kind of person that I'm talking about. How useful is it to engage in protracted civil exchanges with hucksters like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind or Bill Dembski? They are never going to respond to that approach. They are never going to learn from their own mistakes. They are never going to change their minds. The only approach left, it seems to me, is open ridicule.
Sometimes the only rational response is to simply point at the idiot, point out his idiocy and laugh. That may not be very nice, but it is effective. It shouldn't be one's first choice of tactic perhaps and some people occasionally go too far, but mockery is still a valid tactic.
Oh...whosoever could you be referring to? Couldn't be me, could it?
You see, here is the thing: this individual that you are referring to did not come here for rational discourse or to learn a god damn thing. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand? He is NOT interested in discussion of any sort. He is proselytizing, preaching and spamming his website. You wish to afford him some sort of respect that he neither deserves or has earned. He is A TROLL, nothing more. You want proof???
We believers do not have to do any more searching, we have found the truth thus we do not have to be 'open-minded', or 'consider alternatives' and so on, for we have already been where you are at and we have made a choice. Once that choice is made, we do not consider returning to the alternatives.
Clear enough for you?
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
Questioning people's cherished fantasies and telling them they're wrong is going to be perceived as "dickish" no matter what tone you use. Believers interpret any expression of atheism as "uncivil."
The theist definition of a "militant atheist" is "one whose lips are moving." Worrying about "tone" and "being a dick" is concern trolling, and Phil Plait fell for it. The goal is to poison the well again skeptical and atheist discourse by referring to any honest expression of it as "being a dick."
I concur. 2 weeks ago I had a religious discussion with my parents (who were NEVER overly religious themselves). They've known for some time I've been an atheist. I have recently had a change of heart towards my outlook on life, in that I am trying to be a more positive person. I have shown them this change and informed them of said change (I can be a real prick for no reason to anyone and have, in the past, been generally rude or mean). The further I distance myself from religion, the closer I feel to humanity.
As soon as the religion discussion came up, they labeled me as depressed due to my lack of faith (among other accusations). They attributed my divorce to it, even though my ex-wife is not religious.
Not having faith is always viewed as being evil or angry in the eyes of believers, since a majority of them feel the only happiness available is through their invisible friend.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
I generally agree with Phil Plait's advice there, though I'm sure that I don't always live up to it.
If I am debating creationists, I don't have any expectation of persuading them to change their minds. But I can attempt to leave a clear record of good arguments for the benefit of the lurkers who are following the debates as they attempt to make up their own minds.
Questioning people's cherished fantasies and telling them they're wrong is going to be perceived as "dickish" no matter what tone you use. Believers interpret any expression of atheism as "uncivil."
I don't think that's really what this is about. Yeah, some believers will consider any attack on their beliefs as a being a dick; but that is a very different thing to what Phil, or I, are talking about. When Hooah212002 speculates about Archaeologist having being sexually abused by his father he isn't politely pointing out error and being perceived as dickish, he is being a dick.
And while it may be true that Archaeologist is never going to be convinced by what we have to say, Archaeologist is not the only reader of our posts. Hooah212002 and his ilk contribute the crystalisation of the debate into a simple matter of sides, with no more meaning than simple tribalism. With us shouting "Evolution, Evolution, Rah! Rah! Rah!" them shouting "Creation, Creation, Rah! Rah! Rah!" and the only difference being which option we happen to have chosen.
But, of course, that's not the difference. Ours is not a "side"; it is the conclusion of applying the scientific method and it's supported by evidence. Needless rude, obnoxious behaviour actively inhibits the communication of that message.
That's always what it's about - insufficient deference for the delusions of theists is described as "being a dick." Being "militant." I mean, is there anybody here who honestly wouldn't call me a dick, who wouldn't say I'm a militant atheist?
Have I ever done anything but disagree with the truth of people's religious beliefs?
quote:Then a friend gave me Flim Flam. James Randi told me how people had lied to me under the guise of nonfiction, under the guise of science. He was, in fact, kind of a dick about it. That's not a very nice book by any definition of the word. It uses name-calling. It sneers.
But oh, it was exactly what I needed. I needed it both for the information it gave me and for the anger and vitriol. Without Randi's vitriol, I wouldn't have been able to make the clean break in thinking that I did. If he hadn't been so clearly and visibly and sometimes nastily angry about the perversion of systems that were meant to uncover and convey the best knowledge we can have, I'd have been faced with the choice between a more classical skepticism, doubting everything that came my way, and clinging to the idea that what I believed had to be true.
Randi's anger defined a space where I could safely land.
As others have pointed out, it's impossible to reason someone out of a position that they arrived at without the use of reason.
Keeping that in mind, let me ask you a question. Is one being a dick for ridiculing a ridiculous position? It seems to me that the first step in trying to reason with someone who is holding a ridiculous position would be to expose how ridiculous that position is. And, while ridicule may not directly impact the person holding the ridiculous position, seeing others laughing at them might help them see how their position is ridiculous.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Re: How do you take the "dick" out of "ridickulous?"
Hi, Subbie.
subbie writes:
Is one being a dick for ridiculing a ridiculous position?
One is never going to sell oneself as a rational person, or one's positions as rational positions, if one relies on ridicule to make one's points.
I don't think most people read ridicule-laden responses to ridiculous comments and realize how deserved the ridicule was.
I think most people read ridicule-laden comments and decide that the person giving the ridicule is just as deserving of ridicule as they think the person they're ridiculing is.
On top of that, I haven't seen any evidence on EvC that ridicule has greater success than reason by any metric.
™ Version 4.2
(1)