Hilarious video (NSFW)- Richard Dawkins reads hate mail from religious nutjobs

[ovnr]

--Very funny, a direct quote from a posting where the words "I get misquoted a lot" never appear. In this case I was not quoting an EEVBlog poster but an article, so your advice would not apply. You will note that most authors still use quotation marks, IE "". Nonetheless your fraudulent quote made me laugh. I am afraid I did not understand your point about BBS and modems.

Well aware of the typographical implications of quote marks, my dear. But you have to admit that the quote tags, resulting in a whole separate box, stand out more, especially if you're quoting a whole paragraph of text. This practice - of highlighting a whole quoted passage by a more obvious way, traditionally by a "block quote" which is usually just indented text - has been common for decades. It's fine to quote a sentence or two like you do in your signature with quote marks, but people will miss them if you have a large, dense blob of text with some quotes interspersed in it.

My point about your writing style is that noone else starts every post with "Dear (name)" or "Greetings EEVbees", and finish it with 4+ lines of manually typed/pasted signature. It is curious, hence why I asked about it; I, personally, don't think it adds to the experience.

Now back to topic: Religious nutters are idiots. News at 11.

[FrankBuss]

P.S. Dave, how about doing a similar video (maybe after Sagan has gone to bed).

I guess Dave doesn't get as much hate mail, or so dumb ones you get from religious fanatics. But some Dawkings read were quite creative

[zapta]

There are between 5.5 million and 6 million Jews in the USA according to various sources including the US Census, this represents about 1,7% of the US population. If a US politician were to suggest that the US cease or decrease its support of Israel it's virtually guaranteed that they would lose about 1,7% of their voters in favor of the opposition. No politician can afford to do this, therefore all *** US politicians support Israel.

By this logic, all French politician supports Islam (~10%).

Also, 1.7% may be the national average but not necessarily in each state or congressional district.

The reasons are deeper than that.

[SgtRock]

Dear Electr-peter:

--I fear I do not quite understand your remark, could you please elucidate.

Two brothers, not too far apart  - one is a defender of religion and the other was a defender of state religion.

--Please see below link for a video wherein Dawkins and Hitchens hold forth, and neither one that I can see is defending religionists. Hitch was a student of Orwell, another leftist with which I often agree. Hitchens was intellectually honest to a fault. I do not know Dawkins yet well enough to say that. The below video was one of his last appearances. He will be missed.



--PS I notice a lot of new members from Europe lately. Welcome to you all.

"The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience. "
Milton Friedman 1912 - 2006

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Zucca]

There is no true reason without faith and no true faith without reason.

[Mechanical Menace]

There is no true reason without faith and no true faith without reason.

I'd argue there can be no reason with faith if you're using the definition of the word that applies to religion. Like suspension of disbelief is needed to really get into a work of fiction, you need to suspend your reason to believe that which there can not be evidence for. But hey I also count string "theory" as a religion.

[electr_peter]

Dear Electr-peter:
--I fear I do not quite understand your remark, could you please elucidate.

Two brothers, not too far apart  - one is a defender of religion and the other was a defender of state religion.

I mean that both brothers hold strong and active political views. One is strongly in favour of a religion, other is proponent of atheism. Both have declared reasons to support seemingly opposing views. However, Christopher Hitchens actually almost unilaterally supported actions initiated by state with massive enthusiasm and practically zero critique (especially regarding recent conflicts). My point is that you can interpret some of these actions as religious in a sense of state religion (blind trust, 100% confidence, biases, etc.). There are sources to support it if you want to look deeper at it, this is not isolated opinion.

I hope I make myself clear. I do not want to elaborate as this goes offtopic.

[zapta]

I'd argue there can be no reason with faith if you're using the definition of the word that applies to religion.

Reason is based on axioms. Choose different axioms and you will end up with different conclusions. One possible axiom is 'deity X exists'.

Don't get too concern on how other people choose to model the world, just make sure they don't force it on you.

[Mechanical Menace]

Don't get too concern on how other people choose to model the world, just make sure they don't force it on you.

There was no malice, insult, or even annoyance meant to be conveyed in what I said at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was simply good naturedly disagreeing and trying to say why.

[SgtRock]

Dear Electr-peter:

--Welcome to the blog. In the 1970s I used to go with a friend to the Lithuanian Club in St. Pete Fl. They all told me then, that someday their country would be free. I am glad to see that they were right, and I hope that you can keep Putler at bay.

--I quite take your point about Hitch being a state religionist. Any left wing atheist that steps off the reservation even for a moment, will be condemned as a religious nut job for not towing the line, much like antisemites accusing one another of acting just like a goddamned Jew.

"Europeans think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone (Michael Moore) who actually embodies all of those qualities." 
Christopher Hitchens  1949  -  2011


Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Wilksey]

I am guessing that as these people believe in "god" and a few references to the religion, 99% are Christian?
For Christians they don't half swear a lot! I thought that was a sin in itself?

Personally I couldn't care less what your beliefs are, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, just keep them to yourselves and do not try and force it upon others.

[zapta]

I am guessing that as these people believe in "god" and a few references to the religion, 99% are Christian?
For Christians they don't half swear a lot! I thought that was a sin in itself?

Personally I couldn't care less what your beliefs are, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, just keep them to yourselves and do not try and force it upon others.

OK.

[Corporate666]

Errr, he made a general and bombastic assertion that they (Jews) "monopolise American foreign policy". There is a big difference between that and merely stating that the "Jewish lobby"* has been, selectively, demonstrably effective in campaigning in its own interests.

If the legitimacy of pointing out the stinking mire that Dawkins has so unintelligently dipped his big toe into here is lost on you, then either your perspective on both contemporary and historical anti-Semitism is somewhat lacking or you are just intractably dim.

* though even that is arguably a tenuous generalization.

No, there is no legitimacy in "pointing out..." something Dawkins said that is entirely unrelated to the original post anymore than there is legitimacy in "pointing out" that Obama is friends with Bill Ayers or that the Bush family is close to the Saudi Royal family when the original topic is something entirely different.  It is a lowbrow tactic for lowbrow intellects.

Not to mention Dawkins put his statement into context by comparing with the atheist lobby which, despite being much larger has been much less successful.

It is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to surmise what a more intelligent and accomplished man "meant" when he's been extremely transparent over the years in regards to his views.  If he was a closet bigot that needed outing, it would have been pretty clear based on the sheer volume of his public statements over the years.  In this case, it's just a funny video from a respected man highlighting the behavior his critics.  No asterisks needed.

[Corporate666]

It always makes sense to consider the biases and position of someone whenever they say something, whether they are making silly statements about pedophilia or whether they are making silly statements about electric vehicles, etc.

Good idea. Your lefty bias indeed explain the bigotry below.

Dawkins work on science and religion is irrefutable.  He's also got a point on the success of the Jewish lobby in the USA to have such a huge effect despite their small numbers.  To compare that (true) statement with holocaust denial or anti-semitism is idiotic.

You obviously don't know what the word means.

Giving credit to the Jewish lobby for being a fantastically successful group hardly qualifies, but sometimes when all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail.

[Corporate666]

I'd argue there can be no reason with faith if you're using the definition of the word that applies to religion.

Reason is based on axioms. Choose different axioms and you will end up with different conclusions. One possible axiom is 'deity X exists'.

Don't get too concern on how other people choose to model the world, just make sure they don't force it on you.

Axiom - another word worth looking up.

Axioms are things with are self evidently true.  Axioms aren't 'chosen' and if they conflict such that they lead to different results, then something wasn't axiomatic to start with.

And "diety x exists" is, by definition, not an axiom. 

[GK]

Errr, he made a general and bombastic assertion that they (Jews) "monopolise American foreign policy". There is a big difference between that and merely stating that the "Jewish lobby"* has been, selectively, demonstrably effective in campaigning in its own interests.

If the legitimacy of pointing out the stinking mire that Dawkins has so unintelligently dipped his big toe into here is lost on you, then either your perspective on both contemporary and historical anti-Semitism is somewhat lacking or you are just intractably dim.

* though even that is arguably a tenuous generalization.

No, there is no legitimacy in "pointing out..." something Dawkins said that is entirely unrelated to the original post anymore than there is legitimacy in "pointing out" that Obama is friends with Bill Ayers or that the Bush family is close to the Saudi Royal family when the original topic is something entirely different.  It is a lowbrow tactic for lowbrow intellects.

Not to mention Dawkins put his statement into context by comparing with the atheist lobby which, despite being much larger has been much less successful.

It is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to surmise what a more intelligent and accomplished man "meant" when he's been extremely transparent over the years in regards to his views.  If he was a closet bigot that needed outing, it would have been pretty clear based on the sheer volume of his public statements over the years.  In this case, it's just a funny video from a respected man highlighting the behavior his critics.  No asterisks needed.

You are just talking a lot of rubbish. Yawn.

[Corporate666]

Errr, he made a general and bombastic assertion that they (Jews) "monopolise American foreign policy". There is a big difference between that and merely stating that the "Jewish lobby"* has been, selectively, demonstrably effective in campaigning in its own interests.

If the legitimacy of pointing out the stinking mire that Dawkins has so unintelligently dipped his big toe into here is lost on you, then either your perspective on both contemporary and historical anti-Semitism is somewhat lacking or you are just intractably dim.

* though even that is arguably a tenuous generalization.

No, there is no legitimacy in "pointing out..." something Dawkins said that is entirely unrelated to the original post anymore than there is legitimacy in "pointing out" that Obama is friends with Bill Ayers or that the Bush family is close to the Saudi Royal family when the original topic is something entirely different.  It is a lowbrow tactic for lowbrow intellects.

Not to mention Dawkins put his statement into context by comparing with the atheist lobby which, despite being much larger has been much less successful.

It is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to surmise what a more intelligent and accomplished man "meant" when he's been extremely transparent over the years in regards to his views.  If he was a closet bigot that needed outing, it would have been pretty clear based on the sheer volume of his public statements over the years.  In this case, it's just a funny video from a respected man highlighting the behavior his critics.  No asterisks needed.

You are just talking a lot of rubbish. Yawn.

A compelling and persuasive reply.  Unfortunately a logical fallacy nonetheless, so a swing and a miss, I'm afraid.   

[GK]

A compelling and persuasive reply.

Thankyou, though it is a pity that I most certainly cannot return the compliment.

Unfortunately a logical fallacy nonetheless, so a swing and a miss, I'm afraid.   

Pointing out the fact that you talk rubbish is a "logical fallacy"?

[Corporate666]

Pointing out the fact that you talk rubbish is a "logical fallacy"?

Yes, by definition.  This is basic stuff. 

See if you can find yours:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[Syntax_Error]

Axioms are very basic and rather boring, as they don't contribute directly to the point (the postulate) one is trying to make. Axioms are laid out to form the most basic bedrock of common ground from which everything else stems.

Some of the most fundamental axioms required to have a meaningful discussion/debate:

My senses and faculties are reliable to me.
Physical existence is real, and I experience this through my senses and faculties.
Events can happen which reliably have effects that influence events occurring after them.

The easiest way to test an axiom is to attempt to describe or validate/prove it using something that does not require the axiom to be established. If you can, it is not a true axiom. "IF"s don't count. All these things are quite boring and have little to do with anything. Without them, no argument is logical, as we are all truly in the matrix then. Also of note is that axioms are not necessarily irrefutable. They can be proven wrong, but instead of circular logic/paradox effects, logic dictates the axiom is rejected outright, as it is no longer self evident.

[GK]

Yes, by definition.

No, sorry, it wasn't an argument, but simply a factual statement. You haven't even grasped the stupidity of Dawkins clueless public statements about Jews, his invocation of the quasi-mythical "Jewish lobby" conspiring for a supposed monopolization of American foreign policy. Even more disturbingly you seem to think that they are defensible, even truthful to a degree, and have even insinuated that those here pointing out said stupidity are necessarily labelling Dawkins an anti-Semite. And not only that, but we should all refrain from any criticism of such because Dawkins is an "intelligent" and "accomplished man"! I am sorry, but the one stuck knee deep in logical fallacy happens to be you.

And furthermore, this thread was all about laughing at delusions of the tin-foil-hat brigade. Dawkins superficial and clueless public pronouncement on the Jewish monopolization of American foreign policy is certainly right up there in the foil hat domain, so, despite any devotions, are certainly not out of bounds for comment and ridicule.

[coppice]

Some of the most fundamental axioms required to have a meaningful discussion/debate:

My senses and faculties are reliable to me.

If you've ever seen an optical illusion you know that one is false. Our senses are incredibly unreliable. That doesn't stop meaningful discussion, unless you try to pretend they are reliable.

[Syntax_Error]

No, that doesn't change anything. Your perception of what you see during the optical illusion drives you to make an error in judgment. I didn't coin these, afterall. Just so you know.

[coppice]

No, that doesn't change anything. Your perception of what you see during the optical illusion drives you to make an error in judgment. I didn't coin these, afterall. Just so you know.

I know. They are standard lines, rolled out like axioms, but they make no sense. A person who is broadly aware of the limitations of their body is in a totally different position for meaningful discussion than someone who buys into the idea that what their senses witness can be relied on. Have you ever looked into studies of eye witness accounts? We are almost totally delusional.

[Syntax_Error]

Perhaps that's why meaningful discussion is so rare! 

Afterall, most conversations, when viewed as a communication between two entities, spend vastly more time and effort hashing out the meaning of what was said by one party or the other than processing and evaluating the communicated information in a logical manner.