"Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?"

[Callie Del Noire]

Refuting spurious claims with evidence to support your refutation: fine and dandy.

Mocking the person who made the claim your refuting: unnecessary and unhelpful.

I'd have more interest in the video series if it wasn't cluttered with slow-motion voice distortions and repet-repet-repetition of the incorrect statements his "opponent" makes.

True you got it right Shjade, you can do it without rubbing their metaphorical noses in it.

[grdell]

It's never a good idea to introduce yourself and your argument by insulting people. It converts no one. In fact I left Christianity because I was told, on no uncertain terms, that as a Catholic I could not be a Christian, by someone who proceeded to lie about what they thought prayers to saints were. They were happy to count Catholics as Christians when comparing Christianity to other faiths, however.

I had atheist friends. Very intelligent ones who were very bothered by it. Yet it was the evangelicals who were insulting me, lying about me, and insulting and lying about others in general, who convinced me to turn from Christianity - and not even that, but rather, I chose to read the Bible objectively, as an outsider. And I read it, and was amazed that though I had done this same thing just a few years earlier, I found a lot of actions that bothered me on an extremely moral level - Lot offering up his daughters to be raped, to begin with. There is also a virgin sacrifice in Deuteronomy. An apologist later told me that this was a heave offering - heave offerings aren't burnt, just offered up onto an alter, and then used by the priests. They never did explain to me why rape was so much better.

And the hypocrisy of Evangelicals stretched into their personal lives. Fundamentalists complain of a 4% retention rate - there's a reason for this. The overwhelming majority of human beings are good, caring people. Sometimes they have bad days, sometimes they believe a lie. But good people can only stomach a lie for so long. That's why history is so overwhelmingly progressive.

Sometimes, throwing down the hammer works. But the person you throw it down on needs to have, at the very least, some measure of respect for you.

+1. It's good to know there are others who saw things the way I did.

[Wyrd]

This is my personal favorite pro-science video. It took me a while to find. It's by philhellenes.

Science Saved My Soul.

It's a beautiful video. Watch it.

I don't really care for the anti-pro Creation convo but this video was very cool. It really makes you think and find peace in some ways that I could never imagine getting from the creationism plot. Thanks Foxy.

[Pointless Digression]

Regarding issues that were brought up earlier, that is, is it helpful to laugh at creationists, the consensus opinion seemed to be, "No, it's not helpful." In fact, one poster mentioned that it is that sort of attitude that is why she refers to "atheists" as "assholes."

I would like to offer, if I may, a dissenting opinion. When someone says their god (an invisible, intangible being) infused a soul (an invisible, intangible imaginary vapor) into a human ancestor at some unspecifiable date by an indescribable mechanism, we need to be civil — one shouldn't point out that that is credulous unscientific garbage and should be laughed at by any scientist worth his degree and any scientifically literate member of the general public?

That's not a position I agree with at all. To quote  Richard Feynman, "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

It could be that I simply like Thunderf00t's videos from wayback, but I digress.

Oftentimes, engaging in these sorts of debates isn't intended to convert the person you're laughing at. It's intended to convert, if indeed convert is the right word, onlookers, or at least get them to see that the person on the other side of the debating table is taking such a credulous position of unscientific garbage, so horrid in its conception it it meets the "not even wrong" category of scientific error.

[meikle]

Don't misrepresent what I said.

[Pointless Digression]

I think laughing at people for their religious beliefs is pretty silly. 

"I don't agree" is perfectly fine.  "You're laughable!" is the reason everyone thinks that "atheist" is a synonym for "asshole".

I'm sorry if you feel that a paraphrasing of the above misrepresents you. What, in your opinion, would have been a more fair way to get my point across?

[Will]

The problem is that being a dick doesn't convert anyone, onlookers included.  It just makes you look like a dick.  Responding to their ideas with well-reasoned logic, and without judgment or attack, will go a lot farther than just verbally beating them over the head.

There's just no reason to take that sort of offensive approach, beyond your own fleeting personal satisfaction.  And considering what more you could do with a given opportunity, that's pretty immature.

[Pointless Digression]

Counter example. Stephanie Zvan points out that Randi is one of these 'dicks', that his willingness to sneer at charlatans was an important factor in her own acceptance of skepticism.

[meikle]

Not misquoting me would be a good start.  I didn't call anyone an asshole.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/187/pet-peeve-7-im-sorry-you-feel-that-way/

[Will]

That's a slightly different example.  She describes a book, where Randi ranted at a general group of people.  Of course, that's not going to arouse the same kind of defensive attitude as insulting and belittling a person or people directly.

The nuance is important, because, as the blogger stated:

Nor am I arguing with Phil when I say that. One of the pieces of his text that hasn't been quoted that I've seen, except by me on Twitter, is, "Anger is a very potent weapon, and we need that weapon, but we need to be excruciatingly careful how we use it." Remember this.

[Pointless Digression]

Having read Flim-Flam, your description is only partially accurate. In it, Randi takes aim both generally and specifically. Example; Uri Geller is singled out by name and subjected to a rather viscous de-bunking that makes him come across as laughable.

Why do people laugh at spoon benders, kind of thing.

[Will]

It's still not exactly the same as if I were to verbally attack another person face to face or, say, another member on the forums or something.  That's when you get that sympathetic response from others, which is no good at all.

Generally, that is going to be the case.  Zvan even admits that, to paraphrase, you'll catch more flies with honey.  She says as much in one of the comments -

"Jason, I should note again that studies suggest that more people react better to not angry--and that it's harder to do (but maybe easier to do well) in many ways. Phil's speech was very good. It advocated being strategic, which is often playing to the averages. I wrote this because a lot of people are talking about the speech as though he said there was no strategic value to anger, which he didn't."

Basically, what she is saying and what you are saying amount to anecdotal evidence.  Anecdotal evidence can be used to bear out just about anything if you try hard enough, including being a dick.  If that's your preferred approach, then by all means, go right ahead, but evidence shows that it is not the most effective way to speak to people.

[Pointless Digression]

Agree to disagree then. I stand by the Feynman quote.

[Trieste]

There are enough threads here that are active. DO NOT resurrect a thread that's been dead for a month just to pick a fight.

Thank you.