What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?

[Brian37]

I think he is a waste of the IQ level in mere cunning and eloquence. Has high IQ but has no wisdom and hence is stupid in that sense.

---

How does a highly intelligent person not talk down to people who believe in silly fairy tales?

By having something called "virtue" and "manners".

Fairy tales that are believed as religions are at least answers by people to essential questions.

If you go to an exam and write nothing, it's a lot worse then having answers that are partially right and partially wrong.

No religion is totally false in all it's entirety as far as I know. Atheism may not be false as simply non-belief, but it's a whole worse then partially wrong and right answers, hence it's even worse then total wrong answer.

At least people believing in fairy tales attempted to answer essential questions.

"false" is not the word to argue. Not required is what I would say.

Every religion in the world has members and holy people who point to their heros/ideas/motifs to claim motifs of kindness and compassion and justice. 

Most empathetic humans seek non violence and cooperation. That is evolutionary, not religious. When your direct neighbor and you seek out resources you find that cooperation is preferred to conflict, in turn that fosters more stability and more opportunity in safety in numbers. Our species flawed perceptions created religions to which we falsely attach morality to being handed to us rather than being in our genes.

It is not false in the sense to say, "Be kind", but it is false to claim Mickey Mouse is real and is the reason you have the ability to be kind. Mickey Mouse is not required to be kind, it is merely a fiction humans create to convey an idea.

Hindus will point to their writings to justify charity and giving, and so do Jews and Christians. But we can see the same ideas of compassion and justice and charity in art such as books and movies and cartoons. Ideas of charity and giving are not a patent owned by any religion, they are an attribute of our species evolution.

[Simon Moon]

In my opinion, trying to rid people of their false beliefs, is a virtue.

I don't think ridding people of belief is a realistic goal. Unless an afterlife actually exists and we discover it people are always going to fear death and want some answer to it. Ridding it of the beliefs that are harmful like genital mutilation and killing gays is the real focus. Even then open respecful dialogue is important to a dress why those beliefs are wrong. Talking down to them like children doesn't work, because unlike children they don't have to listen to you.

Of course it is not realistic for the masses. But we don't need everyone to stop believing in fairy tales, just enough to get to a "tipping point" where a large number of important decisions will be made using logic, evidence and reason, instead of fantasy.

Not everyone responds to the same type of discussion. Some people do respond to ridicule, along with more reasonable dialogue.

[Whateverist]

If you go to an exam and write nothing, it's a lot worse then having answers that are partially right and partially wrong.

Or it would be if what you had to say about those questions weren't wild guesses which only perpetuate the notion that such questions were answerable at all or had any utility.

[The Valkyrie]

Probably means that while he has a high IQ he isn't reaching the right conclusion and therefore must be stupid in the sense of disagreeing with MK.

He lives his life to promote falsehood, ungratefulness, and disconnection from God's mystic link, he is a waste of IQ.

No, he spends his life fighting against unproved claims (religion), and falsehood (creationism), while promoting human advancement and knowledge through science.

Ungratefulness against what?  An unproved god hypothesis?  Why should anyone be grateful to something they don't believe in and, in all likelihood, does not exist?  Should I be grateful to Cyril, the Space Wombat in case HE MIGHT exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

And I wasn't even here to defend myself!



Oh, Dawkins!

Many of his writings are very good and there's no denying that he kicks the arses of creationists he encounters.

As to the man himself, I'm not really all that much of a fan.

How does a highly intelligent person not talk down to people who believe in silly fairy tales?

I think Dawkins is very polite. Just frustrated. Certainly not condescending.

Here's why he is frustrated:








I tried to show a 3rd video but it wouldn't work. It was basically Dawkins being irritated by the utter moron who is Deepak Chopra. Here's an example of what an utter moron he is:





Not surprised Dawkins found him irritating but the cool thing about Sam Harris is he keeps his cool even amongst utterly annoying morons like Deepak Chopra.

[Minimalist]

By having something called "virtue" and "manners".

You know, MK.  It isn't my job to make you feel good about being childish.  It isn't Dawkins' job, either.

You have no invisible sky-daddy watching your every move.  Grow the fuck up.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] I find mindfulness very unhelpful and pseudo-scientific [...]

What is "pseudoscientific" about separating oneself from one's emotions in order to approach them more objectively? Be specific.

---

If you go to an exam and write nothing, it's a lot worse then having answers that are partially right and partially wrong.

This is simply god-of-the-gaps reworded, and is equally vapid.

If I can make up any answer and it's better than "I don't know", what have we done? Have we instigated a renewed effort to learn? Have we started looking at the issue from a different angle in the hopes of penetrating the mystery?

No. We've stifled learning in favor of a made-up story because in your mind, whether it's right or wrong counts less than having the damn blank on the paperwork filled out.

The mark of the incurious mind, the mark of the uninteresting thinker.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is "pseudoscientific" about separating oneself from one's emotions in order to approach them more objectively? Be specific.

I have no way of comparing my own internal experience of my attempts at mindfulness to anyone else's... no way of judging whether I'm doing it properly or not... no objective measure of what is by its very nature subjective.

Science can't study qualia by its very nature and mindfulness is all about qualia. Therein lies the problem.

I don't see how it's possible to approach emotions objectively or to control one's will by willpower at all. I don't see how it make sense without free will and I don't see how free will makes sense either.

I have zero control over my thoughts.

I accept that mindfulness is not about controlling thoughts or emotions... it's about accepting them and observing them, etc. But I don't see how I have any control over that. I don't see how I can learn to accept what in itself I have to accept anyways because I have no control over it. I don't see how I can really change my mental behavior to make me more or less mindful either way because I think my mental behavior just happens and isn't really a 'behavior'. It's more of a 'happening'. At least that's how I experience it which is why I struggle relating to other people's anecdotes about their own experience of mindfulness.

It's like how ultimately I think the term "self motivation" is an oxymoron because motivation drives the self not the other way around. You can't drive your self your self is already driven by your motives. It's the same problem as trying to control your brain when your brain is the part of you that does the control. We can't motivate our selves for the same reason that we can't control our brains. The brain and the self is one and motivation and the self is one.

Anyways, this may or may not sound relevant but I think it very much is because I don't see how mindfulness can be a skill when I basically have zero control over it all. My mind goes where it goes and trying to will it is like telling myself to open a door that's already open or close a door that's already closed.

I don't see how any of this can be tested. My thoughts and feelings just happen and I may or may not be mindful of them and I can try as my might to do differently but my trying or not trying will have zero effect either way. The only thing that trying does is stress me out by expecting results from trying to control the uncontrollable. One cannot will the will itself when the will itself is already willed.

I really struggle at explaining this stuff.

Religious or spiritual or mystical bullshit this guy believed aside... this makes more sense to me than mindfulness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choiceless_awareness

That's more akin to how I experience my world.

[masterofpuppets]

Religion can't even explain the answers it posits, while science at least can. In some sense the only answer you get from religion is actually "I don't know" hidden under a fancy supernatural wrapping.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see how it's possible to approach emotions objectively or to control one's will by willpower at all. I don't see how it make sense without free will and I don't see how free will makes sense either.

That doesn't mean it's pseudoscientific. That means you don't see how it's possible. There's a difference.

The problem many people have with understanding things like mindfulness is, in my opinion, the fact that those sorts of mental experiences are ineffable -- they have no words to describe them exactly, and we can only approach the experience with language tangentially. I don't know if that's the case with you.

In an odd irony, you kinda have to be willing to listen to your feelings in order to be able to let them go.

If it doesn't work for you, okay, it doesn't work for you. But calling it "pseudoscientific" by implication calls people who are able to use it -- myself included -- irrational. And I don't think that's the case, necessarily

The only thing that trying does is stress me out by expecting results from trying to control the uncontrollable. One cannot will the will itself when the will itself is already willed.

This is why I don't think you understand the process. It's not about controlling the feelings, at all. It's about observing them objectively, and understanding that while our emotions are a part of us, we are not our emotions.

---

Religion can't even explain the answers it posits, while science at least can. In some sense the only answer you get from religion is actually "I don't know" hidden under a fancy supernatural wrapping.

Exactly: God works in mysterious ways.