While we are using anecdotal evidence (but muh scientific atheism), I also presume that not that many of your hires are African Americans, mestizos, or full-blooded American Indians even accounting for proportion of population.
Yes, its laughable to use hate mail as any sort of barometer of public opinion considering the sort of people who are angry or upset enough to actually go through the entire bothersome process of composing a letter and mailing it are already not representative of the population at large. Its like thinking YouTube comments are accurate barometers of public opinion in which case the vast majority of our populations are 13 year old Nazis with a penchant for calling each other “gay”.
Dawkins did not said that, so that is a strawman; and even you made that clear in the OP, Dawkins was referring to the almost majority, indeed still a minority that is however the one driving the ship of congress and limiting what science is recommending that we should do.
Indeed, they are supposed to be the minority, but they are being elected and doing harm in congress and other positions of power, what we need to concentrate is to figure out why is that we are letting that happen.
[QUOTE=Urbanredneck]
AND the man uses those letters to be the foundation of his argument that all Americans are “moronic creationists” that hate science and can somehow influence all government and private scientific research?
[/QUOTE]
Using hypebole to argue against hyperbole is like fucking for virginity.
Dawkins is wrong and he’s a dumb-ass when it comes to religion. It’s a classic example of ad hominem + association fallacy. There is absolutely no proof that religion holds back science. There may be a few minor areas (like the aforementioned stem cell research) that are slowed but I’ve given examples of non-religious (even anti-religious) groups that hold back science.
There are plenty of examples of American Christians doing great work in science. Edward Morley was a preacher during his life. Francis Collins is instrumental in the human genome project. How does Dawkins explain the success of the Jewish scientists?
If someone wants to make a strong statement like Dawkins he better back it up with some decent facts. Until then he’s a dumb-ass.
Isn’t that kind of the point, though? One piece of moronic hate mail may just be one irrelevant hateful moron, but a thousand such (!) suggests that there may be a substantially larger population that has similar ideas, but does not bother to write. Lots of people in public or semi-public roles apply a similar rough calculus, like a Congressman inferring the mood of X% of hisconstituents based on a relative handful of communications.
Youtube comments are vastly easier than actual letters.
Wrong on the first one. I think wrong on the second (I’m not sure what that means around here.) I’ve never turned down a resume from the third class - I’ve never gotten one.
Others have already pointed out your strawman. But you should read up sometime on how legislators and TV programs react to letters.
He made this comment in books written before Internet comment areas made moronic comments an art form. Remember - back then people had to actually write letters.
I have no idea of the count - but it was enough to inspire him to write several books explaining evolution in a way that directly addressed their misconceptions.
Dawkins will be in Kansas City tomorrowto give a speech and sell his books at Unity on the Plaza church. Tickets are $250 for VIP (means you get to shake his hand and eat a cookie with him) or $30 general admission. Price includes an autographed copy of his latest book. The building holds 1200 people.
Except his style of humor is that he’s always telling what he thinks is the truth. There is no “I’m just kidding” defense, as he says what he means. I’m perfectly capable of finding that stuff funny. I even admitted that I find some of his stuff funny.
But he also has some repugnant views, and it comes out in his show all the time. His reason for hating religion comes from a place of bigotry. He doesn’t remotely act like someone who cares about anyone other than himself.
And because I don’t want to make a second post: Yes, he isn’t just in it for the jokes. But he is in it for himself. He brings guests on to attack them. He flat out said he gave money to Obama because he was worried about losing his own money in another financial crisis.
He’s just a shitty human being who gets off because he’s on the “right side” and because he can sometimes make people laugh.
Well this thread is about Richard Dawkins and not Bill Maher but since you’ve made those statements about Maher I think they require comment.
Maher is someone who, in the tradition of Jon Stewart and many others, uses humor to reveal truths and expose hypocrites and idiots and helps to enlighten us all, sometimes with well-researched facts that we might not otherwise have known. I can understand why some don’t like him – his political opponents certainly don’t like him because he’s forceful and effective, and many don’t like him just because he’s abrasive – his humor tends toward the sharply sarcastic and sometimes politically incorrect.
And yes, “I’m just kidding” is a defense because it’s obvious when he’s just kidding, though he sometimes actually comes out and says so to placate the nervous PC types. Like the “New Rules” segment at the end of his show. Show me someone who believes that “New Rules” means that Bill Maher is trying to impose a new system of laws! “New Rules” is a comedic segment that uses humor to illustrate the follies of the politics and culture of our times. The only people who should be offended are the idiots that it parodies, who deserve it – wherever they may be on the political spectrum.
And you couldn’t be more wrong about the guests – “He brings guests on to attack them” – by “them” I presume you mean religious types. Whatever it is you mean, Maher constantly brings on guests with different or entirely opposite points of view to his own. That’s what makes the damn show interesting! Not long ago Rick Santorum was the featured interview. Some time before it was Mike Huckabee. There’s almost always at least one conservative panelist or special guest. Not long ago Steve Schmidt, a Republican Party strategist, and conservative pundit Mary Matalin were two of the three main panelists, and poor old Democrat Gavin Newsome was on his own. And not long after Mike Huckabee was on, BTW, Maher had as his special guest Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun whose religion inspired her to become an advocate against the death penalty (her story was the basis for the movie Dead Man Walking) with whom he had a wonderful and respectful interview.
I can only think that you need to watch the show more before commenting on it, because the claims you’re making just make no sense to me.
If you want to see Maher “almost” get religion, see his interview with Sister Helen Prejean (she of the Dead Man Walking movie). She was fantastic, and Maher was a wee bit humbled. He can make common cause with someone like her.
This was only a few weeks ago, but I don’t remember when.
Nonsense is perhaps an overly emotive term, but I am unaware of any religion which does not require it’s adherents to believe some things which are, at the very least, not justified by the evidence. If one exists, I would question using the label of ‘religion’ rather than, for example ‘philosophy’ or ‘culture’.
So? Some scientists believe things for which there is no evidence, such as the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis. And they accepted for the basis of thought/experiment other things, phlogiston for example, luminiferous aether, etc.
