Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Richard Dawkins on persuasion


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

Well he has never persuaded me, and I have letters after my name too.

The problem with him is he doesnt and wont question the underlying assumptions in his world view.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Well he has never persuaded me, and I have letters after my name too.

The problem with him is he doesnt and wont question the underlying assumptions in his world view.

You haven't persuaded me either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkies is too argumentative to ever be persuasive, regardless of his claims ...

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that he feels it necessary to persuade those who don't agree with him. Rather than accept that there may be people that don't agree with his views on life, the universe and everything. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's an evolutionary biologist, and approaches his viewpoints from this perspective. His claims and arguements are based on this and can be backed up by real science.. unlike the majority of his opponents.He's just stating facts. Facts people dont find warm and fuzzy enough for them..

this next video there is some colorful language :ph34r: viewer discresion advised!

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might not agree with everything he says, but I really admire his sarcasm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Notice that he feels it necessary to persuade those who don't agree with him. Rather than accept that there may be people that don't agree with his views on life, the universe and everything. 

I think he sees the horrors that fundamentalism has wrought with all the terrorism and such, and he wants to try and do something about it. 

He figures if he can be persuasive, maybe he might turn some minds away from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

I think he sees the horrors that fundamentalism has wrought with all the terrorism and such, and he wants to try and do something about it. 

He figures if he can be persuasive, maybe he might turn some minds away from it. 

That's the funny thing, he's so hot on criticizing religion for evangelism and wanting to convert people, but that's just what he always does himself. In fact he's more evangelical than anyone outside those pay per view TV channels with those televangelists that Mike Pence probably subscribes to.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

That's the funny thing, he's so hot on criticizing religion for evangelism and wanting to convert people, but that's just what he always does himself. In fact he's more evangelical than anyone outside those pay per view TV channels with those televangelists that Mike Pence probably subscribes to.  

It's like you just didn't even read what I said at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

It's like you just didn't even read what I said at all. 

 

Yes I did, you said

Quote

 

I think he sees the horrors that fundamentalism has wrought with all the terrorism and such, and he wants to try and do something about it. 

He figures if he can be persuasive, maybe he might turn some minds away from it. .

 

Look, there it is,there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

That's the funny thing, he's so hot on criticizing religion for evangelism and wanting to convert people, but that's just what he always does himself. In fact he's more evangelical than anyone outside those pay per view TV channels with those televangelists that Mike Pence probably subscribes to.  

He can support his arguements. This is where the difference lies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those love letters are so touching. Lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time he 'wins' an argument in my observation is when he debates against something as dumb as a box of rocks. As for more challenging debaters, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The only time he 'wins' an argument in my observation is when he debates against something as dumb as a box of rocks. As for more challenging debaters, no.

Oh don't be bitter now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, khol said:

He can support his arguements. This is where the difference lies. 

What with? The sheer power of his relentlessly voiced opinions, over and over and over again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChaosRose said:

Oh don't be bitter now.

I seriously don't get it. Bitter about what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

What with? The sheer power of his relentlessly voiced opinions, over and over and over again? 

That winning accent and his distinguished good looks, of course!

He just oozes intellectualism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

What with? The sheer power of his relentlessly voiced opinions, over and over and over again? 

Tangible things like fossil records and microscopes.Oh and lets not forget simple logic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The only time he 'wins' an argument in my observation is when he debates against something as dumb as a box of rocks. As for more challenging debaters, no.

I dont condone the labeling on the video i posted.. " dumb as a bunch of rocks"  Everyone has a right to believe what they want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, khol said:

Tangible things like fossil records and microscopes.Oh and lets not forget simple logic

I figured since we're throwing all that out the window since facts don't matter anymore, I'd point out his personal charisma. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it sinister to attempt to persuade a flat Earther otherwise? 

Just because he's an atheist, that doesn't mean he isn't doing a service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, khol said:

I dont condone the labeling on the video i posted.. " dumb as a bunch of rocks"  Everyone has a right to believe what they want

Even if it's dumb. 

That said, they shouldn't assume that no one will ever come around and tell them so.

It would be a disservice not to. 

I wonder if people believe that God wants them to be stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, while Professor Dawkins is the cat's pyjamas in explaining evolutionary biology, I don't think he is remarkably "persuasive," if by that you mean "somebody who disagrees with him changes their mind as a result of encountering his advocacy."

It seems to me those who disagree with him tend to continue disagreeing with him. I suppose it is some accomplishment that those who agree with him usually continue to do so.

While I appreciate Manfred's point, I do think it's OK to try to persuade (say) anti-vaccination parents to vaccinate their children. If somebody were serious about changing minds and behavior on science topics, then IMO Tali Sharot offers a more promising example than Richard Dawkins.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

In all seriousness, while Professor Dawkins is the cat's pyjamas in explaining evolutionary biology, I don't think he is remarkably "persuasive," if by that you mean "somebody who disagrees with him changes their mind as a result of encountering his advocacy."

It seems to me those who disagree with him tend to continue disagreeing with him. I suppose it is some accomplishment that those who agree with him usually continue to do so.

While I appreciate Manfred's point, I do think it's OK to try to persuade (say) anti-vaccination parents to vaccinate their children. If somebody were serious about changing minds and behavior on science topics, then IMO Tali Sharot offers a more promising example than Richard Dawkins.

 

 

He probably knows he won't convince the person he's debating.

He's going for other people who might listen, and the debate gives him a platform.

And he doesn't have to convince people to be atheists. I don't think that's really his goal.

He might sow enough doubt so that they don't fall down the fundamentalist/Young Earth Creationist trap.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.