Richard Dawkins and his "hate mail"..

[Anatta]

Kia Ora,

I had to smile when I watched this... 

http://www.good.is/post/intermission-richard-dawkins-reads-his-hate-mail/

WARNING... IT CONTAINS FOUL LANGUAGE

"Hypocrisy it would seem is the homage that vice pays to virtue  !"

Metta Zenda

[justmeinoz]

Personally I think he would get a better hearing if he wasn't so sanctimoniously rude about any opinion other than his own. He comes across as just downright rude.

Karen.

[VeryGnawty]

Personally I think he would get a better hearing if he wasn't so sanctimoniously rude about any opinion other than his own. He comes across as just downright rude.

Dawkins is quite mild compared to many atheists I've seen.  It is actually a very wise tactic.  Since believers almost always reject logical arguments in favor of appeals to emotion, it is strategic for atheists to play on people's emotions when discussing religion.

[Anatta]

Kia Ora,

What I find interesting is the similarities between the "hatred" many religious people feel towards atheists[and towards those of different religions or spiritual beliefs to their own] and how it coincides with their feelings towards trans-people...

Hatred and bigotry is based upon "ignorance" which leads to a very narrow view of the world and it would seem Richard Dawkins was/is just pointing this out...

When it comes to the comments just substitute the word "transgender/transsexual" for "atheist" it's not hard to imagine...

I personally find the hate mailers comments absolutely "Religulous"  ...

Metta Zenda

[Amaranth]

Dawkins is quite mild compared to many atheists I've seen.  It is actually a very wise tactic.  Since believers almost always reject logical arguments in favor of appeals to emotion, it is strategic for atheists to play on people's emotions when discussing religion.

True, but isn't the point of arguing with logic fueled by the idea of it being more reliable than appeals to emotion?  I personally wouldn't use the same tactic against believers that, when used by them, I call a fallacy.

[VeryGnawty]

True, but isn't the point of arguing with logic fueled by the idea of it being more reliable than appeals to emotion?

Many believers have an impenetrable shield against logic.  If you are going to reach them, you are going to have to pull out some of the dirty weapons.

[Padma]

People get their sense of security out of a rigid sense of identity - and collectively, out of a sense of in- or out-of-the-tribe. It takes a lot of guts to be uncertain. And a lot of love.

[tekla]

You can't use logic or reason to change beliefs that were not entered into via logic or reason.

[BunnyBee]

Set beliefs, like opinions, can't be changed anyway, whether logic got them there or not.

[Amaranth]

Many believers have an impenetrable shield against logic.  If you are going to reach them, you are going to have to pull out some of the dirty weapons.

When I argue about atheism and belief, I only present logic.  If reaching people with a "logic shield" is what I'm going for, your strategy would be better...but generally, when I realize I'm talking to someone like that, I stop arguing with a "this isn't worth my time" attitude.