It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, Phil says in response.
He could choose to be dishonest and dismissive, as he was with me.
He could address it fairly and actually participate in the discussion he claims is long overdue.
...Or, he could ignore it.
I know some people are sick of the subject and that's understandable, but I'll be making at least one more post on this subject - and I'm pretty sure that won't be enough. This entire fiasco has simply demonstrated the schism that I've been talking about for more than a year and it's unlikely to go away without some sort of resolution.
I would say that the time to stop talking about it would be when it's not a problem anymore.ReplyDelete
Now that's a clever title!ReplyDelete
I hope he responds and that it's a far more honest and well reasoned response than he gave the first time, wherein he betrayed himself and the reputation he has.ReplyDelete
Which would be better late than never, right?
Or maybe he just doesn't want to admit he was a dick =P
Have you read John W. Loftus's post about this?
In case anyone missed it, Richard Dawkins posted a comment to Jerry Coyne's post. It's comment #29ReplyDelete
I read Loftus' post. As far as I can tell, he agreed with and made almost every point that I made - without ever reading what I wrote.ReplyDelete
(...feeling mildly squeamish after googling "Prince Albert"; warning: there are visuals in the wiki link)ReplyDelete
I've been enjoying reading about this whole brouhaha-- glad to know that other people had a similar reaction to Phil's speech that I had. I do hope you bring this up on the next show.
Richard Dawkins also linked to Jerry's Blog, and his is the first comment below the link. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/503892-are-we-phalluses?page=1
John W. Loftus was a former believer like you and has a couple of books out on athiesm: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/my-conversiondeconversion-story.html He might make a great guest for your show.
I think the former true believers make some of the very best skeptics.
Hey, there's some old responses of Martin Wagner in the John W. Loftus page I linked. And they are very good too... (even though he was responding to a dick. ha!)ReplyDelete
Leave it to Dawkins to point out something that I completely agree with yet hadn't been raised properly yet in regard to this fiasco.ReplyDelete
Listening to such ridicule, and reading it, is one of the great joys life has to offer.
This is so true. But I'm sure some people will see it as him condoning rudeness but it's more than that. A well constructed and properly directed snipe is a useful and sometimes appropriate tool in anyones arsenol.
I have to wonder why there's this apparent reflex to try to appease people who will never be on board with you. We see the democratic government doing it constantly, looking like insincere morons while they do it. And now we see Skeptics bigwigs are willing to bad mouth the dire dedicated skeptics and alienate them in an attempt to soften the gullible theist or newager. Why? "Hey you're behind us 100%, FUCK YOU! We want that guy with the tin foil on his head banging his skull against the fence. that's where real skepticism is!"ReplyDelete
Yes I know the whole point is education and all that, but it seems like the message being sent is "Question everything, be skeptical...but you atheists STOP QUESTIONING AND BEING SKEPTICAL."
Is this the 2010, new age version of "putting the screws" to someone?ReplyDelete
I think Phil will scream "ALRIGHT ALRIGHT!!!" soon enough...