Former astronaut Julie Payette to be Canada's next governor general

Maybe it's time to relieve the religious of their tax exemption. Either that, or provide the same exemptions for atheists and others.

From 6079_Smith_W:

In case it isn't clear, my biggest criticism of Dawkins's work isn't that it is impolite (that's for those who are offended by our governor general telling it like it is) but that it is so dumb.

​Well, that's a cogent criticism. Dawkins is 'tone deaf' and his book is 'dumb'.

Pardon me for my chuckle. 'Tone deaf' is a term like 'gaffe'. It's used by those who don't have an argument, but wish to disparage something. As far as calling something 'dumb', that is just plain childish.

In fact it was a book that stimulated an enormous amount of debate. Dawkins was defended by PZ Myers, a professor of biology. courtesy Wikipedia 'The Courtier's Reply:

American Professor of Biology PZ Myers coined the term Courtier's Reply in a December 2006 entry on his blog, Pharyngula. Myers was reacting to some of the criticism leveled at the 2006 book The God Delusion, in which author Richard Dawkins argues against the existence of a supernatural creator. Critics argued that Dawkins' lack of qualifications in philosophy or theology called into question a number of his arguments. Myers responded to this criticism by making an analogy, comparing Dawkins to the boy at the end of the fable The Emperor's New Clothes, who is the only reasonable voice that recognizes the Emperor is naked. Myers satirized the aforementioned critics as follows:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat.

We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

​In any case, no one has to take my word for it. Go to the library, or a book store and pick it up. Then you can decide whether it's dumb.

Quote:

No, I don't think as many would have complained because references to god aren't as threatening to as many people. We are used to hearing that stuff every time they play the anthem.

That just means that 2000 years later, they've finally just worn us down.

But religions don't mince their words.  If you don't believe as they do, you're wrong and foolish and will suffer an eternity of unholy torment in a lake of fire.

The good news is that "the Good News" isn't mocking atheists, just warning them.

Beats me.  You're the one suggesting this is all just too horrible for words because "mocking".  And I was actually suggesting there's no real difference.

Quote:

I doubt you would be commending her for mocking people if you were one of them.

And I doubt you'd really be so worried about her mocking them if you weren't.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I doubt you would be commending her for mocking people if you were one of them.

And I doubt you'd really be so worried about her mocking them if you weren't.

 

No need to question people's allegiances.

There are also doctrinaire types who also think she should just keep her mouth shut (again, something Urback said she thought was a good idea); not just religious people. Just as their are religious people who think what she said was entirely in order and consider the notion that it is an insult to be ridiculous.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Beats me.  You're the one suggesting this is all just too horrible for words because "mocking".  And I was actually suggesting there's no real difference.

Strawman argument. I haven't suggested it is "horrible", just that it is something the Governor General shouldn't do because it is counter to her job description. I think it is an isolated incident that won't happen again. If it does happen again it would be an indication to me that she isn't willing to the the job she was appointed to do and is very well paid to do.

You know Rev, the thing about telling people they should read something and make up their own minds about it is that you need to recognize that some aren't going to see it your way, and that your perspective is not the only valid one. It isn't the case that if we all read it enough times we would agree with you. And I am not the only person who has found Dawkins's arguments off-base and lacking in substance, and in some cases bigoted and (in the case of his meme theory) absurd.

What makes it not scholarly isn't only that his field isn't religious studies, or history, or psychology, but that he obviously didn't study his subject matter, and in fact bragged about it. As for his philosophy doctorate I am torn between thinking that he should have known better, and that it might explain why his arguments are so divorced from reality.

And I didn't suggest anything; I said clearly it was a response to someone implying I thought he was too insulting; it didn't require a lecture. What I didn't say is that I know ahead of time that neither of us is likely to convince the other, so it is a pointless exercise I'm not really interested in.

Perhaps you should just accept that some of us don't agree with him. I'm not trying to tell you what to think.

Funny, in a reverse way some of these dogmatic anti-theist argument remind me of the outrage against Payette and the refusal to recognize either the context (at a science conference), or the rhetorical nature of the point she was making. Part of the reason why I like Michael Coren's refreshing response as an illustration that theists and atheists alike can think for themselves, appreciate nuance, and not be at each others' throats. In fact a great number on both sides want no part of this stupid fight.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Funny, in a reverse way some of these dogmatic anti-theist argument remind me of the outrage against Payette and the refusal to recognize either the context (at a science conference), or the rhetorical nature of the point she was making.

Of course she made the mistake because she was at a science conference. She forgot that she can't just speak as a scientist at public events she must also realize that she is speaking as Governor General at all times when in public. Had she been speaking at a higher profile event, or had it been during a slow newsweek, there would have been more outrage. As it is I think it has pretty much flown under the radar. That to me is evidence of how mainstream atheism has become in Canada.

Of course it was rhetorical. Isn't everything in a speech rhetorical in nature unless you are trying to rev. up the crowd?

Pondering wrote:

So according to you EVERYONE who believed God created mankind, even though evolution, is a Creationist and mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them.

We went over this upthread, so I'll keep it concise: Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicating organisms. If you believe God directed the outcome and just made it look random, you're a creationist, even if not the six-day variety.

I certainly don't believe mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them. I do like it to be allowed, though, and nothing in the GG's job description says her speech violated it. If you think the flurry of editorials, panel discussions, and incensed declarations about this speech was so small that it proves the 5% of Canadians who are atheist are now "mainstream", we live in pretty different worlds.

In theory I agree.

In practical terms I look at it more through the way it actually rose to prominence, which is as a tactic of the religious right to force religion into schools after the courts stopped them.

Because although there are older versions of it, it sure isn't what they were pushing until it was the only option they had on the table. After all, any less dogmatic believers who just left that question up to mystery, or unanswered sure as hell weren't pushing to have god-driven evolution taught in school.

That, more than anything, is why I have no problem with Payette's comments. Whether she indended it or not,  it isn't just a defense of evolution; it is a defense of secular education.

cco wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So according to you EVERYONE who believed God created mankind, even though evolution, is a Creationist and mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them.

We went over this upthread, so I'll keep it concise: Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicating organisms. If you believe God directed the outcome and just made it look random, you're a creationist, even if not the six-day variety.

I certainly don't believe mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them. I do like it to be allowed, though, and nothing in the GG's job description says her speech violated it. If you think the flurry of editorials, panel discussions, and incensed declarations about this speech was so small that it proves the 5% of Canadians who are atheist are now "mainstream", we live in pretty different worlds.

I just quoted statistics that said 80% of Canadians would vote for an atheist. Here are some more statistics.

In 2011, a survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid showed that 47% of the Canadian population believed religion does more harm in the world than good, while 64% believed that religion provides more questions than answers.[4] A 2008 Canadian Press Harris-Decima telephone survey of just over 1,000 Canadians found 23% were willing to state they do not believe in any god.[5]

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

The GGs job is to unite Canadians and represent us diplomatically. Mocking some Canadians is not unifying. The job description isn't going to specify "not mocking" or "not swearing" or "not insulting the Queen".  If you look at the chart on that page irreligion is growing very fast. We are winning the battle against religion. In my opinion we are winning because we rely on science and education not intimidation, brainwashing and insults.

If the GG mocked gays or trans people I don't think you would be okay with that. I think you would be saying the GG shouldn't be mocking Canadians regardless of their status.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That, more than anything, is why I have no problem with Payette's comments. Whether she indended it or not,  it isn't just a defense of evolution; it is a defense of secular education.

Mocking people isn't a defence of evolution or secular education. It's a declaration of failure.

Quote:

Is that because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?

Is that a false binary, or a false dichotomy?

Do we mock "flat earth" folk because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?  Please don't pretend you stop and listen when a flat-earther speaks.

How about Obama birthers?  Anti-vaxxers?  Those Queen St. goths who believe, in their "unbeating heart" of hearts that they're really a "vampire"?  Where can we draw the line where we really just don't have to care any more about someone's feelings just because they really believe something?

Sure, except that Payette didn't give someone a verbal dressing down in public, it was an honest statement to a science audience about acceptance of evidence .

I think the "mocking" charge is something spun by extremists on both sides of this and accepted by others without actually considering what she was saying and where. I am in the camp that doesn't see it as mocking at all.

Yes, that what lots of people seem to be reading into it, is my meaning.

Personally I don't think people who simply believe that deserve to be mocked, and I don't see that as her intent. She was talking in general terms about these attitudes undermining evidence-based understanding, with damaging results.

As for those who get all righteous about it and choose to be offended... they are the ones who can have a second helping as far as I am concerned, because they are the ones pushing it in schools, along with pushing the rest of their values on other people.

Coren actually said she was being unfair in comparing religious believers to horoscope followers. I expect he was joking and not joking, but really, most horoscope believers are also benign enough too. Really, it wouldn't be an issue except for those who push it on others and into public policy.

Ultimately, it is an issue of values and how far people push them, not theism. Plenty of climate deniers do so simply because of greed, and plenty of those who opt for treatments that don't work do so because of a mistrust of the medical system.

Good.

Let's have much more of this!

And FWIW I attend church. 

A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page

Attempts by proponents of ‘intelligent design’ to save German paleontologist Günter Bechly’s entry backfires, highlighting how Wikipedia struggles to keep scientific content clean of politics
 

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/1.823247

That's even a better solution Smith

Only his Engish language page was deleted.

https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia...

The following new taxa were named after Günter Bechly:

• Bechlyidae Jarzembowski & Nel, 2002 (monotypic family of the Upper Carboniferous Protozygoptera)
• Bechlya ericrobinsoni Jarzembowski & Nel, 2002 (oldest damselfly from the Upper Carboniferous of England)
• Gorgopsidis bechlyi Wunderlich, 2004 (Baltic amber jumping spider ).
• Colossocossus bechlyi Menon & Heads, 2005 (giant cicada from the Crato formation).
• Protobaetisca bechlyi Staniczek, 2007 ( Mayfly from the Crato Formation).
• Carventus bechlyi Heiss & Poinar, 2012 (bark bug from Dominican amber)
• Cretevania bechlyi Jennings, JT, Krogman , L. & Mew, SL, 2013 (Burmese Amber Wasp)

Read the page. There is no valid excuse for censoring this information.

Quote:

I don't see any reason to not care about someone's feelings unless they have deliberately harmed another person.

I doubt I'd mock someone who avoids a black cat, or doesn't schedule something important on Friday the 13th.

But while perhaps not directly, I think that silly-ass creationism nonsense (and the silly-ass 'birther' movement, and the silly-ass anti-vax movement) DO harm.  Promoting them does harm.  It's as "neutral" or "non-partisan" as saying "But can mere humans really change the climate?  Watch this YT video just to make sure you've got all the information".

I can't thank Payette enough for her dead-0n comments.

This is gobbeldygook religion and the medical staff should have had the right to overrule her.

Jehovah's Witness 'within rights' to refuse blood transfusion

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42002996

In theory, I don't have a problem with an adult individual JW refusing treatment. In practice, the JWs have "committees" that go to hospitals and threaten their members with eternal damnation should they accept treatment (refuse to commit suicide), which, somewhat ironically, is exactly the situation the religious right was freaking out about when the assisted dying bill was being debated. There's also the issue of JW parents blocking their infants from receiving treatment. But at least they helped give us the Charter, establishing the freedom of every religion to rack up its own body count.

I thought I was doing exactly that. She has the right to refuse treatment, and I'm a supporter of the right to suicide, as well. I'm less keen on the JWs coercing their members to do so. In my ideal world, those committee members would be charged under this section, but I'm sure they'd have an ironclad Charter defense that counselling suicide is okay so long as it's religious counselling.

Quote:

which, somewhat ironically, is exactly the situation the religious right was freaking out about when the assisted dying bill was being debated.

I support this woman's right to make her own choices.  And realistically, sometimes refusing established treatments IS tantamount to suicide (and I still support it).

But I'm glad that cco mentioned this, because he's right.  Isn't that one of the big "problems" with assisted suicide?  The family members (who want their inheritance now) or the hospital boards (who could save a thousand dollars) or the public (who find sick people uncomfortable) pressuring someone to end it?

Ya, it is kind of funny that a religion could mobilize some troops to visit a sick person and urge them -- on pain of hellfire and brimstone -- to make the "right" choice, but we shouldn't worry about that?

Speaking just for me, I don't know anything about this particular woman's situation and I'm not alleging anything.

I also don't disbelieve cco when he talks about JWs pressuring members to refuse life-saving treatment, and the obvious analogies between that and the "death panels" that so many folk assume will be deciding who lives and who dies (or, less formally, the greedy inheritors who will surely 'pressure' Grandma to end it so they can inherit her Hummel figurines).