This statement doesn’t really demonstrate anything other than the power of pride and ego.

Only “many” hands went up when the truth is that EVERYONE has -at one time or another- believed in at least a few things that were actually complete bullshit. Religion is an obvious one (to atheists). But even if one looks at the history of science and medicine, you can spot examples of how entire populations can be lead to believe in (honestly held) theories that will later be dis-proven. The “experts” told them it was true, so they believed it. The human ego gets selective amnesia in such cases where wrongness can be blame it on somebody else. (See: WMD)

By not raising their hands, some members of the audience refused to admit they have changed their minds on anything or ever believed in something that wasn’t true. This itself is either a delusional fantasy, act of denial, or stems from a desire not to publicly admit being wrong.

This is where “the hands went down” when asked if “changing their mind as a result of being called stupid or retarded” comes into play. Few human beings, even the overtly stupid or retarded, will admit that being called stupid helped them rethink their positions. First, that would risk publicly admitting that they were stupid. Second, it would provide evidence of a permanent condition, as (adult) stupidity is generally regarded as a permanent condition.

In such a situation, to be honest is to show signs of weakness both to yourself and to the group.

As for attacking the intelligence of those holding differing/incorrect views, being called stupid may very well cause people to re-fortify their position, to dig in and resist accepting the label of weakness. However, being proven to be stupid provides an instant reversal of position. Reformed smokers are often the most ardent anti-smokers. So while it may not work consistently, it can pay off when it does work.

But quite frankly, (and unfortunately) this is the most effective way to convert people to atheism.

Attractive people make the most attractive arguments in our society, don’t you know?

The same thing goes for aggression, in the comments on another blog post a few atheists actually said aggressive criticism was a positive force in getting them to change their mind. I don’t know whether we’re freaks or not, but when someone argues something sometimes it’s fitting for them to show emotion, and that sometimes helps.

I think mockery works, it’s the only defence we have against absurdity. If something you believe is ridiculous, and it gets mocked, I think that’s pretty persuasive for you to stop believing it. It doesn’t work for everyone, or everything, but I think healthy mockery at least attacks the notion that people’s beliefs should be respected. Sacred cows need to be mocked.

I seriously have no idea how people can criticize Dawkins for his tone or for “insults”. Give me a break, I can see your fake tears from here.

He asks the audience how many of us changed our minds because someone called us stupid, ignorant, retarded, etc.
The hands went down.

That was a sneaky trick — a psychological game.

No one likes to be called stupid, so of course no one was going to agree to it. That might invite someone to disagree with them vigorously! No one likes to get “F”s on their exams, either, and I have had many students complain that they didn’t learn anything from having their knowledge harshly evaluated. Should I stop judging them?

It’s also sneaky because there isn’t anyone out there who simply calls people “stupid, ignorant, retarded”. I call straw man.

Actually it’s not insults and name calling and mocking that bothers me, that is just childishness on both sides. No, the thing that irks me is when we put words in people’s mouths, when we say “YOU think this” or “you are not really upset with the tone, you are upset by the message” again, putting words and thoughts into people’s mouths. “this is what YOU think and this is why you are wrong.” That has got to be the most insulting thing you can possibly say to someone. It is not listening, it is saying “I know what you are thinking” as if we are mind readers.

I don’t know exactly what logical fallacy that is, a bit of straw man perhaps, a bit of something else.

I don’t only hold atheists accountable for that, theists do it too. I am reading over Mere Christianity, and Lewis does it too throughout the book, and it pisses me off every time. “If I say this then you would say this” no Lewis, I would not say that.

So no, being rude, putting words in people’s mouths, having the audacity to tell them why they are upset instead of listening to them. That doesn’t help, it smacks of two prideful people bumping heads, which only further entrenches them. Once you get someone’s pride their defense mechanisms kick in.

But like I said, Sagan was much better, not nearly as rude and didn’t tell people what they think, and he is who got through to me. Not Dawkins, not any rude jerks that I knew. But the quiet insistence of Sagan to keep looking.

For instance Revenge of the Nerds still makes fun of nerds and they are all stereotypes. But Big Bang Theory is, at most, nerds laughing at themselves. All the writers are nerds If you go to Wil Wheaton’s blog and search all his posts on the Big Bang Theory you’ll find lots of background info and discussion about what the show is about, plus links to even more!

My credulous acceptance of these things was challenged in less-than-kind terms.

Did I like that? No!

Did it make me re-examine the basis for accepting them? Sure did!

I am always thankful for that. I needed a shock to step outside my mindset, and I got one.

I hang out at reddit, and the /r/atheism subreddit regularly sees posts from recent ex-theists pointing out that the less-than-accomodating tone there was an important factor in their really examining their beliefs. Some say it made them mad, but they also say it made them think.

Clearly, for at least some people, “being nice” is not what it takes to make them really look at their beliefs. For some of us, a bit of confrontation is actually helpful.

As someone who’s spoken with several Christians, in public forums, over the past few years, I have to agree. The name-calling may make us feel superior, but it doesn’t help achieve the end goal.

Why are so many atheists/skeptics jerks? Phil explains part of it has to do with frustration, having to debunk the same stuff over and over and over… and we’re shocked that anyone could still believe it. There’s also anger, which can be a loaded weapon.

This is all nonsense.

People who proclaim delusional beliefs in our society are met with scorn and derision across the board. They may be good people, but if they believe that gravity operates by invisible demons operating a pulley system, then we laugh at them.

The one exception is belief in God. If it’s tied to religion, they get a “get out of mockery free” card. This needs to change before we can move forward as a society.

It doesn’t mean we should be mean to the people or that they are bad people, or that we should exclude them from our lives. Most theists are good people, and they were indoctrinated into a cult at a young age so in many cases it’s not their fault. But their crazy beliefs should not be exempt from mockery. In fact the mockery is the key to diminishing the hold religion has on our society.