1. Comment #177141 by MrEmpirical on May 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Pwned.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

2. Comment #177147 by Oppomystic on May 8, 2008 at 4:48 pm

The only time Dr. Dawkins yells is when his microphone is too loud...

Religious people need an intervention, and the only way to keep them in the room and agree to seek treatment is to speak calmly. If you yell, they leave. Unless you're yelling that you have the "stuff" they need for a fix, which is what Dinesh and Shmuley are peddling.

*edit* I watched the videos of Shmuley's speech and low and behold, he does shriek. He talks low, then raises his voice, then talks low, then shrieks. Just like the ole square-moustachio'd one himself. Oh, and he's ignorant about evolution and science in general, especially about monogamous geese in the natural world.

Other Comments by Oppomystic

3. Comment #177153 by DaysOfClark on May 8, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Is there a link to the initial comment from Richard regarding the comparison of Shmuley's shrieking?

Other Comments by DaysOfClark

4. Comment #177156 by Cartomancer on May 8, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Now that is comedy gold.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

5. Comment #177160 by HourglassMemory on May 8, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I coudln't have said it better myself.

I always got rather curious as to why people like D'Souza begin to raise their voice and start speaking to the crowd instead of the person they're debating (if they're debating).

I've recently watched a debate on Youtube with D'Souza and Peter Singer and everytime D'Souza came up, I would jump a bit of his speech, and you could actually notice the rising of his voice. Then it would end in cheers from the crowd.

People love that sort of stuff, I wouldn't blame them.
But I also appreciate that a debate or a talk on a subject should have more than 50% of its time, performed in a calm way. Actually if I could choose either format, I would go for the calm one. And just let the information sink in logically.

Shrieking means you're directing your speech to the crowd and want to arouse them enough to get a cheer to taunt the "adversary". This is usually done in the typical "I know more than you, Mr.xxx and I will indirectly do it with my loud voice, attempting to show the crowd authority and passionate well-thought out conviction" format.
I honestly find that rather childish.

I also have to say that this particular passage made me laugh.
"But throughout your speeches you periodically rise to climaxes of shrieking rant, and that is just like Hitler."
It's an innocent poke by Dawkins.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

6. Comment #177161 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Boteach is a genuine slimeball. See for instance this clip: Rabbi Shmuley - Idea City 2007 - Part 2

Other Comments by adonais

7. Comment #177163 by liddlefeesh on May 8, 2008 at 5:11 pm

This REALLY NEEDED to be said. Thank you, Professor!

Other Comments by liddlefeesh

8. Comment #177164 by Big City on May 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm

The letter by Boteach that Richard is responding to is extremely disheartening. It's whiney to a pathetic degree. It's very much like a little kid who gets flustered while pitching a fit and makes absolutely no point other than 'Oh no you didn't!'

Other Comments by Big City

9. Comment #177165 by Spinoza on May 8, 2008 at 5:14 pm

I'm actually rather impressed that Boteach admitted the following:

So here we are. You and I did debate. You lost that debate, which is no big deal because, as we both know, debates are more about entertainment than serious scholarship

Exaaaaaaaaaaaaactly.

Other Comments by Spinoza

10. Comment #177168 by liddlefeesh on May 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm

@Spinoza; lol, so Richard lost because Boteach was more entertaining in his eyes?

All these religious types do the same thing when given a microphone and a timeslot. The rythmic shouting, loud proclaimations, assertions and then slow. Slow. Heartfelt whisper, ascending to another proclaaaimation!!!

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned D'Souza yet. He's the biggest shouter of them all.

Other Comments by liddlefeesh

11. Comment #177169 by Wosret on May 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm

"Dear Shmuley. learn2properly form and deliver arguments and points. Stop screaming like a madman, and learn2read up on the things you plan on talking about. Pwnage from your friendly-internationally-known-atheist, RD."

This is exactly how it read to me. I'm just in that kind of mood tonight. PWNED!

(*Edit*) I see I wasn't the only one to get that impression.

Other Comments by Wosret

12. Comment #177170 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Once a month I meet a christian guy outside a book sale at 7 a.m. Almost always a person will have to wake and tell him to shut up because I mention religion and he starts this shrieking. I mean it is embarrassing. When people can't formulate an argument, or can't speak a foreign language louder is better. I'm stronger, ergo I'm right. I'm louder, I'm right. It is very Hitlerian and I will point this out to this jerk the next time I see him, of course the whole town will have to get up early on a Saturday.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #177172 by Spinoza on May 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Mitchell, you are confusing Prof. Dawkins with Prince?

Other Comments by Spinoza

14. Comment #177174 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Spinoza, was that the artist formerly know as "Prince" until he was not known as "Prince" but is now know as "Prince"?

Other Comments by Quine

15. Comment #177175 by Spinoza on May 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Prince Rogers Nelson. :)

... btw, a couple of the jokes Rabbi Shmuley told in the first youtube video were, as Richard acknowledged, quite good.

I laughed at the one about the wife coming home, checking the bed... and...

hehe... But that doesn't ameliorate the invective and ignorance ridden rant he works in and around the jokes...

Other Comments by Spinoza

16. Comment #177177 by AfraidToDie on May 8, 2008 at 5:40 pm

RD.."You have sensible things to say about sex and love, and you have no need to yell when you are talking sense."

Sorry, based on the clip link provided by adonais, Rabbi Shitly is wrong on sex too. When I see a hot looking female walk by, I know better than to make my wife feel bad by gawking; but come on, if you don't take a sly double take on an obvious physical attraction, then that's no different than putting on Catholic Priest attire and claiming to be holier than the common man; it's a charade. Sorry RD, he's wrong about "sex and love" too.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

17. Comment #177180 by Spinoza on May 8, 2008 at 5:41 pm

When I see a hot looking female walk by, I know better than to make my wife feel bad by gawking; but come on, if you don't take a sly double take on an obvious physical attraction, then that's no different than putting on Catholic Priest attire and claiming to be holier than the common man; it's a charade.

False.

Other Comments by Spinoza

18. Comment #177181 by Hypoluxa on May 8, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Well put Richard. Or maybe I should say well said....without the need for shrieking..

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

19. Comment #177182 by Shmeezers on May 8, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Dawkins is wrong. Dinesh does raise his voice (he is quite passionate), but it is nothing like Shmuley's rants. You should go see this guy sometimes; he talks a load of nonsense. That is certainly why he yells - an appeal to the audience's emotions. He really doesn't have anything good to say.

Other Comments by Shmeezers

20. Comment #177183 by Demotruk on May 8, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Damn Godwin's law. It seems to be that even justified or innocent use of Godwin's Law are becoming intolerable. I'm not sure who's fault that is though. On the one hand you've got groups like Scientology and ID who openly try to put the blame for the holocaust upon their opponents. And as a reaction to Godwin's law, "Hitler" has become a dirty word. You can't compare people to Hitler even in the most non-derogatory sense. People always end up having to apologise or explain the use of the word, I've seen this on Youtube and internet forums.

I've noticed that Richard Dawkins has done so when talking to Ted Haggard also, and seemingly in the same sense as this. But the word just stands out from a sentence. It makes the whole sentence sound like an attack, when really it's about oration(?), or in the case of Haggard, the energy of the crowd.

I don't know if this means people should go easy on the comparisons to Hitler, even the innocent ones, or not. It only seems to cause tension, but at the same time, by not saying it when it's appropriate, you're helping to establish a taboo...

Other Comments by Demotruk

21. Comment #177184 by AfraidToDie on May 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

17. Comment #177180 by Spinoza - False.

OK, you might be right about me being wrong (sounds like the making of a country song), but I'm still look'n, and I'm using genetics as my excuse :-)

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

22. Comment #177186 by zosky on May 8, 2008 at 5:56 pm

iagree with richard dawkins on his point. I noticed that the religious tend to yell their points at certain points which seems very comical to me. And like dawkins i have often wondered if that's the best they can do. Another classic is the appeal to emotions. Dinesh's trick of choice. I wonder how long these guys can continue to pretend that they actually believe the rubbish they are spewing. Really, such a double life is got to be driving them insane

Other Comments by zosky

23. Comment #177187 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Hitler had an excuse for his shrieking. He learned to give speeches on the top of beerhall tables with rowdy drunken morons making all kinds of noise. No microphones. I've listened to all his recorded speeches and I could just visualize the flying spit. What is Shmuley's excuse?

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #177188 by Spinoza on May 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm

AfraidToDie, I only meant that you oughtn't universalize or rationalize your behaviours as though any human being who does not appear think or act in a way you think is "natural" is somehow secretly doing it and is therefore guilty of pretentiousness.

By all means, use genetics as your excuse, but it's certainly not a moral vindication (as that is what the theists accuse atheists of doing, even in the face of Prof. Dawkins' rebuke of the infamous Dostoevsky quotation).

That said, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong (at all) with such behaviours so long as they are done honestly...

Just watch the hasty generalizations.

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #177194 by adk on May 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I would hate to be on the firing end of a letter like this. I wish I could write a letter as clearly as Dawkins wrote this one!

Other Comments by adk

26. Comment #177197 by DalaiDrivel on May 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Dawkins is searing and succinct to a T. Schmuley does need to be more educated.

Remember his shrieking in the Hitchens debate, arms outstretched in theatrical disbelief: "Where are the transitional fossils?!! Where are they?!!"

Of course, they are buried (a few), or permanently deteriorated and recycled by Earth's systems. They are not with Schmuley's head, buried up his ass, which must be his point of reference.

The understated delivery of this "friendly piece of advice" is a work of good comedy in itself, more satisfying for the reader than brash, forceful comedy, the sort which Schmuley would serve up, which would be best described as overcooked.

The intelligent among us would watch an exchange between Richard and Schmuley, and observe a vacuum in effect, created by polarities in delivery. On one side you experience a measured economy of both words and volume leaving ample space to comprehend or respond, and dense explosions of irrating inanity on the other. And we would surely all be waiting on Dawkins in equal fascination and desperation, our attention drawn to the vacuum, until Schmuley self-destructs or someone with controlled calm (or not) says, "Excuse me, but could you please just shut up now?" We are seeking equilibrium, I think, because I honestly doubt that Schmuley is leaving any space to absorb what others might be telling him, and there needs to be calm and concise delivery from all commentators if they wish to sincerely participate.

We need more intelligent people to address Schmuley and others like him on their stupidity. Stupid people may hopefully be able to recognise after a proper demonstration that Schmuley is merely as stupid as they are, be able to break their own spell if we haven't, and see that in fact other people truly worth listening to exist.

Henceforth, the blustering rantings of uneducated commentators will diffuse, and the vacuum derived from the disparity between the statements of the intelligent and the stupid will do the same.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

27. Comment #177203 by info_dump on May 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm

I know Richard is under no obligation here, but what about all the other points made in Shmuley's letter to which this was a response? There were several other points of interest (interesting to me at least), not to mention an open challenge to a debate.

Or is it best to just let this thing die at this point?

Other Comments by info_dump

28. Comment #177205 by EvidenceOnly on May 8, 2008 at 6:39 pm

It seems like most IDiots and GodDidIts have to raise their voice when uttering nonsense in order to hide their lack of intelligence and to appeal to the emotions of the ignorant.

Are Allistair McGrath and Ben Stein the only ones who deliver their nonsense in a monotonous voice that puts you to sleep?

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

29. Comment #177212 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I don't think Ben Stein debates, he preaches. If he was in a debate he would be just as shrill as the rest of them.

Other Comments by mordacious1

30. Comment #177214 by SmartLX on May 8, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Demotruk, with Haggard RD might have found a loophole or something in Godwin's Law: compare someone to the Nazis without them even realising it.

Haggard clearly didn't have a clue what a Nuremberg rally was. He only got mad and threw RD and his crew off the property because he perceived his congregation as being called animals (his own conclusion, if evolution were true).

Other Comments by SmartLX

31. Comment #177217 by steveroot on May 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm

21. Comment #177184 by AfraidToDie on May 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

17. Comment #177180 by Spinoza - False.

OK, you might be right about me being wrong (sounds like the making of a country song), but I'm still look'n, and I'm using genetics as my excuse :-)

Ancient Proverb: "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look at the menu" :-)
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

32. Comment #177218 by MillsianUtilitarian on May 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm

This reminds me of a debate I got in with my British Literature teacher at a Catholic High School. We were on the topic of Native Americans and I pointed out how I thought it was wrong the way we took their land and in the end 90% of them died due to us (despite much was from diseases we brought over and not direct murders).

He then started mocking me claiming that I am unpatriotic and I think we should have never come here to begin with. I said a true patriot disagrees with his country when he believes it is wrong rather than taking its side on everything, and indeed you are correct - I do think that we should have never come to this continent.

At that he started yelling his lungs out saying that Native Americans were brutal to each other so it didn't matter that we killed them. I sighed and pointed out calmly that two wrongs don't make a right and he almost exploded.

So yeah.. I know where Richard is coming from on this one. When people are wrong and they cannot defend themselves they flip out. That is why Bill O'reilly is a crazy freak while Keith Olbermann is calm and collected.

Other Comments by MillsianUtilitarian

33. Comment #177223 by Cartomancer on May 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Haggard clearly didn't have a clue what a Nuremberg rally was. He only got mad and threw RD and his crew off the property because he perceived his congregation as being called animals (his own conclusion, if evolution were true).

Well, either that or he had a slew of expensive rent boys coming round in the afternoon with a bucket of crystal meth and needed to get the film crew away as fast as possible.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

34. Comment #177224 by Damien White on May 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Religious people shriek when challenged because they are frightened. Unknowingly or unwillingly they respond to anyone pointing out the logical holes in their argument with terror. They are like children, hoping that the loudest voice will win the day and somehow become truth.

They need to remember that shouting and yelling until everyone gives up trying to talk sense to them does not constitute a victory.

Other Comments by Damien White

35. Comment #177229 by RichardPrins on May 8, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Other Comments by RichardPrins

36. Comment #177231 by barry21 on May 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Shmuley's screeching pales in comparison to his arrogance. He can't get through a paragraph without referring to his affiliation with "the world's greatest" this or the "most influential" that. It's embarrassing.

Other Comments by barry21

37. Comment #177233 by scottbly on May 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Am I the only one who sides with the politically correct on this?

There are ways to address the issue of someone debating emotionally rather than rationally without calling them hitler. Even if the comparison is right on the one aspect that RD points out, you cannot make the comparison without the other connotations that come with it. We all know that it sucks being unfairly lumped in with that genocidal hitler, so why make the same unfair comparisons. Golden rule anyone?

RD should apologize for the hitler comparison so any argument can get back to its roots instead of devolving into invective.

Other Comments by scottbly

38. Comment #177235 by flobear on May 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm

I think it's particularly poor taste to publicly compare a Rabbi to Hitler and I don't blame Shmuley for being upset. It's a common joke on the internet that to win any argument you only need to compare someone to Hitler. I know, I know, Richard didn't exactly say he held Hitlers opinions, but seriously this is still an ad hominem attack. I wish RD had simply apologized.

Other Comments by flobear

39. Comment #177242 by akado on May 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm

wow....o.o

Other Comments by akado

40. Comment #177243 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Richard

Permit me my opinion - while Boteach is clearly a self-serving, self-publicising chancer of the worst kind, your response to him here is an absolute disgrace.

You have neither properly defended yourself against his despicable intimation that you are anti-semite, nor have you attempted here to categorically denounce such shit-fuelled tactics he is no doubt prepared to use in the propagation of his immoral beliefs to encourage other, more vulnerable people to join his cult.

You may think that you have wisely kept to the issue you raised regarding Hitler and his decibels (which is absolutely on the money), but here is an instance when, I submit, you simply had to take this little fucker to task for the hideous, despicable and hateful associations of which he has disingenuously and viciously sought to make you a supporter.

If you were not prepared to hit back at this horrible little person's crap extremely hard, I think you should have simply said nothing. Your piece seems, stunningly, more like an apology to him.

Extremely poor show, sir.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

41. Comment #177251 by RightWingAtheist on May 8, 2008 at 8:31 pm

If Boteach can't hold himself in a formal debate without trying to win with anger, I think a Hitler reference is fair. That did seem to be a major part of Hitler's strategy. Boteach's character is exactly what Dawkins was objecting to, so yes, it was "ad hominem".

Hitchens also had to deal with Boteach's powderkeg personality. It went something like this...

Hitchens: The Jewish 'chosen people' claim was religious elitism, and added to hatred against them.
Boteach: The British Empire was elitist, and nobody hated them for it.
Hitchens: Lots of people hated the British.
Boteach: HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE HOLOCAUST!!!!!

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

42. Comment #177257 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Comment #177243 by Styrer

Permit me my opinion - while Boteach is clearly a self-serving, self-publicising chancer of the worst kind, your response to him here is an absolute disgrace.

Your opinion sucks. Scientists aren't in the business of pandering to demagogues who make their livelihood and fame off deceiving the public. Dawkins has dedicated decades of his life to educating the public, but people like Boteach and Stein et al repeatedly demonstrate themselves to be beyond educating. They can't be debated anymore than you can play chess with pigeons, since they evidently don't understand the rules ("they knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and fly back to their flock claiming victory"). For them, I have nothing but scorn and contempt, and I applaud it when they occasionally get it served to them in public. That's just my opinion of course.

Other Comments by adonais

43. Comment #177258 by robotaholic on May 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Botox is just upset because a world renown Rock Star told him off and embarrased him for screeching so much - he'll get over it

Other Comments by robotaholic

44. Comment #177270 by Louis Perry on May 8, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Bravo, Richard!

Beautifully, gently, and most entertainingly said!

Other Comments by Louis Perry

45. Comment #177282 by belcanto78 on May 8, 2008 at 9:14 pm

I'm afraid I need to play "Devil's advocate." It seems to me that, though Dawkins did not say that Boteach "thought like Hitler," isn't the very comparison to Hitler "poisoning the well"?

Other Comments by belcanto78

46. Comment #177287 by RightWingAtheist on May 8, 2008 at 9:24 pm

belcanto78 asked
>> isn't the very comparison to
>> Hitler "poisoning the well"?

The well was already full of night soil

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

47. Comment #177288 by jaemaree on May 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm

As for addressing the other points that Shmuley made, I suspect the lack of attention to them is a basic nod to us and any other informed person is to check the evidence. :) If Professor Dawkins were to reiterate his initial points or call for exact URLs again, perhaps he'd sound like Boteach.

Other Comments by jaemaree

48. Comment #177289 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Comment #177257 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Your opinion sucks. Scientists aren't in the business of pandering to demagogues who make their livelihood and fame off deceiving the public. Dawkins has dedicated decades of his life to educating the public, but people like Boteach and Stein et al repeatedly demonstrate themselves to be beyond educating.

Quite so. And so why, my dear Adonais, did Richard deign to make so much as a bleat of a response to one such vacuous, half-witted, self-inflating faithoholic as Shmuley?

And why, while he was about it, did Richard not seek to condemn beyond any measure of doubt this failed stand-up's hateful, twisted and abhorrent notions of - let's see - original sin? Of - er - the unpalatable notion of vicarious redemption by human sacifice? Or - and this was nudging towards my main point - at the very least his odious suggestion that Richard is an anti-semite?

Got it, ace?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

49. Comment #177290 by Eric Blair on May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I have to agree with Belcanto 78 here.

Did Dawkins really think he could compare anyone - let alone a Rabbi - to Hitler, in any respect, and then pretend it was an innocent statement? Either he intended to be malicious or he is terribly naive.

The ensuing pointless discussion about screeching preachers is beneath the usual standard here. I'm sure there are some atheists who have annoying speaking habits.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

50. Comment #177291 by belcanto78 on May 8, 2008 at 9:48 pm

RightWingAtheist said:
>The well was already full of night soil.

That's a good point :)

Other Comments by belcanto78