(03-06-2014, 01:22 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]I think my biggest fear is that people are going to start calling me "the moral guardian" or "that guy" or some variation of it ("Mr. Mom"?), and nobody likes those because of "freedom". Moral guardians are kind of the reason hard-headed people aren't willing to think about serious issues in an objective manner.
No, I think them being hard-headed has a lot to do with it too. After all, why bother to consider a complex issue when it's easier to just ignore it and get drunk over the weekend?
Alright, you guys. I've decided to write a VERY early draft of a skeleton of a sarcastic criticism/satire of Richard Dawkins (I'm being a lot less subtle and more straightforward/explicit than I want to be in its final version), and I'd like to know your thoughts and corrections. Note that I am
not criticizing atheism or atheistic ideas here (as some of you know, I am agnostic), but criticizing this specific """""thinker""""" for being a moron (I frankly would be ashamed of him if I were an atheist, and would still speak against him). And yes, I am purposely using fallacious, misunderstood and just generally dumb arguments, in order to demonstrate his way of thinking.
Essentially, I want to know if I sound like Richard Dawkins (I'm expecting Sam to most likely be able to give the most input on this matter).
Code:
My main argument against intelligent design is that Richard Dawkins exists. But who created Richard Dawkins?
Quite clearly, this design is not very intelligent. God is thus an invention by human beings, therefore God doesn't exist.
The fact is that, just like I have no reason to believe that leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and loud silent radios exist, I have no reason to believe that God exists. There is no difference at all. And faith is dumb, because religion prevents people from asking questions and getting to know the universe better. That's why I follow science exclusively, because it can never be and never has been wrong (except when it comes to homeopathy and phrenology, because those are not the same as real science). This is also why we should not teach theology in universities; it's non-scientific, just like history, philosophy, language and law.
I prefer the god of Thomas Paine, who leaves us be and doesn't judge us like the God of the Bible who forgives (that jerk!). I like the laid-back attitude of Paine's God, who lets us be as sexually deviant as our paleomammalian and reptilian complexes ever so desire, and who doesn't mind if we commit rape, incest or bestiality to aid reproduction and murder to filter out the weaklings (natural selection!!). After all, our only purpose here is to poop out babies for the continuation of the human race. That's why I am so great (unlike God - that's what my friend Hitchy said); I have a child! One of my three marriages was clearly well worth it! My work here is done then.
I must now return to my home planet of Auxford, where I'm the supreme king and all my followers praise me, the moon is shaped like a teapot and we've evolved (this is because God doesn't exist) to the extent that our penises are large enough for us to collectively go f*ck ourselves (because we can do what we want with our anuses).
I'm thinking about putting unnecessarily large amounts of negative adjectives (including deliberately silly ones like "Republican" and "meanie") regarding God to make fun of Dawkins' notoriety of flooding his works with them.
:haha:
That was great, Joel. It needs to be expanded though!
Thanks! Yeah, like I said, it's a very early (short) draft/skeleton, and I want to make sure I criticize a lot of the things he put forward.
Well, to be honest, I didn't really enjoy it that much in its current form. I'm not too familiar with the works of Dawkins, but to me it seems like you're missing the mark a bit. Obviously there's room for exaggeration in satire, but this feels more like projecting idiocy onto the person than emphasising his traits. Maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough about my Dawkins.
I probably wouldn't care that much if the tone didn't feel so off. It's just too juvenile. Even as just a work of satire, that would be hard to swallow, but it completely undermines the effort to present it as a criticism, as you said your intention also was. Dawkins can have a kvnty attitude at times, but he's not a toddler.
Actually, as he's a british professor, what if you kept (have you ever noticed how weird the word "kept" looks? It just seems... off, somehow) the stupid arguments, but obfuscate them behind excessive grandiloquence? I'm not sure, but it might work better.
Also, the intentionally dumb logic creates somewhat bad flow in some parts - for instance, the opening line is great, but the follow-up line doesn't really feel congruent with it. I'm sure you'll be able to create an enjoyable reading-experience without sacrificing depth of satire.
Don't let my current criticisms keep you from working on it, though, I'm sure that the finished product will be great. :cheers:
Actually, ignore the above part, what I'm trying to say is this:
(03-21-2014, 03:56 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]Essentially, I want to know if I sound like Richard Dawkins (I'm expecting Sam to most likely be able to give the most input on this matter).
No.
Don't sweat it, man! I want criticism more than anything because I'm always so unsure about my work. If I ask for criticism, it's because I really want brutal honesty.
Like I said though, it's a very early draft that represents something that will look entirely different; I'm mostly just writing down ideas.
But yeah, I think you're right. I sound too much like I'm attacking him explicitly rather than making it look like he's embarrassing himself.
Yeah, I mean...if you want it to be more "serious", it needs to sound less like an attack. I wasn't sure what you were going for though. It did amuse me, however. lol
(03-21-2014, 06:48 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]I sound too much like I'm attacking him explicitly rather than making it look like he's embarrassing himself.
Yes, you're obviously already aware of my point, as that was what I spent 3 paragraphs trying to say - you might also consider adding some of that eloquence to the finished work.
I guess there should always be an element of Poe's law in a work of satire. Not necessarily that you're still wondering after a few paragraphs whether it's honest or not, but integrating the factual and the factitious in a rather seemless manner - and you might have some work still to do there.
Beyond that, I only have personal preference andnitpicking that'll probably disappear with editing anyhows.