Interesting. Not sure it says much about the religion vs science debate, but it does say a lot about effective styles of interaction. If you go in “taking the piss” and showing your audience no respect, I’m not sure you can expect your audience to show any respect to you or what you might have to say. A sad case. (Sue needs to take a lesson from Dan Dennett, below.)
Sadly, I thought Sue had already changed her mind away from Religions as Viruses of the Mind. Sure there is a lot of memetics in how and why religions (and any beliefs) catch-on and spread, but trivialising it with crass reductionist examples helps no-one.
No-one has the right not to be offended.
But that gives no-one the right to offend and ridicule as their main thrust.
[Post Note: we can't all be court-jester / play the fool, we can't all be the disrupter. These very terms imply the existence of a majority conservative norm - and for good reason, evolution depends on large quantifiable fidelity and fecundity, depart too often from the norm and we have heat-death or chaotic anarchy.]
Dennett – in Intution Pumps (and earlier works). He credits these as Rappaport’s rules, but this is the version Dennett presents : How to compose a successful critical commentary:
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
These first three rules I call elsewhere: “Respect, respect & respect”.
[Post Note: Here endeth the lesson.]