If a theist makes that remark, then she's really saying "Your argument is not good enough to convince those of my tribe". It is not "Your argument is invalid, logically speaking", because that is simply false.

Why can't a theist say something that is false?

I just don't think it's as easy as saying "talking snakes are silly, therefore theism is false." And I find it embarrassing when >atheists say things like that, and then get called on it by intelligent religious people.

Sure, there is some embarrasment that others may not be particularly good at communicating, and thus saying something like that is just preaching to the choir, but won't reach the theist.

But, I do not find anything intellectually wrong with the argument, so what one is being called out on is being a bad propagandist, meme-generator or teacher of skepticism. If a theist makes that remark, then she's really saying "Your argument is not good enough to convince those of my tribe". It is not "Your argument is invalid, logically speaking", because that is simply false. Because, the argument, at its best, is saying that:

a) there is no evidence for talking snakes, so reject those beliefs

not

b) the idea of talking snakes is just so silly, because it is designated as silly by our customs, and not because of lack of evidence.

And, therefore, a berating comment from an intelligent theist should instead prompt a discussion of the merits of the case - highlighting the difference between "customarily silly" and "scientifically silly". And if the theist understand the difference, she is on her way to be an atheist, and then the question is really on how to make a better joke about how factually (or morally) silly religious belief is.

Like, adding to the joke with more factually incorrect absurdities. Or, maybe better, ask the theist to come up with a better meme. If they agree on the principle, that the bible is full of falsehoods, they should be allies in the struggle to get people to stop believing in any more falsehoods. Otherwise they should be made fun of for believing in talking snakes.

Great point. I've never thought of that and no-one I've ever tried this one has mentioned it either. This makes it more interesting to me that some people still wouldn't kill the baby, but that may be for reasons other than real moral calculation.

Now I have completed the series. I've tried to make them shorter and with no political leaning. Here they are:

A Tutorial on Creating a Political Ideology

The Domain of Politics

Choose That Which is Most Important to You

Consider the Most Important Facts

Strive Towards the (Second) Best Society

Change the World in the Most Efficient Manner

A Digression on Alliances

Discuss the Most Important Points

How To Construct a Political Ideology - Summary

And here is my own ideology while following this tutorial:

My Own Political Ideology

And now it's finished! I've tried to make them shorter than the ones I've already posted and with no political leaning. Here they are:

A Tutorial on Creating a Political Ideology

The Domain of Politics

Choose That Which is Most Important to You

Consider the Most Important Facts

Strive Towards the (Second) Best Society

Change the World in the Most Efficient Manner

A Digression on Alliances

Discuss the Most Important Points

How To Construct a Political Ideology - Summary

And here is my own ideology while following this tutorial:

My Own Political Ideology

Lobbying as in advocacy. Google thought they could get away with no political lobbying, until they learned the hard truth. MIRI is not in the same position as Google of course, but the lessons are the same: if you want to convince people, just doing good and important work is not enough, you also have to do a good job convincing good and important people that you are doing good and important work. MIRI/CFAR are obviously doing some work in this direction, like target recruiting of the bright young mathematicians, but probably not nearly enough. I suspect they never even paid a top-notch marketing professional to prepare an evaluation. I bet they are just winging it, hoping to ride the unexpected success of HPMoR (success in some circles, anyway).

My understanding is that it's not that involvement in politics that is somehow bad, but that discussing politics here is perilous, just like discussing feminism and PUA is, or sports, or any other subject matter where identity and opinions are intertwined. If anything, MIRI/CFAR should be doing more in terms of lobbying.

Without commenting on the subject, I'll say that I have a policy of downvoting contentless introduction posts that promise a lengthy forcoming sequence. These projects usually peter out after 2-3 posts, leaving the bulk of the work undone.

Now I have completed the series. I've tried to make them shorter and with no political leaning. Here they are:

A Tutorial on Creating a Political Ideology

The Domain of Politics

Choose That Which is Most Important to You

Consider the Most Important Facts

Strive Towards the (Second) Best Society

Change the World in the Most Efficient Manner

A Digression on Alliances

Discuss the Most Important Points

How To Construct a Political Ideology - Summary

And here is my own ideology while following this tutorial:

My Own Political Ideology

The explanation isn't for why people care about politics per se, but that we care so deeply for politics that we respond to adversity much, much harsher in political environments than in others. Or, our reactions are disproportionate to the actual risks involved in it. People become angry when discussing if something should be privatized or if taxes should be raised. If one believes that there is some general policies that most benefit from, it's really bad to become angry at those whom you really should be allies with.

I feel like many people (especially the type of people who discuss politics) have strong political opinions that aren't rationally justified. When their beliefs are attacked they get emotional because they can't back it up with logic.