The Great Atheist Schism

[Taraz]

I came across this pretty cool blog post about the arguments that many atheists have with each other. I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

The Great Atheist Schism (http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2007/04/framing_the_great_atheist_schi.php)

I've been trying to say something similar about my atheist position. I guess I'm an "old atheist" as he describes it.

[Subfallen]

I don't see how anyone, even an atheist, can fail to be fascinated by religion as a social/psychological phenomenon. Plus, it leads to some very interesting viewpoints at times. Many of my favorite philosophers were heavily religious (Wittgenstein, Popper, Kierkegaard /images/graemlins/heart.gif.)

That said, I generally oppose the practice of religion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how anyone, even an atheist, can fail to be fascinated by religion as a social/psychological phenomenon. Plus, it leads to some very interesting viewpoints at times. Many of my favorite philosophers were heavily religious (Wittgenstein, Popper, Kierkegaard /images/graemlins/heart.gif.)

That said, I generally oppose the practice of religion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that you can't see why atheists don't become religious?

[Subfallen]

Heh, no...after all, I'm an atheist. Nonetheless I appreciate religion on several levels that do not require it to be an accurate depiction of reality.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, no...after all, I'm an atheist. Nonetheless I appreciate religion on several levels that do not require it to be an accurate depiction of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that. I am absolutely fascinated by it on a social psychology level. It's really, really remarkable.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I came across this pretty cool blog post about the arguments that many atheists have with each other. I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

The Great Atheist Schism (http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2007/04/framing_the_great_atheist_schi.php)

I've been trying to say something similar about my atheist position. I guess I'm an "old atheist" as he describes it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an a-Schism-ist.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also misses the main point -

[ QUOTE ]
The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


He's confusing two concepts -
1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief.
2 respecting the opinion/belief itself.

My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc.
Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry.

The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine."

luckyme

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also misses the main point -

[ QUOTE ]
The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


He's confusing two concepts -
1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief.
2 respecting the opinion/belief itself.

My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc.
Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry.

The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also misses the main point -

[ QUOTE ]
The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


He's confusing two concepts -
1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief.
2 respecting the opinion/belief itself.

My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc.
Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry.

The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree somewhat with what you are saying, I think his main point is very important. If you think that these viewpoints are harming society, shouldn't you try to change them? And if you think that we need to work to educate people, don't you think they will react more openly if you treat them with respect?

In my eyes, it's all about your approach. If I call you out and say, "your worldview is based on nothing, is basically a fairy tale, and is harmful to humanity" you probably won't listen to anything else I have to say. You'll simply write me off and that's the end of the conversation. It's just not a fruitful way to engage the other side.

You have to gain someone's trust and respect before they will earnestly listen to you. You have to remember that it isn't unreasonable to be a theist if that's what you've grown up around. It's actually very normal. So you can't just walk around calling people deluded children and expect them to respond positively.

It's a very fine line to walk.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also misses the main point -

[ QUOTE ]
The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


He's confusing two concepts -
1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief.
2 respecting the opinion/belief itself.

My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc.
Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry.

The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree somewhat with what you are saying, I think his main point is very important. If you think that these viewpoints are harming society, shouldn't you try to change them? And if you think that we need to work to educate people, don't you think they will react more openly if you treat them with respect?

In my eyes, it's all about your approach. If I call you out and say, "your worldview is based on nothing, is basically a fairy tale, and is harmful to humanity" you probably won't listen to anything else I have to say. You'll simply write me off and that's the end of the conversation. It's just not a fruitful way to engage the other side.

You have to gain someone's trust and respect before they will earnestly listen to you. You have to remember that it isn't unreasonable to be a theist if that's what you've grown up around. It's actually very normal. So you can't just walk around calling people deluded children and expect them to respond positively.

It's a very fine line to walk.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are utterly utterly utterly wrong. Do you see why?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

You are utterly utterly utterly wrong. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no I don't.

I think of it as similar to a deep sea diver. If you come up too fast you'll get the bends. But if you go up slowly and take your time you make it out alright.

[Paragon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think of it as similar to a deep sea diver. If you come up too fast you'll get the bends. But if you go up slowly and take your time you make it out alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in a sense. If atheists believe that society would be better off without religious interference in policy decisions, I think great care should be taken in choosing the best strategy to achieve this goal.

There are many atheists that hurt their own cause by being too negative and confrontational with religious people, instead of behaving diplomatically and actually spreading some common sense. However... I sympathize with them, especially since many religions essentially dream of conquering and enslaving mankind.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are utterly utterly utterly wrong. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no I don't.

I think of it as similar to a deep sea diver. If you come up too fast you'll get the bends. But if you go up slowly and take your time you make it out alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

One insidious way of suppressing free speech is by being `offended' by what is said what is said, when it is totally unreasonable to be so.

It is totally unreasonable for a person to be `offended' merely by a statement that their religious beliefs are factually incorrect.

[Sun Wukong]

[ QUOTE ]

It is totally unreasonable for a person to be `offended' merely by a statement that their religious beliefs are factually incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is it unreasonable if they are offended by being called an idiot at the same time?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is totally unreasonable for a person to be `offended' merely by a statement that their religious beliefs are factually incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is it unreasonable if they are offended by being called an idiot at the same time?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not unreasonable to be offended by a direct and explicit personal attack.

But it is unreasonable to construe an attack on your beliefs as necessarily being an attack on you personally.

[Sun Wukong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is totally unreasonable for a person to be `offended' merely by a statement that their religious beliefs are factually incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is it unreasonable if they are offended by being called an idiot at the same time?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not unreasonable to be offended by a direct and explicit personal attack.

But it is unreasonable to construe an attack on your beliefs as necessarily being an attack on you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree however i think the point is if you're trying to convince someone accept your view over theirs its important to avoid offence if at possible.

I believe in a God but not the Christian god, my parents are Christian and whenever we talk religion I often invoke quite aggressive responses from my Dad. I'm challenging something integral to his sense of self, he's bound to get defensive. Especially so if said arguement makes him doubt it slightly himself.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also misses the main point -

[ QUOTE ]
The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


He's confusing two concepts -
1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief.
2 respecting the opinion/belief itself.

My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc.
Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry.

The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This pretty much says it all. I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they want, and I try to maintain civility whenever humanly possible. These two things do not, however, automatically entitle people to my respect as concerns their actual beliefs.

Sam Harris talks about it, but one of the extremely annoying things about talking God with religious folks is how quick they are to take offense when you challenge their core beliefs--how quick they are to play the "lack of respect" card. My personal position is that if this dialogue is going to advance any further, we (atheists) are just going to have to accept that offending people is part of the drill. There's really no easy or nice way to dismantle someone's "most cherished" beliefs, as absurd as those beliefs may be.

[Taraz]

Personally, I don't think that you have to have respect for the actual belief per se. But I think we all need to realize why people hold these beliefs and that it is rather normal to hold these beliefs.

Also, there are plenty of ways to say the same thing but with different effect. You could say, "you believe in a fairy tale, you're basically like a child believing in Santa." But you could just as easily state, "your view just isn't supported by the facts. We know x,y, and z and these stories are in direct conflict, etc . . ."

One way is often insulting to the person holding the belief, the other is usually not. You might say that this is just tip-toeing around the issue, but IMO it's the most effective way to go.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't think that you have to have respect for the actual belief per se. But I think we all need to realize why people hold these beliefs and that it is rather normal to hold these beliefs.

Also, there are plenty of ways to say the same thing but with different effect. You could say, "you believe in a fairy tale, you're basically like a child believing in Santa." But you could just as easily state, "your view just isn't supported by the facts. We know x,y, and z and these stories are in direct conflict, etc . . ."

One way is often insulting to the person holding the belief, the other is usually not. You might say that this is just tip-toeing around the issue, but IMO it's the most effective way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the efficacy and impact of those two responses are wholly different. Telling someone that their particular belief isn't supported by facts is extremely likely to get the response: "So what? Facts aren't everything, lots of stuff isn't supported by facts, oh its not CURRENTLY supported by facts but we know those scientists are always wrong." Its this anti-intellectual, anti-rational attitude that is commonly associated with these people. Keep in mind, by 'these people' I do not mean Christians or theists, but rather the (possibly small) subset of theists who get offended unduly and loud and angry whenever the topic of religion or beliefs comes up. Anti-rationality is a solid defense mechanism for this type.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

But the efficacy and impact of those two responses are wholly different. Telling someone that their particular belief isn't supported by facts is extremely likely to get the response: "So what? Facts aren't everything, lots of stuff isn't supported by facts, oh its not CURRENTLY supported by facts but we know those scientists are always wrong." Its this anti-intellectual, anti-rational attitude that is commonly associated with these people. Keep in mind, by 'these people' I do not mean Christians or theists, but rather the (possibly small) subset of theists who get offended unduly and loud and angry whenever the topic of religion or beliefs comes up. Anti-rationality is a solid defense mechanism for this type.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just think that there are those who won't listen no matter what you say, those who will, and then there are those who are really defensive but might be open to debate. I'm worried that most people fall into that third category.

Maybe we just disagree on the relative number of each kind of theist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the efficacy and impact of those two responses are wholly different. Telling someone that their particular belief isn't supported by facts is extremely likely to get the response: "So what? Facts aren't everything, lots of stuff isn't supported by facts, oh its not CURRENTLY supported by facts but we know those scientists are always wrong." Its this anti-intellectual, anti-rational attitude that is commonly associated with these people. Keep in mind, by 'these people' I do not mean Christians or theists, but rather the (possibly small) subset of theists who get offended unduly and loud and angry whenever the topic of religion or beliefs comes up. Anti-rationality is a solid defense mechanism for this type.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just think that there are those who won't listen no matter what you say, those who will, and then there are those who are really defensive but might be open to debate. I'm worried that most people fall into that third category.

Maybe we just disagree on the relative number of each kind of theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. My experience has been that this third group is really just a loud subset of the first group, but that is only my narrow personal experience.

[MaxWeiss]

As always, you're pretty much dead on.