Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]

[Lestat]

I'm on the fence about this really. I'm generally an amicable guy. I don't want to hurt anyone or their feelings. I appreciate the good in other people. The last thing I want to do is insult my Christian friends, or even people I don't know like NotReady or Splendour. So I try and engage in polite debate on the importance of rational thinking in the world. On the other hand...

There really is no debating with those infected by religion. As a recent YouTube video in another thread points out: It's non-negotiable if you're religious. To a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc., there's nothing to talk about. It's either their way, or the highway. They're simply not interested and unwilling to conduct rational discourse when it comes to their religion.

So I'm starting to wonder if people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, might not be on the right track. Years of politeness and tip-toeing around other people's dogma and superstitions is the very reason so little progress towards a rational thinking world when it comes to religion can be gained now. If it walks, quacks, and acts like a duck, maybe we should start calling it what it is. It's a duck dummy! Without fear of insulting resligious people's sensibilities. What do you think?

[tame_deuces]

I don't see why you can't advocate strong atheism without being civil. I don't see anything uncivil about hefty disagreement.

[tshort]

Use these message boards as an example. When people post irrational statements about poker hands, math problems, etc, others are quick to falsify those statements even through ridicule. While that may be due to the general anonymity of a message board, sentiments generally change on the topic of religion. Should they?

I stick to civil discourse on religion.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you can't advocate strong atheism without being civil. I don't see anything uncivil about hefty disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you can't advocate strong atheism without being civil. I don't see anything uncivil about hefty disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the entire problem. It seems that atheists are the violators, but it's actually the opposite.

Civil debate, at its fundamental level, requires the opposing parties to be rational. There can't be debate if the opposing parties can't agree on a rational framework to the discourse. The problem with theism, in debates, is that it frames itself as rational but is very much non-rational.

Just think about it: If your position is already decided, how can you possibly be rational about it? No matter what information you or your foe presents, you can't change your basic premise. But the IDiots (and others from theological positions) frame the debate such that if you don't accept their premises you are contrarian and contemptible to their faith, which is unacceptable.

Rational debate is the bane of theological debate.

[tame_deuces]

Civil debate does not need the debaters to think rationally, it only needs them to behave at some tolerable level of politenss.

There is no need to hide that many atheists, especially young ones, enjoy cheaps shots and douchebaggery towards theism/theists and seem to get their kicks out of posing their view as superior. The point of strong atheism is to spread it as broadly as possible, not to alienate theists. When online imagine you are arguing in front of an audience you want to convince, not an audience you need to impress or a debate you need to win. It isn't debating the convinced theist that matters, its about convincing the others.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett

[/ QUOTE ]
They're a bit too serious. The problem with serious debate is its like using a hammer to tighten screws - its a damn fine tool but the wrong one. You can't have rational discourse with people who believe there is good evidence for biblical truth or naming a teddy bear isn't unimportant.

So find the right tool for the job, silly beliefs need to be addressed by ridicule. The more fervent the lunatics the more we should take the piss and laugh at them. Don't under-estimate just how much the nutty wing of the church hated Monty Pythons life of Brian, Bill Hicks etc. Not only do they hate being laughed at, it undermines their authority and authority is all they have.

chez

[madnak]

You can respect a person without respecting their beliefs. And even if you don't respect a person, you don't need to be an [censored].

I don't think we should tiptoe around, and I think it's fine to acknowledge patently ridiculous beliefs for what they are. Making fun of them is great - regardless of how it affects them, it's entertaining. And sometimes humor can make points that are hard to make rationally.

But crossing the line into antagonism and self-importance isn't justified. Religious beliefs are idiotic, but it's clear that religious people aren't necessarily idiots. And I think the ultimate goal is for everyone to have laugh at the absurdity of the beliefs. I don't think it's an "us versus them" issue (though it can turn into one when people are persecuted on the basis of belief).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's clear that religious people aren't necessarily idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

true, it does seem something you can opt for, or at least it's a nuture/nature thing... like being tall isn't mandatory to be a good basketball player.

luckyme

[kurto]

I'm a little confused about the term neo-atheist. Since 'neo' implies new... what is new? Is the only new part that they're outspoken? Or is there supposed to be some other differences?

I've considered myself an atheist for about 14 years or so... just not sure if I'm a neo-atheist or just a regular atheist.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
So find the right tool for the job, silly beliefs need to be addressed by ridicule. The more fervent the lunatics the more we should take the piss and laugh at them. Don't under-estimate just how much the nutty wing of the church hated Monty Pythons life of Brian, Bill Hicks etc. Not only do they hate being laughed at, it undermines their authority and authority is all they have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez's comments struck me as true. There is no doubt that the religous are NOT interested in reasonable debate. They consider it hubris and sinful to even question God. To apply man's logic to him is just silly to them. They consider it a virtue that they have Faith DESPITE the lack of evidence or reason to believe.

I think the hope is for future generations. And humor is one of the best ways to expose the weakness of a position.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused about the term neo-atheist. Since 'neo' implies new... what is new? Is the only new part that they're outspoken? Or is there supposed to be some other differences?

I've considered myself an atheist for about 14 years or so... just not sure if I'm a neo-atheist or just a regular atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been an Atheist for 50 years - am I a paleo-atheist?

[Kaj]

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H. L. Mencken

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
It's non-negotiable if you're religious. To a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc., there's nothing to talk about. It's either their way, or the highway.

[/ QUOTE ]

That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions. (Why do you think that word "ecumenical" exists?) Plenty more believers are theists, they believe in a divine creator, but that does not interact with its creation. So a theist doesn't give a phuc how anyone worships, because the creator isn't listening anyway.

To me, a point of atheism is to avoid dogmatism, not create a new version using scientific jargon.

This whole "all religion is ignorant stupidity" business isn't science, it's just arrogance. Dawkins should shut the hell up. He's just using science to justify his personal trip -- snobbery. That, and sell books to the angry egghead market, which is large.

People trash fish on this board all the time. Substitute the word "believer" for "fish" and it's the same conversation -- supercilious wanking.

And I've been an atheist since grade school, nearly four decades, so can the kool-aid cracks.

[ALLEN CONRAD]

I think how much of a neo-atheist one should be, directly correlates to severity of the Theists symptoms. If you are talking with someone who is certain that god created the universe in 6 days and we all lived with dinosaurs before the flood of noah. Then the same amount of respect and civil discourse should be provided that you would provide to me if I told you the only way to heaven was to lick as many stamps as possible.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.
Catholics claim "god is X-like".
Mormons claim "god is Y-like."
Ecu's claim "god is XYZ and a touch of W-like"

luckyme

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
This whole "all religion is ignorant stupidity" business isn't science, it's just arrogance. Dawkins should shut the hell up. He's just using science to justify his personal trip -- snobbery. That, and sell books to the angry egghead market, which is large.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

[Lestat]

Then do you agree with ALLEN CONRAD who seems to imply that our reaction should be proportional to the claim?

If someone notices you are on time alot and mentions in passing how your a typical Virgo, your reaction to such a comment might be rather tame. However, if someone started seriously outlining the legitimacy of astrology then your reaction to that should be a bit more serious?

The problem is how to react to people who are clearly living in a dellusional world. It might be true that the reaction should not only be proportionate to the dellusion and outrageousness of the claim, but also their demand for us to take them seriously. The problem with that is that the person who quickly reads their horoscope every day is walking along the same illogical path as someone who uses an astrological chart to plan major events. Do you really think the minor astrologist deserves more respect than the major one?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of what they believe. That's not what I'm talking about. The fact that if Wiccans beliefs are a little more pleasant than a Muslim's is beside the point.

The point is that those beliefs are still ridiculous and unfounded and we are expected to respect them. My question is, why? Why should we have to tippy-toe around the obvious and respect that which is ludricrous? What's wrong with laughing in a Wiccan's face the way we might laugh at someone who believes in witchcraft?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I don't think it's an "us versus them" issue (though it can turn into one when people are persecuted on the basis of belief). </font>

I think this is an excellent point.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Worship", heh.

They aren't just ways they're used to give praise, they are specific claims about reality that often if not almost always contradict each other at the lower levels. They act in this manner because at the age of 5 years they are told that this is truth.

What in ahotep's name is good about the above process?

We won't get into another patent absurdity, that an all-powerfull being would lay about twidling it's all-poweful thumbs for 13 billion years, and then one bright shiny day decide that he needed a chorus filled with some half-apes to give him the equivalent of a mental back rub by "worshiping" him. And so on...

[Lestat]

But here's the point...

THERE'S NOTHING TO REALLY DEBATE!

Isn't this it in a nutshell? How much civil debate would you be willing to have with someone who believes he's from planet cryto and the mothership will be arriving sometime in the near future at which time the end of the world will come?

I sometimes wonder if the very act of debating is where rational thinkers go wrong. You wouldn't debate somebody on witchcraft. You'd simply laugh in their face and move on. If they continued to spout their beliefs in your face (and tried to influence your children and others), then you'd probably get kinda nasty about it, no? But I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[madnak]

That's not true. I'd respond much more civilly to witchcraft than Christianity under almost any circumstance.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not true. I'd respond much more civilly to witchcraft than Christianity under almost any circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that madnak? Please expound.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder if the very act of debating is where rational thinkers go wrong. You wouldn't debate somebody on witchcraft. You'd simply laugh in their face and move on. If they continued to spout their beliefs in your face (and tried to influence your children and others), then you'd probably get kinda nasty about it, no? But I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great point, unfortunately, it's not even the point.

If someone wants to shove their religion down your throat, sure, be as rude as you personally feel you need to be. But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

Maybe I just have a different standard of raising and a higher standard of social skills than many of you, but if you were to ask me the question "Is it acceptable to mock people for X" I would cut you off at the word "people" with a resounding "NO!". Sure, we all lose control of our tempers from time to time, but to accept and embrace the fact that this group (theists) are acceptable to mock by the atheist, in my view, gives the theist the moral high ground straight from the beginning.

I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[Lestat]

I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure either, although I generally lump one "neo" in with the next, neo-con, neo-atheist, neo-nazi.

Neo has become synonymous with rude, intolerant, and downright nasty people, and I think in many cases with the term neo-atheist, it fits like a glove.

[soon2bepro]

We'll never get rid of this virus/fantasy until we start treating it as what it is.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is how to react to people who are clearly living in a dellusional world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the question. In public, your response should be calculated to influence either the theist or observers -- not indulge your need to act superior.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is threatening. My kids' public schools are thoroughly subverted by creationists, this is something I've been dealing with for some time.

You have to keep an eye toward what political strategy will help. You have to start where people's minds are at. Today's creationists claim to be scientifically based. Okay, take them at their word, debate the science. You will win over many. So many of people's beliefs are based just on going with the flow. You have to create a presence in the community of open evolutionists, so the sensible types have a pole to gravitate toward.

Little things I do: encourage my kids' interest in evolution. Send them to school carrying books I gave them, for everybody to see. Give them Darwin T-shirts to wear at school. Encourage them to challenge their teachers and converse with the other students. What my kids are not to do: angrily quit the discussion after informing everyone that they are unintelligent. (That doesn't go over either for an eleven year old, or a 24 year old like youse.)

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with laughing in a Wiccan's face the way we might laugh at someone who believes in witchcraft?

[/ QUOTE ]

So people don't think you are the angry-young-man whose conversation must be avoided at all costs.

No, seriously. There are certain people it is pointless to try and persuade, but you still want influence the people listening in. The point is to impact popular opinion, not satisfy the desire to blow off annoying beliefs. Not that you might never laugh at a creationist for therapy, but it makes no sense to just check out of the discussion just because their beliefs are so hopeless.

My main point: Just because something is scientifically unworthy of consideration does not mean it is not socially in need of addressing.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway? And these are the people I'm supposed to give respect to their ideas ( or them for holding them)? I seriously do have more respect/understanding for someone who sticks to believing those things they think are true, even the more wacko ones. The other approach is bold-faced self-delusion worse than normal intellectual dishonesty. It's openly admitting "I believe it because I want/need it to be true". No respect for that here.

are you sure they don't believe it's correct?
( I'm not questioning the polite/impolite, but the concept of which fantasies are more deserving of respect than other similar ones).

luckyme

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They aren't exclusive at all. It's still God, whether it comes in a bottle or a can.

[ALLEN CONRAD]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the minor astrologist deserves more respect than the major one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I think it better to be a little idiot than a giant idiot. If you spoke to someone who preached the gospel of astrology and tried to convince them is was dumb you would most likely have less success than if you talked to a random person who had just skimmed over horoscope.

This fact makes the person who is a minor astrologist due more respect that the major. And lets say you did talk to a person who read there horoscope and refused to acknowledge that it was all fantasy that person would then be promoted to major astrologist.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They aren't exclusive at all. It's still God, whether it comes in a bottle or a can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't questioning whether they believed their god was more wide-ranging than the Jehovah Witness one, I was questioning your statement that the attributes they believe their encompassing god has is not what they believe is true about him/it.
the 'they don't claim they're correct' part but believe it anyway.

luckyme

[Taraz]

I agree with Bill Haywood on pretty much every point he has made so far.

Many of you are acting like hardcore theists were well-educated and rational adults when their beliefs were formed. In fact, many theists were born into their religion or converted after major life trauma. It is often an integral part of how they understand and parse the world. I don't know the best way to handle these people or engage in debate with them, but I'm am fairly sure it is not ridicule and disdain. All that does is make the debate more contentious and forces people to dig their heels in.

Should we challenge their arguments? Most certainly.
Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to shove their religion down your throat, sure, be as rude as you personally feel you need to be. But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that the reverse is more common. In many communities, atheists are simply shunned. Remember, in our country atheists are the ones people would NEVER vote into office. They're considered the least desireable class of people. Many of the theists on this board are fond of insisting that atheists have no morals.

There certainly are rude atheists. But I think its unfair to suggest they have any kind of monopoly or even lead in the field of rudeness.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Of course. I think it better to be a little idiot than a giant idiot. </font>

This really gets to the heart of my post/question. To be honest, I'm not so sure... Sometimes, there's not much difference between being a little wrong and a lot wrong. The end result is the same and the degree to which an illogical path has brought on the erroneous result is irrevelant.

<font color="blue"> This fact makes the person who is a minor astrologist due more respect that the major. </font>

Again, why is this so? They are both on the same illogical path. It can be argued that giving *any* respect to the minor astrologist only strengthens the case of the major astrologist. It certainly give him a degree of credibility that he shouldn't have.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks...now I have to watch V for Vendetta again.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything? </font>

This is what I'm trying to find out. But I think perhaps you are dismissing the effects of mocking and ridiculing too quickly. No one likes to be mocked or ridiculed. Take this example:

You're like me and have no fashion sense of your own. You see a shirt in a store that you're not sure about. The fact is, it will make you look ridiculous to other people. You show it to your friend/wife/acquaintence. Do you want an honest opinion? Do you want them to soft-play you and pander to your sensibilities? Or would you be less likely to buy it if they were brutally honest and mocked the shirt and laughed at the prospect of you buying it?

Let's not get caught up in semantics here. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a mind of your own. Of course, if you really like something you shouldn't care what others think. But assume there is a right or wrong decision to be made about this shirt. Assume the purchase is important (maybe it affects your chance for landing your dream job). You are in danger of making the wrong choice. What exchange is more likely to lead you in the right direction? "Hmm. I don't know. It's not my taste, but it's your decision.". Or... "Are you kidding me? LOL!! That looks ridiculous on you! Sure, go ahead and buy it if you want to look like an idiot!".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around here it takes more of the form of " a man of his word" is all you really have. That takes in sincerity.
I'm a very quiet spoken person and I don't hand out insults or praise wantonly. When I say to a bridge partner, "well played" it actually means that they did something exceptional, not that they followed suit neatly. And they know that about me and seem to appreciate it.
When I say, "I respect his position" I intend it to mean that it has considerable merit and is well constructed even if personally not for me ( much as I do to non-extremist political left or right positions). To say I respect a belief in an ancient myth ( etc, etc) would render the concept vapid and it would be like complimenting my partner for not revoking.

I don't know how much disagreement there would be in our actual interactions but I certainly want my 'respect' to be respected. In the sense that if a friend says, "well, luckyme respects Guillies position" that it is taken as a positive comment on Guillies position.

luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder if the very act of debating is where rational thinkers go wrong. You wouldn't debate somebody on witchcraft. You'd simply laugh in their face and move on. If they continued to spout their beliefs in your face (and tried to influence your children and others), then you'd probably get kinda nasty about it, no? But I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great point, unfortunately, it's not even the point.

If someone wants to shove their religion down your throat, sure, be as rude as you personally feel you need to be. But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

Maybe I just have a different standard of raising and a higher standard of social skills than many of you, but if you were to ask me the question "Is it acceptable to mock people for X" I would cut you off at the word "people" with a resounding "NO!". Sure, we all lose control of our tempers from time to time, but to accept and embrace the fact that this group (theists) are acceptable to mock by the atheist, in my view, gives the theist the moral high ground straight from the beginning.

I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point would be well taken (with me at least), if religious was truly harmless. But we are living in a world where certain people would slice off your head if given the chance, because you don't believe what they do. It's not hard to imagine what will happen when these people get their hands on nukes.

To ridicule the extremists while tolerating and giving a free pass to the moderates is inconsistent. They are the same illogical paths. One group just happens to be further down it than the other. That's all.

[Lestat]

I forget to even comment on this:

<font color="blue"> But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

</font>

Are you kidding me? Atheists are the most maligned group of people in America! You are better off claiming to be a child molestor than an atheist if you want to run for public office. Who's being blind-sided by who?

A former president of this country has said that atheists shouldn't even be considered Americans, because this country was founded under god. Again, there is not a more maligned group in America than atheists. I think you need to re-look at this. The plight of non-believers is much worse than you seem to think.

[Case Closed]

lesat,

WRT your OP I would have to say that I am a weak atheist. I am not this neo atheist who goes about the world speaking strongly about their lack of faith. I fear the loss of friends and public ridicule and the constant public harassment that comes with even speaking to people about being an atheist. With the close people around me who are non-theists I discuss things without worry. I am also much more upfront with people I have just met. But the core group of people around me I am far too afraid of alienating them when speaking about it...and with some I am afraid of changing their mind(ie turning my catholic friend to atheist). I don't know if this post has any relevance to this thread, but I have felt the need to illustrate this point and perhaps get a comment or two about it.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Atheists are the most maligned group of people in America! You are better off claiming to be a child molestor than an atheist if you want to run for public office. Who's being blind-sided by who?

A former president of this country has said that atheists shouldn't even be considered Americans, because this country was founded under god. Again, there is not a more maligned group in America than atheists. I think you need to re-look at this. The plight of non-believers is much worse than you seem to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from difficulties running for office - and I assume we mean national office, here, though state level might be significant too - what is the remainder of the "plight" of non-believers? I must say I don't feel particularly persecuted.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Atheists are the most maligned group of people in America! You are better off claiming to be a child molestor than an atheist if you want to run for public office. Who's being blind-sided by who?

A former president of this country has said that atheists shouldn't even be considered Americans, because this country was founded under god. Again, there is not a more maligned group in America than atheists. I think you need to re-look at this. The plight of non-believers is much worse than you seem to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from difficulties running for office - and I assume we mean national office, here, though state level might be significant too - what is the remainder of the "plight" of non-believers? I must say I don't feel particularly persecuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight... That's not enough?! Being barred from gaining high office is acceptable to you? Would you accept this condition for gays, blacks, or any other group? To me, this is enough without even getting into the argument that there are religious people who would view you as evil (some willing to slice off your head), upon learning you don't believe in god.

Keep your rational views to yourself and you won't be persecuted.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight... That's not enough?! Being barred from gaining high office is acceptable to you? Would you accept this condition for gays, blacks, or any other group?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being black or gay isn't a belief system, so I think this is a dumb comparison. To say that atheists are the most maligned group in America, when this seems to be the extent of their suffering that you can come up with, seems absurd to me.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Atheists are the most maligned group of people in America! You are better off claiming to be a child molestor than an atheist if you want to run for public office. Who's being blind-sided by who?

A former president of this country has said that atheists shouldn't even be considered Americans, because this country was founded under god. Again, there is not a more maligned group in America than atheists. I think you need to re-look at this. The plight of non-believers is much worse than you seem to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from difficulties running for office - and I assume we mean national office, here, though state level might be significant too - what is the remainder of the "plight" of non-believers? I must say I don't feel particularly persecuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you'll laugh when I give these particular examples... but my wife and I watch Trading Spouses and Wifeswap semi-regularly. They've had several shows where an atheist or person with 'alternative beliefs' swaps with a very religious family. When the atheist or New Age wife goes to the religious community, she is almost always treated with scorn.

As another poster stated, there have been politicians and such who ridicule atheists. We don't for a second think they're isolated freaks. They're representative of a large group.

When I visit my family down south, I would never feel comfortable admitting I was an atheist outside my parents home.

On another TV note - I believe the show "30 days" had an episode where a religious person went to live with an atheist family for 30 days. I seem to recall it was an interesting show where you heard both sides arguing about the negtivity they felt from the other side.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I know you'll laugh when I give these particular examples... but my wife and I watch Trading Spouses and Wifeswap semi-regularly. They've had several shows where an atheist or person with 'alternative beliefs' swaps with a very religious family. When the atheist or New Age wife goes to the religious community, she is almost always treated with scorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, television shows looking to maximize drama and looking for maximum conflict are a good place to look for examples of this phenomenon. It's also not like the religious aren't treated with scorn and derision by the atheists; witness the Internet.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
lesat,

WRT your OP I would have to say that I am a weak atheist. I am not this neo atheist who goes about the world speaking strongly about their lack of faith. I fear the loss of friends and public ridicule and the constant public harassment that comes with even speaking to people about being an atheist. With the close people around me who are non-theists I discuss things without worry. I am also much more upfront with people I have just met. But the core group of people around me I am far too afraid of alienating them when speaking about it...and with some I am afraid of changing their mind(ie turning my catholic friend to atheist). I don't know if this post has any relevance to this thread, but I have felt the need to illustrate this point and perhaps get a comment or two about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some on here would have you delusional. You'll thrive in business and socially by expressing your atheism in a non-threatening manner apparently, and you'll just have to deal with the inconvenience of majority of your countrymen thinking you are worse than an illegal alien in the political realm.
Somehow, I guess, they think of you as two people - the atheist who shouldn't even be a citizen and the atheist who is a great neighbor and businessman to deal with. I don't buy it.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole "all religion is ignorant stupidity" business isn't science, it's just arrogance. Dawkins should shut the hell up. He's just using science to justify his personal trip -- snobbery. That, and sell books to the angry egghead market, which is large.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Safe to guess you've never read anything by Richard Dawkins?

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
What exchange is more likely to lead you in the right direction? "Hmm. I don't know. It's not my taste, but it's your decision.". Or... "Are you kidding me? LOL!! That looks ridiculous on you! Sure, go ahead and buy it if you want to look like an idiot!".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here. The first reaction is overly civil. "I don't know," "not my taste," and "your decision" barely takes a position. So of COURSE the second response is going to have a more powerful effect, in that it very clearly takes a position.

If, however, the first option you gave us was civil, more like: "look, if you want this job, I really don't think you ought to wear this shirt to the interview. It just doesn't look good on you," then we might have something to compare.

In this instance, sure, some people will still be more likely to pick another shirt after being mocked for their first choice. Others (maybe people who don't have great fashion sense but THINK they do) will be so turned off by the mocking that it makes them MORE likely to do what they will, essentially deciding your crass behavior makes you an inappropriate judge of what's best for them.

This second group of people, sadly, will usually more closely resemble religious people...people whose worldviews are utterly illogical but who think they're right on course. With these people, firm but polite disagreement is really the only hope.

With people on the fence, if you want to try outright mockery, go for it...might work.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder if the very act of debating is where rational thinkers go wrong. You wouldn't debate somebody on witchcraft. You'd simply laugh in their face and move on. If they continued to spout their beliefs in your face (and tried to influence your children and others), then you'd probably get kinda nasty about it, no? But I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great point, unfortunately, it's not even the point.

If someone wants to shove their religion down your throat, sure, be as rude as you personally feel you need to be. But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

Maybe I just have a different standard of raising and a higher standard of social skills than many of you, but if you were to ask me the question "Is it acceptable to mock people for X" I would cut you off at the word "people" with a resounding "NO!". Sure, we all lose control of our tempers from time to time, but to accept and embrace the fact that this group (theists) are acceptable to mock by the atheist, in my view, gives the theist the moral high ground straight from the beginning.

I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all well and good until we get to the short list of things for which you think it is acceptable to mock people for. All you are saying he is that religion isnt on your list. You give no justification for WHY it isnt on your list, and although it SEEMS like you are claiming you dont even have a list, I find that nearly impossible to believe.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure either, although I generally lump one "neo" in with the next, neo-con, neo-atheist, neo-nazi.

Neo has become synonymous with rude, intolerant, and downright nasty people, and I think in many cases with the term neo-atheist, it fits like a glove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good thing you dont mock people. I knew we'd find the contents of your list somewhere.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I know you'll laugh when I give these particular examples... but my wife and I watch Trading Spouses and Wifeswap semi-regularly. They've had several shows where an atheist or person with 'alternative beliefs' swaps with a very religious family. When the atheist or New Age wife goes to the religious community, she is almost always treated with scorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, television shows looking to maximize drama and looking for maximum conflict are a good place to look for examples of this phenomenon. It's also not like the religious aren't treated with scorn and derision by the atheists; witness the Internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I admitted it wasn't the best example. That being said, I don't think comparing that to an internet forum is the same thing. The internet is one of the few places where people can speak and not worry about repercussions.

Atheists are the minority. It is perfectly okay for a politician to say Atheists are unamerican. Was that politican attacked for that? Hell no. Can you imagine a politician speaking out against the religious?

I have agreed that there are some atheists who treat the religious rudely. But they are so few in numbers. And they mainly can only do so ON the internet. In many parts of the country to admit you're an atheist is an invitation to be rejected by your community. And again... the atheists are a tiny minority.

I think you're comparing Apples and Oranges.

I'm being repetitive but... its very telling about the society when public figures can demean a group (be it a race or a belief system) and know it will be accepted. If politicians can denounce atheists with no backlash, that's a reflection of the standing atheists have in that community.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Bill Haywood on pretty much every point he has made so far.

Many of you are acting like hardcore theists were well-educated and rational adults when their beliefs were formed. In fact, many theists were born into their religion or converted after major life trauma. It is often an integral part of how they understand and parse the world. I don't know the best way to handle these people or engage in debate with them, but I'm am fairly sure it is not ridicule and disdain. All that does is make the debate more contentious and forces people to dig their heels in.

Should we challenge their arguments? Most certainly.
Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Well thats basically our entire approach to stop smoking, and it seems to be doing ok. I mean, sure, maybe 5% is based on education and providing alternatives but most of it is just based on shame and ridicule and pariahism.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around here it takes more of the form of " a man of his word" is all you really have. That takes in sincerity.
I'm a very quiet spoken person and I don't hand out insults or praise wantonly. When I say to a bridge partner, "well played" it actually means that they did something exceptional, not that they followed suit neatly. And they know that about me and seem to appreciate it.
When I say, "I respect his position" I intend it to mean that it has considerable merit and is well constructed even if personally not for me ( much as I do to non-extremist political left or right positions). To say I respect a belief in an ancient myth ( etc, etc) would render the concept vapid and it would be like complimenting my partner for not revoking.

I don't know how much disagreement there would be in our actual interactions but I certainly want my 'respect' to be respected. In the sense that if a friend says, "well, luckyme respects Guillies position" that it is taken as a positive comment on Guillies position.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Respecting everyone equally equals respecting no one meaningfully. What DblBarrelJ seems to be saying is that your BASELINE level of respect should be higher. Unfortunately, I dont really know how to show SUPER DUPER respect for things that, you know, I actually respect. So its much easier to simply show less respect for things I have less respect for.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
lesat,

WRT your OP I would have to say that I am a weak atheist. I am not this neo atheist who goes about the world speaking strongly about their lack of faith. I fear the loss of friends and public ridicule and the constant public harassment that comes with even speaking to people about being an atheist. With the close people around me who are non-theists I discuss things without worry. I am also much more upfront with people I have just met. But the core group of people around me I am far too afraid of alienating them when speaking about it...and with some I am afraid of changing their mind(ie turning my catholic friend to atheist). I don't know if this post has any relevance to this thread, but I have felt the need to illustrate this point and perhaps get a comment or two about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, sorry, we've been informed that it is the brash atheist who is at fault "more often than we think" so I think its safe to dismiss your personal experience as anecdotal and irrelevant. Its not like you were burned at a stake. Atheists are the rude ones.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exchange is more likely to lead you in the right direction? "Hmm. I don't know. It's not my taste, but it's your decision.". Or... "Are you kidding me? LOL!! That looks ridiculous on you! Sure, go ahead and buy it if you want to look like an idiot!".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here. The first reaction is overly civil. "I don't know," "not my taste," and "your decision" barely takes a position. So of COURSE the second response is going to have a more powerful effect, in that it very clearly takes a position.

If, however, the first option you gave us was civil, more like: "look, if you want this job, I really don't think you ought to wear this shirt to the interview. It just doesn't look good on you," then we might have something to compare.

In this instance, sure, some people will still be more likely to pick another shirt after being mocked for their first choice. Others (maybe people who don't have great fashion sense but THINK they do) will be so turned off by the mocking that it makes them MORE likely to do what they will, essentially deciding your crass behavior makes you an inappropriate judge of what's best for them.

This second group of people, sadly, will usually more closely resemble religious people...people whose worldviews are utterly illogical but who think they're right on course. With these people, firm but polite disagreement is really the only hope.

With people on the fence, if you want to try outright mockery, go for it...might work.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that the neo-atheists HAVENT tried it? Thats the problem. You hear the "plan B" tactics and think that was the only approach taken. You ask us to try it, but how would you know if we had? If we do and it works or doesnt you wont ever hear about it.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
A former president of this country has said that atheists shouldn't even be considered Americans, because this country was founded under god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately the opposite is true here in the UK, God bless the UK!

[MoP_86]

I don't know how we're going to get there.... but I hope sometime in the future we as a collective group are able to look back at ourselves as a species and laugh at some of the stuff we came up with.

[MoP_86]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Bill Haywood on pretty much every point he has made so far.

Many of you are acting like hardcore theists were well-educated and rational adults when their beliefs were formed. In fact, many theists were born into their religion or converted after major life trauma. It is often an integral part of how they understand and parse the world. I don't know the best way to handle these people or engage in debate with them, but I'm am fairly sure it is not ridicule and disdain. All that does is make the debate more contentious and forces people to dig their heels in.

Should we challenge their arguments? Most certainly.
Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Well thats basically our entire approach to stop smoking, and it seems to be doing ok. I mean, sure, maybe 5% is based on education and providing alternatives but most of it is just based on shame and ridicule and pariahism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.... its just that no one ever killed someone for ridiculing his smoking habit.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Really? Well thats basically our entire approach to stop smoking, and it seems to be doing ok. I mean, sure, maybe 5% is based on education and providing alternatives but most of it is just based on shame and ridicule and pariahism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like utter [censored]. Most people I know who smoke know that it is unhealthy for them, and expensive, and would quit for those reasons. While I have heard complaints about culture marginalizing smokers, it is more that the culture makes it hard for them to find places to do it. It has nothing to do with shame and ridicule.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight... That's not enough?! Being barred from gaining high office is acceptable to you? Would you accept this condition for gays, blacks, or any other group?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being black or gay isn't a belief system, so I think this is a dumb comparison. To say that atheists are the most maligned group in America, when this seems to be the extent of their suffering that you can come up with, seems absurd to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skin tone or gender is not a pre-requisite to being a minority. I very much disagree. It is not at all absurd. There are very important issues at stake (stem-cell research comes to mind, as does abortion and birth control), where our leaders cannot admit to being guided by rational reasoning. A politician cannot say for example, "It is ridiculous to think that a blastocyst has a soul, because for one thing, there are no such things as souls!".

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To ridicule the extremists while tolerating and giving a free pass to the moderates is inconsistent. They are the same illogical paths. One group just happens to be further down it than the other. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
the more ridiculous the beliefs the more ridicule they deserve.

Its not generally individuals who are being mocked but the belief systems and religous authorities. We don't follow someone around pouring scorn on them for being christian but taking the piss out of ideas like virgin births, popes, dinasours on the ark etc etc is all good stuff.

The only time we need to pick on individuals who aren't professionals (popes, priests, vicars etc) is when they are dishonest (e.g IDers) or odious (persecute others)

chez

[bunny]

I think this thread is confusing religious belief with religious people. Those arguing for mockery are focussing on the silly beliefs, those arguing for civility are focussing on the people holding them.

I think you should respect me and mock my silly beliefs. (As an aside, I reject the claim that religious belief entails certainty, but concede that most believers say it does. In my opinion, the real problem stems from being sure your mystical beliefs are correct, not from the fact that you have them).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not true. I'd respond much more civilly to witchcraft than Christianity under almost any circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that madnak? Please expound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is poison, witchcraft is harmless. That's the short answer but really expounding would drive things off-topic. The point is that you assume everyone thinks it's justifiable to act nasty toward someone based on their beliefs. I don't accept that assumption at all.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all well and good until we get to the short list of things for which you think it is acceptable to mock people for. All you are saying he is that religion isnt on your list. You give no justification for WHY it isnt on your list, and although it SEEMS like you are claiming you dont even have a list, I find that nearly impossible to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are different criteria used to determine the basis for mockery, and a list of actions or types of people is only one of them. That moralistic context of whether a person who does such-and-such "deserves" to be mocked is flawed IMO. I mock people rarely, when I think it has psychological utility.

Mocking beliefs is another story - by mocking a belief I can express my contempt for it. That can have value.

But it's not a moralistic question for me..

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm being repetitive but... its very telling about the society when public figures can demean a group (be it a race or a belief system) and know it will be accepted. If politicians can denounce atheists with no backlash, that's a reflection of the standing atheists have in that community.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big issue.

I think you're missing the fact that location matters, gump. Here in New York I can call myself an atheist and nobody much cares. In Cedar City, UT some people freaked or behaved with hostility toward me. And Cedar is hardly the worst place in the US, hell, Evanston is probably worse. The deep Bible belt? I might get my ass beat for it.

But even here in NYC nobody seems to care much that Bush said atheists shouldn't be citizens, or that opinion polls show atheists are reviled in many areas. And most people even here trust religious people more than nonreligious people, and trust atheists least of all.

Is it real persecution? Nah, not here. But gays aren't really persecuted here either, nor are blacks. Yet around here people are hypersensitive to any kind of perceived prejudice toward those minorities, while they don't much care about atheists. Hell, I've been lectured for disrespecting Scientologists here, but atheism? There's a double standard.

And it's not the matter of choice, even if we assume belief is choice. People are much more upset when there's any prejudice related to religious belief systems. The hidden assumption is clear.

Of course, this is all the more reason not to mock religious people.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To ridicule the extremists while tolerating and giving a free pass to the moderates is inconsistent. They are the same illogical paths. One group just happens to be further down it than the other. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
the more ridiculous the beliefs the more ridicule they deserve.

Its not generally individuals who are being mocked but the belief systems and religous authorities. We don't follow someone around pouring scorn on them for being christian but taking the piss out of ideas like virgin births, popes, dinasours on the ark etc etc is all good stuff.

The only time we need to pick on individuals who aren't professionals (popes, priests, vicars etc) is when they are dishonest (e.g IDers) or odious (persecute others)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is exactly what I mean by being inconsistent. Some 50% of Americans DO believe in virgin births, popes, and dinosaurs on the Ark! I'm not suggesting we follow these people around and mock them at every turn, but what about strongly mocking these beliefs? Do you think we do that? Not at all.

In all likelihood our president holds these beliefs. Has he been mocked for them? Not at all! We have elections coming up and there is a very good chance someone who doesn't accept things like evolution, stem-cell research, or woman's rights on abortion issues will become elected.

What I'm saying is that these people are not made to face up to some very obvious questions regarding their beliefs! I think Mitt Romney should be asked straight out: How old do you think the earth is? Do you accept that humans are descendant from apes? And if he answers '6000 years old', and 'no', he should be mocked and ridiculed to the highest degree, no holds barred, by every rational thinker in the country. These answers should be flamed on the front page of every newspaper.

That's the kind of ridicule and mockery I'm talking about. Not dissing Mitt Romney as a man or human being, but in the sense that his out-dated religious notions are ridiculous and undeserving to be a serious contender for the president of the United States.

In this way, religion should be ridiculed and mocked by every rational thinker. Then and only then, will these ridiculous notions be taken out of mainstream societal politics. Believe whatever silly thing you want. But leave the rest of us out of it and don't imply we have to take you seriously about it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Well thats basically our entire approach to stop smoking, and it seems to be doing ok. I mean, sure, maybe 5% is based on education and providing alternatives but most of it is just based on shame and ridicule and pariahism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and we should be damned proud. Attacking and alienating people because of their personal choices is what makes our country great.

You sound like one of those PETA people who think I'm not mean enough to meat eaters. Get up on the wrong side of the bed?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To ridicule the extremists while tolerating and giving a free pass to the moderates is inconsistent. They are the same illogical paths. One group just happens to be further down it than the other. That's all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the more ridiculous the beliefs the more ridicule they deserve.

Its not generally individuals who are being mocked but the belief systems and religous authorities. We don't follow someone around pouring scorn on them for being christian but taking the piss out of ideas like virgin births, popes, dinasours on the ark etc etc is all good stuff.

The only time we need to pick on individuals who aren't professionals (popes, priests, vicars etc) is when they are dishonest (e.g IDers) or odious (persecute others)

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But this is exactly what I mean by being inconsistent. Some 50% of Americans DO believe in virgin births, popes, and dinosaurs on the Ark! I'm not suggesting we follow these people around and mock them at every turn, but what about strongly mocking these beliefs? Do you think we do that? Not at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speak for yourself. Here in the free world we mock that guff all the time /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
In all likelihood our president holds these beliefs. Has he been mocked for them? Not at all!

[/ QUOTE ]
We mock him here. Blair has just revealed he kept quiet about his religous beliefs for fear of being branded a loony.

chez

[madnak]

Oh yeah...

[ QUOTE ]
Somehow, I guess, they think of you as two people - the atheist who shouldn't even be a citizen and the atheist who is a great neighbor and businessman to deal with. I don't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "neighbor" thing I've never seen. You're in the US and people think atheists are good neighbors? Can you back that up?

The business thing... Well, atheists are "good at business" the way Jews are "good at business." If you catch my drift.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this thread is confusing religious belief with religious people. Those arguing for mockery are focussing on the silly beliefs, those arguing for civility are focussing on the people holding them.

I think you should respect me and mock my silly beliefs. (As an aside, I reject the claim that religious belief entails certainty, but concede that most believers say it does. In my opinion, the real problem stems from being sure your mystical beliefs are correct, not from the fact that you have them).

[/ QUOTE ]

There's also the hidden issue we've avoided so far. But it has to come up. That's the issue of proselytism.

Are we justified in doing whatever it takes to spread atheism? If so, then aren't the theists equally justified in doing whatever it takes to spread their beliefs? It's not just the specific tactics that matter, but the general approach. Attacking the logic of theistic beliefs is one thing, but getting into more general mockery treads awfully close to hypocrisy.

Most of all, I don't think our hatred of or disdain for religion should override the principle of "live and let live." I think this is really where some atheists go off track.

[Lestat]

Perhaps you're unintentionally making a case for the good mocking does. It seems to have worked over there. You guys are more secular than we are here in the states. (although don't you have an increasingly huge Muslim population?).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you're unintentionally making a case for the good mocking does. It seems to have worked over there. You guys are more secular than we are here in the states. (although don't you have an increasingly huge Muslim population?).

[/ QUOTE ]
The best anti-extreme-islam humour comes from the muslim community.

Mocking works. Let us not forget how Monty Python died for us, frequently.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah...

[ QUOTE ]
Somehow, I guess, they think of you as two people - the atheist who shouldn't even be a citizen and the atheist who is a great neighbor and businessman to deal with. I don't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "neighbor" thing I've never seen. You're in the US and people think atheists are good neighbors? Can you back that up?

The business thing... Well, atheists are "good at business" the way Jews are "good at business." If you catch my drift.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was approaching it as a martian. Finding out that atheists are deemed unfit for citizenship by a president and unfit for office by a large majority of the population would have me predict that they are not held in high regard and are repressed in other social instances ... without even hearing about them. As a rational martian I couldn't conceive of atheists being considered 'equal' and not discriminated against in business or the general mix on the political data I had.

I know they are, with some pockets of exception, I was challenging the concept that reality could be "well, heck, so you can't just run for federal office, big deal".

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then aren't the theists equally justified in doing whatever it takes to spread their beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

My neighbor is an atheist.
Please list his beliefs.

luckyme

[madnak]

It's a valid distinction in terms of philosophy, but I'm not buying it in terms of practice.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
There are very important issues at stake (stem-cell research comes to mind, as does abortion and birth control), where our leaders cannot admit to being guided by rational reasoning. A politician cannot say for example, "It is ridiculous to think that a blastocyst has a soul, because for one thing, there are no such things as souls!".

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet plenty of politicians who are ostensibly religious are in favor of legal access to abortion, over-the-counter emergency contraception, and embryonic stem cell research. I'd imagine you could find a decent number of atheists who are against abortion and embryonic stem cell research, too, as the soul is obviously a red herring for that discussion. (EDIT: That is, I'm pretty sure you could find non-theists who still think it is murder to kill an embryo because it is in some sense a living human, soul or no.)

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are very important issues at stake (stem-cell research comes to mind, as does abortion and birth control), where our leaders cannot admit to being guided by rational reasoning. A politician cannot say for example, "It is ridiculous to think that a blastocyst has a soul, because for one thing, there are no such things as souls!".

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet plenty of politicians who are ostensibly religious are in favor of legal access to abortion, over-the-counter emergency contraception, and embryonic stem cell research. I'd imagine you could find a decent number of atheists who are against abortion and embryonic stem cell research, too, as the soul is obviously a red herring for that discussion. (EDIT: That is, I'm pretty sure you could find non-theists who still think it is murder to kill an embryo because it is in some sense a living human, soul or no.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll concede you have a point about there being reasons other than religious ones to be against things like stem-cell research and contraception. But there's no denying that religious tenets make up the bulk of the opposition. So it is anything but a red herring.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]

Safe to guess you've never read anything by Richard Dawkins?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Selfish Gene is fascinating, I love that stuff.

His current political musings in God Delusion are juvenile. Have read debate transcripts and op eds by him, and reviews of it.

He makes a routine error of hard science folks: thinking the certitude of beakers, rocks, and enzymes applies full force in social commentary.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything? </font>

This is what I'm trying to find out. But I think perhaps you are dismissing the effects of mocking and ridiculing too quickly. No one likes to be mocked or ridiculed. Take this example:

You're like me and have no fashion sense of your own. You see a shirt in a store that you're not sure about. The fact is, it will make you look ridiculous to other people. You show it to your friend/wife/acquaintence. Do you want an honest opinion? Do you want them to soft-play you and pander to your sensibilities? Or would you be less likely to buy it if they were brutally honest and mocked the shirt and laughed at the prospect of you buying it?

Let's not get caught up in semantics here. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a mind of your own. Of course, if you really like something you shouldn't care what others think. But assume there is a right or wrong decision to be made about this shirt. Assume the purchase is important (maybe it affects your chance for landing your dream job). You are in danger of making the wrong choice. What exchange is more likely to lead you in the right direction? "Hmm. I don't know. It's not my taste, but it's your decision.". Or... "Are you kidding me? LOL!! That looks ridiculous on you! Sure, go ahead and buy it if you want to look like an idiot!".

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, but in this case the shirt does not make up a substantial part of my self-identity. If it was my favorite shirt that my mom gave me before she died, I don't think I would react very well to scorn, ridicule, and mockery. Instead of laughing at my shirt I think you would get much farther if you said something like, "Dude, that shirt is pretty ugly . . ." and then you went on to explain why I should stop wearing it.

And just because I'm not scornful and mocking doesn't mean that I'm soft-playing or pandering. It is actually quite easy to point out inconsistencies and unsupported claims in religious ideologies without being rude. As bunny was saying, I think it's much more important to show people that they cannot claim certainty and that they cannot expect others to have the same beliefs because there is no good reason for believing.

I think many of us non-believers act like anybody who believes in a deity or "magic" is an idiot. I don't think we get very far when we treat people like they are dumb. I would contend that most theists actually don't think much about most of the things they are "supposed" to believe. Often if you just bring it up it gets the gears moving. But if you start out with, "Christians believe the most ridiculous things!" they will often tune you out.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Bill Haywood on pretty much every point he has made so far.

Many of you are acting like hardcore theists were well-educated and rational adults when their beliefs were formed. In fact, many theists were born into their religion or converted after major life trauma. It is often an integral part of how they understand and parse the world. I don't know the best way to handle these people or engage in debate with them, but I'm am fairly sure it is not ridicule and disdain. All that does is make the debate more contentious and forces people to dig their heels in.

Should we challenge their arguments? Most certainly.
Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Well thats basically our entire approach to stop smoking, and it seems to be doing ok. I mean, sure, maybe 5% is based on education and providing alternatives but most of it is just based on shame and ridicule and pariahism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a false analogy. Nobody really disputes the fact that cigarettes are bad for you. And you're saying only 5% is based on education, but that is just wrong. We wouldn't mock and shun smokers if damn near everyone wasn't already educated about the perils of smoking.

If you know a theist who knows that his beliefs are illogical and/or ridiculous, I would say that mocking is not a bad option.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
His current political musings in God Delusion are juvenile. Have read debate transcripts and op eds by him, and reviews of it.

He makes a routine error of hard science folks: thinking the certitude of beakers, rocks, and enzymes applies full force in social commentary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Best read it yourself if you want to comment. Much comment on Dawkins is mere bile, much the same as the bile poured on Russell. Maybe it has as little justification.

chez

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]

Best read it yourself if you want to comment. Much comment on Dawkins is mere bile,

[/ QUOTE ]

Have I misheard his views?

*Religious belief is a mental pathology.
*Faith cripples thought. (In general, not just in musings about ultimates.)
*Theism is the major source of violence in the world.
*A society run strictly on rational atheism is the only true heaven.

(I know I'm about to get an avalanche of "those things are all true" comments. I disagree, but the the point I'm making here is that I do indeed get the proper gist of his position.)

Dawkins' foray into social commentary is way out of his league. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775)

Even if you do not include Dawkins in it, the brand of militant atheism displayed on this board is dogmatic and unproductive.

I think Dawkins has a role to play in stiffening the spines of beleaguered atheists. But he's still a snot, and his political thinking is callow and unnuanced.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Best read it yourself if you want to comment. Much comment on Dawkins is mere bile,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Have I misheard his views?


[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a matter of his views, though your snippits sound like nonsense. What matters is the force (or not) of his arguments.

chez

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
your snippits sound like nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I gotta ask if YOU have read the God Delusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Its not a matter of his views.... What matters is the force (or not) of his arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what that means.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Have I misheard his views?

*Religious belief is a mental pathology.
*Faith cripples thought. (In general, not just in musings about ultimates.)
*Theism is the major source of violence in the world.
*A society run strictly on rational atheism is the only true heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have Dawkins confused with Nielso.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its not a matter of his views.... What matters is the force (or not) of his arguments.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know what that means.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Bill Haywood on pretty much every point he has made so far.

Many of you are acting like hardcore theists were well-educated and rational adults when their beliefs were formed. In fact, many theists were born into their religion or converted after major life trauma. It is often an integral part of how they understand and parse the world. I don't know the best way to handle these people or engage in debate with them, but I'm am fairly sure it is not ridicule and disdain. All that does is make the debate more contentious and forces people to dig their heels in.

Should we challenge their arguments? Most certainly.
Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Well thats basically our entire approach to stop smoking, and it seems to be doing ok. I mean, sure, maybe 5% is based on education and providing alternatives but most of it is just based on shame and ridicule and pariahism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.... its just that no one ever killed someone for ridiculing his smoking habit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right because smokers arent empowered.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To ridicule the extremists while tolerating and giving a free pass to the moderates is inconsistent. They are the same illogical paths. One group just happens to be further down it than the other. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
the more ridiculous the beliefs the more ridicule they deserve.

Its not generally individuals who are being mocked but the belief systems and religous authorities. We don't follow someone around pouring scorn on them for being christian but taking the piss out of ideas like virgin births, popes, dinasours on the ark etc etc is all good stuff.

The only time we need to pick on individuals who aren't professionals (popes, priests, vicars etc) is when they are dishonest (e.g IDers) or odious (persecute others)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A+

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way

[/ QUOTE ]

i can honestly say ive never met a single human being where this sentence holds true.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine you could find a decent number of atheists who are against abortion and embryonic stem cell research

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the great thing about imagination. it can spawn small deceptions like the one above, or larger ones like The One above.

[Subfallen]

Maybe one or two people in this thread understand the profound damage religious fundamentalists do to their children.

Fundamentalist religion is poison, pure and simple. So, yes, we need more neo-atheists, if only [Daily Show]for the children.[/Daily Show]

[Alex-db]

We should treat people with traditional religious beliefs in the same way we treat people with traditional racist beliefs.

That doesn't exclude being civil, but it does include being vocal and proactively intolerant.

Does anyone argue that it is uncivil to promote neo-a-racism in the deep south?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you're unintentionally making a case for the good mocking does. It seems to have worked over there. You guys are more secular than we are here in the states. (although don't you have an increasingly huge Muslim population?).

[/ QUOTE ]
The best anti-extreme-islam humour comes from the muslim community.

Mocking works. Let us not forget how Monty Python died for us, frequently.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But the forum matters. It's one thing to mock religious beliefs and people in a comedy act, another to mock them in what's supposed to be serious civil discourse (or to their face in day-to-day life). The former is oblique enough to be occasionally convincing and passably polite; the latter just tends to alienate people who don't already agree with you. The former stokes our sense of humor, while the latter stokes our sense of outrage -- and you don't have to be Yoda to know that making people angry with each other is a bad thing, all else being equal.

Enmity begets enmity. If you want to convince someone of anything, it helps if he doesn't think you're a raging [censored].

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one or two people in this thread understand the profound damage religious fundamentalists do to their children.

Fundamentalist religion is poison, pure and simple. So, yes, we need more neo-atheists. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

But your conclusion only follows if scorn is better at convincing people than civility. That seems very unlikely to me.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
We should treat people with traditional religious beliefs in the same way we treat people with traditional racist beliefs.

That doesn't exclude being civil, but it does include being vocal and proactively intolerant.

Does anyone argue that it is uncivil to promote neo-a-racism in the deep south?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, you've hit upon the key word that for some reason escaped me in this thread. "Intolerant". We should be intolerant to stupid beliefs without fear of hurting someone's sensibilities.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
But the forum matters. It's one thing to mock religious beliefs and people in a comedy act, another to mock them in what's supposed to be serious civil discourse (or to their face in day-to-day life).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what (I think) most of us are talking about. No one is saying, let's get a mob together, drive over to a church and mock people.

Humor is fine, but we shouldn't put all the onus on the movie industry. I think it's ok for us as a general population to laugh and ridicule people like that Kansas City shool board who voted for ID alongside other scientific curriculum. I think it's also acceptable to laugh at someone like Mitt Romney and laugh loud!

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure either, although I generally lump one "neo" in with the next, neo-con, neo-atheist, neo-nazi.

Neo has become synonymous with rude, intolerant, and downright nasty people, and I think in many cases with the term neo-atheist, it fits like a glove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good thing you dont mock people. I knew we'd find the contents of your list somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not mockery, it's an opinion. "Atheists are idiots" is a mockery. And note, I wasn't even referring to most atheists, just the ones who feel they must shove their particular non belief system down others throats, while at the same time attacking religious people from doing the same thing.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you're unintentionally making a case for the good mocking does. It seems to have worked over there. You guys are more secular than we are here in the states. (although don't you have an increasingly huge Muslim population?).

[/ QUOTE ]
The best anti-extreme-islam humour comes from the muslim community.

Mocking works. Let us not forget how Monty Python died for us, frequently.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But the forum matters. It's one thing to mock religious beliefs and people in a comedy act, another to mock them in what's supposed to be serious civil discourse (or to their face in day-to-day life). The former is oblique enough to be occasionally convincing and passably polite; the latter just tends to alienate people who don't already agree with you. The former stokes our sense of humor, while the latter stokes our sense of outrage -- and you don't have to be Yoda to know that making people angry with each other is a bad thing, all else being equal.

Enmity begets enmity. If you want to convince someone of anything, it helps if he doesn't think you're a raging [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
The mocking only works if it amuses. If someone laughs then its probably working.

LeStat is dead on, intolerance is vital. We must be totally intolerant to the idea that we have to tolerate the ridiculous.

DS is very dead on.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure either, although I generally lump one "neo" in with the next, neo-con, neo-atheist, neo-nazi.

Neo has become synonymous with rude, intolerant, and downright nasty people, and I think in many cases with the term neo-atheist, it fits like a glove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good thing you dont mock people. I knew we'd find the contents of your list somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not mockery, it's an opinion. "Atheists are idiots" is a mockery. And note, I wasn't even referring to most atheists, just the ones who feel they must shove their particular non belief system down others throats, while at the same time attacking religious people from doing the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've got a lot of us all wrong. It's not a matter of shoving our non-belief systems down other people's throat. People are free to believe whatever they want. But when you tell me of your belief that the mothership will be here soon to pick you up, I reserve the right to laugh and tell you that's a most ridiculous thing to say.

As Sam Harris puts it: Atheism is simply the noise rational people make in the face of unfounded and irrational claims. There's not much more to it than that.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
People are free to believe whatever they want. But when you tell me of your belief that the mothership will be here soon to pick you up, I reserve the right to laugh and tell you that's a most ridiculous thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, that's your right. It's also your right not to bathe. The two are generally inadvisable, however, and for very similar reasons.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are free to believe whatever they want. But when you tell me of your belief that the mothership will be here soon to pick you up, I reserve the right to laugh and tell you that's a most ridiculous thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, that's your right. It's also your right not to bathe. The two are generally inadvisable, however, and for very similar reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
Comparing bathing to tolerating nonsense is ridiculous.

Fear is the key to your soul, metaphorically speaking of course.

chez

[Bill Haywood]

Mockery is a tactic. Ya'll are treating it as a principle.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Mockery is a tactic. Ya'll are treating it as a principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, we're treasting it as a tactic.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this thread is confusing religious belief with religious people. Those arguing for mockery are focussing on the silly beliefs, those arguing for civility are focussing on the people holding them.

I think you should respect me and mock my silly beliefs (As an aside, I reject the claim that religious belief entails certainty, but concede that most believers say it does. In my opinion, the real problem stems from being sure your mystical beliefs are correct, not from the fact that you have them).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you making a distinction between "that's laughable" and "you're laughable for believing that"?
"that's loud". "you're a loud person".
"that a lot of fat." "you're a fat person".
"that's a racist comment". " you're a racist ( because you believe that)".

"Fritzig tells some funny jokes ... gawd, he's funny".

Sure, we can pretend the ideas a person has are nailed to their door in the middle of the night and they're just forced to recite them, or we can recognize that we are what we do/are, as above.

That was the gist of my wanting to keep my respect respectable. I want my kids, friends and coworkers to be able to trust my opinion and not have to worry that I can think thoughts such as " he's an honest man, he just lies a lot"

Not to be confused with respecting their right to believe in ufo's, heck, I may drive them to the landing spot if they're stuck for a ride. Perhaps that's somewhat along the line you're taking.

luckyme