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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

[ 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 ]

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

[ 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.

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

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.

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

[ 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

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

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).

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

[ 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

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

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.