|
View Poll Results: Would you be very likely to play in this Aussie Style KOTKP? | |||
Yes - and Im close to Aussies timezone | 5 | 33.33% | |
Yes - but Im American or Canadian and I might be drunk | 3 | 20.00% | |
Yes - but I live in a place that lets me use the other Yes answers | 0 | 0% | |
Maybe - I live on the planet earth | 7 | 46.67% | |
No | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 ] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
That's not true. I'd respond much more civilly to witchcraft than Christianity under almost any circumstance.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
[ 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
[ 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|