|
|
|
|
#1
04-25-2007, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
The Great Atheist Schism
I came across this pretty cool blog post about the arguments that many atheists have with each other. I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit.
The Great Atheist Schism I've been trying to say something similar about my atheist position. I guess I'm an "old atheist" as he describes it. 
|
|
#2
04-25-2007, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
I don't see how anyone, even an atheist, can fail to be fascinated by religion as a social/psychological phenomenon. Plus, it leads to some very interesting viewpoints at times. Many of my favorite philosophers were heavily religious (Wittgenstein, Popper, Kierkegaard [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].)
That said, I generally oppose the practice of religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#3
04-25-2007, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how anyone, even an atheist, can fail to be fascinated by religion as a social/psychological phenomenon. Plus, it leads to some very interesting viewpoints at times. Many of my favorite philosophers were heavily religious (Wittgenstein, Popper, Kierkegaard [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].) That said, I generally oppose the practice of religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that you can't see why atheists don't become religious?
|
|
#5
04-25-2007, 03:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ]
Heh, no...after all, I'm an atheist. Nonetheless I appreciate religion on several levels that do not require it to be an accurate depiction of reality. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with that. I am absolutely fascinated by it on a social psychology level. It's really, really remarkable.
|
|
#6
04-25-2007, 05:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ]
I came across this pretty cool blog post about the arguments that many atheists have with each other. I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit. The Great Atheist Schism I've been trying to say something similar about my atheist position. I guess I'm an "old atheist" as he describes it. [/ QUOTE ] I am an a-Schism-ist.
|
|
#7
04-25-2007, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ] I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit. [/ QUOTE ] He also misses the main point - [ QUOTE ] The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] He's confusing two concepts - 1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief. 2 respecting the opinion/belief itself. My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc. Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry. The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine." luckyme
|
|
#8
04-25-2007, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit. [/ QUOTE ] He also misses the main point - [ QUOTE ] The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] He's confusing two concepts - 1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief. 2 respecting the opinion/belief itself. My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc. Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry. The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine." luckyme [/ QUOTE ] POTD.
|
|
#9
04-25-2007, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit. [/ QUOTE ] He also misses the main point - [ QUOTE ] The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] He's confusing two concepts - 1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief. 2 respecting the opinion/belief itself. My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc. Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry. The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine." luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Although I agree somewhat with what you are saying, I think his main point is very important. If you think that these viewpoints are harming society, shouldn't you try to change them? And if you think that we need to work to educate people, don't you think they will react more openly if you treat them with respect? In my eyes, it's all about your approach. If I call you out and say, "your worldview is based on nothing, is basically a fairy tale, and is harmful to humanity" you probably won't listen to anything else I have to say. You'll simply write me off and that's the end of the conversation. It's just not a fruitful way to engage the other side. You have to gain someone's trust and respect before they will earnestly listen to you. You have to remember that it isn't unreasonable to be a theist if that's what you've grown up around. It's actually very normal. So you can't just walk around calling people deluded children and expect them to respond positively. It's a very fine line to walk.
|
|
#10
04-25-2007, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Great Atheist Schism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I tend to agree with him although he exaggerates things a little bit. [/ QUOTE ] He also misses the main point - [ QUOTE ] The suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc., were rude in ways that disrupted the status quo, in order to call attention to their plight. The new atheists are rude simply in that they're running around insulting large swaths of the population, and displaying an utter lack of respect for their most cherished beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] He's confusing two concepts - 1 respecting a persons 'right' to have an opinion/belief. 2 respecting the opinion/belief itself. My neighbor believes his red shirt is lucky for him. Fine, have at it, whatever floats your boat, to each his own, etc. Does that mean I should be giving some credence/respect for his red shirt theory? of course not. it's ludicrous and if I thought it was harming my children or society as a whole by people promoting such a view or he was trying to pass laws or form social policy based on his opinion we shouldn't soft pedal our opposition to this belief even if it makes him cry. The blogger and theists want to hide behind my concern for 1 and pretend that 2 a subset of 1, it's not. The current thrust of the debate is "no, you can't pull that 'cherished' crap anymore to add validity to your position. Your claims will be weighed on their own merits, just like mine." luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Although I agree somewhat with what you are saying, I think his main point is very important. If you think that these viewpoints are harming society, shouldn't you try to change them? And if you think that we need to work to educate people, don't you think they will react more openly if you treat them with respect? In my eyes, it's all about your approach. If I call you out and say, "your worldview is based on nothing, is basically a fairy tale, and is harmful to humanity" you probably won't listen to anything else I have to say. You'll simply write me off and that's the end of the conversation. It's just not a fruitful way to engage the other side. You have to gain someone's trust and respect before they will earnestly listen to you. You have to remember that it isn't unreasonable to be a theist if that's what you've grown up around. It's actually very normal. So you can't just walk around calling people deluded children and expect them to respond positively. It's a very fine line to walk. [/ QUOTE ] You are utterly utterly utterly wrong. Do you see why?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
