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

[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.

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.