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

[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.