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

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To ridicule the extremists while tolerating and giving a free pass to the moderates is inconsistent. They are the same illogical paths. One group just happens to be further down it than the other. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
the more ridiculous the beliefs the more ridicule they deserve.

Its not generally individuals who are being mocked but the belief systems and religous authorities. We don't follow someone around pouring scorn on them for being christian but taking the piss out of ideas like virgin births, popes, dinasours on the ark etc etc is all good stuff.

The only time we need to pick on individuals who aren't professionals (popes, priests, vicars etc) is when they are dishonest (e.g IDers) or odious (persecute others)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A+

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way

[/ QUOTE ]

i can honestly say ive never met a single human being where this sentence holds true.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine you could find a decent number of atheists who are against abortion and embryonic stem cell research

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the great thing about imagination. it can spawn small deceptions like the one above, or larger ones like The One above.

[Subfallen]

Maybe one or two people in this thread understand the profound damage religious fundamentalists do to their children.

Fundamentalist religion is poison, pure and simple. So, yes, we need more neo-atheists, if only [Daily Show]for the children.[/Daily Show]

[Alex-db]

We should treat people with traditional religious beliefs in the same way we treat people with traditional racist beliefs.

That doesn't exclude being civil, but it does include being vocal and proactively intolerant.

Does anyone argue that it is uncivil to promote neo-a-racism in the deep south?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you're unintentionally making a case for the good mocking does. It seems to have worked over there. You guys are more secular than we are here in the states. (although don't you have an increasingly huge Muslim population?).

[/ QUOTE ]
The best anti-extreme-islam humour comes from the muslim community.

Mocking works. Let us not forget how Monty Python died for us, frequently.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But the forum matters. It's one thing to mock religious beliefs and people in a comedy act, another to mock them in what's supposed to be serious civil discourse (or to their face in day-to-day life). The former is oblique enough to be occasionally convincing and passably polite; the latter just tends to alienate people who don't already agree with you. The former stokes our sense of humor, while the latter stokes our sense of outrage -- and you don't have to be Yoda to know that making people angry with each other is a bad thing, all else being equal.

Enmity begets enmity. If you want to convince someone of anything, it helps if he doesn't think you're a raging [censored].

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one or two people in this thread understand the profound damage religious fundamentalists do to their children.

Fundamentalist religion is poison, pure and simple. So, yes, we need more neo-atheists. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

But your conclusion only follows if scorn is better at convincing people than civility. That seems very unlikely to me.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
We should treat people with traditional religious beliefs in the same way we treat people with traditional racist beliefs.

That doesn't exclude being civil, but it does include being vocal and proactively intolerant.

Does anyone argue that it is uncivil to promote neo-a-racism in the deep south?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, you've hit upon the key word that for some reason escaped me in this thread. "Intolerant". We should be intolerant to stupid beliefs without fear of hurting someone's sensibilities.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
But the forum matters. It's one thing to mock religious beliefs and people in a comedy act, another to mock them in what's supposed to be serious civil discourse (or to their face in day-to-day life).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what (I think) most of us are talking about. No one is saying, let's get a mob together, drive over to a church and mock people.

Humor is fine, but we shouldn't put all the onus on the movie industry. I think it's ok for us as a general population to laugh and ridicule people like that Kansas City shool board who voted for ID alongside other scientific curriculum. I think it's also acceptable to laugh at someone like Mitt Romney and laugh loud!

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good thing you dont mock people. I knew we'd find the contents of your list somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not mockery, it's an opinion. "Atheists are idiots" is a mockery. And note, I wasn't even referring to most atheists, just the ones who feel they must shove their particular non belief system down others throats, while at the same time attacking religious people from doing the same thing.