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

[MoP_86]

[ 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.

[gumpzilla]

[ 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 seems like utter [censored]. Most people I know who smoke know that it is unhealthy for them, and expensive, and would quit for those reasons. While I have heard complaints about culture marginalizing smokers, it is more that the culture makes it hard for them to find places to do it. It has nothing to do with shame and ridicule.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight... That's not enough?! Being barred from gaining high office is acceptable to you? Would you accept this condition for gays, blacks, or any other group?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being black or gay isn't a belief system, so I think this is a dumb comparison. To say that atheists are the most maligned group in America, when this seems to be the extent of their suffering that you can come up with, seems absurd to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skin tone or gender is not a pre-requisite to being a minority. I very much disagree. It is not at all absurd. There are very important issues at stake (stem-cell research comes to mind, as does abortion and birth control), where our leaders cannot admit to being guided by rational reasoning. A politician cannot say for example, "It is ridiculous to think that a blastocyst has a soul, because for one thing, there are no such things as souls!".

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[bunny]

I think this thread is confusing religious belief with religious people. Those arguing for mockery are focussing on the silly beliefs, those arguing for civility are focussing on the people holding them.

I think you should respect me and mock my silly beliefs. (As an aside, I reject the claim that religious belief entails certainty, but concede that most believers say it does. In my opinion, the real problem stems from being sure your mystical beliefs are correct, not from the fact that you have them).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is poison, witchcraft is harmless. That's the short answer but really expounding would drive things off-topic. The point is that you assume everyone thinks it's justifiable to act nasty toward someone based on their beliefs. I don't accept that assumption at all.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all well and good until we get to the short list of things for which you think it is acceptable to mock people for. All you are saying he is that religion isnt on your list. You give no justification for WHY it isnt on your list, and although it SEEMS like you are claiming you dont even have a list, I find that nearly impossible to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are different criteria used to determine the basis for mockery, and a list of actions or types of people is only one of them. That moralistic context of whether a person who does such-and-such "deserves" to be mocked is flawed IMO. I mock people rarely, when I think it has psychological utility.

Mocking beliefs is another story - by mocking a belief I can express my contempt for it. That can have value.

But it's not a moralistic question for me..

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm being repetitive but... its very telling about the society when public figures can demean a group (be it a race or a belief system) and know it will be accepted. If politicians can denounce atheists with no backlash, that's a reflection of the standing atheists have in that community.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big issue.

I think you're missing the fact that location matters, gump. Here in New York I can call myself an atheist and nobody much cares. In Cedar City, UT some people freaked or behaved with hostility toward me. And Cedar is hardly the worst place in the US, hell, Evanston is probably worse. The deep Bible belt? I might get my ass beat for it.

But even here in NYC nobody seems to care much that Bush said atheists shouldn't be citizens, or that opinion polls show atheists are reviled in many areas. And most people even here trust religious people more than nonreligious people, and trust atheists least of all.

Is it real persecution? Nah, not here. But gays aren't really persecuted here either, nor are blacks. Yet around here people are hypersensitive to any kind of perceived prejudice toward those minorities, while they don't much care about atheists. Hell, I've been lectured for disrespecting Scientologists here, but atheism? There's a double standard.

And it's not the matter of choice, even if we assume belief is choice. People are much more upset when there's any prejudice related to religious belief systems. The hidden assumption is clear.

Of course, this is all the more reason not to mock religious people.

[Lestat]

[ 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 ]

But this is exactly what I mean by being inconsistent. Some 50% of Americans DO believe in virgin births, popes, and dinosaurs on the Ark! I'm not suggesting we follow these people around and mock them at every turn, but what about strongly mocking these beliefs? Do you think we do that? Not at all.

In all likelihood our president holds these beliefs. Has he been mocked for them? Not at all! We have elections coming up and there is a very good chance someone who doesn't accept things like evolution, stem-cell research, or woman's rights on abortion issues will become elected.

What I'm saying is that these people are not made to face up to some very obvious questions regarding their beliefs! I think Mitt Romney should be asked straight out: How old do you think the earth is? Do you accept that humans are descendant from apes? And if he answers '6000 years old', and 'no', he should be mocked and ridiculed to the highest degree, no holds barred, by every rational thinker in the country. These answers should be flamed on the front page of every newspaper.

That's the kind of ridicule and mockery I'm talking about. Not dissing Mitt Romney as a man or human being, but in the sense that his out-dated religious notions are ridiculous and undeserving to be a serious contender for the president of the United States.

In this way, religion should be ridiculed and mocked by every rational thinker. Then and only then, will these ridiculous notions be taken out of mainstream societal politics. Believe whatever silly thing you want. But leave the rest of us out of it and don't imply we have to take you seriously about it.

[madnak]

[ 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 ]

Yeah, and we should be damned proud. Attacking and alienating people because of their personal choices is what makes our country great.

You sound like one of those PETA people who think I'm not mean enough to meat eaters. Get up on the wrong side of the bed?