Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you think that taking an aggressive stance for atheism turns off other folks so thoroughly that it creates a polarized world? Or is there clear benefit in the aggressive stance?

Is this just a personal style thing, and it doesn't really matter?

Should we always be polite to theists or be aggressive in what we perceive as their idiocy?

My own view is that I am all for politeness. I think there is a clear time for mockery in the form of subtle, artful satire; but I recognize that as simply my preference and personal style.

For full disclosure, I also do not self-identify as an atheist but rather more of what Jimbo calls a "weak Deist", so I meant the "we" as a general term.

[quixotecoyote]

"The Cause"?

[Ichneumonwasp]

"The Cause"?

Just using somebody else's phrase. Really it's just an issue of "does an aggressive stance create too much polarization so that communication isn't possible?"

And, for those who are interested in seeing the end of theism, does being aggressive help out the theist side?

[Miss Anthrope]

I am absolutely polite to people I meet, unless they are knocking on my door trying to save me.

Look, I've been a believer. I homeschool, so let it be said I know plenty of believers. I don't attack them!

Online, I'm tired of the same predictable arguments. Occasionally, people like RoadToad and Randfan shine. Absolutely shine! But for the most part, we're dealing with folks like Kurious Kathy who don't want to do anything but push their agenda. And quite frankly, it's tiring.

So I am not polite.

I do believe that some on these boards go a step too far. There are those who are absolutely angry. So angry they question the atheism of those who don't prefer that approach. To me, that is counter-productive. When you argue from an extreme, no matter what side it is, it tends not to be useful. Everything gets lost in the hyperbole.

[skeptifem]

I think that when used on figureheads for religious movements its not so bad, because the religious leaders are that way too and being super nice about everything wont get you anywhere with those sorts of people. when youre just talking to people in day to day life, yeah, it isnt so great for the cause of questioning religion (well, i think thats a cause but we'll see!).

[Complexity]

Hell, no!

Which cause?

[kellyb]

Well, I think coming across like an angry psycho doesn't exactly make atheism look appealing, so the "extreme" end of the spectrum probably does more harm than good.
But there's nothing wrong with being "direct" at times, in my opinion. And funny is just funny.

[TubeMonkey]

I'm not sure there is a 'cause'. What is it that atheists are fighting for?

The problem sometimes is that a purely secular stance is often seen by the religious communities as an aggressive attack on them by 'militant atheists'.
Recently, in the UK, there has been quite a bit of controversy over state funded faith schools, and I remember reading a few times about 'creeping secularism being pushed by militant atheists', yet the issue of secularism is one which the religious and non-religious can come together on. Although they don't very often, I know:(

Unfortunatly if you are an atheist and state your views and opinions clearly and truthfully, that is enough to make certain religious groups feel victimized and oppressed, and (assuming that I have been polite and honest) I personally don't really care if they do feel that way.

[Slimething]

I believe that tactics must adapt to situation. On a one-on-one basis in normal life, relgion shouldn't even come up so what's the use in arguing. If you run into a proselyte, said person is mocking you, make no mistake about it. Tell them politely to sod off. If they don't, let them have it between the eyes. The best way is to ask questions that lead them to reveal their ignorance of their own religion then correct them publicly without lowering your voice (but don't raise it). If they are sane, they will be too embarrassed to continue.

However, when addressing a large group of peole, stridency is almost always necessary because you have to make your point to many mindsets in as little time as possible. Subtlety is not the name of the game there. If you are addressing the merits of atheism/rationalism, you must be a vigorous proponent. People who try to take the same tenor with large groups as they would with one individual are perceived as boring and wishy-washy.

Let's just say that, in influencing people, everything is context.

[slingblade]

I don't have a cause. I simply refuse to swallow any more lies.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I do believe that some on these boards go a step too far. There are those who are absolutely angry. So angry they question the atheism of those who don't prefer that approach. To me, that is counter-productive. When you argue from an extreme, no matter what side it is, it tends not to be useful. Everything gets lost in the hyperbole.

I think this sums up how I feel about the done of discourse I see on this forum. Being droll and blunt like Hitchens is one thing, but being screechingly hysteric or an ******* is counterproductive.

[This Guy]

My opinion would be that Dawkins is about as extreme as it should get. I'm still internally debating how much I agree/disagree with his style, though I think he's done a wonderful job.

I think when you do things like the Blasphemy Challenge, that's too "in your face" and will tend to only make enemies, not people that might listen to your arguments, and consider them. And yea I know most religious type won't listen anyway, but when you go around opening mocking their beliefs, I think you remove any slight chance there might have been. They just see you as anti, and discount your views.

But, that's just my opinion :)

[Hokulele]

Like several people who have posted in this thread, for me, it depends on the person I am talking to/with. If they are polite, I will certainly follow their lead. I do have a problem with people who are either more forceful than they need to be, display bigotry based on their faith, or indulge in a deliberate ignorance of other people's experiences or proven facts.

[Ducky]

All thoughts on "The Cause" aside, aggressive doesn't have to mean abrasive. Are we discussing an abrasive, caustic approach that could be offensive or are we discussing an aggressive but respectful tone? They're both possible.

Of course, this is assuming a "cause." What cause? Skepticism is a tool for critical thinking, not much of a "movement" or "cause." Those that consider themselves skeptical are still human, can barely agree on a wide variety of things, and don't have any real common factors except the notion of critical thinking. "Skeptic" does not automatically equate to "Atheist" and vice versa.

[kellyb]

I think Ich was mostly referring to abrasive, caustic offensiveness?


I think almost everyone would agree that "agressive, yet respectful" is ok and has value.

[Hokulele]

<snip>

Those that consider themselves skeptical are still human, can barely agree on a wide variety of things, and don't have any real common factors except the notion of critical thinking.

<snip>


Bravo.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think Ich was mostly referring to abrasive, caustic offensiveness?


I think almost everyone would agree that "agressive, yet respectful" is ok and has value.

Yes.

For others, don't get caught up in my use of the word "cause". As I said, this is someone else's term, and this whole idea is an off-shoot of the Kathy Griffin thread.

Some folks seemed to think that aggressive offensiveness was necessary when discussing issues with believers and others seemed to think that this approach would only drive a deeper wedge between believer and non-believer so that conversation would not be possible. In other words, the highly abrasive approach would hurt the "cause" of promoting critical thinking and turn believers more firmly against any skeptical approach whatsoever.

[Meadmaker]

My opinion would be that Dawkins is about as extreme as it should get. I'm still internally debating how much I agree/disagree with his style, though I think he's done a wonderful job.


A few months ago I started a thread as I read "The God Delusion". My general conclusion about the book was that it was pretty good, and I noted that this surprised me, because I expected a strident, hate filled, ranting tome. I expected that because I had formed my preconceived notions of it based on what people said when they praised the book on JREF. In the end I still had to criticize Dawkins not as much for what he said, but for what he inspired.

As far as whether or not either his rhetoric or the rhetoric he inspires hurts "the cause" that's a bit tougher to answer. Some people object to the idea that there is a "cause", but I think it's clear that while there might not be one, single, cause, there are a few variations on that theme. In general, there's an atheist tide swelling in the US that wants less influence of religion, especially Christianity, on society and more respect for atheism as a legitimate philosophical position.

The confrontational rhetoric so often used here or in recent best sellers has mixed results. In some ways, there can be little doubt that it has been effective. It has brought people "out of the closet" on atheism, and that cannot hurt "the cause".

On the other hand, the most extreme statements, especially the "religion is child abuse" claims have had a very significant effect, which has been quite polarizing. I think the most strident rhetoric has convinced people that there really is a confrontation brewing, and they will be forced to pick a side. Some atheists, agnostics, etc. are not going to pick "the atheist side", because they see in that rhetoric a fierceness, lack of respect, and intolerance, that might be every bit as bad as what they dislike from Christianity.

I think what it unltimately does is force a confrontation. That can be good, but there are two issues with that. First, if you force that confrontation, you might lose. Second, if you win, you might find that when you're done, you haven't really won anything after all, because the society you created isn't any better than the one you defeated. (See "Animal Farm" or the French revolution) Whether it advances "the cause" or hurts it, I know that I don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it harms the cause. Are apologists like me worth having on "your side"?

[Ichneumonwasp]

All thoughts on "The Cause" aside, aggressive doesn't have to mean abrasive. Are we discussing an abrasive, caustic approach that could be offensive or are we discussing an aggressive but respectful tone? They're both possible.

Both. I would never argue against challenging beliefs. I think all beliefs are open to challenge, including the belief that all beliefs are open to challenge. It is the stance one takes that is under scrutiny.

Of course, this is assuming a "cause." What cause? Skepticism is a tool for critical thinking, not much of a "movement" or "cause." Those that consider themselves skeptical are still human, can barely agree on a wide variety of things, and don't have any real common factors except the notion of critical thinking. "Skeptic" does not automatically equate to "Atheist" and vice versa.

Yes. "Cause" is not meant to imply "movement" or political action group or any such entity, only the promotion of critical thinking and whether or not highly aggressive approaches interfere with communication and make critical thinking less likely in many people.

To illustrate: your approach in discussing matters with DOC was initially very respectful but you and others had no problem in uncovering his rather obvious deficiencies. At this point his recalcitrance is seriously irritating, but amusing in a weird way. mocking him is about all that anyone has left because he refuses to see the obvious truth. But, if you had taken a "you're a believer, so what you say is suspect from the beginning" stance that would be too aggressive in my book.

[Ducky]

Both. I would never argue against challenging beliefs. I think all beliefs are open to challenge, including the belief that all beliefs are open to challenge. It is the stance one takes that is under scrutiny.



Yes. "Cause" is not meant to imply "movement" or political action group or any such entity, only the promotion of critical thinking and whether or not highly aggressive approaches interfere with communication and make critical thinking less likely in many people.

To illustrate: your approach in discussing matters with DOC was initially very respectful but you and others had no problem in uncovering his rather obvious deficiencies. At this point his recalcitrance is seriously irritating, but amusing in a weird way. mocking him is about all that anyone has left because he refuses to see the obvious truth. But, if you had taken a "you're a believer, so what you say is suspect from the beginning" stance that would be too aggressive in my book.

I agree.

[Ichneumonwasp]

However, when addressing a large group of peole, stridency is almost always necessary because you have to make your point to many mindsets in as little time as possible. Subtlety is not the name of the game there. If you are addressing the merits of atheism/rationalism, you must be a vigorous proponent. People who try to take the same tenor with large groups as they would with one individual are perceived as boring and wishy-washy.

Let's just say that, in influencing people, everything is context.

I agree fully with the "context" issue.

I am a little unsure what you mean about addressing a large group of people. Do you mean in a live debate or lecture, or in discussions on the internet as we are having now where there is plenty of time to develop an idea? I assume you mean in a live debate from your context; and this is a situation in which Hitchens looks good sometimes. At others he seems to come off as a jerk, but I think much of that probably depends on whether or not he is speaking for or against one's pet ideas on evolution or Iraq. Dawkins, to me, seems to be respectful but enough of a bulldog that I don't think he sounds boring or wishy-washy. Same with Shermer. I love to hear both whenever I can.

[Piggy]

I agree w/ those who say it depends on the situation.

Most of the time, polite discussion is the way to go. Believe it or not, I'm even polite to folks who trespass on my property to tell me about Jesus, and I've even invited Mormon missionaries into my house to talk.

Of course, there are those who will use politeness as a weapon. For instance, when someone tries to insist that atheists should not say "There is no God", but rather "I don't believe in God", then if you see the God issue the way I do, you gotta move to the aggressive-but-not-obnoxious stance: No, it's not a matter of belief, any more than gravity and heliocentrism are.

Ditto when it comes to people insisting that atheism is a religion, that atheism is inherently arrogant, or that creationism/ID are scientific theories. I have to insist that those views are wrong. Not just different, but wrong. And I'm not going to back down to the "Well, we see it differently and that's OK" stance. If someone wants to take the discussion that far, they get what they get.

But I have a Malcolm X philosophy when it comes to, say, people who stand on the street with signs and bullhorns screaming at children that they're doomed to hell, which happens around here. (They got booted from the Wal-Mart parking lot, so now they're on the town square -- not much of an improvement.)

Btw, I don't think religion will ever vanish. If we erased every trace of it tonight, it would spring up on its own tomorrow in some new form. It appears to be built into our brains.

[ImaginalDisc]

A few months ago I started a thread as I read "The God Delusion". My general conclusion about the book was that it was pretty good, and I noted that this surprised me, because I expected a strident, hate filled, ranting tome. I expected that because I had formed my preconceived notions of it based on what people said when they praised the book on JREF. In the end I still had to criticize Dawkins not as much for what he said, but for what he inspired.

As far as whether or not either his rhetoric or the rhetoric he inspires hurts "the cause" that's a bit tougher to answer. Some people object to the idea that there is a "cause", but I think it's clear that while there might not be one, single, cause, there are a few variations on that theme. In general, there's an atheist tide swelling in the US that wants less influence of religion, especially Christianity, on society and more respect for atheism as a legitimate philosophical position.

The confrontational rhetoric so often used here or in recent best sellers has mixed results. In some ways, there can be little doubt that it has been effective. It has brought people "out of the closet" on atheism, and that cannot hurt "the cause".

On the other hand, the most extreme statements, especially the "religion is child abuse" claims have had a very significant effect, which has been quite polarizing. I think the most strident rhetoric has convinced people that there really is a confrontation brewing, and they will be forced to pick a side. Some atheists, agnostics, etc. are not going to pick "the atheist side", because they see in that rhetoric a fierceness, lack of respect, and intolerance, that might be every bit as bad as what they dislike from Christianity.

I think what it unltimately does is force a confrontation. That can be good, but there are two issues with that. First, if you force that confrontation, you might lose. Second, if you win, you might find that when you're done, you haven't really won anything after all, because the society you created isn't any better than the one you defeated. (See "Animal Farm" or the French revolution) Whether it advances "the cause" or hurts it, I know that I don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it harms the cause. Are apologists like me worth having on "your side"?

Strawman! He fights for a society where religion is outlawed!

Strawman, interrogator without peer!

Strawman, he criminalizes raising children with religion!

Strawman is bad!

Meadmaker is great! He has defeated Strawman, and saved us all from his nefarious schemes!

[Ichneumonwasp]

A few months ago I started a thread as I read "The God Delusion". My general conclusion about the book was that it was pretty good, and I noted that this surprised me, because I expected a strident, hate filled, ranting tome. I expected that because I had formed my preconceived notions of it based on what people said when they praised the book on JREF. In the end I still had to criticize Dawkins not as much for what he said, but for what he inspired.

As far as whether or not either his rhetoric or the rhetoric he inspires hurts "the cause" that's a bit tougher to answer. Some people object to the idea that there is a "cause", but I think it's clear that while there might not be one, single, cause, there are a few variations on that theme. In general, there's an atheist tide swelling in the US that wants less influence of religion, especially Christianity, on society and more respect for atheism as a legitimate philosophical position.

The confrontational rhetoric so often used here or in recent best sellers has mixed results. In some ways, there can be little doubt that it has been effective. It has brought people "out of the closet" on atheism, and that cannot hurt "the cause".

On the other hand, the most extreme statements, especially the "religion is child abuse" claims have had a very significant effect, which has been quite polarizing. I think the most strident rhetoric has convinced people that there really is a confrontation brewing, and they will be forced to pick a side. Some atheists, agnostics, etc. are not going to pick "the atheist side", because they see in that rhetoric a fierceness, lack of respect, and intolerance, that might be every bit as bad as what they dislike from Christianity.

I think what it unltimately does is force a confrontation. That can be good, but there are two issues with that. First, if you force that confrontation, you might lose. Second, if you win, you might find that when you're done, you haven't really won anything after all, because the society you created isn't any better than the one you defeated. (See "Animal Farm" or the French revolution) Whether it advances "the cause" or hurts it, I know that I don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it harms the cause. Are apologists like me worth having on "your side"?

Of course. We are all human. Ultimately there are no sides. I value your contributions more than you know. We need many points of view.

I have also thought of beginning a speculative thread along the lines of "is Christianity dying?" and is the rise of atheism similar to the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. It is hard to say when atheism first began -- were there atheists following the Black Death, have there always been atheists -- but there seems to be a break in the Age of Reason or at least The Enlightenment. Critical thinking does not equal atheism, but there is a strong association between critical thinking and religious scepticism. Scepticism certainly seems to be waxing, but is this a large scale trend or just a little blip in the greater American roller-coaster ride of Great Awakenings and intervening periods? Taking a larger view, most of Europe seems to be in a state of flux. Scepticism is very prominent, but Christianity seems to be trying to resurge.

[Darat]

What's considered aggressive? I've known religious people who consider being told "I don't believe in your god" as being an "aggressive" stance' I've know the same religious people to consider that them telling me I will spend eternity in torment is not being "aggressive but the TRUTH".

[Ichneumonwasp]

What's considered aggressive? I've known religious people who consider being told "I don't believe in your god" as being an "aggressive" stance' I've know the same religious people to consider that them telling me I will spend eternity in torment is not being "aggressive but the TRUTH".

I think that is the ultimate point. Is there a line? Are people who argue that others are being too aggressive simply being too sensitive?

[ImaginalDisc]

I think that is the ultimate point. Is there a line? Are people who argue that others are being too aggressive simply being too sensitive?

You're being too generous, in my opinion. I think they're liars or fools. Every time some television show or movie ridicules religion, someone decries it as "hate speech" and condemns the artists responsible to Hellfire and endless torment, without the slightest sense of irony. Expressing disbelief is too often called "hate speech" by people who really ought to know better.

[mijopaalmc]

Strawman! He fights for a society where religion is outlawed!

Strawman, interrogator without peer!

Strawman, he criminalizes raising children with religion!

Strawman is bad!

Meadmaker is great! He has defeated Strawman, and saved us all from his nefarious schemes!

Would you care to point out where in this post Meadmaker actually creates the straw men of which you accuse him? I am assuming you are responding to this specific post rather than Meadmaker's entire corpus on the forum. You seem to be engaging in the exact same behavior for which your are criticizing Meadmaker (i.e., creating straw men). This inconsistency of behavior seems to be the problem of the most extreme atheists on this forum they accuse religion of being dogmatic, strident and offensive while being dogmatic strident and offensive themselves.

[articulett]

I suspect that no matter how politely an atheist argues things, it will be called aggressive... and no matter how kindly you point out that faith is silliness and that others shouldn't be expected to defer to that silliness, you'll get labeled a "bad guy" by the faithful. Whenever I ask for quotes from these supposed "militant" atheists", I get interpretations of what they thought a person said or quotes that are so banal that I cannot imagine anything less "militant". And the most hateful phrases of the pious are never scrutinized in a similar manner. Everything having to do with faith, god, and scriptures are never to be questioned-- ever apologized for.

If the cause is to demand the same rights christians demand for themselves, I think tit-for-tat is the best method... not just from non-believers.... but from minority beliefs. Let's see how long they'll be vilifying atheists for wanting god out of the pledge when Muslims start saying "One Nation Under Allah" and crossing "god" off money to write Allah.

The more you defer, the more entitled the religious become. They think they deserves something special because they have faith in the right unbelievable story. Next time someone refers to these aggressive atheists, ask them to cut and paste. To me it's all part of the illusion along with Christian "persecution". Mocking faith is not the same as mocking the faithful. All people believe what they were told by the people they trust. Silence may just keep such people imprisoned and afraid to think longer.

[articulett]

If faith is good for something, the faithful ought to tell us what for. Or use it to soothe their hurt feelings since they believe they'll be living happily ever after, right? Can't their magic man fight his own battles? The truth just keeps being the truth no matter how many people believe it or understand it; and all the faith in the world doesn't change that.

Moreover, the faithful have a type of mind lock that makes them not even understand the difference between "facts that are the same for everybody" and "everything else" (opinions, beliefs, delusions, myths, mottos, lies, illusions, feelings, etc.) Because of their failure to distinguish, pinning them down might help everyone communicate better. And if not, at least it tells you whose feelings you can ignore. I think I will respect the opinions (including faith based notions) of others to the same extent that they consider mine. From my observation, the faithful and the apologists assume you should feel as they do-- they do not ask what you think or feel.

I think theres room for all kinds of skeptics. But it seems to me that the apologists only want skeptics like them-- whom they see as being "kinder gentler" and I see as being holier-than-thou pedants. If this "kind gentle" approach works--where, praytell, is the evidence? I only see the faithful as getting more audacious in their demands... every ounce of politeness and deference from us is an affirmation to them that they "deserve" it. I want no part of propping up th "big lie". Faith is not good for anything. Belief is not worthy of respect. All opinions are open for scrutiny--even religious ones.

[mijopaalmc]

I suspect that no matter how politely an atheist argues things, it will be called aggressive... and no matter how kindly you point out that faith is silliness and that others shouldn't be expected to defer to that silliness, you'll get labeled a "bad guy" by the faithful. Whenever I ask for quotes from these supposed "militant" atheists", I get interpretations of what they thought a person said or quotes that are so banal that I cannot imagine anything less "militant". And the most hateful phrases of the pious are never scrutinized in a similar manner. Everything having to do with faith, god, and scriptures are never to be questioned-- ever apologized for.

If the cause is to demand the same rights christians demand for themselves, I think tit-for-tat is the best method... not just from non-believers.... but from minority beliefs. Let's see how long they'll be vilifying atheists for wanting god out of the pledge when Muslims start saying "One Nation Under Allah" and crossing "god" off money to write Allah.

The more you defer, the more entitled the religious become. They think they deserves something special because they have faith in the right unbelievable story. Next time someone refers to these aggressive atheists, ask them to cut and paste. To me it's all part of the illusion along with Christian "persecution". Mocking faith is not the same as mocking the faithful. All people believe what they were told by the people they trust. Silence may just keep such people imprisoned and afraid to think longer.

This is a case in point. No-one has actually said anything that articulett accuses them of saying. To the best of my recollection, everybody who has posted thus far has criticized religion for its abuses. However, what she seems to take as rank apologia is that statement that the things for which religion is criticized are not necessarily unique to religion. Religion is therefore not necessarily the sole cause of the things for which it is criticized and ridding ourselves of religion may not solve those problems.

[ImaginalDisc]

Would you care to point out where in this post Meadmaker actually creates the straw men of which you accuse him? I am assuming you are responding to this specific post rather than Meadmaker's entire corpus on the forum. You seem to be engaging in the exact same behavior for which your are criticizing Meadmaker (i.e., creating straw men). This inconsistency of behavior seems to be the problem of the most extreme atheists on this forum they accuse religion of being dogmatic, strident and offensive while being dogmatic strident and offensive themselves.

You mean the part where he suggests "we" want to instigate a revolution and force others to think as we do?

I think what it unltimately does is force a confrontation. That can be good, but there are two issues with that. First, if you force that confrontation, you might lose. Second, if you win, you might find that when you're done, you haven't really won anything after all, because the society you created isn't any better than the one you defeated. (See "Animal Farm" or the French revolution) Whether it advances "the cause" or hurts it, I know that I don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it harms the cause. Are apologists like me worth having on "your side"?

That alone is spurious enough a claim, never mind the bit about "the cause," as though all the atheists and agnostics in the world were part of a secret society fighting for a unified goal.

[articulett]

You mean the part where he suggests "we" want to instigate a revolution and force others to think as we do?



That alone is spurious enough a claim, never mind the bit about "the cause," as though all the atheists and agnostics in the world were part of a secret society fighting for a unified goal.

I agree... and those who want to lead or direct others in in this "secret society" seem to be the poorly equipped to do so. If there is a "goal" or a "cause", why do the least equipped to communicate, think they are the most equipped to pass judgments on methodology. The only goal I have is to dismantle this silly notion that "faith is good" or beyond scrutiny? I think it's dangerous. And, of course, I want the right to express my opinion, sense of humor, demands for evidence and mockery as I see fit. Those that demand my respect, never seem give me the respect they feel entitled too.

[articulett]

You're being too generous, in my opinion. I think they're liars or fools. Every time some television show or movie ridicules religion, someone decries it as "hate speech" and condemns the artists responsible to Hellfire and endless torment, without the slightest sense of irony. Expressing disbelief is too often called "hate speech" by people who really ought to know better.

If there's a line, I sure don't want people I don't respect telling me where it is. It's like a white person telling a black person where the line to the back of the bus begins. Freedom of speech is the same for everybody. I don't get to tell the nutters like Fred Phelps when he's gone overboard. Until another law is violated or someone elses' freedom is trod upon, then words are all we have to keep each other in line (or laugh at the absurdity of it all.)

[mijopaalmc]

Uh...ImaginalDisc and ariculett seem to be ignoring that there are specifically atheist organizations (http://www.google.com/search?q=atheist+organization&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) that support causes like Church/State separation. While that specific cause may not be unique to atheists, the combination of causes supported by these organizations may be (e.g., atheist visibility).

[articulett]

Well, I think coming across like an angry psycho doesn't exactly make atheism look appealing, so the "extreme" end of the spectrum probably does more harm than good.
But there's nothing wrong with being "direct" at times, in my opinion. And funny is just funny.

Yes, but even "Dennett" gets accused of being militant. I think the bar is so low that you can say most anything as a non believer or against belief and the faithful will step up to the plate to fight for their (omnipotent all-loving) god (who should be able to fight his own battles and who knows how it's all going to end anyhow.)

[ImaginalDisc]

Uh...ImaginalDisc and ariculett seem to be ignoring that there are specifically atheist organizations (http://www.google.com/search?q=atheist+organization&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) that support causes like Church/State separation. While that specific cause may not be unique to atheists, the combination of causes supported by these organizations may be (e.g., atheist visibility).

Please stop posting high. Church/State separation has always been part of the United States Constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, to name drop only a few Founding Fathers, were all extremely clear about their antipathy towards any religious involvement in governance. Only the worst sort of lying revisionists, such as you, would claim that upholding one of the founding principles of the United States government is an atheist cause, and represents a change in policy.

[articulett]

What Atheist is as militant and aggressive in opinion proffering as Fred Phelps? The Pope? Kim Jong Il? Ann Coulter? Any of them? Where is this example of "aggressive atheism" (cut and paste quotes) and the examples of how it hurts "the cause"? Where is the example of the correct ways of speaking and where is the evidence that these niceties help "the cause". I can tell you that, as a person who teaches evolution, the niceties have not made people more amenable to the most wondrous facts humans have had the privilege of knowing. The niceties have made people fear facts and science while worshiping invisible men and the gurus who claim to speak for them. The kinder gentler approach has allowed primitive thinking to erode a steadily progressing civilization-- to make the masses feel like they "know" truths, while being unaware of their vast ignorance.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You're being too generous, in my opinion. I think they're liars or fools. Every time some television show or movie ridicules religion, someone decries it as "hate speech" and condemns the artists responsible to Hellfire and endless torment, without the slightest sense of irony. Expressing disbelief is too often called "hate speech" by people who really ought to know better.

Yep, perhaps. I don't think there is an answer to this. I have my own personal style, others take a different approach.

Whatever line we draw, and there must be a fuzzy one somewhere, is going to be a social construction. We have to arrive at it through debate. I wouldn't have rasied the issue if I thought there was a final answer. It seemed to me in that other thread that some folks thought they knew where the line should be drawn. I'm not so sure.

Fred Phelps can suck it as far as I'm concerned.

[RandFan]

Online, I'm tired of the same predictable arguments. Occasionally, people like RoadToad and Randfan shine.?

That's an odd thing to say. I didn't know. I really didn't. I'm going to have to burn my copy of the atheist manifesto and the black robes.

[articulett]

Please stop posting high. Church/State separation has always been part of the United states Constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, to name drop only a few Founding Fathers were all extremely clear about their antipathy towards any religious involvement in governance. Only the worst sort of lying revisionists, such as you, would claim that upholding one of the founding principles of the United States government is an atheist cause, and represents a change in policy.

Yes-- he's an apologist.... we have several of them here, and I put them on ignore, because their goal is to mount a fatwa against those who disagree with their nothingness rather than further the discussion. And it's like that in every thread. The apologists never really talk about the topic-- it always derails to how bad I am or Dawkins or "militant atheists" or Sam Harris or other posters who dared to criticize religion. And/or their posts are insincere questions and apologetics for egregious acts by Christians disguised as pedantry and holier-than-thou nothingness ala Behe. I blame a religious meme infection for the "I'm an atheist, but..." people or "I'm not a creationist, but..." people. I don't know if they are dishonest or just muddled from religious thought or have absorbed the fake persecution complex of their culture. But I ignore them unless they appear in other posts, because they seem to think themselves much more informative than I think they are.

I have never once heard any of them say anything of value that was useful or true-- Mijo stalks my threads to try to get others to call me a bad guy, because I exposed him for the hypocrite and dishonest person he is. He'll derail this thread to continue his case I see. I will mock him ceaselessly if he appears in posts, but otherwise I try to ignore those who self righteously demand respect for their opinions without even considering that others might have different views.

That's what pisses me off-- they can ignore all those they disagree with... I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell and I ignore those on forums whom I find have nothing of value to say (after mocking them for my own amusement of course.) What I want to know, is why they don't do the same? (Oh, I know they aren't clever enough to do good mockery and such, but there is the "ignore" button.)

On the Kathy Griffin thread... I noted that Christians had gone over to watch her censored bit on youtube (willingly) and then written such hateful stuff in the name of their supposed loving Jesus. They didn't have to watch it. The censors "protected them". Yet, these people don't just want freedom of speech for themselves at every opportunity no matter how vile or inappropriate-- they want us to respect it while they shut us up. And yet, none of them are saying anything of value from what I can tell. None of them seem like anyone I would let speak for me or lead me or tell me how to run some "cause". Plus, they are so rarely eloquent or funny. Just garbled and pedantic and fool of logical fallacies, platitudes, and self righteous peevishness.

The apologists want the freedom to criticize others, and then throw a tizzy fit when it comes back to bite them in the ass.

[ImaginalDisc]

?

That's an odd thing to say. I'm going to have to burn my copy of the atheist manifesto and the black robes.

If you're going to get rid of your anti-theist athame, forged in the flames of Hume's arguments and cooled in the blood of priests and nuns, let me know. I could totally use that.

[articulett]

I just want to say, that I agree that Randfan, Roadtoad, and Michael Shermer are much nicer atheists than I am. But since I am a mean atheist like Imaginal Disc, Slimething, Dawkins, Harris, Pharyngula, and the like...

can I have your Atheist Manifesto, Randfan? I only have a pdf. copy... and any robes forged from Mormon garments would be cool too. I'm aiming for Kathy Griffin type evil.

[JoeEllison]

I think that there's a complete double standard. Religious people are allowed to be as insulting, aggressive, and militant as they like, as long as they don't attack certain protected groups too overtly, they are safe. No one really condemned Fred Phelps for hating homosexuals, until he started saying that American troops deserved to die. Bill Donohue from the Catholic League can talk about the "queers" all he likes. Falwell and Robertson and the rest can say that atheists and liberals and feminists and such deserve to die, as long as they don't use the "n-word" or swear too often.

Atheists? Just being openly atheist is seen as an "aggressive" stance. Daring to criticize religion? Now you're equal to Nazis and racists... which is odd, because the religious folks who are openly one step below Nazis and racists are given a free pass.

[ImaginalDisc]

I think that there's a complete double standard. Religious people are allowed to be as insulting, aggressive, and militant as they like, as long as they don't attack certain protected groups too overtly, they are safe. No one really condemned Fred Phelps for hating homosexuals, until he started saying that American troops deserved to die. Bill Donohue from the Catholic League can talk about the "queers" all he likes. Falwell and Robertson and the rest can say that atheists and liberals and feminists and such deserve to die, as long as they don't use the "n-word" or swear too often.

Atheists? Just being openly atheist is seen as an "aggressive" stance. Daring to criticize religion? Now you're equal to Nazis and racists... which is odd, because the religious folks who are openly one step below Nazis and racists are given a free pass.

I've said it before, but I'm always dumbfounded that religious people say atheists will burn in Hellfire for all eternity, and that's acceptable dinner conversation, but when an atheist calls that idea silly it is the atheist who is accused of being hateful.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think that there's a complete double standard. Religious people are allowed to be as insulting, aggressive, and militant as they like, as long as they don't attack certain protected groups too overtly, they are safe. No one really condemned Fred Phelps for hating homosexuals, until he started saying that American troops deserved to die. Bill Donohue from the Catholic League can talk about the "queers" all he likes. Falwell and Robertson and the rest can say that atheists and liberals and feminists and such deserve to die, as long as they don't use the "n-word" or swear too often.

Atheists? Just being openly atheist is seen as an "aggressive" stance. Daring to criticize religion? Now you're equal to Nazis and racists... which is odd, because the religious folks who are openly one step below Nazis and racists are given a free pass.

I agree completely that there are wacky religionists who are so blinded by their faith that they do apply a double standard. And I think that attitude is contemptible.

I think those people deserve all the bile we can throw. But what about folks who are less strident in their faith?

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree completely that there are wacky religionists who are so blinded by their faith that they do apply a double standard. And I think that attitude is contemptible.

I think those people deserve all the bile we can throw. But what about folks who are less strident in their faith?

You mean the people who sincerely believe that they're going to go to a magical happy land full of puppies and cake, to be Jesus's BFF, while the rest of us are going to smolder eternally, and whose sense of polite behavior tells them not to do anything about that situation? I have even less respect for them.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You mean the people who sincerely believe that they're going to go to a magical happy land full of puppies and cake, to be Jesus's BFF, while the rest of us are going to smolder eternally, and whose sense of polite behavior tells them not to do anything about that situation? I have even less respect for them.

Well, I think anyone who beleives in Hell is seriously wacky to begin with, but there are plenty of folks who are either believers or apologists for believers who do not think that anyone goes to eternal torment after death or who think that it is up to the individual to decide one way or another if they do believe in it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, I think anyone who beleives in Hell is seriously wacky to begin with, but there are plenty of folks who are either believers or apologists for believers who do not think that anyone goes to eternal torment after death or who think that it is up to the individual to decide one way or another if they do believe in it.

If their beliefs are that vague, what exactly are they arguing in favor of?

[JoeEllison]

I've said it before, but I'm always dumbfounded that religious people say atheists will burn in Hellfire for all eternity, and that's acceptable dinner conversation, but when an atheist calls that idea silly it is the atheist who is accused of being hateful.

It is because religion is automatically given a respect that it has not earned and doesn't deserve, and atheism is automatically treated with a certain level of disrespect. So, a religious person can say the most horrible things in an interview, and it drops them to simply being treated neutrally. On the other hand, atheists seem like they are starting in a hole before they even open their mouths, and at best they can struggle for a grudging respect, maybe.

[hgc]

It is because religion is automatically given a respect that it has not earned and doesn't deserve, and atheism is automatically treated with a certain level of disrespect. So, a religious person can say the most horrible things in an interview, and it drops them to simply being treated neutrally. On the other hand, atheists seem like they are starting in a hole before they even open their mouths, and at best they can struggle for a grudging respect, maybe.


And here's the thing to remember about respect, for those who seek it: Respect comes to those who command it, and not to those who beg it wait around for it.

The important thing that people like Dawkins, even in naming his book with the word "delusion," or Hitchins, who speaks in more forceful, and also more eloquent, ways is that they are changing the terms of the debate by their aggressiveness so that the stance of non-believers is forcing its way to the table. I think that those books, and Harris', being on the best sellers lists is the most important boost for religious freedom for non-believers in my lifetime. It forces religionists to deal with the arguments about the automatic respect they demand, about the inclusion of non-belief in the spectrum of religious freedom in a liberal democracy, and so many other things.

[Complexity]

:wave1

[Ichneumonwasp]

If their beliefs are that vague, what exactly are they arguing in favor of?

Generally, from what I have seen, tolerance.

But here's the kicker. They seem only to ask the atheist side for tolerance and not the theist side. Now this can be for one of two reasons that I can see right off hand. Either they are giving the theist side a pass or they think so much more highly of the sceptical/atheist side (and no I do not equate the two) that they think the atheist is more capable of ehtical behavior.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is because religion is automatically given a respect that it has not earned and doesn't deserve, and atheism is automatically treated with a certain level of disrespect. So, a religious person can say the most horrible things in an interview, and it drops them to simply being treated neutrally. On the other hand, atheists seem like they are starting in a hole before they even open their mouths, and at best they can struggle for a grudging respect, maybe.

While I completely agree, if you take a step back and look at these statements they look suspiciously like the Christian persecution complex. I think we need to be careful stating what seems to be fairly obvious -- there is a double standard -- because it can very easily be turned around. A good ready quip would seem to be in order.

[RandFan]

Yeah, I have to agree. A lot of good posts. I think right now what is best for atheists is largely what is happening. We are raising consciousness.

After much contemplation I've decided to keep the manifesto, the black robes, the cat and the rubber gloves.

[JoeEllison]

And here's the thing to remember about respect, for those who seek it: Respect comes to those who command it, and not to those who beg it wait around for it.

The important thing that people like Dawkins, even in naming his book with the word "delusion," or Hitchins, who speaks in more forceful, and also more eloquent, ways is that they are changing the terms of the debate by their aggressiveness so that the stance of non-believers is forcing its way to the table. I think that those books, and Harris', being on the best sellers lists is the most important boost for religious freedom for non-believers in my lifetime. It forces religionists to deal with the arguments about the automatic respect they demand, about the inclusion of non-belief in the spectrum of religious freedom in a liberal democracy, and so many other things.I'm not sure what we're supposed to do to be more polite than Dawkins, and still get any sort of point across. How can you politely tell people they are wrong in a way that doesn't offend them, while still saying that they are wrong in a way that means something?

I'd like for someone to point out a time in human history where social progress has been made by gently and politely surrendering and giving up ground? Non-violence is one thing... shall we be non-obtrusive as well? How will that achieve anything, ever?

[Ichneumonwasp]

And here's the thing to remember about respect, for those who seek it: Respect comes to those who command it, and not to those who beg it wait around for it.

The important thing that people like Dawkins, even in naming his book with the word "delusion," or Hitchins, who speaks in more forceful, and also more eloquent, ways is that they are changing the terms of the debate by their aggressiveness so that the stance of non-believers is forcing its way to the table. I think that those books, and Harris', being on the best sellers lists is the most important boost for religious freedom for non-believers in my lifetime. It forces religionists to deal with the arguments about the automatic respect they demand, about the inclusion of non-belief in the spectrum of religious freedom in a liberal democracy, and so many other things.

If I knew how to do the wave like Complexity I would offer my own. Fully agreed. I don't think that Dawkins is all that aggressive, though. I think he mostly just states the facts and sticks closely to very good arguments. Those people who see him as aggressive are simply too sensitive in my eyes.

[mijopaalmc]

And here's the thing to remember about respect, for those who seek it: Respect comes to those who command it, and not to those who beg it wait around for it.

The funny thing about respect is that it must be proffered to those from whom you want it. It's reciprocal thing.

[JoeEllison]

While I completely agree, if you take a step back and look at these statements they look suspiciously like the Christian persecution complex. I think we need to be careful stating what seems to be fairly obvious -- there is a double standard -- because it can very easily be turned around. A good ready quip would seem to be in order.

Well, persecution complexes seek to mirror real persecution, so they would tend to resemble each other, don't you think? Part of the difference is that the Christians are the majority and hold 99% of the positions of power, so the persecution is pretty obviously delusional.

Plus, I'm not claiming "persecution", just a very obvious double standard that very often exists when comparing minority viewpoints to majority ones.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not sure what we're supposed to do to be more polite than Dawkins, and still get any sort of point across. How can you politely tell people they are wrong in a way that doesn't offend them, while still saying that they are wrong in a way that means something?

I'd like for someone to point out a time in human history where social progress has been made by gently and politely surrendering and giving up ground? Non-violence is one thing... shall we be non-obtrusive as well? How will that achieve anything, ever?

And that is the real heart of the matter. If change is what is sought, does it even make sense to speak of politeness? Christianity at a certain point was very deferential toward the Roman religions -- they would not practice in the Roman way, but they did not go around telling everyone else in the Empire that they would burn in Hell. But once they had power, they stamped out paganism and heresy mercilessly. Is asking for politeness simply a way to keep the atheist down on the farm?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, persecution complexes seek to mirror real persecution, so they would tend to resemble each other, don't you think? Part of the difference is that the Christians are the majority and hold 99% of the positions of power, so the persecution is pretty obviously delusional.

Plus, I'm not claiming "persecution", just a very obvious double standard that very often exists when comparing minority viewpoints to majority ones.

Hey, agreed. I just think we need to be careful about how we phrase certain things like this because they seem like easy fodder for a come-back.

[JoeEllison]

If I knew how to do the wave like Complexity I would offer my own. Fully agreed. I don't think that Dawkins is all that aggressive, though. I think he mostly just states the facts and sticks closely to very good arguments. Those people who see him as aggressive are simply too sensitive in my eyes.

He is seen as aggressive because religious people are so accustomed to not being challenged at all, that the perception of aggression is amplified far beyond what the reality merits. Dawkins is generally polite and soft-spoken, but he doesn't budge or allow himself to be bullied. And, when a bully finds someone who refuses to back down, they automatically feel victimized.

[JoeEllison]

Hey, agreed. I just think we need to be careful about how we phrase certain things like this because they seem like easy fodder for a come-back.

The truth is that no matter how carefully we phrase things, some people will take it however they want to. So, on some level, it seems like a waste of time.

[articulett]

Well, I think anyone who beleives in Hell is seriously wacky to begin with, but there are plenty of folks who are either believers or apologists for believers who do not think that anyone goes to eternal torment after death or who think that it is up to the individual to decide one way or another if they do believe in it.

Yes... and who is offending them and how? What is it that such people want? If their faith is good, can't it stand scrutiny or mocking? Nobody has to listen, right? Whereas, I'm forced to have "under god" in my pledge and "in god we trust" on my money. If they are offended... instead of running to dis the offender, might it not be useful for them to ask themselves why? Didn't we all start questioning the "faith is good" meme when similar type questions occur to us? When we are asked to define things? When we are asked what the standard is? When we ask what is it okay to ask people to respect--and why? When we ask what the goal is? Who is it that is having problems with "aggressive atheists" and what exactly is being said that is "aggressive" and why or how does this cause harm or offense? And why is it worse than aggressive anti-racism or racism mockery or satire? And why or how is this being inflicted on people against their will? If I feel that religion is on par with racism or rain dancing or other uncivilized notions, why in the world would I stay silent so that people would continue to inflict such primitive and fearful nothingness on others?-- Especially kids... and trusting scared adults? And the victims of religious of oppression who have been told they are "unworthy" for not believing the right thing the right way?

Does any kind of faith deserve special respect or deference is the real question? What makes moderate Christianity more deference worthy than Scientology, or Astrology, or political opinions, or homeopathy? What makes certain imaginary entities off topic for mockery except that people have given them magical powers in their head and convinced others that bad things will happen if you mock these entities and good things will happen if you praise them for all that is good. It's just so infantile. It's not worthy of special consideration for a reason, is it?

Of course, as soon as I learned the truth about Santa, I was eager to share the news with everyone. So was my son. Guess who got blamed for spoiling a delusion I never asked to be a part of in the first place. Being a non-believer is almost a no-win situation, because there is this cultural expectation that you will prop up the fantasy (no matter how inane you think it is) out of respect for others. What about respect for me? What about respect for scientists who bring real knowledge to humanity? What about respect for the struggling single mother buying toys for her kid and giving an invisible non-existent fat white man credit so other kids could enjoy an illusion? What about respect for Kathy Griffin's comedic brilliance or Hitchens' eloquence and Dawkins great furthering of scientific understanding? What about Sam Harris making us realize how dangerous this "faith is good" meme is? Lies disguised as "higher truths" are still lies... and no one should be bullied into pretending that the Emperor is wearing clothes. All we have is each other to get our wisdom and knowledge from. There is no magic man trying to send us cryptic hints to get goodies directed at our egotistical selves in this little tiny speck of a planet around a single star of which there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth.

And we are all in this together. Religion is divisive. It allows people not to care about the feelings of those who don't believe as they do and to take rights from them that they feel entitled to because the creator of the universe has "chosen" them.

[articulett]

Generally, from what I have seen, tolerance.

But here's the kicker. They seem only to ask the atheist side for tolerance and not the theist side. Now this can be for one of two reasons that I can see right off hand. Either they are giving the theist side a pass or they think so much more highly of the sceptical/atheist side (and no I do not equate the two) that they think the atheist is more capable of ehtical behavior.

They don't want tolerance; they want deference. They are entitled to the tolerance they show religions and opinions they don't believe in. They are entitled to the tolerance they show astrology or political views or racism. They have the freedom to say what they want and they always have. Now they have rights that allow governments to endorse them and fund them--though a secular government was a great advance towards civilization it is continually being eroded and then atheists blamed for "kicking god out of the public arena" (I thought god was everywhere... and how can you stop people from talking to this invisible guy since, apparently it is indistinguishable from thinking and can be done silently and unobtrusively).

Even their scriptures say to pray "in the closet"-- is it too much to ask them to live by their own word if they want tolerance? Oh, and I always want to ask them about it being easier for a camel to fit through an eye of a needle than for a rich guy to get into heaven? Why aren't they proclaiming that one publicly instead of recruiting soldiers and funds for their god while sending out obsequious sanctimonious praise? Tolerance? I shall tolerate their rights to speak their opinions and beliefs and notions to the extent that it is supported by evidence and/or they show similar respect to those who don't share their notions.

[thaiboxerken]

Religion doesn't deserve any respect.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well said.

And how do the apologists respond? I think Articulett has stated her case very strongly, very thoroughly.

[articulett]

And that is the real heart of the matter. If change is what is sought, does it even make sense to speak of politeness? Christianity at a certain point was very deferential toward the Roman religions -- they would not practice in the Roman way, but they did not go around telling everyone else in the Empire that they would burn in Hell. But once they had power, they stamped out paganism and heresy mercilessly. Is asking for politeness simply a way to keep the atheist down on the farm?

Oh yes-- because keeping the delusion alive depends on nobody discussing it or asking it for rational evidence or reason. And many people get their power from claiming to know what the invisible guy in the sky wants. People are free to believe they have some "higher truth"-- they are not free to expect mento refrain from calling them deluded. If they aren't deluded-- what do my comments matter? And if they are, maybe they'll think... and if not, I'll still laugh. And that is worth something. If it means one less follower for them, then that will mean something too. It's a disservice to give away our thinking and brains to delusions and those who promote them. There are much better uses for the human mind.

[JoeEllison]

Well said.

And how do the apologists respond? I think Articulett has stated her case very strongly, very thoroughly.

We've seen how they respond. They declare that Articulett is more eviler than Skeletor. :)

[articulett]

I understand what they fear. They fear having to examine their own faith... and they fear that could lead to hell... and that if their kids become atheists they can be punished forever... and that people will be committing crimes willy nilly without faith. But they fear this because they've been told this by the fear mongering of religion... and they pass it on to protect others from these fearful things. But the things they fear are false. Gays are marrying in Canada and the world has not fallen apart. Terrorists are being fought and there is only more terrorism. There is no reason for anyone to think there is any kind of consciousness or hell or that anyone has any divine truths that can save us. If we don't say so-- who will? How can people be prepared for the advances in science that show how consciousness is very much a part of their brain if we prop up this silliness of an eternal soul waging an earthly battle for a pass/fail grade in eternity?

[JoeEllison]

I understand what they fear. They fear having to examine their own faith... and they fear that could lead to hell... and that if their kids become atheists they can be punished forever... and that people will be committing crimes willy nilly without faith. But they fear this because they've been told this by the fear mongering of religion... and they pass it on to protect others from these fearful things. But the things they fear are false. Gays are marrying in Canada and the world has not fallen apart. Terrorists are being fought and there is only more terrorism. There is no reason for anyone to think there is any kind of consciousness or hell or that anyone has any divine truths that can save us. If we don't say so-- who will? How can people be prepared for the advances in science that show how consciousness is very much a part of their brain if we prop up this silliness of an eternal soul waging an earthly battle for a pass/fail grade in eternity?
You have to remember, as well, that on some level religious people blame everyone else for their problems, and none more so than the non-religious.

They have a huge investment in the idea that their faith somehow should bestow miracles on them, and transform the world on some level. When life goes on as it always has, without any magical change in their lives, who is to blame? Should they blame their god or their faith or their religious leaders, for failing to deliver as promised? Could they possibly be to blame for praying instead of doing something constructive to make the world a better place?

They could and should... but, instead, they blame people who disagree with them. They believe that if only we would convert too, their god would finally come through for them. Clearly, their god is withholding his blessings from us because they have thus far failed to drag everyone into their faith. So, their unhappiness is our fault, just for existing.

[articulett]

We've seen how they respond. They declare that Articulett is more eviler than Skeletor. :)

But am I as evil as Richard Dawkins? That's where I aspire. I'm not good at nice. I've done the nice quiet thing much of my life... I make an effort to bite my tongue and consider the consequences to me and my child in real life-- but it leads to a kind of depression. And I feel really peeved when I'm expected to show such deference on my beloved skeptic forum. To me, these folks are running to silence the messengers of truth to plug in their own self congratulatory nothingness. It's people like Randi, Dawkins, and Kathy Griffin really who are my heroes-- who give me the confidence to think for myself and laugh and learn what kinds of questions to ask and who to go to for more information. It's the people on this forum who think like them-- it makes me think evolution has done some really impressive things and we can meet up with other impressive minds and teach and share through technology that we invented on our own-- with no gods or gurus or divine directions.

Atheists are forever called arrogant-- and yet they are not the ones claiming there is a god or that they speak for him. They are just saying they don't believe in divine knowledge-- that they don't have it, but neither does anyone else. That's an empowering non-arrogant message if you ask me. That's a message that lessons abuse of power. The "faith is good" meme just makes people vulnerable to those who claim to have an in on "divine truths".

[Ichneumonwasp]

There are much better uses for the human mind.

Footstools?:)

I understand what they fear. They fear having to examine their own faith... and they fear that could lead to hell... and that if their kids become atheists they can be punished forever... and that people will be committing crimes willy nilly without faith. But they fear this because they've been told this by the fear mongering of religion... and they pass it on to protect others from these fearful things. But the things they fear are false. Gays are marrying in Canada and the world has not fallen apart. Terrorists are being fought and there is only more terrorism. There is no reason for anyone to think there is any kind of consciousness or hell or that anyone has any divine truths that can save us. If we don't say so-- who will? How can people be prepared for the advances in science that show how consciousness is very much a part of their brain if we prop up this silliness of an eternal soul waging an earthly battle for a pass/fail grade in eternity?

Yes. I wonder how much of this is an issue of personality clashes, how much lack of thought, and how much a fundamental difference in world view. Theists view the world from a purpose-driven perspective. Everything in the universe to them is intentional and everyone is under judgment. Should all efforts be aimed toward attacking that position? The problem, of course, is that we cannot prove that intenionality is not an integral part of the universe that we experience. It just isn't necessary.

[articulett]

You have to remember, as well, that on some level religious people blame everyone else for their problems, and none more so than the non-religious.

They have a huge investment in the idea that their faith somehow should bestow miracles on them, and transform the world on some level. When life goes on as it always has, without any magical change in their lives, who is to blame? Should they blame their god or their faith or their religious leaders, for failing to deliver as promised? Could they possibly be to blame for praying instead of doing something constructive to make the world a better place?

They could and should... but, instead, they blame people who disagree with them. They believe that if only we would convert too, their god would finally come through for them. Clearly, their god is withholding his blessings from us because they have thus far failed to drag everyone into their faith. So, their unhappiness is our fault, just for existing.

Yes... I have students like that. They believe that faith CAN do anything... and that if prayers fail, it's because the pray-er didn't have enough faith. It in ensures they blame everyone but the invisible god who isn't there for all that is bad and that the invisible god gets credit for anything that brings them pleasure. It's such a pernicious meme. And it's inculcated in childhood by the people we evolved to trust. We are told about hell by the same people who tell us the earth is a sphere and they are both equally valid truths in our heads. And we are told that faith is good and we cannot question god-- and it's a very powerful mind-locking meme. It makes people afraid to bite from the tree of knowledge and eager to praise the guy who hands out the goodies and grades the final exam.

[articulett]

Footstools?:)



Yes. I wonder how much of this is an issue of personality clashes, how much lack of thought, and how much a fundamental difference in world view. Theists view the world from a purpose-driven perspective. Everything in the universe to them is intentional and everyone is under judgment. Should all efforts be aimed toward attacking that position? The problem, of course, is that we cannot prove that intenionality is not an integral part of the universe that we experience. It just isn't necessary.

That's why I think mockery and asking questions and illustrating the double standard is better. Nobody wants to be forced to lose their faith... but we all know that once you poke holes in the shield of imperviousness, smart people tend to find their way out on their own. And irreverence seems to help us laugh at our once fearful selves. I think no matter how it's done there is going to be kicking and screaming--all civil rights and social conscious raising makes the "chosen" kick and scream as they fear losing their special status (as bringers of truth or god's favorite or holier-than-thou diplomats or whatever).

In hierarchies, you depend on others to give their respect and allegiance to you as you have to the others higher up in the hierarchy... all the way up to the head honcho, "god". It's the ultimate pyramid scheme, and when people stop buying in-- the people in the middle lose their investment and so, of course, they kick and scream. And the older people will kick and scream because they've been believing this stuff all their life and they are invested in getting their reward for their "belief". But we can't afford to keep it going. It has to crumble. God's is becoming vaguer and vaguer as science discovers more and more-- faith is clearly a bad way to know anything and very divisive. It's never been particularly good for women. What sort of infantile behavior are we promoting in humans if we worry about offending their "faith"? I don't want to live in a world of faith heads.

The Muslims want to kill westerners because the western men "let their women wear pants". That's what respecting faith leads to. Extreme faith. Scary faith. You can't say some faiths are off limits... because then who decides which ones are the ones you cannot question? To give a pass to one religion and make it inscrutable is to give a pass to all, is it not?

[articulett]

Footstools?:)



Yes. I wonder how much of this is an issue of personality clashes, how much lack of thought, and how much a fundamental difference in world view. Theists view the world from a purpose-driven perspective. Everything in the universe to them is intentional and everyone is under judgment. Should all efforts be aimed toward attacking that position? The problem, of course, is that we cannot prove that intenionality is not an integral part of the universe that we experience. It just isn't necessary.

No... efforts can be aimed wherever people want. I aim for forums including public forums where people can discuss this stuff without automatically being labeled as god-haters or Christian-haters or militant atheists (what's "militant" about words?). I think all notions are fodder for humor... the audience is free to decide what's funny, be offended, change channels, or go to other forums.

I don't want to attack believers-- I just want someone to tell me why some delusions deserve more respect than similar claims. I think we should be able to treat all faith based assertions the same--whether it's astrology or Scientology or god killing his kid (who was him) for my sins. Laughable notions and opinions stated as fact deserve mockery or demands for evidence or a tit for tat volley of opposing opinions stated as facts.

I don't think faith is good or worthy of respect. I don't find the faithful to be better people in any way though they sure seem to think they are-- AND to think I should agree. I mock christian blather the same as I mock scientology blather or ESP blather-- or "everything happens for a reason" blather-- because these are silly notions not backed up by evidence and not worthy of my respect. Moreover, those who think such notions can lead to actual knowledge are very difficult to have logical conversations with as they are ignorant to the ways they offend and clueless as to how brainwashed and impervious they sound. We do not need more people like this on the planet--nor do we need them spawning more such people to infect from birth. We all pay the price of this sort of brainwashing. If you support the notions that there are divine truths, you make humans into vulnerable victims of people who can convince them they have access to such truths. You make them vulnerable to cults of every kind, because there just is no evidence to show why one faith is more likely to be truer than any other. And we know for certain people make this stuff up and fool other people all the time on this topic. We know, without a doubt, that some faith based notions are absolutely wrong... but we have no evidence that any of them are right or good or true or useful (except for the placebo effect and confirmation bias.)

Plus the faithful vilify my heroes... the actual mortals that have real and useful knowledge to share-- that's immoral and worth contempt in my book. I understand they are victims of their brainwashing, but I want the cycle to stop and I want to use my words to aid the progress. We humans have managed to learn some amazing things no thanks to gurus, scriptures, or gods-- and it's a shame that faith makes people afraid to learn such things, because they think they know the "real important" stuff that will aid them in their "happily ever after".

tsk.

[articulett]

We've seen how they respond. They declare that Articulett is more eviler than Skeletor. :)

I am. And I'm going to seek out Kathy Griffin and boil babies and commit genocide as soon as I'm done ranting on the JREF forum. :)

(Do you want to join me?)

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't think faith is good or worthy of respect.

I think we should be careful with potentially sweeping statements such as this. There is a positive side to faith. It amounts to a glass is half full perspective on life for many folks.

I don't find the faithful to be better people in any way though they sure seem to think they are-- AND to think I should agree.

Largely agreed, but there are exceptions. Churches do much good work in the world, so it isn't all bad. There are, however, many hypocrites in this world.

I mock christian blather the same as I mock scientology blather or ESP blather-- or "everything happens for a reason" blather-- because these are silly notions not backed up by evidence and not worthy of my respect.

And equal opportunity mocker, I love it.:)

Moreover, those who think such notions can lead to actual knowledge are very difficult to have logical conversations with as they are ignorant to the ways they offend and clueless as to how brainwashed and impervious they sound. We do not need more people like this on the planet--nor do we need them spawning more such people to infect from birth. We all pay the price of this sort of brainwashing.

Fully agreed.

And the faithful vilify my heroes... the actual mortals that have real and useful knowledge to share-- that's immoral and worth contempt in my book. I understand they are victims of their brainwashing, but I want the cycle to stop and I want to use my words to aid the progress. We humans have managed to learn some amazing things no thanks to gurus, scriptures, or gods-- and it's a shame that faith makes people afraid to learn such things, because they think they know the "real important" stuff that will aid them in their "happily ever after".

tsk.

Yeah, that part o it pisses me off too.

[mijopaalmc]

I am. And I'm going to seek out Kathy Griffin and boil babies and commit genocide as soon as I'm done ranting on the JREF forum. :)

(Do you want to join me?)

Where has anyone actually accused you of doing those things?

Intentionally mischaracterizing our position so that you can write them off as insane ramblings is a sign that you don't want a serious debate; you just want a pulpit from which you can incite a mob.

[H3LL]

Ah! The OP looks better now:

Do you think that taking an aggressive stance for theism turns off other folks so thoroughly that it creates a polarized world? Or is there clear benefit in their aggressive stance?

Is this just a personal style thing, and it doesn't really matter?

Should we always be polite to atheists or be aggressive in what we perceive as their reasoning?

My own view is that I am all for politeness. I think there is a clear time for mockery in the form of subtle, artful satire; but I recognize that as simply my preference and personal style.

For full disclosure, I also do not self-identify as a theist but rather more of what Jimbo calls a "weak Deist", so I meant the "we" as a general term.
.

[JoeEllison]

I am. And I'm going to seek out Kathy Griffin and boil babies and commit genocide as soon as I'm done ranting on the JREF forum. :)

(Do you want to join me?)

I thought you'd never ask!

[articulett]

I think we should be careful with potentially sweeping statements such as this. There is a positive side to faith. It amounts to a glass is half full perspective on life for many folks.



Largely agreed, but there are exceptions. Churches do much good work in the world, so it isn't all bad. There are, however, many hypocrites in this world.



I don't call that faith... I call it optimism--or maybe hope. I call belief based on accumulating evidence, "trust"-- not faith. Faith is belief without or despite evidence--it infers "divine knowledge" and a "higher purpose". And though religions do good, it's not the faith that makes the people good-- it's empathy... morality... it evolved in humans--even the non-religious ones. And we have no way of comparing the good it's done with the bad--we can only say that one religion is no more likely to be truer than any other and they all proffer lies disguised as higher truths. Lots of wonderful people belong to faiths-- that doesn't make the faiths responsible for their goodness, or true, or worthy of respect, deference, or tax breaks. If such people are offended by non-believers or those who mock them, it's up to them to declare why. If they want their opinions on the matter respected, they need to respect opposing opinions. If they want the freedom to thank their god publicly at will, they need to allow for the freedom of speech for those who mock such silliness.

Many believers are fabulous people-- and so we respect them for the good things they do and say and teach. But we don't owe them respect for what they "believe" nor do we need to consider the hurt feelings of those who never even considered that we might have feelings too.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Where has anyone actually accused you of doing those things?

Intentionally mischaracterizing our position so that you can write them off as insane ramblings is a sign that you don't want a serious debate; you just want a pulpit from which you can incite a mob.

Jeez, man, she is joking not saying that you accused her of such things.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't call that faith... I call it optimism--or maybe hope. I call belief based on accumulating evidence, "trust"-- not faith. Faith is belief without or despite evidence--it infers "divine knowledge" and a "higher purpose".

Fair enough, but you know as well as I the ambiguous nature of language and that there are overlapping definitions of faith that basically cover the idea of hope: "faith in the future" and all that sort of thing. Equivocation is part of the armamentarium of all good obfuscators.

And though religions do good, it's not the faith that makes the people good-- it's empathy... morality... it evolved in humans--even the non-religious ones. And we have no way of comparing the good it's done with the bad--we can only say that one religion is no more likely to be truer than any other and they all proffer lies disguised as higher truths. Lots of wonderful people belong to faiths-- that doesn't make the faiths responsible for their goodness, or true, or worthy of respect, deference, or tax breaks. If such people are offended by non-believers or those who mock them, it's up to them to declare why. If they want their opinions on the matter respected, they need to respect opposing opinions. If they want the freedom to thank their god publicly at will, they need to allow for the freedom of speech for those who mock such silliness.

Many believers are fabulous people-- and so we respect them for the good things they do and say and teach. But we don't owe them respect for what they "believe" nor due we need to consider the hurt feelings of those who never even considered that we might have feelings too.

Yes, that's why I find the fundies really funny when they start railing against humanism, when it is our basic humanity that creates goodwill in the first place.

[JoeEllison]

Many believers are fabulous people-- and so we respect them for the good things they do and say and teach. But we don't owe them respect for what they "believe" nor due we need to consider the hurt feelings of those who never even considered that we might have feelings too.

Most people are basically decent, despite their religious beliefs... but that doesn't for a moment make them any less illogical and often flat-out incorrect. And, their decency doesn't make their beliefs immune from criticism. And, yeah, insensitive jerks don't deserve any respect.

[RandFan]

Where has anyone actually accused you of doing those things?

Intentionally mischaracterizing our position so that you can write them off as insane ramblings is a sign that you don't want a serious debate; you just want a pulpit from which you can incite a mob. Yes, taken litteraly satire would be a strawman.

[articulett]

Jeez, man, she is joking not saying that you accused her of such things.

Was this due to my eating babies comment? See, I can't help it... I am evil, because it just gives me a thrill to piss some people off. But he's pissed me off quite a bit-- and abused people who went out of their way to share factual information he pretended to want-- so I consider him fair game.

I truly try not to inflict myself on those who don't inflict themselves on me (or pass judgment on me). But I'm always on for a rousing game of tit-for-tat. (It let's me channel my inner Dorothy Parker... and if nothing else, I amuse myself.)

But I've given up debating mijo or discussing things with him, because I never can find his damn point. As I said before, it's the same as reading to or listening to Behe. It sounds like it should make sense... but it just doesn't. I have the same problem with Meadmaker. I'm not cut out for discussions with apologists... I don't speak the language, I guess, and we are forever missing each others' points (and I suspect they don't really have one except to dis all those who dis the faith they've been inculcated to respect.)

ETA: And I must confess... that his stalking of my threads does wonders for my enormous ego. I feel so powerful and mighty. But it's you guys' fault... if you didn't quote him, I wouldn't be apprised of his silliness. I promise, I have him on ignore. I'm trying to be a good little heathen. Lead me not into temptation...

[Ichneumonwasp]

Was this due to my eating babies comment?


Yep.

[articulett]

Yep.

mmmm.... delish.... babies!

(Shoot, now I'm going to be accused of being disrespectful of babies' feelings, aren't I?)

[thaiboxerken]

Articulett has won me over. If I wasn't married....

[Complexity]

Articulett has won me over. If I wasn't married....


Me too!

If I wasn't gay...

[RandFan]

mmmm.... delish.... babies!

(Shoot, now I'm going to be accused of being disrespectful of babies' feelings, aren't I?)You are making baby Jesus cry.

Still, you are in good company, see Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html).

[Complexity]

I am. And I'm going to seek out Kathy Griffin and boil babies and commit genocide as soon as I'm done ranting on the JREF forum. :)

(Do you want to join me?)


Yep!

I've got some good recipes, some from the Swift family cookbook.

I think grilling might work best - they tend to be a bit fatty.

[Beaten to gratuitous Swift reference by the Matheist. Damn!]

[JoeEllison]

mmmm.... delish.... babies!
I've always said that there's good eating on a fetus... tender!

[thaiboxerken]

fetus tenderloin tar-tar?

[JoeEllison]

fetus tenderloin tar-tar?

Braised in white wine?

[thaiboxerken]

with stem-cells on top

[Complexity]

Let us not forget placenta stew...

We don't seem to be very coherent about whether they are pre or post, newborns or preschool.

To each their own.

I know Swift was addressing the problems of Ireland, but it occurs to me that this could explain haggis, as well.

Perhaps the Scots didn't know he was joking.

[articulett]

Oh now... you guys are all in trouble too...

You have deliberately mischaracterized Mijo, and he will NOT be deliberately mischaracterized.

(pass the A-1 sauce, please).

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, taken litteraly satire would be a strawman.

But satire doesn't even seem to be on target. While I did overreact if it was truly satire, I think that hyperbole tend to hurt one's position because it rarely bares a meaningful resemblance to what is actually being argued.

[Complexity]

Mijo is an apologist.

He enables belief in the supernatural.

He has a great deal to answer for.

[RandFan]

But satire doesn't even seem to be on target. While I did overreact if it was truly satire, I think that hyperbole tend to hurt one's position because it rarely bares a meaningful resemblance to what is actually being argued.Well, you are most certainly entitled to an opinion. I don't think that there is any hard and fast rule. Sometimes the hyperbole is seen as over the top or unfair. People have to decide for themselves. As for me, I think much societal advancement comes from such hyperbole.

That's just my opinion. I wouldn't want to live in a world without it, I know that.

[Tobermory]

In general, when I encounter a devout Christian whom I like and admire, and s/he inquires about my religion, I say that I'm a pantheist. Most of the time, this settles the question because no one seems to know what pantheism is and, therefore, it receives the same bizarre respect as any other religion. Alternatively, I say that I believe in morality and being good to each other; this is also not a lie, because I do. But my sense of morality and goodness has nothing do with religious indoctrination. If anyone asks me to clarify pantheism, I do it gladly, since my intent is generally not to deceive, but simply not to argue with those whose faith will always preclude them from seeing reason. I tried this argument in my youth, and I always failed.

But for those who have read Dawkins' the God Delusion, he defines pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." [Insert reference to first or second chapter here]. Moreover, pantheism does not conflict with my beliefs in the natural world and the fact that, perhaps, the human mind is simply incapable of grasping a full understanding of the universe and what lies beyond -- not ever.

As for strident Christians (or believers of similar religions such as Islam and Judaism), I find little in common with them, and they infrequently cross my path. In order to have a valid debate with someone, I think, you must at least be on the same intellectual plane. Otherwise, it just gets repetitious, argumentative, and unpleasant. (Buddhism, on the other hand, doesn't bother me nearly as much.)

pan·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.

2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

In other words, it's all a matter of terminology and definition. In reality, I am a pantheist as much as an atheist, and I display an atheist symbol proudly on my shoulder. Thus far, most Christians I've met say it's very pretty.

There seems to be a tendency to confuse pantheism with the belief in many gods. This is not so. The precise term for such a belief is "polytheism." It's an immensely different concept from pantheism, and one to which I do not subscribe.

[articulett]

"bears a meaningful resemblance"-- not "bares".

(I told you guys not to quote him... I can't help myself... I'm evil.)

[RandFan]

Welcome to the forum blu, good post.

What is your take on the question at hand (see thread title)?

[Tobermory]

Oh, one more thing -- until I read this thread I thought that my boyfriend and I were the only ones to make jokes about Swift's proposal. I'm glad to see we're not alone. In fact, I see that our recipes have even been somewhat embellished.

[mijopaalmc]

ETA: And I must confess... that his stalking of my threads does wonders for my enormous ego.

I just like to point out that what I am doing by posting in threads in which articulett also posts does not legally qualify as stalking because she is obviously not frightened or intimidated by posts. In fact, she publicly mocks me for them. However, it still constitutes a personal attack, and I don't understand why people are rallying around when she insists on repeating this falsehood.

[RandFan]

"bears a meaningful resemblance"-- not "bares".

(I told you guys not to quote him... I can't help myself... I'm evil.):D Damn pedantic educators.

I had to audit a school once and the principal who was my contact person sat behind me and looked over my shoulder. My report requires that I document the contact person and title. For his title I wrote principle. :(

Boy was that a mistake.

[RandFan]

I just like to point out that what I am doing by posting in threads in which articulett also posts does not legally qualify as stalking because she is obviously not frightened or intimidated by posts. In fact, she publicly mocks me for them. However, it still constitutes a personal attack, and I don't understand why people are rallying around when she insists on repeating this falsehood. In such instances the best course of action is to report the offense to a moderator. IMO.

[articulett]

When people ask you about your beliefs, it's usually because they've been taught to associate certain things with believers, "christians," and non-belief. It doesn't make these associations true. And I think it's weird that we live in a culture where what someone believes matters more than what is true or what they do or what they think. When people ask about your beliefs, they very often seem to actually want to pass judgment on those beliefs--not understand them or discuss them. There's this nutty notion that being a "believer" makes people more "moral" or something. But religiosity is associated with greater societal dysfunction than secularity. Those who would seek to pass judgment on me for my lack of belief better be prepared to hear what I think about their beliefs.

When people ask me if I believe in god, I say, "which one?". There are so many definitions for what god is and what believing in such an entity means and how you know if you "believe" and what he wants... that it just makes my head spin. The fact is, none of it makes sense to me. I believe in the stuff we can know for sure... and increasingly science is showing us that gods, like souls,-- and all other invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness are illusions produced by the human mind. Eons of belief and respect and faith-- and not a smidgen of supporting evidence.

Can we move on as a society?

[articulett]

:D Damn pedantic educators.

I had to audit a school once and the principal who was my contact person sat behind me and looked over my shoulder. My report requires that I document the contact person and title. For his title I wrote principle. :(

Boy was that a mistake.

I do that one all the time...
remember: your principal is your "pal"

But my principal is not my pal. The other day he told me "May the peace of Christ be with you" ( a public school mind you), and I was thinking-- actually, I'd settle for a smaller class size or an assistant... a camera in the classroom, maybe?

I bit my tongue. I value my job and save my barbs for those who preach at the JREF forum.

[Tobermory]

RandFan:

Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause?

I think it does. I think that to the extent people can be convinced, it takes patience, time, and a great improvement in education. I think that an aggressive stance only serves to push people away, even those who are capable of eventually seeing reason. A lot of times religious indoctrination is simply the result of one's upbringing, and when this is the case, I believe that education is always key. Some people might be convinced, while others will still rely on faith as a crutch while living in this often hostile world. Even though they may see reason, they simply don't want to believe that there's no help from above.

And finally, some just won't ever understand. And I don't think there's anything to be done about that short of eugenics. Just kidding. Really.

[articulett]

RandFan:

Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause?

I think it does. I think that to the extent people can be convinced, it takes patience, time, and a great improvement in education. I think that an aggressive stance only serves to push people away, even those who are capable of eventually seeing reason. A lot of times religious indoctrination is simply the result of one's upbringing, and when this is the case, I believe that education is always key. Some people might be convinced, while others will still rely on faith as a crutch while living in this often hostile world. Even though they may see reason, they simply don't want to believe that there's no help from above.

And finally, some just won't ever understand. And I don't think there's anything to be done about that short of eugenics. Just kidding. Really.

Can you give an example of an "aggressive atheistic stance" that hurts "the cause" with what you think "the cause" is? My personal cause is just to dismantle the notion that faith is a good way to know things or necessary for morality. Also, I think all faith based claims should be equally open for scrutiny or mockery or dismissal. I think it's nice to all be on the same page when it comes to the facts that are the same for everybody.

Also, when it comes to those who are impervious, is it okay to mock them to derive a few giggles from the situation? Or is that part of the "aggressiveness" that hurts "the cause"?

[articulett]

Also, are there atheists trying to force other people to be atheists? And don't all religions belittle those that don't believe or feel that they are "lesser"-- doesn't the bible call non-believers "fools"? Aren't all disbelievers in Islam, "infidels"? Isn't this mockery or disrespect? What atheist is doing more than that? Why would those who think they are "saved" be hurt by anything the "unsaved" fools say? If people don't want others to challenge their beliefs and opinions, they may wish to keep them to themselves or associate only with those who think like them, right? I just wish someone would show me what this "aggressive atheism" is and how "less aggressive atheism" helps "the cause" (whatever that is-- a more rational world where evidence counts as much stronger input than "faith" and platitudes?).

[articulett]

In such instances the best course of action is to report the offense to a moderator. IMO.

Oh goody... because, I believe Unrepentant Sinner and The Atheist have reported me, and I think the 3 make a nice trio. And maybe just maybe some objective person will clearly illustrate my evil ways, because I can't make a lick of sense out of Mijo's bluster and I have no clue as to what he wants from me.

[thaiboxerken]

Mijo wants you to say "even though I'm atheist, I find Christianity very meaningful and good for the world."

In other words, he won't be happy until you like Christianity as much as he does.

[Slimething]

I am a little unsure what you mean about addressing a large group of people. Do you mean in a live debate or lecture, or in discussions on the internet as we are having now where there is plenty of time to develop an idea?

For apologetics, I would consider a large group of people to be any group greater than two people. That is, when the crowd getls big enough such that you cannot tailor your rebuttals to them on an individual basis. At that point, practicality enters the picture. This happens on broad challenges such as atheists being immoral by definition, atheists being anti-god/religion, human free will or original sin, etc. At the point where you cannot be an interlocutor, you have to be an advocate and teacher. Unfortunately, you would have to gloss over the nitty gritty that each individual would introduce during a conversation. This is pretty much the rule for any discussion, though, whether it be theology/lack thereof or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I assume you mean in a live debate from your context; and this is a situation in which Hitchens looks good sometimes. At others he seems to come off as a jerk, but I think much of that probably depends on whether or not he is speaking for or against one's pet ideas on evolution or Iraq. Dawkins, to me, seems to be respectful but enough of a bulldog that I don't think he sounds boring or wishy-washy. Same with Shermer. I love to hear both whenever I can.

It's really easy to start off cool and collected but really difficult to face a persisent, impervious, stolid wall of ignorance. I've seen Dawkins be an ideal gentleman while delivering his speech yet get really testy during the Q&A that follows after the fifth time of being asked "What if you're wrong?". Maybe that underscores the point that atheists are human.

[articulett]

Mijo wants you to say "even though I'm atheist, I find Christianity very meaningful and good for the world."

In other words, he won't be happy until you like Christianity as much as he does.

I do find christianity very good-- it's a never ending font of amusement to me and helps me bond with my fellow former believers...

[RandFan]

Oh goody... because, I believe Unrepentant Sinner and The Atheist have reported me, and I think the 3 make a nice trio. And maybe just maybe some objective person will clearly illustrate my evil ways, because I can't make a lick of sense out of Mijo's bluster and I have no clue as to what he wants from me.:) Who knows? Not me.

[RandFan]

RandFan:

Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause?

I think it does. I think that to the extent people can be convinced, it takes patience, time, and a great improvement in education. I think that an aggressive stance only serves to push people away, even those who are capable of eventually seeing reason. A lot of times religious indoctrination is simply the result of one's upbringing, and when this is the case, I believe that education is always key. Some people might be convinced, while others will still rely on faith as a crutch while living in this often hostile world. Even though they may see reason, they simply don't want to believe that there's no help from above.

And finally, some just won't ever understand. And I don't think there's anything to be done about that short of eugenics. Just kidding. Really.Well, we will have to disagree. Patience isn't likely to do anything. Getting people's attention is. Sometimes you've got to shake things up. BTW, I don't think anything will make much difference to die hards. It's the fence sitters or those near the fence I'm interested in and I think we can get their attention and I think our argument is superior and if we can get them to consider it we win.

It's like civil right. A lot of people thought that in the long run it was best to sit quietly waiting for change. That's what I thought anyway. I was wrong because civil rights was a morally superior position. Once you shook everyone up and got them thinking the superior position prevailed.

[Tobermory]

Articulett:

Just because some religious folks are intolerant, doesn't mean I have to be. Perhaps I was when I was younger, but I'm too old and too tired to fight that fight now. I've also realized that it doesn't work. The best way to educate people is to acknowledge their feelings and beliefs, and to provide the best evidence to the contrary -- without seriously offending them and trying to turn their worlds upside down. (But if someone tries to shove religion down my throat, I politely shut the door.)

Atheism does seriously disturb and offend some people, just as their irrational religious beliefs disturb us (especially given the fact that religious has been at the root of so much violence, misogyny, and repression).

But the bottom line is that the religious find their beliefs to be perfectly justified, and thus resent an attack -- just as we find their un-acceptance of the rational and the proven to be intolerable. Again, I see education as the best solution, knowing full well that there are many who do not wish to be educated because: 1) the indoctrination runs too deep; 2) they cannot fully understand rational and scientific explanations; or 3) living life without the belief in a higher power is too difficult. I do not wish to deny these people their crutches, and I see no point in attacking their choices. I prefer to take everyone as they are, flaws and all; and I realize that I've often found help, support, and friendship from people whose beliefs are very different from mine.

As an aside, it amazes me that the religious hope and pray for an afterlife. What could be worse? I can imagine nothing better than living a fulfilling life and then dying in peace (or at least with the help of good drugs). But as of now, I'm still struggling with the former.

As for my beliefs, I think Dawkins and Sagan said it all. They are my "gods"; or to be more accurate, their work perfectly describes what I have found to be true throughout my life.

(Oh, and there's also the god of procrastination, who is compelling me to write these posts instead of doing my work.)

Randfan: You may be right. I'm just always wary of offending people or hurting their feelings, no matter who they are. Also, the issue of civil rights is a much more fluid concept -- unlike science, which deals with uncovering cold, hard facts.

[Ichneumonwasp]

For apologetics, I would consider a large group of people to be any group greater than two people. That is, when the crowd getls big enough such that you cannot tailor your rebuttals to them on an individual basis. At that point, practicality enters the picture. This happens on broad challenges such as atheists being immoral by definition, atheists being anti-god/religion, human free will or original sin, etc. At the point where you cannot be an interlocutor, you have to be an advocate and teacher. Unfortunately, you would have to gloss over the nitty gritty that each individual would introduce during a conversation. This is pretty much the rule for any discussion, though, whether it be theology/lack thereof or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Yes. Sweeping generalizations are always ripe for ridicule.

It's really easy to start off cool and collected but really difficult to face a persisent, impervious, stolid wall of ignorance. I've seen Dawkins be an ideal gentleman while delivering his speech yet get really testy during the Q&A that follows after the fifth time of being asked "What if you're wrong?". Maybe that underscores the point that atheists are human.

Agreed again. It does get old. I try to keep my cool, but I lose it too when discussions crawl past ridiculous into truly bizarro land.

[articulett]

bluharmony, I wasn't disagreeing with you nor do I think you or anyone should be intolerant. I was just trying to get you to define the terms so I could understand your position better. I think that no matter what an atheist says it will be labeled intolerant by someone. If someone could cut and paste some of this intolerance for us to examine, it would be helpful, right? I want to know what you think "aggressive atheist" is and what "cause" you believe it hurts. I just don't have it in me to forever be making nice to a paradigm I hope humanity soon evolves beyond. We should honor and respect those who bring us truth and wisdom and real useful knowledge and laughter-- not those who bring us fantasies of belief and faith and afterlives and gods and special magicness if only we show the proper deference. I have no patience with those who judge me without caring to hear my judgment of them. I do not believe in their god or the even the "ideal" or "masses" they pretend to be speaking for. I consider their opinions of me on par with my opinions of them. If I am "nicer" whose feelings am I protecting and what "cause" am I helping?

[Tobermory]

OK, just a quick response and then I'm really going to go and do my work.

An example of an aggressive atheist would be someone telling an indigent, seriously recovering alcoholic that the 12-step program is a total sham and has no basis in science (and in fact, has very little proof of effectiveness).

As far as hurting the cause, I just think that before you can get people to listen, you need to get to their attention. And sometimes the best way to do this is to understand where they're coming from. Ridiculing people is never a good way to win over respect, which is, after all, what we want to do. No?

And I'm not disagreeing with you either -- I'm just looking at the issue from a slightly different point of view. ;)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Welcome bluharmony. I hope you enjoy your time here. Great posts.

[articulett]

OK, just a quick response and then I'm really going to go and do my work.

An example of an aggressive atheist would be someone telling an indigent, seriously recovering alcoholic that the 12-step program is a total sham and has no basis in science (and in fact, has very little proof of effectiveness).

As far as hurting the cause, I just think that before you can get people to listen, you need to get to their attention. And sometimes the best way to do this is to understand where they're coming from. Ridiculing people is never a good way to win over respect, which is, after all, what we want to do. No?

And I'm not disagreeing with you either -- I'm just looking at the issue from a slightly different point of view. ;)

But HAS an atheist ever said that? And is that from their atheism? What is "the cause" and where is the evidence that niceness makes the faithful "listen"? I thought faith was about believing without reason-- not listening, basically. I already understand where they are coming from... I used to be a believer. I don't care about winning their respect any more than they care about winning my respect. If I'm being asked to change or if others are labeled "aggressive" I want "cut and paste" examples of that aggressiveness and what the cause is and who is being harmed by whatever. I don't want hypotheticals about aggressive atheists, because from what I see, any atheist is an agressive atheist to some people. All this nebulousness around faith and belief and respect and "aggressiveness" and the "cause" and which standards apply to who and when doesn't help me understand anything. It just makes me feel like I'm talking with people who aren't really saying anything but demanding some sort of change from and others.

What is "the cause"?
Why should faith be respected?
Who is hurt when faith is mocked?
How does this hurt "the cause"?
What is an actual example of "aggressive atheism"-- aren't people just peeved because you have the audacity not to be cowed into believing what they've been cowed into believing? If it's true or good, why should what I have to say on the matter be offensive or hushed up?

[articulett]

Your example doesn't reflect any atheist I know, nor an atheist point of view. The dogma that you "need to give yourself over to a higher power" to recover from alcoholism is something that I might not let go unchallenged if someone proffered such an opinion as a fact, but your example is a strawman. And I just wonder if the whole "aggressive atheist" idea is.

Hitchens and Harris' politics are not products of atheism nor is Stalinism. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. Aggressive atheism would only be "an aggressive act of disbelief. What could that be? Where is the example of it? Is Kathy Griffin an "aggressive atheist"? Who are the aggressive atheists and what harm are they inflicting by refusing to partake in the delusion-- or (gasp) mocking it? Notions that are not worthy of respect, should not be respected--it's a recipe for an abuse of authoritarian power if you ask me.

[six7s]

I don't think faith is good or worthy of respect
I think we should be careful with potentially sweeping statements such as this. There is a positive side to faith. It amounts to a glass is half full perspective on life for many folks.

There are many positive aspects of people who have faith

All people are worthy of respect

Faith requires the wilful assumption of an unwavering stance of ignorance that precludes evaluation of any speculation concerning the origins and merits of traditions, morality, nature, etc in favour of blind, unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of beliefs based on faith, which requires the wilful assumption of an unwavering stance of ignorance etc etc

Faith demands that the faithful simply jumps to a conclusion (belief) that godDidIt so that when the glass over-runneth, the faithful not only have no idea why but are unlikely to have any idea when its likely to happen and how to act in the meantime, let alone have the capacity to evaluate whether or not the whole glass thing is good, bad or indifferent

Faith is not worthy of respect

In contrast, thinking involves consideration of the structure, composition and functionality of the glass in conjunction with observing trends and external influences

Such an approach is essential to making accurate forecasts as to the possible effects of maintaining or altering the rates of input and output on the glass itself, those who drink from it and the wider environment

Thinking is worthy of respect

Even if godDidDoIt, promoting of the concept of a taking a faith-based view of the world is deserving of disrespect, simply because 'jumping to conclusions' actively discourages comprehension of the bigger picture, without which we are groping in the dark

Love the sinner, not the sin ;)

[articulett]

what six7s said.

[Tobermory]

Yikes. I can't stop myself. I suppose that's because you, Articulett, are far more interesting than my work.

The example I gave was actually not a hypothetical. It was something I once overheard. Also, personally, I believe that AA is a highly religious organization with cult-ish overtones. At the same time, it does seem to help some people cope with more serious problems than a mere addiction to AA.

As for where that type of comment comes from, who knows? Who knows if Kathy Griffin's comment came from her atheism, from her desire for publicity, or from her desire to ridicule others? We will never know what exactly transpires in someone else's mind, and attributing such causation is mere speculation.

--------------

"The cause," as far as I see it, is simply education and encouragement of rational thinking. Those who want to be educated will, and those who don't want to be educated won't. But the more people we can win over, the better, because the effects of religion and ignorance concern me far more than any one individual's "faith."

As for the definition of atheism, it is merely semantics. You can define it as the lack of belief in god(s) or the belief in no god. But in the end, it amounts to the same thing.

On a final note, I love your signature line re: incompetence, and I agree completely.

[JoeEllison]

An example of an aggressive atheist would be someone telling an indigent, seriously recovering alcoholic that the 12-step program is a total sham and has no basis in science (and in fact, has very little proof of effectiveness).

Why would anyone consider telling the truth to be an aggressive act? That's just crazy! And what does the truth have to do with whether or not someone is an atheists. Are you saying that atheists are more honest than religious people?

[articulett]

Why would anyone consider telling the truth to be an aggressive act? That's just crazy! And what does the truth have to do with whether or not someone is an atheists. Are you saying that atheists are more honest than religious people?

I thought 12-step programs have some degree of effectiveness... so does Scientology's narcanon for that matter. I don't think the faith aspect is essential unless it's for a placebo effect... and some intervention is better than no intervention... if the alcoholic was an atheist, I would suggest secular recovery programs such as "rational recovery"....

But I don't really know anything about the scenario being discussed... or if what the atheist actually said and if it actually kept someone from getting some kind of treatment or how it all panned out, so it's just an anecdote about supposed "aggressive atheism" as far as I can tell. And it's not something I would do unless someone was proffering opinions as facts in front of me and I knew evidence contrary to such facts.

I still don't understand what or who an aggressive atheist is, and how people should say things "better" or what harm comes from ridiculing ridiculous notions... To me it sounds a lot like people propping up the "faith is good" meme. And I want to know what the hell it's good for and what bad things will happen if I refuse to defer to the notion. To me it seems like it's a useful meme for manipulating others and for feeling moral and humble without being moral and humble.

[Tobermory]

JoeEllison:

No, I'm saying that according to my personal system of beliefs, atheists are correct, where as the religious are not.

As to the AA example, the aggressiveness stems not from the fact that it's a true statement, but from the fact that it may actually hinder someone's recovery from a serious problem. And as I've seen in my line of work, recovery from alcoholism can be of great benefit to both the individual and the community s/he lives in -- even if that individual then acquires so-called "faith." It's a matter of choosing between "evils," I suppose.

Also, I disagree that "all people deserve respect." Some do and some do not. This depends on their actions, achievements, and treatment of others, not on their faith or lack thereof. For instance, I would have far less respect for an atheist murderer than for a blindly faithful Christian who dedicates her life to helping others.

Anyway, I think Sagan speaks to many of these issues very well in his book, "The Demon Haunted World." Still it doesn't explain to me why some very intelligent people choose faith over rational thinking. But that's fodder for a different thread, methinks.

[JoeEllison]

JoeEllison:

No, I'm saying that according to my personal system of beliefs, atheists are correct, where as the religious are not.

As to the AA example, the aggressiveness stems not from the fact that it's a true statement, but from the fact that it may actually hinder someone's recovery from a serious problem. And as I've seen in my line of work, recovery from alcoholism can be of great benefit to both the individual and the community s/he lives in -- even if that individual then acquires so-called "faith." It's a matter of choosing between "evils," I suppose.

No... wait a minute. You said that AA doesn't work, and then you are saying that pointing out that it doesn't work will somehow make it not work. That's seriously a bizarre position to take. Care to clarify?

[RandFan]

"The cause," as far as I see it, is simply education and encouragement of rational thinking. Those who want to be educated will, and those who don't want to be educated won't. But the more people we can win over, the better, because the effects of religion and ignorance concern me far more than any one individual's "faith." I was born in 1961, I grew up in a period of great change in a conservative and patriarchal society. There came a time in my life when I completely embraced the cause of civil rights but disagreed with the many of the methods. I believed that slow change was preferable and more likely to succeed than rapid change that would lead to a backlash.

I don't know what precisely is the answer. However I don't think we are going to get anyone's attention by wearing kid gloves. Sometimes you have to be provocative.

I have to say that I'm very happy with the direction of things. There will be a backlash and reversals but our position is the Superior one. Ultimately we will prevail.

[six7s]

As to the AA example... recovery from alcoholism can be of great benefit to both the individual and the community s/he lives in -- even if that individual then acquires so-called "faith." It's a matter of choosing between "evils," I suppose.

When equipped with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

The faith-based approach is undoubtedly effective

Efficient social-engineering requires not only in-depth analysis of the entire problem domain but also precise tools in a steady hand if/when modifications are implemented

[Tobermory]

Joe Ellison:
Sure. AA works for some. Mainly, it works for those who do not exercise rational thought in the first place. To the extent they are able, the others select options such as Rational Recovery or simply not drinking excessively.

AA is also the most common court-ordered program for indigent criminals/DUI offenders/etc. Some of these people are not very educated and easily fall for the AA charade. And for a few of these people, AA does work. It provides them with a support network where before they had none, and it gives them something to believe in whereas previously they had nothing.

But as far as I know and the last time I checked the statistical data, AA did not work better than any other treatment, and there was no reliable data on long-term positive effects. (In fact, there were no reliable studies to consider at all.) Then again, statistics as truth are another story.

Anyway, nothing is ever completely clearcut. Isn't that what makes life interesting?

Six7s:

I agree.

Note to self: I really should start using the quote function in my posts.

[thaiboxerken]

An example of an aggressive atheist would be someone telling an indigent, seriously recovering alcoholic that the 12-step program is a total sham and has no basis in science (and in fact, has very little proof of effectiveness).

Wouldn't that just be a person who is truthful?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wouldn't that just be a person who is truthful?

Is a person who says to 4 year old Billy on Christmas Eve, "Hey Billy, there is no Santa Claus, it's all just a lie" just a person who is truthful?

[thaiboxerken]

Is a person who says to 4 year old Billy on Christmas Eve, "Hey Billy, there is no Santa Claus, it's all just a lie" just a person who is truthful?

Yes. Kids need to know the truth about Santa no matter what time of year it is.

[Tobermory]

Is a person who says to 4 year old Billy on Christmas Eve, "Hey Billy, there is no Santa Claus, it's all just a lie" just a person who is truthful?

A big thanks to you for expressing my sentiments more clearly than I did.:) :) :)

And kids will learn the truth about Santa soon enough. For most families, Santa is a silly tradition, a kids' tale -- not a religious belief -- and most certainly, not a Christian one.

(And I'm still not working! Maybe I need to find a new job.)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes. Kids need to know the truth about Santa no matter what time of year it is.

What truth is that? That Saint Nicholas did exist? Better be careful with your analogies. ;)

[six7s]

Is a person who says to 4 year old Billy on Christmas Eve, "Hey Billy, there is no Santa Claus, it's all just a lie" just a person who is truthful?

Being tactless with no sense of occasion doesn't make them a liar - it just makes them misguided

If they have no superior alternative, then they are cruel

[mijopaalmc]

What truth is that? That Saint Nicholas did exist? Better be careful with your analogies. ;)

I think the relevant point here is that adults are not children and are therefore held to a higher standard of rationality. As has been pointed out before, the belief in Santa Claus is not one that is not one that is built to last. What, in all honesty, do you think of an adult who still believes literally in Santa Claus?

However, I still think that your analogy still stands: telling a child that there is no Santa Claus just to upset him or her is a lot like saying anything about God just to make a theist squirm. It is my personal opinion that a lot of people on this forums say outrageous things about religion just to make theists uncomfortable. If they are able to back their claim up with evidence, that is another story. However, saying "religion is child abuse"and then ignoring that it doesn't cause the same psychopathology in the same general pattern that child abuse does is deliberately provocative and ignorant in exactly the same way that saying "religion is the explicit cause of millions of war dead" and ignoring that fact that the are ethnic and political differences in the conflict listed is. Unsubstantiated opinions should be treated the same way no matter who holds them.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Being tactless with no sense of occasion doesn't make them a liar - it just makes them misguided

If they have no superior alternative, then they are cruel

No one is calling them a liar. In fact, quite the contrary. In the example that person told the truth.

Tactlessly.

There is more to human interaction than truth. Avoiding senselessly and cruelly releasing truth to those not ready to hear it is one of those things.

"Doctor, how is my husband?" "He's dead, get over it." -- is factually true. He is dead and she will eventually need to get over it. But there is a time and a place and a way of communicating that is more humane than bare truth.

There is a reason why we revere Shakespeare.

[six7s]

Cheers H3LL!

Contrast can prove so enlightening :)

Ah! The OP looks better now:

...there is a clear time for mockery in the form of subtle, artful satire...

This reminds me of Rowan Atkinson's sketch on, funnily enough, Hell which I found hilarious - particularly the line 55 seconds before the end of following YouTube clip

2W78SRXRxGs

[thaiboxerken]

What is wrong with telling a kid that Santa Clause is a fictional story? There is no need for tact when telling facts. Perhaps the kid won't be so misguided as to expect stupid gifts from mythical beings afterwards.

[JoeEllison]

What is wrong with telling a kid that Santa Clause is a fictional story? There is no need for tact when telling facts. Perhaps the kid won't be so misguided as to expect stupid gifts from mythical beings afterwards.I don't see why telling a kid the truth is somehow wrong, and lying to them and perpetuating that lie is somehow right.

[Ichneumonwasp]

there is a clear time for mockery in the form of subtle, artful satire

Shhhh....don't blow my cover.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What is wrong with telling a kid that Santa Clause is a fictional story? There is no need for tact when telling facts. Perhaps the kid won't be so misguided as to expect stupid gifts from mythical beings afterwards.

I don't think there is anything wrong with telling a kid there is no Santa Claus. I have two kids, I've done it -- only once since the older always gets to the younger before parents can.

Truth is not the issue. This issue is style.

[six7s]

Shhhh....don't blow my cover.

You want me to suck it?:eye-poppi

[articulett]

I don't think I'd blurt the Santa thing out, but I don't want to be expected to be implicit in the deception. I didn't invent the myth. I'll go along with things, if a kid asks me questions, I may be evasive... I'm not going to ask kids what "Santa" brought them or tell them Santa is watching to see if they are "good" or "bad".

I think Santa was the first lesson I had that my parents would and could lie to me if they felt they had "good" reasons. That, in itself, was enlightening... and a first step in my journey towards skepticism and my desire to know what is "true" and what is "everything else". My first theory on Santa (because I picked up my parents' evasiveness) was that Santa was really god. And in retrospect, I consider that a very good theory.

[thaiboxerken]

Style is overrated, good classic fashion lasts forever.

[articulett]

You want me to suck it?:eye-poppi

I think it's been determined that Kathy Griffin wants Jesus to suck it.

[six7s]

;)

[JoeEllison]

Truth is not the issue. This issue is style.

You mean I have to wear a tuxedo? Sweet!

[RandFan]

I don't see why telling a kid the truth is somehow wrong...Depends on what the truth is.

...and lying to them and perpetuating that lie is somehow right.Why is it wrong? Is the world really so black and white?

I would say it depends on what the lie is and what the maturity level of the child is.

AIU, small children live in a world that is in part fantasy. Fantasy is a healthy part of childhood (see The Real Reason Children Love Fantasy (http://www.slate.com/id/2132725/)). It damn sure can be fun. I absolutely loved it. My kids loved it. As they started getting a bit older where their minds started to question things we used it as an opportunity for them to become critical thinkers and help them figure it out.

They're all atheists and they all have found memories of Christmas and plan on sharing the tradition with their children. It's just such an intense emotional high. There might be downsides but I don't think they are likely if people don't push it too far.

[Tobermory]

If my experience is any indication, it doesn't take kids very long to figure out exactly whom to ask for Xmas gifts. Not that I have any kids. And if I did, I wouldn't perpetuate the falsehood in the first place.

But never would I think of blowing it for a small child awaiting her gifts from Santa. Other than cruelty, what would be the point? In such a case, it's educating the parents, not the kids that's at issue (if it is an issue at all).

Nice post, RandFan.

[Slimething]

I see a strawman rearing its ugly head here. I know no one, atheist or deist, who goes about targeting the vulnerable for a killer does of "truth, as I see it". If anyone does that type of thing, it's because they're jerks not dis/believers.

I know a lot of atheists and we've suffered some very untimely deaths in our lives. There is no instance that I know of when an atheist tells grieving theists that the dead are not going to heaven and they're dead forever and they're a bunch of silly sods for beleiving anything to the contrary. Even when the dead was one of us atheists. We bite our toungues for humanity's sake and because anything that helps us cope through tragedy is of value, especially at the time.

My ex had/has a real problem with the bottle. She went to lots of AA meetings and I went to lots of Alanon meetings. When we got to the "let go and let god" bit, yes these people did see my eyebrows go up. They explained that "higher power" did not necessarily mean god but anything that you felt had a larger presence in your life that you can take comfort in. (I chose my friends, collectively.) I tried to console those whose family and lives had been devastated by addiction (Alanon is not solely for alcoholic devastation) and bit my tongue when they needed to rely on religion.

I don't believe that religious faith is bad per se. Many people need it to cope with what life doles out. As I've written before, I have many many friends who are religious but they're not the unintelligent kind. In the back of their minds, they know that their religion is a crutch so they don't use it to judge, deride, ridicule, insult, and all the other hateful practices that the idiots most of us think of when we hear "the religious". Given a choice between religion and doing what is right, they would choose the latter. Face it, they know well that I am an atheist and they staunchly stand by my side whenever the holier-than-thous take over center stage.

[LBN]

AA is also the most common court-ordered program for indigent criminals/DUI offenders/etc. Some of these people are not very educated and easily fall for the AA charade. And for a few of these people, AA does work. It provides them with a support network where before they had none, and it gives them something to believe in whereas previously they had nothing.

Support network being the key phrase. A very large part of addiction is in the company one chooses. If an alcoholic is trying to remain sober, then he won't spend his free time hanging out at the corner pub with his drinking buddies. If a crack user is trying to remain clean, then he won't spend his time hanging out at the crack houses where he used to score.

The acceptance of a "higher power" in 12 step programs doesn't necessarily have to be one of religion. Although spiritual in nature it's mainly about accepting that you have a problem and can't control it. In one case in which I have experience the higher power was suggested to be a chair due to the person being a proclaimed atheist. If you have the power to control it then you're not an addict.

But as far as I know and the last time I checked the statistical data, AA did not work better than any other treatment, and there was no reliable data on long-term positive effects. (In fact, there were no reliable studies to consider at all.) Then again, statistics as truth are another story.

From the studies I remember the success rate of 12 step programs is only a few percentage points higher than going it alone. It wouldn't seem statistically significant to me. However, most addiction medicine specialists will use 12 step programs are part of their treatment. In this case I will accept their expertise in the field as being greater than mine and assume they use such treatment for a valid reason.

Now, as for "the cause"... I see the cause as being a war against superstition and ignorance. The main weapon in this war: Education. This is why the ignorant mock those who are poisoned by "liberal higher education".

I don't really see it do much good to "the cause" (if one can define something so nebulous) to provoke or mock (although it can great fun; I passed many a night in Austin arguing with the idiots in front of the Church of Scientology across from the UT campus). The best way to continue the fight is through education. Keep science in the schools and leave the superstitious rotes to chuches.

Kathy Griffin: Her only problem is she isn't very funny. Who cares if she pissed anyone off on television? Television is worse than religion.

Re: Santa Claus: I'm not going to raise my children with any kind of superstitious beliefs, especially those that have a basis in religion. I might celebrate a Yule holiday but it would be more in the tradition of my ancestors before conquerors from the Middle East brought their poisonous monotheistic religion and destroyed the indigenous culture. :mad:

[UnrepentantSinner]

What is wrong with telling a kid that Santa Clause is a fictional story?

Because Santa Claus (a clause is something else) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_nicholas) is not a fictional story. Saint Nicholas actually existed.

I can't believe you don't get why you need to be more careful with your analogies.

[Slimething]

If my experience is any indication, it doesn't take kids very long to figure out exactly whom to ask for Xmas gifts. Not that I have any kids. And if I did, I wouldn't perpetuate the falsehood in the first place.

But never would I think of blowing it for a small child awaiting her gifts from Santa. Other than cruelty, what would be the point? In such a case, it's educating the parents, not the kids that's at issue (if it is an issue at all).

My kids are total mercenaries. They still claim to believe in Santa although they are 20 and 14. They do so in the mistake belief that they will not receive as many presents without the ones with the Santa label on them. So, when I ask them if they still believe in Santa, they each will sport a ****-eating grin while saying "yes" and we both have a good laugh.

Then I mentally cross a gift off the list. ;)

[RandFan]

In such a case, it's educating the parents, not the kids that's at issue (if it is an issue at all). If someone could show me that it causes harm to the child then I would be willing to reconsider. I've seen the subject debated ad nauseam and to date I've not seen any significant data that would suggest that it is per se harmful.

I'm not an moral absolutist and I don't subscribe to Kant's view that we should never tell a lie regardless of the consequences. I don't mind lying in certain circumstances. I don't see lying as per se immoral or telling the truth per se moral. I think being honest as a rule is a very good policy though. A person should have a good reason to lie or to be deceptive.

[Complexity]

Because Santa Claus (a clause is something else) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_nicholas) is not a fictional story. Saint Nicholas actually existed.

I can't believe you don't get why you need to be more careful with your analogies.


You silly little man.

Santa Claus, the elves, the flying reindeer, the list, checking it twice, naughty or nice.

Fantasy.

I'm not at all sorry to be the one to tell you.

Elvis is dead. Deal with it.

[thaiboxerken]

Because Santa Claus (a clause is something else) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_nicholas) is not a fictional story.

A person living at the North Pole, delivering gifts around the world on Christmas Eve is certainly a fictional story. Santa Claus is a fictional character, perhaps loosely based on a real person, but fiction non-the-less.

[RandFan]

Re: Santa Claus: I'm not going to raise my children with any kind of superstitious beliefs, especially those that have a basis in religion. I might celebrate a Yule holiday but it would be more in the tradition of my ancestors before conquerors from the Middle East brought their poisonous monotheistic religion and destroyed the indigenous culture. :mad: Hi LBN, welcome to the forum.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Support network being the key phrase. A very large part of addiction is in the company one chooses. If an alcoholic is trying to remain sober, then he won't spend his free time hanging out at the corner pub with his drinking buddies. If a crack user is trying to remain clean, then he won't spend his time hanging out at the crack houses where he used to score.

The acceptance of a "higher power" in 12 step programs doesn't necessarily have to be one of religion. Although spiritual in nature it's mainly about accepting that you have a problem and can't control it. In one case in which I have experience the higher power was suggested to be a chair due to the person being a proclaimed atheist. If you have the power to control it then you're not an addict.



From the studies I remember the success rate of 12 step programs is only a few percentage points higher than going it alone. It wouldn't seem statistically significant to me. However, most addiction medicine specialists will use 12 step programs are part of their treatment. In this case I will accept their expertise in the field as being greater than mine and assume they use such treatment for a valid reason.

Now, as for "the cause"... I see the cause as being a war against superstition and ignorance. The main weapon in this war: Education. This is why the ignorant mock those who are poisoned by "liberal higher education".

I don't really see it do much good to "the cause" (if one can define something so nebulous) to provoke or mock (although it can great fun; I passed many a night in Austin arguing with the idiots in front of the Church of Scientology across from the UT campus). The best way to continue the fight is through education. Keep science in the schools and leave the superstitious rotes to chuches.

Kathy Griffin: Her only problem is she isn't very funny. Who cares if she pissed anyone off on television? Television is worse than religion.

Re: Santa Claus: I'm not going to raise my children with any kind of superstitious beliefs, especially those that have a basis in religion. I might celebrate a Yule holiday but it would be more in the tradition of my ancestors before conquerors from the Middle East brought their poisonous monotheistic religion and destroyed the indigenous culture. :mad:

Great post and welcome. What year did you graduate and what in hell happend yesterday? They won by 3 friggin' points!?!?

[UnrepentantSinner]

A person living at the North Pole, delivering gifts around the world on Christmas Eve is certainly a fictional story. Santa Claus is a fictional character, perhaps loosely based on a real person...

So the story of Santa Claus is just like the story of Jesus then.

I thought you always had claimed Jesus didn't exist.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You silly little man.

Santa Claus, the elves, the flying reindeer, the list, checking it twice, naughty or nice.

Fantasy.

I'm not at all sorry to be the one to tell you.

Elvis is dead. Deal with it.

OK, Santa's fine, and I'll give you the flying reindeer, but don't you go dissing no elves.

Elvis went back to the mother ship. I heard it in a movie.

[LBN]

Hi LBN, welcome to the forum.

Thank you. Long time reader, first time poster.

Great post and welcome. What year did you graduate and what in hell happend yesterday? They won by 3 friggin' points!?!?

I was living in Austin at the time. I actually went to school at that other place. You know, the one southwest of UT. Not really sure what happened. I slept most of yesterday. :o

[articulett]

OK, Santa's fine, and I'll give you the flying reindeer, but don't you go dissing no elves.

Elvis went back to the mother ship. I heard it in a movie.

I live in Vegas and I've seen the Elvii-- there are 12 of them... they jump from helicopters... it's like the triune god only fourfold and fatter.

[thaiboxerken]

So the story of Santa Claus is just like the story of Jesus then.

I thought you always had claimed Jesus didn't exist.

So if St Nicholas existed, then Jesus must have? I didn't even mention Jesus in the thread, you did. I don't even know if St Nicholas was a real person, that's why I said "perhaps." Even if a guy named St Nicholas existed, the story of flying reindeer and elves and such is pure fantasy.

[articulett]

Thank you. Long time reader, first time poster.



I was living in Austin at the time. I actually went to school at that other place. You know, the one southwest of UT. Not really sure what happened. I slept most of yesterday. :o

I'm a big fan of The Atheist Community of Austin's podcast and cable t.v. show.
Are you familiar with it?
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/index.php?full=0
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/

[six7s]

So the story of Santa Claus is just like the story of Jesus then.

I thought you always had claimed Jesus didn't exist.

Whether or not SC or JC existed, whether or not someone thinks SC or JC existed, your logic is riddled with holes the size of a very big thing - e.g the myth you are perpetuating as 'truth'

[UnrepentantSinner]

So if St Nicholas existed, then Jesus must have? I didn't even mention Jesus in the thread, you did. I don't even know if St Nicholas was a real person, that's why I said "perhaps." Even if a guy named St Nicholas existed, the story of flying reindeer and elves and such is pure fantasy.

What truth is that? That Saint Nicholas did exist? Better be careful with your analogies. ;)
Bold mine since you apparently missed it several times.

Whether or not SC or JC existed, whether or not someone thinks SC or JC existed, your logic is riddled with holes the size of a very big thing - e.g the myth you are perpetuating as 'truth'

Someone has to be Devil's Advocate around here. :)

[articulett]

So if St Nicholas existed, then Jesus must have? I didn't even mention Jesus in the thread, you did. I don't even know if St Nicholas was a real person, that's why I said "perhaps." Even if a guy named St Nicholas existed, the story of flying reindeer and elves and such is pure fantasy.

Since Jesus has been brought up, is it a good time to mention "suck it Jesus" again? (I don't want to lose my "edge")

[Tobermory]

Thank you. Long time reader, first time poster.

Yay! Now I can argue with you here as well. :catfight:

In regard to AA, the higher power analogies don't really work -- it's a religious program, any way you slice it. It does help some, and like I said earlier, last I read up on this, there was much debate as to the extent. It is a popular program mainly because there are few, if any, alternatives (especially secular alternatives). And yes, nonbelievers might benefit from it as well, as long as they're willing to overlook the nonsensical bits.

Anyway, there are several con law cases as to whether AA can truly be court-mandated due to the religious overtones. I haven't read them recently, though. Maybe I should...

[articulett]

Yay! Now I can argue with you here as well. :catfight:



I take it you've met each other from some other forum.

[Dunstan]

And this is exactly the problem with the type of atheism that you and articulett promote. It is more concerned with pushing people's buttons than making a cogent argument against theism (e.g., your mindless parroting articulett's insistence that I am a "apologist").

So atheists are supposed to spend 100% of their time arguing whether there is a god? And why should they make such arguments to you, since you're an atheist?

[JoeEllison]

So atheists are supposed to spend 100% of their time arguing whether there is a god? And why should they make such arguments to you, since you're an atheist?

Nice one...

[articulett]

So atheists are supposed to spend 100% of their time arguing whether there is a god? And why should they make such arguments to you, since you're an atheist?

Cool. I didn't know I was promoting a "type" of atheism. Zowie.

I thought I was just going after the facts that are the same for everyone.

[mijopaalmc]

So atheists are supposed to spend 100% of their time arguing whether there is a god? And why should they make such arguments to you, since you're an atheist?

Do you stick your hands in a hornets' nest just to get stung?

[Dunstan]

Do you stick your hands in a hornets' nest just to get stung?

Huh?

[six7s]

Someone has to be Devil's Advocate around here. :)

Fairy nuff :)

I prefer a devilled avocado ;)


And this is exactly the problem with the type of atheism that you and articulett promote

.. I'm trying very hard not to be an evil atheist...

I fail to see what this has to do with atheism

Surely we're all here to advance 'critical thinking':


we think about what is posted
we post a critical response

repeat step 1

If the original poster is above or beyond constructive criticism they ought to

wise up
bugger off
be subjected to merciless derision until they pick (i) or (ii)

we move on
we reach nirvana
we do lunch


Now.... where's that devilled avocado?

[Tobermory]

I take it you've met each other from some other forum.

I suppose that is true statement (technically, we met on usenet about 8 years ago); although it is also true that he is my best friend and the best friend that I will ever have.

LBN also told me about this site -- I probably wouldn't have found it without him.

[Tobermory]

Now.... where's that devilled avocado?

Sounds yummy. Gimme some.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fairy nuff :)

I prefer a devilled avocado ;)

Argh. I was going to nuke something I had in the freezer, but now I need to send a co-worker out to get me something with guacamole.

[thaiboxerken]

Bold mine since you apparently missed it several times.

Apparently you're not reading very well. I made no analogy. The fact is that Santa Clause (the guy in a red suit that delivers presents on Xmas Eve) does not exist. It's a myth, a fairy tale.


Someone has to be Devil's Advocate around here.

At the risk of looking like a fool?

[LBN]

I'm a big fan of The Atheist Community of Austin's podcast and cable t.v. show.
Are you familiar with it?

I was familiar with them during my stay in Austin (back in San Marcos now). When Time Warner required one to at least have basic cable to have a cable modem the only thing worth watching were the public access shows. I would watch the ACA's show on Sunday mornings, The Show With No Name, Raw Time, Alex Jones, Ol' Biddy, and others. ACTV is truly what public access should be about: Pure insanity.

Anyway, I attended a couple of their gettogethers in the late '90s but it was during a period of restructuring for them so I couldn't keep up with who was in charge and where the meetings were being held from time to time. I'll have to catch up with them.

Yay! Now I can argue with you here as well. :catfight:

Yet one more place for us to argue. :p

In regard to AA, the higher power analogies don't really work -- it's a religious program, any way you slice it. It does help some, and like I said earlier, last I read up on this, there was much debate as to the extent. It is a popular program mainly because there are few, if any, alternatives (especially secular alternatives). And yes, nonbelievers might benefit from it as well, as long as they're willing to overlook the nonsensical bits.

Anyway, there are several con law cases as to whether AA can truly be court-mandated due to the religious overtones. I haven't read them recently, though. Maybe I should...

As I was said in my earlier post, the "higher power" can be anything you want it to be. In my friend's case, it was a chair (this was encouraged by the grand poobah or whatever his title was). The purpose of accepting the "higher power" is not to give in to religion, it's more about acknowledging your addiction. You can say "admitting I have no control over myself" is a cop-out but it is the truth in addicts. If they had control they wouldn't be addicts. Also, since medical doctors in the field of addiction treatment regularly employee 12 step programs I will assume it's for a reason. If anything it provides structure for a recovering addict. There doesn't have to be anything religious about it. The Serenity Prayer which ends each meeting doesn't have to be taken as religious by an atheist/agnostic/Satanist/whatever. It can simply be taken as an affirmation similar to the way one would wake up in the morning and say, "I'm going to make today the best day of my life and live up to my full potential." In the matter of addiction I'm willing to let there be a gray area with regards to religion because of the severe consequences. If reciting a stupid Serenity Prayer can save someone's life I won't argue.

Wiki wiki wiki has an entry regarding court mandated 12 step attendance. I'll email the link to you since I can't post inline URLs yet. The gist of it is that it is dependent upon jurisdiction. It's full of that legal jargon I'll have to get you to translate for me.

I take it you've met each other from some other forum.

I suppose that is true statement (technically, we met on usenet about 8 years ago); although it is also true that he is my best friend and the best friend that I will ever have.

LBN also told me about this site -- I probably wouldn't have found it without him.

:o My bestest bestest friend too. It's why we argue so well together. She tells me I'm right a lot of the time but I've come to realize it's her way of getting me to be quiet.:p

[six7s]

She tells me I'm right a lot of the time but I've come to realize it's her way of getting me to be quiet.:p

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/dc150.gifhttp://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/dc141.gif

[LBN]

Why would anyone consider telling the truth to be an aggressive act? That's just crazy! And what does the truth have to do with whether or not someone is an atheists. Are you saying that atheists are more honest than religious people?

I think it is human nature to initially react to new knowledge with reluctance and fear -- at least during the early stages of education. Plato's Allegory of the Cave from The Republic illustrates this very well: Unshackle the man, turn him around to face the sunlight (truth) and at first the passing shapes appear less clear than the shadows. His first reaction to turn around and face the wall again.

I don't know much about the true nature of atheists but a skeptic is someone who should always be seeking the truth and helping to spread it. "You have a fantastic claim? That's wonderful. Present me with fantastic proof."

[Tobermory]

I'm not an moral absolutist and I don't subscribe to Kant's view that we should never tell a lie regardless of the consequences. I don't mind lying in certain circumstances. I don't see lying as per se immoral or telling the truth per se moral. I think being honest as a rule is a very good policy though. A person should have a good reason to lie or to be deceptive.

Going back to the "discussion" aspect of this thread -- I completely agree with you as to your opinions on honesty, but I admit that I sometimes mess up. I tend to want to spare someone else's feelings, at any cost. The problem with fine lines is that they're very easy to cross. For example, what exactly is a good reason to lie? Is it OK to lie to help someone else? What about to get yourself out of a mess, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone?

It's also interesting that your view on honesty is somewhat divergent from your view on activism and atheism. Destroying someone's faith can be brutal, and potentially unnecessary if the person in question is not pushing his faith on others or exercising it irrationally (e.g., advocating book-burning or prayer in schools).

Anyway, I appreciate all your intelligent and interesting posts in this thread.

[Tobermory]

I think it is human nature to initially react to new knowledge with reluctance and fear -- at least during the early stages of education. Plato's Allegory of the Cave from The Republic illustrates this very well: Unshackle the man, turn him around to face the sunlight (truth) and at first the passing shapes appear less clear than the shadows. His first reaction to turn around and face the wall again.

I don't know much about the true nature of atheists but a skeptic is someone who should always be seeking the truth and helping to spread it. "You have a fantastic claim? That's wonderful. Present me with fantastic proof."

I guess the question then becomes: do all men need to be unshackled at any cost?

[hgc]

As I was said in my earlier post, the "higher power" can be anything you want it to be. In my friend's case, it was a chair ...


What a coincidence! My higher power...

[articulett]

I guess the question then becomes: do all men need to be unshackled at any cost?

No but all ridiculous notions should be equally open to ridicule.

And all those who wish to inflict opinions and beliefs upon others under the guise of "free speech" or anything else, surely should expect to hear others' opinions of those opinions and respect those opinions as they wish to have their opinions respected. (If someone wants to tell me what they think of me, they better be prepared to hear what I have to say about their opinion. :) )

I would just ask that people give the respect they ask to receive. And if they want me to respect their claims or opinions stated as fact or anything like that-- they better be prepared to present evidence as to why.

[six7s]

... a skeptic is someone who should always be seeking the truth and helping to spread it

Calling myself a sceptic is easy - as long as I'm prepared to eat humble pie when shown, in a way I can understand, that I'm wrong

The good news is that humble pie is really nourishing - and swallowing it is always an excuse for a toast with something rather tasty: a win-win for me

... "You have a fantastic claim? That's wonderful. Present me with fantastic proof."

I am constantly aware that I 'trust' a range of concepts, ideas and ideals that are based on claims and premises that are beyond my comprehension - so I can't say that I 'believe' them.

But... and its a big BUT... aligning myself with scepticism means that I increase the likelihood of me getting to know and trust people who do comprehend, and can explain how they know stuff

[articulett]

What a coincidence! My higher power...

Chairy!
(chairy is my lower power.)

[Tobermory]

No but all ridiculous notions should be equally open to ridicule.

And all those who wish to inflict opinions and beliefs upon others under the guise of "free speech" or anything else, surely should expect to hear others' opinions of those opinions and respect those opinions as they wish to have their opinions respected. (If someone wants to tell me what they think of me, they better be prepared to hear what I have to say about their opinion. :) )

I would just ask that people give the respect they ask to receive. And if they want me to respect their claims or opinions stated as fact or anything like that-- they better be prepared to present evidence as to why.

I agree completely.

[Dogdoctor]

Yes.

For others, don't get caught up in my use of the word "cause". As I said, this is someone else's term, and this whole idea is an off-shoot of the Kathy Griffin thread.

Some folks seemed to think that aggressive offensiveness was necessary when discussing issues with believers and others seemed to think that this approach would only drive a deeper wedge between believer and non-believer so that conversation would not be possible. In other words, the highly abrasive approach would hurt the "cause" of promoting critical thinking and turn believers more firmly against any skeptical approach whatsoever.

I think it probably does make things worse and probably did so far in the case of Kathy Griffin. She will be interpreted as being spokesperson for crude rude and vulgar people and not a spokesperson for atheism (and hopefully not skepticism). If she would speak up and say she is speaking out for atheism that is one thing but she didn't. So it appears that she is just exercising her right to be crude rude and vulgar.
Skepticism is not promoted by using inflamatory statements as they don't lead to logical or skeptical actions or thoughts. (I have only read to this point in this thread).

[Dunstan]

I think it probably does make things worse and probably did so far in the case of Kathy Griffin. She will be interpreted as being spokesperson for crude rude and vulgar people and not a spokesperson for atheism (and hopefully not skepticism). If she would speak up and say she is speaking out for atheism that is one thing but she didn't. So it appears that she is just exercising her right to be crude rude and vulgar.
Skepticism is not promoted by using inflamatory statements as they don't lead to logical or skeptical actions or thoughts. (I have only read to this point in this thread).

I'm confused. You think that Griffin's actions were bad for atheism because they were rude and crude and not interpreted as being for atheism? And it would have been better if she had added "and I'm saying this to stand up for atheists"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

[Dogdoctor]

I'm confused. You think that Griffin's actions were bad for atheism because they were rude and crude and not interpreted as being for atheism? And it would have been better if she had added "and I'm saying this to stand up for atheists"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

People who take a stand have conviction and communicate that to others. Kathy Griffin did not and is being interpreted as a crude, rude and vulgar atheist and that maybe that's just how atheists are. If she would say she was taking a stand against people worshiping their gods in public because it offends her and offends at least some other atheists then perhaps people would look at her differently. She couldn't really be a spokesperson for atheism since atheists have almost nothing in common but she could appear to be one.
eta The public is exposed to atheists through media mostly so she is the example of an atheist for every one.

[UnrepentantSinner]

From another forum (and obviously the site linked)

http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/11700.html

Kathy Griffin joins the awards show drama; a comment she made during an acceptance speech will be cut from the televised version of the Creative Arts Emmy Award. Griffin took the stage after her “My Life on the D-List” won for Best Reality Program. During her speech, Griffin said: “A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now.”

During a backstage interview, Griffin commented “I hope I offended some people. I didn’t want to win the Emmy for nothing.”

Her remarks immediately drew a reaction from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, calling her comments “obscene and blasphemous.” The league’s president, Bill Donohue, asked the TV Academy president to request an apology from Griffin. In response to the issue, E! has decided not to air that part of Griffin’s speech. A spokesman told the press: “Kathy Griffin’s offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast.” Griffin in turn released the following statement: “Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humor?”

The pre-taped, and now edited, Creative Arts Emmys will air this Saturday on E!.

[Dunstan]

People who take a stand have conviction and communicate that to others. Kathy Griffin did not and is being interpreted as a crude, rude and vulgar atheist and that maybe that's just how atheists are. If she would say she was taking a stand against people worshiping their gods in public because it offends her and offends at least some other atheists then perhaps people would look at her differently. She couldn't really be a spokesperson for atheism since atheists have almost nothing in common but she could appear to be one.
eta The public is exposed to atheists through media mostly so she is the example of an atheist for every one.

This is starting to blur into the other thread, but...

I think very few people are interpreting her as "crude, rude and vulgar." Even some of the people in the Griffin thread have revised their opinion upon further consideration and/or review of her comments. Bill Donahue and other professional offense-takers don't really matter. Outside of forums like this one, it hasn't been much of a story (making Donahue's "worse than Imus" claims look even sillier).

By contrast, if she had gone up on stage and said "I am an atheist and am offended by people who thank Jesus in their speeches," I think I would have groaned with disgust. I prefer to leave the "I'm offended" card to the theists, and the "humorless, offense-taking atheist" is already well-cemented in the public mind. I'd rather have someone trying to make her point in a humorous way -- regardless of whether you think the humor succeeded or not -- than in a lecturing tone, especially at an awards ceremony where lectures from celebrities (whether it's on atheism, global warming, or the Iraq War) are annoying.

[articulett]

I think that smart people will enjoy the humor of people crediting the creator of the universe for paying attention to their silly little awards...

I think that those who think it was crude would be offended at anything that caused them to question their knee-jerk piety. I think if people want the freedom to thank Jesus for winning football games or emmy awards, they ought to be prepared to hear other peoples' opinions of such silliness. It's crass and embarrassing and doesn't need to be shown deference. Kathy Griffin is a comedian. I think she's funny. Face it, no matter what an atheist says or how an atheist says it, the believers will get up in arms because they are used to having their faith "respected". People should be respected-- but not "faith"--no more than any other opinion including Kathy Griffin's.

Until someone tells me what the "cause" is and how Kathy Griffin or "offending Christians" hurts this cause or why their freedom to inflict their opinions upon others should not be reciprocated, I think I'll stick to concluding that dog doctor is an apologist with a double standard and that everything a Christian does or feels or says or desires will be given extra respect by him (her) and everything a non-believer says and any criticism of certain kinds of faith will be seen as crass. Even failure to defer will be seen as crass by those who think Christianity deserves some special reverence. I think that if there were no double standard, then Kathy's comments would be treated as similarly to if she mocked astrology or some other "belief system".

So, Dog doctor-- what is faith good for?
Why should it be respected?
Who draws the line?
Can we mock Scientology?
Astrology?
Why do you care about the hypothetical offense of some Christians more than Kathy Griffins feelings or free speech rights?
What is the "cause" that she hurts?
Why is she a spokesperson for atheism? Is Fred Phelps a spokesperson for Christianity? Is she proselytizing?
If faith is good or true, why would what she says matter?
Why should Kathy Griffin respect the feelings of judgmental people who show little concern for her opinions?
When people thank Jesus isn't that like rubbing their success in the face of those who prayed but whose prayers weren't answered?
Isn't it creepy that people go around telling other people that Jesus died for us and expect "reverence"-- it's a macabre bizarre myth. If nothing else, let us laugh... maybe someone will even think.

You say so many nasty things about Kathy and rush to defend some pretty presumptuous behavior by Christians, and yet you get mad if I call you an apologist. To me, thanking Jesus for inane things or telling me that Jesus died for my sins or vilifying people for truth tinged humor is more offensive than anything Kathy Griffin said. But does this opinion matter to you or the "offended Christians" or the apologists? If people don't like Kathy, I'm sure she'll be shunned by them. I don't listen to Ann Coulter or people I find obnoxious. But so far she's winning fans and the christians "protected" from her via censorship are rushing to watch her on youtube and spout things far more hateful than her silly comment. If faith makes people nice, it sure as hell doesn't show in the commentary. If faith is the key to salvation, why the heck would anyone care what Kathy Griffin has to say? Isn't the truth the truth no matter who believes it? I just don't understand this knee jerk vilification. Why should I care what you or other apologists have to say about it, when you guys don't care one wit what I have to say. I don't consider you more honest or insightful or intelligent than I am. I don't see your social skills as being better or your logic more correct or your viewpoint more helpful of "the cause". Until you can tell me what this damn "cause" is and how she's "hurting" it and show me evidence that "your way" works better (and for what)-- I will mock you just as she mocked those who thank Jesus.

My cause is to get rid of this nutty notion that some kinds of faith deserve special respect just because....

[Slimething]

Kathy Griffin did not and is being interpreted as a crude, rude and vulgar atheist and that maybe that's just how atheists are.

DD, you have a very thin skin. To me, Griffin's comments were perfect. Sheer poetry, being that poetry is the expression of complex thoughts in few words.

OK, here's a challenge to you. You have just been presented an award for artistic excellence. You follow the splashy people who opt to thank jesus for helping them win because they are just more with him than the competition. You have 20 seconds to get your thoughts across regarding these shmucks. Go.

What did you say? How long did it take you? Would anyone care the following day?

[articulett]

DD, you have a very thin skin. To me, Griffin's comments were perfect. Sheer poetry, being that poetry is the expression of complex thoughts in few words.

OK, here's a challenge to you. You have just been presented an award for artistic excellence. You follow the splashy people who opt to thank jesus for helping them win because they are just more with him than the competition. You have 20 seconds to get your thoughts across regarding these shmucks. Go.

What did you say? How long did it take you? Would anyone care the following day?

Bingo.

And, DD, how long would threads be about your words? How much consciousness would you have raised? How many people would you have made laugh? How many people would think, damn, I wish I could have or would have said that? How many smart and funny people would be glad to have you on their "side"....?

It's just words.

And if one less person is "holier-than-thou" or one less person thanks Jesus for petty nonsense or one more person dares to question the "big lie" or one more person laughs-- then we all win... the world is a little better... a tad more evolved... a tad less ruled by invisible entities that desire our everlasting fawning.

[RandFan]

Going back to the "discussion" aspect of this thread -- I completely agree with you as to your opinions on honesty, but I admit that I sometimes mess up. I tend to want to spare someone else's feelings, at any cost. The problem with fine lines is that they're very easy to cross. For example, what exactly is a good reason to lie? Is it OK to lie to help someone else? What about to get yourself out of a mess, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone? Life is messy. Logic and reason doesn't always help. We often have conflicting motivations for our behavior.

It's also interesting that your view on honesty is somewhat divergent from your view on activism and atheism. Destroying someone's faith can be brutal, and potentially unnecessary if the person in question is not pushing his faith on others or exercising it irrationally (e.g., advocating book-burning or prayer in schools).

Anyway, I appreciate all your intelligent and interesting posts in this thread.Thank you very much, you flatter me.

I actually think you have a fair point. My mother clings to her belief and I wouldn't do a damn thing to intentionally take it away from her.

She knows I'm an atheist and when she found out it devastated her for awhile. She asks me questions and I am honest with her. We have found a separate peace and she loves me and I love her. For her and I that is all that is required.

I don't have an answer for you. I'm not going to stop hoping and pushing for a change in the zeitgeist. I'm sure there will consequences. However there will also be rewards. I think we will be better in the long run.

Thank you for your post.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What did you say? How long did it take you? Would anyone care the following day?

I don't say anything about them because I'm not hysterically upset about people referring to Jesus during acceptance speeches. I have my own set of people to thank so I'll probably be too busy thanking them to worry about what those schmucks were saying.

[UnrepentantSinner]

A guy who got this spam from his mom posted it to another forum. It's brain hurting stupidity like this (which, as an added bonus, seems to think atheist = socialist and hedonist) which is why I think toning down the rancor might be a good thing. It's not going to help the author, but it will help encourage people like the Christian guy who eviscerated the OP several posts later.

"“The Ten Commandments of Atheism”
by Brandon Vallorani
If atheists get their way in America, like they did in France during the Revolution, they will be forced to replace God's Laws with new laws. I've been wondering what these new laws would be like. So, to force atheists to be honest with themselves, I drafted the Ten Commandments of Atheism. My inspiration came from Robert Winthrop, U.S. Speaker of the House in 1849, who said: All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State. Atheists like to believe that they are little "gods" and that they are the ultimate authority over their own lives. This is a childish pipe dream because nature abhors a vacuum. The Tyrannical State always assumes the place from where God was removed. Would you rather have God's Ten Commandments or be ruled by these Ten Tyrannical Laws of the State?:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF ATHEISM

I.Thou shalt have no other gods before the State.

II.Thou shalt not make unto thee any Church building or any State document, which mentions the God of the Bible.

III.Thou shalt not take the name of Charles Darwin in vain.

IV.Remember the five weekdays of Public Education, to keep them holy. For the Church cannot overcome in one day what the Public Education system teaches in five days.

V.Honor thy Mother Earth and thy Father Time, that your days may be spent without purpose in this life.

VI.Thou shalt not kill anyone who is guilty of murder, but only those who are weak, unwanted, or hinder the greater good of humankind as determined by the State.

VII.Thou shalt commit adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and any other type of sexual perversion, which destroys the family as the foundation of society and gives tyrannical power to the State.

VIII.Thou shalt steal the wages of thy neighbor by enacting new taxes, and then, redistribute these hard-earned wages to those whom you have enslaved through the welfare system.

IX.Thou shalt not bear any witness against the Theory of Evolution.

X.Thou shalt covet the blessings of a Christian nation, but deny the Providence of God who can alone grant such blessings.

Atheists need to ask themselves whether or not they want to live in a society where these laws are at the foundation. What was the fruit of atheism during the French Revolution? Gary DeMar writes, With no transcendent God to rule over them, no rights other than those granted by the State, and no laws other than those manufactured to keep the regime in power, blood literally ran in the streets. They couldn’t kill the enemies of the State fast enough. A new killing machine—the guillotine—was invented to speed up the executions of the enemies of the State."

[six7s]

I would just ask that people give the respect they ask to receive. And if they want me to respect their claims or opinions stated as fact or anything like that-- they better be prepared to present evidence as to why.

I don't know much about the true nature of atheists but a skeptic is someone who should always be seeking the truth and helping to spread it. "You have a fantastic claim? That's wonderful. Present me with fantastic proof."

More inspirational stuff... ;)

May I present... in the best possible taste :boxedin:

Claims From Your Mind

-JJ7oGHwMTI

Oh, I can't take any more bullshyte
When you say you have a sky friend
I'm at my wits end
You say your woo is bonafide
But that don't coincide
With the things that you're doing
When I ask you to explain
You go off an a tangent that doesn't quite fit with anything else

Claims from your mind, they can't be measured
Claims from your mind, it's a very odd sign
Claims from your mind, means I don't trust you
Wooist, (you make an odd claim) you make an odd claim from your mind

Well, I do my best to understand woo
But you still mystify, and I wanna know why
I ask myself if you've got grounds
To make you knock me back down
Again and again
And when I ask you to explain
You build a strawman and use red herrings that don't quite fit with anything else

Claims from your mind, they can't be measured
Claims from your mind, it's a very odd sign
Claims from your mind, means I don't trust you
Wooist, (you make an odd claim) you make an odd claim from your mind

Woo woo woo woo woo...

:g1:

Well, I do my best to understand woo
But you still mystify, and I wanna know why
I ask myself if you've got grounds
To make you knock me back down
Again and again
And when I ask you to explain
You quote chapter and verse from some work of fiction so why the hell should I make this line scan, huh? Is this an Aggressive Atheistic Stance that Hurts the Cause? Ah well, I'm only human

Claims from your mind, they can't be measured
Claims from your mind, it's a very odd sign
Claims from your mind, means I don't trust you
Wooist, (you make an odd claim) you make an odd claim from your mind

Claims from your mind, they can't be measured
Claims from your mind, it's a very very very odd sign
Claims from your mind, means I don't trust you
Wooist, (you make an odd claim) you make an odd claim from your mind

Claims from your mind, they can't be measured
Claims from your mind, it's a very very very very odd sign
Claims from your mind, means I don't trust you
Wooist, (you make an odd claim) you make an odd claim from your mind

Claims from your mind, they can't be measured

:p

[articulett]

:D

such an aggressive atheist!
(And I'm offended by the bolo tie)

[quixotecoyote]

A guy who got this spam from his mom posted it to another forum. It's brain hurting stupidity like this (which, as an added bonus, seems to think atheist = socialist and hedonist) which is why I think toning down the rancor might be a good thing. It's not going to help the author, but it will help encourage people like the Christian guy who eviscerated the OP several posts later.

A Christian wrote that, not an atheist. It's a typical misrepresentation of atheists by Christians.

Are there illogical, stupid atheists? Of course. Are there so many that its easier to find one instead of using a Christian misrepresenting atheists? Apparently not.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/08-03-07.asp


eta: Fear my google-fu evildoers!

[UnrepentantSinner]

A Christian wrote that, not an atheist.

I never said an atheist wrote it. It was posted here (http://foru.ms/t6110333-the-ten-commandments-of-atheism.html) and, as the atheist OPer explained, it was forwarded to him by his mom. Lower on the first page a Christian responds to the spam and very effetively eviscerates it. (post 10 by Tinker Grey)

I plan on responding to the list myself later.

[quixotecoyote]

I never said an atheist wrote it. It was posted here (http://foru.ms/t6110333-the-ten-commandments-of-atheism.html) and, as the atheist OPer explained, it was forwarded to him by his mom. Lower on the first page a Christian responds to the spam and very effetively eviscerates it. (post 10 by Tinker Grey)

I plan on responding to the list myself later.

I'm sorry, I feel like I got hit with a 10 lb non-sequitor just then.

Christians lie about atheists.
Therefore atheists should not protest as much[tone down the rancor, as you put it].

Perhaps some clarification here?

[Slimething]

I don't say anything about them because I'm not hysterically upset about people referring to Jesus during acceptance speeches.

I didn't see that Griffin was hysterical either so you are mischaracterizing her. Now, suppose you were upset about these idiots. What would you say. Don't avoid the question.

It's brain hurting stupidity like this (which, as an added bonus, seems to think atheist = socialist and hedonist) which is why I think toning down the rancor might be a good thing.

Yes, you and I agree on one point: the post is blatantly ignorant. We disagree in that placating this type of mentality is worthwhile. Frankly, these are the types I don't mind offending. If I can bring these people out of the woodwork, the intelligent xians will begin to question exactly why they believe in sky pixies. US, you may want to play down to the lowest denominator, I won't. I'm not living my life for their benefit.

[six7s]

The Ten Commandments of Atheism (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/08-03-07.asp)
by Brandon Vallorani (mailto:mail@AmericanVision.org?subject=Brandon, You are an idiot&body=Brandon, your ten commandments for atheists are ridiculous and you are a sad git) <<== CLICK ME!!
8/03/2007


If atheists get their way in America, like they did in France during the Revolution, they will be forced to replace God's Laws with new laws. I've been wondering what these new laws would be like.

So, to force atheists to be honest with themselves, I drafted the Ten Commandments of Atheism.

Huh?

Maybe I'm just a stoopid heathen... buuuuuuuuut... if atheists get their way in America, won't atheists decide which laws need repealing... and how?

Wow! I wish I had a sky-friend to edukayt educkate teech me stuf

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm sorry, I feel like I got hit with a 10 lb non-sequitor just then.

Christians lie about atheists.
Therefore atheists should not protest as much[tone down the rancor, as you put it].

Perhaps some clarification here?

Sure. It's in the post.
It's not going to help the author, but it will help encourage people like the Christian guy who eviscerated the OP several posts later.

[articulett]

A Christian wrote that, not an atheist. It's a typical misrepresentation of atheists by Christians.

Are there illogical, stupid atheists? Of course. Are there so many that its easier to find one instead of using a Christian misrepresenting atheists? Apparently not.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/08-03-07.asp


eta: Fear my google-fu evildoers!

We can't take the name of Charles Darwin in vain?

As for this:

Thou shalt commit adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and any other type of sexual perversion, which destroys the family as the foundation of society and gives tyrannical power to the State.


Are we supposed to do all of them, or just pick our favorites?

And if those other ten commandments are so good, why is religiosity associated with such dysfunction and why do secular societies enjoy greater health? http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

That's the problem with faith-- facts don't mean diddly squat. Why are the people telling me how bad I and other non-believers are-- not the people I'd consider taking advice from?

[articulett]

Huh?

Maybe I'm just a stoopid heathen... buuuuuuuuut... if atheists get their way in America, won't atheists decide which laws need repealing... and how?

Wow! I wish I had a sky-friend to edukayt educkate teech me stuf

Religion doesn't teach you how to think--just what to think (and to think you know more than everyone else because you BELIEVE you do.)

I say we step up the mockery!

[quixotecoyote]

Sure. It's in the post.

How will it help Mr. Honest Christian Guy?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I didn't see that Griffin was hysterical either so you are mischaracterizing her. Now, suppose you were upset about these idiots. What would you say. Don't avoid the question.

Why would I think they were idiots? Why would I get upset about what someones choice of a thanks list for their acceptance speech? When you can give me a good reason why I should give a **** about what someone else says at the podium before me, I'll get around to making something up to placate you.

I thought it was only the stupid "xians" who got offended by what others said, not us rational atheists.

Yes, you and I agree on one point: the post is blatantly ignorant. We disagree in that placating this type of mentality is worthwhile.

I really wish people would read all of what I post and not just parts of it. I wasn't suggesting we should tone down the rancor towards morons who espouse the idiocy in the spam, I was saying we should tone down the overall level of rancor so as to encourage responses like those from the guy who I mentioned in my response to QC.

US, you may want to play down to the lowest denominator, I won't. I'm not living my life for their benefit.

I clarified that I wasn't suggesting that, but oddly enough, I find a lot of the stunts my fellow atheists have been doing over the past few years to be exactly that. That is, unless we should consider Suck It Jesus and the Blasphemy Challenge as well reasoned political or theological discourse.

I don't.

(and I realize it got lost in all the fevered posting done yesterday, but a few pages back I commented on this very situation as related to Big Brother 11)

- edit D'oh! It was in the Kathy Griffin thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2958190#post2958190).

[Dunstan]

Hey, I'll give it a whirl! Let's compare these so-called Atheist Commandments (AC) to the Ten Commandments (TC; I'll use the Anglican version):

I.
AC: Thou shalt have no other gods before the State.
TC: I am the Lord your God; Thou shalt have no other gods before me

I believe in freedom of religion, so I don't support state-mandated atheism, but if the alternative is state-mandated Jehovahism, I know which I prefer.

Score: AC 1, TC 0

II.
AC: Thou shalt not make unto thee any Church building or any State document, which mentions the God of the Bible.
TC: Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol

Hmmm. Again, I wouldn't ban churches, though if I'm already going with Atheist Commandment 1, this one follows logically. On the other hand, what exactly is an "idol"? It's too vague and overbroad to serve as a constitutional principle, so...

Score: AC 2, TC 0

III.
AC: Thou shalt not take the name of Charles Darwin in vain.
TC: Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God

Well, the whole idea of taking someone's name in vain is silly, but at least Darwin was a real person and one of the great scientists in human history.

Score: AC 3, TC 0

IV.
AC: Remember the five weekdays of Public Education, to keep them holy. For the Church cannot overcome in one day what the Public Education system teaches in five days.
TC: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

I have no idea what the AC is supposed to mean. How do we keep them "holy" if we're atheists? And I thought we banned churches back in #1 and 2? Oh well, if the point is that public education is a good thing, I can sign on to that.

Score: AC 4, TC 0

V.
AC: Honor thy Mother Earth and thy Father Time, that your days may be spent without purpose in this life.
TC: Honor thy Father and Mother

Again, the AC seems a little unclear, and the second part is argumentative, but on the whole I would prefer a society that respected the environment and was mindful of our place in history over one that respected whoever created you because the drugstore was closed.

Score: AC 5, TC 0

VI.
AC: Thou shalt not kill anyone who is guilty of murder, but only those who are weak, unwanted, or hinder the greater good of humankind as determined by the State.
TC: Thou shalt not murder

Hmm, they really stacked the deck on this one. If the commandments are to be our sole laws, then I'd have to give it to TC. But really, if we're only allowed ten laws, we're screwed anyway -- how are you going to fit securities regulation, environmental protection, labor laws, and a zillion other things? So I'm assuming that my Atheist Republic can still enact a ban on murder; we just won't get to call it a commandment. Also, killing the "weak [and] unwanted" are probably referring to abortion, and I'm pro-choice. So I think I can still maintain the shutout.

Score: AC 6, TC 0

VII.
AC: Thou shalt commit adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and any other type of sexual perversion, which destroys the family as the foundation of society and gives tyrannical power to the State.
TC: Thou shalt not commit adultery

I happen to like fornication and probably some other things people would consider "sexual perversion." But I don't think we should make them compulsory, and while adultery laws are a waste of time to enforce, I guess I prefer mandated fidelity to mandated bestiality. Besides, it'll keep the Marquis away.

Score: AC 6, TC 1

VIII.
AC: Thou shalt steal the wages of thy neighbor by enacting new taxes, and then, redistribute these hard-earned wages to those whom you have enslaved through the welfare system.
TC: Thou shalt not steal

Using my reasoning for #6, I can adopt the AC and still punish theft. Although I'm somewhat a fiscal conservative, I happen to think that some degree of a welfare system and income redistribution is a good thing, so I'll go with the AC.

Score: AC 7, TC 1

IX.
AC: Thou shalt not bear any witness against the Theory of Evolution.
TC: Thou shalt not bear false witness

Unlike the author of those Atheist Commandments, I don't have any interest in squelching unpleasant truths. So the TC version not only helps my justice system run properly, but it bans false witness against the Theory of Evolution (though why it should be on trial I don't know). If someone's got true testimony against it, have at it!

Score: AC 7, TC 2

X.
AC: Thou shalt covet the blessings of a Christian nation, but deny the Providence of God who can alone grant such blessings.
TC: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house/wife.

Again, a totally argumentative AC. But I'll concede that perhaps there could be some advantages to being a Christian nation. Like perhaps an obedient unquestioning citizenry. If so, I would covet them, because I'm a covetous kind of guy. But since God doesn't exist, I would continue to deny him, so really this AC is just describing what I'd do anyway. Conversely, the TC is awful. People covet other people's stuff. It's human nature. Hell, it's what makes the economy function! You want me to create a thoughtcrime that punishes the basis of our economy? This one's a no-brainer.

Final Score:
Atheist Commandments 8, Ten Commandments 2

[articulett]

I just want to add, that I like fornication too.

(and suck it Jesus).

[UnrepentantSinner]

How will it help Mr. Honest Christian Guy?

Sigh... Ten commanments snipped during quoting, I'm inserting the numbers.

I am not an atheist. Nevertheless such a list is silly and simply fails to understand the atheist mindset.

Time and again, people cite statistics that show atheists are on average more educated and more intellectual the average person.

These so called laws suggest that your average atheist is no more educated than the class trouble maker who says he's an atheist just to torque off his religiously inclined teacher.

Let's attempt to address the individual points.

{I.}

Why would a rational person or group of people who don't believe in any God or spiritual realm whatsoever have a commandment that suggests that the State is God?

{II.}

Given Dawkins, Hitchens, et al., this one may be somewhat realistic. Nevertheless, my experience suggests that the majority of atheists are more interesting in being left alone than in stopping other people in their religious pursuits -- as long as those pursuits don't infringe on anyone else's freedoms.

{III.}

Oh please.

{IV.}

I don't know what this means. Given that atheists don't hold anything holy that I know of, this seems like a rather meaningless statement.

{V.}

Are the Christian authors of this actually suggesting that taking care of the earth is meaningless? Surely God's mandate to take be the care takers of the earth should find honoring the earth a purposeful thing to do. I seem to recall a verse that suggests that we should make the most of our time. Making good use of our time and caring for the earth are profoundly Christian things to do. (With respect to my atheist friends, I am addressing the "christians" that wrote this. If I were writing in general, I'd say "profoundly human thing to do.")

{VI.}

Strawman. The Christian position of justice should applaud any moratorium on the death penalty ... particularly in the advance of science showing that many of the convicted could not have been guilty of the crime. IOW, justice suggests that at minimum we should stop the death penalty until the system is improved dramatically and all current death penalty cases.

Second, there are atheists who support the death penalty.

Third, there are atheists who are pro-life.

Broadbrush much?

{VII.}

Yeah. That's right. Any one who disagrees with your position on morality is out to destroy society. Various positions may or may not destroy society. I just one side would stop demonizing the other side (which of course this whole list is an exercise in.)

And, for crying out loud, what does sex have to do with giving tyrannical power to the state. There is no connection between the first part of the "commandment" and the last.

{VIII.}

Right. Taxes pay for the conservative's much vaunted military. Try reading Romans 13. Taking care of widows and orphans is certainly not a Biblical virture. Sheesh.

{IX.}

Well. Yeah. Of course. It's kind of like "thou shalt not lie." I don't have a problem with this one.

{X.}

Again. How can one deny the providence of a thing that, as far as Atheists know, doesn't exist. I would suggest that our blessings don't derive from being Christian. By today's standards, most of USA history shows the populace to be nominal at best.

-------
The author asks whether atheists want to live in such a society. But, the question suffers when the "laws" are to a large extent non-sensical and the rest of them are not representative of any known system (and no, not that of the french revolution either, AFAIK.)


Does that help?

I don't think telling him how stupid he is on a regular basis is going to encourage him to defend atheists in such a public message forum. In fact it might turn him off. I've known Tinker Grey on that forum for years so I don't think it would happen immediately if ever, but over time it couldn't help.

This is a PR campeign as long as we are in the minority.

[LBN]

I guess the question then becomes: do all men need to be unshackled at any cost?

Yes. As you and I have discussed many times in other media, it is my belief that religion affects almost all the decisions one makes in one's life. This becomes a problem when the superstitious step into the ballot booth and begin to poke little holes in those punch cards.

What a coincidence! My higher power...

BluHarmony is my higher power. :)

Calling myself a sceptic is easy - as long as I'm prepared to eat humble pie when shown, in a way I can understand, that I'm wrong

Precisely. That's a driving idea behind skepticism and the scientific method. It's not absolutism. It's subject to change and revision in light of new discoveries and developments. This is why I prefer to call myself a skeptic instead of atheist/agnostic/pantheist/whatever. I acknowledge that there is still a great deal for us to discover about the universe. I don't believe we need to use the word "god" to fill in that great variable of knowledge we haven't acquired yet but I believe we will acquire more and more of it as technology allows us to. I believe the human mind is capable of comprehending the nature of the universe. We're just a bit myopic right now because our tools are limited.

Until someone tells me what the "cause" is and how Kathy Griffin or "offending Christians" hurts this cause

The "cause" as I see it is the eradication of superstitious and supernatural beliefs. I don't think Kathy Griffin or doing things to offend Christians (dOG only knows I've done my fair share of mocking Christians) necessarily hurt cause. (Although my grandmother used to say you can always catch more flies with honey than vinegar). That's all entertainment, a dog and pony show. The real battleground for the "cause" is going to be in the classroom. I don't think there's much we can to re-educate those with a lifelong commitment to jESUS but if we can teach children rational thinking at a very early age then we're on our way. Anyway, this is why I think it's important for legal action to be taken to keep jESUS and hIS friends out of the classroom. Some of you may not see this in other parts of the country or the world but try spending some time in a state like Texas where legal battles like this are an ongoing thing. It's frustrating enough to make you want to hate your fellow man for being such idiots. ;)

More inspirational stuff... ;)

May I present... in the best possible taste :boxedin:

Claims From Your Mind

Great song. Great songwriter. And RIP TOTP. :'(

:D

such an aggressive atheist!
(And I'm offended by the bolo tie)

I have a bolo tie somewhere but I haven't worn it in years. I even used to do the trendy thing of tossing one of the ends in your shirt pocket so it didn't look straight. Then again, I think that was around the time I was wearing Z. Cavaricci pants as well. :o

Thou shalt commit adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and any other type of sexual perversion, which destroys the family as the foundation of society and gives tyrannical power to the State.


Are we supposed to do all of them, or just pick our favorites?

That just sounds like the start of a great party to me. I miss living in Austin even though I'm just 30 minutes away from it.

-LBN

[blobru]

I'll only worry about this when I notice atheists agreeing on a single approach.
Until then, the natural mix of confrontation and conciliation you get from loosely-bunched individuals expressing themselves as they see fit seems the best strategy, which is a darn good thing because it's probably inevitable as well.
I'm far too erratic a person to adhere to a single approach, let alone advocate one.

[quixotecoyote]

Sigh... Ten commanments snipped during quoting, I'm inserting the numbers.



I don't think telling him how stupid he is on a regular basis is going to encourage him to defend atheists in such a public message forum. In fact it might turn him off. I've known Tinker Grey on that forum for years so I don't think it would happen immediately if ever, but over time it couldn't help.

This is a PR campeign as long as we are in the minority.

I think randfan said it best earlier
I was born in 1961, I grew up in a period of great change in a conservative and patriarchal society. There came a time in my life when I completely embraced the cause of civil rights but disagreed with the many of the methods. I believed that slow change was preferable and more likely to succeed than rapid change that would lead to a backlash.

I don't know what precisely is the answer. However I don't think we are going to get anyone's attention by wearing kid gloves. Sometimes you have to be provocative.

I have to say that I'm very happy with the direction of things. There will be a backlash and reversals but our position is the Superior one. Ultimately we will prevail.

It's not about calling him [Tinker Grey], individually, stupid. He's apparently a nice guy and has critical thinking skills within the limits of his filters. But the filters he's viewing the world through are demonstrably flawed. Those flaws cause people to perceive the world incorrectly and that has consequences. So despite that he's a nice guy, that way to promote rationality is not to be nice and quiet and hope nice polite Christians come along and beat back the worst of the ******** that gets thrown at atheists. The answer is to speak truth in a way that will be heard.

That means not staying within the comfortable zones where people will smile, nod, and go about doing what they were going to do anyway. It means challenging people's view of the world. It means challenging the notion that religion is the norm and atheism is the abnormality. It means saying that your collection of hand-me-down myths don't deserve any more respect than the Egyptian, Sumerian, or Babylonian myths they congealed from. If that offends you, tough. Truth hurts.

[six7s]

I'm far too erratic a person to adhere to a single approach, let alone advocate one.


S P L I T T E R !
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/inlines/07_popul.jpg



;)

[blobru]

S P L I T T E R !
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/inlines/07_popul.jpg
;)


Don't know him, but I like his taste in blankets! :D

[articulett]

I agree with randfan, blobru, etc. Great posts. I don't think skeptics need to tell other skeptics what to do... or at least provide a goal, what an "aggressive atheist" says, how it hurts "the cause", and evidence that whatever they are doing is better for "the cause". I think most people agree with this, don't they?

LBN, I'm sure your grandmother is correct... but not everyone wants to catch flies. And I heard crap attracts flies like crazy. So though a million flies may love crap, it doesn't make me eager to sample the wares-- or indulge flies.

In Texas, you have that horrid state pledge and now they've added "god" to that pledge that the little kids will have to say every day along with the normal pledge. If the atheists complain, they will be crucified. But I bet if some kids who believed in gods with other names like "allah" or "satan" inserted their preferred version, then the "freedom of speech" christians desire for the god named "god" won't be so important to them--I bet god slowly evaporates from the Texas State pledge. (Afterall, god is supposed to hear you even if you are just talking in your head, right... and he's "omnipresent.) But no parent will turn their kid into a sacrificial lamb-- and so this insidious "faith is good" meme is encouraged over critical thinking yet again.

Don't you think that some of the funnier rebellious stuff like Kathy Griffin is saying or the Blasphemy Challenge or normalbobsmith.com might be an appealing way to get kids to think-- rebel-- without actually doing anything bad for themselves or others? In fact, it's good, isn't it? Even if it's immature and freaks out those eager to ensure the kiddies don't go to hell... kids talk to each other and educate each other and can learn critical thinking from each other once their fear and automatic trust of "authority figures" is challenged. I kind of wish I'd heard someone-- any adult be irreverent in such a funny way when I was a kid. It feels "bad" and yet it's not bad at all... it's a way of giggling at the ghosts that once haunted us--

Yes, education is the key... but as I noted before... humor and satire and parody can be great educators. My example is Archie Bunker... and how he may have done more to reduce racism than all the niceties of the civil rights movement. He served as a mirror to bigots... and showed them what they didn't want to be.

So who are these aggressive atheists? Or is this yet another myth--along with the myth that you need religion and belief in an invisible guy to be "moral". And where is the evidence that they are harmful. Sure people are upset--they're power and favorite delusions are being shattered... and they've been told that horrible things will happen if the "secularists" take over. But what is the worst aggressive thing or scary thing or provocative thing that anyone has said in the name of atheism. Who and how can you force someone "not to believe" in something?... and what how does belief in something change what is true? Who are these aggressive atheists who have hurt the cause?--doesn't it make the apologists, etc. justify their reaction and their offense and faith. Isn't that important for dialogue? Is anything an "aggressive atheist" said worse than what Fred Phelps says? I don't want to ask for my rights. I just want to assume them the way Christians do. I don't think they can see what their imposing on people until others demand equal freedoms to blurt, laugh, judge, invoke their values, preach, or claim the moral high ground. I think the supposed skeptics who are dissing the approach of other skeptics hurt the cause more than "aggressive atheists". Where is their evidence that apologetics and calling atheists "god-haters" does anything but further the bigotry proffered by faiths over the years in order to keep the Big Lie (faith is a path to "higher truth"/morality) alive?

I've asked again and again who these aggressive atheists are... we are accused of it all the time on this forum... supposedly this forum is full of them-- and Dawkins is one--and Harris... but where are the quotes of this aggressiveness? Is any of it nearly as vile as Ann Coulter blithely stating that she and her co-religionists giggle at the thought of Richard Dawkins in hell? Isn't it just that people have taught themselves not to see or hear the offense of Christianity through slow and stead "brainwashing" (just as they never blame their god when prayers go unanswered) while finding fault in most anything any non-believer says (just as they credit their god for every bit of good lest he take the goodies away)? I just think that niceness and deference make people whom I think already feel too entitled feel more entitled and cry louder about persecution over the most minor mockery.

I want atheist critics to develop the thick skin they want atheists to have (look at the ones who come here to a SKEPTICS forum to tell us that America is a Christian Nation....and if we don't like it, we can get out?) Lies proffered as "higher truths" are still lies. I think mockery is far from aggressive. And it allows us to laugh even if we can't change things.

I don't try to convert believers--ever... most assume I'm a believer too given the nutty things they say to me. But faith is not a good way to know anything. Respecting it is the same as respecting any superstition of giggling to be polite at a racist joke-- it's anti-logic, anti-science, divisive, and irrational. Nothing should be deferred to "just because". Silence, I can handle. Deference-- no more. I'm a smart and moral person with a sense of humor... I think I'm entitled to my opinion and entitled to determine who I'll take my advice and moral lessons from and what my "causes" are.

I agree with most of the posts on this thread, and it makes me proud to be a part of this group.

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, one interesting thing about this thread. It once again assumes that anyone strongly opposed to organized religion is an athiest.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmm, one interesting thing about this thread. It once again assumes that anyone strongly opposed to organized religion is an athiest.

No it doesn't. I intentionally equivocated all over the place for my own particular reasons.

[Slimething]

Why would I think they were idiots? Why would I get upset about what someones choice of a thanks list for their acceptance speech? When you can give me a good reason why I should give a **** about what someone else says at the podium before me, I'll get around to making something up to placate you.

It's called a hypothetical. You weren't asked the question in the first place so you needn't answer if it upsets you so. Tell you what, use "slimething" instead of "jesus" if it makes it easier for you. Either that or leave the question alone.


I thought it was only the stupid "xians" who got offended by what others said, not us rational atheists.


That's really whiny. Tell me you were only kidding. :eek:

I really wish people would read all of what I post and not just parts of it. I wasn't suggesting we should tone down the rancor towards morons who espouse the idiocy in the spam, I was saying we should tone down the overall level of rancor so as to encourage responses like those from the guy who I mentioned in my response to QC.

Oh, yeah, NOT defending a point in the face of increasing stupidity is a great strategy. :rolleyes: Why don't you stop posting about this if you think the rest of us are so wrong? That is, keep your own counsel.


I clarified that I wasn't suggesting that, but oddly enough, I find a lot of the stunts my fellow atheists have been doing over the past few years to be exactly that. That is, unless we should consider Suck It Jesus and the Blasphemy Challenge as well reasoned political or theological discourse.


Everyone has their own style. Some of us are more vocal than others. Lumping what Griffin said with the Blasphemy Challenge is ridiculous as well. Write letters to all those people telling them you don't approve.

[truethat]

I really could care less what side is right, I don't necessarily think tolerance is a good thing. Should we tolerate the KKK as well? It depends on what they are asking us to tolerate.


However my biggest pet peeve is the derailment of a simple discussion down the path of personal insult and the high five gang that thinks they're oh so clever for putting everyone in their place.

They usually post PAGES of their vomit ranting and raving and contributing nothing to the actual conversation.

When you point this out to them they attack, call you an apologist or a believer in disguise.

For me I'm like, NO, I just would like to actually have the conversation that is on the table.

If a Christian fundy came in with their gang, (because they always travel in packs so when people ignore then they can dialogue back and forth between each other commending one another for their antics----but I digress) and started ranting about Jesus on a skeptics forum, they'd be laughed right out.

But because these same nut jobs call themselves "atheists" and like to compare themselves to Dawkins (snort, in your friggin' dreams) they think they are clever and authoritative.

Actually they are just like a bunch of vandals going through threads destroying any real semblance of a discussion.

[Ichneumonwasp]

For me I'm like, NO, I just would like to actually have the conversation that is on the table.



But there is no conversation.

Or table.

Or spoon.


Which raises an interesting question......if I am sitting at an imaginary table with a non-existent spoon, how am I supposed to eat my soup?

[Slimething]

I really could care less what side is right, I don't necessarily think tolerance is a good thing. Should we tolerate the KKK as well? It depends on what they are asking us to tolerate.


However my biggest pet peeve is the derailment of a simple discussion down the path of personal insult and the high five gang that thinks they're oh so clever for putting everyone in their place.

They usually post PAGES of their vomit ranting and raving and contributing nothing to the actual conversation.

When you point this out to them they attack, call you an apologist or a believer in disguise.

For me I'm like, NO, I just would like to actually have the conversation that is on the table.

If a Christian fundy came in with their gang, (because they always travel in packs so when people ignore then they can dialogue back and forth between each other commending one another for their antics----but I digress) and started ranting about Jesus on a skeptics forum, they'd be laughed right out.

But because these same nut jobs call themselves "atheists" and like to compare themselves to Dawkins (snort, in your friggin' dreams) they think they are clever and authoritative.

Actually they are just like a bunch of vandals going through threads destroying any real semblance of a discussion.

I'm glad you're not continuing the trend there, bucko! :rolleyes:

[Complexity]

truethat - When you offer something worth discussing, I'll give it a ponder.

[Beth]

Well said.

And how do the apologists respond? I think Articulett has stated her case very strongly, very thoroughly.
Okay. Since you asked and because I like you and am classed as one of the apologists, I’ll give it a try. I picked what I thought was the post you were referring to from the two directly above this post. Please let me know if you had a different one in mind.

Well, I think anyone who believes in Hell is seriously wacky to begin with, but there are plenty of folks who are either believers or apologists for believers who do not think that anyone goes to eternal torment after death or who think that it is up to the individual to decide one way or another if they do believe in it.
Yes... and who is offending them and how? What is it that such people want? If their faith is good, can't it stand scrutiny or mocking? Nobody has to listen, right?

I agree with Articulett here. Nobody has to listen. Her screeds may be directed against those she loathes, but they are primarily read by those who agree with her, not those who don’t. Her purpose is not to change minds but amuse herself and those who think like her. She succeeds at that.

In general, I think people should be free to say the things they choose to say when they are offered an opportunity. If they choose to use their time indulging in what others consider to be offensive or poor taste, that is their perogative. In the case of Kathy Griffen or the Validictorian speech, I consider it simply part of the reward of getting an award. You also get a few seconds at the mike with an audience.

Here, in the JREF forum, the same rule holds: people can say whatever they like. No one has to listen. I find the diatribes against the religious, particularly against Christianity to be boring and stupid, mostly filled with sweeping generalizations that are quite inaccurate when applied to the entire spectrum of believers, so I don’t usually bother to read them.

Whereas, I'm forced to have "under god" in my pledge and "in god we trust" on my money. If they are offended... instead of running to dis the offender, might it not be useful for them to ask themselves why? Didn't we all start questioning the "faith is good" meme when similar type questions occur to us? When we are asked to define things? When we are asked what the standard is? When we ask what is it okay to ask people to respect--and why? When we ask what the goal is?
Who is it that is having problems with "aggressive atheists" and what exactly is being said that is "aggressive" and why or how does this cause harm or offense? And why is it worse than aggressive anti-racism or racism mockery or satire? And why or how is this being inflicted on people against their will?

I think that calling god a delusion is aggressive and offensive to a great many people. I think Dawkins named his book that with considerable thought and deliberately choose that term in order to shock people and get them to thinking about the answers to those sorts of questions. He knew it would be offensive, so I presume he deliberately chose to offend people because he felt it would be beneficial to getting his message across. It is his perrogative to offend others if that is what he chooses to do. There is a valid argument for using such an approach: that the harm done by the deliberate offense is justified by the increase in publicity and the increase in people thinking about and discussing his ideas.

I think there is an increasing secularization of our culture that many religious people regard as being inflicted on them against their will, particularly in the arena of our public schools. Articulett is forced to use money bearing the slogan “In God We Trust” whilst religious folks are forced to send their children to public schools where they are taught things that are in direct contradiction to their religious beliefs and/or values they teach their children - such as evolution or how to use a condom. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not, the fact remains that people do feel that secularism is being thrust upon them in same way that Articulett feels that religion is being thrust upon her.

The fact is that our increasing diverse society is making us all rub shoulders with people who believe differently that we do. We all have to make some allowances for the way things are changing and the way things used to be. It’s easier to make that transition when people are considerate about how the things they do and say will affect others and avoid creating problems. It doesn’t mean that offense should be avoided at all costs, only that when offense can be avoided at little or no cost, it’s usually better to avoid it.


If I feel that religion is on par with racism or rain dancing or other uncivilized notions, why in the world would I stay silent so that people would continue to inflict such primitive and fearful nothingness on others?-- Especially kids... and trusting scared adults? And the victims of religious of oppression who have been told they are "unworthy" for not believing the right thing the right way?

You don’t have to stay silent. But, as you pointed out above, others don't have to listen to you. Except for your students. They have to listen to you. For that reason, you are forbidden by law to discuss such things in your role as teacher. You aren’t allow to proselyte your atheist beliefs on a captive audience.

The argument against being mocking, derisive and deliberately offensive to those people is that it is ineffective if your goal is to convince them that you are right and their previously held convictions are wrong, you have to get them to listen to you. Further, they have to believe that what you are telling them is true. That requires trust. Being mean to people - i.e. mocking, derisive and deliberately offensive - does not inspire trust and generally results in people who don't already agree with you not listening to what you have to say.


Does any kind of faith deserve special respect or deference is the real question? What makes moderate Christianity more deference worthy than Scientology, or Astrology, or political opinions, or homeopathy? What makes certain imaginary entities off topic for mockery except that people have given them magical powers in their head and convinced others that bad things will happen if you mock these entities and good things will happen if you praise them for all that is good. It's just so infantile. It's not worthy of special consideration for a reason, is it?

You are allowed to decide for yourself what is worthy of deference, consideration, etc. just as everyone else is allowed to make that decision for themselves. If you choose to publicly mock, deride and belittle the beliefs that the majority of people in our society hold sacred and revere, you certainly may. Other people are then free to ignore you or state their opinion of your opinion. If you are doing so knowingly and willingly accept the consequences, that’s fine. After all, as you pointed out above, I don’t have to listen.

But it doesn't make much sense to me to use such an antagonistic tone with other people and then complain that you are being silenced when all that has actually happened is that your audience has left. You can slice and dice others with your words all you want, but don't be surprised when your targets leave or respond in kind.


Of course, as soon as I learned the truth about Santa, I was eager to share the news with everyone. So was my son. Guess who got blamed for spoiling a delusion I never asked to be a part of in the first place.
What are you complaining about here? You didn’t do anything wrong and neither did your son. Why do you care that other people got upset when your son told their kids that there was no Santa? You don’t have to listen to them, remember? You can just ignore them. If you don't feel that you can ignore them, then perhaps assuming that other people should just ignore you when you say something to deliberately upset them isn't always going to be possible for them either.

Being a non-believer is almost a no-win situation, because there is this cultural expectation that you will prop up the fantasy (no matter how inane you think it is) out of respect for others. What about respect for me? What about respect for scientists who bring real knowledge to humanity? What about respect for the struggling single mother buying toys for her kid and giving an invisible non-existent fat white man credit so other kids could enjoy an illusion? What about respect for Kathy Griffin's comedic brilliance or Hitchens' eloquence and Dawkins great furthering of scientific understanding? What about Sam Harris making us realize how dangerous this "faith is good" meme is? Lies disguised as "higher truths" are still lies... and no one should be bullied into pretending that the Emperor is wearing clothes.

Bullying is what I term you calling people names like religious apologist or if they happen to disagree with you and Sam Harris regarding the danger of the “faith is good’ meme. It's tough to make a case that others should stop doing something, like bullying those who disagree, when you are using the same techniques you are complaining about others using.


All we have is each other to get our wisdom and knowledge from. There is no magic man trying to send us cryptic hints to get goodies directed at our egotistical selves in this little tiny speck of a planet around a single star of which there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth.

And we are all in this together. Religion is divisive. It allows people not to care about the feelings of those who don't believe as they do and to take rights from them that they feel entitled to because the creator of the universe has "chosen" them.

I agree that religion can be divisive. It can also be unifying. Religion is a construct of human beings. How is used will reflect both the flaws and virtues of human beings. I don’t think that religion allows people not to care about the feelings of those who don’t believe as they do any more than atheism does.

When you mock those who believe different than you do, when you are deliberately mean and derisive and offensive, that demonstrates very effectively that you, personally, possess such an uncaring attitude. That you, personally, divide others into two groups, those who think and believe as you do and those who don't and that those who don't believe as you do are not worthy of your respect or consideration. That’s true whether you are an atheist mocking Christians or a Christian mocking atheists.

I have Amy Wilson on ignore for the same reason I have Articulett on ignore. I don't wish to interact with people who demonstrate so little regard for the feelings of those they interact with on this forum.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Beth,

An excellent rebuttal.

How say the godless atheists who, after all, would be the ONLY ones who would ever say anything bad about religion?

[ponderingturtle]

I think that calling god a delusion is aggressive and offensive to a great many people. I think Dawkins named his book that with considerable thought and deliberately choose that term in order to shock people and get them to thinking about the answers to those sorts of questions. He knew it would be offensive, so I presume he deliberately chose to offend people because he felt it would be beneficial to getting his message across. It is his perrogative to offend others if that is what he chooses to do. There is a valid argument for using such an approach: that the harm done by the deliberate offense is justified by the increase in publicity and the increase in people thinking about and discussing his ideas.

If this is so aggressive and offensive, why don't people take issue when believers to the same thing to other believers? They go even farther and say that they will be tortured for eternity for picking the the make believe god instead of the real one.

When such positions get considered as aggressive and offensive as they are, then you might have a point. But religion is given so much freedom and excused for so much harm.

[Slimething]

An excellent rebuttal.

What portion did you find excellent? I tried to read it but got a headache from reading that she doesn't read certain people's posts because, when she reads them, she finds them offensive and these people are offensive and only people who like them read their posts and... :confused:

I did skip down to the end where she says she has Amy Wilson and articullet on ignore. That made my headache even worse as she opens her post by saying she agrees with articulett's post. Someone tell the Mods that the Ignore button isn't working well.

How say the godless atheists who, after all, would be the ONLY ones who would ever say anything bad about religion?

Say to what?

[truethat]

What are you complaining about here? You didn’t do anything wrong and neither did your son. Why do you care that other people got upset when your son told their kids that there was no Santa? You don’t have to listen to them, remember? You can just ignore them. If you don't feel that you can ignore them, then perhaps assuming that other people should just ignore you when you say something to deliberately upset them isn't always going to be possible for them either.





This is my favorite part of what you said because it is so true that atheists like this constantly whine about having other people's views shoved down their throats while they spew forth a barrage of crap over and over again that for some reason they think other people are supposed to suck up, simply because the atheist is RIGHT.

Its hysterical.

[thaiboxerken]

Atheist are right, that's the difference, truethat. There are no gods. Jesus doesn't help people win sporting events or Emmy's. Christians are constantly striving to control the goverment to make everyone else live by the rules of the Christian religion.

[Dogdoctor]

DD, you have a very thin skin. To me, Griffin's comments were perfect. Sheer poetry, being that poetry is the expression of complex thoughts in few words.

OK, here's a challenge to you. You have just been presented an award for artistic excellence. You follow the splashy people who opt to thank jesus for helping them win because they are just more with him than the competition. You have 20 seconds to get your thoughts across regarding these shmucks. Go.

What did you say? How long did it take you? Would anyone care the following day?

You don't know me. Hey I have as thick a skin as anyone here. I put up with you guys.:)
I would say
"Thanks for the award. "

I don't think of them as smucks. I am not self delusional and think I am better than them.

[Slimething]

You don't know me. Hey I have as thick a skin as anyone here. I put up with you guys.:)

Fair enough but I'm trying to find the source of the outrage. If Griffin was targeting anyone, it was these people I labeled schmuks, not the live-and-let live types. I believe she was just being boisterous. I've watched her show and there's nothing between the brain and the mouth. That's what I like about her.


I would say
"Thanks for the award. "


You're evading the question. You've criticized her statement as being too confrontational. How would you have made the same statement as effectively as she did?

I don't think of them as smucks. I am not self delusional and think I am better than them.

I can't argue with the notion that you are a better person than they are. I think you're giving them a huge benefit of the doubt in considering them self-delusional. I believe they're more phony than believer myself but that's another discussion and I have no evidence to support it. Call me delusional! :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

What portion did you find excellent?

I thought it was a good reply and good example of the clear differences in thinking between the camps*.


Say to what?

Say who?









*Though I'm not sure what my makeup, dress, and listening to Judy Garland albums has to do with all this.

[Dogdoctor]

I think that smart people will enjoy the humor of people crediting the creator of the universe for paying attention to their silly little awards...

I think that those who think it was crude would be offended at anything that caused them to question their knee-jerk piety. I think if people want the freedom to thank Jesus for winning football games or emmy awards, they ought to be prepared to hear other peoples' opinions of such silliness. It's crass and embarrassing and doesn't need to be shown deference. Kathy Griffin is a comedian. I think she's funny. Face it, no matter what an atheist says or how an atheist says it, the believers will get up in arms because they are used to having their faith "respected". People should be respected-- but not "faith"--no more than any other opinion including Kathy Griffin's.

Until someone tells me what the "cause" is and how Kathy Griffin or "offending Christians" hurts this cause or why their freedom to inflict their opinions upon others should not be reciprocated, I think I'll stick to concluding that dog doctor is an apologist with a double standard and that everything a Christian does or feels or says or desires will be given extra respect by him (her) and everything a non-believer says and any criticism of certain kinds of faith will be seen as crass. Even failure to defer will be seen as crass by those who think Christianity deserves some special reverence. I think that if there were no double standard, then Kathy's comments would be treated as similarly to if she mocked astrology or some other "belief system".

So, Dog doctor-- what is faith good for?
Why should it be respected?
Who draws the line?
Can we mock Scientology?
Astrology?
Why do you care about the hypothetical offense of some Christians more than Kathy Griffins feelings or free speech rights?
What is the "cause" that she hurts?
Why is she a spokesperson for atheism? Is Fred Phelps a spokesperson for Christianity? Is she proselytizing?
If faith is good or true, why would what she says matter?
Why should Kathy Griffin respect the feelings of judgmental people who show little concern for her opinions?
When people thank Jesus isn't that like rubbing their success in the face of those who prayed but whose prayers weren't answered?
Isn't it creepy that people go around telling other people that Jesus died for us and expect "reverence"-- it's a macabre bizarre myth. If nothing else, let us laugh... maybe someone will even think.

You say so many nasty things about Kathy and rush to defend some pretty presumptuous behavior by Christians, and yet you get mad if I call you an apologist. To me, thanking Jesus for inane things or telling me that Jesus died for my sins or vilifying people for truth tinged humor is more offensive than anything Kathy Griffin said. But does this opinion matter to you or the "offended Christians" or the apologists? If people don't like Kathy, I'm sure she'll be shunned by them. I don't listen to Ann Coulter or people I find obnoxious. But so far she's winning fans and the christians "protected" from her via censorship are rushing to watch her on youtube and spout things far more hateful than her silly comment. If faith makes people nice, it sure as hell doesn't show in the commentary. If faith is the key to salvation, why the heck would anyone care what Kathy Griffin has to say? Isn't the truth the truth no matter who believes it? I just don't understand this knee jerk vilification. Why should I care what you or other apologists have to say about it, when you guys don't care one wit what I have to say. I don't consider you more honest or insightful or intelligent than I am. I don't see your social skills as being better or your logic more correct or your viewpoint more helpful of "the cause". Until you can tell me what this damn "cause" is and how she's "hurting" it and show me evidence that "your way" works better (and for what)-- I will mock you just as she mocked those who thank Jesus.

My cause is to get rid of this nutty notion that some kinds of faith deserve special respect just because....

What does this rant have to do with what I said? I am merely saying that for much of the population of the USA their perspective of atheists come from the media. Unfortunately often the atheists don't have a good public image and while I know not all atheists are crude rude and vulgar the general public, especially the very religious portion of it, doesn't necessarily know. I was not offended by Kathy. I am not saying nasty things about Kathy Griffin. (those are merely straw men you have stood up in your defense) She admitted herself she intended to offend people. She had every intention of being offensive. You keep misinterpreting what I write. Your comments are so full of straw men why should I bother responding to you?

[Dogdoctor]

Fair enough but I'm trying to find the source of the outrage. If Griffin was targeting anyone, it was these people I labeled schmuks, not the live-and-let live types. I believe she was just being boisterous. I've watched her show and there's nothing between the brain and the mouth. That's what I like about her.



You're evading the question. You've criticized her statement as being too confrontational. How would you have made the same statement as effectively as she did?



I can't argue with the notion that you are a better person than they are. I think you're giving them a huge benefit of the doubt in considering them self-delusional. I believe they're more phony than believer myself but that's another discussion and I have no evidence to support it. Call me delusional! :)


Ok I would just say "I have no god to thank for my award and instead will worship my award as my god."
eta This is besides the point since she was nominated so had a clue well ahead of time to prepare.

[thaiboxerken]

So, DD, should atheists in the media say things like "I'm atheist, but I like Christianity"? How should atheists change their percieved image? Should no atheist make any jokes or mock any religions or religious views? Why should religion be forbidden from being mocked? Why do you hate america?

[Beth]

If this is so aggressive and offensive, why don't people take issue when believers to the same thing to other believers? They go even farther and say that they will be tortured for eternity for picking the the make believe god instead of the real one.

When such positions get considered as aggressive and offensive as they are, then you might have a point. But religion is given so much freedom and excused for so much harm.
Plenty of moderate religious folks do find the religious extremists just as annoying, counterproductive and wrong as the athiests who are argue against using an agressive approach find the militant atheists. Those religious moderates do rail against the extremists to those who will listen. But not many people listen. Those moderates get similar respect from within the ranks of believers as the so-called religious apologists do here. They aren't invited to televised debates with Dawkins and Hitchens and not many hang out here.

I can understand why they don't. Enough posters here make it clear that they are not welcome, they usually leave. Those that don't tend to avoid the R&P subforum. I estimate that better than 90% of the posters on R&P are atheists and agnostics. That you don't notice when religious people take issue with believers doing the same thing doesn't mean that such things aren't happening, just that you're not paying attention to it when it does.