Militant Atheists calm down.

[abandonconflict]

It doesn't help.

It is a rational approach to the deep questions in life that weren't satisfactorily answered by religion that led us to science. Richard Dawkins is brilliant. That does not mean that you are convincing anyone of anything by viciously attacking the faithful. The violent disillusionment that you felt in the fresh absence of faith left you angry that you lived for so long believing bullshit. It is our altruism that makes us more mature. It is also generally true that atheists seem to know more about religion than the faithful.

Is it not a desire to free the world from the oppression of fallacy that drives us to spread truth? The ends do not justify the means. Faith is fear, counter fear with love.

 

[ginjawarrior]

It doesn't help.

It is a rational approach to the deep questions in life that weren't satisfactorily answered by religion that led us to science. Richard Dawkins is brilliant. That does not mean that you are convincing anyone of anything by viciously attacking the faithful. The violent disillusionment that you felt in the fresh absence of faith left you angry that you lived for so long believing bullshit. It is our altruism that makes us more mature. It is also generally true that atheists seem to know more about religion than the faithful.

Is it not a desire to free the world from the oppression of fallacy that drives us to spread truth? The ends do not justify the means. Faith is fear, counter fear with love.

i'm of the mind that religion has enough accommodationist's looking after it. people are free to their beliefs but when they put those beliefs up into public forum in attempt to convert others then its fair game. nonsense should be ridiculed for what it is
(as much as i dont like quoting jefferson)
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

 

[abandonconflict]

i'm of the mind that religion has enough accommodationist's looking after it. people are free to their beliefs but when they put those beliefs up into public forum in attempt to convert others then its fair game. nonsense should be ridiculed for what it is
(as much as i dont like quoting jefferson)
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

I'm not accommodating, compromising or apologizing. I'm liberating.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I'm not accommodating, compromising or apologizing. I'm liberating.

some people are so set in their ways that they will never free themselves. they require pointing out so that they dont snare others into their trappings

 

[abandonconflict]

some people are so set in their ways that they will never free themselves. they require pointing out so that they dont snare others into their trappings

Does it work? I agree about some people, but when has persecution ever converted anyone?

 

[Voidling]

Those are the people that will never be free no matter what you say or do to them. They are the people that will die because they don't renounce their god when a gun is pointed at them.

 

[Voidling]

Does it work? I agree about some people, but when has persecution ever converted anyone?

Christians and Muslims have both gone to war and those that didn't convert, died

 

[tyler.durden]

It doesn't help.

It is a rational approach to the deep questions in life that weren't satisfactorily answered by religion that led us to science. Richard Dawkins is brilliant. That does not mean that you are convincing anyone of anything by viciously attacking the faithful. The violent disillusionment that you felt in the fresh absence of faith left you angry that you lived for so long believing bullshit. It is our altruism that makes us more mature. It is also generally true that atheists seem to know more about religion than the faithful.

Is it not a desire to free the world from the oppression of fallacy that drives us to spread truth? The ends do not justify the means. Faith is fear, counter fear with love.

Over the last few months I have been contemplating this very subject. Through experience I can see that approaching people through compassion and tolerance can get through to them more effectively than militant confrontation, which seems to close lines of communication forging an 'Us vs. Them' approach. Having said that, many theists are belligerent, judgmental and whiny and seem to have confrontation and belittlement as their agenda, as opposed to seeking truth and honestly looking for possible errors in their epistemology. For these people with this mindset, I don't see us getting through to them with reason, understanding or kindness. So, it seems that the best we can do is to counter their ignorance point by point in the confrontational manner they bring to the table, if for no other reason than to possibly educate the non-participating viewers of the these exchanges. Dawkins is brilliant and often chastised for his brutal, non-compromising approach, esp. for his post as former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. He seems okay with these criticisms, I love this response to this accusation:

[video=youtube;-_2xGIwQfik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/video]

 

[ginjawarrior]

Does it work? I agree about some people, but when has persecution ever converted anyone?

ridiculing nonsense is a long way off from persecution from where i stand but i certainly wouldnt say, go door to door to do it either.

it may not have any affect on the believer but i'd like to think that it may encourage the uninitiated to question the rationality of the religious tripe we hear

take creationism you'll never persuade the core believers that the earth is 4.5 billion years old but that doesnt mean we shouldnt point and laugh at them while simultaneously showing evidence against them.

 

[abandonconflict]

Over the last few months I have been contemplating this very subject. Through experience I can see that approaching people through compassion and tolerance can get through to them more effectively than militant confrontation, which seems to close lines of communication forging an 'Us vs. Them' approach. Having said that, many theists are belligerent, judgmental and whiny and seem to have confrontation and belittlement as their agenda, as opposed to seeking truth and honestly looking for possible errors in their epistemology. For these people with this mindset, I don't see us getting through to them with reason, understanding or kindness. So, it seems that the best we can do is to counter their ignorance point by point in the confrontational manner they bring to the table, if for no other reason than to possibly educate the non-participating viewers of the these exchanges. Dawkins is brilliant and often chastised for his brutal, non-compromising approach, esp. for his post as former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. He seems okay with these criticisms, I love this response to this accusation:

[video=youtube;-_2xGIwQfik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/video]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to tyler.durden again."


one mind at a time

good vid

 

[ginjawarrior]

Over the last few months I have been contemplating this very subject. Through experience I can see that approaching people through compassion and tolerance can get through to them more effectively than militant confrontation, which seems to close lines of communication forging an 'Us vs. Them' approach. Having said that, many theists are belligerent, judgmental and whiny and seem to have confrontation and belittlement as their agenda, as opposed to seeking truth and honestly looking for possible errors in their epistemology. For these people with this mindset, I don't see us getting through to them with reason, understanding or kindness. So, it seems that the best we can do is to counter their ignorance point by point in the confrontational manner they bring to the table, if for no other reason than to possibly educate the non-participating viewers of the these exchanges. Dawkins is brilliant and often chastised for his brutal, non-compromising approach, esp. for his post as former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. He seems okay with these criticisms, I love this response to this accusation:

[video=youtube;-_2xGIwQfik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/video]

im a fan of that response too

have you seen this video i dont wholly agreed with it but i think it speaks of what abandonconflict is speaking about

[youtube]dmP9XozKEV0[/youtube]

 

[abandonconflict]

It is tragic that it is not a crime to fill the minds of children with bull shit. I can see why a rational person would so passionately rebuke the perpetrators of this crime. So getting a laugh out of the ripe and abundant trollportunities provided by the religious believers doesn't deserve blame. Nonetheless, I would hope that you can at least add the sensitive approach to your tool kit even if it is not your primary utility.

 

[BA142]

Religious indoctrination will never stop....kids are way too impressionable.

 

[DreamTime]

Kudo’s to the OP for starting this topic, Although I wouldn’t limit the admonition to atheists.

It is not reasonable to expect that someone who has embraced an idea for most of their life will change simply through a few brief conversations. It’s also worth remembering how long it took most of us to arrive at our current set of believes, opinions, and ideas. All too often when two radically divergent ideas come into contact, the result is a quick loss of patience on both sides, followed by a healthy dose of abusive fallacies and personal attacks. The result is further entrenchment.

The best way to get someone to listen to you, is show them through your actions that you are listening to them. Even if you don’t respect their ideas, try to show respect to the person. No one is going to be persuaded that their ideas are wrong by someone getting in their face and yelling.

If you want to be effective at getting your ideas across and even more importantly getting people to listen to you, try to empathize with the person you are debating. I understand that an atheist trying to empathize with a born again evangelical is a stretch. But through attempting to understand the way your opponent thinks, how they formed their opinions, etc, you may gain valuable insights about how to present your position in ways that your opponent will find more familiar and less threatening.

 

[cannabineer]

Those are the people that will never be free no matter what you say or do to them. They are the people that will die because they don't renounce their god when a gun is pointed at them.

I think that's precisely abandonconflict's point here. If the gun doesn't work, don't use the gun. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

I strongly agree with the sentiment up until the point we begin to suffer fools. The goal of debate is to identify common ground, a foundation from which ideas can diverge. This exchange is meaningless if someone abuses the platform.

“If someone disagrees with science all you can do is appeal to scientific values and if he doesn't share those values the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument are you going to provide to show the importance of logic? ” - Sam Harris

 

[abandonconflict]

Kudo’s to the OP for starting this topic, Although I wouldn’t limit the admonition to atheists.

It is not reasonable to expect that someone who has embraced an idea for most of their life will change simply through a few brief conversations. It’s also worth remembering how long it took most of us to arrive at our current set of believes, opinions, and ideas. All too often when two radically divergent ideas come into contact, the result is a quick loss of patience on both sides, followed by a healthy dose of abusive fallacies and personal attacks. The result is further entrenchment.

The best way to get someone to listen to you, is show them through your actions that you are listening to them. Even if you don’t respect their ideas, try to show respect to the person. No one is going to be persuaded that their ideas are wrong by someone getting in their face and yelling.

If you want to be effective at getting your ideas across and even more importantly getting people to listen to you, try to empathize with the person you are debating. I understand that an atheist trying to empathize with a born again evangelical is a stretch. But through attempting to understand the way your opponent thinks, how they formed their opinions, etc, you may gain valuable insights about how to present your position in ways that your opponent will find more familiar and less threatening.

Thanks for expanding on the subject +rep.

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive."
~Friedrich Nietzsche

In other words, it is more offensive to be arrogant when you are correct than when you are incorrect. Not that I meant this as any kind of counter to what you say, you're right on the money imo.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Stupid ideas that are brought up in public should be shamed back into private.

If you can't defend it, it doesn't belong here.

We need to stop pretending pseudo-science is as valid as valid science, and that feelings shouldn't be hurt in the name of progress.

If you have a cushy belief that's standing in the way of progress, it's going to get trampled, you can either get on the bus with the rest of us or go under it and show us how strong your faith is.


We're simply tired of sugarcoating reality for those that can't accept it. I don't condone ridiculing or embarrassing someone in public for something they believe, which is why I always recommend they keep it private. If you come out into the public and get offended, that's your fault, just like any belief any of the rest of us might have and take offense to someones criticisms of it.

It's not your responsibility to make sure I'm not offended, even when considering a belief.

my .02

 

[abandonconflict]

Stupid ideas that are brought up in public should be shamed back into private.

If you can't defend it, it doesn't belong here.

We need to stop pretending pseudo-science is as valid as valid science, and that feelings shouldn't be hurt in the name of progress.

If you have a cushy belief that's standing in the way of progress, it's going to get trampled, you can either get on the bus with the rest of us or go under it and show us how strong your faith is.


We're simply tired of sugarcoating reality for those that can't accept it. I don't condone ridiculing or embarrassing someone in public for something they believe, which is why I always recommend they keep it private. If you come out into the public and get offended, that's your fault, just like any belief any of the rest of us might have and take offense to someones criticisms of it.

It's not your responsibility to make sure I'm not offended, even when considering a belief.

my .02

What do you consider progress?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to physically attack members of the Westboro Baptist Church, I just think that a little bit of patience sometimes pays off. I think that Dawkins is a civil rights activist. I also think that Tyson is the more effective teacher.

 

[tyler.durden]

im a fan of that response too

have you seen this video i dont wholly agreed with it but i think it speaks of what abandonconflict is speaking about

[youtube]dmP9XozKEV0[/youtube]

Hey, GW. I like this vid, I watched the first two parts and I'm waiting for my internet to stop acting up to watch the third...