Militant Atheists calm down.

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
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.
Click to expand...
Progress is what's not being made because these silly beliefs exist and are coddled by many. How hard would it be for something like a bill that executes homosexual people (Uganda) to get passed if the entire population didn't see it with a "well...that's their belief, and beliefs should be respected equally..." kind of attitude? That's what I meant by sugarcoating reality. Those kinds of beliefs should be looked at with a "you're a retarded person with a retarded opinion and you no longer have the right to speak because you clearly can't think correctly.." kind of attitude.

I wouldn't want to physically attack the WBC people, I'd certainly like to knock some rationality into them but I'm sure it would get exhausting after more than 10 minutes. Thunderfoot did an hour long interview wit a couple of the Phelps ladies and it was hard enough to watch.

I think Dawkins is just pretty much at the end of his rope when it comes to the bullshit. You've gotta remember, the guy's been doing this for the better part of his career, he's answered literally every single question he gets asked hundreds of times before, he's written multiple books on this stuff.. The problem isn't that he hasn't answered anything, it's that people don't listen. It's finally clicked (long ago I'm sure) that he could sit down and have a nationwide broadcast explaining in detail the top 100 questions he's ever been asked, and people would STILL ask the same damn questions! Last thing the guy want's to deal with is the clearly retarded stuff, which happens often.

In the big picture, NDT's approach, Carl Sagan's approach is more successful. It sparks interest and curiosity - a very positive emotion to a young kid, and Dawkins approach would seem to cause animosity and tension, but one is meant for one age group of people and the other is for a more mature mindset, having learned yourself out of the hole of magic and superstition. Dawkins teaching 2nd graders! Lmao that's an image, he'd lose his shit within the first 4 minutes, guaranteed. But you show those same 2nd graders a clip from Sagan's Cosmos and the spark is lit, guaranteed. The average age of people who give Dawkins shit are expected to have already grown out of all that stuff. Dude's just sick of putting up the act, and I don't blame him..
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I've seen a number of threads here which devolved into meaningless yo-momma trash talk due to this very issue. No progress is being done in that situation either.

I do confess, I don't understand why Dawkins is considered offensive. Could someone post examples of him behaving this way? I understand he is blunt, but my image of him in not militant.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Progress is what's not being made because these silly beliefs exist and are coddled by many. How hard would it be for something like a bill that executes homosexual people (Uganda) to get passed if the entire population didn't see it with a "well...that's their belief, and beliefs should be respected equally..." kind of attitude? That's what I meant by sugarcoating reality. Those kinds of beliefs should be looked at with a "you're a retarded person with a retarded opinion and you no longer have the right to speak because you clearly can't think correctly.." kind of attitude.

I wouldn't want to physically attack the WBC people, I'd certainly like to knock some rationality into them but I'm sure it would get exhausting after more than 10 minutes. Thunderfoot did an hour long interview wit a couple of the Phelps ladies and it was hard enough to watch.

I think Dawkins is just pretty much at the end of his rope when it comes to the bullshit. You've gotta remember, the guy's been doing this for the better part of his career, he's answered literally every single question he gets asked hundreds of times before, he's written multiple books on this stuff.. The problem isn't that he hasn't answered anything, it's that people don't listen. It's finally clicked (long ago I'm sure) that he could sit down and have a nationwide broadcast explaining in detail the top 100 questions he's ever been asked, and people would STILL ask the same damn questions! Last thing the guy want's to deal with is the clearly retarded stuff, which happens often.

In the big picture, NDT's approach, Carl Sagan's approach is more successful. It sparks interest and curiosity - a very positive emotion to a young kid, and Dawkins approach would seem to cause animosity and tension, but one is meant for one age group of people and the other is for a more mature mindset, having learned yourself out of the hole of magic and superstition. Dawkins teaching 2nd graders! Lmao that's an image, he'd lose his shit within the first 4 minutes, guaranteed. But you show those same 2nd graders a clip from Sagan's Cosmos and the spark is lit, guaranteed. The average age of people who give Dawkins shit are expected to have already grown out of all that stuff. Dude's just sick of putting up the act, and I don't blame him..
Click to expand...
I think we are in agreement. I am only suggesting adding the sensitive approach to your kit, not changing your entire approach all the time, and not specifically you, actually least of all you, I haven't seen you spurn anyone half as brutally as I have to some of the fools around here.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I've seen a number of threads here which devolved into meaningless yo-momma trash talk due to this very issue. No progress is being done in that situation either.

I do confess, I don't understand why Dawkins is considered offensive. Could someone post examples of him behaving this way? I understand he is blunt, but my image of him in not militant.
Click to expand...
I think Dawkins is considered offensive because he shows no sensitivity or coddling for people's cherished religious beliefs. I truly love him for this, he is my favorite author. Here is a few of my favorite Dawkins clips:


Here's one that's new to me, someone put together a medley of great clips:

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


Here's my all-time favorite. This is part 2 of Dawkin's lecture at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia a few years ago.This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" students. Part 1 is definitely worth watching and I highly recommend it, but this part is a great example of why many consider him offensive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=qR_z85O0P2M

Fuck, I forgot. Only one video per post now...
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
I think Dawkins is considered offensive because he shows no sensitivity or coddling for people's cherished religious beliefs. I truly love him for this, he is my favorite author. Here is a few of my favorite Dawkins clips:


Here's one that's new to me, someone put together a medley of great clips:

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


Here's my all-time favorite. This is part 2 of Dawkin's lecture at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia a few years ago.This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" students. Part 1 is definitely worth watching and I highly recommend it, but this part is a great example of why many consider him offensive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=qR_z85O0P2M

Fuck, I forgot. Only one video per post now...
Click to expand...
Thanks for locating these for me. I still don't see it. ;)
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I understand the argument. If our goal is to reduce magical thinking for the sake of progress, insensitivity is inefficient. I think this applies well to those with mass audience, and is something all atheists should keep in mind, however these forums are more personal and contained. The amount of respect someone gets from me is strongly related to their conduct and attitude. If someone is asking to be put in their place I have no reservations about accommodating them. If someone is being absurd I often answer with absurdity. We may start with the goal of dispelling magical thinking, but often it turns into the defense of science and reason. When being attacked it is sometimes necessary to employ deliberate restraint.
 
P

psari

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Does it work? I agree about some people, but when has persecution ever converted anyone?
Click to expand...
While it is out of context in some ways, there are examples of persecution converting ... usual toward spirituality though.

Prison and foxholes. These two places in my experience convert more people as they are forced to into introspection. Especially the prison system.

Or enforced 12 step programs thanks to our favorite war on drugs. Seen some backlash "conversions" there as well.


Just came to mind when I saw that. Not sure how germaine it is. I just know that those folks who have been persecuted into their conversions are some of the worst to engage with on any fringe of denying them their safety net.

/random thoughts thanks to migraine ...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
psari said:
While it is out of context in some ways, there are examples of persecution converting ... usual toward spirituality though.

Prison and foxholes. These two places in my experience convert more people as they are forced to into introspection. Especially the prison system.

Or enforced 12 step programs thanks to our favorite war on drugs. Seen some backlash "conversions" there as well.


Just came to mind when I saw that. Not sure how germaine it is. I just know that those folks who have been persecuted into their conversions are some of the worst to engage with on any fringe of denying them their safety net.

/random thoughts thanks to migraine ...
Click to expand...
Not exactly persecution, but I don't really feel like converting anyone else, at least tonight.
 
Dislexicmidget2021

Dislexicmidget2021

Well-Known Member
So if it would be that Christians would add sensitivity to their approach like not saying you will burn in hell for eternity or that you can only be saved by such and such the lord jebus or else you are lost, it still wouldnt take away from their cavalier yet naive appearance and the same old attempt to have you believe them right still remaining just as illogical as ever.If Dawkins sugarcoated everything he said then any possibility of reasonable truth might as well be touted by a politician.His words are iconoclastic to many people,when he is merely asking people to use rational thought and reasoning without codling the "like button",(-pardon the expression-)" needlessly.If traditional thought processes were the only facet of thinking available we could never move forward reasonably and intellectualy.The truth or possibility of what may be true is hardly ever what we would like it to be, however some of us love it for what it is and have a stronger expression for it.
 
Daxus

Daxus

Active Member
ginjawarrior said:
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.”
Click to expand...
I don't think nonsense should be ridiculed for what it is, because "nonsense" is subject to perception, no matter how stupid that persons perception may seem to us we're not them. After all in the words of Willy Wonka "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men".

I think it's better for people to present their case, draw their own conclusions, and then find ways to co-exist without infringing on each others beliefs or trying to force them on each other. Mind changing should come naturally with education, open thought and discussion, and freedom. Not through shame, ridicule, force or any other negative action.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Daxus said:
I don't think nonsense should be ridiculed for what it is, because "nonsense" is subject to perception, no matter how stupid that persons perception may seem to us we're not them. After all in the words of Willy Wonka "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men".

I think it's better for people to present their case, draw their own conclusions, and then find ways to co-exist without infringing on each others beliefs or trying to force them on each other. Mind changing should come naturally with education, open thought and discussion, and freedom. Not through shame, ridicule, force or any other negative action.
Click to expand...
...this is a pretty mature perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top