Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Religious people get to say whatever they want to without criticism because of religious freedom, but Atheists have to roll over and take it like a bitch because criticizing people's religious beliefs is wrong.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
Actually I believe the Domionists are. Think about all of the psychological splitting that's necessary to believe devoutly in an "all loving god" who also tells you to "violently hate group X for their sins." Now imagine that this "All loving god" tells you that your duty to follow its edicts supersedes all laws, all other morality, and even the importance of all life on Earth combined. It is quite literally an attempt to create an infectious culture of psychosis.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
And this is exactly why I posted my anecdote earlier.
Calling someone a piece of shit for his beliefs, makes everyone who shares those beliefs think you're talking about them too. EVEN IF THEY'D OTHERWISE BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO YOUR POINT.
These are terrible a prior arguments that are so linear in nature that I don't even know how to address them. Are you guys really pretending that the only resultant from ridicule is a massive social butthurting?
Pretending? The entire argument FOR ridicule in this thread is that it makes people feel so butthurt that they hide their position out of shame!
Shame might work fine in the cases where a small minority believes something (Conspiracy Theories, overt racism, etc), but it does not work when the there's still a sizable minority that believes it. Shaming people is drawing a clear line in the sand, where one side is "Us" and the other side is "Others".
Isn't fear of "Others" the entire reason just about everyone here hates the policies of the Tea Party?
Hating someone because of their beliefs isn't being prejudiced; it's just plain judging. You know something about the way the person thinks and what they advocate, and you have evaluated them based upon said actions. There is a clear line in the sand, and they are "Others." I don't want to be associated in any way with people who believe the horrific, appalling, retarded things that Rick Santorum does, and I think they should be made to feel awful, because they're terrible people. I don't care if you're Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist: if you think homosexuality is comparable to child rape, your beliefs are fucking awful, even if you're shrouding them in the garb of godliness, and I'm not going to let you say "oh, can't judge me for that, Jesus says so!"
Oh, I didn't mean to pull out the old "Be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. If you thought I was accusing you of that, I apologize.
I'm saying you're reinforcing their prejudices. I mean, anyone who thinks Christians are bigots is clearly a Godless Communist. And Godless Communists can't be right about anything.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
Actually I believe the Domionists are. Think about all of the psychological splitting that's necessary to believe devoutly in an "all loving god" who also tells you to "violently hate group X for their sins." Now imagine that this "All loving god" tells you that your duty to follow its edicts supersedes all laws, all other morality, and even the importance of all life on Earth combined. It is quite literally an attempt to create an infectious culture of psychosis.
I figured you were, but didn't want to go putting words in your mouth.
And your beliefs (those are beliefs, barring some sociological study that I've overlooked which proves your assertion) are protected speech in every sense of the word. Protected by the same article of the Constitution which protects Rick Santorum's right to say that gays are all monstrous pedophiles and corpse-fuckers.
Suggesting that you should play nice and shut up, even though Santorum won't is something that I simply will not do, even though I personally feel that the more heartfelt arguments of the atheist community reinforce the religious right's paranoia rather than weakening it.
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
This...is a thing I believe and attempt to practice, actually. And I say that as someone who regularly (and inaccurately) gets called a misogynist, a racist, a hillbilly and a moron.
Is that weird? I'm starting to get the impression that's weird.
I figured you were, but didn't want to go putting words in your mouth.
And your beliefs (those are beliefs, barring some sociological study that I've overlooked which proves your assertion) are protected speech in every sense of the word. Protected by the same article of the Constitution which protects Rick Santorum's right to say that gays are all monstrous pedophiles and corpse-fuckers.
Suggesting that you should play nice and shut up, even though Santorum won't is something that I simply will not do, even though I personally feel that the more heartfelt arguments of the atheist community reinforce the religious right's paranoia rather than weakening it.
I'll say it again, if we could just bring back the fairness doctrine we could do away with a lot of the "harm" done by obnoxious hate-speech and all without silencing anyone's ability to speak their mind. I do try to use tact but as Lucid pointed out earlier my own arguments still need more work. ^_^;;
What I mean to say is, I'm the other side and you are wrong.
How can you know someone is wrong if you don't even know WHY your position is right? And if you do know, why is it you run away whenever I've asked you? ;p
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
This is just not true. You are not 'unfailingly polite'. And you are not being persecuted.
How can you know someone is wrong if you don't even know WHY your position is right? And if you do know, why is it you run away whenever I've asked you? ;p
He's saying they're wrong to say that the favor of civility will never be returned by the other side.
Because he is the other side, and claims to be returning it.
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
What? The only religious people mocked here are the crazy psychos. Ordinary religious people are fine. Quite a few posters are spiritual, from various religions including Christianity and Judiasm. They get along well with the agnostics and athiests.
He's saying they're wrong to say that the favor of civility will never be returned by the other side.
Because he is the other side, and claims to be returning it.
If someone walked away right in the middle of an important conversation the moment you asked them a crucial question, on three separate occasions, would you say that person was being civil? I wouldn't think so. That was me mocking his attempt to say he's civil when I've been nothing but right up until about right now. Because I've just gotten so irritated with having my attempts to understand him and his beliefs be entirely rebuffed.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I'm not an atheist, spool, so I'm 'enduring' the same terrible religious persecution as you are. I even get directly called to task on occasion. It's not exactly what I would call fun to have an atheist who has worked up a full head of steam tell me that deism is a joke philosophy, or that I'm not really spiritual at all and just a cowardly atheist.
I endure this, because I hear what comes from the other side, and it is infinitely worse. Atheists actually are a persecuted minority in this country, unlike Christians. That fact makes it much easier to listen to an outraged atheist vent his spleen without taking it personally.
How can you know someone is wrong if you don't even know WHY your position is right? And if you do know, why is it you run away whenever I've asked you? ;p
He's saying they're wrong to say that the favor of civility will never be returned by the other side.
Because he is the other side, and claims to be returning it.
Spool is not the other side. He is a person on the other side, and while he is nicer than many of his compatriots that does not negate their shitty behavior or attempts to enshrine their feelings into law. The latter of which, by the way, atheists are not doing.
He's saying they're wrong to say that the favor of civility will never be returned by the other side.
Because he is the other side, and claims to be returning it.
If someone walked away right in the middle of an important conversation the moment you asked them a crucial question, on three separate occasions, would you say that person was being civil? I wouldn't think so. That was me mocking his attempt to say he's civil when I've been nothing but right up until about right now. Because I've just gotten so irritated with having my attempts to understand him and his beliefs be entirely rebuffed.
Well I'm not familiar with spool's behavior, honestly. I wasn't aware you two had a history, your post read like a simple misunderstanding of what he was saying.
Well I'm not familiar with spool's behavior, honestly. I wasn't aware you two had a history, your post read like a simple misunderstanding of what he was saying.
I don't always include enough context in my own posts. -_-;; I tend to like being cryptic a bit too much for my own good sometimes, I'll splice three to four different meanings into something and muddle my message.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
This is where it gets frustrating. I never said anything remotely to the effect that I support the right of the religious to attack atheists. It's getting really tiring trying to have a meaningful discussion on these boards when anything longer than a sentence has a high chance of being turned into a straw man.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I never said anything remotely to the effect that I support the right of the religious to attack atheists.
It would be pretty bizarre if you didn't. Most atheists support the right of the religious to attack atheists.
Keep in mind that the "Big Three" Abrahamic religions claim to be the font of morality. By definition they preach that atheists are immoral, and that's totally their right. It's a dick move, but their right under the First Amendment.
Where the "strawman" (if it can be called that) comes in is that you didn't say that atheists shouldn't have the right to attack religions, but just that it's a dick move for them to do so, so they should focus on bigotry as an independent variable. Which is bollocks. I think that it's quite reasonable to attack the Mormon church for its position on homosexuality, and therefore to challenge the faith rather than the bigotry on its own. I think a lot of (young, angry) atheists do go a bit far in throwing out the mainstream baby jesus with the fundie bathwater, but in principle there is absolutely a time to go after faiths for fostering bigotry rather than trying to pretend that bigotry always emerges independently and is only justified by faiths after the fact.
nescientist on
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
All three Abrahamic religions contain edicts that are pretty Nazi, down to the letter. Those edicts are like a vial of potent viral agents that can spring up at any time. Today they want to harass gays, but if they suddenly want to plead that "religious conscience" extends to the whole bible tomorrow then they'll push for legislation that puts people who practice bestiality on death row. And when non-Christians point out this means Christianity is now becoming more and more like a dangerous fifth column in society, will the "moderate" Christians (who, according to some of their brethren, are not Christians at all because of said moderation) whine and blubber about civility then, too?
The bible as is is a very dangerous, reactionary and society-destroying document. What's keeping Christians these days from reverting to full devotion to its every letter? It's god's word after all. If you are not fighting for having people who practice bestiality put to death, you are kinda disappointing god.
Beyond any sort of moral arguement regarding decency, there is a very pragmatic reason to be polite : Insulting people is unlikely to change their opinion.
Why do you argue?
If you argue to try and change the opinions of others, then insulting the other side is not going to help you one bit. In fact, it tends to radicalize those that would otherwise mostly agree with you. A fuck you followed by a perfectly logical point is going to negate the effectiveness of the entire arguement, no matter how good it actually is.
If you wish to make yourself feel better or bond with your friends by making witty remarks making fun of a common foe, then by all means forsake politeness. At this point, though, your involvement in the arguement is mostly masturbatory.
All too often I get the feeling that people do not actually argue in hope of carrying their point across, but to shout 'NO YOU ARE WRONG YOU NASTY PIG' at each other in search of catharsis.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
What? The only religious people mocked here are the crazy psychos. Ordinary religious people are fine. Quite a few posters are spiritual, from various religions including Christianity and Judiasm. They get along well with the agnostics and athiests.
even the most mildly religious people on here get mocked, albeit more gently than the outspoken religious.
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
What? The only religious people mocked here are the crazy psychos. Ordinary religious people are fine. Quite a few posters are spiritual, from various religions including Christianity and Judiasm. They get along well with the agnostics and athiests.
even the most mildly religious people on here get mocked, albeit more gently than the outspoken religious.
Yes. I pretty much stay entirely out of religious discussions because despite the fact that I'm the type of Christian that people here wish there were more of: liberal, advocating for equal rights, for separation of church and state, think proselytization is nothing anybody wants, and standing up to Christians who cry persecution, try to force religion into any governmental crevice they can, and speak bigotry and hatred, telling them to stop doing that not only because it makes the rest of us look bad, but because that kind of behavior is not WJWD, I've been repeatedly told by several forumers that I'm a hypocrite and No True Christian because I don't literally follow all the stupid shit in the Bible.
I also apparently believe in enormous run-on sentences.
Even as an antitheistic atheist, I have to agree that there is an echo chamber sort of atmosphere on this board when it comes to certain subjects. Dissenters are silenced through snark rather than engaged in actual arguements. While I strongly object religion, this really isn't the answer.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Beyond any sort of moral arguement regarding decency, there is a very pragmatic reason to be polite : Insulting people is unlikely to change their opinion.
Why do you argue?
If you argue to try and change the opinions of others, then insulting the other side is not going to help you one bit. In fact, it tends to radicalize those that would otherwise mostly agree with you. A fuck you followed by a perfectly logical point is going to negate the effectiveness of the entire arguement, no matter how good it actually is.
If you wish to make yourself feel better or bond with your friends by making witty remarks making fun of a common foe, then by all means forsake politeness. At this point, though, your involvement in the arguement is mostly masturbatory.
All too often I get the feeling that people do not actually argue in hope of carrying their point across, but to shout 'NO YOU ARE WRONG YOU NASTY PIG' at each other in search of catharsis.
This is the point where many people don't really understand the point of debate and argument. If you're familiar with formal debate, you know that the point is not to convince your opponent. His entire thing is that he doesn't get convinced. You are trying to convince the audience. Ideally an unprejudiced audience.
And ridicule certainly helps win over the audience. If you can convince the audience that the position of your opponent is ridiculous on the face of it you get to win.
That only applies if you assume that the audience lacks an opinion of their own as of yet, which is unlikely in the extreme on many many subjects. If you insult an opponent championing one cause, unless you do it in a fashion that only attacks the person and not their arguement, you are also probably insulting a significant portion of the audience, who holds the same opinion. The people who already hold your opinion might laugh, but you already won them over before the battle has began - you, frankly, do not care for their opinion. They are freebies. Thus, unless the majority of the audience is undecided, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
I am having a hard time remembering the last time I debated a subject of importance where most-everyone didn't already have strong opinions.
EDIT: I'd like to add that I am very much opposed to the idea that you are not trying to convert the person you are debating in any realistic framework, but I will concede this is the case in formal competitions.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Damn, I'm late to post in regards to one of my favorite topics.
On offending generally:
Is one trying to convince an individual that his views are incorrect? Offending him seems like one of the most counterproductive things a person could do, then. In this context, why should his views be given any respect? Because it's easier to influence those views in a direction closer to one's own when we do this. Trying to ridicule him? Offending him might be a better choice, and respecting those ideas is simply counterproductive.
On profanity in disagreements:
Crass language is better at indicating that one disagrees with the other person than it is at indicating that the other person might be wrong. People react badly to rudeness, and while perhaps they shouldn't, why provide them a reason to? People already hate being contradicted, throwing insults on top of that increases the likelihood that the conversation turns to insults and insinuations instead of arguments. If one is interested in signaling disgust toward the other to one's intellectual cohorts, that goal might be better served by being crass.
Now I have to start combing the thread to see how many time this has already been said.
Even as an antitheistic atheist, I have to agree that there is an echo chamber sort of atmosphere on this board when it comes to certain subjects. Dissenters are silenced through snark rather than engaged in actual arguements. While I strongly object religion, this really isn't the answer.
This is far less of a problem here than it is on, say, actual antitheistic atheist websites. You are correct though, and I've definitely engaged in the topic that way in the past. I've gotten better though. I think.
If you wish to make yourself feel better or bond with your friends by making witty remarks making fun of a common foe, then by all means forsake politeness. At this point, though, your involvement in the arguement is mostly masturbatory.
All too often I get the feeling that people do not actually argue in hope of carrying their point across, but to shout 'NO YOU ARE WRONG YOU NASTY PIG' at each other in search of catharsis.
I tend to think of this as a huge problem. I have developed a kneejerk protect-the-underdog reflex, and I'm ashamed whenever I see that I am participating in or have participated in a dogpile.
I don't want to feel good about agreeing with people. I want to be confident in the strength of my argument and position, not about my perceived status in an ideological/intellectual cohort.
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because *you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
**If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
This is where it gets frustrating. I never said anything remotely to the effect that I support the right of the religious to attack atheists. It's getting really tiring trying to have a meaningful discussion on these boards when anything longer than a sentence has a high chance of being turned into a straw man.
I didn't straw man you at all, I don't know what you're talking about.
*That's how I read your post. I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify it if that's not what you meant. Note: Clarify =/= cry
**And here I directly state your apparent argument that no one should get to attack. Wow, that's a pretty shitty strawman argument, what with posting all sorts of different interpretations of what you might have meant, and just leaving it open for you to clarify? Unless I'm still getting it wrong, in which case I guess you would have done better to clarify your point more and whine about non-existent strawmen less.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me just say that the magical happy fantasy world that you inhabit, where the Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to spew venom at one another and attack each others most closely held beliefs to make political hay, sounds like a pretty swell place.
It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that.
A strawman argument is when someone makes up an argument that no one advocated, and then attacks it loudly and vigorously.
Saying "This seems to be what so and so is advocating, but it could also mean this, or perhaps he meant this" is not a strawman.
It's good to see that you've contracted your scope, from the original "religious people" to "the religious right". You still can't seem to stop mocking and ridiculing people as they try to talk about whether we should mock and ridicule people. "Magical happy fantasy world"? Really?
I don't think that even met the criteria the pro-humiliation people in this thread have set forth to justify their behavior.
It's good to see that you've contracted your scope, from the original "religious people" to "the religious right". You still can't seem to stop mocking and ridiculing people as they try to talk about whether we should mock and ridicule people. "Magical happy fantasy world"? Really?
I don't think that even met the criteria the pro-humiliation people in this thread have set forth to justify their behavior.
I didn't get snarky with him until he falsely accused me of strawmanning him.
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
What? The only religious people mocked here are the crazy psychos. Ordinary religious people are fine. Quite a few posters are spiritual, from various religions including Christianity and Judiasm. They get along well with the agnostics and athiests.
even the most mildly religious people on here get mocked, albeit more gently than the outspoken religious.
Everyone gets mocked here. I don't see religious posters getting mocked for their religious beliefs that much. Usually it's just someone making fun of them for a silly joke and they're usually cool with it anyway. Nor are the average religious posters cultist nutbars, their religion is only bought up when needed to explain their point of view on a subject or to educate layman posters who are curious about said religions. Until posters bring their religion up the act identically to athiest or agnostic posters. Not that it matters. Besides, it's good to have posters from various religions and sects here, it's good for variety and to learn about their religions when they discuss it.
It's good to see that you've contracted your scope, from the original "religious people" to "the religious right". You still can't seem to stop mocking and ridiculing people as they try to talk about whether we should mock and ridicule people. "Magical happy fantasy world"? Really?
I don't think that even met the criteria the pro-humiliation people in this thread have set forth to justify their behavior.
I didn't get snarky with him until he falsely accused me of strawmanning him.
Funny how that works.
But the snark didn't accomplish anything. It's just you venting because you're mad and hoping to, what... score points? Make him feel shame and humiliation for being wrong?
What was the point of doing it? It won't make him think twice next time he posts to be sure he's right when he accuses you of something - he thought he was right last time. The explanation might convince him of his mistake, but the snark just makes him feel like you're a silly goose. In the aggregate, it doesn't make people try to be better participants! It just makes them avoid talking to you, or talking in general.
You're helping to create a toxic atmosphere, not a better conversation.
It's good to see that you've contracted your scope, from the original "religious people" to "the religious right". You still can't seem to stop mocking and ridiculing people as they try to talk about whether we should mock and ridicule people. "Magical happy fantasy world"? Really?
I don't think that even met the criteria the pro-humiliation people in this thread have set forth to justify their behavior.
I didn't get snarky with him until he falsely accused me of strawmanning him.
Funny how that works.
But the snark didn't accomplish anything. It's just you venting because you're mad and hoping to, what... score points? Make him feel shame and humiliation for being wrong?
What was the point of doing it? It won't make him think twice next time he posts to be sure he's right when he accuses you of something - he thought he was right last time. The explanation might convince him of his mistake, but the snark just makes him feel like you're a silly goose. In the aggregate, it doesn't make people try to be better participants! It just makes them avoid talking to you, or talking in general.
You're helping to create a toxic atmosphere, not a better conversation.
Actually I tried, with more civility than he was due, to get Monkey to stop begging the question (a different, but related to strawman red-flag debate tactic) in this thread and it absolutely did no good whatsoever. He continued to do it.
It's funny how the people in this thread arguing for civility and proper debate keep breaking debate rules.
For the people who advocate a softer tone, what is the suggested method for dealing with individuals in the 75% majority who continue to profess belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny despite being 25-75+ years old?
For the people who advocate a softer tone, what is the suggested method for dealing with individuals in the 75% majority who continue to profess belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny despite being 25-75+ years old?
Not accusing religious people of believing in Santa Claus might be a start.
For the people who advocate a softer tone, what is the suggested method for dealing with individuals in the 75% majority who continue to profess belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny despite being 25-75+ years old?
Not accusing religious people of believing in Santa Claus might be a start.
So I should treat them like children when I'm discussing their imaginary friends?
Yelling your opposition down is a privilege reserved for the overwhelming majority or an armed government. It is a losing move if you are in the minority. If you care about results then, yes, you should try to convert as much of the opposition as possible rather than going in with a 'Them VS Us' mindset. People will argue vehemently about a game mechanic being imbalanced, and will oftimes absolutely refuse to admit they are wrong. Keep this fact in mind and consider how difficult it is for a person to have their view on the basic structure of reality challenged. It is better to engage one small issue at a time and slowly infiltrate the opposition's heart rather than immediately assault the gates. There is no glory in this, nor righteous satisfaction, but unlike the other method it actually works.
If you correctly frame them, you can sell most concepts to most people. A big shift in perspective is best achieved by a series of small pushes that, together, create the desired result.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
What? The only religious people mocked here are the crazy psychos. Ordinary religious people are fine. Quite a few posters are spiritual, from various religions including Christianity and Judiasm. They get along well with the agnostics and athiests.
even the most mildly religious people on here get mocked, albeit more gently than the outspoken religious.
Everyone gets mocked here. I don't see religious posters getting mocked for their religious beliefs that much.
For the people who advocate a softer tone, what is the suggested method for dealing with individuals in the 75% majority who continue to profess belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny despite being 25-75+ years old?
I thought I might have to dig around the forums a little bit, but no! A perfect example was helpfully provided.
Regina - you don't think its funny; that's yet another construction designed to be condescending.
Posts
Actually I believe the Domionists are. Think about all of the psychological splitting that's necessary to believe devoutly in an "all loving god" who also tells you to "violently hate group X for their sins." Now imagine that this "All loving god" tells you that your duty to follow its edicts supersedes all laws, all other morality, and even the importance of all life on Earth combined. It is quite literally an attempt to create an infectious culture of psychosis.
Oh, I didn't mean to pull out the old "Be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. If you thought I was accusing you of that, I apologize.
I'm saying you're reinforcing their prejudices. I mean, anyone who thinks Christians are bigots is clearly a Godless Communist. And Godless Communists can't be right about anything.
I figured you were, but didn't want to go putting words in your mouth.
And your beliefs (those are beliefs, barring some sociological study that I've overlooked which proves your assertion) are protected speech in every sense of the word. Protected by the same article of the Constitution which protects Rick Santorum's right to say that gays are all monstrous pedophiles and corpse-fuckers.
Suggesting that you should play nice and shut up, even though Santorum won't is something that I simply will not do, even though I personally feel that the more heartfelt arguments of the atheist community reinforce the religious right's paranoia rather than weakening it.
Around here exactly the opposite situation exists, and I am unfailingly polite to the constant abuse and mockery dealt out to religious people. I'm returning the favor so hard! Jokes about the magic sky god or the (bootstraps style) FSM don't seem to stop, though. Even In a friendly and tolerant environment, it's ridicule and hi-fives like whoa.
This...is a thing I believe and attempt to practice, actually. And I say that as someone who regularly (and inaccurately) gets called a misogynist, a racist, a hillbilly and a moron.
Is that weird? I'm starting to get the impression that's weird.
I'll say it again, if we could just bring back the fairness doctrine we could do away with a lot of the "harm" done by obnoxious hate-speech and all without silencing anyone's ability to speak their mind. I do try to use tact but as Lucid pointed out earlier my own arguments still need more work. ^_^;;
How can you know someone is wrong if you don't even know WHY your position is right? And if you do know, why is it you run away whenever I've asked you? ;p
This is just not true. You are not 'unfailingly polite'. And you are not being persecuted.
He's saying they're wrong to say that the favor of civility will never be returned by the other side.
Because he is the other side, and claims to be returning it.
What? The only religious people mocked here are the crazy psychos. Ordinary religious people are fine. Quite a few posters are spiritual, from various religions including Christianity and Judiasm. They get along well with the agnostics and athiests.
If someone walked away right in the middle of an important conversation the moment you asked them a crucial question, on three separate occasions, would you say that person was being civil? I wouldn't think so. That was me mocking his attempt to say he's civil when I've been nothing but right up until about right now. Because I've just gotten so irritated with having my attempts to understand him and his beliefs be entirely rebuffed.
I endure this, because I hear what comes from the other side, and it is infinitely worse. Atheists actually are a persecuted minority in this country, unlike Christians. That fact makes it much easier to listen to an outraged atheist vent his spleen without taking it personally.
Spool is not the other side. He is a person on the other side, and while he is nicer than many of his compatriots that does not negate their shitty behavior or attempts to enshrine their feelings into law. The latter of which, by the way, atheists are not doing.
Well I'm not familiar with spool's behavior, honestly. I wasn't aware you two had a history, your post read like a simple misunderstanding of what he was saying.
I don't always include enough context in my own posts. -_-;; I tend to like being cryptic a bit too much for my own good sometimes, I'll splice three to four different meanings into something and muddle my message.
This is where it gets frustrating. I never said anything remotely to the effect that I support the right of the religious to attack atheists. It's getting really tiring trying to have a meaningful discussion on these boards when anything longer than a sentence has a high chance of being turned into a straw man.
It would be pretty bizarre if you didn't. Most atheists support the right of the religious to attack atheists.
Keep in mind that the "Big Three" Abrahamic religions claim to be the font of morality. By definition they preach that atheists are immoral, and that's totally their right. It's a dick move, but their right under the First Amendment.
Where the "strawman" (if it can be called that) comes in is that you didn't say that atheists shouldn't have the right to attack religions, but just that it's a dick move for them to do so, so they should focus on bigotry as an independent variable. Which is bollocks. I think that it's quite reasonable to attack the Mormon church for its position on homosexuality, and therefore to challenge the faith rather than the bigotry on its own. I think a lot of (young, angry) atheists do go a bit far in throwing out the mainstream baby jesus with the fundie bathwater, but in principle there is absolutely a time to go after faiths for fostering bigotry rather than trying to pretend that bigotry always emerges independently and is only justified by faiths after the fact.
The bible as is is a very dangerous, reactionary and society-destroying document. What's keeping Christians these days from reverting to full devotion to its every letter? It's god's word after all. If you are not fighting for having people who practice bestiality put to death, you are kinda disappointing god.
Why do you argue?
If you argue to try and change the opinions of others, then insulting the other side is not going to help you one bit. In fact, it tends to radicalize those that would otherwise mostly agree with you. A fuck you followed by a perfectly logical point is going to negate the effectiveness of the entire arguement, no matter how good it actually is.
If you wish to make yourself feel better or bond with your friends by making witty remarks making fun of a common foe, then by all means forsake politeness. At this point, though, your involvement in the arguement is mostly masturbatory.
All too often I get the feeling that people do not actually argue in hope of carrying their point across, but to shout 'NO YOU ARE WRONG YOU NASTY PIG' at each other in search of catharsis.
even the most mildly religious people on here get mocked, albeit more gently than the outspoken religious.
I also apparently believe in enormous run-on sentences.
This is the point where many people don't really understand the point of debate and argument. If you're familiar with formal debate, you know that the point is not to convince your opponent. His entire thing is that he doesn't get convinced. You are trying to convince the audience. Ideally an unprejudiced audience.
And ridicule certainly helps win over the audience. If you can convince the audience that the position of your opponent is ridiculous on the face of it you get to win.
I am having a hard time remembering the last time I debated a subject of importance where most-everyone didn't already have strong opinions.
EDIT: I'd like to add that I am very much opposed to the idea that you are not trying to convert the person you are debating in any realistic framework, but I will concede this is the case in formal competitions.
On offending generally:
Is one trying to convince an individual that his views are incorrect? Offending him seems like one of the most counterproductive things a person could do, then. In this context, why should his views be given any respect? Because it's easier to influence those views in a direction closer to one's own when we do this. Trying to ridicule him? Offending him might be a better choice, and respecting those ideas is simply counterproductive.
On profanity in disagreements:
Crass language is better at indicating that one disagrees with the other person than it is at indicating that the other person might be wrong. People react badly to rudeness, and while perhaps they shouldn't, why provide them a reason to? People already hate being contradicted, throwing insults on top of that increases the likelihood that the conversation turns to insults and insinuations instead of arguments. If one is interested in signaling disgust toward the other to one's intellectual cohorts, that goal might be better served by being crass.
Now I have to start combing the thread to see how many time this has already been said.
This is far less of a problem here than it is on, say, actual antitheistic atheist websites. You are correct though, and I've definitely engaged in the topic that way in the past. I've gotten better though. I think.
I tend to think of this as a huge problem. I have developed a kneejerk protect-the-underdog reflex, and I'm ashamed whenever I see that I am participating in or have participated in a dogpile.
I don't want to feel good about agreeing with people. I want to be confident in the strength of my argument and position, not about my perceived status in an ideological/intellectual cohort.
I didn't straw man you at all, I don't know what you're talking about.
*That's how I read your post. I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify it if that's not what you meant. Note: Clarify =/= cry
**And here I directly state your apparent argument that no one should get to attack. Wow, that's a pretty shitty strawman argument, what with posting all sorts of different interpretations of what you might have meant, and just leaving it open for you to clarify? Unless I'm still getting it wrong, in which case I guess you would have done better to clarify your point more and whine about non-existent strawmen less.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me just say that the magical happy fantasy world that you inhabit, where the Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to spew venom at one another and attack each others most closely held beliefs to make political hay, sounds like a pretty swell place.
It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that.
A strawman argument is when someone makes up an argument that no one advocated, and then attacks it loudly and vigorously.
Saying "This seems to be what so and so is advocating, but it could also mean this, or perhaps he meant this" is not a strawman.
I don't think that even met the criteria the pro-humiliation people in this thread have set forth to justify their behavior.
I didn't get snarky with him until he falsely accused me of strawmanning him.
Funny how that works.
Everyone gets mocked here. I don't see religious posters getting mocked for their religious beliefs that much. Usually it's just someone making fun of them for a silly joke and they're usually cool with it anyway. Nor are the average religious posters cultist nutbars, their religion is only bought up when needed to explain their point of view on a subject or to educate layman posters who are curious about said religions. Until posters bring their religion up the act identically to athiest or agnostic posters. Not that it matters. Besides, it's good to have posters from various religions and sects here, it's good for variety and to learn about their religions when they discuss it.
But the snark didn't accomplish anything. It's just you venting because you're mad and hoping to, what... score points? Make him feel shame and humiliation for being wrong?
What was the point of doing it? It won't make him think twice next time he posts to be sure he's right when he accuses you of something - he thought he was right last time. The explanation might convince him of his mistake, but the snark just makes him feel like you're a silly goose. In the aggregate, it doesn't make people try to be better participants! It just makes them avoid talking to you, or talking in general.
You're helping to create a toxic atmosphere, not a better conversation.
Actually I tried, with more civility than he was due, to get Monkey to stop begging the question (a different, but related to strawman red-flag debate tactic) in this thread and it absolutely did no good whatsoever. He continued to do it.
It's funny how the people in this thread arguing for civility and proper debate keep breaking debate rules.
Not accusing religious people of believing in Santa Claus might be a start.
If you correctly frame them, you can sell most concepts to most people. A big shift in perspective is best achieved by a series of small pushes that, together, create the desired result.
I thought I might have to dig around the forums a little bit, but no! A perfect example was helpfully provided.
Regina - you don't think its funny; that's yet another construction designed to be condescending.