Sacred Cows

[Ronin]

I've recieved a bit of shinola for taking a SC member theist to task regarding assorted Christian ideology, claims and rituals that routinely are promoted within posts, so it got me to considering my approach to religious adherents (not just Christian ones) in general.

Is it "moral" or even "kind" to directly assess and reject theistic claims and sacred cows once they are promoted within a discussion?

Should atheists observe some sort of "prime directive" to not ever interfere with those promoting religious
claims/traditions/rituals by directly addressing them and deconstructing them if the person making the religious claim finds comfort in them?

It hasn't only come up here at SC, but also at a local online news discussion forum where I am berated for merely pointing out my contrasting views and opinions of religious claims. Most often the insults center around me being far too "intellectual" (not that I am an "intellectual" or even if being intelligent is a flawed character trait) and, by default, how my opinions are arrogant and demeaning.

In short, is disagreeing with religious adherents ugly, inhuman, angry, offensive, off-putting, uncivil and/or bullying?

Doesn't the religious adherent hold some responsibility for promoting the claims to begin with, thereby opening the market for all critical analysis?

This has been on my mind for quite some time and I'd appreciate some insight.

[DMB]

My personal view is that we owe no respect to the beliefs, but we do to the believers, particularly on a discussion board.

[David B]

I've recieved a bit of shinola for taking a SC member theist to task regarding assorted Christian ideology, claims and rituals that routinely are promoted within posts, so it got me to considering my approach to religious adherents (not just Christian ones) in general.

Only a little bit:)

Is it "moral" or even "kind" to directly assess and reject theistic claims and sacred cows once they are promoted within a discussion?

Pretty much a moral imperative to do so, IMV.

But it can be done kindly (not that I'm saying that you have been unkind), and if persuasion that the theistic claims are wrong, I think it pragmatic to bend over backwards to be clearly attacking the ideas and not the person holding the ideas. Else, the theistic person can rationalise not considering your points by dismissing you as rude. Seen it done so often, on lots of boards.

Should atheists observe some sort of "prime directive" to not ever interfere with those promoting religious
claims/traditions/rituals by directly addressing them and deconstructing them if the person making the religious claim finds comfort in them?

Not in my view. To paraphrase Zola (I think it was Zola), I'd like to see the last brick from the last church falling on the head of the last priest.

It hasn't only come up here at SC, but also at a local online news discussion forum where I am berated for merely pointing out my contrasting views and opinions of religious claims. Most often the insults center around me being far too "intellectual" (not that I am an "intellectual" or even if being intelligent is a flawed character trait) and, by default, how my opinions are arrogant and demeaning.

Perhaps they are rationalising not wanting to to hear the message by blaming the messenger?

In short, is disagreeing with religious adherents ugly, inhuman, angry, offensive, off-putting, uncivil and/or bullying?

Depends how it is done, IMV. It certainly can be.

Doesn't the religious adherent hold some responsibility for promoting the claims to begin with, thereby opening the market for all critical analysis?

Yes.

This has been on my mind for quite some time and I'd appreciate some insight.

My views above. Please note that I speak without any sort of staff hat on.

David

[Ronin]

My personal view is that we owe no respect to the beliefs, but we do to the believers, particularly on a discussion board.

That is my personal code as well and I, hopefully and diligently, strive to approach the assorted topics and statements of religious adherents in that manner.

The problem that usually arises is that the "belief" is part and parcel of the "believer".

So, while I don't think I'm the "worst" at being personally offensive to theists, the discussion inevitably becomes accusatory reflecting negatively, by default, upon the atheist and not the theist.

Here is a link (may be temporary) depicting what I'm talking about:

Arrogant, jerk and know-it-all (http://www.sunherald.com/local/story/1200902.html)

Let me know the strengths and weaknesses of my approach in that thread...and perhaps offer an opinion on how I could have improved my approach rejecting the "belief" while respecting "the believers".

[Notta]

Ronin, I'd say you touched somebody's nerve simply asking about the efficacy of prayer. Combine that with your grammatically correct and complex complete sentences, some people will feel that you're flaunting your intellectual capabilities and accuse you of being an egomaniac.

*sigh* It's a self-esteem issue, IMO. Many times I've been told that my speaking and writing style is 'arrogant', 'pretentious', or 'self-serving', when it is only the fact that I tend to write the way I think: in long, complex terms, that makes some people feel uncomfortable.

I only read the comments through to page 8, but I could tell who you were immediately by your writing style. You have to understand that there is a subset of people in this country who feel that any show of education or intelligence deserves approbation and scorn. We've had political leaders tell us for years that the 'educated elite' of this country (whatever that means!) are not to be trusted and look down upon "real" Americans.

My guess is that the person who ended up calling you names felt that you were belittling others' beliefs and ideas, even though nothing you posted did that. Merely by writing longer posts and questioning what prayer can accomplish you ticked this guy off and made him feel like you thought his personal beliefs were stupid and ignorant, without ever saying anything like that at all.

I don't find your posts to be arrogant; I find them to be intellectually challenging. Unfortunately for true believers of religion, any intellectual challenge is most often seen as a personal attack. I was one of them; I felt the same way.

[DMB]

I think there is always going to be a problem with any sort of dialogue between theists and atheists. Whether the atheist is someone like me, who has been a atheist for her entire adult life, or someone who was brought up theist but found reasons for giving it up, s/he is always going to have a problem understandung why an intelligent person can believe this stuff, when it seems clear to us for a multiplicity of reasons that it is junk.

And on the other hand, theists think that god's existence is so obvious that we must be blind fools not to believe in their particular religion. You get nonsense like George H. Bush suggesting that atheists shouldn't be citizens or, just in the past week, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor suggesting that atheists are not fully human (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/24/catholicism.religion). (this, BTW from a man who was guilty of moving paedophile priests around and not reporting them to the police.)

So I think there is a certain lack of understanding on both sides. Atheists are, however, pretty used to being attacked and also to cutting arguments. Theists are much less so. Religion tends to get a free pass in our society. When I was young, we were taught that you must never talk about three things at table: religion, politics and sex. It's a good job that Britain has very varied and unpredictable weather!

Given their sensibilities and lack of exposure to robust intellectual argument, I think it is politic to be very careful how one argues with some believers. I think the best technique is to focus on just one thing at a time and not appear to be attacking on a broad front.

[reddhedd]

Ronin,

I don't feel you were posting in an arrogant manner; rather, as Notta said, it is simply your ability to use words of 3+ syllables with correct syntax and to articulate well reasoned thoughts that threatened those who view good grammar and spelling as evidence that you think you are 'above' them.
(How's that for a run-on sentence?!) ;)

Maybe try to misspell a word here and there? I can't do it deliberately myself, and it makes me cringe to see them, but perhaps then the tardwits might be able to hear the message, instead of the words you use to convey it.:dunno:

Or, just blow them off...does their opinion of you really matter that much?

[Ronin]

Thanks, Notta.

I think that what frustrates me the most is that I put a lot of effort into expressing my perspective without intending to hurt feelings...and the responses indicate that I still hurt someone's feelings.

Then, astoundingly, it is assumed that I don't have any feelings at all. Folks then become accusatory and take to calling me names and directly insulting me without any sense of the hypocrisy of it.

This is a pattern I've observed over the many years I've participated in these discussions and my theory is that, in addition to the esteem issue, it may also be an intentional method to eliminate the real examination and slaughter of "sacred cows" through guilt.

I empathize with others and do not want to cause harm to them, physical or mental, so if the argument can be skewed into one of causing others discomfort then I violate my own "prime directive" and should desist.

Of course, I won't desist because I recognize the important issue of "venue".

In forums for discussion "all is game" in the open marketplace of ideas, in my opinion.

But, if a distraught and suicidal man wants me to pray with him so I can get him to drop the knife, I will not get into a discussion regarding the efficacy of prayer.

I think religious adherents don't recognize venue very often and that is when things go south (figuratively speaking :cool:).

Thanks again, David B, DMB and Notta for helping me work through this issue.

:thumbup:

[Ronin]

Ronin,

I don't feel you were posting in an arrogant manner; rather, as Notta said, it is simply your ability to use words of 3+ syllables with correct syntax and to articulate well reasoned thoughts that threatened those who view good grammar and spelling as evidence that you think you are 'above' them.
(How's that for a run-on sentence?!) ;)

Maybe try to misspell a word here and there? I can't do it deliberately myself, and it makes me cringe to see them, but perhaps then the tardwits might be able to hear the message, instead of the words you use to convey it.:dunno:

Or, just blow them off...does their opinion of you really matter that much?

Thanks, reddhedd.

It isn't so much that I worry about their opinion of me.

It is just that it doesn't seem right. (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=15376#post15376)

That bothers me.

:bang:

[Danhalen]

I think it is necessary to dissect and deconstruct all views. I also think it is morally worthy (but not necessary) to do so politely.

I also think it is a bit odd to start a thread concerning a theist's reaction to your position on an overwhelmingly secular message board.

[Ronin]

I think it is necessary to dissect and deconstruct all views. I also think it is morally worthy (but not necessary) to do so politely.

I also think it is a bit odd to start a thread concerning a theist's reaction to your position on an overwhelmingly secular message board.

Really, what's odd about it?

Not that I'm arguing with your overall assertion that I engage in oddities, cause I'm certainly not.

:cool:

[Danhalen]

I think it is odd because Lisa, being a theist, is most likely having all of her ideas of religion and theism challenged on a fairly persistent basis on this site. Some of the challenges are going to be presented more bluntly than others (and I assume yours is likely one of the more blunt). We (secularists) are likely going to be able to see what you are saying in a different way than Lisa. I'm not insinuating Lisa does not understand your argument. I am saying she doesn't already agree with your opinion concerning the existence of gods, but we do and therefore we will more likely agree with your assessment because we do not see the bluntness of your position in the same fashion as Lisa. That is, we already agree with you and so you're basically preaching to the choir. The problem is we cannot possibly understand what it feels like to take the criticism from Lisa's point of view.

[Puck]

Ronin, you are one of the nicest guys I know, and I'm glad you brought this up. I happen to be in the camp that I think you are also one of the most aggressive posters I know when it comes to theological debate. Which is often the perfect response to a theist. Often, but not always. Theists are a bit delicate when faced with the truth about their beliefs, and I think that's natural. Their beliefs do not hold up under logical scrutiny. If you back them into a corner, they are going to respond. Some will see what you are saying, and get a light bulb moment. Others will fight like a cornered cat. But, if they are not willing to give up what they believe, for whatever reason, they are going to get scrappy with you.

In some situations, I find it better to be gentle with my words. I will tend to 'ask' a simple question to get them to think a bit, rather than put my finger on their chest and say "YOU". If you tell someone they are wrong, it's a lot different than asking how they justify something. Questioning is rarely taken as aggressive. And it's not always best to be aggressive.

There are those who have changed their way of thinking greatly over time. One can hope that given more time, they will change more. I'd hate to see them feel unwelcome because they felt they were being pushed too hard. They shouldn't be our projects, just given the info they need to process in their own due time. Now if they just can't handle the simple info we offer them, they are then in the wrong place, and we ought to give them CFs addy. ;)

[Goldie]

This is why I avoid the whole subject, unless a theist asks me about my position, or I feel someone is treating me in a discriminatory fashion because of my non-theism.
I have no desire to argue about it, just as I have no desire to argue about the existence of woodland fairies.
I get enough "in your face" religion. I come to places like this to get away from it.

I realize that some people enjoy the debate, but if someone wants to engage in debate then they should be ready to have their beliefs criticized.

[Jobar]

If your purpose is to convince the audience, and you know very well that the one you're arguing with isn't going to get your message, then it doesn't matter much how mad you make your opponent. It can even work to your advantage by making them so furious they can't think and respond clearly. (O'course it can have the opposite effect, and set them afire so that their arguments are more impassioned and emotively effective.)

But on a discussion board like SC, and the many others many of us have frequented for so long, that's not the best aim. No need to convince your audience; they're quite convinced already. Instead you want to convince your opponent.

Doing that is far harder than convincing an audience. Often it's totally impossible.

But it may not be. The Christians talk about being 'fishers of men'; I think of what I (we) do on boards like SC as fishing for minds.

Each potential 'catch' is different. They have their unique histories and beliefs. They've been indoctrinated in different ways. Different education, different personality, different emotional attachment to their religion.

Your 'tackle' consists of your own knowledge of the manifold weaknesses of religious doctrines, your ability as a debater, and your fluency with language. But actually those things are less important than your ability to understand the person who you are trying to convince.

Words, logic, reason- sadly these intellectual instruments are poor and weak tools to apply to this task; childhood religious indoctrination isn't mainly intellectual, but emotional. It's like trying to catch a one-ton fish on a line which can only hold half a ton, or even less.

So you have to wield your rod with great skill, and great patience, and extreme awareness of what your 'fish' is likely to do.

If you try to just set your hook and haul away every time you get a bite, you'll almost never catch anything. You have to judge so many factors: wind, current, the weight and strength and determination of the fish, the length and strength of your line, how much time you have available for the struggle. In short, you have to play your fish; try to avoid anger and panic. (And actually trying to talk someone out of their religion is far more complicated than all that!)

Just presenting the manifold rational arguments against religion can occasionally be effective. But most believers who come to boards like this think that they're fishing for us. It takes exceptional skill to de-convert ones like that. And sadly, most of the time, when they realize that it's *them* that's getting reeled in- they drop the bait or break the line and flee.

Ahhhh, but the challenge makes the many disappointments worthwhile, for those of us who enjoy this unusual sport! :)

For a long time I kept the list of IIDB deconverts. (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=3589886#post3589886) Each one of those names is, to me, a mind freed from superstition and dogma. That, to me, is the point of all this; as painful as it can be to lose one's religious faith, it's the removal of a set of mental fetters, and the liberation of one subtly enslaved by an ancient and virulent meme.

[BioBeing]

But it may not be. The Christians talk about being 'fishers of men'; I think of what I (we) do on boards like SC as fishing for minds.

Like it :thumbup:

[David M]

I think it is necessary to dissect and deconstruct all views. I also think it is morally worthy (but not necessary) to do so politely.

I also think it is a bit odd to start a thread concerning a theist's reaction to your position on an overwhelmingly secular message board.

Perhaps not, secularism and atheism are not the same thing, theists (including myself) can still be very strong supporters of a secular society.

If a theist makes an assertion, such as about prayer actually working (ha ha) then it should be challenged.

As long as the challenge does not become a personal attack said theist has no grounds for complaint.

And before anyone asks, yes there is absolutely no proof of the existence of any God(s).

[Danhalen]

Perhaps not, secularism and atheism are not the same thing, theists (including myself) can still be very strong supporters of a secular society.

If a theist makes an assertion, such as about prayer actually working (ha ha) then it should be challenged.

As long as the challenge does not become a personal attack said theist has no grounds for complaint.

And before anyone asks, yes there is absolutely no proof of the existence of any God(s).I never said anything contrary to that position. I'm confused as to what you found objectionable in my post.

[David M]

Perhaps not, secularism and atheism are not the same thing, theists (including myself) can still be very strong supporters of a secular society.

If a theist makes an assertion, such as about prayer actually working (ha ha) then it should be challenged.

As long as the challenge does not become a personal attack said theist has no grounds for complaint.

And before anyone asks, yes there is absolutely no proof of the existence of any God(s).I never said anything contrary to that position. I'm confused as to what you found objectionable in my post.

You thought it a bit odd to start a thread here, I thought perhaps not.

[Ronin]

Perhaps not, secularism and atheism are not the same thing, theists (including myself) can still be very strong supporters of a secular society.

If a theist makes an assertion, such as about prayer actually working (ha ha) then it should be challenged.

As long as the challenge does not become a personal attack said theist has no grounds for complaint.

And before anyone asks, yes there is absolutely no proof of the existence of any God(s).I never said anything contrary to that position. I'm confused as to what you found objectionable in my post.

You thought it a bit odd to start a thread here, I thought perhaps not.

I agree and am a bit disappointed by the leaps of assumption regarding my motivation and the veiled hint that I am being disingenuous by generating this thread here at SC.

I'm not looking for choir practice, this has been on mind lately as stated and I am sincere and thankful for the first early responses which made sense to me.

Again, I note special exceptions are made for theists when this occurs but not for atheists in like manner.

The assumption being that atheists can handle it or are mentally stronger, while the theists might just snap or start smoking again?

:cool:

[Danhalen]

Having braved the waters at CF for the longest time, I can assure you that I have no illusions as to the super human mental capacities of atheists. I found it equally odd when Christians appealed to other Christians in order to gather support for their style of argumentation over there.

[Ronin]

Having braved the waters at CF for the longest time, I can assure you that I have no illusions as to the super human mental capacities of atheists. I found it equally odd when Christians appealed to other Christians in order to gather support for their style of argumentation over there.

Interesting.

So, in your view, not being "odd" means to simply internalize the personal quandary and hope to work through it yourself?

I guess I'm not understanding your thought process here or the continued inference that I'm trying to "gather support" for a style of argumentation.

I'm working through it from lots of angles and have actually been provided some rather unique insight I had not thought of or ever considered.

There are even posts in this thread that are critical of some of my assumptions and my approach, so if I was guilty of appealing to those who think exactly like me I have failed miserably.

I find value in critical analysis of many of my own views as long as they have supporting foundation.

[Danhalen]

Then I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions for making this thread. It seemed to me that you were appealing to the masses, but I must confess that I consider Lisa a friend and that undoubtedly influenced my reasoning.

[Notta]

I find value in critical analysis of many of my own views as long as they have supporting foundation.
I see similarities in your conversations with Christians that scientists have with creationists. We simply can't approach the issue by throwing facts and evidence at them, or ask them to engage in critically reviewing their beliefs. It just doesn't work.

The whole "Flock of Dodos" movie was about how scientists miscommunicate with the general public, which is why so many of Americans still believe in a young earth and a special creation.

You enjoy critical analysis and looking at new evidence. For other people, doing this creates such a level of cognitive dissonance that it creates distress, leading them to become defensive and less likely to examine their belief system.

It's not you, personally, it's the whole way you look at life. MANY people don't do things that way, and are extremely unhappy that you have the audacity, the temerity, the EGO to attempt to upset their happy little applecart of life. How dare you! Who do you think you are? Are you Mr. Superior Being, sneering down your accurately spelled and grammatically correct nose at those who hold ignorant, childish beliefs?? Who are YOU to question them?? Heck, all my family, friends, and neighbors think the way I do!! [/defensive religious fanatic]

You're feeling just the same way scientists do when they engage creationists, stun them with links, facts, and reports, and have the creationist STILL refuse to acknowledge the reality of what he/she has been presented with.

It's not that it's a futile effort, but it certainly is not the way to win friends and influence people, or even convert them. I'm not saying to give up, but your frustration at not being seen as helpful or friendly or effective is not your personal fault.

[Ronin]

Then I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions for making this thread. It seemed to me that you were appealing to the masses, but I must confess that I consider Lisa a friend and that undoubtedly influenced my reasoning.

I can understand that, Danhalen.

I consider her a good person and a friend as well. We probably agree on more things in life than we disagree on.

This thread wasn't all about Lisa, however, (though many of our exchanges do fit the bill) and that is why I provided the additional link to a local news forum where I also express my views and come across many of the same trends about how I present myself to others.

Thanks for the understanding.

[Ray Moscow]

Ronin, I'd say you touched somebody's nerve simply asking about the efficacy of prayer. Combine that with your grammatically correct and complex complete sentences, some people will feel that you're flaunting your intellectual capabilities and accuse you of being an egomaniac.

*sigh* It's a self-esteem issue, IMO. Many times I've been told that my speaking and writing style is 'arrogant', 'pretentious', or 'self-serving', when it is only the fact that I tend to write the way I think: in long, complex terms, that makes some people feel uncomfortable.

I only read the comments through to page 8, but I could tell who you were immediately by your writing style. You have to understand that there is a subset of people in this country who feel that any show of education or intelligence deserves approbation and scorn. We've had political leaders tell us for years that the 'educated elite' of this country (whatever that means!) are not to be trusted and look down upon "real" Americans.

My guess is that the person who ended up calling you names felt that you were belittling others' beliefs and ideas, even though nothing you posted did that. Merely by writing longer posts and questioning what prayer can accomplish you ticked this guy off and made him feel like you thought his personal beliefs were stupid and ignorant, without ever saying anything like that at all.

I don't find your posts to be arrogant; I find them to be intellectually challenging. Unfortunately for true believers of religion, any intellectual challenge is most often seen as a personal attack. I was one of them; I felt the same way.

I used to get the "arrogant" accusation on another (mostly religious) board. I finally just left the board.

Geez, I thought "discussion" boards were for discussion. It turns out they are about "respecting" others' views, no matter how irrational they might be.

To me, if one's ideas can't handle argument or challenge, they should be kept strictly private.

[David B]

Ronin, I'd say you touched somebody's nerve simply asking about the efficacy of prayer. Combine that with your grammatically correct and complex complete sentences, some people will feel that you're flaunting your intellectual capabilities and accuse you of being an egomaniac.

*sigh* It's a self-esteem issue, IMO. Many times I've been told that my speaking and writing style is 'arrogant', 'pretentious', or 'self-serving', when it is only the fact that I tend to write the way I think: in long, complex terms, that makes some people feel uncomfortable.

I only read the comments through to page 8, but I could tell who you were immediately by your writing style. You have to understand that there is a subset of people in this country who feel that any show of education or intelligence deserves approbation and scorn. We've had political leaders tell us for years that the 'educated elite' of this country (whatever that means!) are not to be trusted and look down upon "real" Americans.

My guess is that the person who ended up calling you names felt that you were belittling others' beliefs and ideas, even though nothing you posted did that. Merely by writing longer posts and questioning what prayer can accomplish you ticked this guy off and made him feel like you thought his personal beliefs were stupid and ignorant, without ever saying anything like that at all.

I don't find your posts to be arrogant; I find them to be intellectually challenging. Unfortunately for true believers of religion, any intellectual challenge is most often seen as a personal attack. I was one of them; I felt the same way.

I used to get the "arrogant" accusation on another (mostly religious) board. I finally just left the board.

Geez, I thought "discussion" boards were for discussion. It turns out they are about "respecting" others' views, no matter how irrational they might be.

To me, if one's ideas can't handle argument or challenge, they should be kept strictly private.

My bold.

And no, it's not about respecting the views of others, it is about respecting the people, regardless of the rules, at least until they show themselves unworthy of respect.

Let's not forget that some of the brightest and best posters on secular boards are deconverts, who had some pretty dumb, IMV, views back in the day. You among them, iirc.

As did I:eek:

Attacking the person, rather than examining the views, is simply not, pragmatically, the best way to lead someone towards the light, IMV.

David

[Puck]

Perhaps part of the problem is that as non-theists, we don't have the emotional attachment to a belief. When you have an emotional investment in something, it skews your perspective of that something. Your Mom might be a total skanky bitch, but you will knock the snot out of anyone who would say it out loud.

If you are debating something emotional with someone, it adds another dynamic that you have to take into consideration, or you'll just be going 'round and 'round. We don't see belief as something emotional, but I suspect theists do.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ronin, I'd say you touched somebody's nerve simply asking about the efficacy of prayer. Combine that with your grammatically correct and complex complete sentences, some people will feel that you're flaunting your intellectual capabilities and accuse you of being an egomaniac.

That's exactly why Richard Dawkins gets accused of being arrogant. It's not arrogance, it's accuracy and eloquence. The downside is that it makes some people feel inferior... but if one is accurate and eloquent, I don't see how anything is served by being less so just to not offend someone.

[Ronin]

Good points, all!

I'm reminded of the exchange between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Dawkins when he accuses Dawkins of his overtly barbed approach to the issues (I enjoyed Dawkins' eloquent and respectful skewering that leaves everyone smiling).

While looking for something else, I found this exchange I had after the Omaha mall shooting:

Omaha Shooting: Where is God? (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:uSSYhzNSYTwJ:pcusablog.blogspot.com/2007/12/omaha-shooting-where-is-god.html+%22steve+schlicht%22&cd=43&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

Any analysis of the discussion (pros/cons/approach/result) would be appreciated.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Word to the wise, Ronin: people don't follow links :D

[BWE]

I'm not people?

[Oolon Colluphid]

"Lots of..." / "Generally, people..."

:p

[David B]

Nor am I, apparently;)

David

[Ronin]

Word to the wise, Ronin: people don't follow links :D

Well, the one's that haven't shown up to register at SC surely don't, I'll give you that.

:cool:

[Puck]

There aren't any God(s)ess(es) to protect or save us and no "plan" could justify not acting to prevent such a tragedy if they did exist.

Hummm, would you walk into a church, and during service, announce that sentence? How well do you think it would go over? Do you think the people there would actually hear what you are saying by starting out telling them that what they think is true, is all false? Do you think they'll all stand up and declare 'in that case, let's go out and do some real good', or do you think they will hear nothing else you have to say after that?

It's not that you are wrong, I think the presentation is just going to close ears before you get to the meat of what you are saying.

[Ronin]

There aren't any God(s)ess(es) to protect or save us and no "plan" could justify not acting to prevent such a tragedy if they did exist.

Hummm, would you walk into a church, and during service, announce that sentence? How well do you think it would go over? Do you think the people there would actually hear what you are saying by starting out telling them that what they think is true, is all false? Do you think they'll all stand up and declare 'in that case, let's go out and do some real good', or do you think they will hear nothing else you have to say after that?

It's not that you are wrong, I think the presentation is just going to close ears before you get to the meat of what you are saying.

I've already addressed this in this very thread, Puck:

Venue (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=15381&postcount=8)

Of course, I won't desist because I recognize the important issue of "venue".

In forums for discussion "all is game" in the open marketplace of ideas, in my opinion.

But, if a distraught and suicidal man wants me to pray with him so I can get him to drop the knife, I will not get into a discussion regarding the efficacy of prayer.

Things brings up yet another interesting issue:

Can a blog on the internet be considered a private "church"?

I'd also like to know if you find that his insults were justified based on my first post?

Did I deserve to be insulted?

Did you happen to read the end of the thread?

What are your views regarding the totality of the conversation between an atheist and a theist and how we managed our tone and content?

Do you think that theists ever give that much thought to their claims on their own?

Is there any potential benefit to being (as you call it) aggressive when discussing religious issues?

[Puck]

Can a blog on the internet be considered a private "church"?

In the sense that he's 'preaching at the choir'. It's a gathering of like minded folks. Sort of like us here. A theist coming here and preaching isn't going to go unmolested. ;)


I'd also like to know if you find that his insults were justified based on my first post?

I only read a bit of the first page. Sorry.

Do you think that theists ever give that much thought to their claims on their own?

I'm sure some of them do, but I've never walked in those particular shoes. I am sure that most of them don't.

Is there any potential benefit to being (as you call it) aggressive when discussing religious issues?

Yes. Sometimes, you want a broadsword, sometimes a rapier, sometimes...a scalpel. To me, it comes down to the right tool for the job.

[Ronin]

Yes. Sometimes, you want a broadsword, sometimes a rapier, sometimes...a scalpel. To me, it comes down to the right tool for the job.

Hey...alright now, no need to name call!

http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/filmimages/seven_samurai.jpg

...means, I agree.

[dancer_rnb]

Perhaps part of the problem is that as non-theists, we don't have the emotional attachment to a belief. When you have an emotional investment in something, it skews your perspective of that something. Your Mom might be a total skanky bitch, but you will knock the snot out of anyone who would say it out loud.

If you are debating something emotional with someone, it adds another dynamic that you have to take into consideration, or you'll just be going 'round and 'round. We don't see belief as something emotional, but I suspect theists do.

I'm not so sure about no emotion involved for non-theists. I find it really hard not to explode when people talk about the "power of prayer" I've done it in person to people.

Though even then I wasn't quite as vicious as I could have been.

[JamesBannon]

Exactly, dancer. Let's face it, we're all human, and, like any human, sometimes we athiests can be as dumb as posts! I know I am much of the time.

I have no objection to people believing in ghouls, ghosts, goblins, fairies or gods. What I object to is the arrogant proclamation of some religionists that because I don't believe in such nonsense, somehow that makes me a wicked person deserving of eternal punishment. That is what burns my gut!

[David B]

Perhaps part of the problem is that as non-theists, we don't have the emotional attachment to a belief. When you have an emotional investment in something, it skews your perspective of that something. Your Mom might be a total skanky bitch, but you will knock the snot out of anyone who would say it out loud.

If you are debating something emotional with someone, it adds another dynamic that you have to take into consideration, or you'll just be going 'round and 'round. We don't see belief as something emotional, but I suspect theists do.

I'm not so sure about no emotion involved for non-theists. I find it really hard not to explode when people talk about the "power of prayer" I've done it in person to people.

Though even then I wasn't quite as vicious as I could have been.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/01/29/cure/

:evil:

David

[Puck]

I'm not so sure about no emotion involved for non-theists. I find it really hard not to explode when people talk about the "power of prayer" I've done it in person to people.

Hummm, but are you emotionally attached to your non-belief, or your dignity at being insulted? Theists have an emotional attachment to a perceived being. Thus, what they consider an emotional relationship with it. Likened to a daddy figure I reckon. Their 'love' for this perceived being could be a real stumbling block for them, even in the face of contrary evidence. They hear that 'god' loves them. You actually hear them say they love 'god'. Just because there isn't really a god there, doesn't mean the love they feel isn't real. I'd imagine that's gonna hang them up a fair bit.

I wasn't saying we had no emotions. Just not any tied up with invisible beings. Hell, anyone who knows me fairly well know I can blow a gasket in a heart beat. ;)

[Puck]

http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/filmimages/seven_samurai.jpg


And I suspect he'd also tell you, sometimes, a feather is all you need.

[dancer_rnb]

I'm not so sure about no emotion involved for non-theists. I find it really hard not to explode when people talk about the "power of prayer" I've done it in person to people.

Hummm, but are you emotionally attached to your non-belief, or your dignity at being insulted? Theists have an emotional attachment to a perceived being. Thus, what they consider an emotional relationship with it. Likened to a daddy figure I reckon. Their 'love' for this perceived being could be a real stumbling block for them, even in the face of contrary evidence. They hear that 'god' loves them. You actually hear them say they love 'god'. Just because there isn't really a god there, doesn't mean the love they feel isn't real. I'd imagine that's gonna hang them up a fair bit.

I wasn't saying we had no emotions. Just not any tied up with invisible beings. Hell, anyone who knows me fairly well know I can blow a gasket in a heart beat. ;)

Hi Puck,

I prayed once to anything that was out there when there was nothing else to do. If what happened was an answer whatever is out there is @#!$%^&. (I need a crying smilie.)

[Puck]

Me too, dancer, me too.

:sadyes:

[Ronin]

http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/filmimages/seven_samurai.jpg


And I suspect he'd also tell you, sometimes, a feather is all you need.

Not to protect the farmers from the bandits.

He would choose to do what he does, fight and lose.

[Puck]

Not to protect the farmers from the bandits.

He would choose to do what he does, fight and lose.

See, my bad for making assumptions, there. So the picture is of a character in a story? I was assuming he was just a representation of a wise warrior.

[David M]

Attacking the person, rather than examining the views, is simply not, pragmatically, the best way to lead someone towards the light, IMV.

David

I agree, "you are stupid" is never going to be as easily received as a convincing argument when compared to "your information is wrong".

Another thing about challenging theists is that theology varies very greatly, so its perhaps easier to create a strawman whose vocal refutation a theist finds insulting because its directed at a view they do not hold. In that manner it can be somewhat like the strawmen that, by YEC's especially, are claimed to be "refuted" when arguing against evolution or deep time.

As an example the Christian view of the bible ranges from being the literal and inerrant word of God to being a human crafted mythology containing errors and propaganda but with an important message in the NT.

With atheism there is less of a range of view on theologic positions as the core of the atheist position is the denial of their validity.

[Ronin]

Not to protect the farmers from the bandits.

He would choose to do what he does, fight and lose.

See, my bad for making assumptions, there. So the picture is of a character in a story? I was assuming he was just a representation of a wise warrior.

Shichinin no samurai (http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi897712409/)

I saw it once on a Saturday afternoon matinee as a kid at the Paramount (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/26448/) (used to be called The Strand when my Gram worked their as an usher in the 20s..."movies" were very formal engagements with velvet ropes and silk curtains back in the day. She showed me pictures, now gone, of her in a very sharp uniform complete with cap and flashlight).

From the movie, I walked to the small snow cone stand around the corner (wedged between the Woolworth on 13th and the shoe store), used up my change on a berry red and then ran across 25th just a few short blocks to the Gulfport library (http://www.harrison.lib.ms.us/history/history_np1966-07-13.htm) so that I could read up on the history of Japanese culture and history.

I've been an Akira Kurosawa fan ever since.

I know what he means.

http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/e/7/a/1/600_7919297.jpeg

http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/e/7/a/0/600_7919296.jpeg

An atmosphere for relaxed study, and even inspiration, is embodied in the new Gulfport-Harrison County Library which opened this week.

The facility, constructed at an estimated cost of $892,000 by the city and county, overlooks the Gulf of Mexico at the foot of 21st avenue, the same site from which the statue of Capt. Joseph T. Jones, founder of Gulfport, faces the state’s first port.

This refreshing new building was planned and designed from conception to serve not only as a receptacle for literature, but as cultural center to raise its patrons to a greater enjoyment of and fulfillment from the knowledge of the ages.

What seems like just moments ago you, me and John walked in the debris field just south and a block east of here.

Time comes in as waves from the sound crashing over the sea wall.

We have to grab this wild (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texahLFD4K0) beauty while we're here, go our own way, do what is right for the greater good and not fret over unseen things or what none can ever control.

It is the way of things and eventually...even the waves become waveless.

[Ronin]

With atheism there is less of a range of view on theologic positions as the core of the atheist position is the denial of their validity.

A denial better served, in my view, based on sound research, critical analysis and not mere rote or finger following.

Atheists born of emotion, hate or anger are easily induced back into whatever religious fold dominates their culture.

Theists tend to paint with the same broad brush as atheists initially and it takes some eloquent hacking and slashing to get down to the sensitive core of the folk that hold their respective views.

My argument is that pussyfooting around is a waste of time and effort.

I could draw up some quatrains, haiku or prose to get the point across, but I don't really want to much anymore these days.

[Ray Moscow]

In a way, it's inevitable that some people will get angry if you do not "respect" their positions enough. They've got a lot invested in these things, sometimes a lifetime, or even several generations of family time. They are used to being taken seriously.

Ultimately we don't do them any favours by "respecting" religious ideas that don't hold water, though.

[Jobar]

I've often said that skepticism is based on intellect, and belief/faith is based on emotion.

[trendkill]

http://www.sunherald.com/local/story/1200902.html?pageNum=13&&&&&&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container


Well, here, your starting attitude is as if you're appalled at their ignorance and you're there to set them straight. No matter how much they need setting straight, that's probably not the best way to endear yourself. The good news is that doesn't necessarily mean you're not getting through. Even if you make an impact, they're not likely to post in that thread saying "Gee, I never thought about it like that before. Maybe my entire way of thinking is a load of crap, maybe welfare mothers don't deserve to be slaughtered like pigs after all!"

[DMB]

I've often said that skepticism is based on intellect, and belief/faith is based on emotion.

I think it's a profound mistake to suppose that we can really decouple intellect and emotions. The intellect/emotions dichotomy is in that way similar to the mind/body one: plausible, but short on evidence. It's all part of our kidding ourselves about who humans are, "homo sapiens" and all that sort of thing.

[DMB]

BTW I just saw this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6037175.ece).

SCIENTISTS have identified the seat of human wisdom by pinpointing parts of the brain that guide us when we face difficult moral dilemmas.

Sophisticated brain scanning techniques have found that humans respond by activating areas associated with the primitive emotions of sex, fear and anger as well as our capability for abstract thought.

..The idea that wisdom and free will are reflections of how someone’s brain has been wired, rather than metaphysical features of the human condition, is unsettling but Jeste believes it has a practical use: “Knowledge of the underlying mechanisms in the brain could potentially lead to developing interventions for enhancing wisdom,” he said.

[Tangiellis]

In short, is disagreeing with religious adherents ugly, inhuman, angry, offensive, off-putting, uncivil and/or bullying?
No. At least not to this particular theist.
Doesn't the religious adherent hold some responsibility for promoting the claims to begin with, thereby opening the market for all critical analysis?
Yes. However, venues will be different. A person truly willing to test their beliefs will not be found in the forums of their own religion. That is somewhat preaching to the choir. If you really want to test yourself, you put yourself in the midst of what you have been taught. It is testing a theory.

That is what I did with my Christian beliefs. I was told that atheists are evil, that satanists sacrifice babies, that anyone who did not follow as I did were going to hell. So I went out and walked among the satanists. I walked among the atheists. And I found friends that disproved so much of what I'd learned. So now I've evolved into a Buddhist Pagan, quite comfortable in my skin, and able to explain my position so that I can agree to disagree at the end of the day.

You have to understand that everyone is not willing to have their beliefs challenged. It doesn't have to be in the religious sphere. It could be anything. When confronted with what doesn't hold water, we tend to flee rather than discard what is no longer useful.

Although I do not know the nature of what transpired for you to start this thread, I would say that such things should be taken lightly. We all have our sacred cows, be they religious or plain (don't you talk about my mamma!!- for example). But to avoid challenging them seems more cowardly than anything and conveniently lets the other party off the hook.