I apologize if this article has been posted before, I don't come here often anymore. This struck me as something many people here (people in general, actually) could benefit from reading.
How to Not Lose an Argument (//http://lesswrong.com/lw/3k/how_to_not_lose_an_argument/)
Classic article.
Exactly how does one "improve" with family and friends or co-workers who insist on living in a mythological past? It is not to say we should be cruel or mean, but when someone claims the moon is made of cheese, and you know it is not, where do you draw the line?
Even outside the issue of religion, I cant count the amount of friends on the left who have family and friends on the right who AGREE with us on a multitude of topics, but because our loved ones or friends are stuck in loyalty issues, cant get passed that time has passed them by.
You don't improve by coddling insecurities. You don't improve by living in the past.
Quote from: "Brian37"Exactly how does one "improve" with family and friends or co-workers who insist on living in a mythological past? It is not to say we should be cruel or mean, but when someone claims the moon is made of cheese, and you know it is not, where do you draw the line?
Even outside the issue of religion, I cant count the amount of friends on the left who have family and friends on the right who AGREE with us on a multitude of topics, but because our loved ones or friends are stuck in loyalty issues, cant get passed that time has passed them by.
You don't improve by coddling insecurities. You don't improve by living in the past.
This paragraph from the article addresses your question:
"So try to show you're not just starting Standard Debate #4457. I remember once, during the middle of a discussion with a Christian, when I admitted I really didn't like Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins, brilliant. Daniel Dennett, brilliant. But Christopher Hitchens always struck me as too black-and-white and just plain irritating. This one little revelation completely changed the entire tone of the conversation. I was no longer Angry Nonbeliever #116. I was no longer the living incarnation of All Things Atheist. I was just a person who happened to have a whole bunch of atheist ideas, along with a couple of ideas that weren't typical of atheists. I got the same sort of response by admitting I loved religious music. All of a sudden my friend was falling over himself to mention some scientific theory he found especially elegant in order to reciprocate2. I didn't end up deconverting him on the spot, but think he left with a much better appreciation of my position."
One thing to remember as you debate with religious people is that most of them are not the moronic, illogical idiots you tend to encounter on Internet discussion boards. Many of them are thoughtful, intelligent, and educated. They simply happen to be caught in a morass of compartmentalized thinking that was taught to them from an early age, and the idea of abandoning that worldview is terrifying. So don't attack their faith head-on. Instead, find common ground. Maybe you are in awe of the cosmos (if you're not, you should be!). Perhaps there are areas of the Human Experience which you agree are mysterious and difficult to explain. Maybe you just like the same music.
Ex-Christians like myself are not the result of hard-headed arguments with atheists who were out to prove us wrong. We are the result, rather, of a slow dribble of information over time, which caused us to recognize how tenuous our theistic positions really were. When someone claims that there is "evidence" that proves a Young Earth, gently steer them towards the mountain of evidence indicating the opposite, and then change the subject.
^ Well said Davka. And as a former Fundamentalist turned atheist, I too can attest merely expelling vitriol at a theist during a discussion is an instant non-starter. I do somewhat disagree with that guys opinion of Hitchens, in the sense that he wasn't so black and white about it. The one thing that mostly bugged me about him though was how he usually ended his 100,000 years argument, often by saying something like "This isn't believe by me, and cannot be believed by a thinking person." That is probably the one thing I wish he hadn't said so much, because it stops most of the theists that listened to him from accepting the Reductio that preceded it because they likely felt insulted.
How does one "not lose an argument" when a 4-year-old insists that there's an invisible monster under his bed? One doesn't. If one cares about the child, one doesn't point out how stupid 4-year-olds are (if one is comparing them to adults - most 4-year-olds are pretty intelligent for 4-year-olds). But one doesn't modify one's statements to indicate that, yes, it's possible that there really is an invisible monster under the child's bed.
Quote from: "Colanth"How does one "not lose an argument" when a 4-year-old insists that there's an invisible monster under his bed? One doesn't. If one cares about the child, one doesn't point out how stupid 4-year-olds are (if one is comparing them to adults - most 4-year-olds are pretty intelligent for 4-year-olds). But one doesn't modify one's statements to indicate that, yes, it's possible that there really is an invisible monster under the child's bed.
True.
Neither does one reply "there's no such thing as monsters, don't be ridiculous!" The most caring and effective method would be to go get a flashlight, take the child by the hand, and look under the bed together. Then one can say "See? No monsters. There's nothing to be afraid of, it's OK. Heck, there's not even enough room for monsters under here! Maybe a bunny-rabbit or a kitty-cat could fit under your bed. Next time you get scared, think about the bunny-rabbits that could be under here, wiggling their little noses!"
Fundamentalists need to be shown that the demons they fear are not really there, and that there is no room for demons in the known Universe. Telling them that it's stupid to believe in demons won't help. We need to take them by the hand and help them shine the light of logic on the darkness of their ignorance and fear.
Fundamentalists aren't 4 years old, so they don't need to be treated like 4 year olds - unless they accept being treated like 4 year olds in all things. If they want to be treated as adults - one of the things adults do is face reality. Not by being shown with a flashlight, but by accepting that the only thing that's real is reality. Religion is for those too mentally young to accept reality.
I treat people like people. With some, we can discuss faith, or its absence, because we can agree to disagree. With others, the topic isn't mentioned, because they cannot leave it at disagreement.
I personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.
If your goal is to convert theists - then by all means - sure. Show them all the patience and care you can muster. Not all non-believers have the GOAL of converting people. Some of you wish this nicey-nice PCness all the time when dealing with theists and of course you're entitled to your opinion. Just as I and others are entitled to OUR opinion that working to convert theists is ridiculous.
"You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into"
(who said that?)
So........excuse me if Some of us find converting theists similar to watching a three ring circus. You want the headache or that makes you feel better about yourself - go ahead. Quite frankly I find the practice as nothing more than theists wishing to convert us. But arrogance has it's place among non-believers same as anywhere else, I suppose.
I don't save people. I gave that up for Lent.
And I HAVE a 4 yr old grandson and Yes I say to him "Don't be silly. I don't think there's monsters under your bed, Julian. In fact, I'm convinced there's no monsters under your bed. Now, curl up here and explain to me why you think there's monsters under your bed, son?"
He explains. We examine, reach the conclusion there's no monsters and then he sleeps soundly.
Saying "NO there are no monsters" works Juuuuuust fine. In fact, since we introduce children to mythology to help them think creatively we should always back that up with some good, healthy reality. Teaching children the difference between fantasy and reality is part of parenting and grand-parenting, teaching and mentoring.
I don't consider grown up adults to be 4 yr olds; especially not theists. All I can really do is prove I am NOT the monster in believing differently than they do.... primarily by how I live my life. If they are yet unconvinced and need the crutch of Jesus to hold them up or complete their lives - Who the FUCK am I to tell them otherwise???
And if they take it upon themselves to Sell me Jesus so I can be complete as they are - that's when I can frankly say "shut the fuck up" - "Nope." Or ............ "naaa............that's not gonna work for me." My choice.
I don't owe them a damn thing. I don't owe You a damn thing. I don't owe the body of Atheists as a whole a damned thing. Nor last time I checked is there some non-believer Cult I took vows to uphold and live by whereby my task and goal is to convert the theists-du-jour.
I don't go around telling people about my ideas or beliefs, and I don't try to convert anyone. When ever a discussion comes up I always take the semi-agnostice stance, typical opening line such as: " I have trouble with religion for a lot of reasons, from the amount of gods in our history, to the similar stories of many of them that pre-date christianity, to somthing more obvious like cultural evolution, to the size of the universe which is makes us even smaller than the atom is to us. Put all that together and I think its a little crazy to start thinking a god did all this just to tell us women should be separated from society when they are on the rag, or that a dragon can live inside the earth big enough to gather 1/3 of the stars in its tail...I mean, thats a little silly ya know?"
Thanks to bri and aitm, I need add nothing.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "Brian37"Exactly how does one "improve" with family and friends or co-workers who insist on living in a mythological past? It is not to say we should be cruel or mean, but when someone claims the moon is made of cheese, and you know it is not, where do you draw the line?
Even outside the issue of religion, I cant count the amount of friends on the left who have family and friends on the right who AGREE with us on a multitude of topics, but because our loved ones or friends are stuck in loyalty issues, cant get passed that time has passed them by.
You don't improve by coddling insecurities. You don't improve by living in the past.
This paragraph from the article addresses your question:
"So try to show you're not just starting Standard Debate #4457. I remember once, during the middle of a discussion with a Christian, when I admitted I really didn't like Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins, brilliant. Daniel Dennett, brilliant. But Christopher Hitchens always struck me as too black-and-white and just plain irritating. This one little revelation completely changed the entire tone of the conversation. I was no longer Angry Nonbeliever #116. I was no longer the living incarnation of All Things Atheist. I was just a person who happened to have a whole bunch of atheist ideas, along with a couple of ideas that weren't typical of atheists. I got the same sort of response by admitting I loved religious music. All of a sudden my friend was falling over himself to mention some scientific theory he found especially elegant in order to reciprocate2. I didn't end up deconverting him on the spot, but think he left with a much better appreciation of my position."
One thing to remember as you debate with religious people is that most of them are not the moronic, illogical idiots you tend to encounter on Internet discussion boards. Many of them are thoughtful, intelligent, and educated. They simply happen to be caught in a morass of compartmentalized thinking that was taught to them from an early age, and the idea of abandoning that worldview is terrifying. So don't attack their faith head-on. Instead, find common ground. Maybe you are in awe of the cosmos (if you're not, you should be!). Perhaps there are areas of the Human Experience which you agree are mysterious and difficult to explain. Maybe you just like the same music.
Ex-Christians like myself are not the result of hard-headed arguments with atheists who were out to prove us wrong. We are the result, rather, of a slow dribble of information over time, which caused us to recognize how tenuous our theistic positions really were. When someone claims that there is "evidence" that proves a Young Earth, gently steer them towards the mountain of evidence indicating the opposite, and then change the subject.
Thank you for your lecture. Hitchens was damned good and despite what you or others may think, he had lots of friends and Christians he debated with who liked him. He worked at the most famous media magazines in the world, such as Vanity Fair and Newsweek. He was a great defender of oppressed Muslims and Muslim women.
Life is never either or or only one way will work all the time. Hitchens I am quite sure had plenty of family and friends throughout his life who believed to some extent. You don't make it in mass media without knowing how to deal with diversity.
There is no one way to skin a cat, and there is no one right way to approach people because people respond differently to different things. Please speak only for yourself and do not dare falsely criticize Hitchens. If anyone is going to be the spark of the Age Of Enlightement for the east, he most certainly would be one of the biggest reasons.
He empowered me merely being an atheist, and I am quite sure many atheists that are Arab and even Muslims who cant be openly liberal in the east, more and more people can and will be emancipated by his words. You don't coddle bullies or tyrants and Hitchens was the person that did just that, stood up to bullies and tyrants.
I hate it when people try to suggest atheists always play nice. No, context matters and it depends on the context. And still, there are always nuts who won't listen no matter how nice you try to be. I am sorry this long convoluted tripe is just fancy PC crap. You can do things the way you wish, ok, but there is no script to being an atheist. If we are to have theists to see us as individuals, then these internal debates are exactly what they need to see.
So speak for yourself, but do not speak for me.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"If your goal is to convert theists - then by all means - sure. Show them all the patience and care you can muster. Not all non-believers have the GOAL of converting people. Some of you wish this nicey-nice PCness all the time when dealing with theists and of course you're entitled to your opinion. Just as I and others are entitled to OUR opinion that working to convert theists is ridiculous.
"You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into"
(who said that?)
Point taken. If you have no desire to share your worldview with those who disagree, by all means don't bother with fake niceness. When JWs knock on the door, "fuck off and never come back" is a perfectly legitimate response.
QuoteAnd I HAVE a 4 yr old grandson and Yes I say to him "Don't be silly. I don't think there's monsters under your bed, Julian. In fact, I'm convinced there's no monsters under your bed. Now, curl up here and explain to me why you think there's monsters under your bed, son?"
He explains. We examine, reach the conclusion there's no monsters and then he sleeps soundly.
Saying "NO there are no monsters" works Juuuuuust fine.
Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.
QuoteI don't consider grown up adults to be 4 yr olds; especially not theists.
I consider all people to be little kids who are pretending otherwise. YMMV. :P
QuoteAll I can really do is prove I am NOT the monster in believing differently than they do.... primarily by how I live my life.
Amen! Preach it!
Praaaaise the FSM and IPU! :-D
QuoteI don't owe them a damn thing. I don't owe You a damn thing. I don't owe the body of Atheists as a whole a damned thing. Nor last time I checked is there some non-believer Cult I took vows to uphold and live by whereby my task and goal is to convert the theists-du-jour.
True, you can ignore the theists and go on with your life. For myself, that's not an option, for two reasons: first, as a former fundamentalist, I feel a moral obligation to help others who are stuck in that ugly mindset. And secondly, I am painfully aware that, in the USA (where I live), fundamentalist Christianity is responsible for some of the most insane, bizarre political views out there - and those people are actively attempting to impose their insanity on me via legislation. In many states the lunatics are already running the asylum.
So, yeah, if you don't want to talk to theists, or don't care what they believe, by all means fire off a salvo of "go fuck yourself." If for some reason you
do wish to attempt conversation with these people, however, a little bit of decency goes a long ways.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "Brian37"Exactly how does one "improve" with family and friends or co-workers who insist on living in a mythological past? It is not to say we should be cruel or mean, but when someone claims the moon is made of cheese, and you know it is not, where do you draw the line?
Even outside the issue of religion, I cant count the amount of friends on the left who have family and friends on the right who AGREE with us on a multitude of topics, but because our loved ones or friends are stuck in loyalty issues, cant get passed that time has passed them by.
You don't improve by coddling insecurities. You don't improve by living in the past.
This paragraph from the article addresses your question:
"So try to show you're not just starting Standard Debate #4457. I remember once, during the middle of a discussion with a Christian, when I admitted I really didn't like Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins, brilliant. Daniel Dennett, brilliant. But Christopher Hitchens always struck me as too black-and-white and just plain irritating. This one little revelation completely changed the entire tone of the conversation. I was no longer Angry Nonbeliever #116. I was no longer the living incarnation of All Things Atheist. I was just a person who happened to have a whole bunch of atheist ideas, along with a couple of ideas that weren't typical of atheists. I got the same sort of response by admitting I loved religious music. All of a sudden my friend was falling over himself to mention some scientific theory he found especially elegant in order to reciprocate2. I didn't end up deconverting him on the spot, but think he left with a much better appreciation of my position."
One thing to remember as you debate with religious people is that most of them are not the moronic, illogical idiots you tend to encounter on Internet discussion boards. Many of them are thoughtful, intelligent, and educated. They simply happen to be caught in a morass of compartmentalized thinking that was taught to them from an early age, and the idea of abandoning that worldview is terrifying. So don't attack their faith head-on. Instead, find common ground. Maybe you are in awe of the cosmos (if you're not, you should be!). Perhaps there are areas of the Human Experience which you agree are mysterious and difficult to explain. Maybe you just like the same music.
Ex-Christians like myself are not the result of hard-headed arguments with atheists who were out to prove us wrong. We are the result, rather, of a slow dribble of information over time, which caused us to recognize how tenuous our theistic positions really were. When someone claims that there is "evidence" that proves a Young Earth, gently steer them towards the mountain of evidence indicating the opposite, and then change the subject.
Thank you for your lecture. Hitchens was damned good and despite what you or others may think, he had lots of friends and Christians he debated with who liked him. He worked at the most famous media magazines in the world, such as Vanity Fair and Newsweek. He was a great defender of oppressed Muslims and Muslim women.
Life is never either or or only one way will work all the time. Hitchens I am quite sure had plenty of family and friends throughout his life who believed to some extent. You don't make it in mass media without knowing how to deal with diversity.
There is no one way to skin a cat, and there is no one right way to approach people because people respond differently to different things. Please speak only for yourself and do not dare falsely criticize Hitchens. If anyone is going to be the spark of the Age Of Enlightement for the east, he most certainly would be one of the biggest reasons.
He empowered me merely being an atheist, and I am quite sure many atheists that are Arab and even Muslims who cant be openly liberal in the east, more and more people can and will be emancipated by his words. You don't coddle bullies or tyrants and Hitchens was the person that did just that, stood up to bullies and tyrants.
That's all very fine, but WTF does it have to do with anything I said? I merely quoted the article, I didn't endorse it.
QuoteI hate it when people try to suggest atheists always play nice. No, context matters and it depends on the context. And still, there are always nuts who won't listen no matter how nice you try to be. I am sorry this long convoluted tripe is just fancy PC crap. You can do things the way you wish, ok, but there is no script to being an atheist. If we are to have theists to see us as individuals, then these internal debates are exactly what they need to see.
I don't think the article is suggesting that atheists always need to play nice. I read it as saying that IF you wish to engage in debate with theists with the aim of changing their minds, THEN you should play nice.
QuoteSo speak for yourself, but do not speak for me.
Hah! I'll speak for you any time I like, buster! Just try and stop me! :twisted:
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I treat people like people. With some, we can discuss faith, or its absence, because we can agree to disagree. With others, the topic isn't mentioned, because they cannot leave it at disagreement.
I personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.
But it does affect you like it or not. People who have religious beliefs are in high offices of power some are dictators, and some live in the west and get elected. No matter their label these people have power over weapons. If you don't care about the planet you live on, that is you. But I am damned sure going to talk about it considering the only home I live on is at constant risk.
Yes and spewing vitriol is no way to change that situation. And even Hitchens certainly didn't do that, and he was considered one of the more "extreme" of the "New" Atheists.
I think what some of you are conflating is not-being-a-total-ass with not articulating criticism, which is a gross error. If I wanted to show a 4 year-old there was no monster under the bed, dammit you show them, not "Why the fuck would you think there is a monster under the bed?!"
It has nothing to do with their age why I wouldn't do this, but because if it's a genuine fear/belief that someone has, being an asshat does nothing if you're actually interested in changing someone's mindset. If you're not interested in trying to change their mind, then communication with them on this issue os stupid and you're being disingenuous by even having said communication.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I treat people like people. With some, we can discuss faith, or its absence, because we can agree to disagree. With others, the topic isn't mentioned, because they cannot leave it at disagreement.
I personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.
But it does affect you like it or not. People who have religious beliefs are in high offices of power some are dictators, and some live in the west and get elected. No matter their label these people have power over weapons. If you don't care about the planet you live on, that is you. But I am damned sure going to talk about it considering the only home I live on is at constant risk.
Clearly you're equivocating public, political acts (such as voting, which I do [ahem] religiously) with private, personal behaviors, such as, you know, treating people like people. You should read what is written, and quit filtering what you read through your own bias, which is plain. Don't impute positions to me which I don't hold -- such as "you don't care about the planet you live on".
In short, this post of yours is an appeal to emotion. If you want a conversation, address what is actually written, rather than the strawmen you'd prefer to answer.
QuoteI personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.
Like Brian says; what they think does affect you. Laws are made based on what people think. And laws heavily affect you and your children. And everyone else around you.
Unless I'm mistaken, Texas is still one of the states where being religious is required for being in office. I don't know about you, but I'd consider that something that seriously affects me.
Quote from: "Davka"Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.
Because that's what you do with 4 yr olds. Not adults.
I guess I didn't realize that you were a fundamentalist at one time. That's gotta be a cross to bear. (pun intended) Although, I kinda thought finding free thought carried with it the freedom to make your own decisions. If you feel a responsibility to those who once you were very much like doesn't that keep you tied to all of that - still? When does freedom begin for you? When you've converted them all?
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Davka"Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.
Because that's what you do with 4 yr olds. Not adults.
I guess I didn't realize that you were a fundamentalist at one time. That's gotta be a cross to bear. (pun intended) Although, I kinda thought finding free thought carried with it the freedom to make your own decisions. If you feel a responsibility to those who once you were very much like doesn't that keep you tied to all of that - still? When does freedom begin for you? When you've converted them all?
We're all tied to one-another on this planet. However, feeling a level of responsibility towards other humans doesn't mean that I am tied to their belief systems. In the case of Evangelicals - and fundys in particular - I am in a position to understand their mindset more accurately than atheists from different backgrounds, and that means that I can probably communicate with them more effectively than someone who has no clue what's going on inside those heavily compartmentalized minds. Just as it would be "right" for me to help a Hebrew-speaker struggling to communicate in America (because I happen to speak both Hebrew and English), so, too, it would be "right" for me to help an Evangelical struggling to communicate in Freethinker-Land.
I feel a responsibility to the entire human race, to some degree or another. The basis of any rational moral code is the so-called "golden rule," which enjoins us to treat others the way we ourselves wish to be treated. This is dictated by the fact that Homo Sapiens is a social species, hardwired to need others and to function best in community. Freedom from responsibility to any and all members of the human race would mean death, as far as I can see. YMMV.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I think what some of you are conflating is not-being-a-total-ass with not articulating criticism, which is a gross error. If I wanted to show a 4 year-old there was no monster under the bed, dammit you show them, not "Why the fuck would you think there is a monster under the bed?!"
And when the 4 year old's response is, "Yes there is, but it's the kind of monster you can't see - only I can", do you still offer rational discourse, or do you look for spackle to fix the head-sized hole in the wall?
Some (many, in my experience) theists take whatever argument you give them as proof of God. Even when you give them the exact opposite argument. If you're wrong, that proves that God exists. And if you're right, that proves that God exists. If you could give them absolute proof that God doesn't exist, they'd take it as proof that God exists. You can't rationally criticize belief like that. You can't be rational about it at all, since the argument you're faced with is totally irrational.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Davka"Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.
Because that's what you do with 4 yr olds. Not adults.
Unfortunately, that's not how you can treat 4 year olds who are legally adults. And since many of those 4 year olds make the laws, we're probably not going to see any change to that soon.
Quote from: "Davka"We're all tied to one-another on this planet. However, feeling a level of responsibility towards other humans doesn't mean that I am tied to their belief systems. In the case of Evangelicals - and fundys in particular - I am in a position to understand their mindset more accurately than atheists from different backgrounds, and that means that I can probably communicate with them more effectively than someone who has no clue what's going on inside those heavily compartmentalized minds. Just as it would be "right" for me to help a Hebrew-speaker struggling to communicate in America (because I happen to speak both Hebrew and English), so, too, it would be "right" for me to help an Evangelical struggling to communicate in Freethinker-Land.
I feel a responsibility to the entire human race, to some degree or another. The basis of any rational moral code is the so-called "golden rule," which enjoins us to treat others the way we ourselves wish to be treated. This is dictated by the fact that Homo Sapiens is a social species, hardwired to need others and to function best in community. Freedom from responsibility to any and all members of the human race would mean death, as far as I can see. YMMV.
I do agree that all people are tied together in a humanity-sort of way. And I've always liked the 'golden rule' - with one exception: Those who'd force their beliefs on me. You're obviously prepared to offer a much wider berth on the selling of jesus than I am.
Now please take this the right way....... because I do Not mean this Mean towards you - but isn't it a bit arrogant of you to think it's your responsibility to change christians? Why is it up to you to save them? And I wasn't kidding when I typed up: "You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't REASON themselves into" ??
(I can never remember who said that originally)
Also, if you, personally, wish to convert christians - fine - but when you extend YOUR ideals across the board towards other non believers - insisting that they, too, behave sweetly and packed with patience - that comes across as doubly arrogant (?)
It's the single biggest complaint I've had towards non believers since I found this site:
You don't believe in god but you wish to extend the same behavioral choices all the same (?) And some of you (maybe not you in particular) tend to look down your noses at other non believers or Atheists when they carry a sharp attitude towards theists. WTF? It just seems so twisted to me. Sounds like some have just found another outlet for their holier-than-thou methods.
If being a humanitarian truly lay at the heart of your doings - then the same wide berth you'd apply to fundies should apply to your fellow Atheists. And yet many who believe in the nicey-nice approach condemn their fellow Atheists. WTF is that about? The way I see it - you're either about Free Thought or your not. And that's Free Thought Plus it's actual application. The application is up to the end user.
The way this all sounds - this "we should be nice to christians" - it's just more judgments.....same song....different day.
By the way - I have friends who are christians still. We talk and we always reach an impasse - a place where we have to go our separate ways belief wise. Personally, I don't treat all christians hatefully.......just the ones who preach at me, try to sell me jesus or complete idiots. I do try to reserve my full venom for morons.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Yes and spewing vitriol is no way to change that situation. And even Hitchens certainly didn't do that, and he was considered one of the more "extreme" of the "New" Atheists.
I think what some of you are conflating is not-being-a-total-ass with not articulating criticism, which is a gross error. If I wanted to show a 4 year-old there was no monster under the bed, dammit you show them, not "Why the fuck would you think there is a monster under the bed?!"
It has nothing to do with their age why I wouldn't do this, but because if it's a genuine fear/belief that someone has, being an asshat does nothing if you're actually interested in changing someone's mindset. If you're not interested in trying to change their mind, then communication with them on this issue os stupid and you're being disingenuous by even having said communication.
"Vitriol" is a slur used to attempt to silence criticism. And as far as Hitchens you are nuts trying to claim no one saw him as "vitriolic". "God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons everything" the title alone, was and still is seen as bigoted and hateful, not because it is, but because no matter the arguments in it, people are going to ignorantly assume it no matter what.
For example I have no compunction or shame at all in saying "Any culture or religion that cannot or wont allow women to make their own life choices deserves nothing but scorn and contempt". Should I not say that because some LDS members, Amish, Hindus, and Muslims have "rolls" for women they expect to conform to?
THAT alone will be seen as "Vitriol", not because it isn't true, but because insecure people don't want to face the truth of the abuse and second class status they subject on women.
"Blasphemy laws are the first sign of tyranny" Lord Acton
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions " Thomas Jefferson.
So, when I say for example, "The Conclave is a joke and a farce" IT IS, because it is merely a superstition and has no merits other than to serve the emotions of the people who partake in it.
Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.
That is not "Vitriol", that is simply being blunt and honest.
If you want to treat people like adults then part of that adulthood is the ability to not act like a child when you get offended. There are worse things in life than getting offended.
Here is another example.
When I was 7 years old I went and saw a nature film on the big screen. I saw a fawn being born from a deer from a profile angle. Unfortunately because I knew nothing about biology I came to the wrong conclusion that babies come out of the ass.
So based on my misunderstanding on my next bus ride to school, I proudly announced my new found "Knowledge". All the kids and the bus driver laughed at me. When I obtusely insisted I knew, the bus driver who was a women, got mad at me and pointed at her crotch and tried to correct me.
Now, I was a kid, so it would be more understandable to be more careful, but when you are an adult, you fucking look like you wear a tin foil hat when you make absurd claims. I am 46, what would anyone think of me if at my age today, I still went around claiming babies came from the ass and not the vagina?
If someone went around today claiming the sun rotated around the earth, we rightfully would condemn that claim and call that person nuts. It was understandable in antiquity because people did not know better. But when you have better data you look like a fool clinging to debunked superstition.
So please, do not falsely paint hate of absurd claims and naked assertions and the blunt language used to make a point as being "vitriol". No, it is more like cold water on your face to wake you up.
Quote from: "Brian37"Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.
no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.
You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Brian37"Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.
no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.
You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.
"A certain way" boy, if any phrase that comes out of any human mouth referring to any topic is a clusterfuck to humanity, that is.
You left out "context" and forget that that matters.
You also assume that all theists are thin skinned and cant handle the heat. I'd suggest you talk to the family members and friends and the people Hitchen's knew, not all of them were atheists.
Oh, and my Catholic mother is great listener and when I tell her about this post, unlike you, she is going to listen and understand. Because unlike you, my CATHOLIC MOTHER understands the concept of context.
Point being, it depends where I am at and who I am dealing with will determine how I deal with that individual.
I despise tactics that include absolutes because life is fluid and what works in one situation may not work in another. And I do not assume because I am being blunt with someone that they automatically are going to cry like babies. And there will be others who no matter how nice you try to be, will still think what you say deserves hate and violence.
Treat situations as being contextual and treat individuals as such. But do not speak for me or pretend you know what is best for me or for theists for that matter.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Brian37"Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.
no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.
You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.
"A certain way" boy, if any phrase that comes out of any human mouth referring to any topic is a clusterfuck to humanity, that is.
You left out "context" and forget that that matters.
You also assume that all theists are thin skinned and cant handle the heat. I'd suggest you talk to the family members and friends and the people Hitchen's knew, not all of them were atheists.
Oh, and my Catholic mother is great listener and when I tell her about this post, unlike you, she is going to listen and understand. Because unlike you, my CATHOLIC MOTHER understands the concept of context.
Point being, it depends where I am at and who I am dealing with will determine how I deal with that individual.
I despise tactics that include absolutes because life is fluid and what works in one situation may not work in another. And I do not assume because I am being blunt with someone that they automatically are going to cry like babies. And there will be others who no matter how nice you try to be, will still think what you say deserves hate and violence.
Treat situations as being contextual and treat individuals as such. But do not speak for me or pretend you know what is best for me or for theists for that matter.
I very much Like this statement, Brian. Like this Very much !!!
Points 3 8-)
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Brian37"Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.
no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.
You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.
"A certain way" boy, if any phrase that comes out of any human mouth referring to any topic is a clusterfuck to humanity, that is.
You left out "context" and forget that that matters.
You also assume that all theists are thin skinned and cant handle the heat. I'd suggest you talk to the family members and friends and the people Hitchen's knew, not all of them were atheists.
Oh, and my Catholic mother is great listener and when I tell her about this post, unlike you, she is going to listen and understand. Because unlike you, my CATHOLIC MOTHER understands the concept of context.
Point being, it depends where I am at and who I am dealing with will determine how I deal with that individual.
I despise tactics that include absolutes because life is fluid and what works in one situation may not work in another. And I do not assume because I am being blunt with someone that they automatically are going to cry like babies. And there will be others who no matter how nice you try to be, will still think what you say deserves hate and violence.
Treat situations as being contextual and treat individuals as such. But do not speak for me or pretend you know what is best for me or for theists for that matter.
WTF? I'm not doing any of that.
you bitch to me about context, i haven't forgot it matters and I don't assume anything. You are the one making the assumptions, you are the one getting all pissy. Fine be pissy.
what absolutes? WTF are you even talking about? you know what? nevermind. forget I asked.
QuoteI very much Like this statement, Brian. Like this Very much !!!
Points 3 8-)
Thank you Bri. I really do get tired of humans taking offense to being offended. If those who get offended to the point of taking up arms merely for getting offended, want to prove to me that they are civil, then the worst they should respond to is a "fuck you" or "why do you say that" or simply ignore me.
I get offended myself. I hate it when theists equate atheists to Hitler and Stalin. I get offended when they claim I am immoral or am incapable of being good. But so the fuck what. To assume that they owe me taboo status because I don't like what they say is bullshit.
Because the difference is that the real offense isn't that they claim it, the real offense is that they have no evidence for it. If I shut down everyone who said stupid hateful things about me, and demanded their silence, there never would be any dialogue at all.
Now if someone still insists on being an asshole after I explain to them why they are wrong, even then I don't stop them. I simply put them on display like the zoo animal they act like.
The other thing with PC people, be they atheist or theist, that bugs me, is that their good intent is a form of taboo. If one wants to know what PC looks like, Iran is PC, you are not allowed to offend their religion. If one wants to know what PC looks like China's communist party wont allow you to offend the state.
I can understand the good intent of people, but taboos are not the tactic we should use.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.
Like Brian says; what they think does affect you. Laws are made based on what people think. And laws heavily affect you and your children. And everyone else around you.
Well, I vote my way and they vote theirs. That's the beauty of the franchise, don't you think?
What I'm talking about when I wrote the above is that if they keep their beliefs to themselves, then I don't care. I didn't think I had to explain that I vote my conscience and take note of theists doing the same, but I suppose I was wrong, so here it is.
Quote from: "Plu"Unless I'm mistaken, Texas is still one of the states where being religious is required for being in office. I don't know about you, but I'd consider that something that seriously affects me.
You're mistaken. That is not legal in any state in the Union
per Torcaso v Williams (//http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/case.html).
QuoteThe limitation to federal officeholders was mooted by the Supreme Court in the 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins. Relying upon the First Amendment religion clauses, the Court struck down religious tests for any public office in the United States. Not even a simple profession of belief in God—as was required of Roy Torcaso, an aspiring notary public—may now be required. Torcaso thus totally eclipses the Religious Test Clause of Article VI. The scope of an individual's immunity from disqualification from office on religious bases now depends upon the meaning of the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses, not upon Article VI. Because the First Amendment's breadth is as wide as all government activity, questions about the precise meaning of "office of public trust" are also moot. Whether the Religious Test Clause by itself extends to Members of Congress or all the way down to postal workers no longer matters—save perhaps to historians.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#! ... gious-test (http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test)
Quote from: "Brian37"I can understand the good intent of people, but taboos are not the tactic we should use.
Hear, hear!
QuoteYou're mistaken. That is not legal in any state in the Union per Torcaso v Williams.
Good to hear I suppose :)
Quote from: "Brian37"QuoteI very much Like this statement, Brian. Like this Very much !!!
Points 3 8-)
Thank you Bri. I really do get tired of humans taking offense to being offended. If those who get offended to the point of taking up arms merely for getting offended, want to prove to me that they are civil, then the worst they should respond to is a "fuck you" or "why do you say that" or simply ignore me.
I get offended myself. I hate it when theists equate atheists to Hitler and Stalin. I get offended when they claim I am immoral or am incapable of being good. But so the fuck what. To assume that they owe me taboo status because I don't like what they say is bullshit.
Because the difference is that the real offense isn't that they claim it, the real offense is that they have no evidence for it. If I shut down everyone who said stupid hateful things about me, and demanded their silence, there never would be any dialogue at all.
Now if someone still insists on being an asshole after I explain to them why they are wrong, even then I don't stop them. I simply put them on display like the zoo animal they act like.
The other thing with PC people, be they atheist or theist, that bugs me, is that their good intent is a form of taboo. If one wants to know what PC looks like, Iran is PC, you are not allowed to offend their religion. If one wants to know what PC looks like China's communist party wont allow you to offend the state.
I can understand the good intent of people, but taboos are not the tactic we should use.
Truly when you peel back all the bullshit........people who get all butthurt and wounded all the time are SO focused on what works for them they really shouldn't try to present themselves as people who think of others. Clearly they don't or can't. It's always about THEM........poor babies. Grow the fuck up. Right? Jesus. We've reached an epidemic level of "I'm butthurt and MY opinion matters !!!" The whine-population is at an all time high.
Back when we were growing up our parents and grandparents taught us that WE were NOT the center of the fucking universe and our opinions, needs, wants, etc were just that........ ours. Our wants and needs, demands, etc did NOT belong to the rest of the planet to fucking satisfy.
Imagine that........raising kids to see themselves PART of something instead of the center of it.
Imagine that.
Little butt-hurters need their own island where they can get down to just beating the shit out of each other to see who's needs win at the end of the day
LMAO
I mean
FCUK !!!
It seems to me that people are talking past each-other in this thread. The OP isn't saying atheists shouldn't be rude to theists, it's saying that IF an atheist wishes to engage in constructive debate with a theist, being rude probably isn't the best way to go about that. For that matter, any individual who wishes to engage in constructive debate with any other individual should avoid rudeness, since it's a surefire way to put an end to any useful dialogue.
If you don't care what someone else thinks, or want them to know that their behavior is offensive and unacceptable, that's a whole different ballgame.
Humans have an unfortunate tendency to create us/them dichotomies. And whatever side we are on is the right side, while "they" are on the fucktard asshole side. Whenever this kind of dichotomy is invoked, whether in politics, religion, sports, or whatever, all possibility of constructive conversation goes out the window.
For example, I know full well that the Republican Party is the party of greedy power-hungry motherfuckers who don't give a rat's ass what happens to anyone else as long as they get theirs. But if I want to try to reach a policy compromise with a Republican, I need to play nice. Otherwise, we end up with the kind of clown show we have in Washington today.
Does that mean you always have to play nice? Fuck, no! It's just a common sense truism about conversation v. heated rhetoric. Play however you want.
Quote from: "Davka"It seems to me that people are talking past each-other in this thread. The OP isn't saying atheists shouldn't be rude to theists, it's saying that IF an atheist wishes to engage in constructive debate with a theist, being rude probably isn't the best way to go about that. For that matter, any individual who wishes to engage in constructive debate with any other individual should avoid rudeness, since it's a surefire way to put an end to any useful dialogue.
If you don't care what someone else thinks, or want them to know that their behavior is offensive and unacceptable, that's a whole different ballgame.
Humans have an unfortunate tendency to create us/them dichotomies. And whatever side we are on is the right side, while "they" are on the fucktard asshole side. Whenever this kind of dichotomy is invoked, whether in politics, religion, sports, or whatever, all possibility of constructive conversation goes out the window.
For example, I know full well that the Republican Party is the party of greedy power-hungry motherfuckers who don't give a rat's ass what happens to anyone else as long as they get theirs. But if I want to try to reach a policy compromise with a Republican, I need to play nice. Otherwise, we end up with the kind of clown show we have in Washington today.
Does that mean you always have to play nice? Fuck, no! It's just a common sense truism about conversation v. heated rhetoric. Play however you want.
Agreed, and this was the point I was trying to make as well. As I said, if you aren't interested in actually having a constructive conversation (the kind that is actually going to have a good chance of changing minds), then being belligerent is about the worst thing you can do. Otherwise, having the conversation in the first place is disingenuous.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Brian37"QuoteI very much Like this statement, Brian. Like this Very much !!!
Points 3 8-)
Thank you Bri. I really do get tired of humans taking offense to being offended. If those who get offended to the point of taking up arms merely for getting offended, want to prove to me that they are civil, then the worst they should respond to is a "fuck you" or "why do you say that" or simply ignore me.
I get offended myself. I hate it when theists equate atheists to Hitler and Stalin. I get offended when they claim I am immoral or am incapable of being good. But so the fuck what. To assume that they owe me taboo status because I don't like what they say is bullshit.
Because the difference is that the real offense isn't that they claim it, the real offense is that they have no evidence for it. If I shut down everyone who said stupid hateful things about me, and demanded their silence, there never would be any dialogue at all.
Now if someone still insists on being an asshole after I explain to them why they are wrong, even then I don't stop them. I simply put them on display like the zoo animal they act like.
The other thing with PC people, be they atheist or theist, that bugs me, is that their good intent is a form of taboo. If one wants to know what PC looks like, Iran is PC, you are not allowed to offend their religion. If one wants to know what PC looks like China's communist party wont allow you to offend the state.
I can understand the good intent of people, but taboos are not the tactic we should use.
Truly when you peel back all the bullshit........people who get all butthurt and wounded all the time are SO focused on what works for them they really shouldn't try to present themselves as people who think of others. Clearly they don't or can't. It's always about THEM........poor babies. Grow the fuck up. Right? Jesus. We've reached an epidemic level of "I'm butthurt and MY opinion matters !!!" The whine-population is at an all time high.
Back when we were growing up our parents and grandparents taught us that WE were NOT the center of the fucking universe and our opinions, needs, wants, etc were just that........ ours. Our wants and needs, demands, etc did NOT belong to the rest of the planet to fucking satisfy.
Imagine that........raising kids to see themselves PART of something instead of the center of it.
Imagine that.
Little butt-hurters need their own island where they can get down to just beating the shit out of each other to see who's needs win at the end of the day
LMAO
I mean
FCUK !!!
Don't get me wrong, having been bullied as a kid, I do get it, and when people fuck with ABBA today with me, I do get a lip twitch. But I would have been more well adjusted if I had worried less about trying to get others not to offend me, and spent more time on being myself.
There are real victims, in every label, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist. And even outside the issue of religion our species regardless of boarders have competition constantly. We ultimately are all trying to find a sense of survival.
But to think in all this, that because any human in our evolution, deserves to milk victim status forever, is absurd. No one likes to be abused. But when we forget we are the same species, we can and often do the same thing to others in the future that we claim we would never do ourselves.
Things will get better long term if we stop playing victim. Our species is capable of understanding pain. But we cannot use that as an excuse to silence others because everyone feels pain.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Brian37"QuoteI very much Like this statement, Brian. Like this Very much !!!
Points 3 8-)
Thank you Bri. I really do get tired of humans taking offense to being offended. If those who get offended to the point of taking up arms merely for getting offended, want to prove to me that they are civil, then the worst they should respond to is a "fuck you" or "why do you say that" or simply ignore me.
I get offended myself. I hate it when theists equate atheists to Hitler and Stalin. I get offended when they claim I am immoral or am incapable of being good. But so the fuck what. To assume that they owe me taboo status because I don't like what they say is bullshit.
Because the difference is that the real offense isn't that they claim it, the real offense is that they have no evidence for it. If I shut down everyone who said stupid hateful things about me, and demanded their silence, there never would be any dialogue at all.
Now if someone still insists on being an asshole after I explain to them why they are wrong, even then I don't stop them. I simply put them on display like the zoo animal they act like.
The other thing with PC people, be they atheist or theist, that bugs me, is that their good intent is a form of taboo. If one wants to know what PC looks like, Iran is PC, you are not allowed to offend their religion. If one wants to know what PC looks like China's communist party wont allow you to offend the state.
I can understand the good intent of people, but taboos are not the tactic we should use.
Truly when you peel back all the bullshit........people who get all butthurt and wounded all the time are SO focused on what works for them they really shouldn't try to present themselves as people who think of others. Clearly they don't or can't. It's always about THEM........poor babies. Grow the fuck up. Right? Jesus. We've reached an epidemic level of "I'm butthurt and MY opinion matters !!!" The whine-population is at an all time high.
Back when we were growing up our parents and grandparents taught us that WE were NOT the center of the fucking universe and our opinions, needs, wants, etc were just that........ ours. Our wants and needs, demands, etc did NOT belong to the rest of the planet to fucking satisfy.
Imagine that........raising kids to see themselves PART of something instead of the center of it.
Imagine that.
Little butt-hurters need their own island where they can get down to just beating the shit out of each other to see who's needs win at the end of the day
LMAO
I mean
FCUK !!!
You're sounding kind of butthurt today, WS. It's not like you to misspell fuck. Everything OK?
:wink:
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"You're sounding kind of butthurt today, WS. It's not like you to misspell fuck. Everything OK?
:wink:
You gotta love this guy. :rollin:
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "Mister Agenda"You're sounding kind of butthurt today, WS. It's not like you to misspell fuck. Everything OK?
:wink:
You gotta love this guy. :rollin:
double that :rollin: :rollin: