Mutate Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I don't get it when atheists say they can't support them because they are to rude and Christians should be allowed to live and let live. They should just be gently encouraged to be more liberal and we should just give them condescending, back-handed support like "theyre good, harmless people..so what if theyre wrong...if we indugle them they will soon grow out of the bigoted bits and just keep the bits that liberals approve of" as if Xianity is personified as a child that just needs to grow. Also "the fool said in his heart there is no god" - surely thats rude to atheists, calling them fools? So why can't D and H be rude? I see no reason to hold Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris to a higher standard than the Bible, other than that they know deep down they are more right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 2, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2009 I agree. There are individual Christians with the live and let live philosophy, but generally the religion is rather aggressive and intrusive - going so far as to change our laws and even the freedoms granted by our Constitution. When I first became an atheist, gods and religions were simply a non-issue for me. I never argued my case or defended my position in hopes of changing anyone's mind. The rise of the religious right as a political force made me more militant, and now I try to get people to examine their beliefs in light of reality. Religion can be dangerous. The spokesmen in question have an abrasive style, but so do many preachers. Challenging a fundamentalist's beliefs is enough to piss them off, regardless of how nicely you phrase your statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeckyJ Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I agree. There are individual Christians with the live and let live philosophy, but generally the religion is rather aggressive and intrusive - going so far as to change our laws and even the freedoms granted by our Constitution. When I first became an atheist, gods and religions were simply a non-issue for me. I never argued my case or defended my position in hopes of changing anyone's mind. The rise of the religious right as a political force made me more militant, and now I try to get people to examine their beliefs in light of reality. Religion can be dangerous. This is similar to what happened to me. I left Christianity with wounds, but felt they were personal. I largely held to "live and let live". Now I understand that the more conservative Christians don't embrace the same idea. They wish to live and make others live as they do, the whole of society bend to their way. Yuck. Phanta I like them both! I mean, what's rude about being direct in addressing people who believe in all the craziness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 On the other hand, dicks aren't interested in reason. They cut off(circumcise?) debate before it even has a chance to begin, either by pissing off the opposing side or by discrediting themselves from the start. Is a shouting match expert really what you want out of a pseudo-representative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think that Dawkins’ approach in particular (I don’t know as much about Hitchens) is often counterproductive. A frontal assault on Christianity is not likely to succeed in my estimation. In fact, I think that a frontal assault only entrenches many Christians and strengthens their resolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I don't get it when atheists say they can't support them because they are to rude and Christians should be allowed to live and let live. They should just be gently encouraged to be more liberal and we should just give them condescending, back-handed support like "theyre good, harmless people..so what if theyre wrong...if we indugle them they will soon grow out of the bigoted bits and just keep the bits that liberals approve of" as if Xianity is personified as a child that just needs to grow. Also "the fool said in his heart there is no god" - surely thats rude to atheists, calling them fools? So why can't D and H be rude? I see no reason to hold Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris to a higher standard than the Bible, other than that they know deep down they are more right. I don't think they are any more rude than screaming Christians when people do not want to listen to their BS. I've seen Dawkins on television do rebuttals and he is not rude but he doesn't let an argument slide either. Christians think he is rude because he is well published in his opinions concerning xtianity. I've read some of his books and I don't see the rudeness in them. In what manner do xtians think he is rude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 2, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2009 Dawkins will never win over a religious opponent in debate. But even if he was polite and very sweet and it wouldn't happen. Nobody confronting blind faith with mere facts can win. However, observers of such a debate who are on the fence or who are already questioning their own unfounded faith will leave the event very well informed, and with a clear picture of what rational behavior and critical thinking demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutate Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think dismissing them as " too rude to debate with" is a get out clause for a lot of people to avoid answering their good points. I don't find Dawkins overly rude, far more polite than Christians are about atheists. But Hitchens does shock me - and I think he does over- exagerate things, making it sound as if all jews are evil/deviant etc. Dawkins is the personification of the atheist professer they are all scared about being picked on by in lessons at school. And fantasise about coming up with some unbeatable argument which humilates him and makes him run out of the classroom crying while all the other kids are saved by hearing it. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutate Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 the thing is though that Hitchens makes some very relevant and good points along with the (Admitedly) emotional sensationalism. And that is what I take from his books. I think the sensationlism makes him an easy target so that people can attack his over-excited nature while avoiding having to face his good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I don't think confrontational or aggressive atheism is wrong (altho it doesn't have to be everyone's style.) Hell, large numbers of christians have been confrontational and aggressive for hundreds of years and it's gotten them billions of adherents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Dawkins will never win over a religious opponent in debate. But even if he was polite and very sweet and it wouldn't happen. Nobody confronting blind faith with mere facts can win.Didn't Dawkins mention that Douglas Adams was his first and possibly only convert in The God Delusion? But I don't know how religious Adams was before deconverting to atheism. I don't find Dawkins overly rude, far more polite than Christians are about atheists. But Hitchens does shock me - and I think he does over- exagerate things, making it sound as if all jews are evil/deviant etc.Hitchens also sometimes gets his facts about religion wrong. Like at one point he claims that Jews have sex through the holes in sheets yet this is an urban legend as exposed by our friends at snopes.com and Hitchens doesn't back up this claim with any evidence. http://snopes.com/religion/sheet.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I may be seeing Hitchens on his bad days but he seems drunk during most debates and I find it hard to like someone's style of debate when he is in that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 3, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted June 3, 2009 So the Christian asserts that God loves you, gives you free will, but if you don't believe in your heart of hearts that certain fanciful notions that have no evidence are absolutely true, you will burn in Hell for eternity. How fucking rude does one have to be to compete with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So the Christian asserts that God loves you, gives you free will, but if you don't believe in your heart of hearts that certain fanciful notions that have no evidence are absolutely true, you will burn in Hell for eternity. How fucking rude does one have to be to compete with that? Well, when you put it like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutate Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 In the non christian world, if your not so hot you can get drunk and have a one night stand. But in the xian world, youre either good enough for marriage or you dont get it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Why do Christians deserve anything more than minimal politeness? Everywhere you look/listen they are constantly throwing thier crap dogma at you. You can't even go to a casino hotel without there being a fucking bible in the drawer to greet you. They want laws tailored to thier religious beliefs, they barge into your home via TV stations, churches and Jesus billboards are everywhere, they even come door to door to spread thier filth and invade your mailbox with stupid prayer pictures. They deserve little but scorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Dawkins will never win over a religious opponent in debate. But even if he was polite and very sweet and it wouldn't happen. Nobody confronting blind faith with mere facts can win. However, observers of such a debate who are on the fence or who are already questioning their own unfounded faith will leave the event very well informed, and with a clear picture of what rational behavior and critical thinking demands. An excellent point. It's important to keep presenting a viewpoint that is based upon rational thinking and honest skepticism to the Christian continuum. There will always be the "spaced out" people, eager to grasp upon the childish proclamations and claims of religion; there's really no point in trying to sway people like that. However, there are many Christians I have talked to over the last few years who do start to concede that some of what they are supposed to believe in is a bit bizarre. There are religious people out there who can be receptive to sober, intelligent questioning and logical suggestion. One can often bring to the surface their concealed doubts with some good, honest banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalOkie Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Good Thread... I see both sides here but I tend to think the facts are what's "rude" to the xtians. Remember, you have to shock them with the truth to get them to come out of the lethargic state that they want to live in. They are in a trance and everyone around them thinks like them, talks like them, dresses like them, and then someone challenges them with an alternative view. How do we think they would react. I tell xtians, during a debate, that I've found most xtians to be "mentally lazy". Usually their jaw drops and their face turns red. NOW, I've got their attention. I've just let them know that I'm driving this conversation and we are going to drive over here...to the evidence and away from where THEY want it to go...toward feelings and 'personal experiences'. I guess I'm rude too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I randomly have this song stuck in my head: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Dawkins will never win over a religious opponent in debate. But even if he was polite and very sweet and it wouldn't happen. Nobody confronting blind faith with mere facts can win. However, observers of such a debate who are on the fence or who are already questioning their own unfounded faith will leave the event very well informed, and with a clear picture of what rational behavior and critical thinking demands. This is where I see the value of someone like Dawkins. Even if they're oversimplifying, misrepresenting, and speaking with gusto about things that are vastly more complex than what is expressed in their opining, they get a dialog going about the general topic about religion with people who make up the societies where religion is part of. They don't really offer a workable solution, but they spawn conversation. Just like the opposite extreme, the Televangelist, does in his barbs at the "godless atheist". They are both part of the society at large, and as such they express in super-concentrated forms a certain napalm-bomb version of the more filtered reality of the issues in the mainstream society that are already there. They give voice to it, but they are hardly Messiah's of change. Some people end up latching onto these extremes and become part of that voice of society which create dialog in the middle about these issues confronting it, but the work of making a workable solution is not going to come from the barkers. That solution will come through the natural evolution of a society as it moves through a changing world, bringing with it its understandings of the world that is neither one extreme or the other. So are they too rude? I don't think being abrasive is the way to have a dialog about a solution. It's purpose is to create controversy. I'm not so interested in that myself, and prefer to be part of the solution. But I respect the voices of the extremes, for the fact they are part of the society that I participate in. I may not have to like them, but I acknowledge their value to it as participants in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalOkie Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 We owe Dawkins, Hitchens, Ehrman, Bill Maher and the people putting up the billboards in cities and buses thanks. They are causing a public debate to take place and that's what we want. If a teenager is suddenly aware that there is an alternative view that he/she hasn't been shown before it may cause them to pause and think. Thinking is veeeeery dangerous for religious folks, they would outlaw it if they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 We owe Dawkins, Hitchens, Ehrman, Bill Maher and the people putting up the billboards in cities and buses thanks. They are causing a public debate to take place and that's what we want. If a teenager is suddenly aware that there is an alternative view that he/she hasn't been shown before it may cause them to pause and think. Thinking is veeeeery dangerous for religious folks, they would outlaw it if they could. Of course I agree we should appreciate them. But out of curiosity, do you think we should appreciate the televangelist too? They are part of the debate too. I'm just saying... if we're going to appreciate the side we lean towards saying it's because they add to the debate, would you then want the other side's voice silenced, or respect them for being part of the dialog? Is the dialog what's important, or winning ones point of view over the other? Granted, it makes me wince and convulse at the thought of saying "thanks" to Pat Robertson for his part of the debate, but he reflects some voices of society too, and in principle he should be equally respected as a participant. There are members of society who appreciate him, and they are our neighbors who we need to be part of the society we're part of. I'm not for "come out from among them" or "drive out the infidels" philosophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 5, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2009 Granted, it makes me wince and convulse at the thought of saying "thanks" to Pat Robertson for his part of the debate, but he reflects some voices of society too, and in principle he should be equally respected as a participant. As should the Skinheads, Neo Nazis, Fred Phelps and Al Quaeda. The religious right certainly represents a portion of society, as do the Skinheads. Promoting those philosophies in the arena of public debate is proper, and even protected by law. However, I think a line is crossed when bigotry, hatred, and in some cases violence are espoused. Debate or discussion of ideas then becomes hate speech and rabble rousing. I don't see them as being on equal footing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalOkie Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Of course I agree we should appreciate them. But out of curiosity, do you think we should appreciate the televangelist too? They are part of the debate too. I'll admit, I don't 'appreciate' the TV evangelist's point of view. I've yet to see one that isn't selling tapes, books or holy water to shake down their flock. However, genuine debate over the authenticity of the bible texts, it's authors, etc... these I do enjoy and quite often learn from. I will say that most of the people that think these guy's are rude or arrogant don't realize we feel exactly the same way watching John Hagee and Benny Hinn. They spit all over the microphones when they start talking about the 'godless' Americans. The 'Atheists are what's causing all of the problems in this country'. Sound familiar? Make noooo mistake about it, WE ARE THE TARGETS THAT THEY LOVE TO SELL TAPES ON. We are being blamed for everything bad in this country. What do you want us to do sit silent? I appreciate you, Antlerman, and your point of view but I live 'smack dab' in the middle of the reddest, most hateful, ignorant state in the union. Worse than Texas even. Here (Oklahoma), you better stand up before they tell your kids that your mother and father are going to burn in hell for all eternity and you will never meet Jesus because of them. Try living here for a while and you won't be so amicable towards the fundies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I love this one atheist cartoon at the Friendly Atheist blog: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/05/bewa...itant-atheists/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts