Dawkins And Hitchens "too Rude"?

[Antlerman]

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.

No, of course not. Clearly. When laws protecting the rights of individuals are being broken through the violence of radical groups, this is not participation in dialog. It's criminal activity that removes itself from discussion.

 

But should your radical racist, or hyper-conservative wish to express his views in ways that respect the rights of others, then their rights to do so should be respected. They are a part of the social dialog, even if that voice is a tiny, little minority. If we don't respect that, then our own rights become threatened when someone with differing views comes into power.

[Antlerman]

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?

No certainly don't be silent. I'm sure not. I very confidently state my views in opposition to ideas and attitudes of certain flavors of religious beliefs that don't allow for freedom and respect of others. I very strongly oppose fundamentalism. I don't believe anywhere at anytime, here on the site or in my life have I ever been anything but firmly opposed to fundamentalism. I just choose to do so in ways that are not with a vociferous, blunt object bludgeoning them over the head. I prefer to try to talk to the person behind the rhetoric on an individual basis, as opposed to lumping all Christians as one thing. Saying their beliefs are "delusional", to use Dawkins term, guarantees a battle and not a discussion.

 

I don't find that rhetoric helpful to genuinely understanding the issues, or trying to move forward to a better solution. That's just the political rhetoric of camps that sounds incredibly like what you well pointed out above about the televangelists who blame all atheists for the world's problems. Now you have atheists blaming religion for all the world's problems. How's that different?

 

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.

I appreciate your respect of me, but to clarify again I've never been amicable towards fundamentalists. I would not mistake my behaving true to my philosophies in how I approach any individual to be "soft" on them, or somehow weak on my position of opposition to their views and attitudes. I have found time and time and time and time again here and everywhere in my life, that when people of a religious belief come in spouting their rhetoric, that the approach of talking to them as a human being, rather than as a group identity, opens the door of dialog. I've seen it produce positive results for everyone in the majority of cases. It's consistent.

 

My "amicability" is about a philosophy, about a belief I have as a humanist, as an existentialist. It's about a choice to live a sincere life, to define my own essence. I cannot be what I was as a Christian in judging another by virtue of the association with some belief system. I've said this before. When I left Christianity, I didn't just change what I believed. I left an entire mindset that made it appeal to me in the first place. I not only took the boy out of the city, I took the city out of the boy. It's not uncommon to simply switch camps, but remain the same in essence.

 

As for your situation in Oklahoma, admittedly I can't claim to be able to really appreciate what impact all that must have. I'm a Minnesota boy, and we're modestly progressive here. I can tell someone I don't believe in God without the sort of horror on the faces that I'm sure you might experience! I'm sure I can't appreciate what it is in the way you do. No doubt.

 

Although, my friend from Bible College is from Oklahoma. He and I were always sharpening each others debate edges. Both he and I left Christianity following graduation. In fact, he turned me on to ExChristian.net a few years ago. You may enjoy this video he did for a class project I pinned up in the Colosseum, since he's an Oklahoma boy himself. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=23449 (BTW, I did the voice of God in there. Good time as I'd had over 6 shots of tequila at the time).

 

Can't say for sure how I'd respond to those in your society, but I can only think that I would do what I do here and not fight fire with fire. I would try find a way to suffocate it instead, to take away the oxygen it feeds on. That's me. That's my personality.

[Yrth]

I don't find that rhetoric helpful to genuinely understanding the issues, or trying to move forward to a better solution. That's just the political rhetoric of camps that sounds incredibly like what you well pointed out above about the televangelists who blame all atheists for the world's problems. Now you have atheists blaming religion for all the world's problems. How's that different?

:whs:

 

My "amicability" is about a philosophy, about a belief I have as a humanist, as an existentialist. It's about a choice to live a sincere life, to define my own essence. I cannot be what I was as a Christian in judging another by virtue of the association with some belief system. I've said this before. When I left Christianity, I didn't just change what I believed. I left an entire mindset that made it appeal to me in the first place. I not only took the boy out of the city, I took the city out of the boy. It's not uncommon to simply switch camps, but remain the same in essence.

 

Is there a link to a thread where you have expounded on this idea? I am very interested in this. I've been leaving/completely out of the fold for quite a while, but when it comes to personalized (appropriated?) philosophy it can be like a disorganized basement. You know it needs reorganizing, cleaning, but it such a big task and thus somewhat overwhelming.

[Antlerman]

My "amicability" is about a philosophy, about a belief I have as a humanist, as an existentialist. It's about a choice to live a sincere life, to define my own essence. I cannot be what I was as a Christian in judging another by virtue of the association with some belief system. I've said this before. When I left Christianity, I didn't just change what I believed. I left an entire mindset that made it appeal to me in the first place. I not only took the boy out of the city, I took the city out of the boy. It's not uncommon to simply switch camps, but remain the same in essence.

 

Is there a link to a thread where you have expounded on this idea? I am very interested in this. I've been leaving/completely out of the fold for quite a while, but when it comes to personalized (appropriated?) philosophy it can be like a disorganized basement. You know it needs reorganizing, cleaning, but it such a big task and thus somewhat overwhelming.

Which idea? That fundamentalism didn't create black and white thinking, but that black and white thinking was was made fundamentalism attractive? And that to not change how we think just means switching over to the "right" religion, the one that has the "real truth", not realizing that nothing really has changed? Those are sort of scattered about in various threads. I could certainly have a discussion about that if you wished though. Or do you mean what my personal philosophy is?

[Astreja]

I thoroughly enjoy the "rudeness" of Dawkins and Hitchens.

 

It is the most appropriate response to "You're going to hell", religious intrusions into civil society, Dominionists, and Rapture-heads.

[Yrth]

Which idea? That fundamentalism didn't create black and white thinking, but that black and white thinking was was made fundamentalism attractive? And that to not change how we think just means switching over to the "right" religion, the one that has the "real truth", not realizing that nothing really has changed? Those are sort of scattered about in various threads. I could certainly have a discussion about that if you wished though. Or do you mean what my personal philosophy is?

 

Ah, I am now remembering reading posts here about how black and white thinking makes fundementalism attractive. Thanks for the reminder :] but that wasn't the idea I meant.

 

I'm more interested in how you think unbelief ought to affect how we think and live. You see, I haven't believed in God or Jesus or Christianity in quite some time now, but that shift in my beliefs hasn't really affected much regarding my inward and outward behavior. There was no reverse divine Damascus blinding, things went on internally in pretty much the same way. This make me wonder whether I'm failing to live coherently in regard to what I think I know. So I suppose I am asking about both your personal philosophy and about the internal effect or non-effect of unbelief.

[Neon Genesis]

Saying their beliefs are "delusional", to use Dawkins term, guarantees a battle and not a discussion.

To be fair, Dawkins doesn't actually think all religious beliefs are equally delusional. There was a podcast interview I listened to him awhile back where Dawkins said he had more respect for deism than he did for Christianity. Dawkins clarified that the religious beliefs he considers delusion are the "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" xtians who see God as an imaginary friend.

 

I don't find that rhetoric helpful to genuinely understanding the issues, or trying to move forward to a better solution. That's just the political rhetoric of camps that sounds incredibly like what you well pointed out above about the televangelists who blame all atheists for the world's problems. Now you have atheists blaming religion for all the world's problems. How's that different?

While I don't always agree with the New Atheists on everything, I wouldn't say they're exactly on par with religious fundamentalists. It's not as if the New Atheists are trying to vote for political candidates that will force people to read their books. It's not like they're trying to ban religion and give atheists special privileges nor are the New Atheists threatening people with eternal torture to deconvert to atheism. The only thing they're doing is speaking their minds. As the cartoon I linked to points out, I think we have a tendency to hold atheists to a different standard than we do believers. For us to consider a Muslim to be militant, they have to blow up buses and fly planes into buildings. For us to consider a Christian militant, they have to murder abortion doctors. But for an atheist to be considered militant, all they have to do is say not nice things about religion. And I don't mean that you specifically are holding atheists to a different standard, but I mean people as a whole sometimes do. And for what it's worth, from all the video debates I've seen of Dawkins, he's actually fairly respectable to the Christians he's interviewing. Yet even when all he's doing is asking questions and not name calling, religious people still get pissed off at him for asking questions. The best Dawkins momement is when he got kicked out of Ted Haggard's church. He didn't even get kicked out for calling Haggard delusional or a bigot. All he did was simply refer to his children as animals in the biological technical sense, and that was enough to set Haggard off. So, even when Dawkins is being relatively respectful, he still gets kicked out of churches anyway. My only real problem with Dawkins isn't so much his attitude but that he over-simplifies religion. One example is when he basically says that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all the same thing and lumps them all together. While the Abrahamic religions have some similarities with each other, they're far from being the same thing and are actually quite widely different from each other with their own cultures and practices and different variants of schisms. But I don't think his attitude is necessarily on par with fundies and isn't non-religion growing faster than religion? So, his books can't be hurting our "movement" that much if we're still growing anyway.

[Antlerman]

I'm more interested in how you think unbelief ought to affect how we think and live. You see, I haven't believed in God or Jesus or Christianity in quite some time now, but that shift in my beliefs hasn't really affected much regarding my inward and outward behavior. There was no reverse divine Damascus blinding, things went on internally in pretty much the same way. This make me wonder whether I'm failing to live coherently in regard to what I think I know. So I suppose I am asking about both your personal philosophy and about the internal effect or non-effect of unbelief.

We might want to start a separate topic for this if you want. But briefly I wouldn't expect any deconversion to follow any standard pattern. The only thing I'd say is that it allows someone to find something more suited for them. After all, why leave a system if it was working for you? It's more a matter to ask the question, "OK. So now what?" If I start a separate topic on this, that's what I'm going to title it.

 

In brief, I would say my road both to deconverstion and from deconversion was long and drawn out. Slowly realize things weren't working, trying to sort things out, and finally walking away, then finally realizing the world was now open to possibility since they had no monopoly on understanding. I suppose there was a 'eureka moment' when I realized a God was no longer necessary to explain the existence of everything. It was a freeing realization, a sort of minor existential moment. From there it's been much more a long path of building. Tearing apart the old edifices are necessary. That's a lot of what this site helps people do. But there is also the side of building new structures. And that becomes a long process of exploration, consideration, and above all not allowing anyone to claim this is right and that is wrong and place either a religious or rationalistic dogma as borders around humanity.

 

Not everybody though is so inclined to spend this level of energy and focus on some philosophical quest for the Holy Grail, and just want to find enough of a structure outside their religious past in which to just live their lives happily and free from the oppression of those they don't agree with. And that's perfectly fine. There is no comparing "I should look just like this if I'm doing things right." Not at all. There is a wide range of colors in the spectrum that makes up living a free life. It's that which makes the whole beautiful. If there is one thing in common, its freedom. And damned be the one who tries to steal that from us.

 

Ill considering splitting these posts off to another thread, as they really are a separate topic. But go ahead and reply if you wish here. I'll move them later.

[Antlerman]

Saying their beliefs are "delusional", to use Dawkins term, guarantees a battle and not a discussion.

To be fair, Dawkins doesn't actually think all religious beliefs are equally delusional. There was a podcast interview I listened to him awhile back where Dawkins said he had more respect for deism than he did for Christianity. Dawkins clarified that the religious beliefs he considers delusion are the "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" xtians who see God as an imaginary friend.

Be that as it may, his book title takes anyone who views God as personal and consider themselves to have a "relationship" with that "God" as being delusional. All I'm saying is that that's not a style of dialog I would choose for myself. I don't think approaching someone who expresses their religious devotions in terms of "personal relationship", etc by saying "You're delusional", is in the interest of dialog. It's in the interest of something about me in choosing to use clearly connotative words that will be interpreted as inflammatory.

 

You said the problem with Dawkins is that he oversimplifies. I agree. It's not proper to use the term delusion to describe religious experience (except of course in the case of those who are genuinely mentally ill). But it certainly appeals to those who are frustrated with the bad behaviors of those who hide them behind a religious justification. I like to liken it to the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh pandering to the frustrated Republicans. How accurate is Rush? Does it matter? Is it really about dialog, or something about themselves, and the facts or the complexity of the issues just get in the way for them?

 

I like to just to be clear what place it holds. Not that it's necessarily unnecessary for the whole. It gets people talking, amongst themselves, but not with each other. But at least the conversation gets going. I just prefer to understand it for what it is and not "delude" myself that it's about understanding what religion is on a philosophical, sociological, anthropological level. It's sensational, not academic. I find him entertaining. Just not a leader of new thought. That's not all bad. He has his place.

 

I don't find that rhetoric helpful to genuinely understanding the issues, or trying to move forward to a better solution. That's just the political rhetoric of camps that sounds incredibly like what you well pointed out above about the televangelists who blame all atheists for the world's problems. Now you have atheists blaming religion for all the world's problems. How's that different?

While I don't always agree with the New Atheists on everything, I wouldn't say they're exactly on par with religious fundamentalists.

In that regard it sounds awfully familiar. Someone doesn't have to do everything one ultra-radical group of fundamentalists does in order to be a fundamentalist in their thinking. I was a fundamentalist, but I didn't go around trying to force people into being a Christian through political activism. But I was just as narrow in my thinking as those who took it one step further into outright fanaticism. There are degrees of fundamentalist behaviors, from just hard-line, one-sided rhetoric supporting their social vision, all the way down to those who use this line of black and white thinking to justify waging active war on others who think differently through violence. Just because I would never have gone to such excess as to be violent or political in my fundamentalism, I was still fundamentalist in how I thought about things.

 

Am I saying Dawkins is a fundamentalist? I'm not willing to say that. I do find that rhetoric to sound like the flip side of the same coin, however, and as such not part of the solution.

 

It's not as if the New Atheists are trying to vote for political candidates that will force people to read their books. It's not like they're trying to ban religion and give atheists special privileges nor are the New Atheists threatening people with eternal torture to deconvert to atheism.

The danger of course is if anyone, is thinking the world would be better off without those who are religious, there will be those within that "movement" who will take the bull by the horns and go to the next level. Just as has happened within American fundamentalism turning all political in the 1980's, culminating in the George W. Bush regime. It doesn't matter what the ideology is that people can exploit for gain. Have enough people to support that social vision through the rhetoric of an ideology, and you will have the same thing. It's only in getting rid of this "we have the truth and others are deluded" thinking that we might, possibly become more in control of our society.

 

I hate the rhetoric, for this reason. It's the same thing, just on the opposite side of the same coin.

 

The only thing they're doing is speaking their minds.

That's fine, but there's a lot of rhetoric in there. And as movements grow with their supporting mythologies, in this case that religion is the source of the world's problems and it's adherents are delusional and a threat to society, you will get something more.

 

As the cartoon I linked to points out, I think we have a tendency to hold atheists to a different standard than we do believers. For us to consider a Muslim to be militant, they have to blow up buses and fly planes into buildings. For us to consider a Christian militant, they have to murder abortion doctors. But for an atheist to be considered militant, all they have to do is say not nice things about religion.

I'm not familiar with this cartoon you're referring to, but if it's like what I'm hearing here, it's a political mythology being created, setting themselves as the victim of the oppression for "just speaking their mind". Sort of like early Christians using the myth of martyrdom to validate themselves, all based on the Greek model of hero who dies for the righteous cause. It was that model that began the whole myth of the Christ dying for sin. It's that model that's ingrained into our cultural psyche. To cast oneself into this light, validates and empowers one's beliefs.

 

Mythmaking. That's all.

 

Personally, I don't hold atheists to any different standard than anyone else. Nor do I hold the religious to a different standard than atheists. I expect everyone to be good humans regardless of their religious or philosophical systems. I both criticize and embrace equally, atheist or religious. It's based on behavior only, no matter what belief one uses to get them there.

 

And I don't mean that you specifically are holding atheists to a different standard, but I mean people as a whole sometimes do.

I don't see this as an atheist verse religious thing. It's a human sociological thing. It has nothing to do with atheism specifically.

 

And for what it's worth, from all the video debates I've seen of Dawkins, he's actually fairly respectable to the Christians he's interviewing. Yet even when all he's doing is asking questions and not name calling, religious people still get pissed off at him for asking questions. The best Dawkins momement is when he got kicked out of Ted Haggard's church. He didn't even get kicked out for calling Haggard delusional or a bigot. All he did was simply refer to his children as animals in the biological technical sense, and that was enough to set Haggard off. So, even when Dawkins is being relatively respectful, he still gets kicked out of churches anyway.

I haven't seen these so I can't really say much to them. Only one question comes to mind though, and that is that when talking with someone who has certain cultural sensitivities, understanding and avoiding certain trigger words that have certain connotations culturally, might be a good thing to do. I always find myself being careful to couch my terms that show respect to their beliefs, while at the same time not comprimising what I want to say. You can communicate your views to your own personally satisfaction, while at the same time respecting another. It's in the interest of showing respect. Sometimes of course, you can be caught completely off guard on what triggers someone and you aren't to blame. If you know they hate a term and deliberately use it to provoke, well that's another matter.

 

I have no idea the case was with this, but I'm sure Haggard was already on the defense, just by the mere fact Dawkins is a perceived antagonist to them. I don't see Dawkins beliefs to be the whole reason why he might have gotten this "out of left field" response. I'm sure it had a whole lot to do with their perception of him as a person in the serve reaction that happened. To say it's because of his beliefs without considering a lot of other factors, would be part of the mythmaking thing I just mentioned above.

 

My only real problem with Dawkins isn't so much his attitude but that he over-simplifies religion. One example is when he basically says that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all the same thing and lumps them all together. While the Abrahamic religions have some similarities with each other, they're far from being the same thing and are actually quite widely different from each other with their own cultures and practices and different variants of schisms. But I don't think his attitude is necessarily on par with fundies and isn't non-religion growing faster than religion? So, his books can't be hurting our "movement" that much if we're still growing anyway.

I personally view Jesus as someone who probably wasn't a damned thing like the movements evolved in his name created in their mythmaking. The stuff you see in the Gospels attributed to this person, lost mostly to the sands of time, is about those who created movements in his name, using him as a founding figure for their movements. You used the word movement. For some, Dawkins is a hero figure for their "faith". Not that he is a personal messiah, but it doesn't need to be that for it take on the same role. In a social theory of religion, this evolution of movements, the creation of founder figures, myths surrounding them ("he was kicked out of church because the religious hypocrites couldn't face the light of his truth", etc), political power, etc is fairly well recognized.

 

It sounds really far fetched that someone like Dawkins would ever be believed as some incarnate god, and I would never suggest that. I doubt that would ever happen. But the kernel of social needs driving that sort of thing are the same, regardless of the heights or forms the myth takes. The society dictates the forms it takes based on the relevance to its surrounding context, and in ours you have more this "hero" vision evolving and people holding him up as some great social voice. It's that myth that I balk at. He's not a visionary.

 

I realize that what I'm saying will be taken in ways I don't mean, as I realize someone could just hear I'm saying this in all on the same level. I'm not. I'll repeat that. I'm not saying it's identical, that's its all the same thing, that people view Dawkins on the same level as Jesus as an object of devotion. I'm not saying that at all. The only thing I'm saying is that the same human, social driving forces manifests itself the same way in any social movement. We create myths. We create realities for us to interact with the world through, and these sorts of ideals are symbolized in "inflated" ways for us to communicate them, to elevate them "out there" for us to share and appropriate. If it's a movement, this created reality is there. It's what we do.

 

I'm not desiring to offend anyone saying these things. It's just the context in which I process it.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not familiar with this cartoon you're referring to, but if it's like what I'm hearing here, it's a political mythology being created, setting themselves as the victim of the oppression for "just speaking their mind".

Here's the link to it: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/05/bewa...itant-atheists/

 

 

I have no idea the case was with this, but I'm sure Haggard was already on the defense, just by the mere fact Dawkins is a perceived antagonist to them. I don't see Dawkins beliefs to be the whole reason why he might have gotten this "out of left field" response. I'm sure it had a whole lot to do with their perception of him as a person in the serve reaction that happened. To say it's because of his beliefs without considering a lot of other factors, would be part of the mythmaking thing I just mentioned above.

It's a scene from The Root Of All Evil? documentary before the whole Haggard sexuality case came out. Here's the clip of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibl2A3Ai7o

 

 

It sounds really far fetched that someone like Dawkins would ever be believed as some incarnate god, and I would never suggest that. I doubt that would ever happen.

Of course, that would only happen with Oprah. ^^;;

[Antlerman]

I'm not familiar with this cartoon you're referring to, but if it's like what I'm hearing here, it's a political mythology being created, setting themselves as the victim of the oppression for "just speaking their mind".

Here's the link to it: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/05/bewa...itant-atheists/

Damn! The link is broken already.

 

It sounds really far fetched that someone like Dawkins would ever be believed as some incarnate god, and I would never suggest that. I doubt that would ever happen.

Of course, that would only happen with Oprah. ^^;;

Ah yes... the point is made. You do understand.

 

We are such as fascinating species. The very creators of gods...

[♦ nivek ♦]

Jezuzfuckingchrist....

 

When the fuck did we get so afraid of unPC speaking that we worry about lighting off some xtian preachers man tampon string, or chasing the JW dipshit bitch back off our property line?

 

Dawkins and like give a wonder "bite" and example to those who need instruction on "How to live sans dumbfucks invading their spaces".

 

When one quits being kissy faced nice to dipshits who HAVE to "stay in your face", life changes.

 

Best in many cases with the religious fucknuts is to chase them off. Being a "nice neighbor" piques their curiosity, primes them with courage to come to give you still another helping of religious_pie.

 

Maybe *you've* got time to take, invite Jane and Charlie from local JW hall in, Elders Smith and Jones for a shot of Sprite and cookies, might find some effort to let the folks from Assembly of Frozen Chosen come in for a stiff belt of salvation..

 

*I* do not, nor do I give a fuck at this particular time, or do I wish to schedule such.

 

Hitchens, Carlin, Dawkins... Will prime you, enable you to say "Not today, not any fucking day, no thank you very fucking much, get lost!"

 

It is your life, use it as you like. My solution maximizes time I have to do things I want.

Discussing the unseen with idiots is on low end of totem pole..

 

Fuck'um all.

 

<self edited: Might be construed as *excessive labeling*>

 

kevinFuckin'L

[Neon Genesis]

Ah yes... the point is made. You do understand.

 

We are such as fascinating species. The very creators of gods...

I'm reminded of how my sister and I were joking about how maybe 2000 years from now Oprah will be deified. I suggested that perhaps The Secret will be like how the Q gospel started out as a collection of sayings that evolved into a mythology and maybe Oprah will have her own mythology based around The Secret and become a goddess. And I wondered if Jesus got started as the messiah like how Pinky became a Guru in Pinky And The Brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTsULG6iVQ

[RationalOkie]

AntlerMan - I hear you, but I live around people that ARE EXTREMELY MILITANT with their faith. You couldn’t even exist, openly as you do, where I live. Someone would pull you over and give you a fat lip if you had a fish with legs logo on your car. You think I’m kidding? I’m not. People here are VERY serious about wanting to beat the crap out of Atheists. They hate us. You may be able to get away with it in Tulsa or OKC, but not out in the smaller and more rural communities.

 

It may work in Minnesota, but the fundies in Oklahoma aren’t interested in a fire-side chat over a cup of coffee. If you say there is no god to them they will freaking run you out of town. They will harass your boss, your mother, your kids and anyone else who is dear to you until you leave town. And that’s assuming they don’t vote to just shoot your ass and everyone keep it a secret.

 

Case in point http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...n_oklahoma.html

 

Again, I respect your point of view ( they won’t ), but I think there IS room for the Dawkins approach. However, if I grew up where you did I might be arguing against me. 

[godlessgrrl]

I find the Four Horsemen to be generally better mannered than the fundies they oppose, even when their words are harsh or could be taken as inflammatory.

 

And frankly, it's about bloody time.

 

The Religious Right and its ilk have gotten away with too much soul-killing bullshit over the past 50 years. It's good to see people standing up and calling them on it.

[Antlerman]

AntlerMan - I hear you, but I live around people that ARE EXTREMELY MILITANT with their faith. You couldn’t even exist, openly as you do, where I live. Someone would pull you over and give you a fat lip if you had a fish with legs logo on your car. You think I’m kidding? I’m not. People here are VERY serious about wanting to beat the crap out of Atheists. They hate us. You may be able to get away with it in Tulsa or OKC, but not out in the smaller and more rural communities.

 

It may work in Minnesota, but the fundies in Oklahoma aren’t interested in a fire-side chat over a cup of coffee. If you say there is no god to them they will freaking run you out of town. They will harass your boss, your mother, your kids and anyone else who is dear to you until you leave town. And that’s assuming they don’t vote to just shoot your ass and everyone keep it a secret.

 

Case in point http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...n_oklahoma.html

 

Again, I respect your point of view ( they won’t ), but I think there IS room for the Dawkins approach. However, if I grew up where you did I might be arguing against me. 

Hmm.. I thought I had responded to this post. Apparently I only imagined I did. Anyway... Yes, I'm sure where you are at they would sooner bash my face in than try to understand anything, or be generally nice. That sort of behavior is what someone would expect with those who see the world as one thing and can't allow for anyone else. Here in civilization, we've learned the value of coexistence, toleration, and overall good manners (mistakenly called Political Correctness by some). It's necessary when you don't have the luxury of living out in a cabin removed from the city somewhere. Actually the harder job is getting along. Takes a lot more bravery. Takes a lot more resources than just "kicking some ass". At the end of the day, which way of living is better and more with the effort?

 

So does Dawkins approach have it's place? Yes, I've always said it does. It's just not me. How I choose to fight is not the same as that. Is his a more appropriate response in a situation like yours? I don't know. How do the local's respond to him? He's all over the place. Do they say stupid things like "If I met him, I'd bash his stupid face in!", or do they say, "Damn, he really makes you think, don't he?" I'd actually be surprised if anyone can get through to those of that mentality, except for maybe their Pa with a switch.

[RationalOkie]

So does Dawkins approach have it's place? Yes, I've always said it does. It's just not me. How I choose to fight is not the same as that. Is his a more appropriate response in a situation like yours? I don't know. How do the local's respond to him? He's all over the place. Do they say stupid things like "I've I met him, I'd bash his face in!", or do they say, "Damn, he really makes you think, don't he?"

 

AntMan - Funny you should mention that because he was supposed to speak at the {making qoutes with my fingers} ' University ' of Oklahoma recently and the Oklahoma legislature tried to have him banned Read This

[Antlerman]

So does Dawkins approach have it's place? Yes, I've always said it does. It's just not me. How I choose to fight is not the same as that. Is his a more appropriate response in a situation like yours? I don't know. How do the local's respond to him? He's all over the place. Do they say stupid things like "I've I met him, I'd bash his face in!", or do they say, "Damn, he really makes you think, don't he?"

 

AntMan - Funny you should mention that because he was supposed to speak at the {making qoutes with my fingers} ' University ' of Oklahoma recently and the Oklahoma legislature tried to have him banned Read This

See. I have to admit that really irks me to no end actually. Dawkin's is a legitimate voice as a biologist to speak about the Theory of Evolution. I certainly support that. I'm only laughing at the irony about being right that they aren't willing to listen to anyone, no matter what their approach. What he's good at is stirring the pot. He got the House of representatives in OK to put forth a nonsense bill (which the House is good at doing), and the result is controversy. And the result of that is people talking. It's like burning the bra to create controversy. The result is public awareness. I really do give Dawkin's marks for this. He definitely gets the public talking.

 

But again the only point I'm making is that his thoughts get the conversation going, but others will come up with the solution. Damn... ever consider moving away from there?

[Vomit Comet]

It appears that Dawkins is ramming his car into a brick wall by going to Oklahoma. Aside from preaching to his (comparatively very tiny) choir at the University of Oklahoma.

 

However, I bet there's at least a few "fence sitters" caught between extremes who could be swayed to tilt towards the side where the black sheep are. Dawkins is perhaps just the man to give them that nudge in the right direction. I don't think a more genteel approach would be as effective.

[RationalOkie]

I really do give Dawkin's marks for this. He definitely gets the public talking.

 

But again the only point I'm making is that his thoughts get the conversation going, but others will come up with the solution. Damn... ever consider moving away from there?

 

It's incredible isn't it? It's hard to get it across to outsiders how RED this state is. Back to the point...Dawkins needs to stir it up and the place to do that is here. Oklahoma State is right here in Stillwater and we need him to come here. They will have church groups protesting outside and news crews and snipers on roofs, you wouldn't believe the pandemonium that would ensue if he came to Stillwater.

 

Yes...I've considered moving away. It just hasn't been possible as of yet.