Why is that bad? I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that.
I think it's more that there's that along with gems like ...
What Jhai said, plus I'd add the fact that the line is wonderfully cliched. So cliched that the first reference I find to it is a comparison *to* that line rather than *about* it.
quote:Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned.
posted
To be fair to Tatiana, she was an atheist when I started posting here. She was just using a different screen name at the time.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you then saying that it isn't true? She, in fact, was not actually an atheist? Or that she still is one now?
If you are going to dismiss someone's statements about themselves, there needs to be a better reason that that someone else has said it before.
I also find that dismissal to be fully as rude as a Christian saying to someone who had prayed and not received an answer, "You didn't pray hard enough."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to be a christian. Eventually, I realized that no matter how much I wished for it to be true, it was all just a big lie. Something to comfort us in our hour of need, and no more.
However, everyone, both christian and atheist, need to be left alone to believe what they believe. There needs to be no snarking back and forth, just mutual respect and mutual respect for each others rights.
Civility goes out the window when one side starts attacking the other's civil rights and when we fight, we both lose.
And Christmas is an American holiday these days. Not only a christian one. I know Atheists, Jews and Hindudes that all celebrate it. With a tree.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of Dawkins' point is that the default respect we're expected to show towards people's religious beliefs would be, for any other proposition of similar likelihood, a ridiculous request.
Frankly, it doesn't matter. When you make it clear you have no respect for someone's most fundamental belief system, they will tune you out, and whatever it is you're trying to accomplish will fail.
I do agree with him that many elements of religion are damaging and need to be countered. I also acknowledge that being direct and confrontational is necessary sometimes to get people's attention. But in the case of the schoolkids, he already had their attention, and I think using some kind of Socratic method to get the kids to realize for themselves that their belief system was flawed would have been more effective.
I also think that combining arguments in favor of evolution with arguments against God is counterproductive. Many people are willing to accept evolution when it's not presented as something that challenges their entire belief system. I also think in the long term, widespread acceptance of evolution will lead to an overall decline in religious tendencies.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carousel: ... Atheists seem to be recruiting just as the christians. Not that this is a bad thing, but don't try to say that's not what is going on, which is what I hear quite a bit.
Hmmm, get back to me when there is an atheist equivalent of Jesuits or Mormon missionaries. Not that I think we should really be competing on those grounds, but we have an are quite out-gunned.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest, I have read what you just said many, many times in the Hatrackverse. It is said here constantly. It is curious to me that saying the converse is so decried.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you then saying that it isn't true? She, in fact, was not actually an atheist? Or that she still is one now? ...
Did I say it wasn't true? A cliche can be true, it doesn't make it any less a cliche.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest, I have read what you just said many, many times in the Hatrackverse. It is said here constantly. It is curious to me that saying the converse is so decried.
They aren't actually converses. The converse of "former atheist" is theist. The converse of "former Christian" is non-Christian.
In other words, as Jhai noted, there are many kinds of atheists with a much larger variety of types than Christian. Arguably, one would have a slightly better sampling of Christians by taking one Christian compared to one atheist out of all atheists (not much better, granted). At least all Christians have a common belief system, in the generalities, if not the specifics. Atheists only have one common belief "attribute."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your complaint is that her personal truth has been said before and therefore should be dismissed? Or were you just interrupting a discussion to be incredibly rude about the style of another poster's personal story?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmmm, get back to me when there is an atheist equivalent of Jesuits or Mormon missionaries. Not that I think we should really be competing on those grounds, but we have an are quite out-gunned.
I didn't say that atheists were recruiting just as much, or in the same manner, as christians. Just that they are recruiting. Take that sign in the article. If they were not attempting to recuit, then why include the second portion? The more vocal people are in fact attempting to win converts. I'm just saying call it what it is.
Again, there is nothing wrong with this. That is their right, just as it is a christian's right.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm okay with everything but the mocking. I'm not sure why that needs to be a part of the agenda.
Can you explain why you think it is?
Mockery doesn't have to be part of the agenda, but if you get into an intellectual argument with me, and have an idiotic belief (such as the sun sets in the east), I won't go out of my way to avoid pointing out that your belief is idiotic. If you want to count that as mocking (some do, some don't), then, well, *shrug*. Maybe it's a philosophy major thing - we tear into each other all the time.
For the record, I've never mocked anyone for religious belief alone. I was harsh with someone who tried to make an argument against the "ought implies can" axiom of ethics for religious reasons (it was a point in a larger argument). She was a senior philosophy major, and really should have known better.
Also for the record, I have no doubt that this style of argumentation may not be the best for convincing particular people that they are wrong. Luckily, that's not always my goal.
---- Wow, kat - so simply pointing out that someone is cliched is "incredibly rude", but what she said regarding atheists is all cool?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people would post their explanations of their dismissive actions (quoting and then saying "Nice", scare quotes) instead of just the dismissive actions, the discussion could continue instead of being a case study.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, quotation marks can legitimately be used in sentences in ways other than as negative "scare quotes."
Hey, look, I just did it!
Edit: just to be clear, the term "scare quotes" can be used to refer to any quoting that is not a direct quote. But that usage is not necessarily negative, and so there's really no point in pointing them out unless you have reason to suspect that they're being used in a negative manner. Personally, I haven't used them in a negative manner in this thread, and I rarely do, period. sourcePosts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Do you not understand what it means to put those in quotes out of context like that?
From the other part of that page:
quote:Scare quotes is a general term for quotation marks used for purposes other than to identify a direct quotation. For example, authors might use quotation marks to highlight special terminology, to distance the writer from the material being reported, to indicate that it is someone else's terminology, or to bring attention to a word or phrase as questionable or at least atypical in some way.
Scare quotes are often intended to provoke a negative association for the word or phrase enclosed in the quotes, or at least a suspicion about the appropriateness or full truth that might be presumed if the quotes were omitted.
So what, exactly, were the quotes intended to convey? Were you quoting a complex term exactly and wanted to make it clear that you were using it the way she was? Considering it came in close association with an avowal to mock theists, the negative connotation looks a lot more likely than a neutral one. There is no positive connotation available to it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: I see you edited while I was writing this post. But I think it stands.
So you continue to believe that I meant to bring a negative association to the terms, despite me clearly saying I did not, and pointing to the source that says that my usage is appropriate? How lovely of you.
Nice that you didn't quote the actual part I referenced, too.
quote:Enclosing a word or phrase in quotes can also convey a neutral attitude on the part of the writer, while distancing the writer from the terminology in question. The quotes are used to call attention to a neologism, special terminology (jargon), or a slang usage, or to indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, or metaphoric. They may indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else.[1] A special case of this use of quotes is in the use–mention distinction.
To be even more particular, when I used quotation marks around Tatiana 's "former atheist" just to denote that that was her wording & terminology, not mine.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what confuses me. Do you not actually consider her to be a former atheist? What is it about the term that you do not agree with or think it shouldn't be applied to her? Is it an offensive term to you? Why?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry you're confused. Next time, ask for clarification rather than accusing others. And then, when they give you that clarification, try believing them.
Edit: also, it's polite to note when you've edited a post, even if you get it in before the board lists it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the clarification? You said you want to distance yourself from the term, but you haven't said why. I'm curious about why anne kate calling herself a former atheist is something you can't believe or support.
You said later that she doesn't speak for ALL atheists, which makes sense, but it doesn't clarify why you wanted to point that you do not believe her that she was AN atheist.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carousel: I didn't say that atheists were recruiting just as much, or in the same manner, as christians.
Sorry, I misread your "recruiting just as the christians" typo. Of course, I made a typo in my last post, so we're even
quote: Take that sign in the article. If they were not attempting to recuit, then why include the second portion?
I understand your confusion and I sympathise, but I don't think they were attempting to recruit. I think they were intentionally being extreme to push boundaries.
The idea is that even polite expressions of atheism are not accepted in their community. So by making a more brutal expression of atheism, comparable to how they feel expressions of Christianity are, they're trying to make moderate atheism acceptable by comparison.
I don't think it will necessarily work in that situation, BTW.
But the idea is not new. Dawkin's Scarlet Letter campaign is similar, the idea is not to recruit but to foster a climate in which moderate atheists feel comfortable to come "out of the closet" since Dawkins is acting as a vocal lightning rod saying what others cannot/don't feel comfortable saying.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I clarified that I was using the quotation marks in my original post to denote the fact that that was her terminology, not mine. If she believes she's a former atheist, I have no particular reason to doubt her. But I've found that in a dialogue about religious identity labels matter quite a bit, so I wanted to make clear that this was her own labeling not mine. I've been called (or otherwise associated with) a number of labels and positions that I wasn't because others' weren't careful to note my particular terminology, and I have no desire to commit the same offense.
In response to your edit (guess I'll just reload several times before posting when you're in the conversation, and read over previous entries with a comb): Dude, kat, quotes can be used for reasons other than showing doubt that the terminology is correct. I'm sorry that you've never come across this particular punctuation usage, but it's still legitimate.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Achilles: I think it's more about family and presents for the kids than anything else. That's what makes Christmas special. It doesn't matter what we're celebrating, just the joy of togetherness and seeing a child's face when they rip open a present to find just what they wanted.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: My question is: Why isn't it your terminology? Would you call her something different?
I would call her whatever she wants to be called. I note that it's not my terminology to make clear that I'm not labeling her but rather calling her by a label she has already used herself.
Do you not see how that might be an important thing to do in a conversation about religion and beliefs?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The issue is that, with some frequency (whether this applies in Tatiana's case), Christians who claim to have once been an atheist have a somewhat different take on what atheist means. In particular, it is often associated with being "angry at God," which is not something most atheists feel (it's actually a kind of paradoxical concept, since you can't really be angry at someone you don't believe exists).
There's also people like Lee Strobel, author of the Case for Christ, who begin by claiming they were once an atheist but as they tell the story of their path towards Christianity, clearly could not possibly have been an atheist in any typical use of the word. (Strobel claims to have been an atheist AND a reputable journalist... who then proceeds to interview ONLY people supporting the Christian viewpoint, accepts all of their claims at face value, and doesn't make any effort to fact check with opposing or even neutral sources.)
Now, Strobel may have been an atheist in some sense of the word, but doesn't seem to have been the sort of atheist I nor any of my colleagues would relate to.
Jhai's response to Tatiana may have been somewhat knee-jerky and perhaps inappropriate, but the "I used to be an atheist" line shows up often enough in questionable circumstances that it's worth extra scrutiny.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, Strobel may have been an atheist in some sense of the word, but doesn't seem to have been the sort of atheist I nor any of my colleagues would relate to.
This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder why atheists think they are immune to the kinds of things members of organized religion are prone to. Someone wasn't a real atheist? Like there is a platonic ideal? Or like being one is a badge of something and so other atheists can vote you out if they don't like how you handle the title?
quote:Strobel claims to have been an atheist AND a reputable journalist... who then proceeds to interview ONLY people supporting the Christian viewpoint, accepts all of their claims at face value, and doesn't make any effort to fact check with opposing or even neutral sources.
I suspect we can both think of lauded atheistic "journalists"* who use the same tactics.
* I'm using the quotes because I don't think creating creating and knocking down straw men actually counts as journalism, so those who do it are not actually journalists but instead are entertainers of a particular sort.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Achilles: I think it's more about family and presents for the kids than anything else. That's what makes Christmas special. It doesn't matter what we're celebrating, just the joy of togetherness and seeing a child's face when they rip open a present to find just what they wanted.
quote:Someone wasn't a real atheist? Like there is a platonic ideal?
I think we can agree that the one defining attribute of atheism is as follows: you do not believe in gods. By this definition, Strobel doesn't apply; he speaks of his time as an "atheist" in terms of the anger he consciously felt towards God. I don't know about you, but I'm rarely persistently angry towards individuals who don't exist. More importantly, he frequently speaks nowadays about how he entered adulthood thinking there was no God -- which he used as a justification to engage in immoral behavior -- and then one day did some research into Creationism, at which point a light switch flipped in his mind and he was convinced that God existed. (Bear in mind, BTW, that he never actually researched evolution; he says he was convinced by Creation "science," and concluded from there that there must be a Creator.)
quote:I suspect we can both think of lauded atheistic "journalists"* who use the same tactics.
I can't actually think of many atheist "journalists" who write about their atheism by making reference to their days as a believer. I can think of some homosexuals who do this, but not atheists -- at least not off the top of my head.
I realize there is a certain audacity in saying "Well, clearly, that person isn't a REAL atheist." I tried to be careful in the way I phrased my argument. I know that making any kind of definitive statement on someone else's identity is pretty arrogant.
quote:I suspect we can both think of lauded atheistic "journalists"* who use the same tactics.
Oh definitely. There are people on every side of every argument who use those tactics. But the point here is not Strobel used biased "journalism." The point is that he claims to have done so even when he would have been predisposed to be biased in the opposite direction or at least neutral.
It's possible he really was an atheist, and just happened to be easily swayed by arguments that were flimsy at best. But considering that his "journalism" does consist mostly of creating and knocking down straw men, I'm not inclined to take him at his word.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I was referring to interviewing only those who would support a particular viewpoint, not to what they claimed to be before.
RA: That's what bothers me about the distancing and using quotes. It certainly looks like casting doubt on someone's self-avowed identity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to agree with many here that the atheists should have been affirming their own beliefs or philosophy rather than denying the beliefs of others. "Be good for goodness sake" is an excellent one. If they wanted to make a definitive statement of non-belief, why not go with Carl Sagan's "The cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be"?
I wonder if next year there will be even more groups trying to put up displays. Maybe a Prior of the Ori will show up to demand that the city have the Book of Origin on display (or else he'll file a lawsuit and release a plague).
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I wonder if next year there will be even more groups trying to put up displays. Maybe a Prior of the Ori will show up to demand that the city have the Book of Origin on display (or else he'll file a lawsuit and release a plague).
Well, those are the options. Opening it up for everyone, or for no one. The government has clearly shown that it refuses to be neutral on religion. And so it must be equal.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:RA: That's what bothers me about the distancing and using quotes. It certainly looks like casting doubt on someone's self-avowed identity.
The original remark that started this was definitely a snarky quip that wasn't exactly a paragon of healthy debate. But the sentiment behind it (being suspicious of those who claim to have been atheists) is justifiable, at least insofar as asking someone to clarify why they were an atheist and why they changed their mind.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: ... I wonder if next year there will be even more groups trying to put up displays. Maybe a Prior of the Ori will show up to demand that the city have the Book of Origin on display (or else he'll file a lawsuit and release a plague).
It always amused me how the Stargate series tiptoes around the "modern" religions. I mean, from the POV of someone in the show, once you have Egyptian, Norse, Chinese, and Greek gods all being aliens, it seems a logical step to assume that the Christian or Muslim gods and prophets probably would be too.
From that POV, it would only make sense to have a Furling or something show up as Christ. (Arguably, the old testament god is already the archetype for the Goa'uld anyways)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm okay with everything but the mocking. I'm not sure why that needs to be a part of the agenda.
Can you explain why you think it is?
What looks like mockery to you is actually accurate description. If a belief is silly, then to describe it accurately is, indeed, to mock it. And such description is a powerful tool to keep silly beliefs from taking hold in young minds. It's true that such tactics rarely work on adults, who've had time to build up a store of rationalisations and excuses, but that can't be helped; very little else works on such people either. Sometimes you just have to triage.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It always amused me how the Stargate series tiptoes around the "modern" religions. I mean, from the POV of someone in the show, once you have Egyptian, Norse, Chinese, and Greek gods all being aliens, it seems a logical step to assume that the Christian or Muslim gods and prophets probably would be too.
They did have a Goa'uld that claimed to be Satan.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think mockery has long been a part of spirited debate at least in Western civilization. But it seems that mockery of a person, or even an idea has generally been frowned upon. Mockery seems to be something that at best must be used sparingly, and at worst should be recognized as the sole provenance of the even tempered.
No offense intended to KOM, but in the case of mockery he would have to be positively lovey dovey in his treatment of organized religion for a few months if not years before I would take mockery from him seriously.
The only thing I think you can safely mock is the implication of an idea; Not the person, not the idea itself.
On rare occasion when it seem that your opposition is truly seeking to commit evil, I think mockery can be invoked. But even then mockery is not necessarily wise to use as a tool. Mockery is a great way to get an angry crowd to turn away its' wrath from the innocent and point it justly at one's self.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No offense intended to KOM, but in the case of mockery he would have to be positively lovey dovey in his treatment of organized religion for a few months if not years before I would take mockery from him seriously.
I advise you to read that post again. You are already defending your beliefs with every bit of rationalisation power the human mind can command, which is large. As far as I'm concerned, therefore, you're triaged. You're not the intended target of accurate descriptions of religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP and Rivka: Both valid points, but both also good illustrations of what I'm talking about. Both examples hide behind plausible deniability. Sokar was not just Satan, but also claimed to be many other personifications of death, IIRC. Indeed, the name is Egyptian. As for Ori, it seems clear that while they are intended as an allegorical mockery of Christianity, it is not clear that the Ori literally inspire Christianity directly.
i.e. Both examples lack the visceral punch when Aphophis or Thor (initially) literally show up and declare themselves as such.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you sure? I thought it was more general than that.
But anyways, it doesn't detract from the main point. In fact, if you're right, it merely makes the omission more obvious.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think we can agree that the one defining attribute of atheism is as follows: you do not believe in gods. By this definition, Strobel doesn't apply; he speaks of his time as an "atheist" in terms of the anger he consciously felt towards God. I don't know about you, but I'm rarely persistently angry towards individuals who don't exist.
Well, so many atheists seem to use the "The Biblical God is such a jerk/meanie/bully" argument, it's easy to conflate them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm okay with everything but the mocking. I'm not sure why that needs to be a part of the agenda.
Can you explain why you think it is?
What looks like mockery to you is actually accurate description. If a belief is silly, then to describe it accurately is, indeed, to mock it. And such description is a powerful tool to keep silly beliefs from taking hold in young minds. It's true that such tactics rarely work on adults, who've had time to build up a store of rationalisations and excuses, but that can't be helped; very little else works on such people either. Sometimes you just have to triage.
"Incorrect" would be a factual and accurate description. "Silly" is a subjective word.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think we can agree that the one defining attribute of atheism is as follows: you do not believe in gods. By this definition, Strobel doesn't apply; he speaks of his time as an "atheist" in terms of the anger he consciously felt towards God. I don't know about you, but I'm rarely persistently angry towards individuals who don't exist.
Well, so many atheists seem to use the "The Biblical God is such a jerk/meanie/bully" argument, it's easy to conflate them.
Sauron is not a nice person. I would certainly look askance at anyone who decided they wanted to worship Sauron, or treat him as a role model. But to be actively angry at Sauron for being so nasty would be rather silly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: [QUOTE]"Incorrect" would be a factual and accurate description. "Silly" is a subjective word.
I consider a belief silly if an accurate description of the belief will trigger incredulity or confusion in a neutral listener; "Wait, they believe what?" This can easily be formalised if you want to bother. Example: To believe that the surface temperature of the Sun is 1000 degrees Kelvin is incorrect. To believe that it is 100 Kelvin is silly. Another example: I had dinner the other day with some friends, one of whom is a Catholic. The conversation touched on the Rapture, a belief with which the Catholic was not familiar. When it was described to her, her literal, exact words were "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard." Since this comes from a woman who presumably believes in transubstantiation and people walking on water, I'm inclined to consider this evidence of the objective silliness of the Rapture doctrine.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'll excuse me if if think proto-Hitlers are worse than protesters, however vile the protesters are.
Like Phelps, Hitler was a protester who was able to convince others to act on his behalf. Phelps has already achieved this, and his ambitions are at least as grand as Hitler's. Raymond already beat me to the punch with regard to action versus words.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No offense intended to KOM, but in the case of mockery he would have to be positively lovey dovey in his treatment of organized religion for a few months if not years before I would take mockery from him seriously.
I advise you to read that post again. You are already defending your beliefs with every bit of rationalisation power the human mind can command, which is large. As far as I'm concerned, therefore, you're triaged. You're not the intended target of accurate descriptions of religion.
So I am beyond all hope of reform, even mocking would not sway me from my determined course of foolery? Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
