quote:It's okay to call people on bad logic when that logic results in something that modern society has determined to be terrible, but less acceptable to call people on the same logic when used to prove something socially acceptable.
I agree. But I'm happier to let those logical failures pass by for now.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheism and theism are not of equal worth; one is correct, the other isn't. It's not a question of respect, any more than heliocentrism versus geocentrism is.
KoM: proving negatives every day
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, here's the thing: we all know that we, as atheists, are more rational than people who aren't. But it is bad form to go around crowing this at the top of our voices, in the same way it would be obnoxious for someone who's very physically fit to post, in every thread that obliquely touches on nutrition and/or exercise, that all anyone needs to do to be thin is to eat less and exercise more, just like him. It may still in fact be true, but it's still obnoxious.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: KoM, you can tell yourself that all you want, but whether your assertion is true or not does change the fact that your being disrespectful is damaging both the forum and atheism as a whole.
Assertions of fact are all the better for being backed up by evidence. Do you have any? (Also, a definition of "damage to atheism as a whole" would be helpful).
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I do. I can name at least five people who will not post here because you do. This is at least partly their fault, but there's no denying that your aggressiveness on this topic has been harmful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although you can't prove negatives, and KoM's word choice does seem to suggest that he can, he is right that-- based on evidence-- it is hard to say that atheism and theism are both of equal worth any more than dragonism and adragonism are of equal worth.
It is generally acknowledged that no scientific evidence for the existence of dragons exists. Therefore, the logical default position should be adragonism: dragons do not exist.
People who believe that dragons exist in the absence of scientific evidence are invoking something more: faith. This is fine. However, given that there is no evidence for dragons, I think that the logical response is to not believe in dragons. If some other step (such as faith) is taken, this step flies in the face of available evidence. It is therefore less valid, provided you believe in the validity of scientific evidence.
The same arguments can be applied to theism and atheism.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I want to state for the record that the fact that I am addressing the issue of KoM's posts does not mean that I think his are the only or even the main problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be worth pointing out that the incident that caused this latest discussion didn't have much to do with religion, as such, at all. I don't know what specifically caused PJ to push the delete button, but in the thread about dog-foxes, I think the most probable issue was my posting on Ron's honesty and responding to his resulting challenge to "answer to him"; a personal attack, which didn't have any direct connection to religion. Now, once one participant says "You're dishonest", there is clearly no purpose to further discussion; whether the accusation is true or not, its mere utterance prevents any serious conversation, for how can one argue with a liar? What you say, he'll merely come up with some lie to contradict you. Thus, I do not intend to respond to Ron in the future. (Unless of course he wishes to arrange for that duel, which he can do through seconds; I feel convinced that Blayne would be willing to act as my friend in this matter.) So the immediate difficulty is unlikely to come up again, at least with Ron and me as the principals.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had. (And that, once you cease giving it such respect, there seem to be a lot more visible genitalia than you would generally expect a sovereign ruler to display.) You'll note that for all the exaggerated nicey-niceness, nobody was convinced by anyone else or came to any actual conclusions. Give me a willingness to actually discuss the dang issue until a decision is reached, over flowers and fluffy bunnies, any day.
The problem I have with the way this has played out is that every thread even remotely touching on religion turns into the same argument. It might be the only argument you want to have, but it's not the only discussion other people want to have. There was a thread on the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage that could have been really interesting, had it not turned into "religious people are irrational" "uh uh" "uh huh." The same with dozens of others. It's comparable to if someone here thought videogames were a waste of time and insisted on turning every thread about them into an argument about whether they were worth playing at all. They might have a valid point, but the rest of the people in the thread want to talk about whatever the actual topic was. That's not special consideration due to religious topics, it's basic consideration due to people.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made.
You and me both.
Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
Without religion posts from those two, this forum would have been much more pleasant over the last 2-3 years. Just those two, and just that subject.
I'm all for subject bans. Actually, I'm all for putting them both on a moderated posting status like newbies on Yahoo groups. Every post must be approved by the mods before it's allowed. That might cut down on some of the worst nonsense.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assertions of fact are all the better for being backed up by evidence. Do you have any? (Also, a definition of "damage to atheism as a whole" would be helpful).
Evidence of damage to the forum has been discussed at length. I'll go ahead and admit I don't have widespread statistical evidence to back up my damage to atheism as a whole statement. However, note the fact that my father, an atheist, felt compelled to leave alt.atheism precisely because your behavior was common there.
I assume you're trying to emulate people like Dawkins. I'm not entirely sure whether or not I like what Dawkins does in the first place, but there is a major difference between Dawkins (a world renowned biologist and atheist) who gets publishing deals based on his books being confrontation, which in turn helps provide atheists something to rally around and come out of the closet... and you, who have come to one particular corner of the internet where there already were plenty of respectable atheists and creating a hostile environment where it's hard to have a productive conversation about religion at all.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I think that this may be one of the least productive types of statements one can make. You're challenging the positions of people who disagree with you before anyone's even stated any. In fact, you're making it personal.
I'm just saying. It's not particularly rude and it doesn't break any rules, but it doesn't usually encourage productive discussion.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I think that this may be one of the least productive types of statements one can make. You're challenging the positions of people who disagree with you before anyone's even stated any. In fact, you're making it personal.
I'm just saying. It's not particularly rude and it doesn't break any rules, but it doesn't usually encourage productive discussion.
Actually I didn't mean it personally, but I said what I did because I think anyone who disagrees with that statement is trolling hard, most probably. It's not a certainty, but...a high probability, IMHO. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt this post will be as comprehensive, because I don't think it should wait until I can address everything. And if I had been around earlier it would have received comment earlier.
KoM, I don't know where the line will end up being on a lot of issues, but while holding your position doesn't break the rules of this forum, I think it's quite clear that the way you express them does. If you think that's wrong and the people who run this place have their heads in the ground, that's also a position you are welcome to hold. If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
I recognize that there isn't pure clarity on the issue -- as Teshi said, it's difficult to separate criticism of the religion from criticism of the believer. It seems you don't even care to make the distinction, though.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rarely post in threads and mostly lurk pretty much because of the hostility. I enjoy talking about religion and will happily argue positions I don't believe in, because most people I know will do so in a genial, curious, spirited way. It's in the nature of academic give-and-take.
I don't talk here because I don't feel like getting into shouting matches or having to prove God exists or doesn't exist. There are so many other interesting facets of human experience. It doesn't always matter if God exists or not, because people will continue to believe in religions regardless, and that in itself is worthy of discussion and debate, not to mention actual, descriptive debates about beliefs and customs. Really, I'm sad that I can't enjoy those discussions here.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I don't talk here because I don't feel like... having to prove God exists or doesn't exist.
Seriously. Personally, I manage to get through my day, week, and even month, quite often, without ever arguing this question, online or IRL. It's just not that interesting to me. Maybe after Moore's Law has run its course, then it might start being more interesting to me. Until then, I hold out hope that science will get good enough to answer all questions, including the existence of God/spirits/souls, or equivalent things. Meanwhile, I don't have enough knowledge/brains to figure out the answer, so I don't talk or think about it too much.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made. That's how counter-productive I find his tone and presentation.
I feel like collateral damage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made.
You and me both.
Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
Without religion posts from those two, this forum would have been much more pleasant over the last 2-3 years. Just those two, and just that subject.
I'm all for subject bans. Actually, I'm all for putting them both on a moderated posting status like newbies on Yahoo groups. Every post must be approved by the mods before it's allowed. That might cut down on some of the worst nonsense.
Does anyone else find it ironic to see personal attacks in a thread called "Stop the Personal Attacks, Please"?
Papa J, can you step in, please?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually I didn't mean it personally, but I said what I did because I think anyone who disagrees with that statement is trolling hard, most probably. It's not a certainty, but...a high probability, IMHO.
Gotcha.
As for productivity, it probably isn't all that productive for me to play decorum police at a forum in which I rarely post anymore. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made.
You and me both.
Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
Without religion posts from those two, this forum would have been much more pleasant over the last 2-3 years. Just those two, and just that subject.
I'm all for subject bans. Actually, I'm all for putting them both on a moderated posting status like newbies on Yahoo groups. Every post must be approved by the mods before it's allowed. That might cut down on some of the worst nonsense.
Does anyone else find it ironic to see personal attacks in a thread called "Stop the Personal Attacks, Please"?
Papa J, can you step in, please?
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we let Lisa and KoM moderate each other? Their posts are only allowed through if the other one approves.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again -- there's a lot in this thread to reply to. For now, I'd appreciate it, especially as we work through this, if those who wish to discuss this could discuss behaviors rather than people.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It is therefore less valid, provided you believe in the validity of scientific evidence.
No.
It is less valid if you believe that scientific evidence is the only type of valid evidence. Which is a perfectly reasonable worldview, though not one I happen to share.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of people on this board believe homosexuality is evil, too, and yet they manage to stay civil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
If you don't mind: Am I subject-banned, or not? This conditional seems to imply a final warning before the ban comes down, but I'd hate to interpret a mod order wrongly and overstep a line I didn't know was there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: what the heck is your definition of evil?
In this case: Selfishness so extreme that it demands the universe bend to match one's personal opinion. I do not say that this is the only form of evil, of course; just the one most commonly encountered on discussion boards.
quote:Lots of people on this board believe homosexuality is evil, too, and yet they manage to stay civil.
I think perhaps they might start objecting rather loudly if someone started spamming gay porn all over a thread. That aside, it's true that not many of the theists here have the courage of their convictions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume you're trying to emulate people like Dawkins.
Gah! No! I hate this! Dawkins is generally freakishly, Britishly polite! Seriously.
Indeed. I think one could reasonably make the case that KoM is emulating the approach of a Hitchens or a PZ Myers, the metaphorical bad cop(s) to Dawkins' good cop. One exhibit, his interaction with questions during the release of The God Delusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
I don't think one can reasonably make the points that he did and as effectively while being more polite. One cannot say the same about KoM's approach.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I disagree in the case of both posters. (And, yes, I will be explaining it shortly )
Wanted to address this after fully finishing dinner. It seems that the case of KoM is moot depending on exactly what subject he is specifically subject banned from.
However, I have to note why I disagree in Lisa's case (or rather in the case of Lisa's behaviour).
Lisa's behaviour in regards to religion in general, I don't find a problem despite fundamentally disagreeing with it totally. While she doesn't hesitate to state her views when they are relevant, she is honest about her reasoning, and doesn't generally bring it up to "troll."
In fact, the behaviour that is more controversial is merely when she replies on threads having to do with Israel*, and I think that in some cases there are actual trolls that she is responding to that may deserve a "subject ban." (in quotes because I disagree with the practice in theory)
* I can see how this would be a controversial line to draw
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Intervene more, and at more length. At the very least, step in in situations like the one between Ace of Spades and Lisa, where he's being disingenuously anti-Semitic and she's being, well, Lisa, and publicly suggest that neither of them are entitled to do what they're doing. You don't need to ban either one; you just need to remind them that you can, and use that "power" to get straight answers from them.
What does "disingenuously anti-Semitic mean? Does that mean that she's an anti-Semite feigning outrage at being identified as such, or that she's only pretending to be anti-Semitic.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think being actually anti semitic in words but claiming its not anti semitic.
IP: Logged |
posted
Probably most people would agree that we cannot "prove" conclusively either that God exists or does not exist. Therefore it is foolish for anyone to make assertions either way, including saying that all theists are illogical, or some such sentiment, which is really just propaganda--uttered by people I would suspect feel on the defensive, because they know they are such a small minority.
It is entirely proper to discuss the comparative likelihood of the existence of God or the non-existence of God. It would seem really hard to credit as illogical the position that the immense complexity of the universe, and especially the DNA molecule, tend to argue in favor of the existence of God. Atheists cannot deny that this is reasonable. All they can do to counter this is to try to distract people with the question, "Where did God come from?" Since we have to account for how the universe got here anyway, it is no more improbable to posit the existence of God than to posit that the physical universe just created itself somehow. The former would account for the high level of order we observe in the cosmos, because it requires Intelligence to create order. The latter would not explain this at all. Something else in addition would have to be proposed and added to it.
This is a philosophical debate. It has religious implications, as well. But such debate requires logical argument, not mere opinionated assertions. And regardless of the arguments presented, everyone is entitled to weigh for himself the weight of the arguments, and make his/her own choices about comparative likelihood.
To say that theists have to be illogical, or inferior in any way intellectually to atheists, is in fact an attempt to deny others freedom of choice in an area where each individual truly does have freedom and the right to choose for himself or herself what he will believe is most likely. It is not at all a matter of who is more intelligent, it is a matter of wisdom. Who is wise, and who is a fool? In that vein, it might be asked what does a person stand to lose if he believes that God exists and He does not?--And in contrast, what does a person stand to lose if he does not believe in God, and He does exist?
Fear of the wrath of God, or of losing everything; or the hope of gaining everything including eternal life--are not the right motivations Christians would urge on people for believing in God, and certainly not for loving Him. While these may be inducements for starting out, we would also urge the mature concerns for what is Good and Just, and for the prospect that agapé love will prevail as the ruling principle of the whole universe. But these are valid questions in terms of whether someone is being wise or foolish in terms of risk assessment.
Why does one really choose not to believe in God? Is it really just because of what that one perceives as the "weight of evidence?" What is so horrible to some people about believing in God? The vast majority of people do not agree that the weight of evidence favors non-belief.
I can only guess it must be the prospect of being answerable to God as Judge, on the basis of divinely given Moral Law. Deny God, and you deny the Judgment, you deny that you are a sinner, you deny that you have any reason to feel guilt or shame for anything. But then, why do even atheists still feel guilt and shame, anyway?
True, the Law of God condemns all humans as sinners, because we fall short of matching God's righteousness as the ultimate standard of measuring what is righteous. But the Bible teaches that God has established for us a way back to renewed fellowship with Him, without doing away with the Law. The ultimate righteousness of the Law is the agapé love of God--which creates value in the undeserving object of the love--and so it is God's own righteousness that ultimately saves us--if we will confess we are sinners, and that God alone is righteous.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I doubt this post will be as comprehensive, because I don't think it should wait until I can address everything. And if I had been around earlier it would have received comment earlier.
KoM, I don't know where the line will end up being on a lot of issues, but while holding your position doesn't break the rules of this forum, I think it's quite clear that the way you express them does. If you think that's wrong and the people who run this place have their heads in the ground, that's also a position you are welcome to hold. If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
I recognize that there isn't pure clarity on the issue -- as Teshi said, it's difficult to separate criticism of the religion from criticism of the believer. It seems you don't even care to make the distinction, though.
What do we do when a certain someone's argument boils down to "God said so, you're all doomed, dinosaurs are dragons, and all of you are wrong despite all the evidence saying otherwise that I'm conveniently ignoring because it isn't good enough for me".
At some point we can't convince him and the thread will continue to go downhill.
IP: Logged |
quote:Gah! No! I hate this! Dawkins is generally freakishly, Britishly polite! Seriously.
You've said this before, and while I agree with the statement "Religious fanatics get away with being way more rude and confrontational than Dawkins is" I think that regardless of how politely he speaks, he does still do things that are counterproductive in a similar way to how KoM does things. In particular I'm recalling a documentary where he goes and talks to a bunch of creationist students and tells them they're wrong in a way that felt like he was talking down to them and didn't give them any reason to question their preconceived idea. And then of course, there's going and titling your book "The God Delusion." However well founded the ideas behind it are (and from what I've read, even in atheist circles, the book doesn't disprove anything other than a very narrow definition of God), the title immediately implies that theists are fools and puts them on the defensive.
The other thing is that regardless of how Dawkins ACTUALLY acts, he's developed the reputation for brash rudeness and there are definitely people who try to emulate that reputation, without Dawkin's wit or charisma.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, your posts on religion more often than not read (to me) like proselytizing. Independent of the truth of your posts, that makes them against the rules here. Please stop.
Blayne -- at that point, or any point, one can stop taking part without conceding (whether another person claims victory or not).
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief, even a thread asking us to clean things up has devolved into whether God exists or not.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Blayne, you are misrepresenting the position of those like me who oppose your views. My arguments are backed up with reason and concrete evidence. Your refusal to accept them does not entitle you to ridicule my position as if I did not give you good arguments.
Why must the thread "continue to go downhill" as long as you cannot force me to accept your views? Who is it who is really doing violence to civil, reasonable discussion?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Papa Janitor, I was only trying to explain why belief in God is not a negative thing, but a good thing. Many atheists have only a very negative view of religion.
Proselytizing is trying to persuade people to join your church or religion. While I have identified my denominational affiliation in the past, here and now I have only stated the issues of righteousness and the desirability of beliving in God in purely philosophical terms--which I hope are clearly enough stated for anyone to understand them.
If you wish to ban me for speaking of the agapé love of God, I would be honored.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And then of course, there's going and titling your book "The God Delusion." However well founded the ideas behind it are (and from what I've read, even in atheist circles, the book doesn't disprove anything other than a very narrow definition of God), the title immediately implies that theists are fools and puts them on the defensive.
I recently watched parts of Wheels on Meals. There is a segment where the main characters lose the four bolts that attach a car wheel to the car and are stranded. They encounter a crazy person who tells them to simply remove one bolt from each remaining wheel to attach the last wheel to the car and get into town. When they act surprised, the crazy person responds something to the effect of, "I'm crazy, not stupid!"
I think the general idea applies here, if you got the message that the title meant that theists are fools then you received the wrong message.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that some may be imitating what they "think" they hear him saying (badly).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the book, so I don't know how the book addresses theists. However, I know that without having read the book, I heard the phrase "God Delusion" and my reaction was not "well, this must be a nuanced look at how people can be crazy in one particular area while still being fully functioning intelligent citizens," my reaction was a (sarcastic) "well, that's going to go over well with the theists he's trying to convert."
The title of your book is the first impression you make, and if you go for shock/insult value to get people to pick your book up you're going to have work overtime to get them OFF the defensive. (reviews I've read of the God Delusions suggest he didn't really succeed there). I know I am not alone in my interpretation of the title's message. If I'm wrong, that makes Dawkin's bad at communicating, not me bad at interpreting.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Papa Janitor, I was only trying to explain why belief in God is not a negative thing, but a good thing. Many atheists have only a very negative view of religion.
Proselytizing is trying to persuade people to join your church or religion. While I have identified my denominational affiliation in the past, here and now I have only stated the issues of righteousness and the desirability of beliving in God in purely philosophical terms--which I hope are clearly enough stated for anyone to understand them.
If you wish to ban me for speaking of the agapé love of God, I would be honored.
Oh wow, matyrdom if that doesn't prove what we're saying...
IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. I must say that as martyrdoms go, "I was banned from Hatrack on account of my opinions" is unlikely to impress anyone with the power to bind and to loose.
Anyway, Blayne, I think you would be better off doing as I did, and just ignoring him. There's clearly no getting through his web of self-deceit short of a nuke; since, alas, those aren't available yet (the Internet tech path needs some serious rebalancing, IMO), Coventry is probably better than trying to engage with him. There's no profit in dealing with those who won't argue honestly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is less valid if you believe that scientific evidence is the only type of valid evidence. Which is a perfectly reasonable worldview, though not one I happen to share.
Fair enough.
*
I'd like to make the distinction between Dawkins being polite (which he is frequently) and soft with his beliefs (which he is not). He can be quite caustic. He's certainly uncompromising.
PZ Meyers is not significantly more caustic than Dawkins, he's merely less polite. KoM is less polite still.
Part of the problem is that people like Ron Lambert, who has been told off by Papa Janitor in this thread, do say things that are as offensive as KoM says. It is as hard for an atheist not to speak out against comments like Ron's as I imagine it is for a theist not to speak out against KoM.
One thing that I think falls by the wayside is that many atheists (not myself, but many others) are in a minority in their community. They are constantly presented by the same arguments that they must deal with. These arguments often carry some implicit or explicit moral judgment (see Ron's comment above).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However well founded the ideas behind it are (and from what I've read, even in atheist circles, the book doesn't disprove anything other than a very narrow definition of God), the title immediately implies that theists are fools and puts them on the defensive.
The central point of The God Delusion is that there is no more evidence for God than there is for any other popular delusion -- like alien abduction, etc. -- and yet we accord to religious belief (and religious belief alone) an odd respect that declares it "out of bounds." Since that's the entire point of the book, I think it's a perfectly reasonable title. It's also worth noting that the book is not intended to persuade theists that God does not exist; rather, it is intended to persuade atheists that they should not be afraid to simply come out and say, "No, I don't think your God exists" for fear of being rude.
In fact, you might observe that the mere idea that "The God Delusion" is a rude, offensive title is itself evidence of how unreasonable theists are about this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, it is hard for theists to refrain from speaking out against the comments Ron makes. The only thing that makes it easier for me is that I wouldn't know where to start.
Note: that is a comment on Ron's posts not on Ron himself. FWIW.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
