The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

That's so Theist!

I've noticed that atheists are rather fond of a particular form of insult that doesn't exist outside of our cultural bubble. I'm sure you've heard it before, slung at a Nexus member in the heat of discussion: "that sounds like religious groupthink", "your argument is something only a creationist would use", "that's theist logic". Every time I read something like that, all I can think is: Really? Do you really have to go there?!

This sort of thing ought to be avoided. If you think that you have a superior argument, lay it out clearly with supporting evidence. If you think that the other person has an error in thought, identify it within context and contrast it with something better. Don't degrade the quality of your message with a banal slur.

Edit: This discussion is about atheists calling each other theists as an insult. If you encounter a theist on the Nexus, simply "report an issue".

Discussion Topics:

1. What do you think of the use of theist-related words as insults?

2. In what ways do you think our stereotypes of theists are correct, and in what ways are they unjustified?

Tags: ad hominem, personal attacks

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Glenn Sogge on February 10, 2010 at 9:01am

I have no problem with the occasional insult. In fact, I was moved to come up with one of my own last summer: What The Fundie !@?#@?! .... on my (sadly uncared for) blog.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on February 12, 2010 at 3:06pm

I just tried to comment but it won't let me as I'm not a member.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Sogge on February 12, 2010 at 5:55pm

Have to look into that as I didn't think I had any restrictions set up.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Phillips on February 10, 2010 at 9:24am

In regards to discussion topic 1: I only recently joined AN, and I've noticed this problem as well. It's really discouraging to see such immaturity, arrogance, and intellectual laziness. It doesn't matter how right someone thinks they are, you always have to show your work (logical argument), and assess another's argument with, at least some, respect.

to 2: This depends on context. Are we talking about fundamentalists who interpret the bible literally? In certain cases, I believe it's okay to mock them, but not necessary. Their beliefs are easy to show contradictions to, and even when doing this politely, it's almost hard for this not to come across as mocking them. For theistic philosophers and scientists, I think we ought to respect them, go over their arguments and evidence honestly, and demonstrate politely where they are wrong. If we don't do this, how can we expect our own views to be taken as seriously? Also this prevents them from [honestly] claiming that we're not taking them seriously or really engaging their arguments.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on February 12, 2010 at 8:42pm

I've seen some people use not only theism as an insult, but there is also the assumption that logic is on their side, and people accuse each other of being illogical, using strawman arguments, etc.

I have seen some people's views on certain political issues being the same as the religious view. Some people also don't believe in God but treat some other idea like a religion. Calling each other illogical, well, at least back up what's illogical about it.

Mostly I think some people get fired up and write something before they get a chance to think about it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DaVinci on February 13, 2010 at 12:39am

As individuals on either or all sides of the on-going debate participate over time, a certain amount of jadedness sets in. Sooner or later you've heard it all. It amazes me that the debate still continues when this happens. It becomes a source of frustration for both sides, no matter who occupies the high ground.
In my opinion, the source material is a given and isn't really going to change that much, it's the presentation that should be tweaked. A good philosophy for me, has been to maintain civility at all times and work on a delivery based on the highest respect of your opponent, because more often than not it begets the same respect back to you and your arguments. I've heard it put into an analogy that may illustrate my point better; A farmer doesn't go out to his field and throw seeds at the ground like Nolan Ryan, seeking to penetrate to the proper depth, that would be ridiculous, rather he must take the time to remove the rocks, break up the clods, and till the ground in preparation for the planting. So to plant an idea into another person, it makes sense to do likewise and prepare them to receive your ideas with a plot of soil conditioned to grow them as best as possible. Respect, civility, and clear communication. The sages would say it like this:

"In the pond, there are some lotus's that stand above the water, and though their roots feed, they are untouched by it. Some others have risen only to the waters level, and others are still under water. Shall we seek to measure these differences, that we may treat them differently, each according to his growth? Examine the flower. Is not the flower in each position yet a flower? Shall I then treat each man the same? Yes, as far as possible without surrender, be on good terms with all. Yet the flower beneath the water knows not the sun; other men not knowing me, will find me hard to understand. Therefore, accept the ways of others, but first respect your own."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on February 13, 2010 at 2:56am

Yes, it does take time. Change doesn't happen overnight, nor do shifts in modes of thought.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 14, 2011 at 5:37pm

http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/05/38_ways_to_win_an_argument/

Here are some tips if you're short of ideas.... :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on July 17, 2011 at 4:10pm

I think the issue is that every single person has a different feeling about atheism, much like in feminism, or even religions. To deconstruct a single person's individual beliefs would be incredibly hard to do. When I refer to something as religious thinking, I am usually talking about ideas that were largely developed by religions and seem at odds with basic atheist tenants. Of course, as I said, we all have a different opinion on what is a basic tenant of atheism. For instance I consider free will to be an artifact of religious thinking and when I see an atheist making an argument that requires free will it really bugs and confuses me. In this case I would point out that ideally atheists should believe in the evidence and the evidence is pretty clear on free will. Pretty much every day the evidence against free will increases. So then I might say that if you believe in free will you are engaging in religious or theistic thinking by refusing to let go of a cherished belief just because you prefer the comforting lie that you are in control of yourself, decisions, and life.

Essentially the claim that someone is behaving like a theist isn't just an ad hominem attack, its a claim that the person is just not behaving rationally and constructing beliefs based on the evidence, and is instead choosing to believe something familiar and comfortable, something they will never change their mind on no matter how much evidence backs up the truth.

Now you can replace my choice of free will with any other belief, and the point remains. Calling someone a theist isn't like calling them a fucktard or something. Its a calculated statement used as a last ditch attempt to clarify something. It may not be very effective, but by the time someone resorts to calling a person a theist they are saying that they have basically given up the debate because the other person doesn't understand or accept reality. They could be wrong, but then human experience is totally subjective anyways, so you never KNOW you are right, and you can't PROVE it, just try and line up evidence.