Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 8, 2012 at 12:47am

Jason - some good points - there are many in the atheist movement who believe that we need to be aggressive in our approach because being passive isn't addressing the harm caused by religion.

Permalink Reply by Nerdlass on January 8, 2012 at 1:14am

Some of us aren't very aggressive, though... Passive inquiry can be compelling where aggression evokes aggression in turn. I think a bit of both, set in a strategic and skilled manner, will eke the best results. It's a mean beastie, religion. It has so many in its grips and like a drug addiction, those affected must be the ones to decide and climb their way out.

The more direct the strike, the better the grace and talent needed. We saw this with Christopher Hitchens in so many debates. Were I to mimic, to even try and mimic his style, I would fail before I start. I may rely on reason and do my best to instill it in myself, but by my very nature, I am empathic and pacificist. I come up as the peacemaker on various psychological tests... For me, the open-armed and receptive sounding board, with apt-timed inquiry--that is the more appropriate approach.

My brothers, one jewish, one agnostic deist, have their own ideas about the grand scheme of things. My oldest brother has his own ideas about how other faiths and atheism fit into 'god's plan.' He does not seem too receptive to leaving behind religion. My other brother has difficulty accepting a world that came about without divine guidance of some sort. At the same time, he doesn't really care about religion and has many issues with immorality in christianity. With the rest of our family being fundamentalists, by a majority, I can see why they both would not take the step to rid religion or god entirely from their lives. Still, I feel freer to converse with them about issues, empathize with their position, and hopefully shed some light on major points of interest.

I don't see my oldest brother and I agreeing regarding circumcision/(male) genital mutilation. He's really embraced judaism, and all that comes (or goes) with it.

TL;DR You need to know when to pick your battles.

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 8, 2012 at 2:37am

Nerdlass - sure - we all have our strengths and we need to play to them - I still think that atheism is a movement and a movement needs movers - slow, fast, big and small...

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on January 8, 2012 at 2:27am

Alice, I'm sure you know this but you didn't say it: between aggressive and passive there's assertive.

I understand assertive to mean being able to say I like something, I dislike something, and to set limits.

Hm-m, it's too long for a bumper sticker, "Aggressive and Passive are so Binary".

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 8, 2012 at 2:42am

Tom - LOL - yes sure - I've been having quite a few conversations about this with others on facebook - about aggressive angry atheists and their role - and abusive behaviour expressed at religious groups and socially acceptable behaviour within atheists circles.  Brought up issues such as Dawkins ridiculing, skep chick lift saga, greta's list of reasons we are angry, the privilege of being able to insult people in a politically correct way etc...

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on January 9, 2012 at 7:11am

Jason Fleming

But I am always respectful and try to remember that we all get it wrong sometimes

We all are wrong sometimes is indisputable, but what Alice is refering to in this thread is habitual irrational thinking. At least, that is what I suppose. Alice?

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 9, 2012 at 6:07pm

Madhukar - I suppose I have a few questions regarding this topic.

1. Do we as atheists need to be more considerate of treating others with kindness when they are aiming to become free thinkers?

2. Do we as atheists have reason to promote rational thinking in all circles?

3. Do we as atheists have a need to be more aggressive in our promotion of rational thinking with those of faith?

4. What are our moral responsibilities when speaking to people of faith?

In fact I'm going to start a new discussion on this....

Permalink Reply by leveni on January 8, 2012 at 9:17pm

Hi Alice,

The thoughts we have in irrational thinking may be wrong, but I don't think it is wrong to think irrationally. For example: My 7 year old nephew explained to me how we see. Nothing he said was based on any evidence what-so-ever. Everything he thought up was based only on what he conjured up in his own mind. He was totally wrong in his explanation, but I was happy he was actually thinking about how we see and trying to explain how we see. 

Irrational thinking is a starting point. What happens next is the interesting part. Do we decide to look for verifiability of our thoughts, do we talk to others about our thoughts and try to get an even better understand of our thoughts? 

What happened to you at the Bright's chat room, is an example of irrational thinking on the part of the Bright's. Regardless of whether a 7 year old or an adult is irrational in their thoughts, should we just ridicule anybody whose opinion we dislike or consider irrational? I prefer to encourage people to think for themselves. Put, what I personally consider to be evidence and proof in front of them and let them make their own decision. And if they have a different opinion, I'm more than happy to listen to it, and read any proof they have. But ridicule? I think it is a lazy way out of a debate.

In debates there are two options: 

 

Option one: Ridicule, but if you ridicule others, all that happens is you get better and better at ridiculing others.

Option two: Showing evidence, but if you start showing evidence for your opinions every time you enter a debate, all that happens is you get better and better at showing evidence every time you enter a debate. 

 

In my mind ridicule is irrational. 

 

I agree with everything you have written. And I hope others outside Atheist Nexus also think about this type of thing. 

 

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 9, 2012 at 1:43am

I agree with you leveni - in terms of having compassion and understanding of difference.

Is the 7 year old irrational though?  Or is he just rational with the evidence that he has in front of him?

Here is Richard Dawkins telling us why and how to ridicule others:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Ni_wn-OiQ

Here his is again on Q and A being called on ridicule by Tony Burke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cxnZWeZXbo&feature=related

Permalink Reply by leveni on January 11, 2012 at 8:19pm

Hi Alice, 

Is the 7 year old irrational though?  Or is he just rational with the evidence that he has in front of him? 

Maybe this is what I should have said. 

 

I watched the videos, but I don't really think Dawkins ridicules people at all. I think his interpretation of ridicule is not really ridicule. In general people don't base their ridicule on fact. They just mock without reason. 

I think there is a difference between ridicule based on fact and ridicule for the sake of ridicule. I tend to think ridicule based on fact is not really ridicule. Even though the person on the receiving end may think it is. 

 

I watched all six ABC Q and A, they were interesting. The only time Dawkins seems to have ridiculed anyone was when he raised his eyebrows at Steven Fielding. But apart from that, Dawkins only spoke provable facts. I was Tony Burke who baselessly ridiculed, and he did it to score points rather than speak the truth. 

Thanks for the link.

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 11, 2012 at 9:19pm

Leveni - I was proud of what Dawkins said and was just sad that he didn't get the opportunity to say more.

I see what you mean about the nuances of ridicule :)

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 9, 2012 at 2:28am

Dawkins - on ridicule - a little way along in the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=YyYXz...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Next ›
• Page