Since the beliefs of the theist side are side are utterly foolish and have been disproven again and again*, pretending respect for those believes isn’t noble and forbearing; it amounts to pandering. As for the believers, they simply have no arguments of worth, therefore where they can’t get away with outright lying they try to denigrate the character of those that oppose them. Besides, most of the time we are talking about Christian believers, a religion built around the belief that everyone who disagrees with them is evil and will be tortured forever; a religion built on omnimalignance.
And no, religion does not restrict itself to things that can’t be disproven. It has again and again throughout history made assertions about the subhuman nature of women and non-whites, that the Sun orbits the Earth, that the world is only 6000 years old, that faith can cure AIDS, and on and on. The common feature of all of this is that when a religion makes a claim that can be checked, it turns out to be wrong; it is far worse than random guessing would be. It God was real, the religious would probably deny his existence given their track record.
The “verbal wedgie” can mean extreme confidence in your position too. Can you honestly tell me that no one holds beliefs so silly that you wouldn’t mock them?
I mock people who think the earth is 6000 years old, or the earth is flat. Or if they believe the sun god is what pushes the sun across the sky. Or if they advocate refusing legitimate medical treatment because they’d rather you stick bark from a sacred oak tree up their your ass.
Surely there are some beliefs that are so silly that you’d be willing to mock them, right? Does that give their beliefs credibility?
Besides that, religion in particular is the most widespread, influential nonsense belief along these lines. You think it deserves special criticism-free status because it’s so popular, but that’s why it’s so ripe for mockery too. Mocking the flaws in the establishment is one of the key ways to really influence people to evaluate them.
I can’t agree with that idea that mockery somehow boosts the position of those being mocked, else the silliest beliefs would be the ones given the most credibility using that logic.
What difference does it make if Larry is “truly confident” or not? His argument stands on its merits, not its tone or his confidence in it.
I would say that trying to deflect a discussion away from its substance and toward an analysis of motives or manners is a strong indication that the participant suspects his side is losing and is looking for a way to shift the battlefield.
“It’s not that the atheists aren’t RIGHT, you see … they’re just so RUDE about it.”
Your post is well-written and contains some aspects I hadn’t considered. Your last sentence, though, is misguided; I never indicated that I believe the position of the, er, mockee is stronger because he was mocked. Rather, I am questioning the mocker’s own strength of conviction. Two different things.
Absolutely incorrect. I’m not trying to ‘deflect’ anything, I was merely making an observation. I’m actually less interested in the debate itself - c’mon, as if we all haven’t heard all this before and maybe someone will change their position this time - than the way it is being debated.
I guess I’m just looking for a new angle. The atheist vs. theist discussion has become, to me, a bit of a yawn.
mmm
That’s not quite all though though. You plainly said you tend to dismiss arguments by debaters who act superior or make snide comments, and your stated reason for doing so was that they didn’t seem confident enough in their position. I don’t see any way that statement is compatible with now saying you still weigh each argument on its own merits.
An argument can be tentative and still right, emphatic and still wrong. Unless the argument is about manners or behavior or kindness, I don’t see what being a big snot has to do with anything. Sure, it will likely mean fewer people want to play with you, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
Well, nobody, but etv78 and Contrapuntal seemed to be unaware that they’re AIs living in an actually-pretty-badly-rendered simulated world. (They only don’t notice the numerous glitches because they’re programmed not to.)
Most mocking I’ve seen comes from frustration, not a lack of conviction. It can also be used to point out special pleading, which is quite common.
If one side is getting mocked out of a lack of strength of conviction from the other side, they should be able to find the holes in the argument leading to this, and attack them. I’ve never noticed this happening, have you?
I can’t even begin to tell how sick I am of people beginning their trove of self-centered internet babble with “Am I the only one who…”
Yes. You’re the only one. You are a beautiful and unique snowflake dutifully raging against the tides of an oppressive nemesis. Please waste the next five minutes of my time explaining how extraordinary and incomparable your positions is.
Is the OP seriously expressing some sense of isolation at being someone who believes in the Judeo-Christian god ON THE INTERNET?
Pro tip: Christians enjoy an unparalleled majority in this country. Virtually all of their claims and demands, no matter how ridiculous, receive ample attention and consideration whether they deserve it or not.
Let go of the persecution complex. You haven’t earned the right to play the victim.