Almost. You listed three things together as facts while only the first two are actually, demonstrably, factual. The third happens to be your firmly held belief, but it has no more business in a science class than Creationism. So you have simply set yourself up as the goalie at the opposite end of the field, announcing that you would rather be an evangelist than a babysitter.
When very nearly half of the country is ignorant enough to believe in creationism, showing why it’s a stupid thing to believe in is reasonable.
It’s not like creationism is a different perspective, or an alternate explanation for the facts. It’s literally utter nonsense.
Is it possible to oppose religion without being shrill, strident or any degree of trollish?
I’m talking about the sort of atheists that will stop eating at a restaurant because the owner puts up a religious symbol, their right but god they irritate me.
If you’re talking about opposing those seeking to legislate their particular brand of sky fairy, I’ll be in the trenches.
It’s trollish, shrill or strident for me to stop dining at a restaurant because they put up a religious symbol?
Again, it seems as if the most benign acts become horrific offenses when done in response to religion.
When you tell everyone how offended you are about it, without even mentioning it to the owner, yea it is.
I’ve had people ask in shock why I named my kid a biblical name if I’m an atheist, they assume I must be an iconoclastic religion hater.
If you picket the place while uttering shrill, strident cries, then yes.
If the owner puts a giant cross over the door and I have to duck when entering to avoid hitting my head on it, I probably wouldn’t go there anymore.
Quoted the above as representative of several comments that have been made in this thread.
Atheist university professor chiming in here. It’s frankly absurd to say the picture isn’t disrespectful.* The picture is patently disrespectful. It uses an image that, in the wider cultural context, is well known as a means of making fun of the institution of Christianity, and uses a word to describe the doctrine which has disparaging connotations.
I don’t believe a university professor has any responsibility to be neutral in presentations to students. But s/he does have a responsibility to be respectful so long as s/he intends to encourage learning and participation. At the very least, from this slide I can say the prof in question did not want to encourage learning or participation. He is instead silencing some of his students from the outset. From a professional standpoint, this is wrong. He is doing a bad job. And very possibly is contributing to some harm to some of his students’ future ability and willingness to learn.
*I say this with the fairly strong caveat that we don’t know for sure what the context of the presentation of the slide was. But I am working from the assumption that seems to be shared in this thread, that the prof was presenting it as an accurate, if humorous, broad description of the two positions.
Snark aside, is this something that actually happens? Really?
Well having said what I just said, now I actually got around to reading what BPC quoted in post 18, and there’s some evidence that the slide is indeed taken quite out of context. He says he was helping students “to look at how [science and religion] are perceived around the world.” In light of that, it’s somewhat plausible that his intention in presenting the slide was to say “some people think of religious explanations disparagingly, like so,” without intending himself to be disparaging. That could be valid, and having personal experience with being badly misunderstood by students I’d never blame the prof for how (possibly only one) student misinterpreted him in class.
Prof’s explanation is a little vague, but some benefit of doubt is due here.
Nevertheless: Much of the thread has involved people saying that the slide itself, even if it were presented as a straightforward accurate description of the two views, would not be disrespectful. This is, as I said, patently absurd. It’s a paradigmatic example of disrespect in that context.
But is it helpful? Yes, creationism is ridiculous, but it’s the corner stone of certain flavors of religion. Ridiculing something central to a person’s identity typically only triggers defense mechanisms.
I have a hard time believing that 50% of Americans are hard core creationists. Probably most of that 50% are people who haven’t given it much thought and/or are comfortable with cognitive dissonance.
The best way to put creationism in its place is to refuse to talk about it within the context of science.
I think it’s disrespectful, but only very mildly so. It is perhaps on par with someone wishing me a blessed day, give or take a few units of disrespect.
Dude I know said a woman told him “god will smile on you for this” after he went out of his way to help her, he said he was offended and wanted to tell her off but held his tongue.
So yea there are a lot of hateful atheists out there.
Well, that’s not what you originally said, is it?
But even so, why should I be prohibited from telling people that I chose to stop going to a restaurant because they put up a religious symbol? That seems no more shrill or strident than saying that I don’t go to Abercrombie and Fitch because they blare noxious music there. It’s not incumbent upon me to either brace the manager or subsequently keep my opinion to myself.
And yeah, I probably would be less likely to go to a restaurant that put up a religious symbol.
I don’t want to turn this thread into being about my personal quirks, I’m just on the religion exists get over it spectrum. You can choose whatever reason not to frequent a restaurant, I just find being offended religion exists shrill and annoying.
EDIT:I’m totally against teaching the controversy, or any invasion of fictional nonsense into science education.
You find someone wishing you a blessed day disrespectful? Even granting they may not even know what atheism is or means?
If someone wishes me well in religious terms, I translate it in my mind to them wishing me well and just ignore the religious aspect.
Sure. It’s perhaps well-intentioned (although not necessarily always so), but if it was actually coming from a place of respect, I would not have to make any translation to cut out parts of it.
The other problem with the “well, Christians do it to atheists all the time” defense is that it assume people are fungible. However, as I noted earlier, I suggest we atheists learn to turn the other cheek.
Well, how very Christian of you!
Seems to me anyone objecting to the lecture slide is being more shrill than the professor who presented it.