Is it possible to point this question in the other direction, seeing as how that’s where the majority of the problem lies?
I’m curious: How do you feel when someone knows you’re an atheist – say, a close friend or family member – tells you they’ll pray for you, or otherwise continues to try to engage you on religious terms, as if such terms are legitimate? How do you respond?
Is it possible to avoid false dichotomies?
Depends on the context. I agree that there are certainly times when creationists need to be kept at bay. For instance, when they try and push the teaching of creationism in state run schools.
However, since we’re on the subject of state run schools, this particular professor is teaching at one. He should not bring up religion (especially a particular brand of religion) unless there is a specific need to. In this case, there is no need. If a student tries to interject it, then the student should be asked to keep religion out of the classroom, too, since the class in discussion is a science, not social studies, course. If he can’t, he should be asked to leave.
And if the professor does find the need to bring religion up, there is no need to mock it.
I can’t recall close friends or family members doing such. My family is too respectful, and I probably wouldn’t end up being friends with proselytes. If a close friend for some reason told me they would pray for me, I would probably thank them for their kind intentions but that either to not bother with the praying or to knock themselves out. Religious people tend not to care what you think though; they will probably pray harder for you because you know not what you do.
Not a false dichotomy, no matter how many times you say it. When atheists (very rarely) try to make a point about religion intruding into secular matters it is viewed as an attack and it is publicized (as it was here and elsewhere). Even the most innocuous atheist billboard is seen as controversial…if it can be put up at all. Look at the event mentioned in the OP which, in context, certainly was not out of place considering the topic and the times we live in, and yet it is in the news and in Great Debates with the ominous title " As it stands, I object to some of the ways fellow athiest try to provoke others." Religious programming abounds, there seem to be no restrictions on religious billboards as there are on atheist billboards, and good luck getting elected if you run as an open atheist against a religionist in most of the country…but let’s not “provoke” the Christians! Well, I’ve got two questions:
- What exactly falls under the category of “provoke”?
- How much effort are y’all going to make in stopping religionists from doing the exact same type of “provoking”?
I thank you for your response.
Since this thread is about atheists “trying” to provoke others of faith, I’m interested in learning what responses are considered non-provocative.
I am friends with a number of religious people and a couple of them are quite insistent about imposing their colloquialisms on me despite knowledge of my atheism. I find this disrespectful and provocative from them toward me and am always at a loss about how to handle it. I feel like they’re trying to force me to validate their way of thinking. It irritates the shit out of me. I do like your “knock yourself out,” response and will employ it in future. 
He was giving a lecture of Evolution Vs. Creationism.
You’re right. It’s more of a tu quoque than a false dichotomy.
This example.
Start a thread about that and I’ll happily answer!
- That’s an example, not a definition, and a poor one considering the topic of the lecture and the fact that he was the target of Christian groups that were ready to take offence at anything he said-the Creationist student that snapped the picture of the slide had one of those groups on speed dial. As far as the Creationists in that class and the Christian groups actively targeting him are concerned, that class is provocation enough.
Interesting. My mom was recently going through something like this with a friend who suddenly started pushing religious stuff on her. She even had a priest (or minister, I don’t recall the denomination) at a social gathering at her house, and pressed my mom to interact with him. My mom was upset by the thought of having to stop interacting with this friend.
I jokingly told her to tell them that she is a Pastafarian. My mom had never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but just that little discussion bouyed her spirits. It’s that kind of experience that makes me defend “aggressive” atheists.
People probably see the FSM concept as hostile and offensive, but now my mom is going to feel a little better and a little more empowered whenever she spies one on a bumper.
Maybe it has to do with age, but I know far more peers who are angry misanthrope atheists looking to take offense than those who are religious(shit I can’t name ANY who are religious, religions your time is coming!).
So I guess my approach is what is the point at telling off an old person who tells me god would smile on or whatever, what does it accomplish aside from being an ass?
It isn’t like they are cornering me and lecturing me about how god hates fags or whatever, just smile take the sentiment for how it was intended and move on.
These exchanges with you are quite the Gish Gallop - we’ve gone from not patronizing a restaurant to telling someone off for wishing us a nice day. When you lump all responses into one, you make all responses equally unacceptable - any non-acquiescence becomes equivalent to a finger in the eye.
Hence the overestimation of offense present in the slide in the OP.
It’s almost impossible to do anything in this world without giving offense to someone.
Recently someone thanked me and blessed me in the process, which made me profoundly uncomfortable. On the other hand, I find “happy holidays” rather than “merry christmas” fairly stupid, I don’t mind the fact that my celebration of illuminated trees has the same name as the birthday of the founder of a religion.
IMO, it’s best to split the difference and grow a somewhat thicker skin while at the same time not going out of our way to offend others rather than either bend backwards to avoid the slightest hint of an insult or descend into continuous rampant assholery.
Regarding the slide: If the goal of the class is to compare the theories of Evolution and Creationism on their merits, then I think the cartoon Jesus really does a disservice to the professor’s argument. Since creationists would never illustrate their beliefs that way, it makes it appear that he will be shooting down a straw man version creationism, rather than taking on the arguments of actual creationist believers. If he had replaced this image with say Michelagelo’s god, I think his counter arguments against creationism would seem more on target.
However, far as the OPs idea that Athiests should refrain from the tactics of the religious I strongly disagree. Given that atheists remain in the minority, we stand a much better chance of having these tactics eliminated if we can make the religous also feel the negative effects. Taking the 10 commandments monument as an example, if the choice is between Christian monuments vs no monuments, the Christian monuments will win every time. If the choice is between both Christian and Athiest monuments, vs no monuments, than you will get many hard core Christians on the no-monument side rather than risk seeing a state sponsored declaration that there is no god.
I actually tentatively support this behavior. Given that a lot of Christians see prominent religious symbolism as a reason to patronize an establishment, without a counterbalancing backlash from the other side, it makes economic sense for every establishment to be as religious as possible. However its key not to go overboard with this, as large public boycott of such an establishment can actually backfire as Christians will now see it as a moral imperative to patronize the establishment and show those evil atheists who’s boss.
I’m Christian, and I refuse to patronize an oil change place down the road from me because they put Bible verses on their sign.
I just don’t think that’s the place for it. Things like that aren’t IMHO appropriate unless the owners’ religion is relevant to the business, like a Christian bookstore or a kosher butcher.
One of my militant atheist acquaintances is on Facebook, and has had serious health problems over the past few years. A couple years ago, I posted, “I know you don’t believe in God, but that’s not going to stop a couple hundred Methodists from praying for you later this morning. I’ll see to that! Just think of us as sending big fat rays of healing energy your way.”
She thanked me and said she was just glad people were thinking positively about her.
Well, I don’t want to walk down the lane of debating definitions, but let’s just say that if you treat it with disrespect, you are provoking a response. There is no way one can call this guy’s treatment “respectful” or even “neutral”.
I do, however, take issue that he was in some sense a “target” of anyone. Unless you have info from a source other than the link in the OP, he was the instigator here. Also, as I noted upthread, this is a state school, not a private school, and so discussion of religion is more proscribed both on the advocacy and the criticism side of things.
When the topic is “Creationism”, a proven-false science pushed by religionists, why should any respect be shown or neutral tone taken? This was not a comparative philosophies class, after all-this class involved science, so I see no reason not to laugh directly at those that would push something that makes up what it lacks in facts with lies. Once again, religionists want to have their cake, and eat it too.
What is this “both ways” you’re talking about? Unless you’re referring to one religion trying to keep out another one. By definition, atheism is the default, even if one doesn’t agree it that, its in the Constitution. It is perfectly fine to have secular items in classrooms, it is not fine to have religious stuff in class