"Athiests Need to Just Shut Up"

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Be that as it may, it doesn’t mean that people who are white or people who are Christian cannot be persecuted (the original term used by Johnny Angel, or discriminated against, your term). For one thing, a person may be white or Christian (or both) and still be a part of some persecuted minority. Like poor white Appalachian trash snake handlers. Their poverty puts them in a persecuted class. But aside from the excluded middle fallacy, it is also possible to persecute a majority class. Power-greedy lawmakers or business tycoons, for example, may abuse the entire general populace in which the vast majority of people have no jurisprudential doctorate.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but I still think that when Christians or whites claim discrimination, simply as Christians or as whites (and I have heard such claims), it rings hollow when the group claiming persecution is the overwhelming majority, and I find it to be a poor analogy to atheists, who are a very small minority.

And I have to say, you come off rather pompous when you cite logical fallacies in an informal discussion. :rolleyes:

162

[QUOTE=tdn]
Dio, private question: What did you think of The God Delusion?
[/QUOTE]

While I tend to agree, in principle, with a lot of what Dawkins says, I think he has a tendency to be overly polemic in how he says it. Calling all religious belief “delusional,” for instance, might be a little strong. I might think belief in gods is unfounded, I don’t think it should be compared to insanity or psychosis. I understand where he’s coming from, but I think he overdoes it and that he’s more likely to put theists on the defensive than to persuade them that they’re wrong.

I also think he tends to be too categorical in his assertions that all religious belief is socially toxic and necessarily leads to fanatacism, bigotry, etc.

He does better when it comes to actually defending atheism, countering the classical arguments for God and debunking ID. When he argues like a scientist, he’s rock solid, when he tries to be a psychologist or sociologist, not so much.

I mostly agree with what Dawkins says but sometimes I wince at how he says it, and sometimes I think he goes too far. I also worry somewhat that he personifies the the stereotype of an elitist, supercillious, atheist, “intellectual” and is not always the best ambassador for atheism.

I also understand that Dawkins has spent years trying to debate creationists. That could make anyone become snippy.

I think i might prefer Sam Harris, or better yet, Carl Sagan.

163

[QUOTE=Raygun99]
And in this case, they are being persecuted for their poverty, not their religion.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that contradicts the point I made how?

I didn’t make any analogy. Jesus, this thread is full of…

… non sequiturs.

164

[QUOTE=Liberal]

I didn’t make any analogy. Jesus, this thread is full of…

[/quote]

Uh, did you forget that you jumped in on a reply I made to Johnny Angel? Where did I say you made that analogy?

Here’s a tip - just because you know the name of a fallacy doesn’t mean you should throw it out indiscriminately.

165

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yes, and that contradicts the point I made how?
[/QUOTE]

It’s silly to claim that as an example of Christians being persecuted. You may as well pick out a left hander in the group and claim that it’s an example of left handers being persecuted. When we say someone or some group is being persecuted, what they are being persecuted for is the subject at hand, not any other peripheral characteristics they may happen to have.

166

[QUOTE=Liberal]
What on earth would lead you to believe otherwise?
[/QUOTE]

Karen Hunter’s fear, surely well-grounded, that me and 3 million of my closest friends are on the attack against her and 200 million of her fellow believers. Why else would CNN think it wasn’t necessary to ask an atheist, or somebody who even thought atheism was okay, to go on the air and talk about atheism?

You’ll have to excuse me for being sarcastic, Lib. I don’t have anything against Christians as a group. But religious idiots make me nuts. She was ignorant about atheists taking prayers out of schools, and school prayer is “the real discrimination,” not the Rice family being thrown out of their home for being atheists.

When Stephen A. Smith is the voice of reason on a TV discussion, something is seriously fucked.

167

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I mostly agree with what Dawkins says but sometimes I wince at how he says it, and sometimes I think he goes too far. I also worry somewhat that he personifies the the stereotype of an elitist, supercillious, atheist, “intellectual” and is not always the best ambassador for atheism.
[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%. I REALLY winced at his assertion that childhood sexual abuse is less traumatic than Catholicism. I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten hanged for that.

Still, I really enjoyed it. Lots of LOL moments.

168

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
You in a Baptist area, too?

I’m an Atheist who is technically Catholic. I’m like damned squared down here.

-Joe
[/QUOTE]

I’m in the Bay Area, where Christians are a minority. When I lived in the South, I lived in the heart of Cajun country. I’m sure there are bigoted Cajuns, but on the whole I found them pretty cool. I had real long hair, and a Yankee accent, when I moved down there and was never hassled.

169

[QUOTE=tdn]
Agree 100%. I REALLY winced at his assertion that childhood sexual abuse is less traumatic than Catholicism.
[/QUOTE]

Did he actually argue that in those terms? I remember him relating the story of the girl that had been sexually abused as a child but found the trauma of believing she was destined to end up in Hell many more times traumatic, which would validate the above assertion for her, at least. Although, I wouldn’t put it past Dawkins to state something like that so explicitly; there were a few occasions while reading the book that I wanted to extend my hand, palm down, and softly ‘shhh’ in the manner one would display when someone gets a bit carried away.

170

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m in the Bay Area, where Christians are a minority. When I lived in the South, I lived in the heart of Cajun country. I’m sure there are bigoted Cajuns, but on the whole I found them pretty cool. I had real long hair, and a Yankee accent, when I moved down there and was never hassled.
[/QUOTE]

I have a feeling the ones that do get hassled are the like the ones **Bear_Nenno ** described:

Amen! Or Hear, hear! Or Word! (you choose)

171

[QUOTE=Hogwash]
Did he actually argue that in those terms?
[/QUOTE]

Not quite as harshly as I put it, no. And he did cite the case you mentioned. And to be fair, he did differentiate between a little creepy fondling and aggravated buggery.

172

[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog]
I think atheists can be every bit as smug and patronising as the most fundie Christian. I very much think of atheism as a religion when it comes to certain people, and my main problem with religion isn’t their invisible man in the sky but their hypocrisy when it comes to humility. If ever there was an oxymoron, it would be “preaching humility”. Both sides do it (badly).
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the delayed reply… it took me a while to get through this thread, but I wanted to respond to this post, as being representative of the several memes:
-“Atheism is a religion”
-“Atheist jerks are just as bad as, and somehow equivalent to, religious jerks”
-“Atheism is something that atheists believe irrationally and take on faith, just like religion is to religious folks”
A few points:
(1) Not believing in something is in no way logically equivalent to believing in something, particularly when it comes to how passionate one is about it. Compare belief in God to being a sports fan. Some people are huge fans of one football team. Others are fans of another football team. And others don’t follow football at all. Who’s more likely to get passionate, rioting, or violent? Someone who really loves a football team and thus gets excited/depressed about something? Or someone who doesn’t follow football, and really passionately wants to display his lack-of-interest? Sure, some of the people who don’t follow football are probably preachy and holier-than-thou and snotty about it, comparing it to unspeakably cruel gladiatorial combat, or mocking the concept of being-a-fan in general, or what have you. But are they ever going to be out in the streets tipping over cop cars?

Compare that to religion vs. atheism. People talk a lot of about snotty superior atheists. There are some. Not NEARLY as many as one would believe from how often they’re discussed, but some. But, so what? Sticks and stones… if the worst thing the extreme fringe of the atheist movement (to the extent that there is an atheist “movement”) is guilty of is being rude assholes, well, then, God bless the atheists. How much better would the world be if the worst thing the extreme fringe of religious people was guilty of was being rude assholes?
(2) Atheism is in no way a religion. A religion is not just a belief, or a lack of belief. Otherwise everyone who believed in astrology would be the followers of a religion. A religion also has tons of other things including teachings, leaders, festivals, customs, gatherings, social stuff, etc. If you look at the role religion plays in the life of a truly religious person, it is in no way the same as the role atheism plays in the life of the vast majority of atheists.
(3) As far as taking things on faith… I’m an atheist-leaning agnostic. I don’t believe in God, but can’t claim I can prove it. So if someone says “I know there is no God”, I believe that they are doing something which is vaguely comparable to taking something on faith. But (I’m not sure of the proper logical terminology here) it’s a much simpler thing they’re “taking on faith”. For instance, I don’t believe that there are super-advanced aliens from Alpha Centauri living in the salt caves of Mercury. I can’t prove it, but I don’t believe it. Thus, if one guy says “I know with certainty that there are super-advanced aliens from Alpha Centauri living in the salt caves of Mercury” and another guy says “I know with certainty that there are NO…”, I can’t really say that either of them is right, but I sure don’t view those as equally supported/supportable statements.

(3) Liberal: Do you claim that Christians are, as a group, persecuted or oppressed in the US today? You seem to be dancing around this issue. Put up or shut up.
(4) All of you who are atheists and get shit about it should move to California. Heck, everyone should move to California. (Well, now that I’m a homeowner and can only gain by a massive influx of people and the accompanying rise in housing prices.)

173

[QUOTE=tdn]
Agree 100%. I REALLY winced at his assertion that childhood sexual abuse is less traumatic than Catholicism. I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten hanged for that.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, people have tried to go after him for that. But, I think, mostly dishonestly. His point is basically to point out the fact that hell is an extremely traumatic idea for many children. He calls this child abuse, and I’m of two minds about that. On one hand, if it were REALLY child abuse, then one would support taking some sort of action against it, and Dawkins doesn’t really. On the other hand, I’m not sure what else to call it.

174

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Here’s a tip - just because you know the name of a fallacy doesn’t mean you should throw it out indiscriminately.
[/QUOTE]

What’s wrong with someone pointing out a fallacy and identifying it? It seems to be helpful if you ask me. Instead of bickering back and forth talking past each other the offender can be made aware of the fallacy and take a different tack. Isn’t that a good thing?

175

[QUOTE=Apos]
His point is basically to point out the fact that hell is an extremely traumatic idea for many children.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and it was easy to understand the point he was making. I just remember reading it and thinking that Dawkins’ house was as good as egged.

176

[QUOTE=magellan01]
What’s wrong with someone pointing out a fallacy and identifying it? It seems to be helpful if you ask me. Instead of bickering back and forth talking past each other the offender can be made aware of the fallacy and take a different tack. Isn’t that a good thing?
[/QUOTE]

The point is that merely being able to accuse someone of a fallacy isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that the other person has really committed it.

In this case, for instance, your reply is a straw man. And I’m not JUST saying that. It’s a straw man BECAUSE lowbrass’ snark was not a claim that it’s wrong to point out fallacies, but rather that this particular instance was, he believes, undeserved.

Hope that clears things up.

177

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
(3) Liberal: Do you claim that Christians are, as a group, persecuted or oppressed in the US today?
[/quote]
No, goddamit. I said what I said. It is possible to be both a Christian AND a member of a persecuted group, such as black or poor. If you disagree with that, then argue with that.

Kiss my ass. I’ll say what I please.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then. It arose because I did state that it is possible for a majority to be persecuted (and gave an example). I was responding to “it rings hollow when the group claiming persecution is the overwhelming majority”.

Yes, but that doesn’t make the negation of the antecedant true. If someone says that “[n]either whites nor Christians are a minority”, and therefore aren’t persecuted, then the person is neglecting subsets of both populations that indeed are persecuted. As a matter of fact, groups within the set can even discriminate against each other, as in black Christians who oppose marriage for gay Christians.

I understand and agree. But I think it would be a good thing for a lot of Christians to realize that they’ve not done right by atheists. There’s no reason that that realization should compromise their faith or principles, however. In fact, those are what should convict them.

178

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I understand and agree. But I think it would be a good thing for a lot of Christians to realize that they’ve not done right by atheists. There’s no reason that that realization should compromise their faith or principles, however. In fact, those are what should convict them.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure where the “but” comes in here; I agree with this. Christians don’t have to stop being Christians in my view, I’d just appreciate if the idiots among them would stop being idiots - at least to the point where people who are different from them can exercise all their rights.

179

[QUOTE=Liberal]

No, goddamit. I said what I said. It is possible to be both a Christian AND a member of a persecuted group, such as black or poor. If you disagree with that, then argue with that.

[/QUOTE]

Why would you bother bringing up such an irrelevant point? It’s also true that some Christians will, I dunno, win the lottery, and others will die of cancer. Honestly, it’s hard for me to figure out what motivated you aside from deliberate obfuscation or some kind of desire-to-portray-Christians-as-victims-through-any-means-necessary.

180

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I’m not sure where the “but” comes in here; I agree with this. Christians don’t have to stop being Christians in my view, I’d just appreciate if the idiots among them would stop being idiots - at least to the point where people who are different from them can exercise all their rights.
[/QUOTE]
I stand beside you. And I’m sorry you’re experiencing so much hassle in the name of my Lord. If it’s any consolation, I believe that He favors your cause over theirs.