Clutch

livius, thanks. Is it the same old people doing it? Not a rhetorical question -- really, I don't often (have to) take note. No, wait... I guess a few names come to mind. But are they the bulk of the "noise", in your experience, or is it just that there always someone or other who's fed up and bitchy on that pertickler day?
Nor mine. The "holy grail" business was meant to be Gently Mocking Satire of those who do seem to take deconverting people seriously as a good in itself. (I know you knew this.) I care a lot more about how people vote than about what they believe. If engaging the latter is a way of affecting the former, count me in, I guess -- but flattening the tires of fish-symbol cars on election day is probably more effective.
If it's vitriolic rhetoric, then, as I've said, I agree. My point had more to do with the considerable gap between stuff that makes some theists feel attacked and stuff that is genuinely beyond the pale. I think the barefaced assertion that Christianity is a cult, as in, "You probably don't even recognize that you're a cult member!", is pointless and counterproductive -- falling under "aggressive style". But I also think that it's true, and entirely fair game, to explain that it's only contingent factors and familiarity that distinguish Christianity from cults in many respects. Yet that observation alone is enough to send many theists off with a story about how they were attacked and insulted. I don't know how to get round this, or even whether one should try. But I was getting a feeling, from the earlier portions of this thread, of a dichotomy between saying things that hurt and insult Christians, and saying things that are hateful and dogmatic. There's a lot of logical space left untouched in there.
Agreed, and amen.
There's no such thing as the title of Speaker in the social and political context, though. There are many speakers, even just within Christianity. I'm talking about one kind, as you point out, and even that one is a rough-and-ready kind at best. But I don't quite see what bestowing even a title of Speaker might amount to, in this context. Is the idea that fundamentalists are seen as politically or commercially or socially influential because atheists single their doctrines out for refutation? I think I'm missing your point here.

Starboy

Gee seebs, it was not I that made that crazy statement, but I was asked who might find it convincing. So I answered up. After all, if I don't take the bait you can't play your little game of bait the atheist. Oh and why stop at accusing me of bullying without providing evidence why not accuse me of other things as well.

Starboy

seebs

No, I asked whether you agreed with it.

I'll leave the question of whether or not my perception of you is accurate as an exercise for the reader. I happen to think you're a bully. Others may have different opinions.

Starboy

Okay drusus, I will repeat myself for your benefit. Christians are unreasonable, most Christians do not accept atheists as they are, and Christians are indeed directed by their religion to spread their religion. So yes they are carriers of something that is intolerant and unreasonable. I see that as a disease. Do you need more clarification?

Starboy

beyelzu

I am aware that this thread is by now hopelessly beyond this point, probably, anyway, I havent read it all yet.


I think we might disagree here, livius. As I tried to express in a thread about paganism in nonabrahamic relgions, I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree with people who argue a different veiw from my own, but I am unable to respect beliefs in the supernatural in most cases. And, typically, I have problems with respecting people who actually believe that they have witnessed supernatural events.

I am ok with attacking a person's beliefs and strongly in most cases, I do think that "frothing anger" is an undesirable debate tool. But, I imagine that many of my responses to theist assertions would cross the line that you would like to enforce.

Maybe that should be in question form, do my posts cross the line in your opinion? Cuz it seems to me that they might.

beyelzu

I was with you right up until here. I disagree with this. any atheist's desire to free someone is more rational by definition as it isnt based on faith. atheism is more rational than theism, and, thus, the desires arent equal.


edited to state that I shouldnt have said any atheist, instead I should have said most atheists or an atheist.

seebs

There are options other than "based on faith" and "totally rational". In most cases, the desire to have other people share your beliefs is based on emotion, and is mostly free of any hint of rationality; we rationalize after the fact, but underneath it all, we want to make sure that there's more people in "Us" than in "Them".

Given a theist premise (say, "God is real"), the desire to convert is often a rational conclusion from that premise. Now, you could argue that the premise itself is irrational... but the reasoning that leads to the desire to convert is just as rational either way.

I think it's rather begging the question to say "atheism is more rational than theism". I'd agree that weak atheism gets less support from non-rational premises than most varieties of theism, but that hardly matters; there's no rational support for strong positions on any philisophical issue. There are even rational arguments against being too skeptical...

In the end, your belief that atheism is "more rational" than theism strikes me as interchangeable with some other guy's belief that theism is "more rational." In both cases, I think there's a lot more of the normal human sampling error than there is real support for the position.

(Edit: After you edited your post, I find my post mostly superfluous; we could have an idle afternoon's debate on what percentage of atheists are rational, but I grant the general tendency.)

beyelzu

Now, this is a great point.

beyelzu

I will think about your post seebs, thanks for your response, and for what its worth, your words did have an impact.

livius drusus

That depends on the forum, I believe. Here in GRD the culture tends towards the noxious. It is indeed the same people making the bulk of the noise and many of the regulars of other upper fora who might contribute some signal rarely if ever put in an appearance here. As a matter of fact, when was the last time you posted in GRD, Clutch?

There's no probably about it. Your original example of the fundie dumbass being inhibited from braying at the PTA meeting may involve a more subtle, limited kind of change, but it works just fine for me. In fact, I find the idea of it downright thrilling.

Agreed. I can think of several very recent examples of theists seeing violence in superior knowledge, particularly in E/C and
BC&H. In GRD, however, discussions are not so highly specialized and the polemical antagonism as a matter of principle which characterizes many of the threads in here quacks a lot like an attack duck.

Agreed.

Oh I'm not using theist reactions as a measuring stick. I'm using my standard of reasonable argumentation as well as the spirit of the IIDB rules and policies which gets violated on a daily basis round here.

You'll have to ask the people on this thread who believe the fundamentalist agenda makes tolerating Christianity of any kind a form of cowardice or naivete or self-loathing.