|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 20, 2009 22:46:00 GMT -5
I fail to see a problem with the tracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 21, 2009 2:00:05 GMT -5
All of which I am for. But we'll get more success if we present a more mature message than "OMG PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GAWD ARE STOOPID DUR". Pretty much all atheist arguments are a more in-depth and sugar-coated version of "If you're above the mental capacity of a 9 year old, having an imaginary friend is just fucking stupid". Apart from that, all there really is is appeals to morals (I.e. say religion is bad and point to the WBC/Spansh Inquisition/911/whatever), and that's a tactic that can be used to make pretty much any point you can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 21, 2009 21:30:09 GMT -5
Not all of them, but you do have a point. Here's my thing: The tracts have a message that religions are not something to be revered. Ergo, the language sticks to that message. Besides, if you want to critically examine a claim, you should be able to disconnect from it enough that your feelings aren't hurt every time someone says something that disagrees with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Oct 21, 2009 21:45:35 GMT -5
Pretty much all atheist arguments are a more in-depth and sugar-coated version of "If you're above the mental capacity of a 9 year old, having an imaginary friend is just fucking stupid". Is there really much more that needs to be said? Regardless of how eloquent we say it? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 21, 2009 21:48:39 GMT -5
I fail to see a problem with the tracts. This. They're not near as insulting as Chick tracts. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 21, 2009 23:00:19 GMT -5
All of which I am for. But we'll get more success if we present a more mature message than "OMG PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GAWD ARE STOOPID DUR". Pretty much all atheist arguments are a more in-depth and sugar-coated version of "If you're above the mental capacity of a 9 year old, having an imaginary friend is just fucking stupid". Apart from that, all there really is is appeals to morals (I.e. say religion is bad and point to the WBC/Spansh Inquisition/911/whatever), and that's a tactic that can be used to make pretty much any point you can think of. While I agree with that sentiment, I really don't think that's the message we should be presenting. If I were to hand out tracts, I'd probably draw up something like this, but shorter. Saying "OMFG everyone who believes in a god is an idiot" is going to have a rather detrimental impact. In other words, attack the beliefs, not the people who hold them. I fail to see a problem with the tracts. This. They're not near as insulting as Chick tracts. Do we really want to use that as our baseline? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 21, 2009 23:35:46 GMT -5
No, I guess we shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 21, 2009 23:47:05 GMT -5
Pretty much all atheist arguments are a more in-depth and sugar-coated version of "If you're above the mental capacity of a 9 year old, having an imaginary friend is just fucking stupid". Apart from that, all there really is is appeals to morals (I.e. say religion is bad and point to the WBC/Spansh Inquisition/911/whatever), and that's a tactic that can be used to make pretty much any point you can think of. While I agree with that sentiment, I really don't think that's the message we should be presenting. If I were to hand out tracts, I'd probably draw up something like this, but shorter. Saying "OMFG everyone who believes in a god is an idiot" is going to have a rather detrimental impact. In other words, attack the beliefs, not the people who hold them. The example you quoted is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. It's just a lengthier version of "there is no evidence for god so therefore believing in one is absurd and downright stupid" as well as a few appeals to morals. The only real differance is that it's more in-depth than the tracts (as one would expect, given how tracts tend to have rather limited surface area) and it uses far less naughty words. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 21, 2009 23:49:38 GMT -5
I don't see what the problem is with calling stupid people stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Oct 21, 2009 23:51:22 GMT -5
How about the concept that not everybody who believes in something is stupid? Can you concede that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 21, 2009 23:59:30 GMT -5
Sure, but their idea is still stupid and should still be called stupid. Smart people can have stupid ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Oct 22, 2009 0:05:05 GMT -5
You didn't say "calling stupid ideas stupid", you said "stupid people". If you mean to criticize an idea, do so, but stop throwing eggs in the face of those who believe them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 22, 2009 0:23:30 GMT -5
I will if they're stupid. This includes the willfully stupid, otherwise intelligent people who refuse to apply that intellect to a specific idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Oct 22, 2009 0:26:50 GMT -5
What you talk about are the willfully ignorant, not the willfully stupid. You cannot will your IQ into a lower range, but you can[i/] intentionally cut yourself off from education. Let us not make of ourselves fools by equating the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 22, 2009 0:39:43 GMT -5
Ignorance has an excuse, but when you're presented with an idea and refuse to learn, that's effectively being unable to learn. Worse actually because not having the capacity isn't anybody's fault, being unwilling to use your capacity is your fault.
(Please note I'm using the general "you" not you specifically)
|
|
