|
Post by Lady Renae on Oct 22, 2009 0:44:48 GMT -5
I did not condone willful ignorance. Please do not mistake me.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 22, 2009 0:46:37 GMT -5
I did not try to suggest you did.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 22, 2009 9:42:04 GMT -5
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. Which is exactly my point. Any evangelistic material should come across as a reasoned argument rather than the rantings of a 14 year old. I don't see what the problem is with calling stupid people stupid. Neither do I. However, if our goal is to gain legitimacy and (de)converts, we may want to present a little more detail and have a little more tact. Contrary to the apparent beliefs of 14 year olds arguing on message boards, insulting strangers is not the best way to get them to see things your way.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Oct 22, 2009 10:04:07 GMT -5
I don't see what the problem is with calling stupid people stupid. Because stupid people don't normally understand or see themselves as stupid, so for them, instead of it being a truthful statement, it's nothing but an ad hom attack on them, and stupid people will more than generously use that claim against you from that point on whether you actually insult or not
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Oct 22, 2009 11:53:21 GMT -5
I don't see what the problem is with calling stupid people stupid. Depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to inform stupid people of their intellectual shortcomings, then that may work. If you are trying to persuade or dissuade them from an idea, calling them stupid may not be the direction you want to go. At first.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 22, 2009 14:11:24 GMT -5
I more go for pointing out the idiocy of fundamentalists to those who can see it. Better yet, make them so pissed off at me they examine their belief system for a way to refute what I said. That way the person in question comes to the conclusion without me saying what it is. There's a reason the Bible is the atheist's greatest tool.
I know that some fundies can see the flaws in their belief structure, but so many have such massive mental barriers I don't see the group as one worthwhile to persuade.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 22, 2009 14:38:11 GMT -5
I agree that forcing introspection is the best way to get people to change their minds. But again, being excessively insulting will get us written off as whiny and immature, and our arguments unworthy of any consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 22, 2009 15:43:47 GMT -5
The problem is that there is nothing we can say that won't be written off. The atheist bus ads, the ones that say "There is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" are called hateful and antitheistic. Last year there was a holiday display stating "It's possible to be good without God" and that was called bigoted. Stores having their employees say "happy holidays" is an attack on Christianity. We might as well use stronger language. We might as well deserve to be called immature. It's not like the other side has reasoned arguments and they didn't get control using reasoned arguments. They got power by taking it, they keep it by attacking everybody who is seen as a threat. They use displays like this: The flyers in this thread are nowhere near as defamatory as that ad. I see no reason to play nice.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 22, 2009 22:32:23 GMT -5
The problem is that there is nothing we can say that won't be written off. The atheist bus ads, the ones that say "There is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" are called hateful and antitheistic. Last year there was a holiday display stating "It's possible to be good without God" and that was called bigoted. Stores having their employees say "happy holidays" is an attack on Christianity. We might as well use stronger language. We might as well deserve to be called immature. So the fact that a small minority of morons will insult us no matter what we do means that we should prove them right? I don't think you've entirely thought this through. It doesn't matter what high-level religious leaders think. They've made up their minds. The people we're trying to influence are the general populace, and it's what they think that matters. I don't know how well the atheist bus campaigns were received, but I think I can state with some measure of certainty that "There's probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life." was received far better than "If you believe in a god, you're an idiot." would have been. "We might as well be what they accuse us of being" only holds true if we don't care what people think. We do. That's kind of the entire point of this thread. I've always hated the "the enemy is doing it, so it's okay if we do it too" argument. In this case, it's especially idiotic because sinking to those depths will actively hurt our cause. Let the fundamentalists and radicals rant and rave and spew their dogmatic bile wherever they wish. In doing so, they're only alienating the general populace. We're currently seeing the proof of that unfold before our eyes, as the radicalism wrought by the two decade old alliance between conservatism and evangelical christianity brings both sides crashing down. Even the other side admits it (see #1 under "Why is this going to happen?"). What will win people over is sensible (not necessarily respectful) arguments, not documents packed with insults and swear words.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 22, 2009 22:52:54 GMT -5
Who says that a sensible argument can't have profanity and insults? And, really, if the general population can't handle a little word like "fuck" there is a much deeper problem. I'm also not really looking for reasoned debate. Why? Because reasoned debate doesn't work when people haven't reasoned themselves into a position. Yes, we should have it on our side, but it doesn't need to be the primary argument. Most people aren't going to sit down and look at the logic used by both sides. Most people aren't going to fact check every source. Most people aren't going to care about a nuanced argument. Again, other minorities have gotten rights and respect by being loud and aggressive and demanding it from the majority. Gay rights are coming, because gay activists have been forceful and aggressive. Earlier I pointed out riots, fucking acts of violence. The pride marches, although peaceful, are still making sure they're going out of their way to be seen. Or how about the Folsom Street Fair? Rampant sexuality. I will make an argument with my standards, not my opponents standards. That includes being able to use the English language, which means profanity. I'm not asking anybody to convert, I don't care. I just want to be able to be an atheist in peace, without the religious right dictating how I live. I also think you missed the point with the billboard I posted, it's not that it's okay if we do it too, my point is that it doesn't matter what we say, they'll hate it. It's not just the minority either that will hate it. I hate the idea of the silent majority. If the majority really doesn't believe in something, the minority won't have nearly the power they do. It was the majority who elected a fundamentalist as president for 8 years. It is the majority who believe in creationism, and the majority of those are young earthers (link). In 1999 practically half the country wouldn't even consider voting for an atheist (link). We can be wonderful, caring, charitable people, but that doesn't matter at all. And it's a large percentage who think that just because we don't believe in a god, we're horrible by default. I'm sure you know of Richard Dawkins and his book "The God Delusion." Notice the use of the word "delusion." He's insulting belief and calling every religious person deluded. It was on the NYT's best seller list for 51 weeks (link). Attacks work, I go with what works.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 22, 2009 23:30:18 GMT -5
Audience is important: To me, this is written to a person who thinks that life has no meaning without God. That's a very narrow group of people, most of whom probably ARE Fundies. I'm also getting the impression that it's aimed at younger people. So, making it more all-encompassing might be something to consider.
But is IS criticizing the idea. It says that this tries to convince you that there are things more important than life, & that's bad. And personally, I read the insults as being rather tongue-in-cheek. Also, what Vene said: It's a serious problem if people can't handle a little harsh language.
Now, frankly, I don't expect these things to get any converts at all. If they have any meaningful impact whatsoever, it'll just be making people more aware of what atheism is. Otherwise, I just consider it a parody of religious tracts.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 22, 2009 23:37:40 GMT -5
I'm sure you know of Richard Dawkins and his book "The God Delusion." Notice the use of the word "delusion." He's insulting belief and calling every religious person deluded. It was on the NYT's best seller list for 51 weeks (link). Attacks work, I go with what works. This by itself doesn't really mean anything about effectiveness. Just because it sold well doesn't mean that it reached anyone. I mean, how many atheists own copies of the Bible or the Koran? It seems to me that the relevant questions are two-fold: how many people bought the God Delusion and thereafter deconverted, and how many people bought the God Delusion and seriously considered their religious beliefs in light of it? I don't know if these statistics could be gathered in any meaningful way, but I would suggest that these, not gross sales figures, are the elements that define a win for any atheist screed.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 23, 2009 1:14:33 GMT -5
It means that people know about atheism, I really don't care about converts. If the goal is to make people aware of your group, Dawkins succeeded. If the goal is to show that we won't give automatic respect to religion, Dawkins succeeded. Just making atheism known about helps the stigma as it shows people who are questioning that we can and do live meaningful lives.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Oct 23, 2009 1:34:15 GMT -5
It means that people know about atheism, I really don't care about converts. If the goal is to make people aware of your group, Dawkins succeeded. If the goal is to show that we won't give automatic respect to religion, Dawkins succeeded. Just making atheism known about helps the stigma as it shows people who are questioning that we can and do live meaningful lives. This poses a slight dilemma for me. Visibility leads to conflict. Atheism is subject to stigma, yes, but atheists form a substantial minority in the U.S., and on the whole hate crimes against atheists are rarer than those against other ethnic groups. Also unlike other minorities, atheism has the double-edged sword of being a mutable characteristic. Perhaps it would be better to let the number of atheists and agnostics silently increase, and instead focus on secular values, i.e., assume a rhetoric that avoids conflict between religious beliefs in general, rather than be outspoken in a particular way. On the other hand, perhaps visibility is the way to go...
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Oct 23, 2009 13:52:28 GMT -5
I'm with Vene on this one. Religious beliefs are dangerous, with no real redeeming value. This should be pointed out as often as possible.
|
|