Saturday, June 11, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Myth: Atheists are Making a Tactical Mistake by Insulting Religious Theists
Myth: Atheists are Making a Tactical Mistake by Insulting Religious Theists
Should Atheist Try to be More Polite, Less Impolite to Religious Theists?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Myth:
Atheists would be better off not insulting religious believers and theists with their criticisms and attacks on religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Atheists should moderate their rhetoric and stop pushing theists away.
Response:
An increasing popular criticism of atheists today is that they are too rude and insulting to religious theists — this typically goes hand-in-hand with the claims that atheists are "intolerant" and should be more "respectful" of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. According to purveyors of this myth, atheists are just hurting themselves and their own causes by being so rude and impolite. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so atheists should try to moderate their tone.
The primary problem with this claim is how the speaker leaves the concept of "insulting" to open. What exactly is meant by "insulting" here, who is doing it, how is it a problem, and what are the recommended alternatives? Without such information, the recommendation that atheists be more "polite" is little more than an invitation to open-ended self-censorship that could lead to all sorts of things not being said in the supposed interest of politeness.
This is not an idle or superficially semantic issue. Critics of the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad1 argued that they were rude and insulting, but without specifying exactly how they should be interpreted as "insulting" or what sorts of alternatives should have been chosen. Plays and books have been censored on the claim that they are "insulting" to "religious sensibilities" — indeed, there are some who argue that there should be no free speech right to say, write, or do anything that "insults" these "religious sensibilities."
Is this what people have in mind when they say that atheists shouldn't be "insulting" — that atheists shouldn't say or do anything which insults religious sensibilities? That's far too broad of a claim to be accepted or taken seriously. Atheistic critiques of religion cannot and should not be held hostage to the vague, unknown, and ever-shifting "religious sensibilities" of whomever might listen or read. This is akin to banning "pornography" where "pornography" is defined as anything that offends "local standards" — something that is unknown in advance and which limits a person's expression to the lowest common denominator wherever their material might be seen or read.
A second problem with the claim being made above is how easily it allows people to ignore the difference between criticism of beliefs and criticism of believers. Saying "religious believers are all stupid" certainly seems to qualify as an insult and I doubt that there are many circumstances where it would be appropriate or acceptable. Saying "theism is irrational and shouldn't be adopted" isn't an insult and isn't inappropriate, but it happens far too often that religious believers interpret this latter comment as if it were functionally equivalent to the former.
It is a serious and ongoing problem for atheists that believers take any negative criticism — never mind very sharp criticism or even ridicule — of religious claims and dogmas in a highly personal manner. This can be understandable, given how important these beliefs can be for people, but it's not legitimate to shut down all such commentary on the assertion that it's "insulting" and therefore inappropriate, illegitimate, and out-of-bounds.
There are of course better and worse ways of saying or putting things, but in the end religious believers cannot object to atheistic criticism of religion, religious beliefs, or theism by insisting that atheists stop being "insulting" and "moderate" their rhetoric. If religious believers really do feel that there is a problem with civility, they are obliged to be very specific about what they consider insulting, why, and what they think the reasonable alternatives are.
Should Atheist Try to be More Polite, Less Impolite to Religious Theists?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Myth:
Atheists would be better off not insulting religious believers and theists with their criticisms and attacks on religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Atheists should moderate their rhetoric and stop pushing theists away.
Response:
An increasing popular criticism of atheists today is that they are too rude and insulting to religious theists — this typically goes hand-in-hand with the claims that atheists are "intolerant" and should be more "respectful" of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. According to purveyors of this myth, atheists are just hurting themselves and their own causes by being so rude and impolite. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so atheists should try to moderate their tone.
The primary problem with this claim is how the speaker leaves the concept of "insulting" to open. What exactly is meant by "insulting" here, who is doing it, how is it a problem, and what are the recommended alternatives? Without such information, the recommendation that atheists be more "polite" is little more than an invitation to open-ended self-censorship that could lead to all sorts of things not being said in the supposed interest of politeness.
This is not an idle or superficially semantic issue. Critics of the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad1 argued that they were rude and insulting, but without specifying exactly how they should be interpreted as "insulting" or what sorts of alternatives should have been chosen. Plays and books have been censored on the claim that they are "insulting" to "religious sensibilities" — indeed, there are some who argue that there should be no free speech right to say, write, or do anything that "insults" these "religious sensibilities."
Is this what people have in mind when they say that atheists shouldn't be "insulting" — that atheists shouldn't say or do anything which insults religious sensibilities? That's far too broad of a claim to be accepted or taken seriously. Atheistic critiques of religion cannot and should not be held hostage to the vague, unknown, and ever-shifting "religious sensibilities" of whomever might listen or read. This is akin to banning "pornography" where "pornography" is defined as anything that offends "local standards" — something that is unknown in advance and which limits a person's expression to the lowest common denominator wherever their material might be seen or read.
A second problem with the claim being made above is how easily it allows people to ignore the difference between criticism of beliefs and criticism of believers. Saying "religious believers are all stupid" certainly seems to qualify as an insult and I doubt that there are many circumstances where it would be appropriate or acceptable. Saying "theism is irrational and shouldn't be adopted" isn't an insult and isn't inappropriate, but it happens far too often that religious believers interpret this latter comment as if it were functionally equivalent to the former.
It is a serious and ongoing problem for atheists that believers take any negative criticism — never mind very sharp criticism or even ridicule — of religious claims and dogmas in a highly personal manner. This can be understandable, given how important these beliefs can be for people, but it's not legitimate to shut down all such commentary on the assertion that it's "insulting" and therefore inappropriate, illegitimate, and out-of-bounds.
There are of course better and worse ways of saying or putting things, but in the end religious believers cannot object to atheistic criticism of religion, religious beliefs, or theism by insisting that atheists stop being "insulting" and "moderate" their rhetoric. If religious believers really do feel that there is a problem with civility, they are obliged to be very specific about what they consider insulting, why, and what they think the reasonable alternatives are.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically:We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true—that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
We don’t believe in God, but we certainly believe in Christians.
We don’t believe in God, but we certainly believe in Christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, Christians are a problem.
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
kalam
P1: nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo.
P2: given (1), anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: the universe began to exist ex nihilo.
P4: given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: god is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo
C1: given (4) (5), god does not exist by definition.
P2: given (1), anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: the universe began to exist ex nihilo.
P4: given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: god is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo
C1: given (4) (5), god does not exist by definition.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Robert M Price exposes William Lane Craig - Part 1 of 2
This is the opening statement of Robert M Price in the debate he had against good old Bill on the historicity of the resurrection. If you want to hear what Craig said, you know very well what to do: go to any of the other debates, you know he allways presents the same arguments.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Becoming an Atheist is the single most rational sane thing that ever happened to me.
Becoming an Atheist is the single most rational sane thing that ever happened to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)