Praying With the Office Chaplain

[Spawnie]

I'm sorry, that is not "militant". Fillpant? Slightly purile? Missing the point? Not his finest moment? Yes. But calling that statement "militant" is just rediculous.

I wasnt saying it was militant, i was comparing it to something you said about calling some atheists militant wasnt a valid argument, as below.

Because "the way I don't like" is a way which dishonestly implies equivilence with a group of people whose behavior is actually far worse and because it's an attempt to undermine an idea without addressing it's core arguments, which is even more dishonest?

I thought i would point out that such tricks go both ways, like when Dawkins equated agnostics with nazi-appeasers.

Calling something "extreme" is not an argument, so why mention it at all if it wasn't an attempt to some how discredit an opinion by linking it with undesirable behavior?

Its not a hard logic argument. But if someones passions are clearly a big part of the reason they believe something, its no crime to point it out. Im going to have a different discussion with Tonto the atheist than with Steely the atheist who thinks fundementalists are "scum". Right?

[LittleFuzzy]

Their books attack belief, not believers:

I don't know just what he said in which books, but I do remember quoting an interview of his on the old board, where he explicitly labels all believers as the enemy.

[Steely Glint]

I thought i would point out that such tricks go both ways, like when Dawkins equated agnostics with nazi-appeasers.

Yes, Dawkins was full of shit in that instance. So what?

Its not a hard logic argument. But if someones passions are clearly a big part of the reason they believe something, its no crime to point it out. Im going to have a different discussion with Tonto the atheist than with Steely the atheist who thinks fundementalists are "scum". Right?

When do you this, what point are you making, precisely?

[Steely Glint]

I don't know just what he said in which books, but I do remember quoting an interview of his on the old board, where he explicitly labels all believers as the enemy.

You would have to actually provide the article so we can see the context.

[Shipper]

Yes, Dawkins was full of shit in that instance. So what?

When do you this, what point are you making, precisely?

Perhaps one point to be made is that when figures like Dawkins or Hitchens hurl invective after invective, frame the question in terms of black-or-white and compare people who disagree with them to "Nazi-appeasers" or characterize them as "the enemy," they descend from the intellectual high ground to the absolute nadir of intellectual irresponsibility. As an atheist, I've always wondered why, when the atheist movement has every right to claim it embodies a voice of reason, its rhetoric has taken on such a hysterical, self-indulgent tone. The apparently arrogant and self-righteous manner in which atheist leaders present themselves means that the layperson is unlikely to bother distinguishing between "militant atheists" and religious fundamentalists, who present themselves in the same manner. Dawkins' behavior in particular casts his movement's lot in with its "enemies." Worse, it gives them a pretext for attacking the validity of the atheist movement as "militant."

Moreover, whether his books attack beliefs or believers is an utterly useless distinction if the aim is persuasion. Believers will take attacks on their beliefs just as personally as they'd take ad hominem. And if the aim is not persuasion, then Dawkins' polemic tactics seem childish at best. At worst, they undermine the intellectual integrity of his movement.

[Steely Glint]

Have you actually read either of the books in question, Shipper?

[Shipper]

Yes, I've actually read The God Delusion. It's not the book I'm objecting to, specifically.

[Steely Glint]

So what are you objecting to?

[Shipper]

I was simply answering your question "so, what?" by presenting a potential consequence of Dawkins being full of shit in that instance. I was also suggesting that Spawnie could have been making the same point I was, although I wouldn't mean to speak for him.

[Steely Glint]

Don't you think this is a little... exaggerated, based on just the 'appeaser' line?

Perhaps one point to be made is that when figures like Dawkins or Hitchens hurl invective after invective, frame the question in terms of black-or-white and compare people who disagree with them to "Nazi-appeasers" or characterize them as "the enemy," they descend from the intellectual high ground to the absolute nadir of intellectual irresponsibility. As an atheist, I've always wondered why, when the atheist movement has every right to claim it embodies a voice of reason, its rhetoric has taken on such a hysterical, self-indulgent tone.

[Nessus]

Perhaps one point to be made is that when figures like Dawkins or Hitchens hurl invective after invective, frame the question in terms of black-or-white and compare people who disagree with them to "Nazi-appeasers" or characterize them as "the enemy," they descend from the intellectual high ground to the absolute nadir of intellectual irresponsibility. As an atheist, I've always wondered why, when the atheist movement has every right to claim it embodies a voice of reason, its rhetoric has taken on such a hysterical, self-indulgent tone. The apparently arrogant and self-righteous manner in which atheist leaders present themselves means that the layperson is unlikely to bother distinguishing between "militant atheists" and religious fundamentalists, who present themselves in the same manner. Dawkins' behavior in particular casts his movement's lot in with its "enemies." Worse, it gives them a pretext for attacking the validity of the atheist movement as "militant."

Moreover, whether his books attack beliefs or believers is an utterly useless distinction if the aim is persuasion. Believers will take attacks on their beliefs just as personally as they'd take ad hominem. And if the aim is not persuasion, then Dawkins' polemic tactics seem childish at best. At worst, they undermine the intellectual integrity of his movement.

There is no "atheist movement" Like the fucking tin says, an atheist just thinks there are no gods; that's hardly a foundation for a single-minded society of intellectual individuals. It's too damn bad you seem to think everything under the Sun is permissible lest one be branded stupid, but that's your right, for now. Others have seen the harm religion can do, and recognized it as the greatest obstacle before a better mankind.

And like one of the books says in the introduction (I think it's Dawkins but I'm not sure), the arguments presented are for the arm-chair faithfuls, the Homer Simpsons of the world. Ned Flanders is already gone, he is a foregone conclusion insofar as the discussion is concerned. He is "the enemy" in the sense that his very psyche is so intertwined with his faith in sky pixies that it would literally take years of reprogramming and therapy to make him a whole human being without the faith. No one wants to do that. People like that are failures; it's sad, but many facts are. They are "the enemy" because they perpetuate the bile that is religion, they promote it as the singular source of goodness and morality when it is anything but, and they want to indoctrinate small children with their absolute bullshit. So these children, too, would require years of reprogramming and therapy to get over the complexes believing in a sky pixie seems to create in those who're not utter nincompooops.

The point with the Munich comparison isn't that all religionists are mass murderers, olol, , or what have you; Chamberlain has been lambasted for decades for his seeming willingness to avoid war at all costs, even against an enemy that only later turned out to be pretty bad. Similarly, being courteous and never daring to upset the Ned Flanderses of the world just helps perpetuate and maintain that ugly cycle of utter devastation and suffering that is religion and faith. It is not a descent from some intellectual or moral high-ground to realize that yes, some people are fundamentally against everything good and beautiful in this world, and something ought be done against them.

[Shipper]

Don't you think this is a little... exaggerated, based on just the 'appeaser' line?

If agnostics are the appeasers, then it is easy (but wrong, yes) to think that the religious ones are the Nazis in this particular analogy. Given the prevailing cultural attitude towards the Nazis, I actually don't think my characterization of that line is exaggerated, given its audience. It's irrelevant, though. What I'm pointing too isn't the line itself but rather the pattern of rhetoric that it fits into.

Ness -- I agree with nearly everything that you say, including your interpretation of Dawkins' analogy, but I think that the "arm-chair faithfuls" are likely to misinterpret it and be alienated by it, thus blunting the persuasive power of the arguments, and isn't the goal to persuade or at least soften the convictions of the arm-chair faithful? My point was rhetorical, not substantive.

[Steely Glint]

What I'm pointing too isn't the line itself but rather the pattern of rhetoric that it fits into.

If there's a pattern, what other examples can you show me?

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is no "atheist movement" Like the fucking tin says, an atheist just thinks there are no gods; that's hardly a foundation for a single-minded society of intellectual individuals. It's too damn bad you seem to think everything under the Sun is permissible lest one be branded stupid, but that's your right, for now. Others have seen the harm religion can do, and recognized it as the greatest obstacle before a better mankind.

And like one of the books says in the introduction (I think it's Dawkins but I'm not sure), the arguments presented are for the arm-chair faithfuls, the Homer Simpsons of the world. Ned Flanders is already gone, he is a foregone conclusion insofar as the discussion is concerned. He is "the enemy" in the sense that his very psyche is so intertwined with his faith in sky pixies that it would literally take years of reprogramming and therapy to make him a whole human being without the faith. No one wants to do that. People like that are failures; it's sad, but many facts are. They are "the enemy" because they perpetuate the bile that is religion, they promote it as the singular source of goodness and morality when it is anything but, and they want to indoctrinate small children with their absolute bullshit. So these children, too, would require years of reprogramming and therapy to get over the complexes believing in a sky pixie seems to create in those who're not utter nincompooops.

The point with the Munich comparison isn't that all religionists are mass murderers, olol, , or what have you; Chamberlain has been lambasted for decades for his seeming willingness to avoid war at all costs, even against an enemy that only later turned out to be pretty bad. Similarly, being courteous and never daring to upset the Ned Flanderses of the world just helps perpetuate and maintain that ugly cycle of utter devastation and suffering that is religion and faith. It is not a descent from some intellectual or moral high-ground to realize that yes, some people are fundamentally against everything good and beautiful in this world, and something ought be done against them.