Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you want to demonstrate that, then at least acknowledge that you have been arguing against strawmen in this thread. No equivocations, no minimizing, no obfuscations. Just acknowledge that you have committed strawmen errors. Flat-out.

I've made no straw men. Not at any point. You've even admitted I was right. I've quoted you admitting it. Your arguments were weak. That's all that has happened here. I'm sorry I made you sad by pointing that out. But isn't it better to point out weaknesses in arguments and having a constructive conversation than getting snippy?

You've been absurdly defensive this entire thread.

Your ego cannot take a hit actually. When you throw out first punches and then have them come back at you, you have accused me of being "defensive" for reacting similarly. You have never acknowledged being offensive yourself to begin with.

I don't think I have been offensive in this thread. But you have been extremely rude accusing me of all kinds of unfounded things. Perhaps work on having better arguments instead of lashing out?

So then you agree that belief for Christians is just a fetish? It is something superficial to Christianity and not that important to it? Other than just that they say that it is (which it isn't).

No, it is obviously much more than just a "fetish." It partly comprises the identity of people and their entire life and perceptions of reality. They cannot give up their doctrinal beliefs and theologies because, in part, it would also mean having to disassociate with their nearby communities. Meanwhile, their communities also reinforce adherence to the beliefs, because any kind of rejection of the beliefs among the members puts the community at risk. So the beliefs aspect and the community aspect work hand-in-hand with each other for their mutual benefit and even survival. Neither is a "fetish."

You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. Religious people take their fetishes very seriously. Belief is very important for Christianity. It's very important to them that their beliefs are shared with other people in the same group.

But what those beliefs are is completely arbitrary. That's why Christians can either hate gays and not hate gays and stay just as Christian. Having beliefs is core to Christianity, but not what those beliefs are. Do you now understand what I mean?

Since the beliefs of Christians are arbitrary and fetishes, there's no point arguing against them, since they're not rational beliefs.

You also mention that the community validate and strengthen those beliefs. And they're afraid not to lose their community. Which is what I claim is the core.

I think there's no coincidence that Christian thinking spawned Nazism, Communism, the French Reign of Terror, but also science. These are all similar fetishisations about holding the one true belief, and those who disagree need to be thrown out of the community.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can give you a contrast to belief-fetishisation. Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is based on process philosophy. In Zoroastrianism only change is guaranteed. Nothing is eternal. Humanity needs to organise and constantly fight the forces of chaos. It's very pragmatic. Whatever works works. So laws can be changed to better fit a changing world. Contrast this with the Christian ten commandments. Zoroastrianism has no commandments.

Zoroastrian practice is based on traditional meditations. The most central one is this they do each morning.

Good thoughts leads to good Words which leads to good deeds.

Good here is just whatever decreases chaos and makes life better. If your beliefs and behaviour doesn't make the world better, then change your beliefs.

A Zoroastrian has nothing riding on clinging to their beliefs. At least nothing that risks them be ejected from the community. Zoroastrianism fetishes other things, like the "eternal flame". But they don't fetishise beliefs. And neither do Buddhist or Hindus.

 

[Brian63]

I've made no straw men. Not at any point. You've even admitted I was right. I've quoted you admitting it.

WTF are you babbling about there?

You have made numerous strawmen errors throughout this thread, many times the same strawmen, and repeatedly. I have separately been reposting one of them in particular so that it was plain to see. The position you attribute to me specifically is not something you can ever quote me as stating was my view (since it is not my view, actually). That post will be repeated below again for you, as one example of this straw fetish of yours.

Your arguments were weak. That's all that has happened here. I'm sorry I made you sad by pointing that out. But isn't it better to point out weaknesses in arguments and having a constructive conversation than getting snippy?

Do not even pretend to be trying to have a “civil conversation” or a “constructive conversation.” You have been condescending and sarcastic throughout this thread, and will not even admit to it. If you think you are right to be so, just be open that you are being so. Do not be deceitful on top of it all.

Religious people take their fetishes very seriously. Belief is very important for Christianity. It's very important to them that their beliefs are shared with other people in the same group.

But what those beliefs are is completely arbitrary.

That is very untrue. Certain beliefs are more likely to survive and thrive, others are more likely to perish and die. Certain beliefs are more sustainable and resilient than others. Certain beliefs are harder to maintain in our worldview than others. If a person’s religious book said “The moon is made of green cheese” then people would find it more difficult to maintain adherence to such a book and beliefs derived from it than if it stayed silent on the issue, or made true statements. Certain beliefs are more dangerous and threatening than others. If certain theological doctrines promoted isolation from local communities, then those beliefs would be less likely transmitted from generation to generation. If certain theological doctrines promoted indoctrination of children into its membership, then those theologies will be more likely to pass onto subsequent generations.

Since the beliefs of Christians are arbitrary and fetishes, there's no point arguing against them, since they're not rational beliefs.

That is incorrect. Exposing certain beliefs as having flaws does sometimes have impacts. As I have stated numerous times already, even I personally had my beliefs changed by seeing atheists argue (successfully) against Christian beliefs, right here on this very forum (or its prior incarnations). So I know from firsthand experience you are wrong. It is like you are saying “Look up there in the sky at those pigs flying” when really there are no pigs flying. Over approximately 20 years, countless other people I have seen and heard mention that their worldviews were changed in part by encountering logical flaws in them. They realized there was some sort of conflict or flaw in their worldview that they had never been aware of before, and the questioning led to doubt and further investigation, sometimes ultimately to deconversion. Showing people the critical flaws in their own beliefs is one of many important roles that we need to perform.

You also mention that the community validate and strengthen those beliefs. And they're afraid not to lose their community. Which is what I claim is the core.

That is mistaken, because it is not “the core.” There are multiple core influences, not just one. All of them must be accounted for, not just that one.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Religious people take their fetishes very seriously. Belief is very important for Christianity. It's very important to them that their beliefs are shared with other people in the same group.

But what those beliefs are is completely arbitrary.

That is very untrue. Certain beliefs are more likely to survive and thrive, others are more likely to perish and die. Certain beliefs are more sustainable and resilient than others. Certain beliefs are harder to maintain in our worldview than others. If a person’s religious book said “The moon is made of green cheese” then people would find it more difficult to maintain adherence to such a book and beliefs derived from it than if it stayed silent on the issue, or made true statements. Certain beliefs are more dangerous and threatening than others. If certain theological doctrines promoted isolation from local communities, then those beliefs would be less likely transmitted from generation to generation. If certain theological doctrines promoted indoctrination of children into its membership, then those theologies will be more likely to pass onto subsequent generations.

You're arguing against a different argument than the one I'm making. Yes, people are more likely to want to believe ideas that stroke their ego (ex the creator of the universe and the most powerful being who has ever existed cares about you and is listening to you).

But a beliefs ego stroking ability has no impact on how likely it is to be true. The moon made of green cheese is no more crazy than the belief we're going to heaven after death. Or just that we're somehow alive after death... absolutely nuts.

All things that aren't true are equally wrong. Only the truth is actually true.

Since the beliefs of Christians are arbitrary and fetishes, there's no point arguing against them, since they're not rational beliefs.

That is incorrect. Exposing certain beliefs as having flaws does sometimes have impacts. As I have stated numerous times already, even I personally had my beliefs changed by seeing atheists argue (successfully) against Christian beliefs, right here on this very forum (or its prior incarnations). So I know from firsthand experience you are wrong. It is like you are saying “Look up there in the sky at those pigs flying” when really there are no pigs flying. Over approximately 20 years, countless other people I have seen and heard mention that their worldviews were changed in part by encountering logical flaws in them. They realized there was some sort of conflict or flaw in their worldview that they had never been aware of before, and the questioning led to doubt and further investigation, sometimes ultimately to deconversion. Showing people the critical flaws in their own beliefs is one of many important roles that we need to perform.

I'll back track. I agree there is a point with doing it. But it is the harder option IMHO.

You also mention that the community validate and strengthen those beliefs. And they're afraid not to lose their community. Which is what I claim is the core.

That is mistaken, because it is not “the core.” There are multiple core influences, not just one. All of them must be accounted for, not just that one.

Then what's the plan regarding the community? Or the other cores? What do you think is core apart from belief and community? You are very cagey about this. It's important to bring to the table. If your goal is to dissuade these theists from their beliefs? If it all hangs together, isn't it important to talk about all of it?

 

[Brian63]

DrZoidBerg has earlier said:

“Religious people take their fetishes very seriously. Belief is very important for Christianity. It's very important to them that their beliefs are shared with other people in the same group.

But what those beliefs are is completely arbitrary.”

Now he says:

You're arguing against a different argument than the one I'm making…But a beliefs ego stroking ability has no impact on how likely it is to be true.

It is not that I am arguing against a different argument than what you are making. It is that you have now done a bait-and-switch on the argument you are making---first you make a point about whether the beliefs are a fetish, how important they are, how arbitrary they are. Those are relevant topics to discuss. You are also correct that that is a separate issue of whether or not they are true. Why even bother bringing up the latter point in this discussion though? I never argued that because they are psychologically important to a religious person that that makes them true. That is not my position. [FYI: I am an atheist.]

I'll back track. I agree there is a point with doing it. But it is the harder option IMHO.

Wow, you’re so modest. Adding the “IMHO” abbreviation really adds extra sincerity to your self-proclaimed humility. Hint: If you have to say “IMHO” to try and persuade other people that you are humble, then it probably means that you are not humble. It is more of an act. Throughout this thread you have been given numerous opportunities to and acknowledge and correct for repeated strawmen you have argued against, and have not once done so. One example will be re-posted again below. You attribute a position to me that I never advocated (actually I reject it explicitly), never quoted or linked to me advocating it, never retracted the statement and never acknowledged the error. If you want to paint yourself as being very humble, at least make a somewhat sincere-appearing at retracting that repeated strawman.

Then what's the plan regarding the community? Or the other cores?

I do not know. I never have claimed to know. It is not necessary for me to have an all-out detailed plan of what the most optimal solution is, in order to determine that other ideas that are advocated for have some flaws and that they should be revised to help improve them. When other atheists adopt the attitude of “As long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, then I do not care what their beliefs are” then they have taken a very misguided and flawed approach. This thread was intended to focus on that single attitude commonly espoused by atheists here and elsewhere. This thread was not intended to be an exhaustive analysis on how to stamp out all religion entirely.

If your goal is to dissuade these theists from their beliefs? If it all hangs together, isn't it important to talk about all of it?

Absolutely. Feel free to start threads on those other aspects if you wish to discuss them as well in further depth. You can discuss the role of feminization, international politics, child indoctrination, etc. All this thread was, was an attempt to discuss a particular angle of it in greater depth, that being the “As long as they do not enforce it on me, then I don’t care” misguided attitude commonly held by atheists.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidBerg has earlier said:

“Religious people take their fetishes very seriously. Belief is very important for Christianity. It's very important to them that their beliefs are shared with other people in the same group.

But what those beliefs are is completely arbitrary.”

Now he says:

It is not that I am arguing against a different argument than what you are making. It is that you have now done a bait-and-switch on the argument you are making---first you make a point about whether the beliefs are a fetish, how important they are, how arbitrary they are. Those are relevant topics to discuss. You are also correct that that is a separate issue of whether or not they are true. Why even bother bringing up the latter point in this discussion though? I never argued that because they are psychologically important to a religious person that that makes them true. That is not my position. [FYI: I am an atheist.]

I don't understand how any of this is relevant of connected to what I was saying?

Again... we're not debating. We're (hopefully) trying to understand each other. You keep jumping to conclusions and trying to figure out how I have slighted you, instead of having a civilised conversation. Please, stop. I have at no point been rude, made any straw men, tried to misrepresent what you're saying... etc. So you can stop all those assumptions. It is very frustrating to talk to you, because you are so incredibly defensive and assume a slight. When there's none. I don't get it.

Wow, you’re so modest. Adding the “IMHO” abbreviation really adds extra sincerity to your self-proclaimed humility. Hint: If you have to say “IMHO” to try and persuade other people that you are humble, then it probably means that you are not humble. It is more of an act. Throughout this thread you have been given numerous opportunities to and acknowledge and correct for repeated strawmen you have argued against, and have not once done so. One example will be re-posted again below. You attribute a position to me that I never advocated (actually I reject it explicitly), never quoted or linked to me advocating it, never retracted the statement and never acknowledged the error. If you want to paint yourself as being very humble, at least make a somewhat sincere-appearing at retracting that repeated strawman.

Again... there has been no straw men. So you can stop that. I also don't quite understand this attack on my degree of humility? Who the fuck cares how humble I am? It's not relevant to this discussion.

Then what's the plan regarding the community? Or the other cores?

I do not know. I never have claimed to know. It is not necessary for me to have an all-out detailed plan of what the most optimal solution is, in order to determine that other ideas that are advocated for have some flaws and that they should be revised to help improve them. When other atheists adopt the attitude of “As long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, then I do not care what their beliefs are” then they have taken a very misguided and flawed approach. This thread was intended to focus on that single attitude commonly espoused by atheists here and elsewhere. This thread was not intended to be an exhaustive analysis on how to stamp out all religion entirely.

Either beliefs and the community (and the other cores) are intrinsically linked aspects which cannot be separated. If we talk of one we have to talk about the other. Or we can talk about them separately. Please make up your mind?

If you think we can talk about the separate aspects of religion in isolation... then I guess we can?

If your goal is to dissuade these theists from their beliefs? If it all hangs together, isn't it important to talk about all of it?

Absolutely. Feel free to start threads on those other aspects if you wish to discuss them as well in further depth. You can discuss the role of feminization, international politics, child indoctrination, etc. All this thread was, was an attempt to discuss a particular angle of it in greater depth, that being the “As long as they do not enforce it on me, then I don’t care” misguided attitude commonly held by atheists.

I was under the impression that I was discussing exactly that? I agree with you. I think atheists should be more aggressive and be more active in spreading atheist/secular movements. The next natural step if trying to figure out how to do that. Right?

 

[Brian63]

I don't understand how any of this is relevant of connected to what I was saying?

See above. I do not know how to make it clearer than that.

Again... there has been no straw men. So you can stop that. I also don't quite understand this attack on my degree of humility? Who the fuck cares how humble I am? It's not relevant to this discussion.

It matters when you use it as a deceitful debate tactic. Throughout this thread you have not exhibited self-humility, just declared it. It is a way of framing yourself as humble even if you really are not, and by contrast anyone who opposes your arguments (such as myself) and has had heated rhetoric in our exchange as being not humble. So if you want to leave the self-humility off the table, then just stop declaring yourself or your opinions to be humble. It serves a propaganda purpose, but has no substantive purpose. Behave with humility instead.



Will you acknowledge that in the post I will-repost just below, again, that the position you argue against is not the position I personally hold? You framed it as “If you only focus on the belief in God…” That is a view I never held, never espoused, that we should only focus on the belief in God. Will you ever admit to making a strawman error there? I am not saying you intentionally and consciously and unethically committed a strawman with malicious intent. Only that that was a strawman. Yet you still have not made any correction of it, despite the opportunity presenting itself multiple times. It is that lack of self-correction of your errors that is more disturbing than the fact that you will sometimes commit errors.

Either beliefs and the community (and the other cores) are intrinsically linked aspects which cannot be separated. If we talk of one we have to talk about the other. Or we can talk about them separately. Please make up your mind?

We can do all of those. In individual threads we can focus on aspect [X] while realizing it will have impacts on aspect [Y] and then likewise will all have impacts on aspect [Z], etc. We can discuss them individually and in totality. This particular thread was intended to focus on just one particular aspect. Other threads can be generated to discuss other relationships as well.

I think atheists should be more aggressive and be more active in spreading atheist/secular movements. The next natural step if trying to figure out how to do that. Right?

You and I may agree on that point, but there are other atheists, both on this forum and out in the general public, who are not. They are more passive on this matter and think we should not discuss religious topics critically, and we should only be active against the influence of religious beliefs “when they are imposed on me” or “when they preach to me” and such. That is a misunderstanding of how bad religious beliefs play out in a person’s mind and the effects they have in our society in general.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It matters when you use it as a deceitful debate tactic.

I'm not debating. I'm not trying to win. We're having a friendly conversation where we have a shared goal. I'm asking questions to learn better what you had in mind.

Throughout this thread you have not exhibited self-humility, just declared it. It is a way of framing yourself as humble even if you really are not, and by contrast anyone who opposes your arguments (such as myself) and has had heated rhetoric in our exchange as being not humble. So if you want to leave the self-humility off the table, then just stop declaring yourself or your opinions to be humble. It serves a propaganda purpose, but has no substantive purpose. Behave with humility instead.

I'm actually fine with you thinking I'm not humble. There has been no heated rhetoric from my end.

Will you acknowledge that in the post I will-repost just below, again, that the position you argue against is not the position I personally hold? You framed it as “If you only focus on the belief in God…” That is a view I never held, never espoused, that we should only focus on the belief in God. Will you ever admit to making a strawman error there? I am not saying you intentionally and consciously and unethically committed a strawman with malicious intent. Only that that was a strawman. Yet you still have not made any correction of it, despite the opportunity presenting itself multiple times. It is that lack of self-correction of your errors that is more disturbing than the fact that you will sometimes commit errors.

It's not a straw man. Nor malicious intent. Quite the opposite. If you say something and I'm trying to understand it it's often helpful to reformulate it to lay bare the internal logic. That's what I'm trying to do.

It looks to me like you have a hard time deciding whether religious belief is intrinsically linked to community (and other mysterious cores of religion) and can only be discussed together with it, or if each of the core aspects of religion can be discussed in isolation. Since it's central to the OP, this might be good to sort out?

You and I may agree on that point, but there are other atheists, both on this forum and out in the general public, who are not. They are more passive on this matter and think we should not discuss religious topics critically, and we should only be active against the influence of religious beliefs “when they are imposed on me” or “when they preach to me” and such. That is a misunderstanding of how bad religious beliefs play out in a person’s mind and the effects they have in our society in general.

I also wish atheists were more outspoken. I think it would be a good thing. Especially today when "the culture wars" have spread to Europe. I blame the American debate on ToE in schools for the European movement against GMOs, plastic bags, 5G etc. What these have all in common is that laypeople think that their opinions should carry the same weight on scientific matters as the scientists. This is new. I think it comes from USA and is directly linked to the lack of resistance these loons get in USA from the more rationally inclined.

 

[Brian63]

I'm not debating. I'm not trying to win. We're having a friendly conversation where we have a shared goal. I'm asking questions to learn better what you had in mind.

If that was true, then why did you also explicitly insult me earlier, when you called me dishonest? That was unwarranted and dragged the tone of the discussion down further. Is that what you normally do when you are wanting a “friendly conversation” with someone? Why have so many of your replies had sarcastic, dismissive, demeaning, quick comebacks instead of addressing the issues with more substance and depth and a civil tone?

I'm actually fine with you thinking I'm not humble. There has been no heated rhetoric from my end.

Right. Telling someone that they are dishonest is not heating up the rhetoric. Is that just part of your normal way of talking with someone when you are trying to have a “civil conversation” with them? Then when they point out how overly-aggressive you are being, you pile it on further by portraying them as being “defensive” instead of correcting your own behavior?

It's not a straw man.

Yes, it is. It is not that you just rephrased my argument. It is that you did so inaccurately, and then argued against that misportrayal instead of what my actual position is. That is arguing against a strawman. That may very well have been an innocent error, absolutely. When I point out though that you never give any source (such as a quote or a link) to me advocating for the position that you think I am, you do not acknowledge that you have none and retract the error. In the example we are speaking of, you had said “If you only focus on…” Nobody actually held the view that we should “only focus on…” anything, much less the one thing you went on to further address.

Nor malicious intent. Quite the opposite. If you say something and I'm trying to understand it it's often helpful to reformulate it to lay bare the internal logic. That's what I'm trying to do.

You made a mistake then in your reformulation of it. It never has been my position that we should “only focus on the belief in God.” Let’s go completely barebones with that one line. Will you acknowledge that I have never advocated that, that it is not a view I espouse and do not hold, and that I never implied or stated? I am telling you here, now, that I reject the view that we should “only focus on the belief in God.” Nobody else in this thread (to the best of my memory) has endorsed such a position as well. Will you admit that it was a strawman mischaracterization and an error then?

It looks to me like you have a hard time deciding whether religious belief is intrinsically linked to community (and other mysterious cores of religion) and can only be discussed together with it, or if each of the core aspects of religion can be discussed in isolation. Since it's central to the OP, this might be good to sort out?

We can discuss the different aspects in isolation, while realizing that that is just a discussion and an exchange of ideas. As it plays out, those different aspects will still have farther-reaching consequences on each other as well.

This analogy may help you understand more clearly:

We can talk about the human heart and the human lungs separately. We have entire fields of medicine devoted to studying each of those organs in more specific detail. Still we recognize that they are interdependent on each other when it comes to how it affects the human body altogether. They impact each other and their impacts cannot be isolated from each other, even if we can still talk about them separately.

Similarly, we can discuss politics, economics, social movements, religion, etc. throughout history more individually while also realizing that they influence each other.

I agree that we can discuss them separately, but disagree that their entire impacts can be separated from each other.

What I disagree with is the notion that religions only harm people when they are enforced on others. Many atheists utter the mantra of “I do not care what they believe as long as they do not force it on me.” Well, as long as they exist they will get forced on you, or at least influence your life (and others), one way or another. It may be more direct or more indirect, but religious beliefs will impact you and other victims as long as they are present.

I also wish atheists were more outspoken. I think it would be a good thing.

Agreed.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If that was true, then why did you also explicitly insult me earlier, when you called me dishonest? That was unwarranted and dragged the tone of the discussion down further. Is that what you normally do when you are wanting a “friendly conversation” with someone? Why have so many of your replies had sarcastic, dismissive, demeaning, quick comebacks instead of addressing the issues with more substance and depth and a civil tone?

I wasn't trying to insult you. You had a hole in your argumentation and I pointed it out. It wasn't to insult you. It was to help you make better arguments. I maintain that you were singularly focused on religious belief, as if those exist in isolation. Understanding that they don't exist in isolation is critical for combating those beliefs. Which you seemed to have dropped now. So this has been a productive conversation. Isn't that good?

Right. Telling someone that they are dishonest is not heating up the rhetoric. Is that just part of your normal way of talking with someone when you are trying to have a “civil conversation” with them? Then when they point out how overly-aggressive you are being, you pile it on further by portraying them as being “defensive” instead of correcting your own behavior?

You were dishonest in this post.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-and-outspoken&p=662095&viewfull=1#post662095

You were dishonest about what I had said in order to try to prove that I had insulted you. That was after you'd already become very defensive. I simply pointed out your dishonesty.

I'll ask you again... can you drop this bullshit butt-hurt attitude now? It got old really fucking fast. You never had any reason to get upset about anything I wrote. And I've called you on your bullshit again and again. And now I'm doing it again.

Nor malicious intent. Quite the opposite. If you say something and I'm trying to understand it it's often helpful to reformulate it to lay bare the internal logic. That's what I'm trying to do.

You made a mistake then in your reformulation of it. It never has been my position that we should “only focus on the belief in God.” Let’s go completely barebones with that one line. Will you acknowledge that I have never advocated that, that it is not a view I espouse and do not hold, and that I never implied or stated? I am telling you here, now, that I reject the view that we should “only focus on the belief in God.” Nobody else in this thread (to the best of my memory) has endorsed such a position as well. Will you admit that it was a strawman mischaracterization and an error then?

So what's your plan then? If your plan to combat religion is only focused on their beliefs, then it's accurate to think that you are only focused on their beliefs. You've so far offered nothing else atheists should speak up about. By speaking up we will only be clashing with their beliefs. Which I'd argue is a ineffective strategy.

Positive re-enforcement is always a better strategy than negative re-enforcement. If you want a lasting change in behaviour, and make sure people listen. So better to figure out how you can positively re-enforce atheism. Positive re-enforcement is what theists are doing, and it's working for them.

It looks to me like you have a hard time deciding whether religious belief is intrinsically linked to community (and other mysterious cores of religion) and can only be discussed together with it, or if each of the core aspects of religion can be discussed in isolation. Since it's central to the OP, this might be good to sort out?

We can discuss the different aspects in isolation, while realizing that that is just a discussion and an exchange of ideas. As it plays out, those different aspects will still have farther-reaching consequences on each other as well.

This analogy may help you understand more clearly:

We can talk about the human heart and the human lungs separately. We have entire fields of medicine devoted to studying each of those organs in more specific detail. Still we recognize that they are interdependent on each other when it comes to how it affects the human body altogether. They impact each other and their impacts cannot be isolated from each other, even if we can still talk about them separately.

Similarly, we can discuss politics, economics, social movements, religion, etc. throughout history more individually while also realizing that they influence each other.

I agree that we can discuss them separately, but disagree that their entire impacts can be separated from each other.

Ok, cool. So I guess it's ok to, in this thread, talk about other aspects of religion that has an influence on their beliefs, other than just the beliefs. Great. I'll keep doing that then.

What I disagree with is the notion that religions only harm people when they are enforced on others. Many atheists utter the mantra of “I do not care what they believe as long as they do not force it on me.” Well, as long as they exist they will get forced on you, or at least influence your life (and others), one way or another. It may be more direct or more indirect, but religious beliefs will impact you and other victims as long as they are present.

We're all telling a self aggrandising story to ourselves. A story that makes us the hero of our world. A story that makes the choices we make more important than they really are. And more importantly, one that tells history as if the entire point of everything before was to produce our world and us. That's just normal. The trick is to promote stories that promote productive and helpful behaviours.

As Nietzsche pointed out the story Christianity tells itself is that losers are actually winners. The more of a loser you are in life, the more of a winner you'll be in the next life. No matter how much of a fuck-up you have been, as long as you ask God for forgiveness, you're all good. Also, original sin. So even winners are just as flawed as the rest of us.

I don't know about you, but that's a pretty depressing story to tell about yourself, and it's badly adapted to a world of rapid change. It came from a world with very little change, and any change that did come was probably a disaster. I think we can do better than that today.

This is the main reason I oppose Christianity, and theism in general. It's an obsolete way of thinking.

 

[Brian63]

When you called me dishonest, you now say “I wasn't trying to insult you. You had a hole in your argumentation and I pointed it out. It wasn't to insult you."

So in your world, calling a person dishonest is not an insult? If you thought my argument had a hole in it, just say that and explain why you think that. You downgraded the discourse when you threw in the “dishonest” on top of it, which is a derogatory remark about the person’s character.

I maintain that you were singularly focused on religious belief, as if those exist in isolation. Understanding that they don't exist in isolation is critical for combating those beliefs. Which you seemed to have dropped now. So this has been a productive conversation. Isn't that good?

It is not something that I “dropped.” It is not a view that I ever held in the first place. That was just a straw man that you kept trying to pin on me. When you have been requested to quote or cite me suggesting that at all, you have failed every single time.

You were dishonest in this post.

…

You were dishonest about what I had said in order to try to prove that I had insulted you. That was after you'd already become very defensive. I simply pointed out your dishonesty.

I'll ask you again... can you drop this bullshit butt-hurt attitude now? It got old really fucking fast. You never had any reason to get upset about anything I wrote. And I've called you on your bullshit again and again. And now I'm doing it again.

Will you finally drop your pretense of just trying to have a civil and friendly conversation? It is pretty evident here that you have another agenda, to make personal derogatory statements as well.

So what's your plan then?

I already answered that in a recent post. Here is that answer again:

I do not know. I never have claimed to know. It is not necessary for me to have an all-out detailed plan of what the most optimal solution is, in order to determine that other ideas that are advocated for have some flaws and that they should be revised to help improve them. When other atheists adopt the attitude of “As long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, then I do not care what their beliefs are” then they have taken a very misguided and flawed approach. This thread was intended to focus on that single attitude commonly espoused by atheists here and elsewhere. This thread was not intended to be an exhaustive analysis on how to stamp out all religion entirely.



I do not have a plan on how to solve many of the world’s problems. They are something that I just do not know. However, when I see other suggestions put forward that I can clearly see have some flaws in them, I will point them out. I would love to have the end-all, be-all solution on how to eradicate religion, but unfortunately do not. Those of us who are in the same position can still off constructive criticism of other ideas though.

Here is another way you may be able to understand it:

Suppose a group of people wants to solve the problem of human poverty and one of them offers up 20 possible fixes. Others in the group can point to #17 and think that is not an effective method, and they may be entirely right, even if they do not have anything to offer up in its place. Still, the discourse was productive and informative for those involved.

If your plan to combat religion is only focused on their beliefs, then it's accurate to think that you are only focused on their beliefs.

Who---besides you---said my plan “is only focused on their beliefs.” That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. My position---once again---is that it would be a multi-faceted approach. No, I do not have all the exact and exhaustive details laid out, because I do not know them. However, when other atheists espouse the view of “I do not care as long as they do not impose it on me” I can see that as being a problematic approach, that mentality should not be the norm among us.

Ok, cool. So I guess it's ok to, in this thread, talk about other aspects of religion that has an influence on their beliefs, other than just the beliefs. Great. I'll keep doing that then.

If you have the great antidote to religious thinking, please do not keep it hidden in just this thread. Start a thread of your own and explain how and why you think your approach will get the job done more effectively than any other alternatives. Again, the focus of this thread has been on the atheists who treat religion as a taboo topic and that we should not care about what bad beliefs other people have, unless they try to force it onto us. That is what I would like this particular thread to be focused on. That does not mean I think that approach is by itself enough to get the job done of eliminating religious harm, it just means that I want this particular discussion to focus on that particular aspect. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

What I disagree with is the notion that religions only harm people when they are enforced on others. Many atheists utter the mantra of “I do not care what they believe as long as they do not force it on me.” Well, as long as they exist they will get forced on you, or at least influence your life (and others), one way or another. It may be more direct or more indirect, but religious beliefs will impact you and other victims as long as they are present.

This is a bit too far for my taste. It is a step into advocating a thought police. Some people actually need a crutch to cope with life. For some that crutch is their religious belief, for some it is their political belief, for some it is their ethnic (tribal) identity, etc. etc.

Your apparent belief that religion should be crushed and eliminated seems to me to be as oppressive an idea (if actually implemented) as any tyrant that crushes those with contrary ideas.

 

[Brian63]

Well, that is a severe misunderstanding as well. What I am advocating for (in this thread) is nothing more than people, such as atheists, being more outspoken and verbally critical of bad beliefs. That is it. Nobody has been advocating oppressing religious thought or tyranny or crushing people with contrary ideas.

Earlier in this thread we mentioned the author Sam Harris, who I believe coined the term "conversational intolerance" to describe this. When someone sitting across the table from you espouses bad beliefs and bad justifications for those bad beliefs, then we should be more openly critical of them. Not to avoid them because it may hurt their feelings. Not to treat their own oppressive behaviors as being a taboo topic. When someone espouses bad beliefs in other contexts, like their civil rights views, it is essential for progress that those of us who hold opposite views make our voices heard. Otherwise we will likely lose those civil rights that we cherish.

So again, nobody here is advocating any kind of forceful or militant oppression of people or ideas. Just outspoken and plain criticism. That is part of how progress is achieved.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, that is a severe misunderstanding as well. What I am advocating for (in this thread) is nothing more than people, such as atheists, being more outspoken and verbally critical of bad beliefs. That is it. Nobody has been advocating oppressing religious thought or tyranny or crushing people with contrary ideas.

Earlier in this thread we mentioned the author Sam Harris, who I believe coined the term "conversational intolerance" to describe this. When someone sitting across the table from you espouses bad beliefs and bad justifications for those bad beliefs, then we should be more openly critical of them. Not to avoid them because it may hurt their feelings. Not to treat their own oppressive behaviors as being a taboo topic. When someone espouses bad beliefs in other contexts, like their civil rights views, it is essential for progress that those of us who hold opposite views make our voices heard. Otherwise we will likely lose those civil rights that we cherish.

So again, nobody here is advocating any kind of forceful or militant oppression of people or ideas. Just outspoken and plain criticism. That is part of how progress is achieved.

Being open to discussion and disagreement is one thing and is very different than your stated disagreement with what you criticize as a mantra of “I do not care what they believe as long as they do not force it on me.”. I can certainly openly disagree with them but still respect their right to believe strange things. In other words, I like the 'mantra'.

Originally Posted by Brian63

Many atheists utter the mantra of “I do not care what they believe as long as they do not force it on me.” Well, as long as they exist they will get forced on you, or at least influence your life (and others), one way or another.