*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[abaddon]

I honestly think i am more motivated to see what others post against the arguments they present than in seeing if 1eye (for example) even understands the replies he gets ... I am here for entertainment...

Yes. To see what the other atheists say. Also, I like to watch what goofiness comes next from theists. I can't stop wondering at persons that live inside an ancient mythology. It's curious and entertaining and dismaying all at once, so observing it is not a bad cure for some boring spots in the day.

Maybe it's news to Brian, but we're not all secular activists trying to win people over to secularism. I think they're wrong else I wouldn't argue. But it's presumptuous to think "atheists" share, or ought to share, a goal and a technique to achieve it.

 

[skepticalbip]

I honestly think i am more motivated to see what others post against the arguments they present than in seeing if 1eye (for example) even understands the replies he gets ... I am here for entertainment...

Yes. To see what the other atheists say. Also, I like to watch what goofiness comes next from theists. I can't stop wondering at persons that live inside an ancient mythology. It's curious and entertaining and dismaying all at once, so observing it is not a bad cure for some boring spots in the day.

Maybe it's news to Brian, but we're not all secular activists trying to win people over to secularism. I think they're wrong else I wouldn't argue. But it's presumptuous to think "atheists" share, or ought to share, a goal and a technique to achieve it.

Absolutely... If some of the theists opinions I have read and heard are truly how they think then I don't want them to stop believing. They have claimed that their faith in their religion and fear of hell is the only thing that stops them from stealing, raping, killing, etc. If religion is necessary for some people to accept a morality then "thank god" for religion.

 

[Brian63]

Maybe it's news to Brian, but we're not all secular activists trying to win people over to secularism.

Sarcasm noted. I am well aware that not all are secular activists trying to win people over to secularism. Still, I think a lot of the reasons that people cite are deeply flawed for *why* they are not even trying. Also, even if you were not trying to be an activist, that still does not give you license to be an asshole.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still, I think a lot of the reasons that people cite are deeply flawed

So is my fanfic, but i still enjoy writing it.
Your enjoyment of Winnie The Pooh as Kirk in The Trouble With Tribbles would be nice, but i frankly won't sweat it if you don't.

 

[Brian63]

If a person insulted you and said you were arrogant, closed-minded, etc. because of your preferred fanfic and that you would not consider their own fanfic, would you think that person was being irrational?



Note that I do not think that social causes impacting the welfare, lives, and health of billions of people---and the preferred forms of harmless personal entertainment---belong on the same scale as each other in terms of significance. Apparently though others here seem to equalize their significance. So I am just using those as examples.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If a person insulted you and said you were arrogant, closed-minded, etc. because of your preferred fanfic and that you would not consider their own fanfic, would you think that person was being irrational?

i guess that depends whether he read my fanfic or just noticed the category it's posted under.
But then, sone fanfic seems to really draw arrogant fans. So, he might have a point. I guess it'd have to be on a case by case.

 

[Brian63]

We do not need to limit it to that level even. Maybe he thinks all fanfic is stupid, and fanfic writers are stupid. All writers of all kinds are dumb and deserve to be called dumb. All entertainers of all kinds are ignorant, and should be called out as such. At some point (a pretty early one), we should see that just holding a certain entertainment preference does not make a person ignorant, and even if it did then having other people repeatedly and unprovoked call each other stupid based on their entertainment preferences really does not good, unless they just enjoy insulting others.

With religious beliefs, very smart and very good people can still hold some very bad religious beliefs that harm themselves and others. The easy response to them is to insult them, but it is more difficult to try and engage with them on more serious terms. Amateur tactics prevail a lot of the time though. Just try to bully them and insult them into submission, and that is what makes us feel really good about ourselves and inflates our own egos.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

In other words, if a stranger on the street politely tells you that Jesus loves you, would you conclude she is rude and even insincere and is really gloating over you?

Rude? Maybe not. Gloating? Possible, but again, maybe not. Insincere? Almost certainly.

In my experience, the "Jesus loves you" card is usually played at the end of a conversation, to dismiss every argument I've made (as if they were really listening anyway), and not as a sincere expression of their belief that Jesus actually loves me. Alternatively, it comes across as having an unspoken corollary, viz: "Jesus loves you, even if I think you're a bit of a cunt". Not sure if it counts as "gloating", but it also appears to be an expression of a feeling of superiority, as in "You may have your well-argued positions on this, but my simple slogan beats them all." It's way more like condescension than sincerity.

 

[Brian63]

I agree that it can be either way, and it depends on the person and on the circumstances and the immediate temperament at that moment (the same person can mean it more sympathetically one day and more condescendingly on another day, etc.). The assertion that it is "almost certainly" that they are insincere goes way too far and is not supportable. I have encountered plenty of present-day religious believers and formerly-religious believers who are/were largely sincere, they really think people like us are bound for hell and they are not arguing for the sake of arguing and are not doing so in a condescending way. They have been very pleasant people, far more pleasant than many on this forum who interestingly do not get called out for being blatantly and flagrantly and explicitly insulting (not just implicitly condescending).

So why the double standard? Why pick out the comments from religious believers that could on a certain day be considered condescending in a certain way, then highlight and explode them---all the while being eerily quiet when other atheists make comments that are far more openly condescending? For some reason, people find it so vital to insult other people to their face. We think it makes us look big and tough? We are taking vigilante justice on those people for harm done to ourselves by others? More of a tribalistic appeal and we want to join in to the group and bully others? Whatever the motive, we should try to be getting over it and not giving into it. Unless you really want to live in a world where people feel free to just throw flames at each other rather carelessly. Just do not be surprised if/when you get burned back too, and then complain about it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...they really think people like us are bound for hell and they are not arguing for the sake of arguing and are not doing so in a condescending way. They have been very pleasant people, far more pleasant than many on this forum who interestingly do not get called out for being blatantly and flagrantly and explicitly insulting (not just implicitly condescending).

I remember staying at a lodge where the owner was a sincere bigfoot believer with bigfoot paraphernalia everywhere. It was entertaining, sad, and unsettling. But at least he didn't want to impose his views on us or preach to us or threaten us with the purpose of advancing his business.

Religious people are frightening because they say things like "Jesus gave us our bodies" or "I'll pray for you" or "You need to go to church." Insulting me is not a problem, insult can be ignored. But knowing there are voting adults who think a Santa-like being is watching how I use my sex organs is not an insult, it is a threat to my safety. That they think they are being directed by and communicating with magic, invisible aliens is not normal behavior for an intelligent, sane, rational adult.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We do not need to limit it to that level even. Maybe he thinks all fanfic is stupid, and fanfic writers are stupid.

I was quite pleased to be targeted by an editor on GodAwful Fan Fiction.

All writers of all kinds are dumb and deserve to be called dumb. All entertainers of all kinds are ignorant, and should be called out as such. At some point (a pretty early one), we should see that just holding a certain entertainment preference does not make a person ignorant, and even if it did then having other people repeatedly and unprovoked call each other stupid based on their entertainment preferences really does not good, unless they just enjoy insulting others.

Well, clearly i was raised by wolves, then.

 

[Brian63]

Religious people are frightening because they say things like "Jesus gave us our bodies" or "I'll pray for you" or "You need to go to church." Insulting me is not a problem, insult can be ignored.

One item I find particularly interesting is this disagreement among atheists especially on this forum (and probably more generally) about whether statements like "I'll pray for you" constitute an insult or not, or how to respond to it. Actually, in a different subforum we have talked about it more specifically: Responding to "I will pray for you"

Some on this forum argue such statements are (often) well intentioned but flawed, some say it is more condescending, some say it is an insult, some say they mean well and it would be dickish for us to make any kind of atheist statement in response, etc. It seems we are all very confident that each of us is right, but we tend to have a lot of conflicting views from each other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It seems we are all very confident that each of us is right, but we tend to have a lot of conflicting views from each other.

Which is why it seems so arrogant and stupid when believers try to treat atheists asca block, a movement, a religion, a lifestyke.

There is very little we hold in common besides not believe in any gods.

But they will go on about 'you atheists and your ______' (big bang, church state sep, hatred, correct spelling, historical facts, constitution, cashews, Harry Potter)

 

[skepticalbip]

Religious people are frightening because they say things like "Jesus gave us our bodies" or "I'll pray for you" or "You need to go to church." Insulting me is not a problem, insult can be ignored.

One item I find particularly interesting is this disagreement among atheists especially on this forum (and probably more generally) about whether statements like "I'll pray for you" constitute an insult or not, or how to respond to it. Actually, in a different subforum we have talked about it more specifically: Responding to "I will pray for you"

It depends on the situation. Consoling someone with some serious problem, "I will pray for you" is an expression of empathy. "I will pray for you" as a rebuttal to a reasoned argument is an insulting dismissal of the other. "I will pray for you" as a random comment to a stranger is proselytizing - and similar to a comment such as "Trump will take care of you" by Trumpsters or "Bernie will take care of you" by socialists.

 

[Brian63]

It depends on the situation. Consoling someone with some serious problem, "I will pray for you" is an expression of empathy. "I will pray for you" as a rebuttal to a reasoned argument is an insulting dismissal of the other. "I will pray for you" as a random comment to a stranger is proselytizing - and similar to a comment such as "Trump will take care of you" by Trumpsters or "Bernie will take care of you" by socialists.

I agree with you there. What I find most interesting is how (*if you wished to*) you could convince others that your position is right, when those others are just as confident that their own (conflicting) opinion is right.

I realize you may not actually care about what anyone else believes on this issue, but just as a hypothetical, let's say you did---What would be the best strategy to convince a person that they are wrong? To insult them? Sarcasm, mockery, condescending? Be courteous and not a battle of personal egos? Try to make it as easy as possible for them to acknowledge their error? I would favor the latter approaches, partly as a matter of it being a more successful technique, partly because the former would involve being a jackass, which is not how I want to live my life.



I do think atheists here should care more about pro-active for secularist causes, including improving the social standings of outright atheists. Not just being defensive and waiting for some immediate threat to endanger us, like some piece of legislation that imposes on government/religion separation, for instance, before we speak up. We should try to stave off such threats from getting even that advanced. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is another discussion I will leave for other times though, and I know plenty here disagree with my take.

On any social issue in general though that you have a position on that others disagree with, and you wanted to become more active and vocal in support of your views, what do you think some of the better ways to convince those who oppose you is? Or do you hold the position that nobody ever changes their minds on anything, so I would rather just insult people because it makes me feel good, or something along those lines?

 

[abaddon]

It depends on the situation. Consoling someone with some serious problem, "I will pray for you" is an expression of empathy. "I will pray for you" as a rebuttal to a reasoned argument is an insulting dismissal of the other. "I will pray for you" as a random comment to a stranger is proselytizing - and similar to a comment such as "Trump will take care of you" by Trumpsters or "Bernie will take care of you" by socialists.

I agree with you there. What I find most interesting is how (*if you wished to*) you could convince others that your position is right, when those others are just as confident that their own (conflicting) opinion is right.

I realize you may not actually care about what anyone else believes on this issue, but just as a hypothetical, let's say you did---What would be the best strategy to convince a person that they are wrong? To insult them? Sarcasm, mockery, condescending? Be courteous and not a battle of personal egos? Try to make it as easy as possible for them to acknowledge their error? I would favor the latter approaches, partly as a matter of it being a more successful technique, partly because the former would involve being a jackass, which is not how I want to live my life.



I do think atheists here should care more about pro-active for secularist causes, including improving the social standings of outright atheists. Not just being defensive and waiting for some immediate threat to endanger us, like some piece of legislation that imposes on government/religion separation, for instance, before we speak up. We should try to stave off such threats from getting even that advanced. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is another discussion I will leave for other times though, and I know plenty here disagree with my take.

On any social issue in general though that you have a position on that others disagree with, and you wanted to become more active and vocal in support of your views, what do you think some of the better ways to convince those who oppose you is? Or do you hold the position that nobody ever changes their minds on anything, so I would rather just insult people because it makes me feel good, or something along those lines?

Stupid questions. How did you conclude the atheists are all assholes and all extremely stupid too? There's no atheist here that doesn't know that you talk politely with people if the aim is to persuade them to your own POV.

But there is the occasional circumstance where a metaphorical 'little slap in the face' helps though. You've tried applying yourself several times (though I would say hamfistedly) so don't argue that that's not true.

Brian, I was actually very interested in this topic before it got derailed by you.

 

[Brian63]

How did you conclude the atheists are all assholes and all extremely stupid too?

When/where did I ever conclude that? That is not even close to what I believe. Not sure where you are getting that data from. Some of the smartest people and admirable people (which are 2 different qualities certainly) I have ever come across are atheists.

There's no atheist here that doesn't know that you talk politely with people if the aim is to persuade them to your own POV.

How do you know that?

But there is the occasional circumstance where a metaphorical 'little slap in the face' helps though. You've tried applying yourself several times (though I would say hamfistedly) so don't argue that that's not true.

I have gone back and forth, and mostly agree with you but am not as confident as you seem. Sometimes I do think bullies need a counterpunch.

Brian, I was actually very interested in this topic before it got derailed by you.

You are welcome to change your mind.

 

[abaddon]

When/where did I ever conclude that?

The questions clearly imply idiocy.

How do you know that?

Because it takes an incredible degree of stupidity to not know that persuasion is an equal back-and-forth exchange. It's a basic fact of life.

Brian, I was actually very interested in this topic before it got derailed by you.

You are welcome to change your mind.

Change my mind about what? Being interested in the actual topic?

 

[Brian63]

The questions clearly imply idiocy.

No, they did not imply that in the slightest. You may have inferred that, but they were not implied. A lot of atheists (or whatever slight variation of the label) I admire in different ways. I'll give you some names---Matt Dillahunty, Seth Andrews, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ed Brayton, Tracie Harris, PZ Myers. Back when I was brand new to exploring religion/atheism/philosophy, I lurked on a prior version of this forum. There was a poster there that to this day still I consider the smartest atheist I have ever come across. He now blogs at the Barefoot Bum about mostly economic issues, but back in the day I was simply amazed by his outstanding ability to dismantle theist apologetic arguments. Partly because it was all new to me and partly because he was so intelligent and articulate, and his thoughts were so well-formulated. He had been and still is a tremendous influence on my life, in a helpful way.

Because it takes an incredible degree of stupidity to not know that persuasion is an equal back-and-forth exchange. It's a basic fact of life.

That was not your claim I was questioning. Your claim was that "There's no atheist here that doesn't know that..." (emphasis added). I am not asking you to justify that it's stupid to insult people if you are trying to persuade them. I am asking you to justify that every atheist here knows that to be true. Did you conduct a poll?

You are welcome to change your mind.

Change my mind about what? Being interested in the actual topic?

Sure. I have no say in the matter of what interests you. If you decide to zoom out of participating in the topic at any point in the future though, I will not insult you if you change your mind and return to it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I realize you may not actually care about what anyone else believes on this issue, but just as a hypothetical, let's say you did---What would be the best strategy to convince a person that they are wrong?

I could easily stipulate that if i wanted to do what i am not interested in doing, then the best way to not do it would be to do what i am doing.
But that's still at least one step beyond the question of why i would want to not do that?
I get that you want to do what it is you want to do, but thats not persuading me that what i am doing isn't entertaining me quite well, and sufficient for the goals i actually possess.