Leo has a point, Rwandrall, in that no matter how diplomatic you are to the person you are trying to hold a level discussion with, you probably won't convince them. Especially if you're arguing from an atheist vs theist standpoint. I can't remember if it was made in the same speech or not, but it's circulated widely throughout the skeptic community - the idea is that not being 'a dick' is the best method for producing results with anyone who might be watching or listening in rather than engaging in the actual discussion: people who might be sitting on the fence with their beliefs about...well, anything! Be it the morals of atheists, belief in god, etc.
Anyone who thinks atheists are bad people as a general rule probably will not going to change their views without something major in their own life altering their opinion, and chances are your discussion isn't going to be it. Second, while I agree with you about the smug attitude people take in atheism - it's the same smug attitude theists take. We all think our worldviews/religions/beliefs or lack thereof to be best...otherwise we wouldn't hold or not hold onto them.
The other side of the spectrum holds people like Penn & Teller, or even the comedian Doug Stanhope, who makes no bones about his contempt for religion and likewise for people who don't think. You could even throw Carlin and Lewis Black in there at times - actually a lot of comedians, since the role of the jester is to make people not take anything, especially themselves and their beliefs, seriously. PZ. Hitchins. You know, the assholes. Penn said in the beginning of his show "Bullshit" that they can call people "motherfuckers" because from a legal standpoint it's more acceptable than calling someone a liar. He's being a complete dick - and he should be, because it's necessary also to not coddle anyone, and to wake them up to the very real dangers that their beliefs could have - whether you agree with their solutions or conclusions or not.
I think you could agree that the main people who we see as 'dicks' in the skeptical or atheist communities are actually wise enough to realize that there ARE good religious or non-skeptical people out there, and thus they attack not the person but rather the religion, or the pseudo-science. The problem is not always "the dick" though, but just as often might be the person who holds their beliefs so close that they cannot hold up under the brunt of even a gentle attack - a questioning of their beliefs suddenly turns into a questioning of their very nature. And they react extremely negatively.
And perhaps that's what it should be: if you believe in a certain religion, you *should* be shocked with accusations made from outside of it to figure out if you're knowingly or unknowingly perpetuating a harm to the rest of the world. A good non-religious example from Penn & Teller: their episode on PETA. We all like to think we're animal lovers, and perhaps we'd react negatively to someone calling us idiots for supporting an organization that, on the surface, proclaims it wants nothing more than the best for animals. But wait...why is someone calling me an idiot? (in the case of PETA, it would be because the organization is run by a bunch of hypocrites who support fire-bombing buildings and various other dubious activities they'd rather their casual members not know about) A fair number of people don't even get to that question - they just hear 'idiot' and they shut down...hence Phil's speech. But...well, in the case of religion-fueled violence or abuse such as we see in the Catholic church...we need the assholes to call into question not just the beliefs but also the people who don't think it's necessary to even reconsider the belief-system they're supporting that might be in some way endorsing this violence.
I think you'd agree with all that - your rant seemed to center more on the petty nature of things you probably see on the web or hear around you. Unfortunately, your "call to arms" as it were to clean up the discussion...it isn't going to work. The piece that you quoted did not insult anyone in particular, except perhaps a hypothetical theist who read it and allowed himself or herself to be insulted. It insulted a belief system. It might have been in poor taste (and yes, you can make a creatively constructed poo joke, or a brilliant joke that happens to involve poo, and that one was neither), but it wasn't directly insulting a person. And wasn't that the point you made in the end?
Most days I have a great enough trust in humanity that I think the casual observer stumbling onto our board will see that one post...and also see the plethora of intelligent, quick-witted, thoroughly discussed topics, passionately but politely (for the most part) argued out between atheists, or theist and atheists. If they stop at only that post you found so useless...nothing you say to them about how the REST of the people who identify as atheists aren't 'that way' will convince them anyway, because they're the kind of person that only lets so much in, and probably only what confirms their bias.
As for the personal attacks you witness...well, I DO agree with Phil and think that for the most part, the majority of us shouldn't be dicks...but my trust in humanity only goes so far, and I've certainly called people idiots or fucktards or whatever else you want, and I've gotten called plenty of rotten things myself - it is as much THEIR job to learn to let the insults roll off their backs.
So a smug atheist tells a theist "you're a retard" for believing in god. The theist could cry about it, or calmly turn around and say "really now?" and argue for the existence of god as eloquently as our friend Hunkie Hedgehog to prove that he or she is in no way mentally deficient, and that the atheist has clearly run out of intelligent things to say. And likewise if a theist attacked an atheist. Belief or lack of belief in god does not carry the requirement or side-effect of maturity.
Anyone who thinks atheists are bad people as a general rule probably will not going to change their views without something major in their own life altering their opinion, and chances are your discussion isn't going to be it. Second, while I agree with you about the smug attitude people take in atheism - it's the same smug attitude theists take. We all think our worldviews/religions/beliefs or lack thereof to be best...otherwise we wouldn't hold or not hold onto them.
The other side of the spectrum holds people like Penn & Teller, or even the comedian Doug Stanhope, who makes no bones about his contempt for religion and likewise for people who don't think. You could even throw Carlin and Lewis Black in there at times - actually a lot of comedians, since the role of the jester is to make people not take anything, especially themselves and their beliefs, seriously. PZ. Hitchins. You know, the assholes. Penn said in the beginning of his show "Bullshit" that they can call people "motherfuckers" because from a legal standpoint it's more acceptable than calling someone a liar. He's being a complete dick - and he should be, because it's necessary also to not coddle anyone, and to wake them up to the very real dangers that their beliefs could have - whether you agree with their solutions or conclusions or not.
I think you could agree that the main people who we see as 'dicks' in the skeptical or atheist communities are actually wise enough to realize that there ARE good religious or non-skeptical people out there, and thus they attack not the person but rather the religion, or the pseudo-science. The problem is not always "the dick" though, but just as often might be the person who holds their beliefs so close that they cannot hold up under the brunt of even a gentle attack - a questioning of their beliefs suddenly turns into a questioning of their very nature. And they react extremely negatively.
And perhaps that's what it should be: if you believe in a certain religion, you *should* be shocked with accusations made from outside of it to figure out if you're knowingly or unknowingly perpetuating a harm to the rest of the world. A good non-religious example from Penn & Teller: their episode on PETA. We all like to think we're animal lovers, and perhaps we'd react negatively to someone calling us idiots for supporting an organization that, on the surface, proclaims it wants nothing more than the best for animals. But wait...why is someone calling me an idiot? (in the case of PETA, it would be because the organization is run by a bunch of hypocrites who support fire-bombing buildings and various other dubious activities they'd rather their casual members not know about) A fair number of people don't even get to that question - they just hear 'idiot' and they shut down...hence Phil's speech. But...well, in the case of religion-fueled violence or abuse such as we see in the Catholic church...we need the assholes to call into question not just the beliefs but also the people who don't think it's necessary to even reconsider the belief-system they're supporting that might be in some way endorsing this violence.
I think you'd agree with all that - your rant seemed to center more on the petty nature of things you probably see on the web or hear around you. Unfortunately, your "call to arms" as it were to clean up the discussion...it isn't going to work. The piece that you quoted did not insult anyone in particular, except perhaps a hypothetical theist who read it and allowed himself or herself to be insulted. It insulted a belief system. It might have been in poor taste (and yes, you can make a creatively constructed poo joke, or a brilliant joke that happens to involve poo, and that one was neither), but it wasn't directly insulting a person. And wasn't that the point you made in the end?
Most days I have a great enough trust in humanity that I think the casual observer stumbling onto our board will see that one post...and also see the plethora of intelligent, quick-witted, thoroughly discussed topics, passionately but politely (for the most part) argued out between atheists, or theist and atheists. If they stop at only that post you found so useless...nothing you say to them about how the REST of the people who identify as atheists aren't 'that way' will convince them anyway, because they're the kind of person that only lets so much in, and probably only what confirms their bias.
As for the personal attacks you witness...well, I DO agree with Phil and think that for the most part, the majority of us shouldn't be dicks...but my trust in humanity only goes so far, and I've certainly called people idiots or fucktards or whatever else you want, and I've gotten called plenty of rotten things myself - it is as much THEIR job to learn to let the insults roll off their backs.
So a smug atheist tells a theist "you're a retard" for believing in god. The theist could cry about it, or calmly turn around and say "really now?" and argue for the existence of god as eloquently as our friend Hunkie Hedgehog to prove that he or she is in no way mentally deficient, and that the atheist has clearly run out of intelligent things to say. And likewise if a theist attacked an atheist. Belief or lack of belief in god does not carry the requirement or side-effect of maturity.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
