"I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"

[Justtristo]

Itslikebeingshiton comment was distasteful and offensive. However I still support Itslikebeingshiton's right to say those comments. Is is not like there are not theists out there, who happen make the same sort of distasteful and offensive comments about atheists. I would recommend everyone to listen to Richard Dawkins reading out his hate mail.

[Rwandrall]

To Padraic and Ziggystardust,

As i already stated, i do not want to CONTROL anyone's speech. However i am certainly in my right to express my opinion about something i find idiotic and useless. That post was merely an example to show what i think is contributing to give atheists the "condescending douchebags" stereotype, which is why i condemned it.
And i am in my right to say how i think people SHOULD behave. I do not force anyone to accept my standards, i merely state those standards and my reasons for having those standards.

If our goal is to comfort ourselves and tell ourselves we are superior and theists are stoopid, then yeah these statements are alright. But if our aim is (and i know mine is) to actually have a rational discourse to convince people to accept our ideas, then this is simply the wrong way to go.
______________________________________
To Ryft,

All i can say is that i cannot agree more ^^
______________________________________
To Reverendjeremiah

But you must admit there is a fascist element in many of the uber conservative Christians. I call them "Christian Nationalists". They scream "Christian Nation" all the time. Those are the ones I dispise.

That is the kind of rethoric i do not agree with: taglines like "fascist" only make dialogue harder. Again, if you consider the one you speak to to be a fascist, it's pretty likely that you are not going to listen to anything they have to say.

Also, the ones who make the news are always the most extreme ones. So judging a whole group of people by its most extreme members is wrong.
______________________________________

There is no comparison at all between MSNBC and FOX. MSNBC makes it clear that they are giving you THEIR opinions. FOX acts like the have the word of fucking god to dispense.

Both of these networks are appealing to a demographic in order to make profits. Both of them have a rhetoric to dispense and a way to dispense it. In that way there is NO difference between them. But since Fox has a strong Christian tendency, its rhetoric appears more biased.

But if you look at left-wing pundits like Bill Maher (whom i otherwise love), or Chris Matthews (who lost all my respect after a debate with Chris Hitchens) or Keith Oibermann (who is insane...)....no one is free of blame.

Just taking the example of the Tea Party: the vast majority of these people were calm, rational people actually worried about their country, but both Fox and the more left-wing networks twisted them to fit what they wanted people to see. It's just sad and insulting.

[Skipper]

Yup, but just like being a fascist does not mean being Hitler, being a theist does not mean being a dangerous zealot.

But just like in Germany all the other facists being complicit is what allowed hitler into a position of power and that in turn allowed some of the greatest evil to ever be committed. In the same way I have always argued it's the majority (of admittedly peaceful) religious folk who are passive enough that allow the dangerous zealots to get into a position of power within a religion who can then cause suffering and evil in the name of that religion. The so called peaceful majorities of religions e.g. Islam are responsible for keeping their religion peaceful and they should be doing everything they can to keep it that way. Slightly off topic I know, but a point worth making I thought.

[thesummerqueen]

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.

[Autumnlicious]

All i can say is that i do not agree. Even if you were right in that being a dick works sometimes, i am still convinced that diplomacy is more effective, and more importantly transfers a better image to the one you are arguing against. I maintain that you are more easily convinced by someone friendly than by a douchebag.

... Only Sith deal in absolutes...

[Violet]

... Only Sith deal in absolutes...

I make deals with the Sith... but I do so from a galaxy far far away >_>

[Rwandrall]

But just like in Germany all the other facists being complicit is what allowed hitler into a position of power and that in turn allowed some of the greatest evil to ever be committed. In the same way I have always argued it's the majority (of admittedly peaceful) religious folk who are passive enough that allow the dangerous zealots to get into a position of power within a religion who can then cause suffering and evil in the name of that religion. The so called peaceful majorities of religions e.g. Islam are responsible for keeping their religion peaceful and they should be doing everything they can to keep it that way. Slightly off topic I know, but a point worth making I thought.

I know of this argument, and i have to reject it. Because that means ANY position on ANY matter whatsoever is bad.

You are left-wing ? You pave the way for Stalin
You are right-wing ? You pave the way for exploiting the masses of poor people.
You are pro-weed ? You pave the way for a generation of Heroin junkies
You are against weed ? You pave the way for a strict dictatorship with no freedoms.

All of these make no sense. Just like saying "You are theist ? You pave the way for Holy Wars" is nonsense.

[Skipper]

If I was left wing though, I would expect me and other left wingers to stand up and fight Stalin. If I was right wing, I'd defend being right wing but also fight the exploitation of the masses. Whatever ideology I subscribed to I would expect to defend it's true position from extremes of any kind, the same thing I expect of religious folk. More so from religious folk, seeing as at least being right or left wing is subscribing to ideas that clearly exist. If you choose to be of whatever religion and claim it to be peaceful, when someone comes along and uses your religion to cause suffering you should be on the front-line of fighting them, otherwise don't bother with the religion because without the peaceful masses of any religion there is no way religion would have power to cause the evil it does.

[Rwandrall]

If I was left wing though, I would expect me and other left wingers to stand up and fight Stalin. If I was right wing, I'd defend being right wing but also fight the exploitation of the masses. Whatever ideology I subscribed to I would expect to defend it's true position from extremes of any kind, the same thing I expect of religious folk. More so from religious folk, seeing as at least being right or left wing is subscribing to ideas that clearly exist. If you choose to be of whatever religion and claim it to be peaceful, when someone comes along and uses your religion to cause suffering you should be on the front-line of fighting them, otherwise don't bother with the religion because without the peaceful masses of any religion there is no way religion would have power to cause the evil it does.

I entirely agree with what you said. But you seem to be under the impression that religious people do not go against the actions taken by extremists, and that is simply not true.

Some left-wing people rejected Stalin, some did not. No general rule, and no black or white. In the exact same way, MANY religious people opposed, rejected and protested some actions made in the name of their religion. A large part of the protest against the Pope in London were not atheists but women for the right of women to become priests, or catholics protesting the covering-up of the crimes committed by the Church.

The 9/11 attacks were universally condemned by muslims worldwide. The actions of the Westborough Church are universally condemned by Christians.

[Autumnlicious]

The 9/11 attacks were universally condemned by muslims worldwide. The actions of the Westborough Church are universally condemned by Christians.

The same Muslims who believe in a book that legitimizes killing apostates? The same Christians who argue for more faith in schools?

I don't care WHO they are. I care WHAT they believe in, as those same ideologues who condemn their own indulge in similar behaviors.

If the rapist condemns the murderer, does the victim feel better?

And how much does it really say when people who believe in an extreme fantasy reject their nutty outliers?

They are still magnitudes as corrupt and as flawed as those whom they criticize -- they just happen to be the average.