(October 5, 2013 at 11:28 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 6:35 am)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: ...First in, best dressed.

I actually WAS the first in.
And I was just asking if you regard me as a moderate or an extremist because your bait and switch routine is passé

---

I will happily take up the negative.
It's not religious moderates who enable extremists, not unless you call agnostic atheism a "moderate" position.

You were the first to post. Well spotted, that Lion, but you didn't address the topic, so I figured you were doing your usual tangent thing, addressed your question and asked you to move along, giving first in status to The Germans Are Coming, who actually attempted to address the topic. Not the first opportunity to debate me you've passed up. When I ask you to do X to get Y, don't expect to get Y by doing Z. Clear instructions are clear. Play the hurt fawn card all you want, and claim I bait and switch. I've offered you the opportunity to debate me live, in Melbourne, at my expense, and you opted to do Z instead of responding in the manner required, so don't try to act as though I've been disingenuous in my dealings with you, LiorIRC.

You would have to actually answer the Crocodilemma for it to have any bearing on whether or not you constitute an extremist, but there are many lesser cuttoffs beyond which you would not constitute a moderate in the eyes of anyone other than those more extreme than you.

All of this is moot, though, as you don't actually have to be a moderate or an extremist to take the negative side, and it appears I am actually debating another atheist on the matter. I'll open a new thread for the Crocodilemma so you can give your answer, and the repurcussions of that answer can be discussed without further tramping footprints over what I hoped would be a duologue.

Very nice opening volley. Well written and thought out... I understand why your opponent chose to run away.

(October 7, 2013 at 9:05 pm)FreethinkerII Wrote: Very nice opening volley. Well written and thought out... I understand why your opponent chose to run away.

Thanks for the props, FreethinkerII.
I like that the argument is sufficiently strong that no theists are willing to take it on, but that also means I'm not communicating with anyone who really needs to know the information I want them to deal with. Their cowardice is their shield.

No offense, OP, but Sam Harris wrote an entire book about this some years ago (The End of Faith). The point was valid then, and it's still valid, and you do a nice job explaining it here, but I still recommend the book.

And if you do get replies from theists, they won't be direct and coherent.

(October 11, 2013 at 10:25 pm)Zazzy Wrote: No offense, OP, but Sam Harris wrote an entire book about this some years ago (The End of Faith). The point was valid then, and it's still valid, and you do a nice job explaining it here, but I still recommend the book.

And if you do get replies from theists, they won't be direct and coherent.

Thanks, Zazzy.
I had heard about Harris' book, but I haven't read it.
I like that atheists can come to the same conclusion from different starting points. While the argument from popularity doesn't carry weight, that the same conclusion can be reached by applying reason and logic, regardless where someone kicks off their inquiry, looks a hell of a lot better than the religious model, where people start at the same position and often reach diametrically opposed conclusions.
I will look up Harris' book when I get the chance, but there's a lot on my shelf awaiting attention, and my experience of Harris at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, 2012, left him well down the list of people I feel compelled to give much of my time to.

I am accustomed to theists giving indirect and less than coherent responses to the challenging questions I try to present them with. That doesn't rule out the process of presenting the questions having merit. While the theists I address directly are unlikely to change, the invisible audience, those who read but don't contribute, or who might stumble upon the dialogue later, are the target in most of my attempts to communicate with theists.
Cheers
Matt

I'm not above making chicken noises about this - if any theist attempts to make the case that their religion's reputation is spoiled only by extremists, please direct them to this thread so they can explain how the disjunct between their faith and the faith of those they would distance themselves from works.

C'mon, theists. Get amongst my arguments and show the mouthy Australian why he's wrong.

Bwark, bok bok bok bok.

Looks like your topic is a non-starter.
I am willing to take the opposite position but you turned me down.

In monotheistic religion, moderates totally dominate their respective institutions. Extremists are seen as heretical, unorthodox and temporary. Far from being "enabled" they are disenfranchised, disempowered and self-supporting.

You call them extreme. AND SO DOES the mainstream religious MAJORITY.
Extremism only takes shape because they CANT get their heretical unorthodox views 'enabled' within the moderate majority.

---

One exception might be New Atheism which apathetic agnostics seem happy to let have free reign in the public square.

Moderate "Accomodationalists" seem to be in the minority among mainstream adherents of the atheist religion

If you really want to encourage extremists and fundamentalists atheism and a denial of the existence of God is the way to go about it.

Some of you arguing for this obviously Sam Harris position seem to be letting confirmation bias getcha. Extremists are not simply met with silence among religious circles, and having been both a fundamentalist and a more moderate Christian in my life at different times, I feel somewhat qualified in asserting that.

As earlier mentioned, among most mainstream religious institutions (either Christian or Islamic) are moderate. Hence why all Muslim extremist bombings have been denounced by mainstream Islamic institutions the world over. Even Christian extremists are treated with some level of contempt by moderate Christians, such as The Westboro Baptist Church.

To say otherwise is to just let what you want to be true trump what is actually true. No one likes extremists, and they get no real favors from moderates usually.

(October 18, 2013 at 6:42 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: If you really want to encourage extremists and fundamentalists, atheism and a denial of the existence of God is the way to go about it.

Cool.

Then let the games commence.

But I think you meant "denial of the existence their version of a god".

No, no, anytime, no need to thank me.