Superstiton/religion & anti intellectualism

[drfuzzy]

---

 NO, sorry, what works in one context does not always work in every context. There is no one right way to approach bad claims, other than to insist on non violence, no matter who says what. I really hate this good intent, it sounds nice but, far too often this good intent leads to setting up taboos, and that is never good for any parties involved.

"Be nice" all the time simply does not work. For me, it is "depends" on time place and context. 

And sorry I hate the word "respect", that is a hollow and loaded cliche. If it were used in the context you are advocating I'd be fine with it. But that is NOT what most people use it for. "Respect" is simply a word most people use to say "I don't want to consider I am wrong, so don't bruise my ego, and know your place in the social order". "Respect" is a word far too often used to shut down a conversation.

HUMANS certainly have rights, but claims as ideas do not deserve to be scrutiny or blasphemy free. So it depends on context of situation and case by case.

---

How many believers have you successfully talked out of their beliefs with that attitude? Oh, none, really? That's a shocker.

Chill, EP.  I think that we need to hang on to the knowledge that there are many, many different types of believers out there.  You and Brian37 can both be correct, in different contexts, different places, different belief systems and different people.  There is no magic formula.  
   While I agree with Brian that ideas / beliefs should not be scrutiny or blasphemy free.  I'm a fan of cold hard facts, and I rather enjoy applying them to unsubstantiated woo. But that doesn't mean that I think de-converting people is my business.  Their beliefs are their business.  And some of them would happily die rather than doubt.

[Brian37]

How many believers have you successfully talked out of their beliefs with that attitude? Oh, none, really? That's a shocker.

Chill, EP.  I think that we need to hang on to the knowledge that there are many, many different types of believers out there.  You and Brian37 can both be correct, in different contexts, different places, different belief systems and different people.  There is no magic formula.  
   While I agree with Brian that ideas / beliefs should not be scrutiny or blasphemy free.  I'm a fan of cold hard facts, and I rather enjoy applying them to unsubstantiated woo. But that doesn't mean that I think de-converting people is my business.  Their beliefs are their business.  And some of them would happily die rather than doubt.

Yep, we can be both correct, that was my point. I think the important thing for all parties is to accept that there is no such thing as a utopia formula. 

But, your meme DOES demonstrate what happens to human thought when humans hide behind religion, and that is my reason that "never" is not a good solution. I certainly was not postulating an absolute either. 

The people who had an influence on me when I first started to question, I have no contact with now, they will never know what they did for me. I wish I could go back in time an thank them.

[Excited Penguin]

How many believers have you successfully talked out of their beliefs with that attitude? Oh, none, really? That's a shocker.

Don't know, I am sure quite a few. I do know if it were not for the blasphemy of others I would not be an atheist now. I was offended far too easily as a kid for lots of reasons, and if you had picked on my Catholic beliefs growing up yes, I would have reacted negatively to it. So? Would that give me the right to assault or murder someone? No? Ok so what is your point? 



Yet another bad argument. Again, you are still dealing with 7 billion humans and it still is flat out absurd to expect 7 billion humans to only say nice things about each other. That is a utopia that will never happen.

I dont think you understand that even a mere "that is not true" to many believers might as well be a literal "fuck you". 

Civility isn't about never offending or never getting offended. Civility is what you do in response to those situations. YOU can only control yourself, not others. 

I value human rights, but I will never value "never" as a blanket solution in dealing with speech. It is as it should be dealt with on a "it depends" and case by case.

I have no idea what the hell you're even talking about. All I was doing was giving a little practical advice as to how to better persuade some people. It doesn't always work, but that doesn't mean there's a better alternative on offer. At least I don't think there is. That's not to say in some situations and with some people a rougher approach wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean it's exactly optimal either.

[Excited Penguin]

And you also falsely assume my only reason to do this is to convince believers. Not speaking out against bad claims, does not help those living under a given majority, confidence to do it themselves if they want to. So say, someone like Malala is not helped by silence, and former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, also are not helped by silence. WW2 could have been completely avoided if enough Germans had seen through the bullshit Hitler sold.

"Never" is not an option. Nobody is advocating or should advocate the forced end of religion. But "never offend" is just flat out wrong.

I'm not talking about not offending someone. Some people are just not persuaded by you if you bring them facts and you argue with them, though. It's just the reality of it. Pretending something will work when it doesn't won't get you anywhere.

How the hell did you go off on those ridiculous tangents exactly?

[Brian37]

Don't know, I am sure quite a few. I do know if it were not for the blasphemy of others I would not be an atheist now. I was offended far too easily as a kid for lots of reasons, and if you had picked on my Catholic beliefs growing up yes, I would have reacted negatively to it. So? Would that give me the right to assault or murder someone? No? Ok so what is your point? 



Yet another bad argument. Again, you are still dealing with 7 billion humans and it still is flat out absurd to expect 7 billion humans to only say nice things about each other. That is a utopia that will never happen.

I dont think you understand that even a mere "that is not true" to many believers might as well be a literal "fuck you". 

Civility isn't about never offending or never getting offended. Civility is what you do in response to those situations. YOU can only control yourself, not others. 

I value human rights, but I will never value "never" as a blanket solution in dealing with speech. It is as it should be dealt with on a "it depends" and case by case.

I have no idea what the hell you're even talking about. All I was doing was giving a little practical advice as to how to better persuade some people. It doesn't always work, but that doesn't mean there's a better alternative on offer. At least I don't think there is. That's not to say in some situations and with some people a rougher approach wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean it's exactly optimal either.

Worry about yourself. I have been at this for 15 years, don't presume I don't have a clue as to what I am doing. Do your own thing.

[Excited Penguin]

How many believers have you successfully talked out of their beliefs with that attitude? Oh, none, really? That's a shocker.

Chill, EP.  I think that we need to hang on to the knowledge that there are many, many different types of believers out there.  You and Brian37 can both be correct, in different contexts, different places, different belief systems and different people.  There is no magic formula.  
   While I agree with Brian that ideas / beliefs should not be scrutiny or blasphemy free.  I'm a fan of cold hard facts, and I rather enjoy applying them to unsubstantiated woo. But that doesn't mean that I think de-converting people is my business.  Their beliefs are their business.  And some of them would happily die rather than doubt.

I don't disagree with Brian either. I just think he is strawmanning me, that's all.

I don't agree that their beliefs are their business and I think it's our responsibility, as people who know better, to help others think more rationally as well.

[Excited Penguin]

I have no idea what the hell you're even talking about. All I was doing was giving a little practical advice as to how to better persuade some people. It doesn't always work, but that doesn't mean there's a better alternative on offer. At least I don't think there is. That's not to say in some situations and with some people a rougher approach wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean it's exactly optimal either.

Worry about yourself. I have been at this for 15 years, don't presume I don't have a clue as to what I am doing. Do your own thing.

Oh, boy.

[Brian37]

Worry about yourself. I have been at this for 15 years, don't presume I don't have a clue as to what I am doing. Do your own thing.

Oh, boy.

You offered me advice, and I told you why your advice is not a solution in every context. No "oh boy". It is a simple statement of reality. You are not going to set up a utopia. Do your own thing fine. I do know what I am doing.

[drfuzzy]

Chill, EP.  I think that we need to hang on to the knowledge that there are many, many different types of believers out there.  You and Brian37 can both be correct, in different contexts, different places, different belief systems and different people.  There is no magic formula.  
   While I agree with Brian that ideas / beliefs should not be scrutiny or blasphemy free.  I'm a fan of cold hard facts, and I rather enjoy applying them to unsubstantiated woo. But that doesn't mean that I think de-converting people is my business.  Their beliefs are their business.  And some of them would happily die rather than doubt.

I don't disagree with Brian either. I just think he is strawmanning me, that's all.

I don't agree that their beliefs are their business and I think it's our responsibility, as people who know better, to help others think more rationally as well.

I'm all in favor of promoting rational thought.  As a former fundie, I feel grateful (and frequently stunned) that my circumstances helped me break away from that mindset.  But it was my circumstances - and reading - and learning - that did it.  Having my beliefs questioned would have simply made me angry.  I would have decided that whoever questioned them was an asshole, and therefore all atheists were assholes . . . 
    And the fundies think it is there GOD-given responsibility, as people who know better, to turn us to belief and save us from hell.  It really is two sides of the same coin.  So I cannot think that "it is my responsibility to change someone's beliefs".  That would make me . . . just the same as them.  What I have escaped from.  (Bad grammar, I know.)  
I wish we could just flood the internet with thousands of really good memes, and let people bump into the questions as they will.   

[robvalue]

I've noticed a trend where some religious people reject any areas of science that make their narrative look foolish, while accepting the rest of it and even co-opting it to try and show why the bits they don't like are wrong.

I fully support that people should question everything, but you really need to learn what it is you're even questioning. In most cases, when people "reject" parts of science, they are actually rejecting a strawman version of it.