Style over Substance

[Justtristo]

I am wondering if other atheists would agree when viewing debates between Atheists and Theists, that the generally in these debates theists while saying little to nothing which has any substance. While the Atheists have a lot to say which has substance, while they don't preform as great when it comes to style.

I do not know if I am right, it is just my observations. Anyway I don't give a rat arse about style, crap which smells good is still crap to me. However a lot of other fellow human beings are impressed by people who look good, talk good, have degrees and doctorates.

[Minimalist]

Theists lack style and substance...unless mindless prattling about their invisible sky-daddy counts as "style" to you.

[Justtristo]

Theists lack style and substance...unless mindless prattling about their invisible sky-daddy counts as "style" to you.

Not to myself to a lot of other people yes, however making crap look good is a talent I sorely lack and sometimes wish I have.

[lilyannerose]

'ziggystardust' pid='107584' dateline='1291243470'
I am wondering if other atheists would agree when viewing debates between Atheists and Theists, that the generally in these debates theists while saying little to nothing which has any substance. While the Atheists have a lot to say which has substance, while they don't preform as great when it comes to style.

Theists have an emotional identity connection to their belief systems. For a lot of theists a belief system is the foundation upon which they structure their life. You go after that and you are going to get more emotion and passion in the defense of that belief system which prohibits any attempts at rational examination of the belief.

[thesummerqueen]

I heard an interview once where a TV director who made science shows said that most scientists (or critical thinkers in general) aren't taught how to make the information they're given "appealing" to the masses. "Style" isn't considered necessary at the moment, just truth (to their detriment). A quick flip through the television shows you quickly what the vast majority of people would rather have.

[downbeatplumb]

I am wondering if other atheists would agree when viewing debates between Atheists and Theists, that the generally in these debates theists while saying little to nothing which has any substance. While the Atheists have a lot to say which has substance, while they don't preform as great when it comes to style.

I do not know if I am right, it is just my observations. Anyway I don't give a rat arse about style, crap which smells good is still crap to me. However a lot of other fellow human beings are impressed by people who look good, talk good, have degrees and doctorates.

There is a tendency to spout folksy crap that sounds good but has no substance.

A good example is from the film contact.

Jodie fosters character is talking to a priest about the non-existance of god because of the lack of proof and he retorts.

"Do you love your father"

to which Jodie replies "yes"

And says "prove it"

Sounds good doesnt it BUT.

1: Love is a recognised 'real' human emotion.
2: It is usual for sons and daughters to love their parents in a normal family background.
3:Jodie fosters character had not shown any sign of 'not' loving her father.
4: there had been no abuse or neglect.
5: jodie fosters character was not mentally ill in any way.

Given 1-5 it would seem the onous would be on the reverand vicar or whatever matthew maconahy was to disprove her love as love would be the natural default position.

A good (if apocryphal) example of the question.

The mention of default position made me think.

My default position is that there is no god and I'd need massive proof to shift me from that position, I bet with theists the position is reversed.

[technophobe]

Theists have an emotional identity connection to their belief systems. For a lot of theists a belief system is the foundation upon which they structure their life. You go after that and you are going to get more emotion and passion in the defense of that belief system which prohibits any attempts at rational examination of the belief.

Oh, wow. You took the words right out of my head.


And it's not so much that you tap into that emotional attachment to their belief system; for many theists, you're also attacking their self identity and ego. Most do not seem to have any real sense of self without their religion, which to me explains why they don't understand how atheists can be moral without religious constraints. They don't sin because their God will punish them. Yet on the other hand, theists will often justify a moral wrong such as the death penalty, the murder of an abortion provider, or the blatant torture of other human beings if it serves their purposes, often stated as punishment for sins. It's circular thinking and for a lot of the very religious, that's all they're really capable of, and it's obvious in their arguments.

Most atheists will observe society's rules because we understand on a deeper level how damaging it is to ourselves and others not to violate established social norms and laws. We seem to have an ability to look past ourselves and view the whole picture, then form an opinion to which we can respond with our behavior. Theists appear to view this ability as a threat to their ego integrity, especially when such responses begin to impinge upon their belief systems. It takes time, but I think atheists do have an impact upon social attitudes, just as much as religion does. And that threatens them a whole bunch.

=(: D)