Posts: 328
Threads: 25
Joined: August 15, 2010
Reputation:
4
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 2, 2011 at 5:22 pm
(March 2, 2011 at 4:50 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: The thing i want to avoid most of all is categorizing theists as "irrational" and atheists as "rational". No general rule, no white and black, only shades of gray.
I think DvF was just saying that while theists are more irrational than atheists, we are all irrational at various times and in various ways.
Our Daily Train blog at jeremystyron.com
---
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea | By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown | Till human voices wake us, and we drown. — T.S. Eliot
"... man always has to decide for himself in the darkness, that he must want beyond what he knows. ..." — Simone de Beauvoir
"As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again." — Albert Camus, "The Stranger"
---
Posts: 647
Threads: 9
Joined: March 3, 2010
Reputation:
14
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 2, 2011 at 5:25 pm
People are much better at reasoning about everyday situations - common sense, as it were - than they are about abstruse philosophical matters like God's existence. Hence there's a logical puzzle involving cards which most people can't figure out, but when an entirely analogous puzzle is posed involving people and drinks, it's easy to crack. Little of what people do in normal life is irrational in the sense that DvF means it, anyway. Their basic assumptions may be irrational, but their behaviour is not irrational, or even unreasonable, on the supposition that those premises are true e.g. going to church.
As for the initial topic of the thread, I think that atheists who are insulting and rude are irresponsible, because all atheists are inevitably tarred with the same brush in the eyes of some theists, and indeed people of other theological positions such as agnostics. They ought, out of consideration for their fellow non-believers, to paint a positive image of atheists.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 47
Threads: 2
Joined: March 2, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 2, 2011 at 8:00 pm
(March 2, 2011 at 5:25 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: People are much better at reasoning about everyday situations - common sense, as it were - than they are about abstruse philosophical matters like God's existence. Hence there's a logical puzzle involving cards which most people can't figure out, but when an entirely analogous puzzle is posed involving people and drinks, it's easy to crack. Little of what people do in normal life is irrational in the sense that DvF means it, anyway. Their basic assumptions may be irrational, but their behaviour is not irrational, or even unreasonable, on the supposition that those premises are true e.g. going to church.
As for the initial topic of the thread, I think that atheists who are insulting and rude are irresponsible, because all atheists are inevitably tarred with the same brush in the eyes of some theists, and indeed people of other theological positions such as agnostics. They ought, out of consideration for their fellow non-believers, to paint a positive image of atheists. I know some atheists who are addicted to crack or hard into alcohol, can't change human behavior just through a particular focus on the notion of religion, I think Dawkins paints a too positive picture...even if people are less inclined to be irrational or stupid, humanity still shines through. 
Posts: 345
Threads: 29
Joined: March 20, 2010
Reputation:
6
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 3, 2011 at 6:14 am
Yeah but since the only thing atheists have in common with one another is their (lack of) position on religion, it's only when regarding that topic that atheists should behave responsibly and reasonably.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 3, 2011 at 7:27 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 10:00 am by Edwardo Piet.)
I would like everyone to behave responsibly and reasonably really.
Posts: 345
Threads: 29
Joined: March 20, 2010
Reputation:
6
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 3, 2011 at 9:25 am
I didnt explain myself very well: i only judge atheists for being rude and douchy when on the topic of religion which is the only thing i share with other atheists (by definition).
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 3, 2011 at 10:01 am
No, the rudeness of atheists is not part of their definition.
Posts: 345
Threads: 29
Joined: March 20, 2010
Reputation:
6
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 8, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I...never said that. At all.
My position on religion is the only thing i share with other atheists. So i only judge them when and IF they do actions weakening that position by acting rudely and foolishly.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm
(March 3, 2011 at 9:25 am)Rwandrall Wrote: i only judge atheists for being rude and douchy when on the topic of religion which is the only thing i share with other atheists (by definition).
My bolding.
Posts: 471
Threads: 36
Joined: March 10, 2011
Reputation:
7
RE: "I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"
March 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm
(February 22, 2011 at 11:19 am)Rwandrall Wrote: (WARNING: Rant)
I have seen an alarming trend around the Internet: atheists insulting theists for the purpose of insulting. I mean i have nothing against attacking and challenging their beliefs, but some of the things i see around there are not the educated argument of someone who wants to change their mindset. It is petty, it is useless, and it is simply humiliating as an atheist to see others who share my (lack of) beliefs partake in that behavior. Likewise, saying that being religious means being an enslaved sheep who doesn't question anything he's told is idiotic and does not further the discussion in any way.
I hate the stereotype that atheists are bitter, angry people who like to act superior and condescending to anyone who does not share their views...but the problem is i see a LOT of people corresponding to that precise stereotype.
Acting as though being an atheist makes them superior as human beings.
I agree with you, for certain reasons:
1. Atheists consider theists as idiotic people believing fairytales and stubborn, unwilling to listen, and they accuse them and dis-consider them for that. Theists consider atheists as idiotic people believing their fairytales and stubborn, unwilling to listen, and they accuse them and dis-consider them for that. That brings the question: How can you condemn a man that is doing X and Y if you also do X and Y?
By the way, I believe that many atheists have this view of theists and many theists have this view of atheists.
2. You can't educate a man by mockery: mockery makes others like you laugh and despise the mocked, while you fuel the mocked person with hatred, by this attitude. So the result is hatred, despise, violence, and perhaps even murder. Mockery DOES NOT open anyone's mind - neither the mockers' nor the mocked's mind - but, on the contrary, it is forcibly closing it, by using feelings (like hatred and despise) instead of reason and logic.
3. On the other hand, logic and reason are the only ones that can work (beside forcing one to believe what you believe by threatening that you would kill him, etc.). Not all are open-minded, not all are receptive, not all care, but some are.
4. This mockery and bad treatment of people is an argument used by the respectful opponent to justify himself: I do good and I am treated badly. So many people, both religious and atheists, have in front the two possibilities: to be like the ignorant, arrogant, mocker person, or like the good-intended, respectful person. So good-intended people would like to be like the respectful, good-intended person. However, if the respect and attitudes were reciprocal, reason would become the first priority.
5. I believe the objective should not be to convert the population of the world to your religion (or atheism). Until now all kinds of people and kingdoms and empires have attempted this, and the only result was useless war and violence, with no great result. So I don't think that it would ever be possible for all to have the same beliefs. And if the catholics, for instance, had done anything (like, killing, waging war against countries, etc.) to spread their beliefs, and we condemn them, I believe we shouldn't have the same attitude they had (seeing the others as worth hating and despising, less than humans, etc.)
|
