I just discovered a short write-up of an encounter I had at the Reason Rally with a gang of evangelicals.
Blake Anderson and I had a very pleasant talk with him. Blake invited him to his church again; Myers had already blogged on Blake’s earlier email invitation to him. He declined explaining that he liked to be polite in public but he could not be polite in church. He acknowledged we were being polite here. He asked, “Are they ridiculing you here?” We said they hadn’t been so far. He said, “They should be.”
Leave it to Christians to think that being polite was a triumph. They set the bar very low for themselves, don’t they?
I do like this comment, though.
In that short interaction, PZ Myers was quite charming, quite polite and warm, and at the same time quite intentionally insulting and rude.
It’s a gift.
Why, PZ Myers, bless your heart.
*laughs*
QFT. :) !
Can you give us some tips on how to be charming and rude at the same time?
It’s not hard. It turns out that Christians find honesty amazingly rude.
PZ, you have nothing against them personally, but they keep bringing up their ridiculous and harmful belief system. When you show no tolerance for it, they take it personally. That’s their problem, not yours. They are the rude ones. Did they call you a poopyhead?
In that short interaction, PZ Myers was quite charming, quite polite and warm, and at the same time quite intentionally insulting and rude.
… in other words, awesome. :)
PZ hates the sin, not the sinner don’t’cha know?
PZ hates the sin, not the sinner don’t’cha know? – Marcus Ranum
I think that needs adapting: “the idiocy, not the idiot” perhaps.
Would they have considered it rude if you had gone along to one of their church services uninvited and started telling them that their beliefs are wrong? These people don’t seem to understand how rude it is to turn up at atheist gatherings to preach. I think that our side is a lot more tolerant about this than theirs would be.
“It’s a gift.”
Ah, as we all know, a gift implies a giver…
Hmm…
“It’s a gift.”
you still got it!
I didn’t see “alienate” on the list but I am sure you are gifted with that too!
I am! Sometimes a blessing and other times a curse.
Am I supposed to be polite to the boiler room telephone sales call that interrupts my day? Am I obliged to show any deference to some guy who comes up to me in the street trying to sell me something?
I may or may not listen or respond politely to the door to door salesman who knocks on my door with his wonderful offer it is my choice but I would not expect it if I was you. I am just as likely to just tell them to go away now!
loudly and coarsely!
So why should I be polite to some godbot who accosts me with his unsolicited philosophical Bull Shit. I find it extremely rude on their part. The fucking gall to go around telling people that what I think is all wrong and they will be damned to eternal punishment unless I do as they say.
who is the rude one here?
uncle frogy
All you have to do is start by saying “With all due respect…”
Reading the comments there. One made by the author in answer to theophontes:
Really, no comment is needed on this.
Wow, I didn’t expect such an accurate representation of PZ Myers coming from the Reason Rally Evangelizers. Seriously. Uncharacteristically lucid and apt.
How about next time you shed your human-mimicking exoskeleton and reveal yourself as a fire breathing, baby eating reptile who blows his nose on the souls of the innocent unborn. They know that that’s what atheists really are anyway, and it should make for a more interesting review on their part.
@ fastlane :
Which, of course, means none at all. Or next to.
@Beatrice #13
It’s because babies have genetic memory of a God. That’s how they know of one to believe in him/her/it.
Babies are like Goa’uld in that regard.
twist @15:
FTFY. :-P
^^Dang. Cephalopoid, not cephalapoid. Alas, whimsical post, I hardly knew ye. :-(
And when asked for some evidence (of existence of hell, but he goes above that and proves the rightness of Christianity), Tom Gilson gives us:
*trumpets*
Three Ways of Knowing – a bit more elaborate proof. When I say elaborate, I mean: a presentation. Pretty standard : Christianity is One True Religion because Bible says so and the apostles say so and because of that giant shitstain it left on the history of the world.
Did I mention that Christianity makes sense because Bible says so?
Yeah, Bible says so.
Don’t believe me?
It’s in the Bible.
Well, you see, the way I start is with : “I don’t meant to say your religion is a bunch of bollocks, but . . . ”
I think you know what comes after that.
This is ethnocentrism, pure and simple. The implication is clear: the non-Christian world is full of lunacy believing savages.
If this is a thing you believe, then fuck you and hard. Take your politeness and shove up your ass until you rupture.
Fucking Christianity. Filth wrapped in a superficial smile, when they bother to smile at all while gloating over your sentence in hell.
Way to go, your squidliness!
Beatrice@20: interesting that Gilson touts Christianity supposedly “making sense” as a point in its favor. Didn’t C.S. Lewis argue pretty much the opposite, that (to put it uncharitably) Christianity makes so little sense that it HAS to be true?
I see the non-cognitive Christian comes with an extra helping of stupid. All one needs to do with a child is not mention gods (outside of answering when asked, along the lines of “some people believe that sort of thing) and you get a child who is not mired in magical thinking.
Brownian:
QFMFT.
Also, instilling religion in a child is a 24/7 business. It’s forcing your child into Stockholm Syndrome. Yeah, no abuse there.
Well, at least they didn’t catch you eating any baybeeees.
OP
‘He asked, “Are they ridiculing you here?” We said they hadn’t been so far. He said, “They should be.”’
That is indeed a master class right there….priceless!
That’s why they avoid it at all costs.
Seriously, some of the most untrustworthy people I’ve known in my life were self-professed devout christians.
Ol’ PZ still has it.
ah, that Tom Gilson. I guess contradicting yourself is just old habit like believing the same contradictory crap in the bible. wordpress is being cranky so I can’t log on as me, but this is clubschadenfreude, and I’ve had the chance to correspond with Tom. He’s also of the opinion that asking him hard questions and calling him on his lies is “provoking” him. Poor thing, has nothing else to use but lies and excuses.
Well, they did spell your name correctly. That’s an achievement, if not exactly a triumph.
rogerfirth @30:
Same here, and down here in the Babble Belt there are more than enough of ’em to go around. Four of the most dishonest people I’ve met in recent memory are regular churchgoers and have religious quotes plastered all over their offices/cubicles/homes.* I’ve decided to treat that kind of thing as a red flag and that I shouldn’t trust other people like that at all, just in case.
*Does anyone see Bible quotes or religious symbols such as crosses being prominently displayed in coworkers’ workspaces in other parts of the country, or is this a peculiarly Southern phenomenon?
xtians – don’t you just love ’em?! Quite.
Rob in Memphis:
It’s certainly not limited to the South but it’s probably most prevalent there.
Rob in Memphis:
Nope, it happens elsewhere.
I’m not all that surprised, considering the Québecois have a habit of using parts of the church service as swear words. My favorite has always been tabarnac!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_French_profanity
beatrice#20 is right on:
“Three Ways of Knowing – a bit more elaborate proof. When I say elaborate, I mean: a presentation. Pretty standard : Christianity is One True Religion because Bible says so and the apostles say so and because of that giant shitstain it left on the history of the world.
Did I mention that Christianity makes sense because Bible says so?
Yeah, Bible says so.
Don’t believe me?
It’s in the Bible.”
The circular non-reasoning on his comments is stunningly awful.
Reminds of the head spinning logic in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs
At least you were honest…they often fake politeness while promoting their bigotry towards homosexuals, women, etc…
And it isn’t only a US phenomenon either.
I had all the apostles along with Jesus watching me getting my hair cut this week (from a little wooden depiction of the last dinner).
You can find all kinds of religious crap in offices. Had zombie Jesus’ mom hanging on the wall beside a coworker’s table at my last job.
In the morridor nearly every dentist’s and doctor’s waiting room has a copy of the Book of Mormon.
And the lab techs that draw blood for the doctors have religious sayings and/or “spiritual” posters in their cubicles.
To make a change from mormon missionaries, Baptist missionaries stopped by my house today. They brought me a pamphlet that informs me that I need to:
1. recognize that without Christ you are separated from God.
2. Realize that God loves you and that Jesus died for your sins.
The pamphlet goes on to note that “Easter is a challenge to believe.” I can overcome this challenge by reading John 11:25-26
I was just too tired to argue with them, and I begged off the requirement to be polite by saying, “Don’t come in. I’m not feeling well.”
Remember, “To God, Easter means that He is satisfied with Jesus’ death in our place.”
Some days I just can’t fight the battle. PZ fights for me.
Very nice, PZ!
Btw, it would be wonderful if you could deign write us a post with some contemporary biology. Maybe some cancer biology? Or a kind of summary of what you’ve come to think about the cancer problem? :-)
hamburger:
Btw, it would be wonderful if you could deign to use the search function or perhaps click on the ‘science’ tag.
Why the fuck do people do this?
Seriously, what the fuck?
At least it’s not on a feminism-related post this time, but seriously, fuck.
Anyway. I aspire to have that sort of description accurately applied to me someday :D I love it.
CC:
Oh, you know, Cassandra. All this fluff is fun and all, buuuut, really, that whole atheism thing is settled, right? And that whole sexism thing, :handwave:…so, let’s talk cancer cells! After all, this is a science blog, right?
Hehehe. And here I thought the complaint du jour was “What? You disagree with me that God is real/women are incubators/racism doesn’t exist? I THOUGHT THIS WAS A FREE THOUGHT BLOG!!!”
CC:
Yeah, that too!
:snortle:
Hamburger, please read the subtitle.
After that, help yourself to a steaming mug of SHUT THE FUCK UP.
The whine is is pathetic as the godbothers who whine that evolution=atheism.
PZ taking blog topic requests in 3,2,1 … we’ll stop after reaching the number you get from dividing by zero.
I’m nearly always polite to people. If the Christians get offended by being told their religion fits reality like a seven-sided snowflake, too bad.
Well, FYI, the courageous Tom Gilson finally ended the comment thread
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/03/we-came-to-share-true-reason-materials
It came after some questions by skeptics obviously, which he refused to answer based on the fact, apparently, that we’re too stupid (I’m paraphrasing his last post of the thread).
What a surprise.
tomfrog,
I was following the thread. I’m not really surprised that he ended it. You and the others were murdering his pathetic excuse of an argument… or whatever he chose to argue instead of answering any of the questions you asked. He evaded direct answers like a pro for a while, but I guess even he had to realize that enough is enough.
Play Free Bird!
Scolded for his ASS-umption that all commenters are men, Gibson blithers, No, they’re really not, unless you’re a moron who buys into gender binaries, as most fundies do.
Beatrice,
We all knew, I guess, where we were going to. That is: nowhere.
It sincerely makes me sad to think that this guy will go to bed tonight convinced that he ended up “winning” the argument or that he is, as he implied to be, superior.
If he was disingenuous that would make me angry but here it just makes me sad.
But then again, I see that some people can be “anormalement indécent(e)” and that just cheers me up. (Quand passe-t-on d’indécent à anormalement indécent d’ailleurs ?)
Ms. Daisy Cutter:
Sure, that’s why so many people thought Greta Christina was a man.
I would also read “open and honest” for the phrase “intentionally insulting and rude.” When I am charming, polite, warm, and NOT open and honest, it’s usually because I either in some way feel threatened — or because I feel as if the person I am speaking to is not quite able to handle real ideas or think very hard. PZ may be working by the same rules.
In which case, the evangelists should consider themselves flattered. They did not come off like a lynch mob — and they didn’t evoke a lot of pity.
unclefrogy #11 wrote:
Well, maybe. I still cut them off, but I began cutting them off much more kindly after reading some personal stories written by telephone and street marketers. Guess what? They wouldn’t do those jobs if they could get better jobs elsewhere. They’re poor, and they’re stuck. Don’t abuse the unfortunate: they don’t need it.
As for proselytizers, I at least give them some props for attempting to initiate discussions which almost vaguely resemble philosophy. It’s such a welcome change from the damned telemarketers and street merchandizers.
I seem to recall that I wasn’t indoctrinated into atheism. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, I had all kinds of people trying to indoctrinate me into Christianity, from my parents, to pretty much everything I saw in popular culture at the time, to the kids on the school playground who told me I must be a Satanist because I said I didn’t believe in their stupid god, and didn’t believe me when I said I didn’t believe in their stupid Satan, either.
I’d just figured out, even in the single digit ages, that Christianity makes no fucking sense. And I wonder about people — ostensibly adult people — who think it does.
Does anyone see Bible quotes or religious symbols such as crosses being prominently displayed in coworkers’ workspaces in other parts of the country, or is this a peculiarly Southern phenomenon?
I’ve seen them all over the country, but a lot more in the South.
When I do see them, I know right off who will be the most appallingly incompetent, laziest, back-stabber who also happens to be the biggest ass-kisser, if not the one most likely to be screwing the boss to get ahead.
I had a lot of jobs over my career, and it held true 100% of the time.
The whine is is pathetic as the godbothers who whine that evolution=atheism.
You guys are just not up to par with PZ. What is it, Loser Friday around here?
tomfrog ,
Not being particularly indecent I can only guess, but I would say that the difference between indecent and abnormally indecent is only in the eye of the beholder.
(The coinage came about thanks to a sexist troll prone to exaggeration, which inspired one of the regulars.)
Get grilled, hamburger.
hamburger, a friendly word of advice. Dispense with the attempts at sarcasm, you’re not particularly good at it.
:D
To extend the golfing analogy, you swing like the ball was underground.
But thanks for trying to teach us how to ski, Eddie.
Speaking as someone who does a lot of synthetic organic chemistry, there’s not a lot of synthetic organic chemistry on this blog. I’d like it more if it were, you know, tailored to that.
And rugby. I loves me some rugby. Can I have that too?
I quite like my kid. I’m sick of PZ posting photos of his kids on his blog. Can’t he post photos of my kid? After all I’m potty training my kid at the moment and he went poopoo in the toilet properly the other day like a proper big boy. It would be wonderful if PZ would deign to post photos of that?
Louis
[/obligatory Buffy reference]
I have a weakness for The Exposition Song.
Try not to bleed on the couch
I just had it steam cleaned
Anthony Head is the Sweet Transvestite.
You truly are a great monster, Janine. :D
Hey guys I just wanted to post this in an active thread. I sent PZ the link but he gets so much email he may not see it. An atheist youtuber could use some help for his daughter. Sorry if this is frowned upon. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goR7j6dSrnU&feature=g-all-u&context=G2f655f8FAAAAAAAABAA.
Stubby, that will be seen by more people if you post it in TET.
Ok, thank you.
They seem to think “politeness” is a xian virtue, and here’s me thinking it’s just humanity’s way of communicating ideas without beating ’em in with a club.
I read some of the comments. PZ is accussed of being two-faced among other things because he was polite while allegedly `metaphorically` stabbing people in the back. I don`t get it Since when is yelling people politely that they believe nonsense and that you consider their beliefs dangerous and wrong being two faced. I guess that some people find being told by someone that they consider their beliefs absurd to be a personal insult.
I`m amazed that someone turns a disagreement about ideas into a personal insult.
pacal @ 76
I know, it’s just so namby-pamby these days! Not like the old days when they were serious and burned dissenters at the stake.
I was getting annoyed with a lot of the comments on both sides. Most of the people commenting were so emotionally invested in what they were saying that everyone was just talking past each other. The guy seems reasonably intelligent and obviously believes that he really does have the upper hand when it comes to having the beliefs most supported by all available lines of reasoning, but nobody was really trying to meet him where he’s at and show him, using his own beliefs about valid methods of epistemology, how he’s misrepresenting his opposition and being inconsistent in what he considers valid types of evidence.
For example in response to posts advocating the scientific method as the best method for elucidating useful knowledge from the chaos around us, he attacked logical positivism several times. Wouldn’t it be useful to point out that we’re not even using logical positivism, and in fact one of the most influential philosophers of science in recent memory was one of its chief opponents? I used to share his belief that atheists/naturalists were the irrational ones for refusing to consider supernatural explanations, and what I found convincing were arguments that took the time to meet me where I was at and explain where my misconceptions were.
You know, redpanda, if you have so many good ideas and you’re getting annoyed at everyone else for not using them, there’s a pretty easy solution for that.
Great, then you can head over there and post on any assortment of topics. Who’s stopping you?
sastra I feel no need to be polite to the boiler room people but neither do I say anything except to ask “who are you”. My call is a waste of their time the quicker it ends the sooner they will find a paying costumer. I have a friend who advises putting them on hold to waste their time, I just hang up saying nothing more after they say who they are or not especially if they start in on the pitch. They are seldom polite, when they are I think about it. remember I did not ask them for anything they just start up so good by!
(not you but them)
same with the godbots
uncle frogy
redpanda,
Your concern is noted.
Is redpanda trying to send a squid signal so the horde will go thundering in to … um, do as xe says should be done?
I don’t think even batman does that.
Ack, sorry if that came across a little condescending; I don’t seem to be heeding my own advice at the moment. I would have posted something in an attempt to address a few of the disconnects, but the comments were already disabled on that thread =\.
Lyn:
No. Like all other accommodationists and their like, rather than putting hir argument where their mouth is, so to speak, they’d much rather show up here and endlessly argue about how everyone else is doing it wrong and if you’d just listen to me, then you could change everyone’s mind and fix the world! For realz, man.
Just once, I’d like to see one of these fuzzy-mouthed people simply go to the source and use whatever fucking thing they think will work. But noooooo, all they want to do is complain. This isn’t the complaints department.
redpanda,
what you are advocating is allowing the other people to control the scope and nature of the discussion. The point where I want to meet people is the point where we agree that truth does not contradict truth. I don’t care about the philosophical basis they are operating with, because in the end it doesn’t matter what you philosophical framework is: we assume the universe does not contradict itself, gods or no gods. If their philosophy allows contradictions, then it’s meaningless and very likely to be wrong.
Thanks Caine. Gotta run here. Shopping!
Caine, what makes you think I’m an accomodationist? Do you find that simply claiming the high ground and talking down to Christians is more or less effective than taking the time to identify and address sources of miscommunication? I’m as bitter about religion as the next guy, but I’m trying to find ways to maximize the effectiveness of dialogue with them (if you’re not concerned with said dialogue being effective, why bother posting on their blogs in the first place?). If you think I’m wrong, misguided, immature, stupid, etc, can you explain why?
Of course he’s being two-faced. He was deceiving people by looking just like a real human being, while at the same time being an atheist.
It’s a common tactic for shutting down discussion. If you’re blunt, you’re a rude atheist and not to be listened to. If you’re circumspect, you’re a deceptive atheist and not trustworthy. Sometimes you can even get accused of both at the same time.
Gods, they were tiresome! And smug. Tiresomely smug. Smugly tiresome. Privileged. Self-centred. Logic-proof. I bailed out before getting to the end.
Ah-ah, *No True Christian* EVAH gloatingly refers to atheists burning in Hell! Just ask Gibson.
He’s “two-faced” by being polite and warm and charming in person but denouncing about religion in thunderous terms online. In other words, they can’t separate social interaction from ideas.
And PZ is still talking about religion in person in the same terms as he does online. How can PZ be charming, but not deferential to religion? That’s just two-faced.
*head-desk*
Politeness does not require deference. They never seem to understand that.
but nobody was really trying to meet him where he’s at and show him, using his own beliefs about valid methods of epistemology, how he’s misrepresenting his opposition and being inconsistent in what he considers valid types of evidence.
bullshit.
you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
It’s very obvious that religious nutter did not arrive at his position through the application of reason. There is no way to argue someone to a rational position using irrationality, so thus there is no way to “meet him where he’s at” and actually succeed in establishing a rational proposition, period.
It’s clear you haven’t thought this through very well.
but I’m trying to find ways to maximize the effectiveness of dialogue with them
don’t.
instead, maximize the effectiveness of dialogue to impact those watching.
best you can do.
most effective technique in convincing the convincable is to pound on the lies self-proclaimed christians inevitably engage in. Lies often just repeated verbatim from authority figures, which gives you a two-fer: showing the follower AND the authority figure are deceitful.
I’ve seen many conversion stories that started with people saying they were convinced by seeing that authority figures they “respected” were in fact lying to them.
you will extremely rarely make any headway with the terminally faithful; it simply isn’t productive to think you can engage them directly and have an effect on them.
Thats true; my own conversion started when I began to realize how much I had been lied to (both intentionally and not). Perhaps I’m still naively optimistic. As I understand it, one of the fundamental principles of persuasion is to recognize barriers to communication (e.g. different assumptions, definitions, etc.) and work to eliminate them. Even if you’re writing off your opponent as a lost cause, isn’t this a reasonable thing to do so that any readers can see that you understand your opponents perspective? I know from experience that when other people start throwing around words like reason and logic without bothering to show you that they understand your position, it makes productive and educational discourse very difficult. I’m not interested in accommodationism so much as being persuasive. And it seems to me that persuasion on any issue is next to impossible without showing some empathy and sensitivity towards their position. Thoughts?
redpanda
if these people are really trying to argue against the scientific method by arguing against logical positivism, that is really quite ridiculous.
If you have the energy to argue with them about this (which I do not) you might want to let them know that its not just one influential philosopher who rejects logical positivism its basically all philosophers. It has almost universally been recognized as a failure since around at least the 70’s, largely due to Quine who I think you might have been referring to maybe. Maybe you know all this already but in case not, if your interested in the history and demise of logical positivism its pretty cool!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/#Imp
redpanda @ 96
“And it seems to me that persuasion on any issue is next to impossible without showing some empathy and sensitivity towards their position. Thoughts?”
it seems that the tactic of egalitarian and respectful interaction has been tried for over 2000 years….not a great deal of gain to be seen and in the meantime the theist attitude has managed to manufacture a great deal of misery, unhappiness and death while pretending dialogue with critics and secular institutions.
It has been one way traffic for centuries and still is, a glance at the rethuglian presidential candidate fiasco should give the requisite clue right there.
Why should all the compromise and turning of the other cheek be firmly the province and responsibility of the atheist and secular camp?
The major and most of the minor religions have no ‘open mind’ that perhaps they got it wrong.
That is not on the table for discussion.
And to go further…the religious were led to ‘believe’ that atheism is a curse from the devil.
That gave way to personal attack and character assassination when the cretins failed to get there way in getting atheism into a hot bath of flames for ‘heresy’ as a ‘cure’ for dissing their delusion.
It has reached a point where even the leaders of the major scams openly declare that atheists are sub-human and hate god…a very good trick because no one has yet demonstrated how you can hate something that does not exist…an example perhaps of the mentally crippled bozo’s that infest these positions of influence.
When civic leaders declare that one of their 16 year old female constituents is ‘an evil little thing’ and other jeebus drooling commentators fall over themselves to agree whole heartedly.
There is no compromise here…they do not want compromise they want total complete and utter domination.
‘Perhaps I’m still naively optimistic’
Maybe so…but you are not the only one!
Redpanda:
Faith unravels when the lies, deceit and inconsistencies become undeniable. Not only that, but the practice in cognitive dissonance makes people blind to the evils of their church.
Religion has always been about control of the masses. That invisible god in the sky who knows your every thought? Better do what you’re told or it’s going to be hell. Literally. It’s pretty clear that the members of the upper hierarchy of the RC church don’t believe in God – else they wouldn’t protect and abet the rapists of children.
The biggest barrier to religious discussion is the expectation on the part of the religious that people will automatically be deferential to their position.
Going back to the subject of co-workers decorating their cubicles/work stations with religious imagery, I’m happy to report that I have NEVER come across this in England. Such a person would be regarded as creepily eccentric and shunned accordingly.
And you could cheerfully call them a ‘cunt’ without causing offence!
speedweasel @ 100
“I’m happy to report that I have NEVER come across this in England. Such a person would be regarded as creepily eccentric and shunned accordingly.”
Well not yet anyways…but if the RC clowns get there way then that disinterest would become a thing of the past.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17611036
To those who are eviscerating the arguments of the god-botherers instead of being polite to them; thank you. I am one of the lurkers who was persuaded to abandon the faith because of the behaviour of theists when called out on their lies.
I love the way that the Pharynguhorde has countered that particular myth, to the extent that you can now joke about it. =^_^=
I’ve been having some success recently at getting rid of that word from friends’ ‘insult vocabularies’ (for want of a better phrase) without putting them on the defensive, by asking them why they are complimenting the person with that word, as cunts give great pleasure. The most recent response was “True; they have neither the depth nor the warmth”. People use most insults without even thinking about the origin of the word or any alternative meaning. I hope I’m making them think about that. And perhaps they’ll use a different word next time.
Sastra:
Agreed. For the most part, “No, thank you” and a disconnect is sufficient.
I make a few exceptions, however. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed myself telling the caller from Obama For America that I wasn’t giving Obama another red cent, that he could shove his Obamabot cheerleading straight up his ass, and never to fucking call me again.
I am the introverted sort who does not welcome any sort of initiation of discussion from total strangers on the street. I find proselytizers downright fucking offensive in their implication that I need to change whatever my existing worldview might be, and I have no problem telling them to fuck off and take their filthy bibles with them.
Aquaria:
Religious paraphernalia decorating the workspace is much less common in New England. The one example I can think of in recent years was a manager at a temporary job that most people found “fatherly” and “pleasant” but I found annoying at best. I learned later from someone else who had worked in the same business that he was also a sexual harasser.
Hamburger:
You showed up, didn’t you?
Redpanda, nobody here is obliged to “meet him where he’s at.” And nobody was “talking down to” him and his friends. As was stated upthread, being blunt with him is a form of respect.
“Understanding” is overrated. Arrant bullshit should not be extended understanding. The important thing is to demonstrate to bystanders that it is arrant bullshit.
Speedweasel:
Thank you for your pointless and wankbaiting contribution.
There appear to be two types of serious religious ideologues – the cynical dishonest con artist, who gravitates towards wealth and power (typically found in or near the religious leadership), and the brainwashed cult victim, who – due to their flawed education – is incapable of rational, balanced thought.
Forget about changing the minds of the con artists – they have a nice low-work gig and it’s lucrative. You might as well try and convince a Wall Street banker to turn to subsistence farming and the peasant lifestyle.
The brainwashed cult victim actually has more hope, particularly if they can gain access to a decent scientific education, one that emphasizes multiple working hypothesis – which you can explain to a religious person as holding the notion that all religions might be true – we just want to develop an experimental test which will rule out certain hypothesis. It helps to lump all the religions together – Christianity, Judaism, Islam (the Abrahamic trio), Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Native American Peyote Church, Santeria, Vodoun, etc.
Then you can explain why the scientific route to reliable knowledge actually works, while mythology, superstition and ‘divine revelation’ – aka ‘the hearing of voices in one’s head’ does not.
This is where the brainwashing becomes apparent – these are people who’ve always been told that they know the truth, there’s no need to think about alternative possibilities, stick to rote faith and obedience, and don’t ask questions about any of this, just accept it. . . . yech. It is child abuse, really.
There is no experimental test that could sort out different religious ‘hypothesis’. Hence there is no way to distinguish between different claims about heavens, hells, supreme beings, etc. etc. Thus, (you can explain, gently), religion is all just mythology and fantasy literature – entertaining, historically interesting, but absolutely useless as a means of gaining knowledge about the world we live in.
The leading religious con artists, however, will never admit this – and if you bring it up, they won’t be thinking about anything but the effect on their incomes (and access to other perks) if such notions become widespread. These are the people who talk about the ‘social benefits’ of organized religion, right? Translation: “Oh, we know this is all BS, but look at my $30,000 watch!”
To sum up: The shepherds are hopeless, but the sheep have potential.
I just had an interesting cognitive experience. On the local news/info channel in Toronto (CP24), the reader (Pooja Handa) was describing Christians, their beliefs, and the local Easter festivities IN THE THIRD PERSON. And this was copy she was reading, not part of a discussion.
I hope this doesn’t frighten the Christians, they’re dangerous when they’re spooked. Like cattle.
I think you’ve got to be careful with this one. Because one can certainly hate God, or at least the description of God, his motivations, and actions, much as one can hate Hitler, even though he hasn’t existed for over a half century. And it’s worth pointing out that the God most Christians describe is worthy of hatred rather than worship by any thoughtful, ethical person.
But in the sense that Christians often mean, like you hate God as if the two of you had a fight, or how a teenager may hate shkler parents, is pretty dumb.
Don’t let them conflate the two.
You can hate an idea even if it is false. You can hate the consequences an idea has on the world, sometimes specifically because it is false.
And of course, you can vicariously hate a fictional character easily enough. I’m sure at least some people out there hated Emperor Palpatine and Voldemort.
Polite and rude at the same time? It’s a gift all right. :-D
One of the sharp-eyed commenters over there delivered himself of the opinion that the Reason Rally was as monochrome as a Tea [bagger] rally, after looking at this image. I think he needs to clean his glasses.
I wonder if Toronto is having a Zombie Walk tomorrow?
monochromatic? Ah, nice to see that the “sharp eyed commenter” is just one more Liar for Christ. It’s a shame that they have to be so utterly inept at it, but it’s nice to see that yet again the actions of Christians do more for disproving their religion than anything an atheist could do.