Ah...

No offense, Eden, but most folks I know here in So. California, especially the folks in the English, Biology, and Philosophy departments who make up my friends and professors and general circle, would regard those states, with the exception of Louisiana--probably because of New Orleans--as an intellectual joke.

It's very rare I hear someone speak kindly about them...and it's my own prejudice, for sure, but if I were to name four or five states that I felt were likely lower down in education and Bible-heavy...

(WHY is the US so haunted by this schism between the fundamentalist religious community and the scientific rational community? Europe, for the most part, seems to have worked out this little crisis, they don't have qualms teachning evolution...so why is this such a big deal here, why can your nations let go, UK members, but American can't, or won't?)

1. How many states already teach that (ie, how bad is the damage already?)

2. Does this really have to be an inevitable clash where one side loses? As odd as it is for ME to be the one who's advocating for less conflict here, I just don't think socially much good can come from ramming ideas, even correct ones, down the throats of people who are totally closed off to the idea and refuse to listen to reason, forced conversion, so to speak, has only ever made the convertees despise those in power even more...

These aren't just abstract people labeled as "Christians," these are real people, with real feelings, logical or not--and often not--and for one reason or another they WILL refuse, in many places, to do this.



So, I guess my question is--what do you do when they refuse and refuse to the extent its multiple states?

Force them? How?

Who is talking about force? I don't see anyone advocating the use of force - not even the most radical new atheist.

But at the same time, you have to attempt to engage every day people in the debate or else nothing would change. You can't educate the youth without at least engaging their elders in the discussion, even if you don't actually change their minds. And I'm not going to argue that no atheist has ever gone about trying to engage everyday people, in a way that was unproductive or even counter productive. But, you can't hang the whole movement because some people have been approaching it wrong. And even more to the point, you keep saying people ridicule religious people, but maybe that's not really what's happening. You have to challenge people's beliefs to get them to reconsider them. An object at rest will remain at rest, if you want it to move, you've gotta give it a push. You're not doing this intentionally obiwan, but above all, the one thing you're arguing for is for the atheist movement to declaw itself, pull it's teeth out, and muzzle itself. The atheist movement has to be confrontational if it's going to make an impact, and in being confrontational, it's possible that some moves will rub people the wrong way. Others will respond to it. But you don't get to decide what is ultimately effective and not.

☺: Been here my whole life thus far. I wanted to go out-of-state but I couldn't get any really good deals on scholarships... parents made too much to get any low-income stuff, parents spent too little to shell out for the small scholarships I was getting and in any case I was a lazy high schooler and didn't do as well as I could have so I screwed myself out of any good scholarships anyway. So here we are! I'm getting outta here for grad school and leaning toward not coming back.

obi: It's not, though. Have you ever seen Dawkins chew out Joe Blow on the bus? Ever seen a Hitchslap delivered to Sally Jane at work? No. Because they don't do that. The most they do is sell books. And if the common man buys those books and get Dawkins'd or Hitchslapped or whatever, he bought them. He came to the New Atheists. Not the other way around. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. will gladly go after leaders and do, but they're not sitting there mercilessly tearing into Bob the Builder/Joe the Plumber/Bill the I'm-Running-Out-Of-Stereotypes/etc.

Nor do they just go "lol Bible sux read my book kthx." They actively and (with varying degrees of it) effectively go after the religious texts and authorities they so staunchly oppose.

And what's this about no Eden, HMM? =P

hehe ... he said "Bob the Builder" ...

obi, I agree, they are jokes. And NO just had a big science convention pulled because in 2008 we allowed creationism to be taught in public science classrooms. So we're losing what little credibility we had. Which is why it's so damn frustrating to be here.

As for how many, I dunno. The ones I listed come to mind right off.

And you're right. Forcing them to change is difficult. The problem is that it IS a zero-sum game, because THEY have made it that way. That's not ideologically charged propaganda. That is simple fact. In direct violation of the supreme law of the United States of America these ignorant fools have corrupted the educational institutions of this state, the most sacrosanct institutions of government, with their Bronze Age mythology, replacing the vital education of the generation that will save America or watch it crumble with degenerate nonsense, and it is an absolute moral imperative that we fight this corruption with as much vigor and zeal as that with which it is defended.

Christianity was looked down upon in its earlier years. The church would become an incredibly powerful organization in Europe and Christianity was the pillar of its power. Our society has advanced enough to explain phenonemon that would have been unexplainable rationally in the past. Most of the world is educated enough to realize the potential and reality of science. I don't think its necessary to force convert, as odd as that sounds (I know nothing like the blood of the heathens on one's blade), people will most likely flock to scientific explanations in greater numbers as the years go on, so there is not much need to force convert.

Obi is constructing a straw man and no amount of reasoning will change his mind. It makes him seem "reasonable" to himself to bash the New Atheists for no reason, so that's what he'll do.

I must be honest and say that, as a believer, I have many doubts about the existance of God. I wonder if the New Atheists have similar doubts about their atheism?

Personally, nothing very significant. Sure, I'm agnostic. I don't know for sure if God or fairies or a giant teapot in the solar system exists or not. But I don't feel like being nominally-agnostic-but-for-all-practical-purposes-atheist requires much "faith." As far as my senses are able to see there's no omnipotent being in charge of everything here. So beyond putting faith in the fact that my senses work -- something I have to do every second of every day regardless of my position on anything in order to function at all -- I'm not really putting faith in anything.

From your answer President it seems as though the only difference between us is how we estimate the probability of the existence, or otherwise, of the Divine. You are of the'' teapot school'', maybe <1 % and, I hesitate to put a figure on it, but I am somewhere around > 60-70 %. Without going through it all again for the umpteenth time we know the rationale which underlies both our estimates. I would just like to point out that not all of those who believe are to be branded ''creationist nut-jobs''. It is this pigeon-holing by Dawkins et al., which winds up so many believers.

You've been committed to trying to discredit Darwinian evolution and promoting ID bs. Stop pretending otherwise.

Hmm... I didn't use the phrasing "creationist nut-job" nor did I intend to convey that I view all believers in that light. My support for the New Atheism movement comes from the fact that the New Atheists take on actual creationist nut-jobs that have substantial power in the political realm.

Take, for example, these motherfuckers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Family_Forum

These assholes snapped their fingers and made a bill protecting gay students from bullying in public schools go away. Their reason? Making gay students a protected class like, you know, *any other sector of society* is "promoting the homosexual agenda" (which is of course never defined but left to the average Bible-thumping hillbilly in this state to be interpreted as "THEYR GUNA MAKE MAH KID CATCH THE GAY?!?!"). So Louisiana gets to keep seeing gay kids get unduly harassed throughout their development years and become more likely to suffer through psychological disorders and suicide because these assholes have power.

New Atheists call these arrogant, bigoted, disgusting excuses for homo sapiens out as the evil people they are.

Perhaps Dawkins et al. pigeonhole people; in fact I'm inclined to agree. I'm not saying the New Atheists are perfect. But I'd rather them overstep like that and get the rational believers talking as well so we can have intelligent discussion -- all the while smacking around the jackasses like the LFF -- than understep, dodge the rational believers' toes and in so doing allow the disgusting filth ruining my state to continue unchallenged.

I find it hard to look at the majesty of the universe without getting a feeling that there is something behind it of immense power.

But a zombie jew? Golden plates from the angel Moron(i)? Heavenly dictation taken down by an illiterate rapist? Multi-armed divitne tapdancing childkillers? Household dust spirits? Really?

The list goes on. How is not all of that pure insanity?

If people don't like to be lumped in with nut-jobs, they should put a lot more work into distancing themselves from them.

Fulham is the last person who should be whining about unfairly pigeonholing people, considering he tries to portray evolutionists as Nazis every chance he gets.

OK, catching up...

@Mafi:

"You're not doing this intentionally obiwan, but above all, the one thing you're arguing for is for the atheist movement to declaw itself, pull it's teeth out, and muzzle itself."

That's not what I want at all, I want the movement...

Well first, I'll be honest, and say I DO find it odd for this to be called a movement or that it's become a movement, or I guess I should say "social movement" (obviously something like Existentialism or Utilitarianism can also be called a movement in the philosophy community for the time those ideas were introduced as generally philosophy generates debate, yes, and may divide the intellectual community based on who's with the new philosophic movement and who is not, but rarely does it divide the Joe Blows and Sally Janes on the street. I suppose that's probably due to the Internet and increase to the availability of knowledge, and it is a good thing, I agree, to see philosophy "do" something for a change and be active...

I just wish that act was dividing everyone.

I think there is a middle ground between not taking any action at all and, for example, putting up billboards that speak about the Christmas "myth" at Xmas time

There is NO need for that.
That serves NO intellectual purpose.
It brings NO good will to the cause.

All it does is alienate people and, in turn, make the religious community lash out more...

Fight the IMPORTANT issues--and they do, I recognize and fully support THAT--and not these little petty ones...

WHY do you/they need to take on Xmas at Xmastime and call it a myth--even if it is--just to get a rise out of people when you know that's all you'll get?

I'm not saying everyone in the New Atheist movement does it, but I have noticed enough instances of that, and something rather disturbing, to be honest, as a result:

I don't know how many here have Facebook--yes, I have one, it's a necessity for communication for my generation...and if it's not, it sure seems like it is when everyone else uses it, haha--but I went on there today--well, yesterday, now--and "liked" Hitchens public page.

So I go on there, post on the Wall, "Hello, how are all of you, blah blah blah, never really read Hitchens but I really find him to be a good debater and agree with most of his religious points, not an atheist, mind you, agnostic--"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, I don't think, if we apply reason to it, a God exists, and so should live without one, but I'm open to the idea of some irrational cosmic whatever existing, why not, just as long as people live without the delusion of there being--"
"Pick a side!"
"Huh?"
"You have to choose, it is us vs. them!"
"Well, I don't think it should be, why does this have to be hate-filled, can't you try and win them over without--"
"Just sitting on the fence...pick a side, us vs. them."

It's THAT sort of emntality I don't want in the New Atheist movement, or don't like in it.

Tackle the issues, fine, no problem.
Tackle the big wings, please, go ahead.
But when you make it "Our community vs. Their community," you're going too far.

And finally, one last thought to give on this:

I said earlier that when Dawkins or Hitchens attacks religion as a whole, yes, he's aiming at the big wigs, but because the religious Joe Blows and Sally Janes make up the "infastructure," as it were, of the Church, they're also attacking them , if not only indirectlky and perhaps unavoidably, so I can understand that.

It's incidents like that whole Xmas is a myth billboard that IS an attack on the Joes and Janes.

And then the Christians, in response, end up putting up their billboard bashing atheism, and it jsut escelates and drives the two sects apart without there being that chance to win over the youths or even the elders, and if you doubt that, consider:

If we were debating live right now, which would be a potentitally more persuasive demeanor for me to take up abortion with someone who's hardline against it:

Reasonably-and-still-forcefully give my reasoned argument and points...
Or call the anti-abortion crowd a pack of idiots and shouted and the like.

I understand you need a little push to make your point work--well, there you are, reasoned arguments ARE that push, and it's a pretty decent push because, as has been mentioned here, the Internet has made information more available...

If you make a reasoned argument with facts and logic to support your case, you WILL gain supporters, you DON'T need to resort to the same level of "us vs. them" dogma that the opposition in the religious community has...

I want this movement to be ABOVE that.

@Eden:

"It's not, though. Have you ever seen Dawkins chew out Joe Blow on the bus? Ever seen a Hitchslap delivered to Sally Jane at work?"

No, but my point is I HAVE seen their followers do that...after all, like father, like son, like leader, like follower...

And then *I* have to deal with the backlash and the fundamentalist Christians coming on my bus and "preaching"--ie, "You're all wicked evil creations that should never have been created but God for some reason decided to even thought that makes no sense to ge greatful and kiss his ass and join our church now to do so or burn in hell"--and making the religious community steel up more. (And it makes my bus late and me late to class on a test day, for a practical reason to dislike this.)

@Putin:

"You've been committed to trying to discredit Darwinian evolution and promoting ID bs. Stop pretending otherwise."

...

Who was that directed at, Putin?

I don't know of anyone on this thread that's anti-Darwin...

If it was at me, I'm not...so...?

First, Putin's comment was directed to fulhamish, not you, for clarification.

Second, funsies were doing that long before New Atheism. You've made some valid points (particularly regarding the billboard example) about flaws in New Atheism's approach; at worst any sort of alleged New Atheism "provocation" in the manner you're describing is a false pretense for fundamentalists to do what they would have done regardless of the situation.

I agree it's a false pretense, but that's what makes it worse, and why I say the movement should aim to be above that--

If you stoop to that level, their level, you make them appear to be credible or, at the very least, oin part with you logically and credibly, as if there's a real "choice" here between which logic is correct and which is not.

That must stop.

And that way, as you gain ground OFFICIALLY, where it COUNTS, with the schools and education and gay marriage and elected power and all that, and these sorts of fundamentalist backlashes occur, as you've said they would, regardless...

It's no longer "Oh, it's Atheists vs. Christians...what a long, silly, petty war of words..."
It finally becomes "Oh, Christian funamentalism...what a long, silly, petty set of words..."

Where is the evidence that "a reasoned argument with facts and logic to support your case, WILL gain supporters"?

@ President With a few notable, and unfortunately prominent, exceptions we have had such an ''intelligent discussion'' here in the past and I am loath to embark on it again despite the provocation being currently offered. I agree about dogmatic fundamentalists of any hue, but disagree with the fact that the only opposition to them are the New Atheists. Moreover, given their often extreme positions how effective can their effective opposition be?

...

Yes...?

manganese?

What's with the bump?