Why Assaulting Religion With Science Is Nuts

[tinrobot]

Why Assaulting Religion With Science Is Nuts

David Berreby on October 18, 2011, 5:13 AM

The other day commenter Cotdail took issue with a tossed-off aside in my post about religion and happiness. I said the hostility of militant atheists to religion borders on madness, to which Cotdail replied: "I fail to recognise anything that is 'bordering on a kind of madness' about being hostile towards immoral, anti-rational beliefs." Fair point. So here's why I think the crusading atheists are as loopy as the crusading, um, crusaders.

First, it seems to me that Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens and other "new atheists" are as obsessed with religion as are believers. Why so focussed on a bagful of other people's bad ideas, which one finds ugly and hateful and senseless? It doesn't seem quite compos mentis.

To which the New Atheist will reply that crusading against religion is an unpleasant duty, because of all the harm religion does. That defines their work, then, as proselytizing for reason—the job is to convince religious people to change their minds about faith. How do they do it? Well, Daniel Dennett, in his hateful book Breaking the Spell, compares religion to a cancer (page 39); poison (page 85); a swamp (106); child porn (13); bad weather (38); germs (84); coyote howling (57); pedophilia (261); the external coating of a deadly virus (45); an "unsavory miasma'' (289); and a backyard swimming pool carelessly left unfenced, into which children fall and drown (299). Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to open the minds of believers?

Aside from the "they are evil" hyperbole, which suggests that New Atheists know they are talking to themselves alone, I also think their project has a more fundamental flaw: Their attack on religion is based on the premise that scientific accounts of reality are the only reliable source of truth about the world. But, as Scott Atran has pointed out, the whole point of religious faith is that it is contrary to what we know by material means—that is why it's faith. In other words, it is because it's impossible for the sun to stand still that people value their belief that God made the sun stand still for Joshua.

more : http://bigthink.com/ideas/40708

[David Sky]

1. Humm! Have to see what this new assault uponAtheists turns into

Something about lack of logic trumps logic?

Umm not really close to a good argument.........but do your best, claiming lack of logic and facts trumps ..............what?

[whathehell]

19. Interesting that, even before reading it, you assume it to be an "assault"

Defensive much?..Duh...:eyes:

[David Sky]

21. When someone calls someone "nuts", it's a pretty safe bet there's an "ASSAULT"

taking place, even if only the verbal kind.

The word "nuts" is kind of a dead giveaway.

Not being "defensive" just being observant.

[whathehell]

22. They are calling the TACTIC "nuts"

not the people

In any case, I find the "sensitivities" of atheists

on this board more than ironic,

given their tendency to full-throttled attacks

on those who don't share their views..e.g. "believers".

Doubters in need of an example need

only look down thread at "deleted message":eyes:

[whathehell]

23. Knock yourselves out, Ignored

I decided long ago that you

weren't worth my time or civility.

[Goblinmonger]

24. You ignored youself?

I didn't even know that was possible.

[David Sky]

25. It's a "miracle" of faith! n/t

[David Sky]

27. "Civility"?

So many religious folks are always offended by thoughts from people with whom they disagree, feeling pain as if they are the victims of "full throttled attacks" of Atheists.

Atheists, people who question the nature and usefulness and/or the potential harm extending from any non-rational thought process. This is what angers some posters, I see.

[whathehell]

30. No, dear

I'm not "unexposed" to atheism, and I'm not "offended", much less "threatened" by the lack of belief.

In terms of spiritual matters, I couldn't care less what people "believe".

As far as I can see, it's "deeds not creeds" that matter.

What I AM offended by, is the tendency of many here to insult believers

and demean their beliefs with no provocation by non-atheist DUers.

Your failure to "notice" may be because you've not been here long,

or it may be your "zeal for the cause" which blinds you to the mockeries

of all religions (The "sky daddy", a concept no believer out of pre-school adheres to, btw, is popular.)

that are frequently employed along with insulting characterizations of "believers" of any type --

The aforementioned Mr. Deleted compared the intellects of believers to those of dogs...and no,

I'm not kidding.

[cleanhippie]

34. Holy Crap! (no pun intended)

I am amazed that you were able to fit all of that hypocrisy into a single post!



What I AM offended by, is the tendency of many here to insult believers

Are you offended at the tendency of believers to insult non-believers too?

and demean their beliefs with no provocation by non-atheist DUers.

No provocation, huh? Talk about being blind... And beliefs are not immune to criticism and are NOT personal attacks.

or it may be your "zeal for the cause" which blinds you to the mockeries

Pot, meet kettle.

[whathehell]

44. "Feeling pain"

:rofl: :rofl::rofl:

You're so off-point it's funny.

[whathehell]

51. Back at you, Ignored.

[cleanhippie]

66. I don't get it. This is the second post where you replied to yourself as ignored!

Are you ignoring yourself?

:rofl:


And telling another poster that are going to, or are ignoring them is against the rules.

[whathehell]

75. Oh, honey...

Still doing your lame act with me.:P

[cleanhippie]

84. listen, sugarplum

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

89. Ahh, resorting to insult and personal attack.

The sign that one has lost the intellectual battle.

You stay classy, ok?

[whathehell]

91. Oh, honey, you did that long ago

"intellectual battle" indeed.

Keep trying, bro:rofl:

[dmallind]

2. Yep - they think we'll fry for eternity. We think they are wrong - and we're loopy. Ooookaaay. nt.

[sarcasmo]

3. I'M melting!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. Here's a bucket of water! Oh, wait. that's not quite

the answer, is it?

Irrational beliefs trump science? bah.

[whathehell]

26. Bah

your ass.

Strict empiricists are limited and dull.:P

[ChairmanAgnostic]

41. trust me. you don't want me to bah my ass.

[whathehell]

43. Trust ME....I couldn't care less what you do with your ass.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

47. LOL. That's empathy for you.

But please keep your hands off my mule.

[whathehell]

50. LOL...I'm sure I'm as

indifferent to your "mule" as I am your ass!

[Thats my opinion]

35. Some of they--perhaps too many

Instead of paying an obsessive amount of attention to those "they", why not pay attention to some of the rest of the "they " who do not think you will fry in eternity.?> Of does that interfere with some prejudice?

[cleanhippie]

67. Been drinking?

Your post is incoherent.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

8. Love, joy and other non-linear experiences are not about "reason" either..Call yourself a "dog",

:eyes:

[darkstar3]

12. If you think that love and joy are non-linear, then you don't know what non-linear means.

[dmallind]

6. Ah another "another way of knowing" salvo

I wonder if anybody can point to a single instance of any naturalistic explanation being replaced with a supernatural one. Wher has that "other way of knowing" ever replaced the one that actually works? I mean surely we have abandoned many many scientific theories to replace them with mystical revelation. It's happened the other way round from the passage of days and years through the nature of geographical features and on to gravity and genetics Surely if there were "other ways to know" they would have supplanted science ONCE? Why haven't we found out thunder really is caused by Thor's hammer, or that women really did come from a rib?

[David Sky]

7. "Wher[e] has that "other way of knowing" ever replaced the one that actually works?"

When there is MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved!

Most of us got that, even those of us born before the God of America won over the God of Germany and Japan!!!


But history, and science, only bowed down to when $$$$$$$$$$$$$ are involved. That $$$$$$$$$$$$ scheme only works now when we have lots of people who don't want education, prefer abolutist beliefs over an open mind, because they see more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ at thei end of their rainbow.....either that, or they willfully LIKE being poor and being so clutched to a losing side, they look somthing like Brit in Red Coats, ready to die for a king or queen. How dumb was THAT?

[whathehell]

9. Don't be stupid...Obviously, it depends on what you mean by "works".

Since when does being religious equate with Poverty?

[NMMNG]

10. Atheists are big meanies

Because they're trying to convince people religion is wrong/bad.

Meanwhile not a single word about the "missionaries" and evangelicals who strive every day to convert people to religion, often with threats of hell, insistence that the person is following the wrong gods/dogma, claims that the person is evil and in need of "salvation", etc.

It's only when atheists speak their mind that it's rude, stupid, cruel, mean, nasty, evil, etc.


In essence, just another STFU Atheists diatribe.

[whathehell]

11. Awwww

:nopity:

Meanwhile, not a single word from people like YOU

about religious organizations like Catholic Charities, United Jewish Fund, etc. that do NOT

seek to "convert", only to HELP the poor and the abandoned.

When I hear something along the lines of "United Atheists Charities",

you may get merit some pity.

[NMMNG]

13. Catholic Charities

You mean the one that would rather shut down and stop providing services than take a chance that they might have to serve gay people? Fine lot they are. They only serve when they can force their backwards religious dogma on people.


And apparently you've never heard of the Foundation Beyond Belief.

[whathehell]

18. That's one

and it's only in that one area of adoption, fostering.


How about the others?...Protestant Federation?...United Jewish Fund?


Any beefs there?


It's true I never heard of the Foundation...My Big Bad.

[David Sky]

28. HUH? "and it's only in that one area of adoption, fostering."

In other words, please ignore the elephant of bigotry and intolerance in the CC palace's living room!

They're WONDERFUL people, just bigots about a few million people in the USA. Is that what you mean?

[NMMNG]

29. Of course

Ignore the hatred and intolerance they perpetuate because they did good deeds! It's only one segment of a big organization that did bad stuff! They only hate one segment of society so it's not all that bad!

Zinnia Jones summed it up well with her take on the Chick-Fil-A controversy:

And then there was the compensation: Chick-fil-A can't really be that bad, because they treat their employees well. They've donated to adoption agencies. They give out scholarships. So there you have it: my rights are disposable because they put people through college. I don't think I've ever seen a more cynical and contemptuous scheme than using your good deeds as a cover for the harm you intend to cause. The very fact that people need to come up with rationalizations for this shows that they recognize that it's wrong.

[David Sky]

32. What an excellent point you make when you say,

"The very fact that people need to come up with rationalizations for this shows that they recognize that it's wrong."

[whathehell]

45. Yeah...

'cause everybody else is a fucking ANGEL, right?

Go give something to "Beyond Belief" and quit whining.

[NMMNG]

52. Struck a nerve, eh?

Do you pray to your god with that mouth?

[whathehell]

54. Bwahahahah!

Umm..no..I'm an agnostic,

and no, bro, I don't give a shit whether

you believe me or not.;-)

[NMMNG]

55. You seem awfully hysterical

for someone who doesn't give a shit.

And I'm not a "bro".

[whathehell]

56. Indeed...Your completely off the mark assumptions are a scream.

No-bro.B-)

[NMMNG]

58. ...

[whathehell]

31. "Huh" back at you

What you call "bigotry", they call "doctrine"...In their view,

Homosexuality is sinful and and it's hardly just that of the CC.

It's the view of all the traditional Judeo-Christian religions.

Their charities STILL feed the poor and homeless...Yes, even if they're gay.:eyes:

[David Sky]

33. "Homosexuality is sinful" What kind of Democrat says stuff like this?

A blatantly bigoted one! One who has listened to their church's dogma and never questioned it. One who ignores all the facts and just sticks with the 2000 year or older mythologies.

I know a closed-minded person when I see statements like that. And I know what institutions taught them the bigotry.

[whathehell]

42. Honey, can you READ?...If you CAN actually READ the post, you will see I was QUOTING

if you know what that is..duh.

In other words, those are the views of the CHURCH...They are not MY views...Get it?:eyes:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

53. They're mighty choosy about their "doctrine"

Their church pews sit full of divorced people, liars, thieves, adulterers, fornicators, etc. All of them sit there smug and pious, railing against the "sinful" gay people who are destroying the Traditional Family, and society along with it. Gay is the worst sin society has ever faced! Gay rights must be opposed in every shape and form. But remember they love gay people, and they all have lots of gay friends. And don't forget--they gave some gay dude a sandwich last week so it's all good. :sarcasm:

[whathehell]

63. It should be obvious that I'm explaining, not condoning,

but the rage-filled tend to miss even the obvious.

Whatever...Have a nice day, or something.:eyes:

[NMMNG]

64. Project much?

Hint--people who pepper their posts with ALL CAPS and profanity are the ones who have rage issues. That would be you. Have a nice life, m'kay?

[whathehell]

74. Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing.

Hint: Caps simply indicate "strong feelings"

Because of your own issues, you may

fail to understand that strong feelings don't always equate

with "rage" or other negatives.

Sorry!:hi:

[NMMNG]

83. You obviously don't understand Internet etiquette

ALL CAPS is considered shouting. It's also considered rude and is also the hallmark of rightwingers who think screaming over others is the proper way to win a discussion. If you want to make a strong point learn to use some italics or even boldface rather than screaming and swearing at people. (Dropping the name calling would also help.) That way you won't seem so unhinged.

[whathehell]

86. You obviously believe your own BS

and since you've made the charge,

I'm SURE you'll be willing to

show us where I've "sworn"

at anyone....:eyes:

You are the one who appears "unhinged"..duh

[NMMNG]

88. Short term memory issues, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x310048#310436

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x310048#310594

And that's just in this thread.

[whathehell]

90. Prudish, eh?

Or just grasping at straws, lol?

All I can imagine, if you think "shit" is "swearing"

and "fucking" (neither in caps, btw) is unusual

or indicative of "rage" on this board.:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

71. If "the rage-filled tend to miss even the obvious", then you are missing everything.

Go back and look at your posts.

Every single one of them is pure rage.

[whathehell]

73. Sure...

except for one thing and that it,

I have nothing to be "rage-filled" about.

I am an agnostic and I neither despise,

nor love religion.

The "rage" you are feeling is you own.

Check out "Projection" under the heading: psychological defense mechanisms.

[cleanhippie]

76. Uh, yeah, whatever you say.

You don't have to convince me, you just have to convince yourself, and you seem to be doing a swell job at that.

[whathehell]

79. Aw, gee..

Do I have to verbally clean your clock AGAIN?

I thought you'd had enough the last time:rofl:

[whathehell]

80. Uh, yeah, sure, right

Gee, Clean, if I "don't have to convince you",

why do you keep responding to me?:rofl:

[darkstar3]

15. It's already been shown on this board that there are a myriad of secular charities,

but that red herring aside, don't think for one second that the religious charities you mention and many more aren't involved in proselytizing.

[Thats my opinion]

36. That was a good argument a couple of generations ago

Why not have an honest look at what so-called missionaries are doing today? it is a very different story.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

14. They answer these questions in their books. nt

[Silent3]

16. Among many mistakes in that article is the mistake of...

...imagining atheist criticisms of religion as if they were taking place in some particular one-on-one conversation with a devout believer, deciding whether or not the believer in that particular conversation would be likely to say at the end, "You know, you're right! I'm not going to believe in God anymore!", then using that evaluation as a measurement of the effectiveness of atheist rhetoric.

That kind of change of opinion, of course, hardly ever happens, no matter what the subject is, regardless of whether criticism is made harshly or gently, emotionally or intellectually.

What's important is change over time, cumulative effect not just on particular individual believers (some of whom might later change their minds, some of whom, as worriers about "tone" imagine, might dig their heels in deeper, so affronted as they are by those terrible atheist meanies) but on our culture as a whole, the process of making religion less appealing to those sitting on the fence, depriving religion of undeserved special protections and unearned respect.

Given the long-standing decline of religion in Europe, and the fact that even in the Bible-thumping US unbelievers are the fastest growing segment of the population with respect to belief, I'd say there's a good chance that atheists are on the right track.

[David Sky]

17. Well stated. n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

87. Everything Silent3 posts is well-stated. n/t

[trotsky]

20. This is extremely well stated:

What's important is change over time, cumulative effect not just on particular individual believers (some of whom might later change their minds, some of whom, as worriers about "tone" imagine, might dig their heels in deeper, so affronted as they are by those terrible atheist meanies) but on our culture as a whole, the process of making religion less appealing to those sitting on the fence, depriving religion of undeserved special protections and unearned respect.

[Jim__]

40. On what do you base the claim that he imagines atheist criticisms as if they were in a ...

one-on-one conversation?

The article explicitly states a different point of view of these criticisms:

... which suggests that New Atheists know they are talking to themselves alone, ...

As to your point about change over time, that's actually the point he is making in a previous column (linked to from the current column) in which he explicitly states the facts about declining religion in Europe and the increase of non-religionists in the US, and also notes that this trend is attributed to societal patterns and not activities by "militant atheists":

To the authors of the new paper, that oft-repeated fact suggested a question: If religion is so great, why do people leave it behind in countries like the Netherlands (40 percent non-religious) or the Czech Republic (60 percent Godless) or the United States (fastest growing religious affiliation: "None")? The answer, they write, is that religion only has these good effects when a society is in trouble.

...

... If religion is good for some people and not for others, in accord with patterns that science can discern, then religion is neither a menace to humanity nor an essential part of being human. Which means we secularists needn't side with militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose hostility to faith borders on a kind of madness) nor fall into an apologetic crouch, in which we accept without argument the notion that once religion is gone, something important is missing. As religion fades away in many wealthy societies, it's time to consider the possibility, as some of these writers do, that religion is still fading, and that when it does, nothing is missing.

The current column is written to support his contention that the hostility to faith of Dawkins, et al, borders on madness. In support of this, he uses the example of supporting cochlear implants for all deaf people, in spite of the opposition of some deaf to this, by attacking deaf culture and making arguments that are meaningless to the people that you need to win over:

Suppose Dawkins and Dennett and Harris et al. had a peculiar and strong dislike for deaf people, and were promoting cochlear implants for all, because of their belief that no one should have to grow up deaf—and never mind what that community has to say about themselves. And suppose these "New Auditists" were promoting the value of hearing by (a) insulting deaf culture and (b) playing beautiful music to people who could not hear it. Would not their fierce hatred, their closed-mindedness, and their futile tactics strike you as a tad looney? Instead of assaulting the deaf minority, of course, they've taken aim at the vast majority of the world's people who profess religious belief. So it's not enough that the plan is ugly and futile—it also has to work on about 6.5 billion people to succeed. Is that crazy enough for you?

Note that Berreby is not arguing against cochlear implants for all; he is arguing against clearly counter-productive tactics.

[Silent3]

46. On the basis of the author making yet another variation...

...on the "tone" argument. One-on-one conversations are the only types of situation where I've see that sort of thing matter much. I can't think of any major social change which has been accomplished by carefully coddling the supposedly delicate feelings of those who hold views in opposition to that change.

The cochlear implant analogy is too flawed to work with, so I won't bother.

I certainly don't think atheists speaking out is the chief cause of decreasing religious affiliation -- social changes are much more important -- but the fact that vocal atheism (hardly always mincingly careful and delicate) has increased at the same time religious affiliation has decreased makes it far more likely that atheist rhetoric is a successful part of that process, and far less likely that the process would actually be proceeding faster if atheists had instead been keeping their criticisms of religion politely to themselves.

Imagine that, as a general rule, people thought it rude to say bad things about bad auto mechanics, so mostly you'd only ever hear praise or a difficult-to-quantify amount of silence. Now imagine that there is no such reticence to speak ill of bad mechanics. In which situation to you think bad auto mechanics will get the most customers?

Plenty of people, on the own and without provocation from atheists or anyone else in particular, reach points in their lives where they think they might need to make a change in their lives. In which situation do you think adopting a religion (or a new religion) is more likely to be the kind of change someone chooses to make at such a point? The situation where religion receives plenty of social support, very little vocal disparagement, and is often granted an automatic cloak of respectability, or the situation where people feel just as free to deride religion as to praise it?

Do you think there would be more racism or less racism today if critics of racism were very carefully considerate of the feelings of racists? Certainly many people have worked on reducing racism through positive means, and those efforts have of course been important, but I doubt we'd have seen nearly as much progress against racism if everyone had been so terribly concerned to never upset a racist with the way they speak against racism, if people had spent a lot of time worrying about the few racists who might become more racist as a defensive reaction.

[Jim__]

48. First of all, the author makes a statement that explicitly refutes your claim.

Specifically:

... which suggests that New Atheists know they are talking to themselves alone, ...

Secondly, the cochlear implant analogy is an example where the "tone" of the argument affects its viability with the entire targeted community.

Your bad auto mechanic analogy is an example of a category error:

Imagine that, as a general rule, people thought it rude to say bad things about bad auto mechanics, so mostly you'd only ever hear praise or a difficult-to-quantify amount of silence. Now imagine that there is no such reticence to speak ill of bad mechanics. In which situation to you think bad auto mechanics will get the most customers?

As a general rule, commercial auto mecahnics don't claim to be "bad" auto mechanics - there is no group around willing to defend them.

Plenty of people, on the own and without provocation from atheists or anyone else in particular, reach points in their lives where they think they might need to make a change in their lives. In which situation do you think adopting a religion (or a new religion) is more likely to be the kind of change someone chooses to make at such a point? The situation where religion receives plenty of social support, very little vocal disparagement, and is often granted an automatic cloak of respectability, or the situation where people feel just as free to deride religion as to praise it?

Once again, the starting premise of the author's argument is that studies indicate that societal changes will tend to decrease the number of religious. Re-read the cochlear implant analogy - it's telling you that the insulting arguments of Dawkins,et al will generate more resistance than acceptance.

Your remarks about racists are another example of a category error:

Do you think there would be more racism or less racism today if critics of racism were very carefully considerate of the feelings of racists? Certainly many people have worked on reducing racism through positive means, and those efforts have of course been important, but I doubt we'd have seen nearly as much progress against racism if everyone had been so terribly concerned to never upset a racist with the way they speak against racism, if people had spent a lot of time worrying about the few racists who might because more racist as a defensive reaction.

The fight against racism began with people who were directly and disastrously being affected by it. Once the began the fight, other people, many not directly affected, realized the justice of their cause, and supported them in their fight. The fight was a fight against injustice.

GLBT people have been unjustly affected by mores that were both religiously and culturally based. Most people in our society have recognized the justice of the fight for equality of GLBT people. My thought is that if they had raised their fight directly against religion rather than the injustice of unequal treatment, there would not be as many sympathetic people as there are. Sure, they haven't won yet, but that has to do with political power - for instance, the last poll that I saw, over 50% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, something like 68% favored their being allowed to serve openly in the military. This fight is also being won based on the recognition of injustice, not by general insults against religion.

[Silent3]

49. Religious people don't generally claim to be their religion

Talk about a category error. You suffer from the same problem many believers do: you can't seem to separate criticism of religion from criticism of religious people. The "bad mechanic" represents religion itself in this analogy, not religious followers, not religious clergy. Substitute "bad repair shop" for "bad mechanic" if the use of people confuses you.

Specifically:

... which suggests that New Atheists know they are talking to themselves alone, ...

That's only what is "suggested" to the author, starting with his flawed premise that people would only use harsh criticism while talking to themselves, which follows from the flawed premise that you can only successfully change minds via gentle, pleasant engagement with those with whom you disagree.

This fight is also being won based on the recognition of injustice, not by general insults against religion.

But people do "insult" homophobia, even if they don't directly criticize the religions which foster homophobia. And why does a thing have to fit into the specific category of "injustice" for harsh criticism to be leveled against it? The irrationality of religion is reason enough to harshly criticize it, without getting into other bad things which may or may not follow from that irrationality.

[Jim__]

39. delete - wrong place

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

59. Oh dear...

[whathehell]

61. THANK You !

You've said it all.

[Silent3]

69. What's even funnier than the post you just thanked...

...is that a post full of straw men and fallacies which have been debunked hundreds of times in your presence is what garners your enthusiastic approval.

Even if you disagree that the straw men are made of straw, even if you think the fallacies aren't actually fallacious, if there was the slightest hint of intellectual honesty in your evaluation of that post you'd have to know it was weak on substance, full of red meat for people who agree with the poster, but utterly clueless to the larger debate that the poster has wandered into.

[cleanhippie]

72. I think the key word in your post is "clueless."

Perfect description.

[trotsky]

62. LMAO

So full of comedy, that post is. I lost count of the logical fallacies - straw man, red herring, No True Scotsman, my goodness, lots of ground covered in that one. Well done!
:rofl:

[NMMNG]

65. You again?

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

68. *FACEPALM*

Please, no, not another one.

[Silent3]

70. Poe's Law Alert! Poe's Law Alert!

:crazy: :eyes: :shrug: :rofl:

[no limit]

77. What I find so ironic about people like you is that you swear others are wrong

but you are too afraid to confront them and explain why they are wrong.

Why is that?

[Iggo]

78. .

:hi:

[deacon_sephiroth]

60. We're crazy, stop trying to talk non-crazy to us!

Roger that.

[whathehell]

81. We're angry atheists, stop telling us to "calm down", LOL

We MAD!:mad:

[Lost-in-FL]

82. It is nuts cause religion is far from being scientific.

And… I wouldn't call "proselytizing" what Dawkins, et al. are doing and lemme xplain why.

For a highly religious person changing their mind about their belief implies being open to reason, questioning what they believe, or rejecting scientific knowledge that would disprove "belief" thus accepting science only when it proves them right. Atheist IMO are much better at "uncertainty", in fact we embrace it. Science is not static and we are aware that we do not hold all the answers at a precise moment in history. Atheists are "observers" and take in consideration all of the possibilities for and against and because of that we are pretty much open to the idea of god not existing.

On the other hand, faith is the direct rejection of reason , it is inflexible as it denotes complete trust, confidence and spiritual conviction rather than proof. Uncertainty is rejected, losing faith is sinful… a thing one is not even allowed to.

With all this said, I do not think for a second that Dawkins, et al. (The New Atheists :eyes: ) are trying to "proselyte" religious people. Religious people want to think they are told not to believe by the New Atheists when in reality the Dawkins's clan speaks to those that dare being open to reason or scientific ideas to explain the universe to them. Atheist acknowledge that science do not have all the answers but at least someone is open to look for answers.

[whathehell]

92. So everything "non-scientific" is nuts?

:rofl:

[Lost-in-FL]

93. If they are edible, they can be subjected to experiment. nt