The “all Christians are…” fallacy
This post may cause trouble. There’s an issue that’s been bothering me since before I began to self-identify as an atheist (among other labels that we pigeonholers of a people like to place upon ourselves and others) that bothered me then, but does so even more now.
I have a problem with atheists who denigrate people of faith just because they hold a faith. There, I’ve said it.
My mother’s uncle turns 80 in January and he’s a Methodist lay-minister, hobbyist philosopher, critical thinker with many interests, and is a lovely man with whom I get on famously. Or did, until Easter when he saw the Atheist Bus Campaign sticker on the back of my car. His immediate, unthinking reaction was to turn to me and utter, “Oh, so you’re one of those?” By “those” I assumed he meant an atheist, so I said yes. No big deal, asked and answered simply and matter-of-factly, like “Do you like grapes?” and “Yes.” It’s now almost December and we’ve only just recently managed to establish dialogue that doesn’t include preloaded assumptions. It’s not that he wouldn’t talk to me anymore, but rather that everything he said, did and thought regarding me was now coloured with negative expectation: a shit-coloured filter.
As it was, this evening’s conversation started with his enquiry about me attending Christmas lunch with them, as I’ve done most years since moving to England. For some reason his expectation was that now I am the A-word I’d not participate in “Christian festivals” and even be antagonistic towards them. After pointing out that on one hand nearly all Christian festivals were pagan festivals long before the Catholic church came along and usurped them, and on the other hand I recognise that it’s human nature to participate in ceremonies and rituals of the passage of time, seasons and events, and such things possibly pre-date religion. He’s mollified, and Christmas is back on. Yay, status quo.
This brings me to the point of this post. The reality-based community with which I identify are more likely to use — and use successfully — logic, reason and critical thinking in arguments against everything ranging from philosophy to religion. And it’s wonderful. I mean it.
But there a section of this community that not only antagonises people of faith (I can intellectually understand this, if not agree entirely with) and often does so by using logical fallacies and cognitive biases, some of which include straw man, ad hominem, false dichotomy, sampling bias, and bias blind spot. (You’ll probably find unintended examples of these throughout this blog). I doubt you’ll find many atheists who won’t challenge religious fundamentalism and zealotry with gusto, facts, science and logic. And rightly so. But to extend that a little, a number of atheists cannot understand how any otherwise rational and intelligent people could possibly also have religious faith — particularly if they work in a science profession — so they must clearly be deluded or poor thinkers.
And then this argument often rears its head: the religious moderate is as bad, if not worse, than the fundamentalist. The rationale for this often being that moderation allows the presentation of an acceptable face of a brutal, primitive set of dogmas, or facilitates that faith’s entry through an otherwise closed door. As if, somehow, they’re all as bad as each other. To anyone who’s thought about this seriously for a moment, this is clearly not true. Yes, there are monsters in positions of power in any religion, just as there is throughout the general laity, but to caricature every member of a faith in that way is disgusting. It makes a mockery of the critical thinking and logical arguments that person holds to be valuable and worthwhile, because that person has exercised none of it.
My great-uncle has reacted and behaved the way he has with me because of the public face of modern atheism, with its often total disregard for the feelings and sensibilities of the average person — despite the fact he’s never seen any of those negative, judgemental or intolerant qualities in me. In its zeal to slap down the worst of faith and try to stem the tide of stupid overtaking the world, that form of atheistic expression is harming normal people. Those may be people who simply have not yet reached a point in their lives where they’re able to objectively reflect upon the inconsistencies and logic problems of their own faith when compared to the world around them.
There is something of which I am unequivocally certain: this perceived New Atheist “all guns blazing” approach isn’t going to work.
It’s the argumentative, brow-beating equivalent of the outlawing of religion in China and the former USSR. How can it possibly work against faiths that get excited about martyrdom? And I’m not just talking about Islam here: most major religions revel in the chance to play the oppressed, downtrodden and beaten servant of their god. They simply say, “I will practise my faith regardless, and any punishment I may receive will be my sacrifice to <insert deity here>, which will reap me rewards in <insert afterlife here>!”
Yes, it’s awful that in the 21st century billions of the world’s population are still slaves to Bronze Age superstitions. But no, screeching like a banshee at your neighbour isn’t going to make them suddenly say, “You know what… you’ve been insulting everything I’ve ever valued for years now, but I see it now: you’re right!” Just because something may be provably wrong, it doesn’t mean that an otherwise intelligent person will see it that way — you’re staring in the face of cognitive dissonance.
So am I advocating appeasement? Certainly not. But a large number of worldwide scientific community do not consider themselves atheists. Are they to be excluded from scientific endeavour? Again, certainly not. The same is true of the average member of the public. Religions and superstitions may be laughable and ridiculous, but they kill thousands of people every day and are not to be underestimated in terms of their importance to the people that hold them. And some of those people may love you and be hurt deeply whenever, by inference, you call them imbeciles.
Unfortunately, I don’t know what the solution is — or even if there is one, at least that doesn’t involve totalitarianism — but I am certain that the lumping of people like my great-uncle in the same basket as a religious terrorist is wrong. And yet I see it every day in the atheist blogs I read, and in the other atheistic and even new media I consume: the deliberate misrepresentation of members of a faith as if they’re all as bad as the worst public figure in that faith. It’s wrong and it has to stop.
loading...
I very much agree. When the alpha course adverts came out asking “Does God exist? Yes. No. Probably.”, I asked a colleague of mine, who’s a very devout Christian, if he felt this was strange. I had imagined that Christians would not countenance the possibility of “probably”. But he said that was his view. A day later, he said he’d been thinking about it, and “probably” was definitely what he thought. I was shocked. I imagined that to be a Christian, you have to have an unshakeable belief. My colleague is a lovely man, from the wing of the Church of England that has no problem with gay priests, women bishops, or indeed moral atheists (like me). There’s a huge difference between people like him and fundamentalists. I think he’s almost certainly wrong. He thinks I’m probably wrong. I have much more in common with him than either of us has in common with fundamentalists of any religion. So I agree that we should be prepared to engage with believers who accept the possibility they are wrong, and whose beliefs are not oppressive of others.
Thanks for your reply, Brian. It’s nice to have the first reply to the post to be one of agreement than the flames I’m expecting.
I’m guessing you don’t have a church-going background or similar religious exposure, and that led to your expectation of what your religious colleague believed? The reality is that some believers are actually Deists who happen to attend a church (and therefore a denomination or sect) and others hold a literal adherence. It’s another reason why I feel the endless attacks on people of faith is “bad science,” as it’s often coming from people who either have no understanding of the various faiths (and their sects) that they’re criticising, few people skills or compassion, or have a very limited perspective. If you believe the media, all Muslims want jihad and sharia law, which is a blatant lie and false dichotomy intended to polarise opinion (but then their prime function is to sell papers or advertising slots).
The perspective of both you and your colleague seems to me to be intellectually honest. Neither of you are certain, as you both use the term “probably,” and indeed none of us can be — so we’re left with a choice between Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Theism. Some in the reality-based community will regard what we do as collusion — as if it’s some kind of deluded war — while the more mature and reasoned will see that you can’t batter people over the head with critical thinking, reason and logic when they’re not used to such concepts.
While I think Dawkins is one of the greatest minds of our generation and his works and achievements are phenomenal, but I think he has the bedside manner of Nurse Ratched. That approach is fine in an academic or debating environment, but when you’re dealing with squishy, emotional humans it doesn’t work.
I like this post. In fact, I think a lot more atheists would than you’ll ever hear from. When we take this line in public fora we tend to get beaten down by the loudmouths. They’ll cite anecdotal evidence that their approach has worked–and it probably does on occasion. But rarely does slapping people result in sincere converts.
It’s encouraging to see compassionate voices of atheistic reason sticking their heads above the parapets. Expanding what you say about loudmouths, just as with public religious nuts clearly being the vocal minority it’s quite likely that aggressive atheists are our vocal minority. That’s not to say that they have no place, as it’s Dawkins’s strength of personality and reason that has brought many of us out of the shadows, but balance is required. The alternative is total polarisation and absence of progress.
‘It’s the argumentative, brow-beating equivalent of the outlawing of religion in China and the former USSR. How can it possibly work against faiths that get excited about martyrdom?’
What a disgusting comment to make. If you believe that you might aswell have stated that Jews were queueing up to the Gas chamber in eager anticipation.
I do agree with your assesment of Dawkins ‘bedside manner’.
Dawkin’s reasoning that the universe the architects of aliens as rediculous as it is for an atheist like yourselves to believe in a Deity.
All in all I do commend you honesty on the topic and agree that you will NEVER get a Christian to drop their faith by insulting them.
Disgusting? You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I suspect you may have unwittingly misunderstood what I was saying.
Like it or not, martyrdom is a shared theme in Abrahamic religions (as is misogyny, torture, genocide, etc). I know Christians who consider it a welcome test to be persecuted for their faith, though normally providing it doesn’t stop them getting home in time for dinner.
I’m not referring to the awful extremes of the suicide cults within Christianity and Islam, but people who consider their interpretation of their faith to be above the law and see fit to evangelise in schools (where illegal), picket soldier funerals and same sex marriage events, use their positions of power to implement prayer in municipal meetings, the installation of plaques or statues of the Ten Commandments in government buildings (where illegal), and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
Was that really unclear? The very next sentence (omitted from your quoted excerpt) underlined and italicised that, I thought.
Oh, and by the way: I invoke Godwin’s Law on your comment.
I did not misunderstand you. You are trying to illustrate that religious persecution invokes an amusement park excitement. It is nothing short of horrific what China and the USSR commited and your twisting the event to make it sound like they wanted to die (regardless of many that tried to flee) is monsterous and entirely inaccurate.
You further misunderstand Christian testing of belief with persecution.
In any religion a test of faith is inevitable, but persecution is not welcomed nor neccesary for testing their faith.
I agree that faith should not be considered ‘above the law’ and the majority of Christian do not take part in piketing funerals or same sex marriages.
It is not against the law to pray (even in municipal meetings), so I don’t see how you could object to that being ‘above the law’. Don’t really see your issue with plaques or statues unless you could equally object to the Georgia Stones and other Masonic or Occultic Symbols littered throughout Government buildings and other sites of importance.
You can invoke whatever law you feel fit to apply to my reply, for as long as you believe that Religious persecution/genocide should be avoided based merely on your understanding that par example Christians get a kick out of facing a death squad, what difference dose any reply anyone makes matter.
I’m at a bit of a loss where to begin with your comment, and am unsure whether you’re deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve said or if you’re actually unaware that you’re doing it. In that one comment alone you’ve managed to cram in misrepresentation, straw men, non-sequiturs, gross generalisation, jurisprudential ignorance and/or geographical unawareness, and a seeming belief that you have the right to insist that people think as you do on certain issues. Rather than provide the response I was initially tempted to give, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, again, and continue this discussion.
I mentioned China and the former USSR banning of religion clearly in reference to its futility as it applies to people who will continue to practice their faith regardless of state policy; you chose to misrepresent or choose the worst example, setting up a useful straw man to knock down. For future reference: such deliberate behaviour is considered untidy and dishonest outside politics.
You’re quite right that the majority of Christians (and Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Pastafarians, etc) are kind and loving people who make excellent contributions to their cultures and society as a whole. And that was the whole point of my original post. I thought this was perfectly obvious, and everyone else seems to have understood this.
Your mention of it not being against the law to pray in municipal/government situations either displays your ignorance of the law or an unawareness of the distribution of blogs around the world. You get to read and respond as if everything takes place within your living room, but I have to write with the awareness that it’s read by people in the United States, Russian Federation, Australia and Uzbekistan. I very carefully qualified the original statement with “(where illegal)” because it is most definitely illegal in some countries and jurisdictions. And regardless of legal status, I consider that such religious activities are entirely inappropriate as not only do they deliberately exclude other religions (the ending with in “…in Jesus’s name” gives it away) and the entire community of unbelievers, but it suggests that magical thinking has a valid place within an otherwise pragmatic and serious event.
Lastly, the only dignity in response that I’m going to give your closing paragraph is to point out that Godwin’s Law indicates that the person to whom it is directed has embarrassed himself or herself by invoking Hitler or his atrocities in what is meant to be an adult conversation.
‘I mentioned China and the former USSR banning of religion clearly in reference to its futility as it applies to people who will continue to practice their faith regardless of state policy’
I understand now that that is what you meant.
However, I do not think that Godwin’s Law could apply in response to your statement ‘faiths that get excited about martyrdom’. In my own humble opinion you do insinuate that martyrdom was something ppl. of certain religious faiths (in the case of China and USSR we could definitely say being a Christian was a serious faux pas) aspired to. I think my issue with this is that pretain a sense of excitement towards martyrdom where I do not see any evidence of this in regards to the USSR, China or Germany’s persecution of Religious groups. In no way did the Jews aspire to martyr themselves under Hitler’s regime any more than Christians under Stalin, Lenin or Pol Pot. Of course I could have chosen any other regime that has persecuted religious groups, so really no cause for embarresment on my part.
While I’d be perfectly happy to see religion die off of its own accord I’m not in favor of banning it, primarily because I detest oppression of any kind. Yes, prohibit the harmful actions people might engage in while blaming their “religious beliefs” but don’t ban religion itself.
Thanks for your comment, Buffy. I’m puzzled as to which part you’re responding, as I had not advocated the banning of religion? (Or, rather, the parts where I’d talked about such things were rhetorical or in reference to other things).
Out of interest and to generate further discussion: how would you go about achieving that kind of balance?
Personally, I am an advocate of secularism and the removal of religious privilege, as strived for by the National Secular Society (UK) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (US), as I mentioned in a recent blog post.
I hesitate about calling myself an atheist for this very reason. For all practical purposes, I AM one.
But some of the atheists just strike me as a bit erm fervent in their beliefs, which make me suspect that some of them be interchangeable from de Toquemada (sometimes).
I choose what I call myself depending upon both the audience and the intention I’m trying to convey. While the technically accurate term is Agnostic Atheist, I can — and often do — just as easily term myself a humanist, atheist, skeptic, secularist, naturalist, ethicist, rationalist and scientist (sometimes shortened to HASSNERS). Of course some of those terms do not necessarily exclude religious belief by themselves, but the combined package is pretty good.
It’s unfortunate how all sides of the argument seem to be able to cite valid examples of abrasive or counter-productive atheist behaviour, but I guess that’s the nature of the beast. After all, there isn’t a hymn sheet for us all to sing from: your opinions and attitudes probably vary from mine as much as might those of Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet and Grayling. Humanism addresses that somewhat, which is one reason I like it.
The solution is to meet the religionist halfway; to acknowledge the inborn tendency, awareness, consciousness, instinct, archetype of and for something that is immeasurable but inextricably a part of each one of us. There is something in us beyond the rational that is never going to go away and unless we acknowledge this reality and adequately deal with it we are simply setting up the next religious backlash. Religionists and atheists fail to understand that religionists are projecting a part of themselves into the religions they worship. When you ask someone to give up their religion, unless they have a deepening grasp on who they truly are, you are asking them to give up a part of themselves. Religionists need to see that the truth of their religions are beneath the names, symbols and dogma. Atheists need to fully admit that there is truth beneath the names, symbols and dogmas of religion. There are no gods in the sky but there is a god archetype in each one of us that is as real as any god in the sky. That is the starting point.
Aside from your opening assertion, I agree entirely with what you said. It’s not a solution, but it is an approach — and quite probably a very effective one, as it’s based on compassion, intellect and the understanding that people have differing opinions or beliefs, often in the absence of rational thought.
History has proven time and again (and this is part of the reason for the original post) that people will believe whatever they want (or are told) to believe regardless of the evidence: gods, vaccines, conspiracies, history. And it’s exacerbated by people not being trained in critical thinking, questioning often being punished, the media places unqualified people onto pedestals of authority, and because of the absence of critical thought the Argument from Authority does its thing and a model suddenly becomes the international poster-girl for anti-vaccination.
You are wrong to assume that religious moderates receive the most forceful attacks, if you want to call it that. The brunt of it is towards fundamentalists who openly promote a bigoted philosophy, are extremely anti-science, and sell it in a politically conservative package of irrationality and hate mongering.
Atheism is a negative position. The very act of being an atheist will cause even moderates to think of you as a weirdo fanatic without any regard whatsoever to how vocal you are in your atheism. But that is no reason to not call out any one who is vocal about their religion. You’ve been raised to believe that religion has a special privelege in society and must never be openly questioned. Not only should it be openly questioned, it should be done so brazenly.
Your Uncle did not react the way he did because of the so called “New Atheists,” but because he was indoctrinated to believe that Atheists are inherently evil. You might as well have told him you were a homosexual Satanist.
Everyone has their right to their opinions and beliefs, but they don’t have the right to the exclusion of the non-believers. Hopefully as you mature in your atheism, you’ll come to see this.
As far as the logical fallacies are concerned, please do give some specific examples of the fallacies employed by atheists. And while you are at it, visit talkorigins.org.
@ James
‘Atheism is a negative position. The very act of being an atheist will cause even moderates to think of you as a weirdo fanatic without any regard whatsoever to how vocal you are in your atheism.’
Complete generalization. If you say you are an atheist you are simply implying a disbelief of the supernatural/God/higher being etc….
‘Your Uncle did not react the way he did because of the so called “New Atheists,” but because he was indoctrinated to believe that Atheists are inherently evil.’
Considering his uncle is a Christian he is taught to believe ALL men are ‘inherently evil’ including himself. His concern for his nephew’s atheism may have more to do with the bumper sticker and those connected to the bumper sticker (Dawkins springs to mind).
As far as ‘fallacies emplyed by atheists are concerned: http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/
Unfortunately that site you reference has a number of its own fallacies and cognitive biases.
It falls foul of the same problems I wish atheists wouldn’t do: lumping all those of “the other side” in the same boat, tarring them all with the same brush. Not all atheists are anti-theists in that same way that not all theists are Christian Zionists (seeking to accelerate the Rapture by setting up the pre-requisite chess pieces). The sooner both sides of this argument realise this the better, thought the pragmatist in me doubts this realisation will ever occur.
It also uses gross generalisations, refers to events that are unreferenced (the death threats and murder attempt) and are therefore anecdotes, uses emotive language and editorialising, needlessly references dictionary definitions where I’m sure it would be trivial to find counter-examples (well call this Argument from Authority), and… that’s pretty much where I lost interest in the site. I’m not sure what they’re agenda is, but I’m fairly sure that based upon what I’ve read it’s anything but an objective, reasoned critique of the many and varied types and levels of atheism out there in the real world. Much easier to dissect a straw man, yes?
That is what is meant by a negative proposition. The “A” in atheism negates the word theism.
I am guessing the bumper sticker read, “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop
Worrying and Enjoy Life.” Ofcourse, those connected to the bumper sticker are atheists who are *gasp* vocalizing their atheism.
As far as ‘fallacies emplyed by atheists are concerned: http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/
That site is incomprehensibly stupid. They have idiots writing blog posts about the impossibility of DNA mutating.
@ Jumile, James
I’m sure you’ll agree Dawkin’s goes a little further than just ‘vocalizing’ his atheism.
Cannot comment on the blog or forum of the website as it won’t load on my pc.
However the statement
“The very act of being an atheist will cause even moderates to think of you as a weirdo fanatic without any regard whatsoever to how vocal you are in your atheism.”
This is still part of the problem that if I’m mistaken, Jumile has outlined, that both sides are becoming increasingly polarized by generalist views such as yours.
All Christians are……. and the
All Religions are……. and the
All Atheists are…….
All are arguments doomed to failure through lack of understanding from either sides.
@fabian
Increasing polarization? Care to expound on that?
As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, he has done nothing other than be vocal, which is exactly what needs to be done.
But getting back to “generalizations,” the views and actions of the majority of christians in this nation. The battle over evolution with the majority of Christians disbelieving of it and trying to replace it with biblical creationism, the majority of christians attempting to and succeeding in outlawing gay rights on religious grounds and using the excuse that legislation affirming gay rights is an assault on the rights of Christians to practice their religion. Need I go on? Stem cell research? Ever hear of Dominion Theology? Rick Warren? The role of US evangelism in the witch hunts in Africa and the call for the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda? Conservapoedia? This is not fringe Christianity. The is the voice of American Christianity. And the “New Atheists” calling them out on it is mean and insensitive?
While I agree with the lion’s share of what you write, this is one small point that I cannot and will not let go unchecked (mainly because it’s an Internet issue that’s been driving me nuts for 20 years now)…
The blog software shows me that you are most likely in Texas in the US. It shows me that Fabian is in the UK, as am I. Please remember that this is the worldwide Internet: there is no “this nation” (or “the law says” or “our government did”), if you take my meaning.
@ James,
Increasing polarization as in the process or condition of being divided into two opposing groups. Atheists vs Christian, Evolution vs Creationalism ect….I personally don’t see why children can’t be taught both creationlism and evoltuion in school and let the kids decide for themselves what appears more logical.
‘As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, he has done nothing other than be vocal, which is exactly what needs to be done.’
Sure, there is no harm in stating your disbelief, but that’s not exactly all he does is it.
Not sure why you mentioned Rick Warren, I had no idea who he was but I googled him and went to his site and read a letter he wrote to the pastors of Uganda urgently requesting them to put an immediate stop to the witch hunt and imprisonment of homosexuals. I don’t see any problem with Coservapedia either. Yes it’s conservative, big deal! You seem to be stuck on the issue of gay rights and even though it is condemned by most religions you seem to singled Christianity out when Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are vehemently against same sex relationships but you don’t really want to step on their toes. I wonder why that it is?
@fabian
Those two were always polarized. It’s not an increasing polarization.
Because, oh, I don't know, evolution is science and as such belongs in the science curriculum and creationism is pseudoscientific religious nonsense and as such belongs in church? It's not a matter of what appears more logical too scientifically illiterate children, it is about teaching them science so they become scientifically literate.
Then what does he do? Arm atheist militants with guns and explosives? Pass discriminatory laws revoking the rights of entire segments of the population that he believes his creator wants destroyed? What his he doing? OH MY GOD! HE WRITES BOOKS, CONDUCTS INTERVIEWS, GIVES TALKS, AND DOES SCIENCE AND TELLS US ABOUT IT!!! WHAT CAN WE DO??!!?! Seriously? What is he doing that is not merely being vocal?
Yes, Rick Warren just wrote a letter repudiating himself from the Uganda fiasco because, as one of the principle endorsers of that dispicable legislation, he got a lot of flak from every where and decided out of political interests to write a letter. Do a little more research on him, his church, and why people should be a little wary of his ilk.
Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism consitute such a small minority in the US that they aren’t particularly relevent, especially Hinduism and are mostly a non-issue except in some specific local affairs. However, you may note if you do decide to actually pay attention to the issue, that Islam and Judaism are not spared the rod. Why this focus on gay rights? Because they are a significan population in the US, and more than that, they don’t deserve religious nutcases stripping away their rights.
What’s wrong with conservapoedia? Sure it’s conservative. That’s not why I bring it up. It is an example of the kind of brainwashed biggotry representative of the problem of the religious.
So based on your comments, and this blogpost, you and the blogger haven’t a clue as to what the issues are, what atheists are actually doing (which isn’t much), and your reactions to the issue are more an emotional appeal than an intellectual are even particularly rational one.
@James
So science is not a matter of logic? Afraid that children might see more logic in Intelligent design perhaps?? Sounds more like brainwashing them to only one view of how certain (atheist) scientists believe the world came into being. Surely any child would benefit from choice in the matter of being.
Richard Dawkins is what I (and many others) would consider a ‘militant atheist’.
Jilian Baggini’s decription of Militant Atheist being:
Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs.
So what does Dawkins do you ask???
Arms atheist militants with lies and distortions? Advocates discriminatory laws revoking the rights of entire segments of the population that he believes should be destroyed. Yes!!!
Did a little more research on Warren and he doesn’t sit right with me. Seems to say one thing than say he didn’t say it when it gets in into trouble.
Actually they are not. did a run on the numbers, they vary from 1.17% to about 5% of the US population. 2000 Census had the total number of homosexuals at 4.2%. The Jewish population makes up 2.2%, Muslims make up 2% and Hindu 0.50%.
Exactly what rights are being stripped from homosexuals? I might be wrong, but I think you might be referring to the right to marry, correct???
I don’t think you understand what the term ‘brainwashing’ means. Conservapedia is yes very conservative, yet nobody forces you to read it nor visit the site or have it ingrained into your forehead. A conservative mindframe does not tolerate everything, if it did it wouldn’t be considered conservative. Surely even you are intolerant of things that you disagree with, doesn’t make you a bigot.
Please do enlighten us to the issues….
@James
I take exception to this statement. That you may disagree with the premise of my post, or missed the point I was trying to convey, doesn’t mean I haven’t a clue as to what the issues are or what my fellow atheists are doing.
Kindly keep your ad hominems, well-poisoning and generalisations to yourself, and I’ll extend you the same courtesy.
And your true colors come out. Once “Intelligent Design” becomes a scientific theory supported by empirical evidence with peer reviewed publications then we can talk. Intelligent design is specifically an anti-science stance. No child benefits from teaching it in the classroom. It is not legitimate and does not deserve to be taken as legitimate.
That is an entirely hyperbolic and unappropriate use of the word “militant.” But If you wouldn’t mind providing me with what “lies and distortions” Richard Dawkins “arms” us “militant” atheists, that would be great. Until then, it’s just a useless and entirely emotional and reactionary phrase.
The right to marry and the right to adopt and raise children. And all the rights inherent with that. 5 states of 50 in the US allow and recognise it. The rights of 4.2% of the population is a significant number of people.
No one is stating that conservapedia is there to brainwash. It is there as a representative of the minds of of the religious conservative.
Please do enlighten us to the issues….
Where to even begin? When you enter into a discussion, there is an assumption that you have a comprehension of the issue. The Evolution-Creationism topic is not something that I’m going to be able to enlighten you if you think that creationism is on equal scientific and logical footing as evolution. About gay rights? Where to begin? Militant Atheism? Al Quaeda, and every Islamic terrorist group arming their supporters with guns, explosives, provoking and ordering violence are militant groups. The IRA, African Witch Hunters, Catholic Church since its inception. In the US: Minute Men, KKK, Black Panthers and to a lesser extent, the Tea Baggers. These are examples of actual militancy. Your example of Militant Atheism is laughable.
@Jumile
Please point out the Ad Hominem? Look. Sorry that i confused you with an American. I had higher hopes for an Atheist from the UK. But your take on the issues are naive. I apologize.
As far as generalizing is concerned, your entire blog post was a generalization fest lacking in any specific instances of what you were arguing against. As far as Scientists identifying as Atheists, http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
Your insistence that vocal Atheists (what percentage?) are poisoning the well lacks specificity and seems to poison the well. Who are these Atheists, what are they saying and to whom are they speaking?
@James
I think you, as Fabian has done occasionally, have got so mired in the meat of your arguments that you’ve forgotten the point of the original blog post. The core of it was always about my very intelligent great-uncle whose religious indoctrination had blinded him to the reality of the great-nephew standing before him, and how my actions and his expectations/assumptions were wildly different. It wasn’t about who was right or wrong, or who could provide the most official-looking URL as proof of a particular point. You have you own argument with Fabian; it’s not mine.
As always, you’re welcome to your opinions. I just ask that you don’t presume to think your perspective is the only valid one (that way lies the “he’s not a real…” bullshit that many religious folk seem to enjoy). I recognise my perspective is simply my own, and it’s open to change should the evidence lead me elsewhere.