Choosing When and How to Act or Respond
Offline Excuse the title of this thread because I had difficulty conceptualizing a label for the issue that I'd like to discuss.
After I read The End of Faith, I started keeping an eye on Sam Harris as he made his way from talk shows to podcasts. One of the things I noticed is that he recycles a lot of the material in his book for his discussions. People that aren't overly familiar with his presentations or his work are probably unaware of this, but it's surprisingly common.
Comedians often recycle jokes, so if you watch Robin Williams when he promotes a new movie, you'll often hear the same jokes on different late night talks shows. Scientists like Richard Dawkins do the same thing when they're discussing a particular issue.
One of the advantages of recycling material is that it gives the presenter, debater, or interview subject a foundation for their particular topic. It limits the possibility of making a mistake when you're nervous. For atheists, a detested minority, this seems particularly important because we're usually being dissected. We don't want to slip up because for some of us a great deal rests on our ability to be better than what we're fighting against.
Unfortunately, most of us aren't like Sam Harris. We may have done some research for a debate or out of general interest, but how many of us can recall specific statistics, the writings of Thomas Aquinas, specific passages in the Bible or Qur'an, or the many arguments regarding the problem of evil when confronted by a theist?
Sure, many of us can get by when he have something planned or when we're debating on a forum, but it's unrealistic to expect most of us to respond as well as we'd like when attacked in a lecture theatre or pulled aside by a group of angry Muslims after we've likened their beliefs to a social virus.
This brings me to my reason for posting this thread. When and how do you choose to act or respond to the theistic beliefs that surround you every day? Do you keep certain pieces of information in memory, ready to be thrust into a discussion at a moment’s notice? Do you carry a Bible around, just in case you have to point out something? Do you bother debating with theists or other people that make outlandish claims? Do you stand up in the lecture theater, hand raised, every time someone uses God in a sentence? If you hear a whispered conversation about how God hates homosexuals in an elevator, do you correct? When you’re stumped by a question from a clever theist, do you abandon the discussion to take it up at another time? Do you ridicule and mock? When an academic smothers you in unfamiliar epistemological bullshit, do you shy away? Do you attack or defend?
- Login to post comments
Some things I know by memory, but I don't carry anything around with me. I don't really have the chance to debate in the real world as most people see religion as taboo. I don't tend to argue about uses of god, but might if they keep using. I might correct people on things if I know about it. I don't like to just abandon discussions just because they have hard question, if I had the time and resources I would find the answer on the spot. They only time I mock or ridicule is to make them see how one of their arguments is bullshit. What I mean is that I'll copy their argument style to show them how it is flawed. If they were to give me a lot of epistemological bullshit I would probably ask them to show me their source and how it is connected to the argument. I do a mix of attack and defend to try not to bash them, make sure I don't "over extend myself", or just look like I am weak.
I think this can go both ways. I have to be ready (as a Christian) for defend my faith with proof and example and observation. I have to do this a lot in college, especially in a class I am in right now. One thing that shows failing character is a personal attack on someone, or a simplistic statement to say that an opinion is stupid, without backing it up.
I'll defend my faith, but I need not attack. I find it a lot like martial arts, where an attacker's own excitable ambition is used against them. But I try not to make vague statements, or use clichéd terms if possible. I find that when one steers clear of those sort of things, some actual communication can happen, and an opening of minds can occur.
Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.
I've heard that some evangelicals have training programs to help "Christian soldiers" spread their message by using role playing and prefabricated replies to common criticisms. Maybe we should think about doing the same thing.
Teach logic and freethought and the'll be atheist too, thats what happened to me. Although the idea of a class to help freethinkers defend there ideas of freethought ain't half bad. No forced jesus camp mirrors though.
i was taught logic and freethought and im not an atheist.
talking points are used by politicians, managers of all stripes, religious leaders, and any other public speaker you might care to discuss.
i dont like the thought that anyone need defend their ideas. communicate about, discuss, entertain, debate, understand, etc etc etc i can understand. but defend? well, unfortunately that is the mindset of the day, but certainly not the correct way to go about it. it implies to me that the believer knows absolutely and is supposed to shoot down any opposing viewpoint. this jsut isnt healthy.
when and how to act or respond:
i tend to live well and do good to the best of my ability and leave personal belief to the individual. if someone wants to talk about it, theyll make it known. to the others, well, i guess the amount you would like to evangelize is your own, but i find it is more appreciated to just be and not worry about it.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
What if they start trying to make your government more religious and force their religious viewpoint of what you can't do on you?
start? trying? you dont need to convince me the benefits of a seperation between church and state. however, i think one solution might be to cut federal power off at the knees. then they wont be tellingyou what to do at all, and you can happily do what you like.
if this is in reference to my comments about 'defending ideas', what you are speaking on here seems more applied to 'defending freedom' which is a whole other conversation that i have absolutely no interest in starting here. suffice it to say that i still think 'upholding' is a much better word than 'defending'
actually, in a secular society, i see the concept of god being a mitigating factor to the ultimate power of man-made government. if the workings of politics, business, and religion are examined closely and critically, in my opinion, a happy divide will make itself apparent.
if a government attempts to usurp the concept of god in any way it should be destroyed immediately in favor of a more appropriate scheme of governance. that line should never be crossed, and for more completely obvious reasons than anyone should ever be able to ignore. i am totally inflexible on this point.
if you are referring to the current trend in american government, the wholet hing is so laughable anyway as to not really grant any weight to any one comment about its failed workings. i could only describe its wholly ludicrous methods of manipulation via a deliberately divisive and untrustworthy environment, primarily in the realm of information, as wrongheaded. badminded. some really newspeaky word. seriously. its bullshit. total crap.
but, lets hack the root here. religious institutions may call for these sorts of public policies. they can call all they like. it is a free country, and i can lobby for public funds to teach that i shit out the universe if id like. i blame the people running the junk(which is supposed to be you and me....) for allowing them to be passed. or, for that matter, paying any amount of attention to such a mindless circus of misinformation. but, c'est la media hype.
i dont even find the concept of 'country' or 'nation' to be all that useful. it just opens an axis of divide for a power structure to gather control in a plethora of creative and innovative ways.
but, whatever. anyway, point taken, but...there are more appropriate targets than 'god' or 'religion' for shitty public management.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
You seem to say people should be pay attention to the governemnt, I'm guessing because the government holds power and controls people. Why not do the same thing with religion or those lobby groups?
im not sure exactly what youre saying, but, i will attempt an answer anyway because im bored.
how an individual reacts to government, paying attention or otherwise, is none of my business. i personally dont pay much attention to the government who claims me, as its overrun with morons and misplaced inappropriate visions of 'success'. but thats just me. personal decision, not mine to control.
and the same does go for lobbying groups. any group of any individuals who wants to lobby for anything at all is more than welcome to lobby. you can listen or not listen, support or not support, or do any number of other things you could imagine to be done in response to a lobbyist of any type, whom you either do or dont agree with. this is none of my business.
and the same goes for religious groups. any group may claim to believe anything that they like. none of my business. your and my choice is who and what to pay attention to, who and what to give weight and credit to, and who and what to offer support to.
i can appreciate not supporting religion or certain (all? whatever. up to you.) lobby groups who do not fit with your belief patterns. this is no issue, and a case of 'feature, not bug'. public funds are given with public opinion.
i agree in the value of a secular society. i think this offers a most reasonable solution for everyone. i do not believe that this requires a divide between believers and unbelievers. i think that this requires common sense and deliberation.
so, in short, all should be treated the same from the individual perspective, tho the question of 'who owns it' whould never go away.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989