The Hard Sell

[tongodeon]

I've heard - often, from lots of different people - that atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens or the other atheist horsemen are rude, shrill, belittling, dickish, abrasive, and generally offensive. Fine, they're awful. Who's good? If they're negative examples, who in present or past history can serve as a positive example of what to do

Comments

[k0re]

who knows who does it right. it's probably more in the way it is presented than really on exactly what is being said. in both cases, ppl should just state their case and let the listener/reader decide for themselves.

logicomix was a fun read. surprised there were a couple of LOL parts for me. from bertrand russell's fictional point of view:
http://www.amazon.com/Logicomix-Search-Truth-Apostolos-Doxiadis/dp/1596914521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274835423&sr=8-1

people who want their conclusions drawn for them probably will be irritated with it though.

[mmcirvin]

Sean Carroll does it pretty well. He does a pretty good job here of describing why a lot of scientists end up as atheists, even though science obviously provides no airtight proof of atheism.

I think Dawkins, while not perfect, does better than Sam Harris or Hitchens. Hitchens is a pompous ass when talking about any subject whatsoever, including those having nothing to do with atheism. With PZ Myers it depends on whether you catch him on a good day.

People often make the mistake of bringing other things into it. For Hitchens, his atheism is of a piece with his justifications for American military adventures targeting Muslims.

[mmcirvin]

Dawkins' shrillest moments tend to be in British newspaper op-eds, like the famous one he wrote shortly after the September 11th attacks about how suicide terrorists are what you'll get when people believe in the afterlife. Agree with it or no, I don't think it was something Sagan would have written.

[mmcirvin]

...Though, admittedly, I haven't read "The Demon-Haunted World"; it's possible something along those lines might have been in there.

(Personally, I think suicide terrorists are a specific example of the general kind of thing you get when political grievances and social alienation collide with the desire of young men to make sweeping romantic gestures. I'm not sure the promise of afterlife reward is really that big a part of it; there's a tendency on the part of skeptics to think other people are reasoning more logically than they actually are.)

[serai1]

Easy - Carl Sagan. He was someone deeply committed to science and rational thinking, who nonetheless managed not to be either rude, shrill or condescending. He often said he understood the impulse to religion very well even though he himself did not share in any religious beliefs, and showed a lot of sympathy for those who did. And not only did he made it clear that he felt people would be better off without religion, but was also able to explain, in precise and accessible terms just why he felt that way, and the reasons for it. He not only made science understandable to ordinary people, he presented clear terms for why it was superior - all this without making people feel stupid, belittled, or ridiculous

[angel_boi]

some very nice points & good observations

[nerdsholmferret]

It might be an easier task to statistically prove that Orioles Magic doesn't exist. Is it because belief in Orioles Magic doesn't cause sufficient distractions in the community that no one bothers to argue against it?

[xiphias]

What possible GOOD does arguing against a belief in a god or gods do?

I can see arguing against the damage that religions do, but on a case-by-case basis. Religion doesn't generally do much more damage than any other abstract concept that people rally behind -- better than some, worse than some, but religion is a different phenomenon than theism. They're related, but not identical, and, in fact, either can exist without the other

[zadcat]

Comfort is hollow if it is founded on null premises. Richard Dawkins clearly thinks that a fair number of folks are atheist and either can't admit it to others or to themselves (yet), and that possibly by setting out reasoned arguments he can help them sort out their ideas on the subject. When he's really on, he can convey a sense of joy at being part of the natural world that's practically transcendent. He makes it quite clear that the choice is not between God and some kind of blank nihilism.

People can make bad or silly decisions because they hold religious beliefs or, worse, are under peer pressure to pretend they do. Freeing these people from this burden is a worthwhile thing to do.

My favourite public atheist is Jonathan Miller. His three-part BBC thing Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief is worth watching. He says he doesn't even like saying he's an atheist not because he's ashamed or afraid, but that he feels that there isn't even anything to reject, in some sense. (We would say "he doesn't feel theism is the default" but

[xiphias]

Many of us theists are theistic by an act of will. That's no secret -- that's what "faith" is. That's what the term MEANS.

Whether a god or gods exist or no, comfort based on belief in them exists, and, taking away that belief takes away that comfort. You say it's hollow -- but it's COMFORT. Dawkins is trying to take comfort away from people who are using it for comfort.

The joy of being part of the natural world isn't restricted to either atheists or theists. But theists have one more bulwark against the crushing nausea of the awareness of mortality.

When I'm in a non-theistic phase, I spend many hours a night in cold stark terror, gripped by nausea as I ponder the concepts of my own non-existence. It seems to me that there are a lot of atheists who just don't experience that, and don't understand that people DO.

When, as an act of will, and of faith, I DO believe in something larger than myself in which I will, in some manner, have a continuity as self, then I DON'T experience that nausea.

Someone better have a damn good

[mmcirvin]

Someone better have a damn good reason for wanting to consign me and millions of other people to hours of bleak nausea every night before they go ahead and do that.

You don't think there are people losing sleep over the possibility of eternal punishment in Hell for the doubts they're having about the existence of God? A lot of religions don't have this feature, but for the ones that do, it's a nausea-inducer in its own right. You might argue that it would be better to lead these people to a gentler form of theism, but if atheism is the direction they're heading in and atheism doesn't torture them, I don't see why.