it cost nothing to be nice.

Defining the virtues or values that we share and forming a coalition to advance our cause and defeat common enemies.

There has rarely been a time in my lifetime when it has been more important to confront the intrusion of extreme religious beliefs into politics and government. At the same time, it is a time to promote the tenets of social justice that drive many religious and non-religious organizations.

We have these things in common and should be working together instead of participating in this circular firing squad.

As the author says, what we need is a coalition of the reasonable.

the religious attempt to put the cross back up in the article you posted. Must not be a common goal, then, the first amendment.

Its the tolerance of their intolerance that allows them to be so powerful, and "liberal" believers are the first line of defense against it, but refuse to make a stand.

The sooner "liberal" believers step-up to form the front-line of the offense in dismantling the powerhouse that IS the religious right, the sooner our common goal will be reached. Instead, most, like yourself, are content to sit back and tell us non-believers that we just need to be nicer.

Maybe this can sum it up for you...

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

It seems to be dismantling religion period. Would you like to say something nice about religion for once in your posting career? Or are you just going to keep attacking progressives who are religious because it makes you feel better about yourself.

Here, let me sum it up for you...

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

That is respected across all cultures in the written history of mankind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

Try it - you might actually be part of the solution, instead of a persistent problem, which is what you yourself are confessing to trying to be - a problem for believers.

For realz bruddah - the fuck out.

Also, that was hardly a personal attack, that was an observation about a posting style...

Or, we can call it the "Religion" forum, where we talk about the things that unite us, like puppies, rather than divide us, like religion.

It's bullshit. You can put any two nouns describing people with opposing views in there, and even switch them around, and it still means the same damn thing: Reasonable people are preferable to uncompromising people. Well no shit, Sherlock. The writer is either not very good at what he does or not very good at what he's doing. That's about the nicest way I can say that.

I wish everyone here would read this and agree to follow his guidelines.

There's no bullshit in that sentence, imo. If you want to build coalitions to achieve shared goals, then you must be reasonable.

We could use a whole lot more of that around here.

I get along with religious people just fine for the most part. There are some, of course, that are so fervent that they will never consider me a friend. I can't say I will miss their company. For the rest, I just have to pick my topics of conversation with some care. I usually agree on many specific things. I have two kinds of religious friends.

First there are true believers whose religion causes them to be liberal and humanitarian. There aren't that many of those and presently I know and am friends with exactly one. At least I can be honest with him. Most of the true believers I know are reactionary, paternalistic assholes.

The second kind are the compartmentalized, secularized believers. These are the NOMA people who are religious about specifically religious matters, but have secular attitudes for anything else. I have to be a bit less honest with these folks because I have to avoid anything that specifically touches the person's religion. And that's because the compartmentalized view is just less honest than the true believer perspective.

In both cases I'm willing to agree to disagree on the personal level just as a practical matter. I'm not going to convince them and they are not going to convince me, so there is no point arguing about it.

Conceptually, however, there is no common ground and here is why. I did not choose to disbelieve. The state of the evidence about pretty much everything caused me to admit that if I were honest about it, I would have to conclude there are no gods. This is a belief in the same sense one believes in the supposed veracity about any purported fact. I believe the Earth is round or nearly so. The evidence is such that I must conclude that it is not cubical, flat or pyramidal. These other shapes are not a different way of looking at the world. They are plain wrong. I believe that if I do not get back to work on my paper, I will fail my class. That is either true or false. At the end of the semester I will either receive a grade higher than a failing mark or lower. That is how I see the evidence concerning gods. As a point of fact, there aren't any. It is not a matter of how one looks at it or a question of differing, but somehow equally valid points of view. Either divinity exists or else it does not. I am convinced it does not. I cannot make myself think the believer might be right without a real reason to do so.

The suggestion that nonbelievers need some humility in order to admit that believers might be right about god is nothing more than intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. On what basis may I conclude that for all I know god may be real and that specific religious doctrine may be valid? What the writer is really asking is for nonbelievers who frankly know we are right to entertain the solipsism of belief. Now you may think that statement is solipsistic, but don't forget, it's what the facts are that matters, not whether or not an argument violates some social convention. Well, how can I be sure the sun will set tonight? Well, sure, theoretically I know the Earth rotates making it appear that the sun has moved to the far side of the Earth, but can we ever really know for sure? Well duh! Of course we can. Telling myself that those who believe otherwise may have a point because I do not know for sure if the sun will set tonight is either self-deception or a sign of a personality disorder.

"The suggestion that nonbelievers need some humility in order to admit that believers might be right about god is nothing more than intellectual cowardice and dishonesty."

Exactly right! Believers of different faiths do need to tiptoe around theological issues with each other and extend more mutual "respect" to each other. All of these believers of any faith also need to extend any of the same "respect" to nonbelievers. Until they do, however, it would be crazy for the Nones to compromise another centimeter.

Believers have a hard time with this concept because they really don't understand atheism -- they refuse to accept that atheism is not a "belief system" (preference of ice cream theory, thx for that) on a par with their own irrational superstitions. It's qualitatively different perspective to say "No miracle of any religion is factual," and "Only the miracles of my religion are factual." Atheism isn't another voice in the perennial and unwinnable theological debate. It's a flat-out rejection of the debate, itself.

My suggestion to believers is, "Get used to it." The sane and the rational are drawing the line, here, now, and we're going to change the debate whether the religious like it or not. Atheists like myself might not like needing "the group" or a "movement", but we do in fact need it. In some places in this country, admitting you don't believe in god can get you fired, or fired upon. Have no doubt: we will change that. Either help, or get out of the way.

if they are a believer, they have given up reason.

"This Is All a Bunch of Stupid Crap and You Don't Want to Waste Your Time Reading It".

Quite thoughtful of the author, making things easier for the readers.

It's a worthy read, imo, and applies equally to believers and non-believers. That's his whole point.

he seems like a good Uncle Tom atheist, too. One to make all the theists warm and fuzzy reading him. Because he isn't like "you know who." Which is just a load of crap to single out the "new atheists" as somehow evil. Like Dawkins is a dick.

where exactly did I say he wasn't a true atheist?

de Botton and his clique of "good atheists" are atheists who seem to admire religious institutions and propose emulating them. That says nothing about their atheism. I disagree with their odd admiration for the most intolerant conservative repressive NGOs on the planet, not with their atheism. Let me put it more clearly: this is a political dispute within the atheist community. Nobody is excommunicating de Botton, that doesn't even make sense, we just think he is a pompous ass headed in the wrong direction.

p.s. argument by rofl ought to be one of the modern fallacies.

It "they" are the "good atheists", then what are "we"?

And why does the author of this piece fall into the category of "they"? What is objectionable about what he is proposing?

He is not saying that atheists should STFU. He is proposing something that is aimed at both believers and non-believers. What could be wrong with that?

Excuse the emoticon. I just crack myself up sometimes.

The debate over de Botton and his crew of reformed atheists is rather public in the community, why we have even discussed it before right here, and I am pretty sure you have participated in that discussion. So I don't think you need any help on the "we" front, rather I think that is you being a wee bit disingenuous.

Actually it isn't clear what he is saying. He doesn't really get around to that, he just tosses around a vague 'reasonableness' as something we should all do, implies most atheists don't, and claims at least some evangelical fundamentalists do. So I could be wrong, perhaps he is not a 'missing the traipsings of religion' de Bottonist, just a blowhard who can't make an actual point, but really I think his point is that atheists should shut the fuck up about their atheism so we can all just get along.

and idea about building a temple, but I was not aware that there were clearly defined camps.

I guess I see the atheist community as just too amorphous to actually have sides. I am not sure what to even call them. New atheists vs. old atheists?

It is interesting to watch the atheist community begin to coalesce in some areas. I am particularly interested in the Reason Rally. It seems that there is a need to build more community in order to pursue some of the action items on the agenda. That's a good thing, imo.

When I read this article, I felt he was aiming it equally at people on both sides who are rigid and refuse to find common ground with others. I think he objects to bad behavior from both believers and non-believers.

If the atheist community wants to achieve the important goals of keeping religion out of politics and government, then I would suggest that they need allies. Many of these allies are actually in the religious community, so I thought his point was well made.

be trying to keep "religion out of politics and government" already? Why do we need to come together on this. It is pretty clear in the 1st Amendment and through SCOTUS rulings. Yet even in this forum on a progressive website, there are those that don't seem to want that and that tell atheists to not make waves about such things because there are bigger problems. OK, some of us might be a little fed up about it and perhaps are a little more vocal about it than past generations of atheists, but that doesn't seem like a problem from "our side."

In the USA most of the law-makers are religious. The rights and interests of atheists will only be protected in the legislative process if there is a bond of recognition between "us" and "them". That means we need to build bridges between the two camps, no matter how pusillanimous that might feel to some atheists.

without forming alliances with at least some other minority groups and preferably some majority groups being on their team.

My association with many atheists, some of them radically so, including my husband, has helped me understand where we have common ground and why some of the issues they care about are issues I care about, too.

The two most important things I see are decreasing the fear/ignorance/bigotry towards self-described atheists. Exposure and rational conversation are the way to do this, imo, and I have seen it in action. It's like the process of any civil rights movement. It is harder to hate a group once you personally know some of the members. The second is eliminating the overwhelming influence and importance of religious beliefs in American politics and government.

I have been accused of not wanting to have contentious debate here. This is not the case. However, I will not subject myself to those who I experience as abusive. I made that decision many years ago and I am sticking with it.

In the meantime, I am meeting more atheists and people of varying POV with whom I think alliances can be formed, and that gives me hope.

And I'm in complete agreement with the author's take on what comprises "reasonable":

Maybe that's why people are so combative on the internet - it's a chance to get a dopamine fix without physical risk. And this goes for both sides of this or any other argument. Outrage and attack cause a rise in dopamine, which generates an instant biochemical reward. The stronger the emotion, the stronger the reward.

Given that we are programmed by evolution to respond positively to dopamine surges, it's no surprise that we tend to prefer conflict to reasonableness.

I get most of my dopamine rushes from the strong emotional experiences of seeing someone else's perspective and from feeling like I have been heard.

So perhaps some are driven to reasonableness by their neurotransmitter responses and others are driven by outrage.

Dopamine is well known as the pleasure-inducing neurotransmitter. When rats are trained to press one of two pedals to get either food or a shot of a drug that raises dopamine, like meth or cocaine, they will keep pressing the drug pedal until they die of starvation.

What we see in action here on interactive internet threads is a dopamine feedback system. Here's how it probably works:

• I read something and get angry or outraged - that gives me a shot of dopamine which activates my pleasure response - getting angry or outraged feels good.
  
• I post a brilliant, aggressive response, and I get an immediate shot of dopamine and associated pleasure.
  
• Then my antagonist comes back within minutes saying something even stupider than his first post - I get another shot of dopamine.
  
• I post something scathing in response and get another hit.
  
• He comes back with something even more loathsome and I get another hit;
  
• I post a sneering rebuttal and get yet another.

almost pales in comparison. How sad.

Most atheists? I have a much higher respect for them than you do.

Dopamine in action.

But my honorable adversary seems to have the momentum right now.

I assume this reception you're attributing to so many people has absolutely nothing to do with your own actions and behaviors, right?

and probably not for the last time, this Forum is about Religion.
I am very sure our politics are similar as we are both members of DU. On other Forums like GD I address what is said on the political merits. I don't care about the religious beliefs of the poster. I respond to what they say in terms of the politics.
But here we are talking about Religion. The post are about Religion and my responses are in line with my judgement that if you believe in God, your beliefs are in error.
I would also say that when their are posts about the intersection of Religion and Politics, 90% of the time it's about Religion screwing things up.
We are here to discuss Religion, no ideas get a free pass.

don't cry "Can't we all just get along?"

a frank and complete discussion on Religion. Not a campfire sing along.
Not a shame at all, it is the the thing itself.

around a campfire.

And we sang afterwards.

No reason you can't do both.

you just want the singing without the compelling conversation.

But hey, let's take a moment and figure this out.

How, in your mind, should an atheist in this group post his or her opinion that religion is nonsense and an obstacle to progressive goals far more often than not, in a happy, campfire-singing way?

Could you perhaps write up a mock conversation between a believer and an atheist in this forum as you think it should flow?

Maybe you could start it with the believer posting something like, "I think Creationists are a bunch of dumbasses." Good campfire conversation.

What's that?

There's nothing reasonable about believing in the supernatural.

As a Christian I have met some wonderful atheists and some awful Christians.

But, ...

There is group of vocally atheistic among and around the DU atheists who are some of the worst people I have ever known myself to meet. Insipid acrimonious secretively-agenda-ed disingenuous ideologues who would not figure out how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

Maybe the ones you have met here and the ones you have met in real life are the same people. If you think I am as vocal about my atheism in real life as I am here, you are sadly mistaken. It would be professional suicide for me to do so.

Edited to add: 3-3 to keep your post of vile. Amazing. Had I posted that about Christians, it would have been hidden. Enjoy your privilege and possibly try to see past it to understand why some of us might be a little touchy.

Re-Edited to add: I posted your same post in another thread making the changes and it came back a 3-3 as well. Maybe it is a free speech issue.

I am somewhat understanding and certainly saddened to hear that you are so touchy, and I gather from that that there will be no rational discussion between us. I can, however, find your rational for being touchy in that your employ has you held in an uncomfortable position that seems to keep you from expressing yourself as you might wish. Regardless of whatever entails our differences, I would always want others able to express themselves.

But, I do not find that some endless litany of rhetorical devices in posts devoid of any substance are worthwhile for Democrats or DU.

I gather from you that my prior post took an alert. I did not know, and have no proof that it did. If you will, please understand that I am always careful to say some, not all, not most. And, I do not name -- call out. I know there can be some repulsive christian posters. I would not like posting an interchange with them unless it was rational.

But, posting an interchange with you has been, as I see it, my being rational with you being irrational and now you call that notion from me: a badge of honor. So, I gather, you shall not be rational with me.

that they are too stupid to pour piss out of their boots, and then you decide to come back with "I wish we could have a rational discussion"? Seriously? You think that's going to work. And then you have the audacity to blame the attitude on me and that I am the barrier to rational discussion because I reacted to your vile?

How about you try that "let's have a rational discussion" a little bit differently next time and not lead with a Robertsonesque paragarph first.

I think you fein great importance upon a grasped bit of straw.

Ah, secretively agenda-ed and disingenuous, are we?

Is that your excuse for never dealing with what atheists here say in terms of the literal words they say? You fancy that you "see through it all", that you see through their clever subterfuge?

Boy, golly, I guess you've got us all figured out!

I find that disingenuous.

Their reason for posting, their agenda, then is hidden, secret.

If I have failed to deal with something you have said, could you point out the words I missed, litteral words.

The problem stems from not being able to figure out what some of you are doing here because I am not getting what I can see as rational responses to rational statements.

which all must live up to before they might be allowed to enter into a rational discussion with you? With you as the arbiter, I imagine?

To quote from one of TV's few atheists:
“Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.”

Standard, yes, for example, arguing would not be good as opposed to responding to arguments posed.

Anyone can enter discussion. To continue can be contendable.

When I am in a discussion, yes, I am the arbiter of whether or not I think the discussion is a discussion. Same for the person with whom I discuss.

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

The graphic does not show. Can you describe it?

Unless it is a blue diving flag.

For example: in 60 you gave me specific words from my post for me to explain. IOW you kindly read what I said and responded with question to what I had said. In 62 I responded in order to explain those particular words. And, that is how the interchange between us went with each of us being responsive.

This is as opposed to arguing where instead of pointing out specific problems the response is a restatement of a previous or unrelated argument.

But, none of this is from my "book." It is also not meant as comprehensive on what discuss could mean.

NEXT.

If I cannot figure something out because I am not able to understand, then secret would not be correct while hidden might be, however, if I feel that I can understand but cannot because information is being kept from me, then secret and hidden both apply.

Okay?

I find the atheist here very up front about their views and ideas. It is the believers who often don't answer a simple straight forward question.

constantly cry that we should stop questioning their beliefs and asking difficult questions, it is the atheist who are not here to discuss?
Right.

Someone decries your question, then, why?

If your question is posed badly, then why pose it badly?
If your question is good and the other is non responsive to your content, then the other is not discussing.
It does not matter which is the atheist.

Particularly if the question is loaded.

"For every question there is a simple answer, which is usually wrong." The secret behind all significant inquiries may be a slow complex investigation into a number of variables.

but simple, straight forward questions imply a 'secret agenda". Orwell anyone?

I'm sure Pat Robertson would be proud of that paragraph.

So, if we're enemies, keep that on your dime, not mine.

Oops!

All of it.

share it.

Persons asking others to re-read the Bible to find some obscure or possibly strangely interpreted passage are not handling important things properly.

Hard to write better comedy than that.

Tell you what, you keep acting like you do, showing everyone what a "good Christian" is like. You'll do far more harm to your religion than any mean-spirited atheist ever could.

stuck where the sun don't shine.

Since you were so kind as to open this enlightened conversation with attacks and tin-foil hat conspiracy talk, I can't imagine WHY oh WHY no one talks to you the way you'd like them to.

Have at it though, if the jury system has taught us one thing, it's that it is OK to attack the atheists.

You don't see us pull shit like this. The worst thing we do is point out the negative impact of religion on the world, question beliefs, pointing out flaws in logic and reason, or simply promoting the use of it. The rest of the time we spend defending ourselves from a constant litany of abuse.

Contrast what you posted with this. If I had posted:

"There is a group of vocal christians among and around DU christians who are among the most delusional, hypocritical, abrasive, privileged, cry-babies I've ever had to see in typed font. Openly agenda driven, RW sympathizers, and vacuous bible thumpers, who only come out to piss and moan about Atheists being allowed in "their" sandbox, who wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, let alone a theory from a hypothesis."

I would be hidden by a jury in half a minute, then scolded by the religious AND the atheists of the board who actually have a peer standard of conduct I've seen enforced many times.

Your statement is long, difficult to read and therefore difficult to decipher, thus your pot-shots end up going all over the place, seemingly to hit unintended targets, instead of being directed to the group of bad christian posters you found.

Your statement boils down to something like: There are some DU cry-babies that (DU?) makes me see, who complain about us being somewhere (a sandbox).

Is DU at fault somehow for making you see this?
What is this vague sandbox? (Will this vague pot-shot hit me, the reader? Or unsuspecting others?)
And, how does this relate to an OP?

I realize this statement you created is hypothetical and thus out of an OP context. But, when taking pot shots, the relation to a purpose is needed. Otherwise, one is whining about other people whining. Egad!

As long as you can explain each of those adjectives and adverbs and expressions when queried, you should be fine, and, maybe even help us all move along to a better place.

Good luck.

You are WAY better at pot shots and complaining than I am, and I bow to a superior crybaby.

I will strive to improve, as you suggested, practice must make perfect.

I look forward to learning things from someone from a different viewpoint, even if the language is difficult.

Rough truth is still truth.

though I think that 'uncompromising' is the wrong word here, and something like 'fanatical' or 'hardline' or 'intolerant' might be better. Being 'uncompromising' on basic principles may be a good thing; for example, would that Nick Clegg had been a bit more uncompromising! But I agree that harshly rejecting anyone who disagrees with you on anything is likely to render you both less nice and less effective.

I don't think, however, that this is confined to religion. People create divisions and feuds on all kinds of matters, from how schools should teach reading, to which football team you support.

Also one more point: People like Julian Baggini - and like myself- who live in countries where the religious right is a minority and relatively contained (though not absent, and not without some political influence) cannot completely extrapolate from our situation to a country where a slip-up by the Democrats could lead to a Palin or a Santorum becoming president; where one Supreme Court justice could determine whether or not there are truly savage assaults on women's rights; where the form that religious influence takes in certain states makes it almost impossible to elect a Democrat, let alone an atheist. We need to be careful not to use 'let them be more tolerant' in the same way that Marie Antoinette used 'let them eat cake'. What is valid in Europe may not be valid in much of the USA; and what is valid in both regions may not be valid in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Uganda.

when I was trying to tell my husband about this article last night, I couldn't remember the exact term used. As I searched through all the terms I could think of, they all sounded pejorative or insulting. In the end, I think uncompromising might be the best word. In essence it means unwilling to take any steps to move closer to someone with whom you may disagree, an inability or unwillingness to even listen to another POV.

I agree with you that you can find these kind of people on either side of pretty much issue. They are the fundamentalists, the one-wayers, the my way or the highway types. We probably all have these areas. It would be futile for a racist to try and have a conversation with me that involved any compromise.

As to your last paragraph, I think you make the case for why the reasonable believers and non-believers need to be even more compromising and coalition building than they might in other places. We have some common goals and common enemies. What he is talking about here is being more tolerant of those with whom you can form alliances to advance mutual causes, not more tolerant of extremists.

You don't have to give them Christmas presents.

Try telling them that.

Surely we can come to some compromise on religious coercion by the state. For instance, we unreasonable atheists should be willing to compromise on a secular state, in which there is simply a wall of separation between church and state, rather than the usual mass bible-burnings and outlawing all religion like we usually do.

That, or maybe we should just be reasonable and shut the f**k up like we are reasonably supposed to do.

.

.

.